Matt Haimovitz, Tim Fain, David Harding & Maria Bachmann

For the second evening in the inaugural season of Philip Glass’ DAYS AND NIGHTS FESTIVAL, chamber music was again presented at Hidden Valley Music Seminars Theater, which, incidentally, turns out to be a wonderfully appropriate and intimate setting.

The first half of the program featured a work by Mr. Glass, the West Coast Premiere of ‘Pendulum’, originally written for Piano Trio and premiered in 2010, but then revised for Violin and Piano in 2011. The revision really turns it into a work for solo violin plus piano, and when performed by the extraordinarily talented violinist Tim Fain, the logic of this arrangement becomes immediately clear. Monterey Peninsula audiences have been fortunate to hear Mr. Fain several times recently and each time we have been impressed by his virtuosity, musicianship, communicative skills and, above all, his intense artistic charisma. This was again on display in the performance of ‘Pendulum’, a work whose connections to the usual Glass musical motifs seem perhaps more distant. What was somewhat surprising to a listener who was introduced to Mr. Glass’s works in the 1980’s with film scores like Koyaanisqatsi and who is not as familiar with his more recent works, is the sheer, unbridled romanticism of this piece. There is certainly never a question as to the identity of the composer, and there is a minimalist armature of a structure at its core (supported very competently here by the composer at the piano). However, built upon this is a lyrical romanticism in the virtuosic violin part. Mr. Fain’s playing was full of passion, and his animated body movements seemed to reflect his involvement with the music and not generated for showy effect. This enhanced his communication with members of the audience, who burst into immediate, enthusiastic applause after the exciting and climatic end of the work.

The second piece on the program was Phillip Glass’ String Quartet No. 5. String quartets are often the most personal and intimate, not to mention experimental and boundary-pushing mediums for composers. Perhaps there is purity to the instrumentation which frees a composer from extra-musical issues (whether it is the plot of an opera or the need to fill seats for a symphony orchestra in a large concert hall). The evolution of the genre has proved that two violins, viola and cello can express the most complex and intricate musical feelings. Thus, for a composer who is so well known for his film scores, operas and use of electronic instrumentation to write for such a traditional genre, is an interesting challenge. I found this quartet to be one of Mr. Glass’ most successful and beautiful compositions.

The work begins with a slow, poignant theme played in harmony by the instruments together, evoking a feeling of nostalgia along with a touch of anticipation. This theme is then reintroduced later in the work and woven into other musical strands. Then, the cello begins an oscillating ostinato of a major triad, with one-note accents from the violins and a propulsive theme. The familiar Glass sonic world appears and within this traditional grouping of instruments it still sounds very much at home. The third movement Scherzo is also delightfully pure Philip Glass with dance-like dotted rhythms, repeating bass lines, the one-note accents, up and down scales as well as contrasts of low bass lines and leaps to high flourishes from the violins. The slow fourth movement begins by giving the cello a solo line beautifully played by Matt Haimovitz, who had been providing an interesting rhythm section for most of the piece. The middle section of this movement picks up the tempo and once again allows Mr. Haimovitz to shine. It has to be said all the players —violinists Tim Fain and Maria Bachmann, violist David Harding and cellist Matt Haimovitz, were exceptional in this work. The final movement maintains some of the “Glassian” elements but is altogether original. After some exciting flourishes of unison scales, the theme from the first movement leads into a new exalted and climatic section played in notes of repeated rhythms by all instruments. Again the beautiful first movement theme appears, becomes quieter and is interrupted by, and then ends with, an ostinato bass line from the second movement played pizzicato. Its fantastic ending left me with an appreciation of this piece as a totally convincing and compelling work, one that is extremely well-crafted and received a wonderful performance on this occasion. Whenever contemporary music is paired on the same program with venerable masterworks one has to ask the question — will these new pieces still be performed for audience s after hundreds of years, as the older masters’ works are performed today? I think with the first half of this concert the argument can be made that these works are among the best in Mr. Glass’ oeuvre and can take their place in the repertory of classical musicians for many generations to come.

