Alban Berg Quartet
Friday 2/29/2008
Mandel Hall, University of Chicago
Haydn: The Seven Last Words of Christ, op. 51
Berg: Lyric Suite
Schubert: String Quartet in G Major, op. 161
Here in 2008, it is becoming rapidly clear that we are knee-deep in the “new era,” and that the last vestiges of the “old era” are rapidly disappearing. This axiom could apply to many, if not all of the orbits we all encounter each day as part of the human race—but it applies, in my opinion, most gravely and solemnly to the world of string-playing and music-making. The Alban Berg Quartet is, literally, THE last vestige of an old style of playing, characterized by commitment to sound, honesty of expression, intentionality of phrasing, and what I would call a sensitivity to the three-dimensional nature of time. And now, at the end of their career, The Alban Berg Quartet (ABQ) made one last final trip to the United States, to give us one last look at what has come before us.
Having never heard the ABQ live before, I was thoroughly impressed. On a basic level, the matching, listening, and general sense of ensemble in the group was phenomenal. For example, the first note of the Haydn had an extremely soft, gentle beginning to it—the four of them snuck into the sound of that note at exactly the same rate, sound, color, and with a unified sense of character and balance. The exceptional thing was how this way of playing released the music that was on the page into the hall. What an extraordinary way to begin a program! That first note, and the many, many other detailed moments like it during the concert, are the kind of things in music that are very difficult to write or talk about. The only way to achieve mastery over such things as a quartet is to feel the music, the instrument, and each other in emotional, physical, and intuitive ways, respectively. This is so incredibly different from the dominant playing and training of today, which tends to focus on either intellect or intuition, expression or musicality, and technique or physicality. All of these elements converged in the music played by the ABQ to create an other-worldly experience for the listener. This was an experience marked by heartfelt clarity, and musical decorum, above all else.
One of the more impressive qualities of the ABQ, not related to their status as being from the “old era,” was their ability to sincerely sink into very different styles of sound as called for in the different styles of music that they played. The overall sound concept that the group had for each piece was radically different, as mandated by each composition. The contrast between the sound in the Berg and the Schubert was especially striking. The Berg called for a broad palette of extreme sounds—from the very quiet and airy, to the grotesquely forced and aggressive. The Schubert called for an equally broad palette of sounds, but within a much more limited sound world. The ABQ was therefore able to play the Berg with a variety of sharply contrasting sounds, while the Schubert was played with hundreds of very subtle color changes.
This approach to sound, as being mandated by the score, may be the entry point that the ABQ takes in getting to the heart of each piece. Because of this conceptualization of the role of sound in interpretation, each work appeared to have a discrete identity separate from the identity of the ABQ, and from the identity of the tradition and historical era from which each work came. The things that the ABQ did with phrasing and timing—i.e., the “music-making”—had more clarity than anyone could have hoped for in their wildest dreams, and all because of the sound concept within which each impulse was cushioned. This was accomplished in a unique way with each work performed.
What an honor and a joy to hear this group, for the last time, in live performance. There will of course always be recordings, but the tangible, visceral memory of witnessing and feeling the web that was spun that night by the Alban Berg Quartet will always stick in my memory.
Please go out and support live music!
Monday, March 3, 2008
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Chicago Symphony Orchestra 2/21/2008
Chicago Symphony Orchestra
Thursday 2/21/2008
Orchestra Hall, Chicago IL
Pierre Boulez, conductor
Mitsuko Uchida, piano
Pintscher- Osiris
Bartok- Piano Concert No. 3
Debussy- Images
I could hardly believe I was at this concert—between Boulez, the CSO, Uchida, and the world premier of a piece co-commissioned by the CSO, Carnegie Hall, and the London Symphony Orchestra, I felt like this was the kind of performance someone would read about in a music history book twenty years down the line. I was mostly excited to see Boulez in action again, three weeks after performing a completely different program with the same orchestra (Berio, Berlioz, and Stravinsky). Though this program did not awe me in the quite the same way that the previous one did, there were still many remarkable aspects to it.
