Philip GLASS (b.1937)
Symphony No. 10 (2012) [31:45]
Concert Overture (2012) [7:53]
Bruckner Orchestra Linz/Dennis Russell Davies
rec. 2013, Orchestersaal, Musiktheater Volksgarten, Linz, Austria
ORANGE MOUNTAIN MUSIC OMM0101 [39:40]
Brian Reinhart’s review of this release has led to a brief flurry of
controversy on the MWI message board, but the prospect of reviewing something
with apparently no redeeming features whatsoever is a challenge which has
its own perverse appeal, so, here goes.
I will never understand why record producers insist on putting overtures at
the end of a disc rather as an opener, and I would recommend playing it first
on this CD to put you more in a ‘Philip Glass mood’ – it
may make you a little more sympathetic towards the symphony. The Concert
Overture was written to commemorate the bicentennial of the War of 1812
– a homage to Tchaikovsky’s “1812 Overture” and a
“celebration of a celebration”. This is a piece that chugs along
amiably rather than blowing our socks off, and there are disappointingly no
cannons or other explosions. What we do get are some variants on typical Glass
progressions and percussion effects, but the piece generates a respectable
sonority and has a decent flow of energy in its build-up to a strangely inconclusive
final gesture.
The overture is more of a symphonic movement than anything else here, and
the reason for this is that the Tenth Symphony was never conceived
as a symphony. The original version of the piece was as something called “Los
Paisajes del Rio” written for the 2008 Expo Zaragoza Spain and performed
by the Philip Glass Ensemble during the closing fireworks show. As this was
an occasional piece and unlikely to be performed again, Glass orchestrated
it for symphony orchestra in 2011. Once you have this in mind as a “one-off’
piece originally “drowned out by fireworks and the cacophony of 200,00
[?] drunk revelers” it starts to make a little more sense. I’m
sure it worked fine at the time. Alas, that’s where it should have stayed,
as a one-off.
Occasional works can stand alone, but while Richard Guerin’s booklet
notes state precedent for this in Glass’s oeuvre I can also mention
one or two wider reasons for not working these kinds of pieces up into a symphony.
Steve Reich isn’t Philip Glass, but Reich long ago worked out that amplifying
a crack team playing fewer instruments rather than attempting to perform his
work with big orchestras saved them from becoming unwieldy and overblown.
I’ve not heard “Los Paisajes del Rio” but am prepared to
lay a bet it worked as well if not better than the symphonic version we have
here, and if Glass was that keen on preserving it for posterity he could easily
and more sensibly have recorded it as written. Occasional music can also be
fantastically entertaining, such as Michael Nyman’s “La Traversée
de Paris”, but then again this is something that remains very
close to the authenticity of its origins. Nyman is another promiscuous recycler,
but much of this music ended up in the film Prospero’s Books
rather than emerging as a symphony.
One of the most telling observations in Brian Reinhart’s review is that
with other works by Glass, “for all their repetition, they are actually
going places”. The frustration with this Tenth Symphony aside
from its actual content, is that each movement ‘exists’ rather
than truly propelling us on a shaped trajectory though time. It’s a
hackneyed observation, but the best symphonies take us on a journey at the
end of which we have been transformed in one way or another. As there is no
real musical narrative in any of the movements then nor can there be any transformative
effect from beginning to end. The first movement is strange agglomeration
of harmonic/thematic non-sequiturs, the second opens with potential for some
atmospheric growth but turns into little more than a static dirge. The third
movement is a rather noisy ‘camel train in the desert’ type of
thing, its ostinati failing to generate excitement and its melodic material
distinctly un-memorable. It must have been horribly tedious to play. While
we are being critical there are some intriguingly ‘ham’ aspects
to the orchestration to distract us, including stereotypical castanets and
a ‘Terminator’ anvil in the last movement. The wind writing 47
seconds into the fourth movement somehow manages to make the Bruckner Orchestra
Linz momentarily sound like a school band. It’s all more than a bit
depressing.
The biggest problem with this work is that it shouldn’t be called a
symphony. I’m all for the breaking of conventions, and a symphony can
take many forms. It should however have, as Wikipedia puts it, “a degree
of sophistication and seriousness of purpose.” If Glass had loosened
up his material a bit and called this his ‘Euclidean Dance Suite’
or ‘Concerto for Percussionists and Orchestra’ then there would
be no real controversy and even the potential for some fun. As it is we have
something which isn’t emotionally involving or even very entertaining,
and in which the musical ideas are not strong enough to stand the weight of
the name imposed upon them. In pure terms I wouldn’t say that this is
a work with absolutely no redeeming features. The second movement creates
a nice atmosphere and could be made to ‘go places’ with a little
harmonic development. The fourth movement builds effectively over its six
or so minutes, but this is all the kind of thing that would work more effectively
as the background to some kind of film. The whole thing exudes a lack of imagination
and effort, and if it hadn’t been written by Philip Glass I doubt it
would have passed the score-reading stage. None of it is “extraordinary
in scope, richness, originality and urgency of expression”, and this
is what leaves us gasping for less.
One of the things we forget as we wade through truckloads of new Bruckner
cycles is that there is an ever-increasing volume of ‘symphonic’
tosh being churned out these days; the remarkable popularity of which can
seem incomprehensible to other musically literate and classic-savvy people.
I’m open minded about all this and am prepared to argue my corner when
the accusations of elitist pretentiousness come in – each unto their
own and vivre la différence. It’s the popular music that pays for the
more esoteric, and being popular doesn’t have to mean lacking in quality.
It does however annoy me that people might come away from this with the idea
that it’s the best we can do these days when it comes to symphonic writing.
I’m not gong to blow smoke up Glass’s proverbial just because
I have respect for him as an artist and have admired works of his in the past.
We all need to exercise quality control, and this has been something of a
weakness from the Glass/OMM stable over the years.
If you tell me something is ‘a thing’ then I reserve the right
to remain sceptical. Tell me that that ‘thing’ should be placed
in the same genre as examples by Haydn, Beethoven, Brahms, Mahler, Nielsen
or Arnold then I reserve the right to consider this an error of judgement.
This Tenth Symphony is at worst an example of lazy recycling and
at best has been wildly mis-named.
Dominy Clements
Previous review:
Brian Reinhart
Support
us financially by purchasing this from |
|
 |
 |
 |
|