It’s interesting that one of Mr. Glass’ truly personal and intimate works has been paired with what I think is one of the most personal and intimate chamber music masterworks — Schubert’s great Piano Trio in B-flat, Op. 99 with Jon Klibonoff, piano, Maria Bachmann, violin and Matt Haimovitz, cello. The trio began well, but it wasn’t until the middle of the first movement that I felt the players became more involved and more communicative with each other. Once the musicians hit their stride, the playing continued at this high level throughout and produced one of the very best performances of this work I have heard. The intimacy of the piece comes from the dialog that goes on between the players, with each instrument taking a theme and expressing it in his/her own way to the others. In this performance, the communication became more and more nuanced and expressive as the work progressed. It is not, “anything you can do, I can do better” sort of play and response. It is more “you played that so beautifully, let me play it just as beautifully, but the way I feel it” — almost egging each other on to play even more sensitively. Mr. Klibonoff, after having his performance on Friday night of two Impromptus described as “mind-blowing” by editor/pianist Lyn Bronson, proved himself again to be a truly exemplary Schubert player. His musicality, subtlety, nuanced expression and commanding control of his instrument were wonderful to behold. Ms. Bachmann’s played with beautiful intonation and incisiveness. Mr. Haimovitz again produced throughout a gorgeous, full, resonant sound. The bottom line was that the exalted levels of artistic music-making these musicians achieved as an ensemble was what made this performance so impressive and enjoyable.

The evening was a splendid combination of masterful musicians and music in an intimate, appealing setting (with an attentive, enthusiastic audience), which produced an extremely satisfying evening.

Don’t miss the rest of this Festival! The amazing quality of tonight’s performances promises that the two evening concerts next Friday and Saturday, where Mr. Glass’ works will be paired with other great chamber music masterpieces, will be events you won’t want to miss.

End

An architect by profession, Erik Dyar is also a fine and accomplished pianist who has appeared informally in solo and ensemble recitals locally and in Oregon, where he was born and raised.

The concert opened with the Overture to the Opera Idomeneo. Immediately impressive was the Festival Orchestra’s fine sound and the excellent acoustics in Sunset Center Theater. The orchestra seemed the perfect size and configuration for the works we heard this evening, and whether it was natural acoustics or enhanced sound, an exceptionally fine balance was observed between the various sections of the orchestra.

Hearing Maestro Weil conduct works from the Viennese classical period is always satisfying, for his authority in this repertoire has been well established. Although he is more well-known and appreciated for his Haydn interpretations, in Mozart he exhibits similar expertise and charm. Seeming to have an intuitive understanding of Mozart’s style, he brought color and nuance, exceptional rhythmic vitality and naturalness to the music. He also always seemed to find the humor in the works and there was lots of it in this evening.

The musical humor went hand in glove with David Gordon’s readings. Gordon also was responsible for the translations of text seen in the supertitles above the stage, which added so much to the audience’s understanding and enjoyment of the arias. Gordon is a superb actor and was especially skillful in portraying the composer’s voice while reading excerpts from his letters. Right at the beginning Gordon, gave a hint of Mozart’s own sly humor (and ego) when he read what Wolfgang thought about one of the arias on the program, wondering how such great things can come from such a small head.

Kendra Colton, then came on stage to sing Se il padre perdei from Idomeneo. She has a beautiful, clear soprano voice, although she was sometimes difficult to hear. From The Abduction from the Seraglio, Gordon let Mozart describe moments in his favorite aria, while the orchestra played it, and then we heard Alan Bennett sing O wie angstlich it was absolutely charming. Also in the first half, mezzo-soprano, Sally-Anne Russell thrilled us with the great aria Voi che sapete from The Marriage of Figaro.

In the first movement of the “Jupiter” symphony, which followed, Maestro Weil asked the question “why the theme.”  Then we heard the great baritone and Bach Festival favorite Sanford Sylvan joining him for the aria from the comic opera Un bacio di mano written only a few weeks before the “Jupiter” Sylvan gave us an animated performance with his rich, glorious voice. It was obvious that the theme of the two works is the same. Weil explained that this signifies in Mozart’s mind how opera and symphony are united as music with no difference between the genres.

The overture to Don Giovanni began the second half of the program, followed by bass-baritone, Michael Dean walking on stage completely in character and flirting with some of the women violinists, playing with their hair and then springing into the famous aria Fin ch’an dal vino. Dean jumped around the stage as the quintessential “player” and lady’s man — it was great fun.

To demonstrate how Mozart was able to go from comedy to moments of deeper feeling, Kendra Colton returned for a beautiful version of Vedrai carino, also from Don Giovanni. Gordon quoted Adorno who states Mozart is offering, through this music, “consolation and healing to the entire world.”

Sanford Sylvan then came on to sing Non piu andrai from Figaro. It was wonderful to hear Sylvan in a more operatic setting — we are not always aware of his acting skills since we are more accustomed to hearing him in liturgical roles. Combined with his remarkable voice, his acting was a knockout. He was having fun here, saluting the audience, Bruno Weil, and then the orchestra before leaving the stage to tumultuous applause.

