"Truly fertile Music, the only kind that will move us, that we shall truly appreciate, will be a Music conducive to Dream, which banishes all reason and analysis. One must not wish first to understand and then to feel. Art does not tolerate Reason."

-Albert Camus

Armed with the above reasoning, I stepped boldly into the concert hall, half wondering why again I was there to hear two (yes, two!) works by Tcherepnin in a single sitting, yet half expecting to be awed and 'wowed' by tonight's performance. I decided to let my gut feeling rule tonight and left the rest up the Russian gods.

The first piece, Rimsky-Korsakov's Russian Easter Overture, Op. 36, when translated from Russian literally means 'Bright Festival' or 'Festival of Light'. As well as using chants he had used, he associated the slow introduction with Old Testament prophecies of the Resurrection, the transitional passage to the Allegro with the Gospel narrative of the empty tomb, and then the main body of the overture with an evocation of the Easter Sunday service in a large cathedral, with the chanting of many priests and the tolling of bells.

The SSO were faithful in many respects to the replicating of the imageries, with spot on timing and rather full-sounding playing. My contention bone here is that, while the orchestra may try as hard as it did, it is unlikely that they will ever play the piece convincingly. And this goes for the overall feel I had of the night - it sounded like an Asian orchestra trying very hard (nonetheless) to do what only a Russian one can do. Not that they did not play it right. They did, in fact the virtuoso cadenzas that make it shall a crowd pleaser were well delivered. But the melodic designs and figuration patterns just didn't sound convincingly Russian enough. There was an undecided feel about the piece, which , if I may dare, attribute to an Asian's uncomfortableness at playing something so Slavic.

The accuracy of replicating the scenes aside, Shui Lan definitely sectioned off the scenes too well. There would be awkward pauses and transitions that didn't quite flow within the piece. It definitely could have been tighter.

Tcherepin's Piano Concerto No.1, Op. 12 had a muted opening by the cello section, and I must say here that despite the piece being a piano concerto, it was more like an 'orchestra concerto' than anything else. The winds kept overwhelming the piano, and while the SSO ended the first movement very confidently, it sure as hell drowned out anything from the piano. It was only in the last movement did soloist and orchestra achieve a balance, and we had a glimpse of the technical prowess of Ogawa.

While the Steinway piano they used could have a richer sound, Noriko Ogawa must be complemented for her ability to transform her notes from harsh to smooth at the drop of a hat, and for allowing her sensitivity to come through her playing. Besides the orchestra inundating her, I think even solo, she lacked volume.

Also, I expected more intensity from Ogawa, and furthermore it was a Russian piano concerto! While she certainly got near to the edge and many times almost got it, she never did get past a certain barrier that distinguishes a 'performed' performance from an intense and dynamic one. In fact, certain bars which concentrated at the lower octaves were so muffled and unclear it was impossible to discern anything from her playing. Though I do assure you her performance was much better for the 3rd Piano Concerto.

This time round, perhaps with a change in game plan during half time, the SSO managed to work with Ogawa, and not overwhelm the piano. The contrast between them was a lot stronger this time round, and the piece gave Ogawa a wider berth to show off her skills. Which she would have done so well, if not for the fact that she concentrated more on the punctuality of her notes than on bringing out the spirit of the piece. The second movement's more tangy content resulted in a more textured piece, with various elements of the orchestra complementing the piano. All this went well, and the only distracting thing was Ogawa's intent gaze at the score. Thus while the piece had potential to be a spirited performance, it failed to be.

Tchaikovsky wrote of his Francesca da Rimini, Op. 32, "This is from Dante, the Second Circle of Hell." In his preface to the printed score of his symphonic fantasia, he writes "there one sees sensuality chastised, the punishment for which is to be tormented continually by the most brutal whirlwinds, in deep darkness. Among the tortured ones whom one recognizes is Francesca da Rimini, who proceeds to tell her story."

The use of a folk-like melody for the first theme proved to demonstrate the orchestra's ability rather well, playing up the details very well. Also, the pacing of the piece was just right, effectively bringing out the emotions and excitement of Dante's Divine Comedy. The horror, the screeching souls screaming out in hell, were so well represented by the similarly screeching violins over the tubas, the swollen climaxes, the clarinet solo reminding one of a whiny Francesca (though the trills later lacked seriousness and were very very irritating!), the mournful portrayal of their lost romance¡­ There was certainly a good characterisation of the individual 'voices' in the piece.

To go along with the night of Russian pieces, they certainly followed Russian culture. Brutally, there was no encore despite the repeated rounds of applause that followed the crowd pleasing Rimini.

DAVID CHEW honestly feels that sitting through the concert with TWO Tcherepnin pieces was not unlike experiencing a game of Russian roulette¡­

If you wish to Add a Comment to this review, please post your comments to classical@inkpot.com.

Last Concert Reviewed | Next Concert Reviewed

Return to the Classical Index!... or Visit the Inkvault archives!

All original texts are copyrighted. Please seek permission from the Classical Editor
if you wish to reproduce/quote Inkpot material.