|
George K
|
Dec 12 2010, 05:33 AM
Post #1
|
- Posts:
- 88,976
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #249
- Joined:
- August 4, 2005
|
Came across this review of Pletnev conducting the Beethoven Symphonies:
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=11195
- Quote:
-
From the opening sentence of the booklet notes, we know we're in trouble: "The present set of Beethoven symphonies is bound to shake up the established image of the composer. No Beethoven recording in recent years holds so many surprises in store. Seldom has the composer been subjected to such a fundamental re-examination as he is here." Now honestly, in this day and age, does anyone need to be fed this kind of crap? Is anyone stupid enough to believe it? Never mind. Musically speaking there's good news and bad news. The good news is that Pletnev has finally learned to conduct more or less as he plays the piano. The bad news is that Pletnev has finally learned to conduct more or less as he plays the piano.
Unfortunately for him, the infliction of his peculiar brand of perverse virtuosity on Beethoven is neither new, revisionist, or in any way extraordinary. We've heard it before, from the likes of Mengelberg and Stokowski, all done with more gusto, intelligence, and persuasiveness. Part of the problem stems from the orchestra, a polished but timbrally faceless ensemble whose dull winds and weak horns (the Seventh with no horns?) give the music the most glacially smooth surface since Karajan, albeit without the German conductor's comparatively idiomatic sense of style and often stunning execution. Clearly Pletnev wants this sound: the recessed woodwind and restrained timpani and trumpets, save at the big climaxes, begin with the First Symphony's introduction and continue through the cycle. One notable exception is the frat party of vulgarity from the trumpets and trombones in the second half of the Fifth Symphony's finale (with no repeats).
And speaking of introductions, Pletnev's great claim to originality might be summed up as creating them where none exist (Symphonies Nos. 3, 5, 6, and 9). For example, the first phrase of the Pastoral Symphony gets played Adagio, the rest of the movement presto (more or less), with a big pause before the exposition repeat and a colossal insensitivity to phrasing and tonal shading. Thus we learn the difference between originality of effect, of doing something no one has done before, and originality of insight, the discovery of something musically expressive not previously encountered. Pletnev has plenty of the former, absolutely nothing of the latter. In fact, the emotional temperature of these performances is uniformly cool, the handling of rhythm (try the outer movements of the Seventh or any of the scherzos) unflaggingly mechanical and wooden.
As a further example, consider the first movement of the Ninth. The initial build-up to the unison theme moves at a Brucknerian crawl. At the counterstatment that immediately follows, Pletnev takes off like a bat out of hell. This raises the interesting question of what he will do at the recapitulation. The answer: nothing. It's simply lame, a damp squib neither in tempo nor daringly held back. The main body of the scherzo is played too quickly for the dotted rhythm of the main motif to be at all perceptible (listen to the timpani solos--dreadful), and there is no contrast whatsoever with the trio. The Adagio is taken at period-instrument tempos (less than 12 minutes) which, given Pletnev's general lack of expressivity, turns out to be a good thing. The finale indulges in the usual reorchestration regarding the trumpets (as does the coda of the Eroica's first movement), with the cello and bass recitatives very slow, mannered, and heavy. The Moscow State Chamber Choir sounds ghastly, understaffed and with an atrocious wobble to the women's voices, but the soloists are adequate.
Pletnev shows no understanding here or anywhere else of Beethoven's musical sense of humor, or of his feeling for drama. He's so busy with his own manner of "surprises" that he overlooks or ruins most of the ones that Beethoven wrote into the music. Take the coda of the Eroica's finale (again with weak horns). Isn't it more shocking to have it interrupt the gently pulsating woodwind chords, as Beethoven intended, instead of stopping dead, waiting a few seconds, and then moving on with what sounds like a completely detached episode? I could go on, but suffice it to say that most of Pletnev's "surprises" and "insights" consist of pauses stretched out to ridiculous lengths, exaggerated ritards, or sudden changes of tempo. After hearing one or two symphonies you start being able to predict what's coming, and boredom quickly ensues.
I'm not sorry to have heard these performances if only because they are indeed different, even if in ways that are gratuitously tacky and embarrassing. After all, we enjoy seeing those mustaches painted on our Mona Lisas, don't we? But when all is said and done, Pletnev has missed a golden opportunity to turn his back on the general enthusiasm for performances based on modern notions of scholarly "authenticity" and believably reassert the prerogatives of the performer. There is no single "right" way, of course, but unfortunately this doesn't mean that there aren't many wrong ones. The problem with his approach, obviously, and the whole reason it fell out of favor (beginning with Beethoven's written-out cadenza for his Emperor Concerto), is that it depends entirely on the taste and intelligence of the soloist, or in this case the guy with the stick. The performances accordingly will either be uniquely brilliant or uniquely bad. It's obvious after two minutes of listening into which category Pletnev falls. [9/17/2007]
|
|
Mikhailoh
|
Dec 12 2010, 05:38 AM
Post #2
|