Again changing moods, Gordon read a letter from Mozart to his wife Constanze, showing his dark, depressed side, and explaining how “everything is cold” to him. We then heard the first movement from the Symphony No. 40 in G Minor, K. 550 that exhibits this feeling in music.  The concert concluded with Mozart transforming comedy and drama into transcendence and truth:  the Act III sextet of Figaro where the machinations of the plot are revealed, and then the Act IV Finale — surely, two of the greatest scenes in Opera.

Gordon explained how this music exemplifies a generosity of spirit where “all opposites are reconciled.”  As a curtain call, all the vocalists came on stage, plus the 2006 Adams fellows, soprano Sherezade Panthaki, tenor Scott Mello, and baritone Mischa Bouvier. With Weil and the Festival Orchestra, they gave a grand conclusion to this Birthday celebration. A prolonged and well-deserved standing ovation followed.

The musicians in this concert, along with the contribution of David Gordon, produced a magnificent evening for the audience. It is difficult to imagine someone leaving Sunset Center Tuesday night without a deep love and appreciation of this remarkable man from Salzburg, who was born 250 years ago this year. How much our musical world would have been diminished had he never been born.

[An architect by profession, guest reviewer Erik Dyar is also a very fine and accomplished pianist who has appeared informally in recital locally and in Oregon, where he was born and raised.]

The violinist, Emily Bruskin, commented to the audience that when asked what work the members of her Piano Trio would like to perform on its first commercial CD recording, they immediately chose the two Mendelssohn Trios. From the playing we heard on Sunday afternoon, this was a very wise and excellent choice, for these three young and beautiful women have these works in their blood. Truly among the great works of chamber music, the Mendelssohn Piano Trios show the composer at his best, with lush melodies, passionate drama and romanticism all with a base in classicism which orders the works, reigns in sentimentality and increases the powerful tension in the music.

 This ensemble’s performance of the Mendelssohn’s second Trio, Op. 66, definitely exhibited playing by all three musicians that was indeed passionate — the romanticism of the work shone through. They also left no doubt they have what it takes to perform this highly virtuosic piece at the highest artistic level. The Bruskin sisters (Emily on violin and Julia on cello) both have wonderful string tone and musical instincts. Pianist, Donna Kwong, created an excellent balance between strings and piano during the piece and displayed impressive virtuosity. Also, her opening to the slow Andante espressivo movement was beautifully phrased with nicely balanced chords, seeming to have just the right amount of bass along with the cantabile above. The movement was taken at precisely the right tempo to allow the Bruskin sisters to revel (to the delight of the audience) in the beauty of the melodies. Cellist Julia Bruskin seemed especially impassioned, letting her face fully express the music she was feeling. This reviewer is of the mind that an artist who honestly and naturally expresses their passions for the audience to see can only increase the connection between them. Of course, the grossly exaggerated antics that one sometimes sees with the pianist Lang Lang, for example, can go too far and take away from the focus on the music. This was not the case with Ms. Bruskin. In the Scherzo, Ms. Kwong exhibited perfectly controlled virtuosity, keeping the piano (when required) appropriately in the background, while playing with lightning speed and an equal lightness of touch. The Finale was a knockout, demonstrating once again the fine balance between the players while still fully bringing out the romanticism and passion of the piece with its exceptional chorale section. They were greeted by a standing ovation, eliciting an encore, again chosen from their first CD, the Scherzo from the first Mendelssohn Trio. They performed it brilliantly.

 The first half of the concert featured a contemporary work by the composer Paul Shoenfield of Minneapolis, entitled “Café Music” The composer conceived the idea of formalizing, in a classically formatted piece, the kind of improvisatory music played in American cafés (at least Murray’s in Minneapolis) incorporating Jazz, Blues, Ragtime, Dixieland, even a little Gypsy and Jewish music. Undoubtedly, professional classical musicians, while steeping themselves in the densities of say Brahms and Beethoven, rarely have an opportunity to play this type of music. The Claremont Trio certainly exulted in their newfound freedom with this work, and they had fun with it. The first movement seemed quite improvisatory, with all three instruments taking turns soloing with different riffs as well as playing together. There seemed to be quite a hodgepodge of jazz oriented effects with stride piano style and pizzicatos from the strings. The second movement, as described by Ms. Kwong, was the kind of slow blues a lounge singer might sing. The string players acted as the singers, singing beautifully solo and as a duet. The final movement was a more aggressive romp with more stride piano and glissandi. The enthusiasm of this Trio playing this work won me over — it was a lot of fun for us too.

 The only disappointment of this afternoon’s performance was the first work, a Haydn piano trio and certainly one of his best. In these trios the piano is predominant, and unfortunately either the piano or pianist (probably both) were not quite up to the task.  The work requires clarity of very intricate articulation (often at high speeds) and rhythmic precision where Ms. Kwong and the Bruskin’s were more than capable. It also requires, however, a range of subtle dynamics and nuance that the performance simply lacked. The speeds of the outer movements were appropriately fast, but the overly quick tempo taken in the slow movement lost the profundity and majestic quality it can have. 

