Untitled Document

Please note: Throughout Classical New Jersey Society reviews some words are found preceded by an asterisk (*). This indicates that the word is defined or discussed in the IOW (In Other Words) section of our website. If you are looking for a special definition or discussion, click on the alpha-clickbar below or the actual word, if it is hyperlinked.

A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H-I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P-Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X-Y-Z

This is an online only review - no other format is available.
Permission is granted to print and distribute this review in any format.

New Jersey Symphony Orchestra, Neeme Järvi (conductor), Alan Kogosowski (piano), Eric Wyrick (violin), Jonathan Spitz (cello). “Rachmaninoff the Romantic.” Rachmaninoff: Excerpts from Trio élégiaque in D minor, op.9, with discussion; Rachmaninoff/Kogosowski: Concerto Élégiaque (arr. of Trio); Rachmaninoff: Symphony no. 1 in D minor, op. 13. Heard in Patriots Theater, War Memorial, Trenton.

Few in the audience had ever heard Rachmaninoff’s Symphony no. 1 in D minor. Just why is one of those inexplicable things. It is appreciably shorter than his much more “popular” Symphony no. 2. What the First lacks in the sophisticated orchestrational effects of the Second symphony, the it makes up in boldness of line and visceral rhythmic excitement.

The finale’s opening blasts its way into the same fanfare world of Verdi’s “auto da fe” scene from Don Carlos. No wonder the first bows conductor Neeme Järvi gave were to the whole brass section!

It should have been no surprise, since the symphony begins with a most dramatic snarling motive from the horns. And with the broad and long-limbed second theme, all Rachmaninoff fans were allowed their sigh; even so young he had a gift for “the big tune.” Where there is “the big tune” there is most likely to also be “the big ending” as well, and Rachmaninoff does not disappoint.

The work is interesting not only on its own merits, but as a compendium of stylistic ideas soon abandoned as his own voice emerged rather quickly. Laurie Shulman’s excellent notes point out that Stravinsky’s early symphony is an odd artifact showing little or nothing of the Stravinsky to come. On the other hand, Rachmaninoff’s earlier youthful symphony has a finale which is filled with proto-Stravinsky rhythms which make the listener wonder why Rachmaninoff passed on this developing style to Stravinsky. In addition to this, the influence of “Mighty Five” which plays a large part in the first movement, especially Rimsky-Korsakov, becomes far less pronounced in later works. The orientalism of the melodic interval of the *augmented second is a major feature in this work, while it is rarely trotted out later in his career. While the adjacent shift from major to minor of the same chord is a most dramatic effect beloved of Mahler and Nielsen, Rachmaninoff uses it but once early in the symphony and never uses it again.

The slow third movement is the most exotic, featuring Eric Wyrick’s violin solo agains two celli in *unison. Principal cellist Jonathan Spitz and his stand partner practiced this passage many times as they warmed up while the audience was arriving, and it paid off in intonation at a highly professional level.

The Scherzo second movement, with its crystal clear formal structure, was a clear example of what made this symphony a hit in comparison to the Second: Rachmaninoff said what he had to say and got done. There are wonderful passages in the later work, very imaginative in a more subtle language than in his bold, even brash, First. But it takes a mighty speedy performance to bring the Second in at an hour, while the First is about the same length as Beethoven’s “Eroica,” a really doable length for the material he uses.

The first third of this lengthy concert were devoted to hearing Wyrick and Spitz join pianist Alan Kogosowski in excerpts from Rachmaninoff’s early Trio élégiaque and some discussion about the forty-five minute piece. It was all prelude to the full piece as arranged for full orchestra and piano by Kogosowski after the first intermission. Having heard the intimate virtuosity of the original trio helped identify tunes in the latter blown-up version. But it also gave one a taste for the virtues of virtuosic intimacy.

It seems to be a taste which pianist Kogosowski had not acquired, for he has taken the emotionally powerful trio and surrounded it with a large romantic orchestra and called the whole Concerto élégiaque. Percussion galore, brass adding substantial weight, and woodwinds lacking only *“bells up” in what seemed like a quest for going over the top. Even with Kogosowski letting fly with his considerable pianistic technique and brute force, the piano was often so covered that the piece might just as well have been a symphony with piano obbligato.

It might have worked as ahad the pianist arranged it using a leaner orchestration. Certainly at its most engaging it had everything we want from a Rachmaninoff concerto. The slow movement’s wind chorale as the theme for the variations had lovely shimmering moments. And the finale’s mournful, even trgic, conclusion was quite powerful as a reminder that the original trio had been composed as an elegy on the death of Tchaikovsky.

The encore was perhaps the most completely satisfactory artistic experience of the evening: the famous Vocalise.