(no subject)

[kenjari]

Last night, Other Kenjari and I went to see the Boston Philharmonic at Jordan Hall. As with all the other concerts of theirs I went to this season, the program featured both something I had never heard before, and something I was completely familiar with.
The big piece on the program was Shostakovich's Violin Concerto No. 1. Clearly, I have to get to know more of Shostakovich's music, because this piece was amazing. Every movement was rich and meaty. The slow movements were beautiful and profound - especially the passacaglia, which was evocative of deep emotional pain. The fast movements were equally powerful in their drive and intensity. The soloist, Caitlin Tully, was terrific.
The second half of the evening was Tchaikovsky's Fifth Symphony. They played it well. Most people have heard this piece, even if they don't know it. It's a good piece, but I always feel that Tchaikovsky is a little heavy on the surface and light on the substance.

Comments

[apintrix.livejournal.com]

I... well, I think you have to give the piece its due. Tchaikovsky is primarily a melodist; it's long been acknowledged that he doesn't focus well on development of the melodies, just on restating them with varying counterpoint and harmony. On the other hand, he's an incredibly *good* melodist-- hence his great success with short balletic pieces. If you want to call that "light on substance", I suppose you could; but the fifth symphony is, essentially, a lot of fun, some beautiful tunes, and a rollicking ending. That's Tchaikovsky's game here. It's all *about* surface and affect, and I don't see a problem with that.

[kenjari.livejournal.com]

Maybe it was just the contrast with the Shostakovich. I was thinking last night that I wished they had reversed the order of the program.