 The Claremont Trio was the winner of the first Kalichstein-Laredo-Robinson International Trio Award (named after one of the most distinguished piano trios).  Chamber Music Monterey Bay should be congratulated for helping sponsor this prestigious competition that helps continue the tradition and excellence of young artists performing some of the greatest and most important repertoire in all of chamber music—the piano trio. The young Claremont Trio is certainly a fine exponent of this continuing and living tradition.

Murray Perahia continues to meet and surpass expectations of being one of the very best of the world’s best pianists. His breathtaking recital before a rapturous audience of piano aficionados in the intimate confines of Lincoln Recital Hall on the campus of Portland State University certainly reinforced this impression.

It was indeed a special occasion to hear such a great artist as Perahia in a rather small, yet acoustically sound, hall instead of the 2,000+-seat concert halls in which I had heard him previously. Appreciation must go out to the organizers of the Portland State University Piano Recital Series who were able to bring him here, and who present, it must be said, one of the very best piano recital series in the country.

On this occasion, Perahia returned to the composers that have been close to him throughout his career:  Beethoven, Schumann and Brahms. Although, to say he is a specialist in this music, would exclude Bach, Mozart and Schubert for whom he is just as well known.

The recital opened with an often-neglected sonata among the Beethoven cycle, the Op. 31, No.1 in G major. The only reason for this neglect I can think of (certainly not the quality of the music) is that people are not comfortable hearing humor from a composer who is usually taken so seriously. Perahia jumped into the first movement at an exceptionally fast tempo, which made one worry that rhythmic and sonic clarity would be lost. The fear quickly disappeared for what was displayed was virtuosity put to securely musical purposes. The precise syncopation, appropriate rubato and clear phrasing were all in evidence. Perahia was also able to put this together to bring out the delightful humor and wit of the piece, even eliciting a chuckle from the audience at the movement’s end.  In the second movement, the wit was still there, and we heard the exceptional balance Perahia is able to capture allowing the brilliant trills and intricate passages to stand out so clearly against accompaniment figures. And here, we could also appreciate his enviable, unfaltering articulation on display. In the final movement, definitely the climax of the work, one felt Perahia’s sense of musical structure, which is always powerful. Every note is in its place — dynamically and rhythmically — so that it takes its rightful place within the phrase and the phrase within the whole.  His fairly extensive experience as a conductor (he regularly conducts such orchestras as the Academy of Saint Martin-in-the-Fields and the Chamber Orchestra of Europe) is not surprising. One saw him even conducting himself as he sat at the piano, when a hand was temporarily free from playing.

The second work on the program was Robert Schumann’s Fantasiestücke, Op. 12. Perahia forced me hear this set of eight pieces with new ears, for I have to admit that before his performance I didn’t think much of this work, except for one or two of the pieces, which I thought merited some attention. Yet, during this concert, I was transfixed and mesmerized. Fantasiestücke, Op. 12 is obviously a work eminently suited to Perahia’s abilities. In the opening Des Abends (In the Evening), he set the mood by producing simply gorgeous sounds from the piano that took your breath away. He brought out the melody with beautiful cantabile combining with it unfaltering sense of the musical line and phrase. In Aufschwung (Soaring), a piece which can easily end up a muddy mess in the wrong hands, he played with an appropriate intensity while seemingly effortlessly bringing out the melody line. It was a knockout. Warum? (Why?) again demonstrated his gorgeous sense of line and breathtakingly soft pianissimos. Grillen (Whims) produced extremely well balanced chords and showed Perahia’s ability at always producing beautiful sounds from the piano while at the same time not being afraid to produce a thunderous fortissimo when it is needed. In der Nacht (In the Night) was taken at a fast pace, and virtuosity was again very much in evidence, but it remained under complete control. The melody and line were always there, yet the strong undercurrents was expressed but tamed. Fabel (Fable) was light and playful and brought out Perahia’s great gift as a colorist.  He launched into Traumeswirren (Restless Dreams) at a dizzying tempo displaying a mystifying ability to produce such clarity at such speed– the subtleties of dynamics and phrasing were never lost and there were more than a few jaws dropping in this hall full of piano enthusiasts. These fantasy pieces end with the appropriately titled Ende vom Lied (End of Song). Perahia made its chords shine, balancing them in such a wonderful way that gave an uplifting sense to the music. This work can so easily descend into banging banality, but not here —  not with Murray Perahia at the keyboard.  As the piece was brought to a delicately soft and calm conclusion, I was left with a revelatory new vision of this work, and by the response from the audience, I was not alone in this feeling.Â

The second half of the program was devoted to the Variations and Fugue on a Theme by Handel, Op. 24 from Johannes Brahms. One of the greatest and most majestic works in the piano repertoire, it is based on an almost too simple a tune from Handel’s harpsichord Suite in B-flat published in 1733. Brahms begins with this little theme and takes us on an expansive journey into his musical world while never losing touch with its origin. The piece contains twenty-five variations and then climaxes in a powerful fugue, reminiscent of the fugues in some late Beethoven sonatas, yet clearly from Brahms’ universe.

