Happy Birthday, Helmut! On Lachenmann's Eightieth Birthday

The composer in conversation with Michael Gielen, followed by Gielen's performance of Fassade with the SWR Symphony Orchestra Baden-Baden and Freiburg, of late, intensely lamented memory:

Prom 55: SWR SO Baden-Baden and Freiburg/Roth - Boulez, Ligeti, and Bartók, 26 August 2015

Royal Albert Hall

Boulez – …explosante-fixe…

Ligeti – Lontano
Bartók – Concerto for Orchestra

Sophie Cherrier (flute)

SWR Experimental Studio (live electronics)

SWR Symphony Orchestra Baden-Baden and Freiburg

François-Xavier Roth (conductor) 

 

First, …explosante-fixe…, one of the Boulez works I had yet to hear this anniversary year, although I have heard its Originel seed more than once, and shall do again this weekend at a Proms Matinée. Sophie Cherrier, whom I had most recently heard in stunning Salzburg Festival performances of Répons, joined SWR forces, including flautists Dagmar Becker and Anne Romeis, under François-Xavier Roth. Cherrier proved as commanding and as malleable a soloist as one would have expected, her flautist supporters just as impressive. It is an exquisite work(-in-progress) and received an exquisite performance from all concerned, certainly not forgetting the SWR Experimental Studio. If I felt slightly dissatisfied, it was that my seat – too far to one side? – did not really permit the electronics to resound, to incite as they might have done. Rather to my surprise, the Royal Albert Hall seemed to work less well than the Queen Elizabeth Hall had in 2011 for a mesmerising performance from John Cox, the London Sinfonietta, and Péter Eötvös. Still, the ‘exquisite labyrinth’, to borrow from the title given to that South Bank series, of Boulez’s music retained its fascination, its post-Debussyan seduction, and the intangible yet surely present ‘modern classicism’ Arnold Whittall has identified as a key component of Boulez’s later style. Form created itself just as sonorities seemed to do so; if only the setting had been a little more ideal.

 

Ligeti’s Lontano was given its first performance by this orchestra at Donaueschingen in 1967. A beautifully judged performance from an orchestra of at least Mahlerian forces was notable for its subtle transformations; more than once, the word Klangfarbenmelodie came to mind, without Ligeti’s procedures being reducible to the practice of either Schoenberg or Webern. Indeed, as something equating to a tone poem, the work – and performance – offered sepulchral brass with more than a hint of Wagner and Strauss. Harmonics suggested electronic means that were not present, even perhaps an organ (such as might also have been suggested in …explosante-fixe…). Swarming violins reminded us of the Ligeti of the previous decade, whilst also making clear the development in his style. That (almost) imperceptible polyphony to which Ligeti himself drew attention did its wondrous work: ‘its harmonic effect represents the intrinsic musical action: what is on the page is polyphony, but what is heard is harmony.’ Hell, however, is too good for the person who took a telephone call as the piece drew to its close, music shading into silence.

 

Roth’s way – and the orchestra’s – with Bartók’s Concerto for Orchestra gave one of the most intriguing performances I have heard of the work, perhaps the most intriguing, at least since I last heard Boulez conduct it. The opening of the first movement stated its affinity with Bluebeard’s Castle as strongly and yet, quite properly, as ambiguously as I can recall. Both the bass line and those shivering, trembling lines above made that connection and also reminded us of Lontano. Throughout, this was a performance one might file under ‘modernist’, but that description raises more questions than it asks. It was more mysterious than Boulez, more internationalist than the stereotypical ‘Hungarian’ performances one often hears. Above all, it told its own story with its own means. Subtle inflections, be they of instrumental colour, texture, or rhythm, were to the fore. One was drawn in rather than the victim of a Solti scream. Even at the louder end of the dynamic spectrum, employed relatively sparingly, gradations were subtle, meaningful. Bartók’s startling formal ingenuity spoke for itself; or such was the illusion, as art concealed art.

 

The second movement delighted in its ‘pair play’, woodwind duetting – and other ensemble work – colourful and ever ambiguous. This was detailed, without a hint of pedantry: delightful indeed! The grave opening of the ‘Elegia’ was ‘elegiac’ indeed. Woodwind reminded us of the opening of the work and thus again of Bluebeard’s Castle, but the path taken was to be very different. This was a world of defiant passion. And how those massed strings dug in! For the anguish was undeniably musical, not something cheaply applied. One was beguiled – and unsettled. The fourth movement began very much as a counterpart to the scherzando second movement, yet just as important, announced and celebrated its own character and concerns. A brief Mahlerian moment underscored Bartók’s seriousness, providing retrospective bite to his unanswerable despatch of the banalities of Lehár and Shostakovich alike. Excitement was certainly a crucial quality to the performance of the finale, but again this was an eminently musical excitement: one was compelled to listen, to delight in an invention that is almost Haydnesque, and to admire a not entirely dissimilar humanism. The players sounded well-nigh phantasmagorical in their transformation of material and process; Roth ensured there was no breaking of musical line.

