Having
lived in Chicago for about ten years of my life, I try to keep up with
the various things that are going on there, so when I saw an article in
the New Yorker by Alex Ross about the Chicago Symphony’s opening night
at Carnegie Hall, I immediately read it, curious to see what sort of
review the concert had gotten. It has only been three years since
Riccardo Muti has been directing the CSO, and some of that time has been
a little shaky. The first year wasn’t as great a success as expected
because of Muti’s health problems, which prevented him from directing a
number of concerts. And, as we know, the last few weeks have been
tumultuous due to a short-lived strike in the orchestra. There were
questions about whether the CSO would be able to pull off Carnegie
Hall’s opening night in New York, but thankfully, I am proud to say that
according to several reviews, the orchestra gave a beautiful
performance, a good sign for the collaborative future of the CSO and
Maestro Muti.
More than just a great performance, Muti’s repertoire choices bring up
some interesting ideas. Instead of playing the current popular choices
such as Beethoven or Mozart, Muti decided to perform Carl Orff’s
“Carmina Burana,” Ottorino Respighi’s “Feste Romane,” Cesar Franck’s
Symphony in D minor, and Mason Bates’ (one of the CSO’s composers in
residence) “Energy Symphony.” Accordingly, Alex Ross titled his article
about the concert “Back in Style.” According to Ross, it seems that
different historical periods value, or at the very least, put more
emphasis, on certain composers. The resulting effect is that the same
composers and the same works are performed repeatedly by different
orchestras all around the world. Unsurprisingly, this can make
classical music feel dated. As musicians trying to find our footing in a
world that has already been labeled as passé, it is probably not in our
best interest to limit ourselves to the most “well-known” and
readily-accepted group of composers. In an informal talk with the
Maestro, Ross reports that Muti chose these works in part out of
nostalgia: “This fantastic symphony by Franck... was played everywhere
when I was young... Then, suddenly, it vanished. Why is this?” Indeed,
that is an interesting question. Of course, there will always be
prevailing trends, and many composers have only truly been discovered
post mortem, only to be brought back to life with a surge of excitement
and sense of discovery. Bach, for instance, was venerated as an
organist during his lifetime, but it was only after his death that
people began to see the genius of his writing. Perhaps Muti’s choices
will have a similar effect on Cesar Franck for instance, whose works,
aside from the violin sonata, one rarely hears of. Muti’s program made
me realize that one of the ways in which to keep classical music fresh
and pertinent is to showcase its range. Programmation is just as
important as the level of performance, the decision (or not) to play in
more approachable venues, the consideration of audience participation,
and countless other details which we have talked about over the course
of the semester. Furthermore, Muti did not only revive old “standards,”
he also promoted the performance of contemporary works. The Chicago
Symphony has two composers in residence, Anna Clyne and Mason Bates,
both hand picked by Maestro Muti, who has shown that he is not afraid to
showcase these two young talents by bringing their works on tour and
performing them alongside the classics.
Perhaps strangely, I have never really thought of the issue of
programming as having a direct impact on our audiences. However, the
more I think about it, the more I believe that it is an aspect which we
can control as musicians and performers, and one that may have a much
bigger impact than we think. I know that one of the “tricks” often used
by concert organizers is to insert a new work into a program otherwise
filled with Beethoven or Mahler, so that concert goers end up
experiencing something like swallowing a pill by coating it in ice
cream. Yet, Muti’s “magnificent performance,” (quote from John Von
Rhein of the Chicago Tribune) was programmed in such a way that
everything felt new. In our society of pluralism where anything goes,
why are we limiting ourselves to Bach, Beethoven and Brahms? Don’t get
me wrong, I don’t want these guys to disappear, but I think it would be
interesting to see them share the stage more frequently with a diverse
assortment of their contemporaries, predecessors and descendants.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment