Writings of David Amos David Amos List of honorees Louis Rose Society Jewishsightseeing home SD Jewish Times
Music Notes: The London Philharmonic Orchestra
By
David Amos
SAN
DIEGO— I
was really looking forward for two principal reasons to hear the concert of the
London Philharmonic Orchestra, which was presented
by the La Jolla Music Society on March 10 in Copley Symphony Hall. First,
because it is such a fine world class orchestra, and second, it is the only
major London orchestra that I have not conducted.
And
I was not disappointed at all. Many of us were surprised when the LPO’s
principal conductor, Kurt Masur canceled for health reasons, and his
replacement, maestro Osmo Vänskä, was a name not familiar to me. But just a
glance at Mr. Vänskä’s credits and experience dispelled any doubts.
It is a most impressive list of orchestras he has guest conducted: all the major
U.S. orchestras, plus the ones in Berlin, Munich, Leipzig, and many others.
Originally from Finland, he is the resident conductor of Lahti Symphony
Orchestra in his native country, and of the Minnesota Orchestra.
Mr.
Vänskä substituted for Kurt Masur on very short notice, and I am told that he
had only one rehearsal with the LPO before the concert in San Diego.
He did not change any of the music that was originally programmed, but it was so
obvious that he knew exactly what he wanted to do. For me, the first
indication of a conductor worth his salt is one who clearly knows his musical
score and is able to communicate this to the orchestra. Maestro Vänskä
certainly passed my preliminary test with flying colors.
I found his unusual movements and at times wild bodily gyrations from the podium
a bit distracting. But this is a minor matter. What was interesting to
observe is the wonderful flexibility of the orchestra in following the
conductor’s indications. All the London orchestras are famous for this; after
all, they
rehearse, perform and record with so many conductors, at times several new faces
in one week, and the San Diego concert with the last minute
replacement was not such a big deal.
Another
interesting point is that I had a press release that said “Music by Britten,
Prokofiev, and Mahler,” and I was a having a good time prior to
arriving at Symphony Hall, guessing as to what was going to be in the program.
Possibly the Four Sea Interludes from
“Peter Grimes?
The Scythian Suite?, The Love for
Three Oranges? An unannounced vocal soloist for a Mahler song cycle?
No,
none of the above. We were treated to three symphonies, all which are, or could
be called “number one”: Britten’s Simple
Symphony,
Prokofiev’s Classical Symphony, and
Mahler’s Symphony No. 1 in D Major,
sometimes called The Titan. All three
works, are quite familiar to
me, and balanced into a lovely program. Considering that this was a rare rainy
night in San Diego, I feared that there would be many empty seats,
but this was not the case.
The
Simple Symphony is for strings only,
and one of Britten’s early works. Its musical style is quite accessible and
charming, and the movements are
humorously titled “Boisterous Bouree,” “Playful Pizzicato,”
“Sentimental Sarabande,” and “Frolicsome Finale.” I felt that Mr. Vänskä’s
tempos were at
times on the slow side, but considering that he opted to use the entire large
string section of the LPO, there is justification for that. This work is often
performed with a much smaller string ensemble, therefore permitting faster
tempos. But the results were effective and beautiful.
Vänskä
chose to use the baton for some movements and not for others, and although the
desired effect of a more lyrical sound was achieved, there was
some compromise in accuracy and ensemble.
The
Prokofiev Classical Symphony (No. 1)
is one of the composer’s most frequently performed works. It is a tongue-in
cheek parody of the classical
(Mozart, Haydn) music of 150 years earlier. This merry romp was superbly played,
typical of what we heard the entire evening. Nevertheless, I continued
to have some issues with some of the too-slow tempos.
The
best was reserved for last, with the performance of Mahler’s
First Symphony. Although it started tenuously, it picked up steam and
inspiration, and
ended with as good a last movement as I have ever heard of this work. Ensemble
was not always perfect, but the spirit was there. The atmospheric,
lyrical passages were sublime, and the full orchestra tuttis were most
effective. The familiar Klezmer-like melodies of the third movement came off
quite well, and the conclusion of the last movement was a knockout. There was a
well-deserved standing ovation.
I
must repeat, what impressed me the most about Osmo Vänskä was his absolute
assertiveness in what he expected from the orchestra. And the
musicians responded admirably.
But
it is worth noting that what made the Mahler Symphony so effective was the
orchestra’s playing. The strings were without reproach, but the winds
(brasses and woodwinds) played so effectively, as soloists and as ensemble, that
they carried the excitement in the last part of the program. And let us
not forget the percussion section. If you have ever wondered how much a good
percussion section can contribute to the success of an orchestra’s
overall effectiveness, you should have been there that evening.
.