Transitions, transitions, transitions. A listener at tonight's concert could do worse than turn to one of the great pianist Alfred Cortot's dictums, that "a musician is only as good as his[sic] transitions". For every large-scale piece of music has its architecture, and every large-scale work is built on transitions. Each cadence-point has to be taken on its own value, for cadences are not all built equal.

A good musician will weigh different cadence points and opt to underline some of them; one who doesn't know what to do with the music will underline every one of them, and underscore some of them with red ink and fluorescent lights for good measure. Unfortunately, tonight was a case of taking one interpretative idea too far, with the conductor choosing to not only slow down at every cadence, but even in mid-phrase.

From the very start of the symphony, the funeral march, which Lan Shui took at a rather measured tempo to start off with, these habits were in evidence. There is no marking in the score which says "slow down deliberately here" at the appearance of the second ascending and lyrical subject, but Shui did so, not strictly a crime musically since it is a common, if misguided and automatic, practice. The problem was that he continued this with each and every one of the cadence points later in the movement (and indeed in the symphony), and also, that he did not keep the orchestra at the tempo that he had eased it grudgingly into - the piece trudged on and on without a semblance of ever being able to reach the feverish pitch that Mahler had intended.

He micro-managed every cadence in the first movement and after, every obligato flute line, every oboe line, so that really, no two bars were at the same tempo. How does one build long lines and huge structures by niggling with tempi every time there is half a chance of niggling with them? Perhaps with many more rehearsals, a better set of musicians and a slightly faster basic tempo, this could have had a chance of working, but as it were, tension just flagged rather than built up.

Also, strange and disturbing was his speeding up unnecessarily and whipping up the music at various points. The test of a good interpretation is its service to the music, and whether it revealed anything, or showed any insight into the score. These sudden speed-ups and stepping on the brakes certainly did not. Worse still was that there were certain points in the movement where the glimmer of a healthy interpretation did show up for a tantalizing instant what could have been - but was not to be. Interestingly, this was when certain members of the orchestra decided to go for broke and to forgo their music director's instructions. We always hear of how a particular great conductor was superb at developing a "line" with the music, or a great "arch": the challenge in Mahler is to pay attention to both detail as well as the big structure.

More attention, I feel, could have been spent on important points of interpretation, for example, orchestra balance. With the augmented brass section of the orchestra, especially in the trumpets, the strings simply did not stand a chance. I believe that when Mahler wrote his work (and I believe this is substantiated by various performances led by himself) für grosses Orchester, he intended not only the brass to be augmented but by the rest of the orchestra as well. The particularly brilliant tone of tonight's trumpetists posed difficulties whenever one of the "big moments" came in. One of these was the moment of "disgust" in the Scherzo, where nothing really could be heard but the brass. I do understand that these problems can arise with guest musicians augmented just for the occasion, but this is done all the time, and such problems should be overcome.

While we're still on balance, let me cite a few more points where the balance was not ideal - winds were frequently a little too soft for comfortable projection, especially the clarinet in the Scherzo. The lower strings were often too soft (or unsure?), particularly in the coda of the first movement. The wooden clapper in the following movement was all but inaudible, as were the harps in the quiet bits of the first movement - they should have emerged quite clearly into the texture. The col legno string bowing in the first movement leading up to the climax before the recapitulation were not quite enthusiastically done enough to hear clearly.

So how was the rest of the performance? Well, I've always taken Mahler 2 as two huge bookends with three books in the middle. Then again, I've always grouped the last two movements together, as there is something profoundly spiritual about Urlicht that immediately links it to the last movement. The second movement is a very comfortable, friendly Ländler, interrupted throughout by a restless, troubled theme.

Shui did a pretty good job of this movement, although a greater control and attention to dynamics (rather sloppy, I must say) would have made this rather more special. Again, more naturalness with the transitions, but this only comes with familiarity of the orchestra to the piece and its nookholes. For example, the ritenuto following the repeated notes before the pizzicato was handled rather unnaturally. This movement was also taken more slowly than one is usually accustomed to. One thing I found rather artificial (though everything is of course, in perspective of the whole) was the way Shui opened the movement, which was too deliberate and heavy.

The third movement was quite problematic, and again showed the kind of firmness one must have in conducting Mahler. The opening timpani was impressively handled, and led to a nice and brisk basic tempo - frankly, a relief after all that heaviness in the first two movements. Unfortunately, just like the movement itself, relief and comfort turned to despair as the orchestra kept getting faster and faster, the basic beat getting lost amid the whirlwind of notes.