Several years ago, recovering from a hand injury, Perahia used the baroque repertoire to slowly bring himself back to playing the piano. The first recording after his recovery contained some of the Handel Keyboard Suites and Scarlatti Sonatas (a brilliant CD by the way). One can see this Brahms work as almost retracing his journey back from injury to the height of virtuosity.  It opens with the statement of the simple Handel theme, exquisitely articulated by Perahia, his talent with the baroque still clearly intact. He then brings us with him on a magical Brahmsian journey.

Perahia during this performance was a strongly grounded figure at the piano, never appearing to expend any more movement than is absolutely required to produce the desired effect, yet at times he was leaping from one end of the keyboard to the other, playing hand-numbing, jumbled chords in rapid succession. There was never a sense that any musical idea was sacrificed for the sake of technical difficulties (of which there are many). Perahia took risks (or what would be considered risks for most pianists), which kept the audience on the edge of their seats, yet the thrill in watching these pyrotechnics never caused us any anxiety. There was never a doubt that Perahia was in control and could conquer any difficulty with the greatest of ease.

Perahia seems particularly suited to the performance of works with variations (his recent recording and performances of the Goldberg Variations comes to mind), for his playing shows a remarkable transparency, illuminating the built up layers of musical lines and texture used to develop and expand the theme, so that each can be heard distinctly yet blending together as a cohesive whole. And his conductor’s sense of structure was fully exhibited so that each variation had its place within this extended work and lucidly revealed its musical trajectory climaxing in an awe-inspiring performance of the Fugue.  Its last chord, almost shaking the hall, reverberated through the space until, as it began to die away, it was replaced by rapturous cheers from an audience already leaping to their feet.  It was a great performance.

He performed two encores, Schubert’s Impromptus Nos. 2 and 4 from Op. 90.  His superb taste and exquisite articulation served him well here.

The PSU Piano Recital Series continues to bring in the cream of piano talent in its 2004-2005 season with performances scheduled from Richard Goode, Stephen Hough, Arnaldo Cohen, and Louis Lortie among others.  More Information is available at its  web site:

www.fpa.pdx.edu/prs/

The all too neglected repertoire for duo pianists received a welcome presentation Saturday night, April 19, 2003, at Le Petit Trianon in San Jose. The Julliard-trained husband and wife team of Ning-Wu Du and Helen Sim, brought to us by the Steinway Society The Bay Area, played a varying program of works for one piano (four hands) during the first half, and works for two pianos in the second half. It is clear from their performance that far from approaching this format and repertoire as something just to dabble in (since after all they are a married couple who both are fine pianists), they have committed themselves to it. They both played from memory throughout a concert filled with much virtuosity, as well as, musical substance.

The four-handed first half, began with three Hungarian Dances by Brahms. These are playful and fun, and masterfully arranged, gypsy tunes that offered an excellent introduction to the not so familiar sonorities of 20 fingers playing together. These were followed by the substantive center of the program, a four-hand arrangement of Beethoven’s Symphony No. 5 by Hugo Ulrich. Purists may have problems with transcriptions such as this; and obviously a full orchestra in the original version has a much wider palette of colors and textures. However, a work such as this, which has to rank near the top of the list of the greatest music ever written, certainly deserves to be expressed in other idioms. For whether you hear this music played by strings, woodwinds, horns, and tympanis, or whether by the hammers and strings of a piano, it is still great music, and this in itself, in my opinion, gives the performance validity. Undoubtedly, the difficulty in attempting to bring to life music, which is so familiar to the audience in another form with many more instrumental advantages, is daunting. Du and Sim, however, more than met these challenges, and they were able to bring out the power and majesty of this musical apotheosis. On this occasion, the purists were silent and the audience was taken away by the beauty of the work; their enthusiastic response at the conclusion left little doubt as to the performers effectiveness at conveying it.

