Premiere performance of M6 in Vietnam (and 'cowbell incidents')

[mike bosworth]

(apologies for the cross-posting)

Together with fellow Mahler-List member Stan Gayuski,
I attended the first ever Vietnam performance of M6 last night
(Saturday).  The symphony was played by the Vietnam National Symphony
Orchestra under Japanese conductor Tetsuji Honna, the venue being the
Hanoi Opera House.

The regular VNSO forces were augmented by 6 brass, 7 woodwinds, and 3
percussionists from the 781st Military Music Group, 2 Japanese harpists,
and four Norwegian wind players (including trumpet, trombone, clarinet).

The first movement was conceived and played very well, the horns (with the
exception of one cracked trumpet entry) much improved from the M5
performance last year. Tempos and transitions were well thought out with
good cowbells, celesta (not audible, as usual, during the 'Alma' theme),
and harps.  Woodwinds did not hold back, sometimes even overpowering the
strings. The expo repeat was taken.  The opening march was brisk but not
too fast, and the Alma theme exhibited a good deal of the
requisite 'verve'.  The coda avoided rushing to the finish line and the
final note was greeted with applause.

The literature announcing the performance together with the program handed
out at the entrace indicated an S-A order for the middle movements (it
still says so on the website).  I had therefore prepared myself
psychologically for this, only to find that the conductor had decided
after all to go for A-S.  It took me a few moments to recover from this
surprise.  Meanwhile the Andante Moderato had gotten off to a bad start,
the orchestra (in particular the winds) still playing like it was the
first movement, not to mention the clarinets going out of tune and the
flute badly missing a key entry.  French horn solos were too
timid/recessed.  Overall the orchestra simply was not able to change gears
from the drama of the 1st movement and achieve the reflective delicacy,
the sense of contemplation and nostalgia required for this beautiful
piece.  In addition, the cowbells, so well handled in the first movement,
could not be heard in the two episodes in which they appear in the Andante
Moderato. Although ensemble and sound improved towards the end, this could
not really rescue the situation.

The Scherzo wasn't too badly played (nothing especially stood out, but
there was nothing especially inspiring either).  Again greater delicacy
and restraint in some of the softer passages would have helped.

Surprisingly, Mr. Honna moved 'attaca' to the Finale (I don't think this
is in the score??) and while some people were still clapping, which
detracted from quiet time needed to prepare for the 'puff of smoke'
opening to the Finale.  Moments later, something stranger happened. 
Anticipating the entry of the 'tiefe Glocken' (which I hadn't noticed on
stage), I was stunned to see that these had been replaced by the
cowbells!!  It became clear that for whatever reason, the cowbells had
been assigned to take the place of non-existent bells.  One the whole the
Finale was pretty well paced, with excellent hammer blows (two)--using a
huge mallet slammed onto the floor (or some boards on the floor).  Nice
harp playing and clear celesta (possibly amplified?).  The 'false victory march'
was handled well but as the piece entered the final minutes the ensemble was
clearly running out of steam. 

During the final brass threnody the low horns were really
struggling to keep it together, and shockingly, during part of this dirge,
the cowbells were being lightly shaken!!  I don't think that's in the
score.

The conductor recognized the percussion section first and foremost, and on
the whole this was well deserved.  Great timpani, tam-tam and rute, but
tinny-sounding xylophone.  The addition of the military wind players had
an overall positive effect on the sound (and precision!).  During the
somewhat tired applause, the conductor pointed at his watch and he and the
orchestra hurried off stage.

The very glossy program handed out had plenty of information on the
artists but did not have a word about the symphony other than the sequence
of movements (there was however a full paragraph on Rodrigo's Concierto de
Aranjuez which opened the concert).  Although Mahler himself might have
applauded this lack of program notes, IMHO it is a serious shortcoming
especially when subjecting the local audience to the first ever
performance of such a long, difficult, complex piece of music.  Something,
at the least verbally, should also have been said about the potentially
confusing last minute switch of the inner movements. 

The next performance of the on-going VNSO Mahler cycle is the M3 in
September.  Meanwhile, the Hanoi Philharmonic (a different ensemble) is
performing M1 under Austrian conductor Wolgang Groehs tomorrow night
(Monday).  Stan and I will be in attendance for that as well.

Mike Bosworth
Hanoi

[Leo K]

Very interesting Mike, thanks for the report! 



--Todd

[barry guerrero]

"Something, at the least verbally, should also have been said about the potentially
confusing last minute switch of the inner movements."

