Life can only be understood backwards…

Prokofiev completed his second piano concerto in 1913, dedicating it [after completion] to his Conservatory friend Max Shmitgov, who had committed suicide in April, shooting himself in a forest in Finland, after writing a farewell letter to his friend Prokofiev. Learning the solo part was hard work and he spent part of summer in preparation, while accompanying his mother on a tour of Western Europe that took them to Paris, to London and then to a spa in the Auvergne, before a brief holiday near the Black Sea. On 23rd August he played the concerto for the first time in a concert at Pavlovsk, provoking a very divided response of outrage and horror from some and ecstatic approval from the more progressive.

     The orchestral score of the Piano Concerto No.2 in G minor, Opus 16, was destroyed in a fire [or at least lost], during Prokofiev’s absence from Russia after 1918, and was rewritten in 1923. In Paris in the summer of 1914 Diaghilev showed interest in what seemed the work of another of the fauves and suggested using the music for a ballet, eventually commissioning a work on a primitive pagan libretto, Ala and Lolly, which, when it was rejected, became the Scythian Suite, music that Glazunov found even more distressing. In compensation for rejection of Ala and Lolly, Diaghilev arranged a concert appearance for Prokofiev in Rome in 1915, when he played the concerto to the expected mixed response.

– PianoTeacherNOLA: One of my favorite pieces; Prokofiev Piano Concerto No.2

In my last CSO review, I wrote that I was looking forward to Anna Shelest’s return to the Cheltenham stage “with a great deal of impatience and musical greed”: especially for her performance of “Prokofiev’s (let’s be kind, and just say ‘challenging’ – two hands may not be quite enough: although I am expecting it to look like a gentle stroll in the park, after tonight…) second concerto” – intimating, of course, that this is one of the most difficult pieces in the concert pianist’s repertoire (and that was just from my being intimidated by the amount of ink in the score).

It does have a fearsome reputation, though – which may explain its ‘underappreciation’ when compared with his more popular third concerto:

It remains one of the most technically formidable piano concertos in the standard repertoire. Prokofiev biographer, David Nice, noted in 2011: “A decade ago I’d have bet you there were only a dozen pianists in the world who could play Prokofiev’s Second Piano Concerto properly. Argerich wouldn’t touch it, Kissin delayed learning it, and even Prokofiev as virtuoso had got into a terrible mess trying to perform it with Ansermet and the BBC Symphony Orchestra in the 1930s, when it had gone out of his fingers.”

– Wikipedia: Piano Concerto No.2 (Prokofiev)

One ranking – by pianist Pierre-Arnaud Dablemont – places it at the very top of “the five most difficult piano concertos” (and I thought that Brahms’ second was difficult – it only creeps in at number four…!); and, similarly, Paul Huang has this to say:

Prokofiev’s 2nd [is the most difficult piano concerto to perform] because of its 10+-minute, soul-crushing, endurance-testing cadenza. The longest in standard repertoire. It also has a notoriously difficult scherzo that lasts only 2.5 minutes or so but in which the pianist never stops playing 16th notes [semiquavers] in either hand. Not for a single rest. These notes have to be perfectly even and in unison. You can’t hide difficult parts with rubato. Make one mistake and you’re out of sync with the orchestra. You can't use pedal. Clarity is essential. Each note has to be articulated. To produce this effect is very exhausting. It requires fingers of enormous strength and stamina.

It wouldn’t surprise me, therefore, if I was not the only person in Pittville Pump Room to be experiencing (“hearing” seems far too feeble a word) this work live for the first time. But, wow, it was worth the wait! Although many at the première – coming just four months after the scandalous first performance of The Rite of Spring – obviously did not agree:

On the platform appeared a youth looking like a Peterschule student. It was Sergei Prokofiev. He sat down at the piano and appeared to be either dusting the keyboard or tapping it at random, with a sharp dry touch. The public did not know what to make of it. Some indignant murmurs were heard. One couple got up and hurried to the exit: “Such music can drive you mad!” The hall emptied. The young artist ended his concerto with a relentlessly discordant combination of brasses. The audience was scandalized. The majority hissed. With a mocking bow, Prokofiev sat down again and played an encore. “The hell with this futurist music!” people were heard to exclaim. “We came here for pleasure. The cats on the roof make better music!”

– Sergei Prokofiev: Brief Autobiography

This quite astounding work (and I mean that in a good way) – which, with its relenting pace (and absence of a true slow movement), is as much a challenge for the orchestra and conductor as it is for the soloist… – could only be by Prokofiev. And, despite the massed influences of various Russian predecessors – Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninov, Rimsky-Korsakov, Glinka, etc. – it really could only be by Prokofiev. With its use of classical structures, forms and harmonies to produce something essentially modern – indeed, this is essential Prokofiev. And at his greatest, I believe.

