Sunday
24th July 2004 Esplanade
Concert Hall
|
Singapore Symphony Orchestra |
|
Ludwig van BEETHOVEN
Concerto No.3 in C minor Gerhard OPPITZ, piano
|
OVERALL NOISE RATING: 3.5
(in
Circle 2 or 3, there was a group of students (?), who applauded at the
inappropriate junctures and commented audibly. There was also jiggling of keys
to my right and left)
The Noise Rating Index is a partially-objective measurement of pager and handphone blasts, 9pm and 10pm watch beeps, coughing-during-the-pianissimo-bits, intra-audience conversation and other mind-bogglingly inept noises emitted in the concert hall during actual performance of music. It is measured on a scale of 0 to 5, in increasing annoyance.
This review has been kindly sponsored by the
Singapore
Symphonia Company
by Thum Weng-Ho
Listening again to Beethoven’s
Third Piano Concerto is always a treat; particularly to a pianist one has not
had the opportunity to appreciate before. On a cool Saturday evening, my
companion and I arrived at the Esplanade eager to enjoy the concert with the
German artiste.
Gerhard Oppitz, 51 years of age, is one of those pianists who is able to make a work fresh enough for the jaded, and yet make it sound like an old friend to those unacquainted with it. In 1977, he became the first German to win the prestigious Artur Rubenstein Competition in Tel Aviv, Israel. He was discovered by Paul Buck, a professor at the Musikhochschule in Stuttgart whilst delivering his first public concert at age 11. In 1973, Gerhard Oppitz met Wilhelm Kempff who soon became his guide and mentor. Oppitz attended Kempff’s master class in Positano and there he was instructed in the sonatas and concertos of Beethoven. Kempff discovered over the years that Oppitz shared his outlook on interpretation and expressed a wish that the young man continue the German musical tradition that linked them so closely.
Oppitz’s
(left) performance differed significantly from Mikhail Pletnev’s, musican
par excellence, who delivered a performance of the same concerto at the
Esplanade in May 2003. Pletnev’s cold and mechanical delivery represented a
technically rigorous showcase of how a score should be read and performed. In
contrast Oppitz’s strength lies not in overt technical virtuosity, but in
delivering a relaxed and spontaneous performance. Even as Shui coaxed more
momentum from the SSO in the presto passages, Oppitz maintained an
unruffled bearing, played with poise yet acknowledging that pianist and
orchestra were equal partners in the venture.
The overall tempo led by Lan Shui was slightly faster than the other
performances I have listened to. The SSO delivered the first movement with
acceptable integrity,
continuing well through to the finish. The delicious cadenza in the first
movement, with its variation on the main theme of the concerto, put forth the
conflicting elements weaved together into an audio equivalent of kaleidoscopic
imagery. Oppitz never over used the sustain pedal, allowing the cadenza to
breathe and develop within its own space.
The second Largo movement demands a disciplined execution of what can be said to be the slowest movement in Beethoven’s piano concerto repertoire. Whilst Oppitz presented the audience with a faultless passage, I would have preferred more contrast in approach from the first movement, from a more masculine to a somewhat more feminine approach. I believe this movement calls for an extremely light, almost girlish touch, rather than the androgynous mien put forth by the German. But to Oppitz’s credit, he avoided the robust and muscular style in the first movement, which was called for then. Also noteworthy was his avoidance of the use of unnecessary rubato in the slower passages. The well-known passage in this movement, where the piano interlaces with the flute and bassoon over resonant arpeggio was a case in point. Oppitz and Shui could have worked on the hushed pianissimo passages with more intensity, with the conductor encouraging further lightness to the movement. My personal preference would be somewhat of Ashkenazy’s approach in his work with Solti and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra – a certain buoyancy from Oppitz might have served the movement better.
In opening of the third movement
Rondo the orchestra presents the theme,
to be echoed by the piano. Throughout the entire movement, into the middle
section, the key thematic design is constantly repeated. Shui (right)
directed the SSO well, with the flutes, clarinets, violins and piano given fair
share of limelight. As we proceeded toward the end of the movement, there
was a discernible shift from the orchestra, bringing the coda of the finale from
lightness to strong application. The requirement for similar deftness by the
pianist was displayed by Oppitz’s superior reading of the intent and the ability
to execute the passages with aplomb. Without theatrics, Oppitz also managed to
bring forth the more muscular first and third movements; a younger and lesser
artist might have sought to display gratuitous bravura.