This movement, as many will tell you, is from the Wunderhorn song "St. Anthony Preaches to the Fishes", a darkly humourous piece with underlying themes of futility, and how the fishes and crabs and other assorted seafood listen to the sermon, purporting to like it but end up no better than they were before. The conductor needs to bring out the irony and bite of the music. (The only other time Mahler wrote such a restless motion into his music would be many bitter years later, in the Purgatorio of his unfinished Tenth Symphony, which would be far darker indeed.) I don't think these points were communicated for this movement and much more control would have been needed to bring out the various episodes more effectively.

The fourth movement was sung by mezzo Ning Liang. I do not doubt her experience in this role, which she said she had sung numerous times, but certainly tonight was not one of her better performances - the overall pulse of the movement was too fast, the effect rather unmysterious (nor pleading) and the overall sense of the work failed to come across. She seemed rather short of breath at times and was consistently "eating" her beats, so that the spirituality of the movement seemed rather at odds with her interpretation. The brass choir in this movement was much better than their behaviour in the climaxes of the other movements, and supported the singer as well as they could (through all that rushing). In addition, there seemed to be a rather covered quality of the consonants in her singing. Whether this was a problem with the range (I doubt so) or the language I cannot tell - but it could have been better.

Lan Shui chose to pause before the last movement; I prefer an attacca approach to this, but nothing was lost here. Strangely, in the sound and fury that began the last movement, the orchestra seemed to be out of sync, for a brief but noticeable moment. This movement was the best though, overall, in terms of both interpretation and playing. All the various "episodes" were handled quite well indeed.

The basic tempo taken was (again) rather slow, but here it worked quite well, with colours from the orchestra emerging liquidly and eloquently. The effect of the off-stage music didn't seem to come through as well at the start (in the grosser Appel), seeming nearer rather than as distant, as it should have. But the ceremony of the last movement, moving through the various themes of Hope, the Dies Irae, and so on, finally won out.

In the extended drum roll that transpired (which to me always signified the opening of the earth to emerge the bodies of the dead), the effect was much closer to the awe-inspiring intentions that Mahler meant it to be. The march of the dead and the "counterpoint" with the off-stage band was marvelous, notwithstanding the flubs here and there: it was Hell-raising. The birds of death came about and fled, and the choir emerged from its nothingness.

Despite the dearth of male singers, especially the tenors, the combined choir sang its heart out and put up a show which, as it always does when inspired, matched the occasion. The sudden standing up was an odd but, as it turned out, effective point in the music. The choir handled its German parts with crisp and precise pronunciation. Together with the soloists, they brought a polished interpretation to the house to shame the orchestra with. Their Bereite dich, while loud, did not show much strain in the high tenor parts at all.

As it turned out, the soprano soloist Brigitte Wohlfarth was a real find. She brought out the hushed opening of her part well, soaring above the orchestra and choir, emerging delicately and beautifully, while at the same time bringing to the words a real meaning and determination. Her tone was always firm and showed no sign of strain in any of the passages that were written for her part.

Shui showed some interesting points, including a Luftpaus before the passage "Schmerz, Du Alldurchdringer", although here and there, there were signs that the orchestra was growing tired and just a little lethargic. No amount of tiredness can spoil the piece totally, I believe, and the ending of the piece was magnificent and earth-shaking. The sight and sound of over a hundred choristers and orchestra playing and singing "Sterben wird ich um zu leben", and "Auferstehen" is simply amazing and unforgettable, not to say touching.

Some other points I did enjoy about the performance then. I did like the solo contributions of especially the flautists, including trusty Jin Ta, whose liquid tones are always well appreciated by yours truly. I appreciate Lan Shui's effort to insert a short break in between the first and second movements, but there was a problem - people got bored and the soloists entered during this short break to unintended applause. This was most unwelcome, of course, since the whole point of the break prescribed by Mahler was to ease the difference between the first and second movements and the applause simply dissipated the tension. Perhaps an announcement just before the start of the performance to the effect to discourage applause would have done the trick. All the same, the pause was still a good attention to detail not often done in modern-day performances.

Despite the mostly successful last movement, tonight's concert was a disappointment overall, though, if only because Shui has done better, far better, than this. One out of five movements well done does not a Mahler symphony make. Put it down to nerves on having to conduct this huge work the first time; a relative unfamiliarity with the work; whatever. I have much respect for Lan Shui's work, especially his precedent Mahlers, and I hope to hear, and report, better in future.

Derek Lim is given to prolix rantings about anything to do with Mahler.

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 Concert 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.