Here – revisiting the score, once home (and which I had open on my lap, in awe, during the concert); remembering Shelest’s incomprehensibly brilliant tour de force exposition – is my rather stunned account!

The opening Andantino lulls us into a Rachmaninov-infused sense of security. “Oh, we can sing along with this caloroso con gran espressione – it’s so beautiful”, you might say. But it soon becomes apparent that this is just a warm-up passage for both the soloist and audience. Forte arpeggios – followed by rolling hills of piano scales – produce a sense of foreboding. And a change of pace to Allegretto; and a new rhythm, repeated insistently four times – however ‘elegant’ the piano’s subsequent re-entry (to my ears, more mechanistic, more ironic…) – eventually leads to a passage of spiky ferocity. The storm has begun. And yet, there are thoughtful moments at a slower pace that can lead you astray… before, yes, the most gargantuan cadenza ever written (apparently, initially, scored for three hands – meaning much crossing of arms for Shelest) gets underway.

This is, effectively, the development section of the first movement – and yet it focuses on just the one theme: the piano’s opening Rachmaninovian melody, which soon disintegrates into powerfully-expressed exhibitionism and a momentous landscape of that dreaded black ink! And just when you think it has reached its fortississimo climatic conclusion… – with oscillating triplet semiquaver runs, over a foundation of leaping left-hand crotchets, spelling out a counter-tune (“one of the hardest places in the concerto”, according to the composer himself…) – it just keeps on going!

But Shelest handled it with aplomb: keeping that ‘hidden’ melody well-stressed and vocalized, despite the surrounding ornamentation. Immersed deep within the music (as well as the keyboard), her concentration never wavered; and, despite the ongoing acrobatics, and a collision of keys (of tonality – C# minor and D minor simultaneously – not bits of the piano falling off…), generously looked up at David Curtis, the conductor, to coordinate the orchestra’s re-entry. Although this starts softly… again, it is a trick – there is an immediate, time-compressed crescendo from piano to fortissimo; and the mayhem continues with the brass, emphatically underlined by the timpani, reiterating the very opening theme (originally lightly pronounced by the clarinets and pizzicato strings).

As always, the CSO heavyweights shook the very walls of the building. This was very much the effect they had produced in the final movement of Shostakovich’s Fifth Symphony – huge blocks of fundamental, elemental sound. Two lightning cymbal strikes: and the storm is over. (But, oh, to frolic under those dark skies; feel the heavy, wakening rain on your face; be so very in tune with nature…! There is joy in the mania; there is melody in the cacophony; there is enlightenment in the punishment. This is sadomasochism in music. And, boy, it felt great…!)

But, suddenly, we revert to that gentle opening soundscape – fading, fading, fading… – and the movement (like nothing else composed before or since) is complete.

¶

Prokofiev has been accused of lightly orchestrating a piano sonata – but that closing of the first movement, and all of the second movement – that perpetuum mobile of a Scherzo – proves those critics wrong: there is some amazing, challenging string and woodwind writing (easily conquered by the CSO, as always) either side of the piano’s trickling, twinkling torrent of constant semiquavers. It is almost as if we are following the heavy rainfall from the first movement downstream – with its sudden mood changes – as it surges towards the sea….

Again, Shelest plunged in: never once, as far as I could see, lifting her head from the keyboard; keeping perfect time, with wonderful dynamic variations ebbing and flowing. To say that she provided a metronomic beat for the orchestra implies a lack of feeling – but this was expressive playing, surmounting the technical exercise that appears in print.

Such music must also be a nightmare to conduct – despite the constant 2/4 time, there are some astonishing changes of rhythm and volume – but, whatever fear (if any) he may have felt, David Curtis made it look relatively easy. He has built trust with this orchestra – as well as with Shelest – and it shows. The occasional interjections of brass (startling trumpet entries) and threatening percussion were utterly precise; yet somehow rendered this movement less ecstatic than it initially appeared. The flying arrows of the flutes and first violins also threatened to destabilize all forward motion. But everything punched in precisely on time. A fleeting motif in the cellos and oboe (which, only later, did I realize forms the basis of yet another bruising, baleful brass exclamation in the final movement) seemed momentarily to pull things together. But, on on we go! And then we stop. Just like that. Golly. All that music; all those notes – and so little time had passed.

¶

You would think that a slow movement would be needed, after all that – especially for the soloist. And it is. But we don’t get one. Instead, the Intermezzo is marked Allegro moderato – and the instruments are told to play pesante (not like peasants – although they might as well be – but ‘heavily’…). There is no respite. And the members of the CSO gave all they had: marching as to war.

