SEEN AND HEARD INTERNATIONAL

Sibelius, Leif Segerstam and Nielsen: Academy Symphony Orchestra, Leif Segerstam, Duke's Hall, Royal Academy of Music, London, 15.10.2010 (BBr)

Sibelius: Symphony no.5 in E flat, op.82 (1915/1919)
Leif Segerstam: Symphony no.227, MUSIC stirred up during daily “Nordic-walking-pilgrimages” to the local mailboxpoint hoping to fetch linking letters and parcels with stimulative & inspirational motivations for the current surfings in the autumnal lifescores homepageterritories (2010) (world première)
Nielsen: Symphony no.5, op.50 (1920/1922)

Some years ago, after hearing the CD of the original and revised versions of Sibelius’s 5^th Symphony (BISCD 800), a young composition student said to me, “it’s the best composition lesson I ever had!” But we mustn’t think that Sibelius got it wrong in the first version, it’s just that he got it right in the final draft. In fact, he got it very right and the work we know as Sibelius’s 5^th Symphony is one of the most finished pieces he ever created. Leif Segerstam obviously believes in, and loves, every note of this work and he has, over the years, forged a very personal view of the work. But there’s nothing wrong with that if the view makes musical sense and tonight we were treated to a thrilling exposition of this magnificent score. The first movement is basically first movement and scherzo and for the opening section Segerstam took his time, letting the music gradually reveal itself, seemingly when it felt like it. As the music progressed Segerstam built the tension and drama so when the scherzo exploded out of the transition section, it was like the clouds clearing and the sun bursting out in all its glory. This was thrilling and elemental, and with playing to match it left one breathless, with the hairs on the back of my neck standing on end. The delicate slow movement passed calmly, with only a slight moment of excitement to break the reverie. The finale was equally well handled with time given, where it was required, for slight expansion of tempo, and the end was built with terrifying weight, the final chords inevitable and resolute. I’ve heard many performances in the concert hall over the past 45 years, from Barbirolli to Jukka–Pekka Saraste, and this was as fine a performance as any of them.

I had previously heard only two of Segerstam’s Symphonies – one for horn and orchestra, which was given by the Bergen Philharmonic and broadcast on Norwegian Radio, and I forget which the other was. I asked myself on those earlier occasions if the music was actually worthwhile for I failed to find anything of substance in them. Tonight’s work, with its somewhat absurd subtitle, played for about 30 minutes and used a very large orchestra, with a very full percussion section – including thunder sheet, sandpaper blocks, crotales, drums, marimba, rattle and a large box attacked with the biggest hammer you’ve ever seen, à la Mahler’s 6th. Segerstam didn’t conduct, but sat at one of the two pianos required and the leader occasionally stood to give direction. There was some beautiful, dissonant muted string sonorities – rather like those found in Roy Webb’s best scores for 1940s Noir films – brass sounds we’d previously heard in Stockhausen’s Setz die Segel zur Sonne, a bit of Charles Ives’s Hallowe'en, Strauss’s Alpine Symphony and Mahler’s 6^th Symphony.

If one removed all the percussion there is the making of a good and potentially interesting piece. Then if you were to remove about three quarters of the work, there could be a good piece. As it was we were assailed by random explosions from the brass, much unconnected noise from the percussion, two flautists standing up for a quick trill, much virtuoso solo violin writing, which was overwhelmed by the loud texture and seeming doodlings from the two pianos – situated at either side of the stage, behind the strings. I do not for one moment doubt Segerstam’s abilities, nor his sincerity, as a musician but this Symphony No.227 – he has, so far, written 239 – seemed to have no plan, focus or direction. I wonder how aleatoric the score is for it felt that the formlessness was the result of too much freedom and not enough forethought on the part of the composer. Afterwards a friend said to me that, “all his works sound like that!” and that was a conclusion I had reached early in the piece. I usually lament the fact that the chances of a new work receiving a second hearing are few and far between, but this time I really don’t care. I am sure that it was well performed, but how would one know?

Carl Nielsen’s 5^th Symphony must have seemed mad to its first audiences, if only for the fact that it contains a part for side drum with the instruction to the player to attempt to stop the progress of the orchestra at all costs, as if his or her life depended on it. In two large movements, this is Nielsen at his most questing, trying to fathom the unfathomable of man’s existence, the “what are we here for?” question. Life has its disruptive forces at the best of times and we have to get through the bad times – hence the battle between the side drum and the orchestra. The first movement is the exploration of life’s problems and the second is a reaction to it, which contains within it two fugues, one fast – the emotional response – and one slow – the intellectual answer. The life force finally wins the day. This is typical Nielsen and when performed as it was tonight, with such an emotional force it makes a big impression on an audience. Segerstam drew playing of passionate intensity from his orchestra – even if the side drummer was too restrained in his fight with the band – and delivered a masterful and overwhelming performance.
The Nielsen and Sibelius works are of epic proportions and Segerstam brought them to life in readings of nobility and power. The students, and it’s hard to believe that we were listening to a student orchestra, responded with their very best.

Bob Briggs