As young classical musicians today, I think it is our business to check out the music that is being newly commissioned (and automatically celebrated) in our field. A piece commissioned by the CSO and LSO, premiered with Boulez at the podium, demands our attention if we have any interest in where classical music might be going in the future. Pintscher’s piece, based on the story of Osiris found in Egyptian Mythology, was quite effective in many ways. However, the melodic language of the piece, and to a lesser extent, the rhythmic language, seemed to present a big challenge to the orchestra. The piece began very ethereally, with thin layers of sound stacked perfectly on top of one another. As the piece went on, many different characters were introduced. At the height of the piece, the first violins played very demanding foreground material—and for quite some time. Never before have I heard the CSO first violins play less than confidently. In this piece, however, there was the slightest smell of tentative playing, as well as noticeable and sustained discrepancies pertaining to pitch and rhythm within the section. Granted, the piece had never before been played before, by any orchestra. But that said, one could be sure that the CSO and Boulez rehearsed it with that knowledge in mind. The only real explanation is that Pintscher’s piece is simply a very demanding work. I would love to hear another performance of this piece in three or four years, once the work has had a chance to settle in the collective ears of musicians, listeners, and conductors.
It is worth noting, however, the trombone playing of Charles Vernon in the Pintscher work—it was absolutely stand-out. Vernon had foreground material of the same character and caliber as what the first violins had, and he played with a visceral, natural impetus. He played with clarity and with life, and his energy made me want to literally jump out of my seat and run around through the isles. I so enjoyed his playing.
The 3rd Bartok Piano Concerto was played very finely by Mitsuko Uchida—before this concert, I had only heard her on recordings, playing Mozart. She played, first and foremost, with great technical, and musical, clarity—clarity that was matched by Boulez and the CSO, on both counts. I missed, however, the same level of clarity in her expression. There were times when I wanted her to sink in deeper, and express something supersonically—in a way, literally, that was greater than through the sounds she produced. The one place in the piece where I felt like she did do this beautifully was in the opening solo of the second movement. Titled Adagio religioso, Uchida’s playing did indeed take on a serious, introspective, and deeply honest quality—a level of expression that left me yearning for more. One thing that I dislike about her playing, especially in the more energetic sections, was the way she used her body. Uchida’s upper body was tight, and to get big sound, she used force. There is not a doubt in my mind that she could coax louder, more energetic sound out of the piano if more parts of her body were in a greater state of release. When she went for the loudest sounds, she certainly looked intense, but that intensity was not always matched in her sound.
Lastly, the Debussy Images. I anticipated this piece more than any other piece on the program. Pierre Boulez changed the way the world thinks about, hears, and plays Debussy with the recordings he made in the 1960s—I could not wait to experience that live. And it was wonderful. I have always been impressed with the general clarity I hear from the Chicago Symphony—especially in terms of pitch, balance, and sound. All of that was present, but to a much greater extent than usual. I heard a textural clarity in this performance that I don’t think I’ve heard anywhere before, ever. And most importantly, there was a clarity of form present in this performance which was so profound that it re-informed every piece of Debussy I had ever heard before. Boulez’s understanding of the architectural and temporal construction of the music was presented so very convincingly—for lack of better descriptors, the piece flowed in a completely organic way. How was this accomplished? After much speculation, this writer has a theory. Boulez’s ability to express the form of a piece in a clear way is achieved in two basic ways. First, he highlights the exoskeleton of the piece, i.e., the form as it would be obvious to the discerning listener. The thing that is special about the way Boulez does this is found in the way he handles transitions—he appears to treat them as the joints of the exoskeleton, meaning that they are deeply, logically, and fundamentally connected both to what comes before and after. Additionally, each transition is its own entity in the space between what comes before and what comes after, regardless of how big, small, important, or unimportant. Secondly, Boulez takes a consistent approach to each element of the music within each piece. It sounds as if he dissects a small textural or rhythmic or intervallic detail in rehearsal with the orchestra, and then transfers that detail so that it ends up applying throughout the work. I’m sure that every conductor does that to an extent, but not to the extent that Boulez appears to. When these two elements combine, the effect is a deeply clear and natural interpretation of the piece, which therefore allows, I would argue, the greatest opportunity for expression. The CSO took that opportunity, thanks to Maestro Boulez, and played beautifully.
Please go out and support live music!
Thursday 2/21/2008
Orchestra Hall, Chicago IL
Pierre Boulez, conductor
Mitsuko Uchida, piano
Pintscher- Osiris
Bartok- Piano Concert No. 3
Debussy- Images
I could hardly believe I was at this concert—between Boulez, the CSO, Uchida, and the world premier of a piece co-commissioned by the CSO, Carnegie Hall, and the London Symphony Orchestra, I felt like this was the kind of performance someone would read about in a music history book twenty years down the line. I was mostly excited to see Boulez in action again, three weeks after performing a completely different program with the same orchestra (Berio, Berlioz, and Stravinsky). Though this program did not awe me in the quite the same way that the previous one did, there were still many remarkable aspects to it.