This is Prokofiev at his most Prokoviesque, you might say – and the sprightly piano entry (surely, the poor girl deserves some sort of break after all those semiquavers?!) just adds to the menace: mocking the orchestra’s stateliness with grotesque, off-beat chords, before a solo of surprising beauty. (If the Scherzo demonstrated Shelest’s technical prowess, this allowed her to return to the emotional lyricism of the first movement.) But this is a temporary state of affairs; and the mocking resumes – although what initially appears to be a climax dissolves into a light soufflé of arpeggios and runs, and more “light orchestration”.

Shelest then has a brief – again spiky – solo, before the orchestra decides this is a game it wants to play, too. Gradually, everyone joins in; there are a couple of menacing piano trills (with phenomenally scary muted brass accompaniment); the strings refuse to stop marching – albeit in slippers. But Maestro Curtis says “No more; no more”. His authority is final.

¶

The Intermezzo ends quietly on a very low note: so, the astonishing fortissimo opening of the Finale, five octaves higher, felt like an attack of screaming demon angels from above. What initially sounds like a sprint – with Shelest jumping manically up and down the keyboard (figuratively; or fingeratively…?) – eventually resolves into a fragmentary theme; before a tempestoso climax. The thundering gallop of chords (reminding me of the cowboy movies that my dad is addicted to…), as the music forces Shelest to look like she may spread wings (there is no way to make this music look anything but utterly impossible to play – it is so physical…) – thus leads to that brassy reclamation of the Scherzo’s mini motif.

Suddenly, everything stops. Soft discords – bell chimes – in the piano are interrupted by unrest in the lower strings (was that ‘Dies Irae’ I heard…?). For a while, then, these are joined by the clarinets and bassoons, whilst Shelest finally – finally – gets the break she deserves! But not for long.

The succeeding solo passage is a simple, wistful one of great beauty – recalling the first movement, somewhat, in what could be described almost as a ‘lullaby’. (This also reminded me of the solo pieces of Mompou – such was its grace.) The bassoons (ah, bliss!) then take up this wandering theme, as the piano elaborates, and more and more woodwind and strings join in. (It is like being sung to sleep by a full chorus… – accompanied by a gargantuan brass band…!) The piano will not let go of the tune, though. Eventually, those woodwind and strings take over: upping the pace. A dialogue ensues. This is the rush to the end, isn’t it? Yes. The end. (In fact, the most final sounding, bloody emphatic cadence you have ever heard.)

But it isn’t. More trickery. I was waiting for someone to applaud. But we were so rapt: we could see from Shelest’s physical attitude that something was about to happen.

Indeed… a momentous, moody rumination develops from her earlier bell-like discords. And – oh yes – eventually, the bassoon comes back with its lullaby – but only so that Shelest can demonstrate her pugnacious, unrelenting virtuousity. A period of development (and swaying key changes) follows, before the mist moves in. The sudden foghorn blast that ends this short, spooky passage leads to a reprise of the beginning of the movement, and the real, build-upon-build, ever-growing climax. This really is it. The end. Fabulous. Reader, I wept. Reader, I cheered!

¶

The applause and standing ovation given to Shelest was not enough. It never could be. She had partaken in the pianistic equivalent of a triathlon – simultaneously performing all three disciplines: technique, emotion, stamina… – and won. By a huge margin. This was heroic, amazing dexterity; beautiful, moving, percussive, lyrical playing. Astounding, unflagging talent that will stay with me for ever.

I never believed I would experience this piece played live. And, now I have, I do not want the experience erased, sullied by another performance. I simply cannot imagine the replication of such concentrated musicality. Instead, I will listen to Shelest’s recording on repeat, whilst gazing longingly at the tear-stained pages of the score she so gracefully signed.

This was a once-in-a-lifetime event. And all I can do is say a huge thank you to those who contributed. My night – or so I believed… – had been made.

But I had, of course, forgotten Maestro Curtis, and his handfuls of magic dust. Having already sprinkled a few grains on the CSO – their wizardry a necessary component of the Prokofiev – he shook his pockets out over the stage; waved his magic baton; and headed off for redemption via Stravinksy’s awe-inspiring Firebird Suite. If the Prokofiev proved the perfect vessel for Shelest, then this was the orchestra’s – equally proving their virtuosity in all departments.

No names, tonight. All players were inspiring: alone, and in combination. Reader, my soggy handkerchief was not enough. Someone please bring me a bucket…. (And better make it a double.)

