REVIEW: Bach, Mozart, and Mendelssohn

Bach, Mozart, and Mendelssohn

With icy breaths and a stamping of feet in the bone-chilling cold of last weekend, Knoxville Symphony concertgoers hurried inside the Tennessee Theatre lured with promises of a work that has been described by music writers over the years as “sunny and warm”, “cheerful,” and “energetic.” Thankfully, the KSO’s performance of Felix Mendelssohn’s Symphony No. 4 in A Major (“Italian”) was all that, and more.

It is said that an elderly Goethe suggested to Mendelssohn the idea of a tour of Europe—Mendelssohn began his “grand tour” in May of 1830. While visiting various locales in Italy, he began work on his “Italian” Symphony, and finished it for an 1833 premiere in London. It is a bit puzzling that Mendelssohn was openly not satisfied with the symphony, and made revision attempts, withholding the publication of it in his lifetime. Fortunately, audiences have generally not shared those misgivings.

Maestro Lucas Richman, who seems to have quite an affinity for the early Romantic composers, warmed the concertgoers with his energetic interpretation—brisk, but solid and tight, and seemingly perfectly balanced. The first movement, a joyfully ebullient Allegro vivace, opens with the familiar theme in the strings, crisply played by the KSO violins. The second movement, a processional-esque Andante con moto, seems to have been inspired by a religious procession Mendelssohn witnessed in Naples. However, it is only the finale movement that is truly based on an Italian music form: the saltarello. The movement is nothing if not exuberant, and enchanting if for no other reason than its thematic reminders, first introduced by the flute, of Mendelssohn’s Incidental Music to A Midsummer Night's Dream.

The concert opened with Johann Sebastian Bach’s Brandenburg Concerto No. 3 in G Major for Strings and Continuo, BWV 1048. The work is scored in a polyphonic manner for three violins, three violas, three cellos, and continuo of harpsichord and double bass. In this staging, the KSO performed the work conductor-less in the early 18th century style with the violins and violas standing, one instrument to a part: Mark Zelmanovich, Edward Pulgar, and Sean Claire—violins; Kathryn Gawne, Eunsoon Lee-Corliss, and Jennifer Bloch—violas; Andy Bryenton, Ihsan Kartal, and Ildar Khuziakhmetov—cellos; Steve Benne—bass; and Carol Zinavage, harpsichord.

The group played with a spirited energy, and certainly did not shy away from a respectable tempo. However, it was perhaps a matter of staging that was an issue, as can be the case when performing a work such as this in a large hall. The group had been brought out beyond the proscenium onto the stage apron to accommodate the harpsichord and the standing position of the players. This had the effect of removing them from the sound reflecting surfaces of the acoustic shell—in essence, leaving them in the middle of a very large room. Added to this is the fact that Bach wrote for the strings (particularly the violins) in a muddier part of their range. The acoustic result was a bit of hollowness--a sound that lacked emphasis and delineation-- negating the players’ genuine efforts at articulation. Acoustics aside, though, it was a true joy to hear ensemble Baroque in the Tennessee Theatre. This work will be repeated in the Chamber Series Concert of January 25th in the more intimate acoustic environment of the Bijou.

Richman concluded the first half of the program with Mozart’s Concerto for Piano and Orchestra No. 24 in C Minor, K. 491, with guest pianist, Navah Perlman. In the Friday evening performance, Ms. Perlman's vivid red gown stood out boldly against the black and white of the orchestra, somewhat in contrast to her delicate and detailed interpretation. Technical lapses aside, a bit more boldness, strength, and drama were needed for the Mozart, as waning energy tends to take the audience along.

Although I do not know if Richman had intended such a comparison, the beautiful slow second movement, a Larghetto, has, amid its tranquility, moments of contrapuntal richness that recall hints of Bach’s polyphony in the previously played Brandenburg. The perfectly balanced KSO flute, oboe, clarinet, and bassoon wove in and out with the solo piano in a really delightful interplay of melodies and rich textures.

The concluding Allegretto is a theme-and-variations. Mozart’s theme is a remarkably intriguing one, while the variations run the gamut of dramatic contrasts from amusing to serious, with enticing, yet simple, phrases for both for the piano and the winds. The concerto is certainly one of Mozart’s most distinctive, and with its construction that is nothing short of sublime, one of the most satisfying for audiences.

Unfortunate Conflicts

Let's be honest…Knoxville is not so large a city that it can't avoid unfortunate arts scheduling. While an ice hockey game, a club band appearance, and a popular film can easily co-exist on the same night, two events that draw from the same audience pool end up benefiting neither one. While there may be circumstances that make these conflicts unavoidable, one would hope that audiences would not be forced to choose.

For example, January and February already contain some unfortunate situations that may confront concertgoers with having to make uncomfortable choices. First, the brilliant and famous St. Olaf Choir was scheduled for a once-only concert at the University of Tennessee on February 13th--the same evening as the opening performance of Knoxville Opera's production of Rigoletto. The KOC schedule has been known since last spring; wasn't this avoidable? Second, the January recital of the Evelyn Miller Young Pianist series was programmed in direct conflict with the Knoxville Symphony Chamber Orchestra concert "Basically Bach" on Sunday, January 25th. Similarly, the KSO schedules are known a year in advance.

