The reviews coming out of this August 24 event were out of this world, with fans and critics rushing to proclaim it as one of the all time best performances of Mahler's 2nd symphony.
With a clean 80-minute run time, this was one of the faster Mahler 2's. That's usually a good thing with this work, because the undoing of many a Mahler 2 comes from the conductor trying to insert too much drama and sentimentality into the performance, often resulting in slow tempos that exhaust the players and the audience long before reaching the conclusion. Dudamel conducted a very game Simon Bolivar Youth Orchestra in Mahler 2 during the 2011 Proms. Although it brought down the house amongst the Dudamel superfans on that evening, the performance ran well over ninety minutes with several moments of dreadful stagnation, as noted by some commentators at the time. Faster tempos can make for more "exciting" Mahler, but may downgrade the power of the symphony's most spiritual, emotional moments. After all, this is a symphony of struggle, whose eventual resolution (we must die in order to live in order to get closer to G-d, and when we do so we all win) is the culmination of a hard fought battle whose outcome is in doubt until the very end (the interpretation of many, but certainly not all, conductors over the decades). The faster the tempo, the quicker the struggle, and the "easier" it becomes, perhaps. These are generalizations, but in the hands of a talented conductor almost anything is possible.
Rattle's first movement funeral march trampled afoot more reminiscent of a rousing sports march rather than a solemn dirge-like march filled with uncertainty and dread. By its end I managed to talk myself into believing in what Rattle was going for. The movement was less of a mortality statement by a nervous and paranoid individual (Mahler), and more of an extended overture to a Hollywood blockbuster featuring G-d and Satan duking it out over a series of brimstone explosions and quick camera cuts. Not my preferred interpretation perhaps, but certainly one I was willing to give a chance to.
The second and third movements were brisk, enjoyable, and thoroughly unsentimental in my view. Just passing glimses at memories past, which is perfectly fine. The "Urlicht" was beautifully sung, and indeed, the solo and choral singing were consistently stellar on the evening.
The fifth and final movement was the symphony's undoing. Rattle's strict adherence to tempo created an insistent, metronomic momentum that sapped the drama out of the music where it was needed most. There are countless interesting moments in the finale that can be enhanced by the conductor through modifications in the mood and tempo. By the first appearance of the "Aufersteh'n" from the chorus and the response from the orchestra, I started suspecting something nefarious was afoot, as if the insistent tempos were brought on by a curfew or a dinner reservation that nobody other than Simon Rattle was privy to.
Many have made note of the fact that Rattle conducted without a score. Mahler 2 is one of his signature pieces that helped grow his career in no small part. Certainly he knows the work as well as anyone and is capable of getting by without a score. Here I must ask -- why the fascination in conductors working without a score? I can drive without a seatbelt, but why would I want to? Why take the unnecessary risk? Is it a macho thing? What happens if the orchestra gets badly out of sync or if the conductor has a brain lapse? Is this supposed to be akin to a soloist performing without sheet music in order to demonstrate their mastery over the material? Because conducting is (should be) a completely different sort of performance skill compared to the job of a soloist. My point is that when you conduct without a score, you must work more by feel and can't possibly recall all the miniscule details and adjustments that could be used to enhance the work in real time.
Finally, the finale reached the last three minutes at which point the tempos ground to a halt and the symphony reached a monumental, cataclysmic conclusion, albeit one that felt stapled on to a completely different performance that had been delivered to that point. When Mahler 2 ends, more often than not, that the part that rings in the ears after the last note has sounded, and that singular feeling is what kept the RAH buzzing for minutes afterward. But let's not kid ourselves. This was not a great Maher 2, let alone one to be remembered for all times. It was suitably thrilling in large chunks, and featured many heartstopping moments, but Rattle certainly could have done better.
No comments:
Post a Comment