SEEN AND HEARD INTERNATIONAL

Richard Strauss, Mozart, Brahms: Till Fellner (piano) Philharmonia Orchestra, Sir Charles Mackerras (conductor) Royal Festival Hall London (3 30 PM) 6.4.2008 (GD)

Richard Strauss: Also Sprach Zarathustra Op 30.
Mozart: Piano Concerto No 18 in B flat, K 456.
Brahms: Symphony No. 3 in F, Op 90.


There can be few musical appropriations from classical literature which are so out of kilter with the original literary model as Strauss’s borrowings from Nietzsche’s ‘Also Sprach Zarathustra”. Of course with hindsight we can’t be too hard on Strauss; he read Nietzsche from a 19th Century conservative and nationalistic standpoint. The Darwinian tone is essential to Strauss’s musical evolutionary narrative, and it suited Strauss’s nine programmatic sections focusing on man ascending, through a kind of ‘natural selection’, from his primitive origins to the condition of ‘Ubermensch’. We understand now that Nietzsche was highly critical of evolutionary models; also ‘Also Sprach’ is a brilliant text of parody and self-undoing - Nietzsche  can actually be seen to deconstruct the whole notion of ‘Ubermensch’’. In actual fact Strauss’s reading of ‘Also Sprach’ corresponds much more to Nazi manipulations of Nietszche to add intellectual authority for their own genocidal agenda -  although in this respect, Nazi ideologues distorted the work much more than even Strauss could have imagined when he conceived the work.  And things get more ethically and politically complicated still, if we bear in mind Strauss’s personal involvement with the Nazi regime. It is no doubt for this reason that some of the most eminent conductors of the past, including Toscanini, Klemperer and Fritz Busch, never performed the piece,  but there are other reasons too. ‘Also Sprach’ although brilliantly (if predictably) orchestrated  and structured, doesn’t register the innovation and economy of the composer's earlier tone poems such as ‘Don Juan’ and ‘Till Eulenspiegel’. It has about it an inflated, surface, sensational element as was later exploited by the film culture industry.

So how did Sir Charles approach this arguably ‘controversial’ work? Well overall, and as would be expected he gave a thoroughly musical and well structured rendition; toning down the more rhetorical and sensational aspects of the score. The Philharmonia here were on far better form than they were a few days previously in ‘Till Eulenspiegel’ also with Mackerras so that the famous ‘Dawn of Man’ opening was superbly gradated and balanced. As I commented in my review of the last concert that the orchestra and Mackerras gave in this series featuring a Strauss tone poem, the timpanists zeal again needed to be seriously checked. It must be a real temptation for any timpanist to shine-out in this piece, especially the opening with its carefully aligned solo timpani figurations. But here the timpanist belted out a series of thwacks which far exceeded Strauss’s dynamic markings, which are never above ff! At his second tattoo the player was nearer to ffffff, using double handed strokes, which produced almost a degeneration into circus-like noise.  In the finest recordings of this piece from Krauss, Reiner, Bohm, Blomstedt and Strauss himself,  the timpani figure is played correctly (with the right commanding effect rather than loudly) and sounds far more dramatically convincing. Strauss really knew about orchestral dynamics and balance and specifically warned against over zealous timpani and brass, no matter how tempting the the orchestral occasion may be. But this having been said the rest of the performance was superbly brought off. Of particular excellence was the fugal section (‘Of Science’) with its use of all 12 notes of the chromatic scale, here superbly delineated. Similarly there was a  beautifully realised enigmatic pp ending with the ‘Ubermensch’ contemplating the coming ‘dawn’ of the new race in the mountains. No wonder that the great philosopher Martin Heidegger called Nietzsche the ‘last metaphysician’ or ‘Romantic’. But I am sure that Sir Charles, in totally Nietzschean fashion, saw this piece of metaphysical speculation as one more ‘mask’, or ‘perspective’ wholly open to the fluidity of musical suggestion. And that I am also sure that this  was Strauss’s main concern in the end.

For me,  the real highlight of this matinée concert was Till Fellner's superb playing of the Mozart K 456. Straight away with Sir Charles’s deft handling of the concerto's opening ‘ritornello’, I felt an acute sense of relief. After the gargantuan orchestra deployed for the opening work,  it was amazing to hear how much more (in terms of economy and musical substance) Mozart achieves with an orchestra less than a quarter the size.  It was also amazing to note how rarely we hear this superb classical concerto in concert.  As in K 453,  this concerto abounds with premonitions of arias and ensembles from ‘Figaro’ and ‘Cosi.' The G minor opening of the ‘Andante un poco sostenuto’, which initiates a set of superbly contrasted variations, sounds like a distinct prefiguration of Barbarina’s, L’ho perduta, me Meschina (also in G minor) which opens Act IV of ‘Figaro’. Here Fellner and Mackerras and his orchestra were in complete dialogue. There are not many conductors around today who understand and convey so completely Mozart’s agility and elegance of style in terms of the superbly calibrated harmonic shifts (as in the tonal modulations of the extended development section in the first movement). And also through the stunning changes of pace and metre, as in the juxtapositions from 6/8 to 2/4 in the graceful second subject of the finale.  This performance was a delight from beginning to end. Fellner seems destined to take over the Mozart mantle from the likes of Brendel and Schiff.

Mackerras completed this concert with a rousing, but subtle rendition of Brahm’s most lyrical and introspective symphony. All of Sir Charles’s special qualities where in evidence here: a superb sense of orchestral balance; the close attention to rhythmic juxtapositions in the exposition of the first movement; the understanding of the correct tempo, and flexibility between tempo relationships  in the two intermezzo-like middle movements. There was a flowing tempo in both, as marked, which never sounded rushed. The last movement showed a superb sense of matching dynamics and  here the strings mostly played their exacting figurations with sustained intensity - my only slight criticism was a certain lack of sonorous tone from the double-basses. My only serious complaint concerned the transformation into the dominant C major, just after the first movement development section, and the superbly modulated lead back to the tonic, F major, which is initiated by a pedal crescendo on timpani.  Almost all of this was excellently executed but just after the the crescendo the timpanist added an very loud 'thwack.'  I was surprised that Sir Charles tolerated this interpolation.

After this one glaring (and otally un-Brahmsian) lapse,  everything went splendidly again and the the hushed C major at the close of the symphony was  realised most subtly. As in the earlier concert, once again Sir Charles opted for the non-antiphonal disposition of the violins -  and while this is no more than a quibble considering the general excellence of the performances, it still leaves me puzzled? Perhaps Sir Charles, who regularly deploys antiphonal violins on other occasions, is the only person who can account for this anomaly

Geoff  Diggines


Back to Top                                                    Cumulative Index Page