The power of the Beethoven symphony was, however, in stark contrast to the other rather light, less substantive works that filled the rest of the program. The second half (all works for two pianos) began with Rachmaninoff’s Suite No. 2, Op. 17. Written during the period of the composer’s creative rebirth which included the Second Piano Concerto, this three movement piece does not contain near the same quality of inspiration. It is a rather mediocre work that does have its good moments. Du and Sim handled the technical difficulties with ease and gave it a decent accounting. Perhaps, in the future, they might program Rachmaninoff’s two piano version of the Symphonic Dances, Op 45, which is just a brilliant and amazingly well-arranged score for this format.

It must be said that there is really nothing that will sound less “together” than two pianos that are not in synch; and it is certainly more difficult to play together when separated across the expanse of two grand pianos, than when sitting together at one instrument. Du and Sim displayed, during both the four-hand and two piano portions of the concert, a remarkable synchronicity which never seemed to falter. It was observed that the pianos were both Model B (7-foot) Steinways instead of the Model D (9-foot) concert grands. This was certainly welcome, for the volume of sound could have easily been overwhelming in this live hall using the larger version, though, the quality of the instruments themselves left something to be desired. Whether because of the pianos, or the pianists, or both, I was too often reminded that the piano is a percussion instrument. There was a bit too much harshness and lack of softness of tone for my taste during the performance. With two pianos, also, there is a basic problem of the sameness of color and texture that has to be dealt with by composers and performers who choose this medium. It becomes more difficult to achieve the proper balances and to bring out nuance and phrasing when the same notes are played by the same instrument. Du and Sim, in general, handled this well; however, I missed some of the softer pianissimos in the melodic line, which are understandably problematic when the line has to be loud enough to be clear above the overall sameness of sound.

The concert continued with Milhaud’s Scaramouche Suite for Two Pianos. This is a delightful work with a potpourri of musical antecedents including jazz and Brazilian samba. The duo brought style and wit to the varying characters of the piece. The program concluded with a wonderful transcription of the popular Gershwin Preludes (originally written for solo piano). The pianists excelled at the vibrant, syncopated rhythms of the first and third preludes while tenderly expressing the bluesy and almost haunting harmonies of the second.

The couple were given a standing ovation for their performance and persuaded to give an encore. They did not disappoint in what had to be the climax of the evening, giving an astounding account of Lutoslawski’s Variations on a Theme by Paganini. The theme comes from his A minor Caprice and is the same used by Brahms in his Paganini Variations for solo piano. Even the virtuosic passages of the Brahms (which are considerable) cannot fully compare to the display we heard from Du and Sim. Let us thank them for the commitment to the repertory and hope they can come again to bring us more gems from this neglected form of chamber music.

Hearing Arcadi Volodos in recital on Sunday night at Davies Hall in San Francisco convinced me that he is a pianist of whom legends are made. Mr. Volodos put on a display of incredible pianism and musicianship that had to be heard to be believed.  

The last time we had the opportunity to hear him live was in a Carmel Music Society recital in Carmel’s Sunset Center in November 2000, where much of his program was devoted to works by Schubert, Schumann, and Brahms. This turned out to be a disappointment after hearing his recordings of Rachmaninoff and Scriabin, where Volodos convinces us that he is one of the great interpreters of these two composers. Fortunately, on Sunday night, we had ample opportunity to observe his strengths as an artist and performer, since the first half was devoted exclusively to Rachmaninoff and Scriabin.  

At the beginning of the program, he created a hypnotic soundscape around Scriabin’s lush, ambiguous harmonies and intense textures. One way you know you are hearing a great artist is, if during a performance, you can’t imagine anyone playing the work better. This was certainly true here, and this conviction has remained with me. Volodos’ performance was so convincing that it made me hope he will record all of Scriabin’s important works for posterity, but most certainly the sonatas. One can never be sure when someone of Volodos’ gifts will come along and fit so appropriately with this composer’s music.   

Beginning with two small pieces, Enigme, opus 52, No. 2 and Guirlandes, opus 73, No.2,   Volodos created an ethereal, magical atmosphere which enveloped the hall and held the audience in rapt attention throughout the first half of the program. After these two miniatures set the mood, the Sonata No. 7, opus 64, which followed, revealed a new intensity and an extraordinary emotional range of dynamics and colors. Throughout this dense music, Volodos was able to layer and balance his playing toward distinctly musical ends, somehow framing these difficult (for audience and pianist) scores so that they become coherent to the listener — not an easy feat with Scriabin.  

It might be significant to mention here how Volodos himself describes his approach to playing. In a 1998 interview, he said he tries to develop a “sound image” in his mind and then “projects this onto the keys.” He uses this description to explain his amazing technical prowess. By not overly concentrating on the minutiae of the act of playing, he is able to place emphasis on the overall sound he is creating and bring together the various details into a balanced whole. He says this approach probably came from his background, since he began his musical studies with singing and conducting, not taking up the piano seriously until he was 16. Whether this explanation is accurate or not, Volodos does produce a sound which is unique and powerful.  

