I find it endlessly
fascinating that people can have completely
different reactions to works of art
and that these different reactions can
be completely valid. In other words,
no one can say that one person’s view
is right and another’s wrong. In the
case of the performing arts this is
equally true of performances. I was
reminded of this by reading the very
enthusiastic
review of this very disc by my colleague,
Kevin Sutton. By the time Kevin’s review
appeared I was already well advanced
in my listening but his review sent
me scurrying back to the CD player to
check my own responses to the disc yet
again. In the end I have to conclude
that he and I have reached very different
conclusions about this recorded performance
of the "Pathétique"
but, of course, neither of us is "right"
or "wrong" we have simply
been affected in different ways by a
performance that is strikingly individual.
In many ways I endorse
Kevin’s view of this CD wholeheartedly.
In the first place the sound is truly
remarkable, a testament not only to
the restorative skills of Mark Obert-Thorn
but also to the amazing results that
the Telefunken engineers often achieved
in this period. As Kevin says, there
are some occasional issues of brass
intonation but, like him, I’m inclined
to think that this is a (rare) defect
in the recorded sound. The only other
problem with the sound is that the recording
can’t quite cope with some of the biggest
climaxes in the symphony. On the positive
side, however, the engineers have given
a real concert hall ambience to the
sound (albeit the sound of an empty
hall) and we get a vivid image of the
orchestra. Sample, for example, the
little fanfares on the horns at 2’42"
into the first movement of the symphony;
there’s a fine degree of perspective.
The strings are recorded in both works
with great richness and although the
wind choir is a trifle recessed in the
symphony, though not damagingly so,
a wealth of detail is reported in both
works.
We tend to think that
standards of orchestral playing are
higher these days than ever before but
this disc shows us what a fabulous instrument
Mengelberg’s Concertgebouw orchestra
was. As Ian Julier points out in his
very interesting notes, the recording
of the symphony was set down not long
before the Nazis enforced a number of
personnel changes in the orchestra.
So this is one of the last recorded
examples of the orchestra that the Dutch
master had built up in more than 45
years at its helm. The wind playing
is tremendous (I love the woody sound
of the solo clarinet in particular)
and the brass are first rate too. Though
the amount of portamento employed may
not be to all tastes nowadays there’s
a richness, depth and sheen to the strings
that is well-nigh irresistible. More
than sixty years after these performances
were set down we are privileged to hear
some absolutely top-drawer playing on
this disc.
Kevin describes the
performance of the Serenade for Strings
as "warm and energetic", a
verdict that strikes me as spot-on.
I loved the sweetness of the upper strings
near the start of the first movement
(track 5, 0’51"). There’s some
wonderfully pliant and responsive playing
in the third movement, the touching
Elégie, and the finale
benefits greatly from a tempo that is
flowing and energetic but which does
not rush the music off its feet. In
all, this is a splendid performance.
I wish I could be as
enthusiastic about the reading of the
symphony but, try as I may, I’ve found
that I can’t share Kevin’s positive
view of it. We both reviewed the near-contemporaneous
recording of the same work by Wilhelm
Furtwängler and the two readings
could scarcely be more different. To
my ears however, it’s Mengelberg, rather
than Furtwängler who produces a
"sentimental" performance.
I noted numerous small
tempo modifications in Furtwängler’s
traversal of the first movement. There
are many such changes in Mengelberg’s
reading but whereas I found that Furtwängler’s
variations of tempo seem natural those
by Mengelberg seem to me to draw attention
to themselves and to interrupt the music’s
flow. At times it seems that the pulse
is being modified every few bars. Not
only does this distract the listener
(or at any rate this listener) but I
think it also disturbs the structure.
I must also say that I dislike the little
agogic distortion every time the first
three descending notes of the andante
"big tune" are played (the
first example of this is 12 bars after
letter D in the score – track 1, 4’37")
. After a while I found this became
an annoying mannerism.
The 5/4 waltz goes
better for a while but trouble starts
when the second subject is reached at
letter D. This is marked "con dolcezza
e flessibile." I thought Furtwängler
was lugubrious in this passage but Mengelberg
outdoes even him. I don’t think I’ve
ever heard this episode sound so doom-laden.
A basically slow tempo is pulled about
unacceptably and the pronounced use
of portamento by the strings just adds
to the lachrymose atmosphere. The worst
is saved till last. There’s a pronounced
slowing down nineteen bars from the
end (track 2, 7’04") and thereafter
the music seems to get slower and slower.
I’m afraid I found this grotesque.
The music of the third
movement is pretty straightforward and
so it rather defies anyone, even Mengelberg
at his most interventionist, to distort
it. In fact this movement is conspicuously
successful. The orchestra plays with
sparkling virtuosity and the conductor
drives the music splendidly but not
excessively.
In the finale Mengelberg
largely respects the score in terms
of the tempi he adopts. Once again there’s
considerable use of portamento and this
emphasises the doleful aspect of the
music. I noted "gaunt sadness"
in Furtwängler’s interpretation.
Mengelberg is much more overt in his
application of emotion, not least in
the coda (track 4, from 8’02").
Those who find Furtwängler just
too cool in this movement may well respond
more favourably to Mengelberg’s more
heart-on-sleeve approach.
This is a highly subjective
interpretation. It will either thrill
you (as it clearly thrilled my colleague)
or it may irritate you, as was the case
with me. Perhaps I’ve been spoiled by
coming to this recording off the back
of hearing Mariss Jansons’ stunning
account of this work at the Promenade
concerts a couple of weeks ago. I thought
that Jansons gave a masterclass in how
to present a "warhorse" work
freshly but without recourse to any
unwarranted point-making. His reading
thrilled me because he trusted Tchaikovsky
and let him speak for himself, something
that, sadly, Mengelberg seems not to
have wanted to do.
As Kevin Sutton suggests
this Mengelberg performance is one which
demands to be heard. Happily, at the
Naxos price one can afford to experiment
and hear a great and provocative interpreter
at work, even if one does not agree
with the artistic conclusions that he
reaches. Certainly Mengelberg is never
dull. However, I fear that in this performance
we hear a bit too much Mengelberg and
not quite enough Tchaikovsky. I echo
Kevin’s advice that you should buy this
disc - and then you can judge for yourself.
John Quinn
Concertgebouw Orchestra of Amsterdam/Willem Mengelberg
