Showing posts with label Brad Lubman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brad Lubman. Show all posts

Thursday, 5 September 2019

Musikfest Berlin (3) - Ensemble Modern/Lubman: Varèse, Neuwirth, and Andriessen, 4 September 2019


Philharmonie

Varèse: Déserts, for fourteen wind instruments, piano, percussion, and three interpolations for electronically organised sound (1949-54, revised 1960-61)
Neuwirth: locus…doublure…solus, for piano and ensemble (2001)
Andriessen: De Materie, Part III: ‘De Stijl’, for four women’s voices, female speaker, and large ensemble (1985)

Hermann Kretzchmar (piano)
Catherine Milliken (speaker)
Norbert Ommer (sound direction)
Chorwerk Ruhr (chorus director: Klaas Stok)
Ensemble Modern
Brad Lubman (conductor)


'De Stijl'  (images: © Adam Janisch)

I no longer believe in concerts, in the sweat of conductors and the flying storms of virtuosi’s dandruff, and am only interested in recorded music. That is why I must wait. There are more opportunities in Europe for this kind of activity, but one would have to be there, and unfortunately Europe is no place to make a living. It will come, and in the States.’ As predictions for the future go, Varèse’s words of 1952 to André Jolivet are as hopeless as those of any soothsayer. However, the work with which he would break his compositional silence – at least in terms of music completed – two years later, Déserts, was certainly not lacking in consequences for the future. This fascinating programme from Ensemble Modern and Brad Lubman was not in that sense didactic but suggestive. It would nevertheless have been difficult and not a little perverse not to draw connections when and where they presented themselves. As Musikfest Berlin’s website had it, ‘“De materia”, on music and matter, could be the title of Ensemble Modern’s programme.’ Indeed – and that was in part how I heard it.


‘Deserts,’ Varèse explained, was for him ‘a highly evocative word. It suggests space, solitude, detachment. To me it means not only deserts of sand, sea, mountains and snow, of outer space, of deserted city streets, not only those stripped aspects of nature that suggest bareness and aloofness but also the remote inner space of the mind no telescope can reach, a world of mystery and essential loneliness.’ And yet – is there not always a ‘yet’? – the title was personal, ‘not intended as a description of the music’. For what struck me at the highly dramatic – take that as you will – opening to this performance from Ensemble Modern and Brad Lubman was the sense almost of a portal to another world, of invitation, and then of entry into that world. Wind instruments, all fourteen of them, still spoke of Stravinsky; it could hardly be otherwise, but not in any derivative sense, connection to the past offering degrees of comfort and reinvigoration in equal measure. Doublings of piano and (other) percussion instruments were incisive, suggestive to my ears of later Boulez (sur Incises!), but auguries are strange things, to be distrusted especially when they seduce us. I still have my doubts about the taped sections, but there was an interesting impression of antiphonal response between ensemble and the ‘recorded music’ of which Varèse wrote to Jolivet, a relationship not to be reduced to, but in some sense related to, a parallel relationship between ‘real’ and ‘surreal’, such as would also feature in Olga Neuwirth’s locus…doublure…solus. There was certainly, for me at least, vivid senses of different perspectives, of landscapes real and metaphorical, even, dare I say, of the old idealist dualism of phenomenal and noumenal. Anyone can juxtapose and contrast. With Varèse, though, both in work and performance, there was more: both clearly and subtly. The close brought a feeling of departure from wherever, whenever, we had visited: a final aural glance over the shoulder, then, and it was over.


Neuwirth’s 2001 work for piano and ensemble, as already implied, brought kinship and contrast. Drama and landscape, yes, Stravinskian remnants too, but something harsher too, perhaps, the (proto-)surrealist starting-point (Raymond Roussel’s novel Locus solus) notwithstanding. Titles, as Varèse had already told us, can be dangerous things when they limit rather than liberate our understanding. A fascination with rhythm and a certain hieratic quality revealed themselves, in a landscape that sounded as much urban as garden, but then the novel’s estate is anything but a mere walk in the park. Repetition of various parameters – pitch, rhythm, and timbre in particular – accrued great dramatic power and an unmistakeably modernist sense of wonder, even enchantment. Wandering pitches suggested, as in Varèse, wandering through a decidedly constructed landscape, but was it an earthly city or something beyond? Flânerie, marching invasion, observation, and much else besides seemed suggested: metaphors, not mere depiction, Hermann Kretzschmar’s piano virtuosity a necessary response, even rebellion. Awe-inspiring final climax and resonance brought closure that was in retrospect as surprising as it was undeniable.




