hat do composers Franz Joseph Haydn (Austria), Witold Lutoslawski (Poland) and Serge Rachmaninoff (Russia) have in common? Nothing, save they shared a program performed by the Utah Symphony under the baton of Keith Lockhart. The eclectic programming is becoming common fare for Lockhart’s artistic directorship. Obviously, this eclecticism is working— last Friday the program drew in a sold-out Abravanel Hall, in addition to a highly attended matinee on Saturday.

The popular/classical familiarities with Haydn and Rachmaninoff are easy tools to draw in the concertgoer. It is easy to listen to the simple yet well-crafted classicism of Haydn. Furthermore, who can resist the sweeping virtuosity and beauty of a Rachmaninoff piano concerto?

But what of this Lutoslawski guy? Lutoslawski’s music isn’t simple and doesn’t strike the average listener as elegantly beautiful. So why throw the modern shrieking, scraping and loudness of Lutoslawski in the mix of secure familiarity? Simply put, it is great music. In fact, Lutoslawski’s Concerto for Orchestra was the shining star of the program. But the Concerto for Orchestra wouldn’t have stood a chance of being well-received if it wasn’t programmed in such a smart manner.

Lockhart simply held his audience hostage. Placing the Concerto for Orchestra between Haydn’s Symphony No. 7 and Rachmaninoff’s Piano Concerto No. 2 gave the audience no chance to up and leave. They had to stay and let the transcendent, grotesque and enigmatically beautiful sounds of the orchestre moderne educate them.

Interestingly enough, the Concerto for Orchestra premiered exactly 50 years ago, roughly 10 years after Bartok’s work of the selfsame title. It is relatively…well, old, yet old and new at once. It’s old as to Lutoslawki’s stylistic treatment of composition and the orchestra, and new to many who think the end of great orchestral music died with the Romantic era. The Concerto for Orchestra is a definitive work that shows a mature composer with an adept understanding of orchestral timbre and rich harmonies. The three movement work uses a kit and caboodle of dance/symphonic forms. Following the introductory first movement are a capriccio notturno (capricious night music), passacaglia, toccata and chorale.

As the title would suggest, this work explores the sound strata of the various instrumental sections. Although the movements don’t clearly center around one orchestral section at a time (i.e., brass, strings, woodwinds, percussion), there are distinct segments throughout the work in which the various instrumental choirs make their presence known. The orchestra did an outstanding job of presenting the contrasting dynamic and color changes. The climax of the piece revealed a brass section that blew the socks off all who listened and, coupled with rest of the orchestra, made an incredible wall of sound that could have torn down the walls of Abravanel Hall. This demonstration of orchestral prowess proved to be the highlight of the afternoon.

The disappointment came in the name of Stephen Hough. Although highly acclaimed with performances with some of the best orchestras and conductors in the world, Hough didn’t seem willing to go beyond the notes during his performance of Rachmaninoff’s Second Piano Concerto.

At times, the notes seemed to get in the way as well. The whole work seemed to be an unnecessary battle between the soloist, Hough, and the orchestra. Tempo seemed to be dictated by whatever suited Hough’s fancy. Granted, his technical capability is incredibly unmatched and caused great excitement and stir among audience members. Yet his touch was heavy-handed and lacked an emotional force that is necessary to fill the gaps of Rachmaninoff’s empty virtuosic writing.

It seems like everybody (musicians and casual listeners alike) can’t get enough of Rachmaninoff. Frankly, we all get too much. I have tried to come to Rachmaninoff’s music with an open mind and a willingness to change my disgruntled tune. But what I get is a big bowl of super-sweet whipped cream. It tastes nice, but it quickly loses its sweetness and substance and leaves me hungry. And the performance by Hough was fluffy (technically astute), but it didn’t even have the sweet sentiment that is representative of Rachmaninoff’s concoctions.

The Utah Symphony can’t always predict the outcome of guest artists. In fact, the choice and caliber of guest artists brought in by the organization is only matched by the Virtuoso Series at Libby Gardner Hall. Yet, the strong point of the Utah Symphony is the forward-thinking programming by artistic director Keith Lockhart. Long live Lutoslawski!
christian@red-mag.com