I disagree. I think it's a totally unimportant issue - especially for people who are just learning the work. It becomes little more than a distraction.  I say this because regardless of movement order, it's still very much a finale driven symphony. Think about it? When you were first learning the work, Mike, did it matter to you that there was some big argument over S/A or A/S? It certainly didn't matter to me! It still doesn't; although I'm basically an S/A guy for purely musical reasons. In my opinion, the less said, the better. Let people learn the music first - especially the finale. The same goes for the business about 2 or 3 hammerstrokes - totally unimportant.

Anyway, it might not have been the world's greatest M6; but hey! - it's a start. According to eye witness accounts, Mahler didn't do such a great job when he premiered it in Essen either.

Barry

[mike bosworth]

"Something, at the least verbally, should also have been said about the potentially
confusing last minute switch of the inner movements."

I disagree. I think it's a totally unimportant issue - especially for people who are just learning the work. It becomes little more than a distraction.

Sorry Barry, but I do think that it's an important issue.  Perhaps less so for the first timer, but still important.  I imprinted on the S-A order before I even knew there was a controversy.  Since then, I've become more open to A-S interpretations but I still prefer S-A, and I expect, indeed insist, on knowing the order in which the movements will be performed before I take my seat in the concert hall.

I agree that for us Mahlerians, the 6th is largely a Finale-driven symphony.  But in the case of this audience, I am sure than most of them had lost focus well before the Finale had even arrived.  I think that some of them thought that the end of the first movement was the conclusion of the entire symphony (most had come to hear the Rodrigo guitar concerto, which was heavily publicized in the media; not so the M6).  To me, the complete lack of information on the symphony in the program, compounded by the incorrect listing of the movement order, was a disappointment.  Even a simple paragraph on the piece would help 'to let the people learn the music', as you put it.  I had approached the VNSO asking that they do something about their program notes after last year's M5, but my advice was clearly ignored.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the performance and I realize that my expectations were certainly more 'rigorous' that those of most of the others in attendance.  But to do minimal justice to Mahler and retain audience attention, especially in a first performance, some amount of information on the piece, basic background and context, has to be provided.  The Vietnamese are intelligent and well-read people, and I am sure that they would not find such information, including on the movement order question, a 'distraction'.

Mike Bosworth
Hanoi

[barry guerrero]

Mike,

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that folks in Vietnam are any less literate, or any less able to understand a complex thought, than folks anywhere else. Sure, I think it would have been much better if they had simply borrowed Michael Steinberg's excellent program notes on Mahler 6 (and I'm sure that they're not aware of the existence or availability of Mr. Steinberg's notes). But in the sentence that I had originally objected to, Mike, you stated, quote, "at least verbally, something should have been said about the potentially confusing last minute switch of the inner movements " - that's the part that I truly object to. 

In my opinion, that action - in and of itself - could have caused greater confusion and, more to the point, ballooned the issue of movement order up to a level that simply over-magnifies the problem. That's almost like ringing an alarm, or getting people to think that there might be something almost defective about the work. That's the part I truly object to because, for at least two full decades, Mahler 6 was performed and recorded almost exclusively in S/A order, with nobody the wiser. Sure, many of my contemporaries who really cared about this kind of music, were aware that there had been - and still might have been (at that time) - some issue over the inner movements. But it wasn't considered a detriment to understanding or enjoying the work. It's only in recent times that folks have turned this into some kind of make-or-break issue over one's understanding and/or enjoyment.

So, on this one particular point alone, we'll simply have to agree to disagree. As far as cowbells in all kinds of spots where they don't belong, I think that's an excellent idea - the piece is truly about renegade cows   

[mike bosworth]

Barry, to make it brief my problem with the VNSO M6 is that the printed program handed out to the audience said Scherzo-Andante, yet the conductor performed it the other way around.  In my opinion there's something both wrong and 'confusing' about that.  It could have been corrected with a brief statement by the conductor without referring to any 'controversy'.

At last night's M1 with the Hanoi Philharmonic, an announcer came on stage before the performance to briefly introduce the work and the four movements.  That was certainly welcome, since once again the printed program had zero information about M1, other that calling it "Titan".  Unfortunately, the young lady also told the audience that "originally planned with five movements, Mahler eventually decided to discard the last movement".

Mike Bosworth
Hanoi

[barry guerrero]

Unfortunately, the young lady also told the audience that "originally planned with five movements, Mahler eventually decided to discard the last movement".

Well, I guess you could perform it: first movement; slow movement; "Blumine", scherzo. Maybe nobody would catch on to that either.