Following the Scriabin, Volodos performed a series of 10 pieces by Rachmaninoff. These were all gems in their way.  Volodos was able to continue the enigmatic mood begun with the Scriabin, allowing for a nice comparison of the two composer’s musical styles.  What perhaps separates the two most distinctly (apart from harmonics), as demonstrated from these selections, is the emphasis on lyricism and melody of Rachmaninoff. Volodos’ ability to balance and orchestrate the melody versus texture served him extremely well here.  The ease at which he is able to play extremely difficult passages allows him to de-emphasize textures that belong appropriately in the background. Less technically gifted pianists, by comparison, may by necessity be struggling just to get through them. It should be noted that absolutely nothing seems difficult for Volodos. His playing thus focuses more on the sound production, and gorgeous sounds are produced as a result. As with the Scriabin, I was left hoping that he has the opportunity to record as much of the Rachmaninoff repertoire as he can. 

The last piece on the first half was Volodos’ own arrangement for solo piano of Rachmaninoff’s ‘Polka Italienne’.  And here we heard another characteristic of Volodos that is irrepressible—his showmanship. This was a flashy showpiece, which left the audience in awe of the sheer virtuosity of this musician. One can perhaps discount the musical significance of a piece like this, but it does allow the audience to appreciate pianistic pyrotechnics as few have ever achieved. 

The second half of the program began with a complete change of pace — Schubert’s Sonata in A-flat major, D. 557. This early sonata was composed in 1817 when Schubert was 20. This is a sonata that is most clearly influenced by Haydn and Mozart. Volodos’ latest recording is, in fact, all Schubert, including the G major Sonata. Obviously, he does not want to be pigeonholed as the stereotypical “virtuoso” pianist. With this Schubert Sonata, the lyricism that served him well in denser works still succeeds in this music, and the work was most beautifully played. But, what separates, Volodos from many pianists is his ability in the romantic/post-romantic repertoire. While there are many pianists today who excel in the classic repertoire, there are distinctly fewer who can be considered great romantic virtuosi. 

Three selections from Liszt followed, which brought us back to the repertoire where Volodos is truly outstanding. These works were interesting in that they were not typical Liszt virtuosic showpieces, but evoked more of an enigmatic mood that linked them to the first half of the program (with nevertheless some moments of Lisztian virtuosity thrown in). They began with the Sonnet No. 123 of Petrarch, followed by Consolation No. 6 in E major, and concluding with Il penseroso, from the second volume of the Années de pélerinage. The Il penseroso is dark and almost funereal, fading away in the end to silence. 

This sets the background for the final piece of the program, Saint-Saens’ Danse Macabre, transcribed by Liszt. This is a dark, intense piece as well, but is a virtuosic powerhouse and ended the regular program with a display of amazing, exultant élan.  This was, despite any Schubertian ambitions, the epitome of virtuosity. Comparisons with Horowitz are inevitable and are deserved. 

After such a performance, there was an immediate standing ovation along with many woops and hollers–I could tell I was not in Carmel, California.  Volodos was persuaded to give four encores. They included two more short Scriabin pieces with qualities similar to the two works, which began the recital.  He also played a blistering account of an Etude de virtuosité by Moszkowski.  He concluded, not to disappoint a clearly adoring crowd, with his own version of Horowitz’s Carmen Variations. 

Horowitz is no longer with us, but for those who missed out on hearing his brand of pianism live, Volodos goes a long way in living up to the legend.

After hearing the concert by the Mozart Piano Quartet at the First United Methodist Church in Pacific Grove on Saturday night, presented by Chamber Music Monterey Bay, I was puzzled by the group’s name. I felt they should call themselves the “Brahms Piano Quartet” instead of the “Mozart Piano Quartet” based on their performances of the two works by these composers that they presented. Indeed, in the bio information about the musicians in the concert program, it indicated their specialty was in the Romantic repertoire. In any case, it was an improvement over their previous name, “Ensemble Tiramisu,” for these musicians are certainly more substantial than this light and sweet Italian dessert might suggest.

The musicians opened their performance with the Mozart Piano Quartet in E-Flat, K. 493. What was immediately apparent was the lustrous string tone and fine musicianship displayed by violinist Natalie Chee, violist Harmut Rhode and cellist Peter Hoerr. The sound of pianist, Tamara Anna Cislowska, however, was to some extent obscured by her colleagues, and, I think, by the acoustic nature of the space and perhaps by the use of a 7-foot, Steinway Model B piano, instead of a 9-foot Model D concert grand.

