Undoubtedly the Rachmaninov Series is turning out to be the high-point of the July-Dec 1998 SSO season. After a successful Demidenko rendition of the Rach 3rd, we the Singapore audience was once again treated to another big name who is much associated with the composer - Howard Shelley. Having recorded the complete solo works of Rachmaninov on the Hyperion label, his set of the Piano Concerti have won him the French recording award Diapason d'or, highly prestigious in the recording world of classical music. Here in Singapore, he graced us with his riveting rendition of the lesser known Concerto No.4 in G minor.

Rachmaninov (right) is said to have been highly dissatisfied with the Fourth Concerto and from the point of its completion he was already making numerous cuts to the work despite getting the approval of Medtner, his trusted friend. Rachmaninov had gone through an illustrious career after four major works were composed: The Bells, his Second Symphony and not too mention his two famous Piano Concerto's Nos.2 and 3. However after this, he found it hard to find any inspiration to write any new works of a larger magnitude. Instead, he concentrated on writing transcriptions and smaller piano works. Thus, when he finally composed the Fourth Piano Concerto he remained dissatisfied with the work and made numerous changes.

While the SSO was in form for the evening, there were some tricky sections which were taken rather haphazardly - the structure for the Fourth Concerto does not have the seriousness of the two preceding concertos and this mood is clearly evident. Shelley's technique was spotless, possessing all the essential ingredients of a Rachmaninov performer. Even his stature and manner of sitting at the piano reminded you of the Rachmaninov "scowl" that Stravinsky had commented about (about Rachmaninov, not Shelley).

The first movement does not have very much in terms of lyricism and neither is there any room for the pianist to display it either. However I did feel that while Shelley (left) started off the Concerto in a very commanding fashion, with highly-spirited chords, he had to battle with the SSO in some of the sections where the tuttis were too deafening, often totally drowning the pianist. The audience could only just watch the pianist sweep across the keyboard, but without being able to hear a single note. It is all the more sad because this concerto has some prominent dissonant percussive chords which should thunder across the barrage of orchestral sounds - but this did not happen here. However, the timing and precision of the Orchestra respsonding to conductor Christopher Seaman must be credited, as evidenced in the final fanfare at the end of the first movement .

The second movement was done lightly introspective, with the SSO showing greater control. The "three blind mice" imitation was quietly developed. While the chordic build-ups are distinctive of Rachmaninov, the Fourth Concerto is only mildly developed although there are glimpses of the Preludes which most Rachmaninov fans have come to enjoy, such as the introspective slow ones of Op.32. This time around the chordic build-up does not match the Third Concerto where the "Ossia cadenza" is not only a human feat for the pianist but an awesome experience to watch.

However, one always had the feeling that Shelley was constantly at ease with the music although I could not figure out why he had a student(?) next to him with the score in her hands (Was it to give her "live" exposure or was it a case of "in case my memory fails?). [According to one source: Shelley said he has all the Rach concertos "swimming in his head" and was afraid of the wrong one slipping into the current one he was performing. Hence, his "assistant" is a safety net of sorts. Shelley also added that this is the first time he was experimenting with having someone with the score next to him. - Ed.]

In the third movement, Shelley paced himself well, never rushing away with the music which many pianist tend to, thus allowing the dexterity of the pianist to be more clearly seen, and felt as well. This concerto does give the impression of the music of Prokofiev with its distinct chords. By this time, Rachmaninov's music sounded less lyrical and there was a move towards the more dissonant, with pounding chords repeated in triplets and quadruplets very much like Prokofiev; all which had this way of making dissonant chords sound interesting. The end was marked by a strong build-up to the final tutti which ends strongly yet not too overbearingly. Shelley built this up well to the climax, ending on a high note. For the encore, Shelley played the ever-popular Rachmaninov transcription of Rimsky-Korsakov's Flight of the Bumble Bee.

Well, we have had three great performances of Rachmaninov so far: Demidenko, and not forgetting Bella Davidovich with the St. Petersburg Philharmonic Orchestra in the "Paganini Variations". Look out for the other three: Yakov Kasman (Rach 2 - Oct 23/24), Bobby Chen (Paganini Variations - Dec 4/5) and Stephen Hough (Rach 1 - Nov 27/28) to round off the season.

There's no doubting that the Orchestra playing tonight was anything less than fine. The Elgar Second Symphony under Christopher Seaman took shape often in a convincing manner. It seems to me that his conducting of the expansive first movement lacks nothing in propulsion. He often took flowing tempi, and there were several lyrical moments where slowing the tempo a little would have made a more effective statement. Elgar's Second Symphony sometimes brings to mind the flashier orchestrations of Richard Strauss, and the SSO clearly liked showing off this aspect. Ensemble was first-class. Overall I thought that perhaps the movement could have done with better pacing, with more daring.

As a sideline, I don't know if anybody found the "malign influences" theme remarkably similar to the way Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition's "French garden walk scene" with respect to Ravel's orchestration (the harp's oompah rhythm especially).

The second movement's "Larghetto" title probably refers more to the speed of the movement rather than its length, since it is really quite repetitive, and long. This was strangely moving in its own way, and was reminiscent of a funeral march, though Elgar (right) said otherwise. (But he did later mention a woman dropping a flower on a man's grave).

The Rondo was taken at Elgar's own tempo as heard in his own recordings on EMI. I couldn't help but feel that more contrast would have made the movement more effective and memorable. The whole effect, to me, of this movement seemed like the opening of many many champagne bottles interrupted by oppressive building-piling next door.

The last movement started with the same committed playing. More emphasis on the intro could have built up the first climax better. The cello theme which repeats a few times could have been emphasized more. The balance of the orchestra was rather a problem here - the cellos often seemed swamped by everything else.

The return of the first movement theme was thrillingly played, however, adn the more introverted side of Elgar in his second movement recall was effective. The last pianissimo was strangely moving.