Overall, Oppitz brought forth empathy and warmth (again thinking of Pletnev’s cold shower performance!) to the work, without resorting to an overt display of virtuosity. His general pacing was good, and he presented the concerto with no histrionics. It was evident that it was his quiet personality that marked the performance and interpretation; giving shadowy undertones a wide berth. More importantly, his was a mature interpretation to this piano concerto of Beethoven’s. An above-average performance.
Writing your first symphony
when you have passed your fiftieth birthday can have a variety of outcomes, with
an equally varied number of rationales that one can only speculate at. When Sir
Edward Elgar completed his First Symphony in 1908, having started the
rudimentary sketches from as early as 1899, one can only guess what drove him to
have started in the first place. Was it alpha male pride (was there such thing
in the late 19th century?) culminating from several decades of
successes but wanting to compose that one essential work in any composer’s
portfolio? Or was it simply (and this is the most commonly given reason) that
Elgar was inspired by a certain General Gordon and decided to write a symphony
based on his life?
Whatever
the reason, the outcome is one delectable to classical music buff with an
appetite for intellectual exertion. Elgar’s (left) theme is wound within
the fabric of the entire work, with its clear introduction at the beginning of
the Andante nobilmente e semplice – Allegro movement. What I found to be a mild
source of amusement is Elgar’s decision to invent the term ‘nobilmente’ to
describe the grandiose first movement. Indeed, Elgar was so exact with the score
that he provided detailed notes on how certain passages should be performed. I
assume that Elgar found no term sufficiently expressive to deliver his ambition
of glorified beginnings. It may not be too far off base to believe that at the
time of composition, Elgar felt that he needed to be extremely precise and was
seeking concision, given that he was already past fifty years in age.
The SSO under Shui laid the foundation for the symphony very well; the basic motif of the work was elegantly stated. The symphony quickly adopted an abrupt tonal and subject matter switch in the second theme, toward something with a darker and more menacing bearing. Here, Elgar calls for rage and fury from the violins, horns and brass; however the swirl of cascading emotions was perhaps overstated by the SSO. I have listened to the London Philharmonic Orchestra’s version under Sir Adrian Boult and their approach could be said to be one of ‘ordered chaos’. Shui may have read too much into Elgar’s intentions, and directed the SSO toward an uninhibited delivery, giving the design perhaps too much accent. I am ambivalent towards these two approaches; both have their merits.
After the vigorous first movement, Shui could be seen wiping a clammy brow before proceeding to the second and third movements, an Allegro molto and Adagio respectively, played one after the other with no interval. A military style theme best describes the second movement with clashing cymbals and timpani, with a contrasting, ostensibly reflective middle section. This did not hold for long as the latent nervous energy seethed, giving way again to a war-like jig. The SSO presented this movement competently, with a valiant endeavour in the transiting segment between the two sections, holding the dual forces of tension and contemplation together as demanded by Elgar. The third movement was rather pallid and subdued, and the SSO delivered a merely safe reading of the Theme and Variations, with the main subject matter emerging briefly and ebbing forth before being subsumed by the quiet chords of the various sub-themes. Shui cajoled the musicians through this section delicately and prudently, keeping its renowned lyricism intact.
The revelation of Elgar’s grand architecture materialised
beautifully as we moved into the last movement. Here the main motif was
presented almost in reverse
– shifting through the entire symphony and reemerging clearly as we first
heard it at the beginning. The restatement of the main theme was announced by a
single trombone call, which unfortunately sounded flatulent from the SSO.
But the collective winds quickly returned with the main idea and led us into a
jubilant triumph of a finale. Here again in the fourth movement, where Elgar
calls for deliberate grandiosity, the SSO sounded strained and the result was
somewhat jarring. Overall though, the SSO delivered a satisfactory rendition of
Elgar’s First Symphony, weaving the complex multi-thematic composition
masterfully, playing with gusto and verve.
The Flying Inkpot welcomes Thum Weng-Ho with his debut review.
|
Click to Return to the Concert Index!...
or Visit the Inkvault archives! |
2.7.2004 ©Thum Weng-Ho
Readers' Comments
From: KOH TIEN GUI (kohtiengui@hotmail.com / Wednesday, July 28, 2004 at 09:55:45)
Review was thorough, filled with interesting facts and yet at the same time, readable. Job well done.
 |
Explore the Flying Inkpot
| Concert Reviews |
Bit deadish:
| TFI Reviews... |
| MORE STUFF |
|
Also read Mr James Wegg's reviews of the four concerts of the Singapore
International Piano Festival 2004 on his
excellent website |