As young classical musicians today, I think it is our business to check out the music that is being newly commissioned (and automatically celebrated) in our field. A piece commissioned by the CSO and LSO, premiered with Boulez at the podium, demands our attention if we have any interest in where classical music might be going in the future. Pintscher’s piece, based on the story of Osiris found in Egyptian Mythology, was quite effective in many ways. However, the melodic language of the piece, and to a lesser extent, the rhythmic language, seemed to present a big challenge to the orchestra. The piece began very ethereally, with thin layers of sound stacked perfectly on top of one another. As the piece went on, many different characters were introduced. At the height of the piece, the first violins played very demanding foreground material—and for quite some time. Never before have I heard the CSO first violins play less than confidently. In this piece, however, there was the slightest smell of tentative playing, as well as noticeable and sustained discrepancies pertaining to pitch and rhythm within the section. Granted, the piece had never before been played before, by any orchestra. But that said, one could be sure that the CSO and Boulez rehearsed it with that knowledge in mind. The only real explanation is that Pintscher’s piece is simply a very demanding work. I would love to hear another performance of this piece in three or four years, once the work has had a chance to settle in the collective ears of musicians, listeners, and conductors.
It is worth noting, however, the trombone playing of Charles Vernon in the Pintscher work—it was absolutely stand-out. Vernon had foreground material of the same character and caliber as what the first violins had, and he played with a visceral, natural impetus. He played with clarity and with life, and his energy made me want to literally jump out of my seat and run around through the isles. I so enjoyed his playing.
The 3rd Bartok Piano Concerto was played very finely by Mitsuko Uchida—before this concert, I had only heard her on recordings, playing Mozart. She played, first and foremost, with great technical, and musical, clarity—clarity that was matched by Boulez and the CSO, on both counts. I missed, however, the same level of clarity in her expression. There were times when I wanted her to sink in deeper, and express something supersonically—in a way, literally, that was greater than through the sounds she produced. The one place in the piece where I felt like she did do this beautifully was in the opening solo of the second movement. Titled Adagio religioso, Uchida’s playing did indeed take on a serious, introspective, and deeply honest quality—a level of expression that left me yearning for more. One thing that I dislike about her playing, especially in the more energetic sections, was the way she used her body. Uchida’s upper body was tight, and to get big sound, she used force. There is not a doubt in my mind that she could coax louder, more energetic sound out of the piano if more parts of her body were in a greater state of release. When she went for the loudest sounds, she certainly looked intense, but that intensity was not always matched in her sound.
Lastly, the Debussy Images. I anticipated this piece more than any other piece on the program. Pierre Boulez changed the way the world thinks about, hears, and plays Debussy with the recordings he made in the 1960s—I could not wait to experience that live. And it was wonderful. I have always been impressed with the general clarity I hear from the Chicago Symphony—especially in terms of pitch, balance, and sound. All of that was present, but to a much greater extent than usual. I heard a textural clarity in this performance that I don’t think I’ve heard anywhere before, ever. And most importantly, there was a clarity of form present in this performance which was so profound that it re-informed every piece of Debussy I had ever heard before. Boulez’s understanding of the architectural and temporal construction of the music was presented so very convincingly—for lack of better descriptors, the piece flowed in a completely organic way. How was this accomplished? After much speculation, this writer has a theory. Boulez’s ability to express the form of a piece in a clear way is achieved in two basic ways. First, he highlights the exoskeleton of the piece, i.e., the form as it would be obvious to the discerning listener. The thing that is special about the way Boulez does this is found in the way he handles transitions—he appears to treat them as the joints of the exoskeleton, meaning that they are deeply, logically, and fundamentally connected both to what comes before and after. Additionally, each transition is its own entity in the space between what comes before and what comes after, regardless of how big, small, important, or unimportant. Secondly, Boulez takes a consistent approach to each element of the music within each piece. It sounds as if he dissects a small textural or rhythmic or intervallic detail in rehearsal with the orchestra, and then transfers that detail so that it ends up applying throughout the work. I’m sure that every conductor does that to an extent, but not to the extent that Boulez appears to. When these two elements combine, the effect is a deeply clear and natural interpretation of the piece, which therefore allows, I would argue, the greatest opportunity for expression. The CSO took that opportunity, thanks to Maestro Boulez, and played beautifully.
Please go out and support live music!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