This was joyous: an exhibition of control from Curtis, and delight from the CSO. It is as challenging a score, in many ways, as is the Prokofiev for the pianist. But the orchestra luxuriated in its difficulties, producing shimmering dynamics – who knew so many instruments could make so little a sound…? – and making changes of speed instantaneously. This was their showpiece. Or should be. A little bit of a miracle to end a wonderful evening…

¶

…which had begun with Tchaikovsky’s Second Symphony – not, for me, one of his better works (and that is pretty much all I have to say on the matter – except that it was, of course, performed with as much energy and skill as everything else; conducted by a man with the happiest, most contagious grin in the Midlands – despite this being his fourth concert of the week…).

It made sense, really. If that (possibly nightmare-inducing) “lullaby” in the final movement of the Prokofiev had the insistence – and modality – of a folk song, then this was constructed from (at least) three of the real things: hence its nickname of ‘The Little Russian’. The Stravinsky, too, is folk-tune based. And so it made for a well-constructed programme – even if it was played in the reverse order of its original billing: a clever trick which made sense of the music, chronologically (sort of), and melodically.

Note
A more ‘formal’ – and much shorter – version of this review can be found on the Gloucestershire Echo website.

Postscript

By the way, I don’t really know if “crying is good for you” – it certainly feels it, to me (as it does to most): especially with music of this calibre, played so movingly, so flawlessly. Ergo, if men really are sobbing only “six to 17 times” a year (as a recent study indicates), I really do think they should start attending more high-class orchestral concerts, such as this; letting their sensitivities and sensibilities hang out; whilst perhaps channelling their inner Roy Orbison.

This was catharsis – what Aristotle might have called “the purging or purification of the emotions”, perhaps achieved through the witnessing of theatrical tragedy – of the most unalloyed, most curative kind.

The long (and winding) read: May the First be with you…

For my eighteenth birthday, a wise, good school-friend – one of two talented violinists I used to accompany on the piano (she is now a lecturer and researcher in inorganic chemistry at Pembroke College, Oxford) – presented me with a stack of 32‑stave ruled manuscript paper. Probably because of its size, it looked even more daunting to me than the normal demands of a now-you-must-fill-me-with-words blank sheet of A4. “This is for your first symphony,” she said, sincerely. Which, even as a show of confidence – never mind some sort of challenge – provoked a scary surge of adrenaline.

I still have it: cherished (as is the friendship) during all the intervening years (and house-moves); as well as the beautiful mechanical pencil a mutual acquaintance gave me on the same occasion. Even though, in some ways, both thoughtful gifts have been superseded by technology – until my hearing went, any scribbled jottings of note (ahem) at the piano were always rapidly transformed into more legible pixels – I still hope, one day (now that I have returned to music; and music has returned to me), to fulfil their joint wish.

To be honest, I hadn’t known – even with having spent too much time perusing, and purchasing, scores in Blackwell’s old music shop in Oxford – that such an impressive striped beast existed. My only real exemplar had been derived from viewing the five-nibbed pen displayed at the Elgar Birthplace Museum and Visitor Centre: which the composer’s supportive wife, Alice, used, laboriously, to produce reams of those parallel demoralising skeletal lines, early in his career. And I had naïvely assumed that this was what all garret-dwelling geniuses did.

Now, of course, the likes of software Sibelius seem to rule (sorry) supreme. Or you can simply download a PDF of however many staves you require, to print at home – which, at one point, was my preferred method for smaller works (although I had originally constructed my own versions using desktop-publishing software). However you render your music, though, there is a massive amount of graft involved in covering those sheets with so very many notes: “The toil… the enormity of the task of writing out a full score”. You have to be immensely motivated to get to the end of that “challenge” – even once. No wonder “It caused Haydn so often to add at the foot of the last page of many of his symphonies, the words: ‘Laus Deo’ (God be thanked) that the labour was finished!”

While, in some ways, an early-starter when it comes to composing – although certainly no child prodigy – I always wrote (probably quite derivatively) for the distinct (and sometimes quaint) forces I had at my disposal: piano music for myself and friends; small chamber pieces (especially for violin and piano – although my favourite was a ‘jazz suite’ for three sisters who played clarinet, cello and trombone); the odd song-cycle; and choral works – both sacred and secular – by the bucketful. But, when it comes to larger, more symphonic works, I am definitely a (yet-to-begin) latecomer – even with the help of Walter Piston’s unbeatable, biblical Orchestration: which my parents bought me at the same time. (There may have been a conspiracy.)

These memories were provoked, a few weeks ago, by the arrival of the first orchestral score to drop on my doormat in a very long time – Shostakovich’s Third Symphony – for study ahead of last night’s (again) dazzling performance by the ever-sublime and -sensational Cheltenham Symphony Orchestra, conducted by the deeply thoughtful and passionate David Curtis. (I know, after their barnstorming – or, more accurately, Town Hall-storming – rendition of the Fifth, I should not really have been so taken aback: but they are so cohesive, subtle, technically and emotionally gifted, that it is impossible to think of them in any way as “not a full-time professional ensemble”.)