 

How sad, then, that this, the orchestra’s first performance at the Proms, a veritable triumph, will also be its last. Following reprieves in which we had foolishly placed our trust, the unforgivable forced merger with its Stuttgart sister-orchestra is to go ahead after all. Roth spoke at just the right time, many in the audience clearly unaware, but it was a forlorn announcement. Schubert, in Rosamunde guise, sounded all the more poignant as an encore.




 

Salzburg Festival (3) - SWR SO Baden-Baden and Freiburg/Gielen: Mahler, 21 August 2013

Grosses Festspielhaus, Salzburg

Symphony no.6 in A minor

SWR Symphony Orchestra Baden-Baden and Freiburg

Michael Gielen (conductor) 

 

 

This was one of the most extraordinary Mahler performances I have heard. Whether it were the best Sixth I have heard I really cannot say; league tables are in any case not so much of dubious value as of none. (Would that our political masters might understand that.) That said, the only rivalling memory I have is of Pierre Boulez conducting the Staatskapelle Berlin in this symphony in 2007. ‘Modernist’ Mahler in both cases, one might say, and there lies a grain of truth in that description; however, the interpretations lay poles apart, leading one to doubt the utility of an all-too-easy designation. In any case, how could a Mahler performance that was not simply perverse not be modernist in character? It would be almost akin to saying that it was not Mahlerian.

 

Boulez’s harrowing performance, however, stood closer to what one might have expected than Michael Gielen’s, equally harrowing. Gielen has never been one to follow received wisdom; his Beethoven offers one of the very few genuinely refreshing standpoints upon the greatest symphonic cycle of all, not ‘new’ for the sake of it, but because he has harnessed his formidable musical intelligence to the music. What might one have expected of his Mahler Sixth? Acute understanding of musical form? Awareness of the music’s proximity to that of the Second Viennese School? A keen ear for instrumental balance? So far, so ‘modernist’; yes, we certainly heard all of that. However, I had expected a brisk, no-nonsense approach, and instead heard what I think – though I never consult my watch in such matters – must have been the slowest performance of the work I have heard. I am guessing, but, judging by the time I left the concert hall, think it must have lasted more than an hour and a half.

 

The first movement, then, began as the symphony meant to go on, though in less extreme fashion, sounding on the slow side, though not provocatively so. The tempo adopted tended to be strict, until it was not, though even then it more often than not sounded as if it were. What do I mean by such (apparent) gibberish? Somehow, and this was a characteristic of the performance as a whole, Gielen pulled off the very unusual ‘trick’ – though that is certainly the wrong word – of managing modifications of tempo so as to sound as if, whether accelerando or ritardando, they were ‘in time’, or rather that being in time at that point entailed increase or decrease of speed. There was little that sounded like, or indeed was rubato; in that, Gielen certainly differed from Boulez, or any other conductor of whom I can think. Indeed, the conductor who came to mind more often than any other was Otto Klemperer, in the sense of what I imagine a Klemperer performance of this symphony might have been like. The granitic integrity was there, likewise the resolute lack of sentimentality; so too were an apparently ‘objective’ approach that yet moved one to tears. (In that respect, I was helpless for roughly the second half of the final movement: tears of horror as Mahler’s nihilistic vision reached a culmination that verges upon the unbearable.) It would be an odd performance indeed that had nothing of the march to the first movement, but I do not think I have heard one in which strict, implacable, militaristic foreboding, based upon an unrelenting march rhythm, was so utterly inescapable. That was not simply a matter of rhythm, but also of prominence of certain parts at certain times, not least the snare drum and some truly awe-inspiring xylophone playing (here and elsewhere).

