Rating: 3 out of 4 stars.
A test case for the new conductor of the New York Philharmonic, but not in New York, October 2, 2009
By Santa Fe listener - See all my reviews
(TOP 100 REVIEWER)
So far as I can tel, every note that Alan Gilbert has conducted with the NY PHil. has been rapturously greeted by the local press, especially the Times. He is the orchestra's new face. He arrives to reinvigorate the orchestra after the dispiriting tenure of Lorin Maazel. And he's a native son of the city. There's every reason to give him the benefit of the doubt. But eventually gilbert has to offer the goods musically and show that he's the major conductor the orchestra deserves. Since his track record in recordings has been all but invisible, this new Mahler Ninth is the first evidence yea or nay about his talents. Therefore, I anticipated it highly.
Gilbert, now 42, has been the chief conductor in Stockholm since 2000, and the good news is that he holds a firm hand over the orchestra and gets them to respond. One senses his confidence with this complex score. As it happens, the NY phil's in-house label has just issued a complete Mahler cycle under Maazel, and if his lackluster Ninth, which shows not a shred of conviction, reminds us of how bad tings got, Gilbert's Mahler is energetic and engaging. But it's also painted broadly, with generic gestures and generic ideas. The first movement's opening theme is a thing of light and shadow, but Gilbert marches through it at a simple, straightforward pace with no bohter one way or other. Part of this literalness may be due to his musicians, who are goodish European players of no real distinciton. Listening to the many woodwind solos Mahler has written, none are executed with personality or style. The notes are played, and that's that.
Gilbert offers no real changes in dramatic contrast or even pacing as this complex movement unfolds. Like Seiji Ozawa, who couldn't seem to figure out what to say in the Ninth (this symphony figured as his farrewell to Boston ad was not a fortunate event), Gilbrt engages with the music's emotion by fits and starts. The great eruptions in the first movement are vivid but not wrenching. One hears a Mahlerian who is musically assured but self-contained. Simon Rattle's recent Ninth from Berlin (EMI) could be accused of fussiness, but it had more galvanizing impact than this reading.
Not everyone expects Mahler to be played with intensity, but it has to be characteristic. In the Scherzo there's enormous latitude for parody, irony, the clash of rustic and sophisticated (Rattle said of the two inner movements that this one exemplified everything Mahler hated about the country, while the Ronddo-Burleske exemplified everything he hated about the city). Gilbert is merely efficient. Perhaps that will satisfy some listeners, since he is "positive," as the British like to say about upbeat music-making. The Rondo-Burleske proceeds in the same vein, with lots of quick, efficient gestures but no menace or irony. By this point you will know where you stand abut the performance as a whole. Michael Tilson Thomas has won praise for his detailed, elegant, one-dimensional way with Mahler, and gilbert seems to be on the same track.
Happily, the Adagio finale begins with more gravity and weight; at 27 min. it's a true Adagio and actually slower by a minute than Bernstein in Berlin (DG). For the first time I felt that we were fully in Mahler's world. Gilbert's control over the massed string section is impressive, with a full range of dynamics as the half-lights of the long elegy are revealed. The challenge in this movement is to sustain an inward emotion for almost half an hour. Gilbert sustains the line even when the music becomes soft; the fact that he never lets the melody slacken is the sign of a naturally gifted conductor.
In sum, I can hear that Gilbert, although by no means a major Mahlerian yet, belongs in the ranks of international conductors for his control, musicianship, and sensitivity. For me, his Ninth didn't catch fire until the last movement, and I wish Gilbert had found more drama and depth elsewhere. However, New York may have bet on the right horse over the long stretch. They deserve a change of fortune.
P.S. I copied it from amazon.com. Basically, this reviewer has spoken for me so well (except for the negative opinion on Ozawa's Mahler) and I don't need to say any more. Is he one of us on the board?