And then for something completely different; or was it? Ultimately, I think it was, yet ‘De Stijl’, the third part of Louis Andriessen’s De Materie, appeared in context as welcome, even necessary, contrast, its directness of line, its pulsating energy very much a response to the intricacies and alternative standpoints of both Varèse and Neuwirth. Having unwisely checked my telephone during the interval, and thus having heard news of what sounded as though it were a wrecking amendment to the bill going through Parliament, yet which transpired to be a typically damp Kinnock squib, I responded with perhaps unusual keenness to the vigour of Andriessen’s response to Mondrian: ‘The perfect straight line is “the” perfect line.’ Stravinsky remained, yet transformed, this time in a guise both aggressive, thrilling, and ultimately humanistic, that puts most other minimalism – if, indeed, this be ‘minimalism’ at all – to shame. Repetition functioned in a very different way from Neuwirth’s, yet no less dramatically. Sheer volume played its part. So too, though, did music theatre, narrator Catherine Milliken and four female voices from Chorwerk Ruhr as powerful and precise as the instrumentalists and Lubman. Once it was over, strangely, I felt very little, perhaps nothing. It had been music for the moment – but that, I think, may well have been the point. For better or worse, my telephone and its unending stream of ‘news’ awaited. The relief, however, could not have been more welcome.





Monday, 25 October 2010

Helmut Lachenmann Weekend, Southbank Centre, 23-24 October 2010

Queen Elizabeth Hall and Royal Festival Hall


String Quartet no.1, ‘Gran Torso’
String Quartet no.3, ‘Grido’

Arditti String Quartet: Irvine Arditti, Ashot Sarkissjan (violins), Ralf Ehlers (viola), Lucas Fels (cello)
____________________

Ein Kinderspiel
Pression
Toccatina
Got Lost

Helmut Lachenmann (piano)
Oliver Coates (cello)
Clio Gould (violin)
Sarah Leonard (soprano)
Rolf Hind (piano)
____________________


Film: …wo ich noch nie war (Bettina Ehrhardt)
____________________


Ausklang
Schreiben (United Kingdom premiere)

Rolf Hind (piano)
London Sinfonietta
Brad Lubman (conductor)


Not so much a review, as a few thoughts arising from the Southbank Centre’s Helmut Lachenmann Weekend. We should be grateful that it happened at all. Whilst given his due in certain parts of continental Europe – including residencies at the Salzburg and Lucerne Festivals, the latter featured in Bettina Ehrhardt’s film – Lachenmann has not been well served on this sceptred isle. I was staggered to discover in June that the LSO’s performance of Double (Grido) was the first British symphony orchestra performance of any of his works – and that only came about on account of Maurizio Pollini designing the programme. The London Sinfonietta has of course performed Lachenmann, and was here, in the final concert, considerably expanded to full symphonic size; but whether it be the fault of conductors, orchestras, or concert promoters, the record has been lamentable. Three cheers then to the Southbank Centre and to the performers involved.


First among equals here must be accounted the Arditti Quartet, whose performances of the first and third quartets – again featured, along with the second, in …wo ich noch nie war – must surely be accounted close to definitive. Lachenmann’s music requires excellent performance, it seems; indeed, he makes just that point in the film, not in an arrogant way, but almost by way of assimilation to the tradition of Mozart. Beethoven too looms large in so many of Lachenmann’s works – not in the sense of sounding ‘like’ him, though the example of the Grosse Fuge is far from irrelevant in that respect, but as a forerunner in terms of effort and moral countenance. One thing that emerged throughout the weekend, without ever being directly mentioned, was the crucial importance of Lachenmann’s German Protestant background. His father was a Lutheran pastor – not the only comparison one might make with Nietzsche – and Helmut is nothing if not a preacher. Indeed, it was intriguing to hear him speak of his teacher, Nono, visiting him in Germany, and, firebrand communist though he was, evincing respect for Lachenmann’s church, even attending divine service, intrigued by the prospect of silent prayer.