 

Gielen came closer than anyone else to persuading me of the Andante-Scherzo ordering of the middle movements. I am not going to argue my case here; it has always been that I am willing to be persuaded, but have yet to hear a performance that did so. (Claims on the other side tend to be of a fundamentalist, false positivistic nature.) At any rate, the Andante sang, at a pace, which, considered ‘objectively’, would probably have been considered an Adagio, but never seemed too slow. Maintenance of line was a key aspect of that achievement, yet so was what one might call the Klemperian character of the performance. Not that colour was neglected; the sadness of one particular horn call peered forward to the next symphony’s Nachtmusik. Perhaps what shattered most, however, and this applies to following movements too, were the moments of disintegration, the moments when an idealised version of Adorno’s ‘modernist’ Mahler seemed to become flesh. There was a hollowness that was anything but hollow; there was a nihilism that was yet imbued with belief. Still more so did one hear such ghosts and contradictions in the Scherzo. Gielen’s speed was perhaps, again ‘objectively’, what one might have expected from imaginary Klemperer on a slow day. Yet, as with Klemperer, or at least often with Klemperer, it worked, indeed bludgeoned, its way into one’s Mahlerian consciousness as, if not the only option, then the strongest at the time. I could not quite rid myself of my ear’s warning – or is it simply my mind’s prejudice – that I ‘ought’ to have heard this movement before, nor that it would have made still more sense in its alternative placing; however, as I said, I have never come closer.

 

The terrible finale was certainly not fast, but it was perhaps less far removed from the ‘norm’ in terms of tempo. There was not so vast, so phantasmagorical, an array of colours as I have heard with Boulez, whether in Berlin, or on his staggering Vienna recording. Structural understanding, and, just as important, communication of that understanding, was every bit as impressive, however, and the granitic quality, the sense, common to the entire performance, of struggling against the fatal side proved more than compensation. (Many masterworks, and I am sure that this is one such example, are greater than any one interpretation, however superlative, can encompass.) Cumulative power, of a musco-dramatic quality one can hardly not call Wagnerian, grew until it could not grow further, and yet somehow continued to do so. Indeed, I found myself slightly regretting the omission that is arguably not an omission of the third hammer-blow. This seemed to be a reckoning with Fate on a level with that of the Ring’s ultimate peripeteia, Wotan’s dismissal of Erda. But Gielen – and Mahler – looked forward too. The moments of breakdown, abysses musical and metaphysical, have surely never sounded so close to functional atonality, to Schoenberg himself. The end when it came felt absolutely necessary; all had been said. However, when, following awestruck silence, punctured by a barbarian cry of ‘Bravo!’, and the onset of audience applause, I moved to join in, I found that initially I could barely do so; my hands were shaking.

 

It was, then, as I said at the beginning, an extraordinary performance. I have omitted one extraordinary element, though, both extraneous and anything but. Upon arriving at the concert, we were met by banners, leaflets, pleas for help from members of the orchestra and other supporters. The SWR SO Baden-Baden and Freiburg is, as many readers will know, suffering, along with its sister orchestra in Stuttgart, one of the most disgraceful, philistine attacks upon an orchestra in the so-called civilised world. Despite a worldwide campaign (click here for details on the present situation and how to help) to prevent the reckless merger of two very different orchestras in the name of ‘austerity’, the beancounters have so far proved victorious. Alexander Pereira, Director of the Salzburg Festival, came on stage before the performance to express solidarity with the orchestra and its well-nigh unrivalled record in performance of new music. The defiance of Gielen’s performance was surely in some sense, consciously or otherwise, founded in the desperation of the orchestra’s situation and the defiance of its response. Still more extraordinary, then.

 

                        

Sad news from the Südwestrundfunk

Despite a valiant campaign, supported by musicians across Germany, Europe, and the world, the Südwestrundfunk (SWR) has in its manifold wisdom decided to press ahead with its plans of musical vandalism. The orchestras of Stuttgart and Freiburg and Baden-Baden are to be merged. (See also here.)

Here is the (German) text of a message received from the Friends of the Stuttgart RSO; it makes for grim reading:

  

 

Stuttgarter Förderverein verurteilt SWR-Entscheidung

Mit Bedauern und Unverständnis reagieren die Freunde & Förderer des Radio-Sinfonieorchesters Stuttgart auf die Entscheidung der Geschäftsleitung und Gremien des SWR, das Radio-Sinfonieorchester Stuttgart und das Sinfonieorchester Baden-Baden/Freiburg des SWR zu fusionieren.

Eine Fusion, so der Förderverein, müsse als eine nicht wieder gut zu machende Fehlentscheidung gesehen werden, die landes- und kommunalpolitische Aspekte, kultur- und medienpolitische Argumente, künstlerische und musikpädagogische Gesichtspunkte sowie betriebswirtschaftliche Überlegungen außer Acht lasse. Nicht zu entschuldigen sei ferner der Image-Schaden, den der SWR dauerhaft zu tragen habe und den er dem öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunk insgesamt zufüge.

