The OSO’s music director Carlos Kalmar has demonstrated an affinity for the music of Gustav Mahler throughout his tenure with the orchestra, usually opening or closing a season with a major work of the Austrian composer. This year, at his other gig, Kalmar began the home stretch of the season of the Grant Park Music Festival with Mahler’s sprawling Ninth Symphony. It went over very well with at least one Chicago critic (Andrew Patner):
From the first muted and rocking sounds of the opening Andante comodo (comfortably flowing) movement through the heartrending slipping away into the softest sounds of the closing Adagio, 80 minutes later, Kalmar demonstrated an understanding of this piece, and especially its structure, its pacing, and its inner pulse, that one normally associates with conductors with decades more experience than the 51-year-old Uruguayan-Austrian maestro. And the orchestra — in a work that demands lengthy passages of great cohesion and then turns to expose individual sections and players for minutes at a time — it is no left-handed compliment to say that it has not a weak link in it today. Throughout, the audience sat in rapt attention recognizing that we were observing, and even participating, in a psychological, emotional, and even philosophical journey as well as a musical and artistic one. Only more remarkable when one considers that this was the first time this piece was played by or at Grant Park.
Patner also talks about how this great performance came about, and much, if not all, of what he has to say is equally applicable to the Oregon Symphony:
You need of course an excellent orchestra and also an inspired one. You need a conductor with insight and authority who also holds the orchestra’s respect. For all of these factors we can thank Kalmar who has built and shaped this already fine ensemble into one that rivals many a major full-season symphony orchestra and who, without ego, tantrums, or stunts has won not only the respect but the love of his players. To have an audience — and an ever-growing one at that — made up entirely of people who wish to be there — no one attending out of social obligation — is a part of setting the mood and the aural tension. Add to this a sense of civic pride and accomplishment … and you have not only a recipe for something quite near miraculous but also something that exists nowhere else in the world.
6 replies on “kalmar and grant park do mahler 9”
Charles, thanks for posting that. I was at work in Salem today listening to KWAX in Eugene and guess who was featured on “Exploring Music”? None other than Carlos Kalmar and the Grant Park Festival. I’m not surprised by the positive review of Mahler 9. I have said on more than one occasion that the Mahler 9 performance by the Oregon Symphony that I heard was a watershed moment in Kalmar’s tenure. I thought it was superbly played and conducted. It was especially interesting since I had just attended a performance of Mahler’s the Song of the Earth a few days earlier by the Boston Symphony under James Levine. The OSO and Kalmar more than held their own. We are very fortunate to have a conductor of Kalmar’s ability in Portland. I believe we may one day look back on this era some twenty or so years from now and say that this was the OSO’s golden era.
I must admit I was hoping for some validation of my opinion of the OSO’s Mahler 9 performance. This leads me to the following: I don’t believe that David Stabler attended the Mahler 9 performances (although I could swear that there was a positive review in the Oregonian). We are all familiar with the query: If a treee falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? A variation of that comes to mind–if the OSO gives a performance and no critic is there to evaluate it, does it have any significance? any thoughts?
This leads me another topic. I must confess to being an insecure listener to classical music. I have no expertise in music. What I know about it has been gleaned from reading magazines and books and attending concerts. I like to think I have become more knowledgeable over the years but I am sometimes plagued by doubts about my ability to assess a performance. A case in point involves the OSO’s performance of Beethoven 9, one that was harshly criticized by David Stabler. My reaction immediately after the performance was that, while I was not bowled over by it, I still thought it largely effective. Of course, when I read the negative review on Monday, I started to wonder whether I could ever be sure I have properly evaluated a performance and whether I should give up my season tickets and take up another pastime. There have been other instances where I have been pretty sure I have heard a good performance but have been contradicted by a critic. What is more important? My unsophisticated reaction to the performance or the opinion of an expert critic. To what extent should I let a review color my reaction to a performance? Perhaps I should not worry so much about evaluating and just simply enjoy what I am hearing. Is there anybody out there who has insecurities similar to mine?
?