Silence is crucial to both composers – and to many others, of course. One of the most moving moments came with profound silence in the third quartet. Grido might be the Italian for ‘scream’, but that is not the only, nor even the most important, quality we hear. Extremes of quiet characterised the first too, audibly in Nono’s tradition. Here, it seemed to me, perhaps more than in the two large-scale orchestral pieces, however well performed by Rolf Hind and the Sinfonietta under Brad Lubman, spoke the true voice of the composer, with a purity that could hardly fail to put one in mind of Webern. It was, however, intriguing to hear both Schreiben and Ausklang in the light of Lachenmann’s avowed respect for Strauss, and his Alpine Symphony in particular (many thanks once again to the film). Not only did Strauss emerge as a precursor of Lachenmann’s musique concrète instrumentale – and he really is: just listen, not only to the wind machine! But Lachenmann’s use of the orchestra emerged as a virtuosic, though never merely virtuosic, playing upon an instrument, creating tone poems in a sense. I struggled somewhat with the form in these large-scale works: Ausklang is on a Brahmsian scale as a concerto. But they will doubtless repay further listening; one should not always expect to grasp a work immediately. There was certainly a sense of something very much worth attempting to grasp.

This issue of playing, indeed creating, an instrument comes to the very heart of Lachenmann. What emerged especially powerfully during the sequence from Ein Kinderspiel to Got Lost was his need to make each instrument his own, so that it was not, as it were, Beethoven’s, Brahms’s, or Schoenberg’s piano, but Lachenmann’s. ‘Extended techniques’ rather misleads, getting things the wrong way round. He seems to be doing something quite different from, say, Berio. For new techniques are created; Lachenmann plays the instrument with his music, rather than the other way round. And then, just as consonance – take the third quartet in particular – can reappear, ravishingly so, without the baggage of tonality as such, so can apparently ‘conventional’ writing, which is in fact anything but. Oliver Coates’s account of the solo cello work – Lachenmann tellingly describes it as ‘for cellist’ rather than for the instrument – was superlative in its technical and, yes, expressive, constructivism. Lachenmann spoke in one of the discussions of Bach: he was not trying to make one cry in ‘Erbarme dich,’ whose violin melody Lachenmann sang, but that was the result nevertheless. (Clearly, tonalities are of great importance to him, for he referred to Bach’s B minor rather than to the St Matthew Passion as such; likewise keys in Beethoven, Strauss, Mahler, and otherwise were explored in his verbal responses.) Lachenmann may not, then, have been trying to express, but that does not mean that he did not.

After the piece ‘for cellist’ the Toccatina for violin sounded almost like light music, but in a different context, with different ears, one might well have thought differently. Lachenmann’s rethinking and reconstruction of the voice came to the foreground in the excellent account from Sarah Leonard and Rolf Hind of Got Lost, its title taken from an English-language announcement in a Grunewald lift of lost laundry. Perhaps significantly, or perhaps not, Nietzsche’s Gay Science provides another of the texts. At any rate, this is use of words very much in a certain tradition of Nono – think of Il canto sospeso – albeit in a sterner, more Teutonic fashion. The preacher demands to be heard.

Nevertheless, it was the child’s play of the piano piece that perhaps made the most enduring impression of all. Doubtless the effect of Ein Kinderspiel was enhanced by having the composer himself as performer. But the distillation of Lachenmann principles – again creating the instrument, and, as it were, playing it on his music, rather than the other way round – in music that a child could and certainly should play, was not only instructive in itself. Lachenmann was also revealed as a true poet of the piano; more than once, Debussy sprang to mind as a possible inspiration. I for one was moved to wish to acquire the score to play for myself: a perfect counterpart to Children’s Corner or pieces from Mikrokosmos. Was that charm one discerned? Who would have thought it?