Nicht hinnehmbar sei insbesondere, dass gemeinsame Anliegen der Stadtparlamente in Stuttgart, Freiburg und Mannheim sowie von Landtags- und Bundestagsabgeordneten, Oberbürgermeistern und weiteren Vertretern aus Politik und Gesellschaft, die Planungen zu überdenken oder zu vertagen, ohne weitere Diskussion vom Tisch gewischt wurden. Niemals zuvor, so die Feststellung, sind demokratisch legitimierte Institutionen und Parlamente von einer gebührenfinanzierten Institution in dieser Weise diskreditiert worden. Und niemals zuvor sei eine kulturpolitische Entscheidung in Presse und Politik bereits im Vorfeld so einhellig verurteilt worden, wie das Vorhaben des SWR, dem in der Öffentlichkeit bis dato niemand auch nur im Ansatz Positives abgewinnen konnte.

Die Freunde & Förderer des Radio-Sinfonieorchesters Stuttgart bedauern, dass der SWR-Rundfunkrat mit dieser Entscheidung einen unrühmlichen Schlusspunkt an das Ende seiner Amtszeit setze. Dies nicht zuletzt auch deshalb, weil belastbare Prognosen über ein
künftiges SWR-Gebühreneinkommen nach Informationen der Kommission zur Ermittlung des Finanzbedarfs des öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunks derzeit nicht möglich sind. Die SWR-Annahmen, die zu der heutigen Entscheidung geführt haben, wurden nie öffentlich begründet bzw. überprüfbar gemacht. Darüber hinaus wurden Vorschläge der Fördervereine in Stuttgart und Freiburg zur Kostenreduzierung beider Orchester gänzlich ignoriert.

Die Orchesterfreunde aus Stuttgart fordern:

1. Eine breite Diskussion über den Kulturauftrag des öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunks, der eben nicht nur eine Frage von Rundfunkstaatsverträgen, sondern ein eminent gesellschaftspolitisches Thema ist.

2. Die nur wenige Wochen vor Ende der Amtszeit des Rundfunkrates gefällte Entscheidung muss im Licht (a) einer neuen SWR-Gremien-Zusammensetzung in 2013, (b) der aktuellen parlamentarischen Überlegungen in Land und Kommunen und (c) des eindeutigen gesellschaftlichen Votums für einen Fusionsverzicht überprüft werden.

3. Alle SWR-Handlungskriterien in der Orchesterfrage müssen transparent, überprüfbar und einer breiten Diskussion zugänglich gemacht werden.

4. Die Freundeskreis-Vorschläge zum Thema einer Kostenreduzierung sind aufzugreifen und vorurteilsfrei zu prüfen.

5. Die Auswirkungen der Fusion auf unseren Kulturstandort sind offen zu legen und öffentlich zur Diskussion zu stellen.

6. Statt sachwidrigem und beliebigem Handeln: Die gemeinsame Entwicklung konsensfähiger Alternativen.

Exkurs zum Thema „Verhaltensflexibilität":

„... Ein entscheidender Punkt aus Sicht des SWR ist jedoch der, dass durch eine solche Fusion keinesfalls die musikalischen Profile, Stärken und Traditionen von SO und RSO sich gegenseitig verstärkend zusammengeführt werden können. Vielmehr würde ein völlig neu ausgerichteter Klangkörper entstehen, der sich ein eigenständiges Profil erst noch erarbeiten müsste. Faktisch würde ein solcher Schritt die Schließung zweier etablierter und erfolgreicher Klangkörper und die Neugründung eines sinfonischen Klangkörpers erfordern. Das neu zu gründende Orchester müsste sich in jahrelanger Aufbauarbeit erst wieder ein eigenständiges, unverwechselbares Profil aufbauen und es wäre keineswegs von Anfang an sichergestellt, dass dies auch gelänge. … Insgesamt wäre deshalb aus Sicht des SWR der programmliche und kulturelle Verlust zu groß ..."

Quelle: Informationsvorlage an den Rundfunkrat „Zukunft der SWR-Klangkörper" II, Ziffer 2.1.2 Fusion des SO mit dem RSO, März 2005

Save the SWR Orchestras!

Alarming news that the Südwestrundfunk (Southwest German Broadcasting Corporation) is threatening the very existence of its two orchestras: Stuttgart and that of Baden-Baden and Freiburg. As if the former had not suffered enough under the vibrato-free tutelage of Roger Norrington... Anyone with the slightest interest or care for twentieth- , let alone twenty-first-century music will know how much the latter orchestra in particular has contributed towards the cause. A petition has been drawn up; please click here to sign.

Below are just a few examples of why this matters: