| Author |
Comment |
Bob
Registered User
Posts: 281
(7/31/01 6:16:21 pm)
Reply
|
Wonder what this
sounds like . . .
Excerpt from a review:
***********************
NHK
Symphony Orchestra
Charles Dutoit (conductor)
Boris
Pergamenshikov, Han-Na Chang, Truls Mørk (cellos)
Friday 22
& Saturday 23 June 2001
NHK Hall, Tokyo
Penderecki,
67, has already written two concertos for cello, in 1967/72 and in
1982, which represent his avant-garde and neo-Romantic styles
respectively. This new work is typical of his recent idiom:
eclectic, dramatic, often overtly tonal and appealing to the public.
The Concerto Grosso's writing is fairly conventional, very much like
Bartók and Shostakovich, with a flavor of late Mahler and with few
tone clusters (Penderecki's trademark in the 1960s). Beginning with
an Andante sostenuto, the basic atmosphere is somber and meditative;
a chromatic head motive dominates the piece, and a chorale-like slow
episode recurs to punctuate the 33-minute movement; in the central
section, a march-like allegro tempo is abundant, providing some
ready-made climaxes. As its Baroque-ish title suggests, the Concerto
Grosso's three cellos (the concertino) alternate with the orchestra
(the ripieno) and with sporadic solo passages for flute and piccolo,
oboe, bassoon, violin, double bass, marimba, etc. The orchestral
forces are not overly large - quite like those of Beethoven's 5th
(plus harp and extra percussion).
The treatment of the three
cellos is varied: the soloists each play exposed virtuoso cadenzas
in turn, then play in duo or trio, with imitative motion, suave
harmony and powerful unisons that emulate the orchestra (which
performed securely throughout). The soloists from Russia, Korea and
Norway were all impressive and played in a similar style, with the
same level of dedication and same degree of vibrato. But why three
cellos? ("Not necessarily three" said Penderecki, just arrived from
Helsinki on the morning of the premiere. "It might be one or four,
but for me three cellos sound perfect.") The succession of
shamelessly expressive solos is gorgeous but somewhat excessive; the
musical ideas are colorful but trite and discursive. As a concerto
in the early 21st century, it was old-fashioned - but quite
accessible for a conservative audience. At both performances, after
the last chord, marked morendo, faded into silence, the work and
musicians were hailed by seven minutes of applause.
|
Tracie
Price 
Registered
User
Posts: 577
(7/31/01 8:27:44
pm)
Reply
|
Mmmmmm...
celloey
Sounds like it sounds cool!
Incidentally, I hate it when
reviewers say a new piece sounds "old fashioned." It seems to me
that these days people can write basically whatever they want, there
is no overriding style of the period so to speak. Heaven forbid
someone actually writes something people LIKE LISTENING TO. Hey, I'm
all for musical experimentation, but that doesn't mean EVERYTHING
has to sound like noise. Be open minded to the unusual, but also be
open minded to such "old fashioned" ideas as
tonality.
Besides, 3 cellos? How many pieces do you know for
3 cellos and orchestra?
I only know of one
other.
Maybe there are more, but sounds pretty unusual to me.
It's Penderecki for heaven's sake, it's not like it's some
unknown composer having his first premiere. The guy's done sound
effects, maybe he learned all he could from that and wanted to try
different styles, who knows. Would it sound "old fashioned" to that
reviewer if he wrote in the exact same style for 40 years? It seems
to me that Mr. Penderecki probably has much more wisdom and
knowledge of music than some reviewer. Besides, it's "old fashioned"
to trash a great composer's work. Look at the guys who thought
Brahms 4 was garbage and "old fashioned". That kind of review has
been done before, he should try something
new.
ha.
Anyway, I'd love to hear the piece. When I
played the Requiem of Reconcilliation a few months back,
Penderecki's entry into that work was my favorite
movement.
|
lesacre
Registered User
Posts: 3
(7/31/01 11:41:03 pm)
Reply
|
Re: Mmmmmm...
celloey
a big part of the power of penderecki's early work was its
boldness. music can be judged not only on its notes and phrases but
also in its context, and on what it offers to the musical community.
this neo-romantic/neo-baroque/neo-neo-classical stuff is often of
not very great merit even if you judge it side by side with the
stuff it imitates, but when you also consider that it regresses,
rather than putting forward originality and new ideas, then it
becomes fair game for such condescending reviews among snobby music
circles.
i haven't heard all that much of present-day
penderecki, but what i've heard has not been bad, or all that
old-fashioned. you can still hear that bold voice coming through.
despite this, what i've heard has been somewhat forgettable. if
you're going to revert toward a style that depends only on the old
considerations of melody and traditional form, then you had better
have good melodies and integrate them into the form in an insightful
and cohesive way. if you don't, you get often pretty, often flashy,
occasionally brilliant, but ultimately forgettable
music.
keep in mind that only the very best of the
compositions of the past have survived in today's repertoire;
thousands of unremarkable composers have been forgotten. what sets
apart the magnificent few was generally an ability to transcend the
limitations of the style of the period (this applies especially to
those who in their day were musical conservatives, like js bach, and
brahms). when contemporary composers turn to the old forms, they may
be seeking a different mold to break--it is quite a challenge in
today's musical scene to create something old-fashioned but
extraordinary--but more often it seems they are trying to cater to
aging and shrinking classical music audiences, who by and large do
not care for atonal work. more's the pity. 
|
Tracie
Price
Registered
User
Posts: 579
(8/1/01 1:35:34
am)
Reply
|
You're
Rite
(sorry, I couldn't help myself)
On the subject of um..
how would I say that? Forgettableness...(?) How often do you hear a
great masterwork that has withstood the test of time for the first
time? Occasionally- but usually you've heard it from a recording
before you hear it live. Perhaps on the radio or wherever. If you
heard a great masterwork for the first time without the benefit of
hearing recordings of it previously, and also without the benefit of
KNOWING ahead of time that it was a great masterwork, would you be
able to tell immediately that it was indeed one of the pillars of
music, or would you need to be exposed to it a few times before you
realized it was truly great?
I remember hearing
Shostakovich's 10th Symphony for the first time in a live
performance. I had never heard it before, even from a recording, and
was still pretty unfamiliar with Shostakovich's work as a whole. I
know NOW that it is considered by many to be his greatest symphony,
and I personally love it and have studied it quite a bit. However,
the first time I heard it, that massive first movement alone nearly
did me in. If someone would have asked me afterwards if I had just
heard one of the great works of the 20th Century, I probably would
have shrugged.
My main thing is we don't always recognize
greatness when we first hear it. (I have no idea if Penderecki's
piece is good or not, since I wasn't there) Critics throughout the
centuries have time and time again proven that THEY don't often
recognize greatness when they first hear it either. Beethoven?
Mahler? Brahms? Even a certain ballet that caused a riot in Paris-
So many pieces are misjudged on their first hearing, which is why I
tend to be skeptical of critics. (critical of critics?) I certainly
agree that time will tell, and it will weed out the riffraff. But
until it does and we hear enough to make qualified judgements, we
shouldn't be too quick to condemn a new piece of
music.
G'night all-
Tracie
| |
Internet Cello
Society Forums
Email
This To a Friend
Topic Commands (Moderator
only)