Hi Curtis – sorry I’m late to the party! You’ve gotten some excellent responses already, so I’ll keep my thoughts relatively brief. Musical performances jibe very well with the phenomenon observed by law enforcement officers when taking witness statements in the wake of an accident. Not everyone sees the same thing. One person might only see the end of the accident, another might only see the moments before the accident. Others might be watching one vehicle but not the other. Add these variables together and you can get some widely divergent opinions on what actually took place. In this way, the “truth” as viewed by an omniscient, impartial observer, is impossible to obtain. Each person sees the event through their own filters and circumstances. The same can be said for a symphonic performance (and believe me, there are some that I’ve taken part in that could charitably be referred to as “accidents”!
Curtis: I’ll bet almost EVERYONE out there shares your insecurities to one degree or another. The important thing to remember about any performances is that the only thing that really matters is how it affects YOU. There is no simple right or wrong view of a concert, and I suspect even someone like David Stabler would agree that his opinion is no more or less valid than your own. I can’t tell you how many times my own opinion of an Oregon Symphony concert was wildly at odds with what David had to say; that’s part of what makes attending live performances so much fun.
Your memory is absolutely correct about one thing: The ORegon Symphony’s Mahler 9did garner a rave from The Oregonian. James McQuillen reviewed that concert. Here’s what he had to say:
Music review
Mahler’s Ninth and nothing else
The orchestra shines as it explores a massive and moving masterpiece
Monday, April 28, 2008
JAMES McQUILLEN
The Oregonian
At about 90 minutes, Saturday night’s Oregon Symphony performance at Arlene Schnitzer Concert Hall was the shortest subscription concert of the orchestra’s season. But as it was entirely devoted to Gustav Mahler’s epic Ninth Symphony — presented without intermission and with only the briefest introductory remarks — it was also the most intensely focused and, in the end, the most magnificent.
Mahler wrote the symphony, the last he completed, in 1909. Even by his standards, the piece is suffused with intimations of mortality and alternately wistful and angst-filled reflections on life. That’s not surprising: Two years earlier, a beloved daughter had died of scarlet fever, and shortly thereafter Mahler himself was diagnosed with a serious heart condition. In its vast sweep, the Ninth embraces pathos and peace, lyrical sentimentality and grotesque coarseness, rigorous compositional sophistication and folksy references verging on kitsch.
Reflecting the scope of Mahler’s vision are the vast orchestral forces the piece requires. With heavily augmented winds and brass, the Oregon Symphony was a hundred strong on stage. Given that Mahler seemed intent on squeezing every last drop of orchestral color onto his palette, exploiting the full range of the instruments and occasionally adding mutes to just about every part that could use them, the orchestra sounded even larger than that.
Music director Carlos Kalmar led with his customary elegance. Fans of a more visceral approach to the symphony might have wanted more coarseness in the second movement landler (the Austrian folk dance), more grotesque contortions in the third movement “Burleske,” and more violence in general. But Kalmar gave the music ample passion and drive while maintaining fine balance, elucidating sparkling details and carefully controlling tempos and dynamics through the piece’s abundant transitions.
The orchestra shone. The brass, and especially principal trumpet Jeffrey Work, were firm and focused; principal horn John Cox and the rest of his section contributed the best playing in recent memory; Evan Kuhlmann and his fellow bassoons were also outstanding. Strings were rich and unified, even if they were pushed to the limits of intonation and sustained tone in the hushed, hymnlike closing bars.
The performance repeats tonight. Go.
Carl, thanks for reproducing the review and your comments. What is so odd about this is that both Stabler and McQuillen listed the most significant concerts that occurred last year and as I recall, the OSO’s Mahler 9 concert did not appear on it. I can understand why Stabler did not mention it since he did not hear it, but given McQuillen’s review, I don’t understand why he did not list it. Given the length, importance and difficulty of the work , it should have topped the list of noteworthy musical events last year in Portland.
Curtis,
About a decade ago, I attended a performance of Mahler’s 1st Symphony in Brazil. Technically speaking, it was far from polished…the string sections were often out of tune, and the wind and brass players struggled at times. The overall effect, however, was absolutely stunning, and at the end the audience burst into the most raucous standing ovation I have ever witnessed. People were yelling and clapping as they exited the concert hall.
It is hard to imagine what kind of a review that performance would have gotten in the States. Most critics would probably have noticed the faulty intonation, while simultaneously perceiving something marvelous happening on an emotional level. Regardless, concert reviews should have very little bearing on how audience members approach a live performance. Too many variables are at play for one performance to be indicative of the next. You may as well trust your own emotions, even if you find yourself disagreeing with the opinions of a critic.