The church is quite high and has a large amount of space, ending in the semi-circular apse, behind the performers. This caused too much of the sound to escape to the rear of the church rather than toward the audience, which was certainly not beneficial to the performance of the Mozart work. Even though this composition does have more extensive interplay between the string instruments and less with the piano than was historically the case, the piano is still the primary instrument among the four. Also, in any piano interpretation of Mozart, what produces an artistic performance rather than a simply competent one is the subtlety of phrasing and dynamics needed to bring out the character of the work. This subtlety certainly requires that the piano be heard clearly, which was a problem on Saturday night for the reasons stated above. I must also say that in this performance, Ms. Cislowska did not demonstrate a natural affinity for Mozart nor exhibit playing to indicate she was a “Mozart specialist,” as the name of the quartet would imply. This was simply competent playing by an unquestionably talented ensemble.

The two pieces concluding the first half of the program fared much better with the musicians seeming to be more in their element. It was also a very interesting bit of programming. The second work was the first movement of a Piano Quartet in A Minor, composed by Gustav Mahler during his student days in Vienna. This work had been lost and was not published until 1964. This concert was its central Coast premiere. This is decidedly a romantic work with rich harmonies, which made us wish Mahler had devoted more of his output to chamber works, instead to larger symphonic compositions. The work did, in fact, have a symphonic feel to it, even though only scored for four instruments, and it elicited a more balanced sound from the ensemble as a whole. As compared with the Mozart, the weightier chords in the piano part, allowed Ms. Cislowska to integrate her sound more effectively with the strings. I think also, because the piano was creating more volume, the acoustical problems observed in the first piece were greatly improved.

Mahler never completed this Quartet, although he did write 24 measures of a Scherzo, intended to be the work’s second movement. Similarly, this sketch was lost until it was rediscovered in the early 1970’s. The composer, Alfred Schnittke, in 1989, completed his “Piano Quartet after a Mahler Sketch” based on this same little Scherzo. Although Schnittke had used works from other composers before, it does seem this tradition of taking a piece of music from another composer and taking it as a point of departure, is unfortunately fairly uncommon among contemporary composers. However, it was a practice utilized by practically all composers from previous eras. Thus, it was indeed satisfying to hear Schnittke’s ruminations on Mahler and hear how a work from the romantic era can be effectively transformed into contemporary musical language. Again the excellent string sound and strong playing by Ms. Cislowska got the most out of these works. One has to thank the Mozart Piano Quartet and Chamber Music Monterey Bay giving this Central Coast audience the opportunity to hear such interesting music, which is so rarely performed.

After intermission the audience was treated to a truly first rate performance of one of the great masterworks of the chamber music repertoire, the Piano Quartet in C Minor, Op. 60 by Johannes Brahms. As mentioned before, the quality of the performers’ interpretation of this work really made the case for them changing their name to the Brahms Piano Quartet.

I would like also to praise the program notes written by Jean Widaman, Ph.D. She gave us excellent background information about all the works heard in this concert, but her notes about Brahms were especially interesting. She mentions the fact that the inspiration for this quartet came at a very difficult time for 23-year old Brahms while his mentor and friend, Robert Schumann, was descending into madness, culminating eventually in his death in an asylum. This quartet was then revised, expanded and completed 35 years later at a time when Brahms was at the height of his compositional powers. These circumstances reinforce the melancholy character of this work, especially in the first movement. The Mozart Piano Quartet played this highly emotional music with intensity and passion. I especially enjoyed the quicker tempo (much faster than what I was familiar with) in the first movement.

The group’s heartbreaking rendition of the Andante was exceptional. Peter Hoerr’s, beautiful cello tone and strong, musical phrasing in this movement was especially fine. I was reminded of Brahms’s use of the solo cello in the slow movement of his B-Flat Piano Concerto—it was certainly used to great effect here as well. The audience was so taken by the performance of this movement that many broke out into spontaneous applause at its end. Unfortunately, the transition from the end of this Andante into the beginning of the final movement is an extremely beautiful part of the work and it was spoiled by this outburst, however well intentioned. Thankfully, the Quartet’s wonderful playing of the final Allegro commodo movement did make one forget this interruption rather quickly.

The audience brought the group back with a standing ovation to perform an encore, for which they chose, appropriately, the third movement, Andante cantabile, of Robert Schumann’s Piano Quartet in E-flat, Op. 47. The thought that the previous Brahms’ Quartet had been completed with the fond, but melancholy remembrance of this man and his work made listening to this gorgeous piece of music, even more powerful. The Mozart Piano Quartet played this movement with such tenderness and sensitivity, it made me think they also might have been feeling this same sensation. It made for a very satisfying ending to Chamber Music Monterey Bay’s regular season.