While the audience for classical music events continues to be strong, there is no reason to divide that audience with unfortunate programming decisions.

Take the A(ny) Train

Not too long ago, if you had advocated using, or expanding, the passenger rail network in the United States, your comments would probably have been greeted with a rolling of eyes or an incredulous stare. Or possibly, you might have noticed people edging farther away in case you decided to do something really crazy. However, rising fuel prices, a falling economy, airline absurdities, and airport inconveniences have certainly put an end to that.

As a child, I sadly witnessed the end of locally available passenger service. But despite being a frequent air traveler as an adult, I, like many others, have held onto that fascination with travel by rail. And if you have ever traveled and experienced the efficiency of the rail network in Europe, you wonder why anyone would want to do anything else for short trips.

Although frequent rail service exists in the northeast corridor (Washington-New York-Boston) and as commuter service around the larger cities, most of the United States is without convenient access. Not to be deterred, I recently decided to experience the current rail situation in the United States—I took the train to New York City for a long-awaited infusion of music and theatre.

You’re probably saying, “Wait a dang minute…there is no rail service from here!” And you would be correct. The closest route to Knoxville is Amtrak’s Crescent, which operates daily from New Orleans to New York City. The route north goes through Atlanta and points in South Carolina and North Carolina, before navigating through Virginia into the northeast corridor in Washington, D.C. I chose to drive to Charlotte, the closest station that offered the lowest combination of driving mileage/rail fare, parking, and baggage check.

Although the journey was every bit an experiment, it was an enjoyable adventure which I recommend to anyone who is willing to try something different. Although you can probably guess the current rail travel vs. air travel disadvantages, there are substantial and pleasant advantages. Here are the Pros and Cons.

Pros
1) Cost. A substantial savings over airfares, particularly when you factor in peripheral factors, such as the cost of getting to and from airports, not to mention airport parking fees. Parking at the Charlotte station was free.
2) Choice. On the long distance trains that run overnight, one has a choice of coach seating or a sleeping compartment. The sleepers offer a bit of privacy and your own toilet.
3) Coach seating legroom. I found I could stretch my legs straight out, yet barely touch the seat in front of me. Oh, frabjous day! Sadly, masochists will have to search out pain elsewhere...no rude flight attendants ramming your elbows with a metal cart...no squashed knees when the seat in front suddenly tilts back.
4) Food. The long distance trains offer both a lounge car for drinks and snacks and a dining car with waiter service and excellent food. Dining car meals are included in the price of a sleeper.
5) Convenience and Speed. Despite the fact that only the Washington-New York segment of the Crescent route is on track improved for higher-speeds (elimination of curves and grade crossings), the train is definitely not pokey. Charlotte to New York is 600 track miles; total travel time with station stops (including 30 minutes in DC to change from a diesel engine to electric), was a little over 11 hours—an average of 55 mph. Unlike airports, train stations are generally located near midtown—so those $30-$50 airport taxi rides are unnecessary. In the Northeast corridor, door-to-door travel time compares very favorably with air travel, due to airport distances and typical flight delays. The trains I boarded left exactly on time.
6) Baggage. Free! Each passenger can check up to three bags, each being 50 lbs. or less. Plus carry-on.
7) Security. Although there are security personnel present in the stations and on the trains, passengers are not subjected to the tedious and time-consuming inconvenience of carry-on screening and personal searches. Your shoes remain where they belong--on your feet.
8) Scenery. You actually get to see some.
9) Human beings. You actually get to meet some…and talk to interesting people if you want, or be left alone. Quite surprisingly, I met a train conductor who was writing a book on Basque etymology. You won't get any vacuous “buh byes” from train personnel.
Cons
1) Time. Except for short intercity distances, particularly in the Northeast corridor, it’s going to take you longer. High-speed rail, such as the TGV in France or Japan's Shinkansen, would go a long way toward addressing this issue, but that's another discussion.
2) Just like airlines, you need to make advance reservations, particularly for the long-distance trains, and to get the lowest fare. Over the holidays, the Crescent was fully booked.
3) Availability of routes. For now, you’ll have to travel a bit to get to a station.
4) Current schedules. The Crescent has once-a-day service. The northbound train leaves Charlotte at 2am. Yes, that is an ouch.

The bottom line is this. America needs to support and expand its passenger rail service, especially into high-speed rail and for those under-200 mile intercity distances. California has already taken a major step toward implementing a high-speed system, and several states/regions have ongoing preliminary studies. Since Tennessee has few intercity airline flights, the state could really use a service like The Tennessean used to offer. The airline and airport negatives are now outweighing the positives for trips under 600 miles. However, it will take federal shoving to get the disparate efforts working together. All this aside, train travel is one of the most energy efficient modes of travel. Hopefully, though, it won’t require a return to last summer’s soaring gasoline prices to make that point clearly understood. All aboard!