It’s such an odd thing that it nearly had to be a gimmick – getting Israeli violinist superstar Gil Shaham (right) to play the “Butterfly Lovers Concerto”? It seemed a misjudgement – no matter how technically accomplished a violinist was, the subtleties of the concerto would elude him. 

Never underestimate great talent. Tonight’s rendition of the concerto was definitely the most well-prepared performance I’ve been able to hear in the past few years. The longeurs of the concerto weren’t completely side-stepped and some parts still seemed terribly kitschy, and the orchestra’s accompaniment could have been still more spontaneous and a little less careful. But Shaham’s attempts at the “microtonal” slides that give life to the notes wasn’t just the half-hearted stab-in-the-dark that some violinists have inflicted upon this concerto – they struck me as having been studied and researched. His characterization of certain passages struck true, especially the parts where Zhu Yingtai spoke. Bravo. The numerous Chinese operatic passages in the concerto came off well too, though certain passages here and there, imitating the exaggeratedly heavy bow strokes of the Chinese fiddle (in most parts here the jing-hu) could have benefited from a more traditional performance, as did certain bits in the cadenza. Still I do see that if the concerto is to travel wider some accents will be picked up along the way. This was a fine performance. Solo contributions from Jin Ta and Nellie Hunkins are to be commended. 

The Tchaikovsky that followed in the interval was a carefully groomed performance, nobly played by Shaham – not fire-breathing, for sure, or at all flashy, but always musical, and never attempting to treat the musical material as anything less or more than it was. Shaham’s tone on his "Countess Polignac" Stradivarius of 1699 is not a huge one, but one that is very beautiful and warm and cool at the same time. It reminded me of Artur Grumiaux’s. 

Lan Shui’s treatment of the orchestral parts was also controlled and dignified, matching Shaham’s more subdued playing and attentive to his numerous agogics. Overall it was a very middle-of-the-road approach to the concerto, except that in the third movement the traditional cuts were all restored (if you wondered why certain passages sounded longer than normal, here’s the reason – I’m not a fan of restoring the cuts!). It was always musical and it is a tribute to Shaham that you never noticed the technique, only the music. 

The Singapore Symphony Orchestra has never sounded better than it did today, especially in the strings, where there was a unity of sound not heard for a long time – burnished and beautiful. Only in two spots did they sound worse for wear – in the horn quartet of the sluggishly paced, lackluster Semiramide overture (the less said about that the better!) and in the wind chorus of the second movement of the Tchaikovsky, where they sounded a little sour.

Overall, though, it seems to have improved greatly. If this is the result of many hours of recording in the studio with soloists of Shaham’s caliber (the orchestra and he have just recorded the two concerti, soon to be released in December on his Canary label) then perhaps they should do it more often!

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.