Last night's program featured three works: Debussy's Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun, Esa-Pekka Salonen's new Violin Concerto, performed by Leila Josefowicz, and Sibelius's Symphony No.2.
I'll start with Salonen's work, since it is the inspiration for my title, and most musicological thoughts today. Henry Cowell, among others, strove toward the creation of an international, or global, music - one that would not be defined by nationalist labels. Often, I think, these nationalist labels are the result of the melodic content, with a supporting role played by the harmonies. Other techniques play a role too, of course, and have for centuries (Mannheim Rockets for example). However, what happens today in contemporary art music? So often, and Salonen's violin concerto is an example, we get music that is infused with feelings and moods, but lacks any tunefulness. Tonality is stripped away in favour of atmosphere. My question then is this: has globalization of art music created this atuneful atonality, or is it a conscious effort on the part of the composer to be more global in their art?
The rest of what follows are my comments on the performance itself...
As for the concerto itself, I found it interesting... it certainly showcased the virtuosity of Josefowicz, and had enjoyable moments. But, for me (as noted in other entries something of a conservative purist and idealist when it comes to musical taste), these moments weren't enough to hold together a 30+ minute piece. The second movement was, perhaps, my favourite, and was very quick.... over almost before realizing it had begun. The fourth movement was, for me, too long and didn't balance the overall for well enough. So much emphasis in the program notes was put on the "surprising" last chord... really, it felt like a 21st-century Picardy Third - not so shocking, just a happy twist to an ambiguous movement. Now, 8 gongs on the stage at once... that was interesting to me - but also, really why would you need 8 gongs for a symphonic movement, if not only for atmosphere and effect.
As for the rest of the program... I really enjoyed hearing Debussy's Prelude by an orchestra known for its big, brassy "American" sound. It was a great opportunity for the CSO to showcase their sensitive side. The problem then lies in an audience that may be too accustomed to the in-your-face CSO, and thus making a little more noise than I'd like. Really, paper rustling and cough-drop wrappers during the opening flute-solo don't add to the night!
Sibelius certainly knew how to end a symphony, and the audience responded very well to the work. Like Salonen, Sibelius also worked with the mosaic frame - a bunch of small ideas that connect together into a larger work. In the second movement, the blending of the basses and cellos as their parts weaved in and out of each other was fantastic. I felt that this movement really highlighted the definition of the orchestra as one instrument. It was nice to hear the trio of the scherzo movement as a feature for the woodwinds - as they often were, but aren't so often anymore.
Salonen's conducting was entertaining as an audience member. During the Debussy, I could imagine him dancing the ballet version of the work, although he seemed a little too smooth and fluid to really take Nijinsky's role (not that he should). Unlike Leonard Slatkin (from the last program I attended), it really felt like Salonen was leading the orchestra - not only in his own composition - but throughout. Sometimes, less dynamic conductors give the feeling that the orchestra is on auto-pilot, but not Salonen and not tonight. Occasionally, we went a little over the top for my liking -- too much movement from the conductor can distract from the performance (as can the baton hitting his stand), but overall, very enjoyable, with a great program.