First performed in Leningrad, on 21 January 1930 – “the sixth anniversary of Lenin’s death” – this “new kind of symphony” (in reality, a somewhat Straussian “tone poem” – an apposite characterization from Curtis – with, I think, echoes of Berlioz…) is a work I can only remember hearing live, once – and that vaguely, many, many years ago – and therefore, not, until this month, a piece I knew at all well. Generally – even with (or maybe because of) its somewhat grandiose title of ‘The First of May’ (‘Pervomayskaya’) – it seems much less loved (and therefore performed) than many of Shostakovich’s other works: even though it is relatively short; and, I consider, extremely approachable (as well as heart-piercingly momentous).

Despite its continual, often unrelated, episodic exposition and experimentation, somehow Curtis once again (and I do not think I have ever seen him so utterly involved; so completely engrossed; so mobile…) moulded the music into a compelling, soul-nourishing, narrative arc… – thankfully, after a joyous, nimble, accessible and intelligent run-through of several of the symphony’s high points and key changes of mood (which gave everyone present the chance to prepare themselves for the coming onslaught…).

Sat in awe, therefore, in the inspiring, regency Pittville Pump Room, I particularly noticed the repeated motif of ascending and descending basslines (you could feel them rising and falling through the soles of your feet); as well as some deft, ornamental instrumental writing – quite tricky stuff, especially in the woodwind (including some literally brilliant piccolo playing from Amanda Kaye): although handled confidently and brightly by the CSO – this often wrapped around a trenchant tune: which, on paper, appears to be buried in the middle of the orchestra. In these passages – especially – the acoustic balance was jewellery of transcendent clarity and sparkle. (I will try – and fail… – not to go into too much analysis of the piece, here: partly because there is a superb, detailed account – including its place in Soviet history – written by Howard Posner, on the Los Angeles Philharmonic website (and which, coincidentally – probably because this work is a rare creature indeed – also appeared in the programme notes).)

On the very first May Day

a torch was thrown into the past

a spark, growing into a fire,

and a flame enveloped the forest.

With the drooping fir tree’s ears

the forest listened to the voices and noises

of the new May Day parade.

– Semyon Kirsanov: The First of May

What I had forgotten – curiously – was (in the original score) the stirring (but maybe not wholeheartedly sincere – who can tell, with the deceptive Dmitri?) chorus at the end (hints, as Curtis surmised, of Beethoven’s Ninth?) – here ‘emphasized’ by the brass section: reminding me even more, therefore, of the thrilling final movement of that last concert. As Mark Wigglesworth writes (in notes – also well-worth perusing – to accompany “strong, idiomatic readings” with the Netherlands Radio Philharmonic Orchestra): “Only those with the shortest of musical memories can listen to the rousing choral finale with a sense of triumph and joy.” Posner also discusses this strange ending, in a similar vein:

If the first 20 minutes are loosely constructed and episodic, the choral conclusion is direct, forceful, and declamatory, an apt and powerful setting of Kirsanov’s words about inexorable progress [using the annual May Day parade as a metaphor for the march of socialism and justice] into the future. The orchestra’s final bars may seem tacked on and unnecessary [however] Shostakovich may have felt that the public and festive nature of the Symphonies made old-fashioned bright, major-key endings necessary, but it is difficult to make such an ending convincing when the musical language of the work has been something altogether different. In Shostakovich’s music, the old and new would always be cheek by jowl, sometimes at odds, and occasionally at war.

To be honest, I was a little sad to ‘lose’ that chorus – although it is doubled by the orchestra, almost throughout, in the original. But, for less than five minutes of quite awful Soviet celebratory propagandist drivel (see excerpt, above – Curtis was a little more polite…) – very similar to that produced, today, by North Korea – I really do understand the logistic (and aesthetic) motivation behind the decision. It certainly didn’t lessen the impact (in fact, it may well have heightened it)!

The brass, here, again, were characteristically strong, precise, and forthright (reminding me of Walton’s Belshazzar’s Feast at one point) – although, in contrast, the Vaughan Williams-like, almost military, hushed, trumpet call near the beginning was gorgeously ushered in by Paul Broekman. Such stunning playing from this section – ranging all the way from super-subtle to superexaltation – is possibly the CSO’s USP. (Although the intensely spirited percussionists – Roger Clift, Ros Fletcher, and Freya Ireland – also take some beating. (Ba-boom.))

Poetry and Hums aren’t things which you get, they’re things which get you. And all you can do is go where they can find you.

– AA Milne: The House at Pooh Corner

I adore reading through scores (especially that first time: knitting together the various instrumental strands): hearing the music in my head (although it took some time to learn to ignore the resultant funny looks that such – it would seem – ‘unusual’ behaviour often garnered on the trains back to university or home: sometimes precipitated, I admit, by the sounds also emerging as not-quite-stifled “Hums”). And yet I still savour the anticipation of turning those pristine sacred sheets. So, after such a long time, the prospect of touching them gently, like fragile holy relics, was utterly thrilling. It took me some time, therefore, to open the cover.

This, I am afraid, is when the wholesale desecration begins: not only bending back each page so it remains flat; but the scribbled exclamations and analyses; the sticky page-markers and bent corners. At one point (rehearsal number or figure 45) – and, last night, a shocking transformation – aided by a crucial, muscular assault from timpanist Paul Berrow – from pianississimo in the strings to the sudden outcry of fortissimo in the brass and cymbals – a sudden slamming-on of brakes – I had written the word “Ouch!” This was yet another moment of supreme, characteristic, orchestral control from Curtis – but credit must also go to the cellists and bassists for their courage in following immediately with a subtle, whispered, entrancing, passacaglia-like passage: guaranteed to leave you breathless (and somewhat dewy-eyed).

There are thus hints not only of the Fifth: for example, in some of the episodes of explicit lyricism (especially the Lento at figure 49, for instance) and implicit goose‑stepping; but foreshadowings of the later ‘Leningrad’ Symphony’s horrifying ‘invasion’ theme, with its terrifying, repeated snare-drum motif, at figure 37. Here, Clift shook the hall to its foundations with an instant hail of shocking, aggressive fortississimo – piercing even through the preceding, still-resonating, climactic orchestral tutti. [I must admit that I did check, shortly afterwards, that the chandeliers had not shattered…. They are obviously made of sterner stuff than I!]

Although the work is additionally haunted by the innovative ghosts of other composers – especially Mahler (as Curtis highlighted), Prokofiev and Stravinsky (the latter two especially present in the symphony’s somewhat neoclassical moments; and with hints of The Rite of Spring at figure 80; closely followed by random-yet-precise bass drum explosions – stunning accuracy and vehemence from Ireland (thus my player of the night) – during a sustained, shocking, full orchestral unison) – what will never leave me is how very young (but certainly not immature – musically or politically) Shostakovich was when he started its composition. Not quite twenty-three – “when he was still a graduate student at the Leningrad Conservatory” – and “covering those sheets with so very many notes” in less than two months! (And such discretion and wisdom!)

Coming of age so very early, it is no wonder that, later in his career, he managed to smash the (supposed) “curse of the ninth symphony”, and go on to write fifteen in total. (“Brahms was already forty-two when his First Symphony was introduced”; and Elgar only produced his first – of only two – at the age of fifty-one. (There is hope for me… yet.))

My feeling is that Shostakovich deliberately sacrificed the relatively conventional form and much of the melodic invention of his First Symphony at the altar of colourful and rhythmic effect, so that he could concentrate on honing his argumentative techniques – and that’s why the Second and Third symphonies are generally regarded as the crucibles in which he forged his mature style. Once he’d cracked that, he would turn his attention – in no uncertain terms – to the question of symphonic architecture.

– Paul Serotsky: Views And Reviews: Shostakovich – Symphony No.3

What truly astonished me, though – and it was apparent, here, that the experience of playing the Fifth Symphony had seeped deep into their veins, and immersed the canny brains of the performers in an exhaustive (and probably exhausting) understanding of the Russian psyche – were the obvious large dollops of full-grown, signature, somewhat argumentative Soviet sound and frequent sardonic subtlety: beautifully highlighted by both conductor and orchestra.

The opening, soul-penetrating clarinet duo, for example – from Janet McKechnie and then Sarah Chestney – was an archetype of the beauty (both savage and subdued, submissive) that was to follow: in some ways deceptive – this is a dawn that sometimes seems to lead to unrest; to confrontation, rather than celebration. And then there are apogees everywhere (I really didn’t want to write “multiple climaxes”) – but the one that was head and shoulders above the rest, last night, for me, was at figure 78. Again, fortississimo; again, tutti; again, that ascending bassline – climbing heavenwards, to the Pump Room’s glorious dome… as the foundations vanished. (Deep breaths.)

Figure 98, though, is where the symphony finally hits the home stretch, and launches into its jubilant, communist stride: with that epic – but, to my ears, twisted – “choral conclusion”. (I believe you may be better off not knowing the words – as we were fortunate to experience here – or the possibly programmatic nature of the work. (As Curtis said, you could easily invent your own!)) In the score, I scribbled “You knew something was coming!” – and yet the anticipation produced by the forces in the Pump Room (which didn’t quite feel big enough, somehow, to contain this mass of victorious(?) sound…) grabbed me more than I could have imagined – Curtis taking one of his trademark (virtual and virtuous) deep-breaths… before launching confidently toward the finishing tape.

I was left gasping and hollow. This is the greatest music; greatly performed. As such, it emptied my soul….

Editor: So you’ve written around two thousand words, and you’re still stuck schmoozing with the Shostakovich?

Bard: Well, of course I am. I may never hear it again… – and it is rather splendid. I’m hoping, of course, that – if people ever make it this far down the page… – others will consider performing it, as a result. (Oh, the power!)

Editor: So, apart from that, Mrs Lincoln, what else was in the show?

This cleverly-programmed, cohesive concert began with the (mostly) rip-roaring Night on a Bare Mountain – or whatever you may wish to call this “musical picture” – in the usual, vivid, technically-stunning Rimsky-Korsakov version – “freely revised and orchestrated… it is scarcely accurate to describe it as by Mussorgsky”. This was as perfect an opener – an Allegro feroce wake-up call – for a series entitled Russia – Revolution and Romance – as you could hope for: immediately demonstrating the wonderful wizardry of every single member of the CSO. (Bloody hell, they are GOOD!)

The witches used to gather on this mountain… gossip, play tricks and await their chief – Satan. On his arrival they, i.e. the witches, formed a circle round the throne on which he sat, in the form of a kid, and sang his praise. When Satan was worked up into a sufficient passion by the witches’ praises, he gave the command for the sabbath, in which he chose for himself the witches who caught his fancy. So this is what I’ve done.

– Mussorgsky, in a letter to Vladimir Nikolsky

It may be fiendishly famous, and frequently performed, but, here, it lost none of its diabolical power to startle – especially with Curtis at the helm: steering devilish dynamics and tempestuous tempi with infernal intelligence; stopping the orchestral orgies, several times, on a sixpence; and highlighting the subtleties and contrasts that can often be lost in its malevolent mayhem. (A particular moment of necromantic note was the build four bars after figure T – in my tatty old score, anyway… – featuring yet another of those deft, magical pauses….)

I had forgotten, though, just how murky and mysterious the coda can sound: where the music suddenly softens and darkens with the introduction of the abominable bell and hellish harp (John Stillman – my son’s former piano teacher! – extremely realistic, on keyboard); crepuscular harmonics in the cellos; and tenebrose muted violins (as well as the indication that the percussion will get a well-deserved and much-needed nap before the Shostakovich: “Tacet al Fine”). It takes courage, I feel, to subdue things as much as last night’s interpretation did (and yet, somehow, retain its eerie radiance), after the rumbustiousness of the rest of the piece. But this worked phenomenally well. The calm before the returning storm….

And there were a couple of (to my ears, extremely Russian-sounding) moments that hinted at the Shostakovich which followed (and which, somehow, made that work seem such a natural progression): the rising bass (albeit in slow motion) before figure G; and the more rapid descent – straight to perdition? – just before figure S. [Eight bars after figure P, by the way – just before the main brutal brass theme returns – is one of my favourite instrumental instructions of all time: for the cymbal part to be played “avec la baguette”. This simply means to “hit with a stick”, rather than the usual clashing together. (It does not indicate that the percussionist should perform whilst eating – or with – one of Subway’s finest… – which is the image that always, naturally, spontaneously, appears in my head. (I know.))]

This work certainly cast its spell on me….

Anyway… after the Shostakovich – and a necessary deep and long chest-filling inhale of shockingly cold, Gloucestershire air (followed by a lively, quick natter… – but no sandwich) – the evening ended – stupendously – with Tchaikovsky’s no-matter-how-many-times-I-hear-it-I-always-fall-more-deeply-in-love-with-it First Piano Concerto. [And yet I still frequently leave the concert hall slightly miffed – as I did, last night – wondering why that magical, hair-raising, inaugural fanfarade – one of the most stupendous, singable melodies ever written… – is never reprised (although the mystical transition from this ‘introduction’ is perfectly, fantastically, transformative…). Well, until you hear it performed next time. (And there’s always a next time!)]

This theme has now served its purpose as a preludial trial of strength, and it therefore fades away, to a piano accompaniment of descending chords of triplets, answered by similar ascending chords in the wood-wind…. Tchaikovsky has been blamed by the highbrow formalists for throwing away his great introductory tune. Brahms, of course, would never have been so wasteful, nor would Beethoven. But there is room in music for prodigality of ideas, especially when they are coordinated with such subtle sense of their dramatic potentialities for development, and when they employ the time-factor – that true criterion of musical form – so successfully.

It is such a well-known work that you may think it hardly worth discussing: but, re-reading Ralph Hill’s wonderful volume The Concerto (which, sadly, the great man didn’t live to see produced), I came across a wonderful, detailed essay by musicologist Julian Herbage. As well as the quotation directly above, I think it worth drawing attention to an additional small handful of short excerpts:

There is no doubt that enduring success comes only to those who know exactly what to do, and exactly how to do it. Highbrows may smile at Tchaikovsky’s B flat minor concerto, and may even be foolhardy enough to condemn it on the grounds of its popularity, but Tchaikovsky certainly knew what he was aiming at, and how to achieve his effect. “Here,” he wrote, “we are dealing with two equal opponents; the orchestra with its power, and inexhaustible variety of colour, opposed by the small but high-mettled piano, which often comes off victorious in the hands of a gifted executant.” As Rosa Newmarch aptly remarked, Tchaikovsky considered the concerto as a duel rather than a duet….

This [opening Allegro non troppo e molto maestoso], indeed, is an amazing concerto movement. It is highly original in form, especially in the subtle balance of orchestral and pianistic ascendancy. Its thematic material is entirely characteristic, dramatically contrasted and melodically unforgettable…. Tchaikovsky still retains his own individuality and subtlety of treatment.

Incredibly, I had forgotten just how much captivating, melodious development there is in this movement. Although it is so much longer, more sustained, than what remains, attraction and momentum never wane. Moreover, however tempting, those many passages so easy to rush through were phlegmatically relished by both soloist and orchestra. This was an expansive, thoughtful interpretation, with elbow-room in abundance (although I was so absorbed, it almost seemed over in an instant…).

The second movement certainly emphasizes such breadth, such luxury, in its change of pace – but still there is no rest for the soloist… – and its ending is balletically beautiful:

The whole [Andante simplice] movement, a mixture of the lyrical and the whimsically fantastic, gains an added sense of atmosphere through the fact that the strings are muted throughout.

Last night, the concerto was radiantly, convincingly expounded by the scintillating, mesmerizing, Anna Shelest – “hailed by The New York Times as a pianist of ‘a fiery sensibility and warm touch’” (and who am I to disagree?!) – who I had never encountered before. It is difficult to stamp your own identity and authority on such a familiar work: but this was an utterly fresh, individual, intense, immersive, intelligent, emphatic, sparkling reading – Shelest almost communing with the piano… – right from that majestic salutation; through the pyrotechnics of the many cadenzas (labelled as such – or not); and on to that emphatic final unison B flat. (What a finish!)

The moments for relaxation, though, are extremely limited – this is an epic work: requiring great concentration as well as technique (although such necessities were rendered invisible by Shelest’s obvious virtuosity and sovereignty). Firstly, in the opening movement – at the Poco più sostenuto – in preparation for the following stupendous tumbling chime of church bells: which leads to a moment of reflection, and then a very serious struggle for superiority – with the CSO giving as good as they got. Secondly, the Poco più mosso of the last movement – Allegro – before that final build: where the combatants finally shake hands, and join together in one of Tchaikovsky’s most stirring signature tunes (which I’m still singing, over five hours later…).

As well as exploiting the full range of the piano – of effects, as well as of range: it is sometimes all too easy to forget that this is a percussive instrument, as well as a melodious one (but not here – some of the bass notes were stupendously powerful…) – Shelest scaled the seemingly infinite mountainous heaps of octaves and arpeggios with effortless precision and natural persuasion. And, however much of the time she appeared to be blasting explosive rockets and roman candles into the air, it was her subtle, intricate, sparkling accompaniments (especially of the woodwind: who proved again, what melodic masters they are…) that proved to be the passages of greatest joy and discernment.

What a wonderful, innate, seasoned talent! (Not only that: her instinctive communication with Curtis and the CSO was a joy to behold.) I was too awestruck, at the end, to approach her… – I simply did not have the words. [And yes, I know I’ve found them now, thank you very much….]

Having survived and surmounted this “duel” – a magnificent score-draw (oh dear), I think… – Shelest returns for the other remaining two concerts in the series: performing Prokofiev’s (let’s be kind, and just say “challenging” – two hands may not be quite enough: although I am expecting it to look like a gentle stroll in the park, after tonight…), and then Rachmaninov’s (romantic – and surely the natural heir of the Tchaikovsky…), second concertos.

As a result of her phenomenal emotional lyricism and staggering craftsmanship, tonight – plus, of course, the ravishing Russian romantic spirit also evoked by conductor and orchestra – I am looking forward to these with a great deal of impatience and musical greed!

[Now, it is definitely time for my favourite cheese, chutney and gherkin… – on granary, please. Before, of course, I rush off to write the CSO a symphonic masterpiece. Probably.]

Happy Birthday, Maestro…!

Note

Pictures courtesy of the New York Public Library – Digital Collections: Scrap book of Russian bookjackets, 1917‑1942