Other Links
Editorial Board
- Editor - Bill Kenny
- London Editor-Melanie Eskenazi
- Founder - Len Mullenger
Google Site Search
              SEEN 
              AND HEARD  CONCERT  REVIEW 
              
                
              
              Roussel and Prokofiev: 
              Evgeny Kissin (piano) Philharmonia Orchestra, Vladimir Ashkenazy 
              (conductor) Royal Festival Hall, 24.1.2008 (MB) 
              
              
               
              
              
              Roussel – Bacchus et Ariane: Suite no.1
              Prokofiev – Piano Concerto no.3 in C major, Op.26
              Prokofiev – Symphony no.6 in E flat minor, Op.111
              
              
              Prokofiev greatly admired the music of Albert Roussel, and one 
              could hear why in this first suite from the ballet Bacchus et 
              Ariane. Roussel exhibits a splendid command of the orchestra, 
              a sharp ear for rhythm, and a typically Gallic lack of 
              sentimentality. Indeed, there were passages  that one might 
              have been forgiven for attributing to the Parisian Prokofiev of 
              the 1920s; The Fiery Angel and Le pas d’acier sprang 
              to mind. Ashkenazy and the Philharmonia gave a good account of 
              this suite. There was always a clear sense of the music’s 
              direction and the dances were well characterised. The Stravinskian 
              influence from The Rite of Spring was apparent at the 
              moment when Theseus’s men rush at Bacchus, although Roussel never 
              sounds quite so primitivist. A greater variety of orchestral 
              colour would have benefited the performance; this is not Ravel, 
              but there is some gorgeous orchestration nevertheless. However, 
              the audience would still have had a good sense of the music and 
              its character.
              
              Evgeny Kissin joined the orchestra for Prokofiev’s Third Piano 
              Concerto. His was a towering reading of what is probably the most 
              popular of Prokofiev’s five  concertos for the instrument. 
              The music suits Kissin perfectly, providing a great opportunity 
              not only to showcase his phenomenal technique, but also for the 
              various aspects of his individual sonority to shine through. His 
              tone can melt as well as stab, and never loses its strikingly 
              mature roundedness. Especially noteworthy was the careful 
              weighting of each chord, however frenetic the context, so that 
              even when Prokofiev is at his most percussive, every note is still 
              made to tell. This is a far rarer gift than one might imagine and 
              it clearly helped to have a conductor with intimate knowledge of 
              the score under his fingers: Ashkenazy’s direction was always sure 
              and was estimably synchronised with the soloist. An especially 
              noteworthy instance was the third movement’s perfect alignment 
              between the piano, percussion, and con legno strings. 
              Elsewhere, the strings sometimes sounded a little thin, 
              overshadowed by the fine contributions of the duly grotesque – 
              where necessary – woodwind and the powerful brass.
              
              Prokofiev’s Sixth Symphony is a more sombre work than its 
              immediate predecessor, the Fifth, and arguably the greater of 
              these two great ‘war symphonies’. Ashkenazy  however, made it 
              sound closer to the more triumphal Fifth than I can previously 
              recall. The strange combination of darkness and other-worldliness 
              that characterises the first movement was never made quite to tell 
              as it should, nor was the driving sense of purpose that should 
              once and for all give the lie to claims that Prokofiev was not a 
              true symphonist. Songfulness replaced threnody in the second 
              movement 
              Largo: 
              not unattractive in itself, but by the same token mistaking what 
              seems to me to be the predominant quality of the movement. 
              Ashkenazy’s direction here sometimes had a tendency to meander, 
              where clarity and implacability of purpose should be all. Indeed, 
              the brooding quality of dark tragedy was short-changed throughout, 
              with the consequence that the masterly handled – at least in 
              isolation – final explosion at the end of the otherwise almost 
              carefree third movement seemed to come almost from nowhere, and 
              lost its cyclical sense.  Ashkenazy’s reading sounded oddly like a 
              work very much in progress, as if the symphony were new to him, 
              which of course it is not. Once again, the woodwind and brass – 
              trumpets and horns with wonderfully ‘Russian’ vibrato on occasion 
              – outshone the strings. The ‘cellos in particular sounded 
              surprisingly thin, worlds apart from Mravinsky’s Leningrad 
              Philharmonic, who premiered the work in 1947. Such weakness was 
              not evenly spread throughout the section, for the violins on 
              occasion at least captured an authentic Prokofiev 
              bitter-sweetness, and the double basses impressed throughout. The 
              latter, however, only served to highlight what was lacking above.
              Mark Berry
              
              
              
              Back 
              to Top                                                 
                
              Cumulative Index Page 
              
		      

