Classical music review: Violinist Midori wows listeners, and the Madison Symphony Orchestra turns in outstanding performances of an inspired program of Haydn, Ravel and Shostakovich.

By Jacob Stockinger

There are many violin concertos guaranteed to bring the soloist a standing ovation. But the Shostakovich Violin Concerto No 1 isn’t one of them.

Yet that is exactly what happened at the Sunday afternoon concert by the Madison Symphony Orchestra with the soloist Midori, below. (She has a last name, by the way, and it is Goto). No sooner had she finished this long, tuneless and cheerless work than the audience jumped to its feet with loud applause, cheers and bravos.

That speaks well of Midori, the MSO and the audience. But what explains such enthusiasm for passionate bleakness?

First of all, Midori (below) completely deserved her overwhelming reception. This one-time prodigy, who is now a mature musician and teacher is her mid-40s, turned in an exceptional and exceptionally exciting performance of this brooding work so rich in Stalinesque darkness and atmosphere.

For almost 40 minutes, Midori remained totally focused and thoroughly engaged, putting her supreme technical virtuosity totally at the service of the music. She disappeared into the music and took listeners with her.

Once inside of the music, you find this work so self-contained that it feels scarily claustrophobic – much as the composer’s life must have felt during The Terror when it was composed and then hidden. (Shostakovich, below, always kept a suitcase packed with underwear and a toothbrush should, below, the KGB come knocking in the middle of the night and send him to the Gulag.)

Moreover, the orchestra, under the baton of music director John DeMain (below, in a photo by James Gill) was right there with her all the way, matching her solo part with balanced accompaniment and split-second timing at the dramatic codas and ensemble moments in the concertos four sections. That is no small feat in this thorny, spiky score. There is good reason why this was the first performance ever of this 1948 work by the MSO. But the orchestra proved more than up to the challenge. They deserve congratulations for passing such a milestone.

The programming of this concert has come in for some criticism. One critic complained about such a large and modern group, rather than chamber orchestras or early music ensembles, playing such Classical repertoire as Haydn’s Symphony No. 104 “London”; another carped about the program lacking commonality or connections.

Baloney, I say, on both counts.

It is true that the somewhat traditional, even old-fashioned, program proceeded more or less chronologically, from the 18th century through the 19th and early 20th century to the mid-20th century. But it thoroughly captivated the audience – which is, after all, the point of giving a public performance.

The symphony by Haydn (below) proved an ideal and even inspired opener that entranced the audience and kept it attentive right from the start. (You could tell by the very low Cough Quotient.) The reduced ensemble played crisply and clearly, with great stylistic transparency, and exuded both lyrical grace and sharp dynamic contrast. Haydn knew how to use dissonance within consonance, and so does DeMain.

It was an inspired performance that makes one hope we get to hear many more of the remaining 103 symphonies by Papa Haydn, to say nothing of other Classical-era works by Mozart and Schubert, from DeMain and the MSO (below). The MSO has no need to defer in this repertoire to a chamber orchestra or an early music group, although the legacy of the period performance movement was clearly audible in the MSO’s transparent texture and upbeat tempi.

As for the structure of the program, there are plenty of things to link the three works — though highlighting contrasts too is a wonderful organizing strategy for building a program. But you don’t really need links, contrasts or other reasons. Put at its simplest, audiences go to a live concert hoping to hear great music performed greatly, and any program that does that counts as a major success. And this one delivered in spades.

Still, one could also look at the use of dance as structure, from the peasant-inspired landler and minuets of Haydn to the aristocratic waltzes of Ravel to the satirical polkas and burlesques of Shostakovich, Moreover, Haydn and Shostakovich go well together structurally. Both men relied on development, on building a large work up from small units; both men were master orchestrators who often turned to counterpoint; and neither man was a great melodist on the order of Bach or Mozart, Schubert or Chopin.

Haydn is indeed a kind of proto-Beethoven, and with good reason. He was, after all, Beethoven’s counterpoint teacher and there is much more Haydn in Beethoven – sharp accents, big dynamic contrasts, a fusion of roughness and refinement, a rational logical – than there is Mozart.

In any case, after the Haydn symphony Ravel’s “La Valse” rounded out the first half of the concert.

Here, as in his “Valses nobles and sentimentales” for solo piano, Ravel (below) places the waltz in a social and political context. This homage to the 19^th century waltz of Imperial Vienna – the famously lilting Strauss waltzes we all love to hear on New Year’s Day – gradually descends into a loud and brassy chaos that embodies the social disintegration and bellicosity of the World War I era, when the Hapsburg Empire and La Belle Epoque came to their unhappy ends.

Ravel takes the listener from elegance to decadence. And once again the MSO performed spectacularly well, especially the brass. The playing was by turns tight and subtle, rudely loud and seductively charming. The performance proved thoroughly convincing and captivating.

So no matter what other critics may say – see links to other reviews below — The Ear says this was an inspired program that received inspired performances. Who can argue with the results?

But some do.

Well, critics will – and should – disagree, especially if they hear different performances that will inevitably vary.

Here is John W. Barker’s review for Isthmus:

http://www.thedailypage.com/daily/article.php?article=35192

Here is Lindsay Christians’ review for 77 Square (The Capital Times and The Wisconsin State Journal):

http://host.madison.com/entertainment/arts_and_theatre/reviews/madison-symphony-review-no-encore-necessary-for-midori/article_64170c1e-2e41-5af7-b10d-418b4fc03b38.html

Here is Greg Hettmansberger’s review for Madison Magazine’s blog “Classically Speaking”:

http://www.madisonmagazine.com/Blogs/Classically-Speaking/November-2011/Madison-Symphony-111-/

And here is Bill Wineke’s review for WISC-TV’s Channel 3000

http://www.channel3000.com/entertainment/29754544/detail.html

Were you there?

What do you think?

The Ear wants to hear.

---

Posted in Classical music