- NEWS
- SPORTS
- BUSINESS
- ENTERTAINMENT
- LIFE
- TRAVEL
- OPINION
Gustavo Dudamel unleashes a potent Verdi Requiem, or, What else did you expect?
November 6th, 2009, 11:54 am · 37 Comments · posted by TIMOTHY MANGAN, THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
CLICK ON PHOTO TO VIEW SLIDE SHOW
Review. The Orange County Register, Nov. 6, 2009.
Heretofore, Gustavo Dudamel, the Los Angeles Philharmonic’s new music director, has appeared with the orchestra for a week or two at a time. Thursday night marked the beginning of his most extended period with the group to date. He decided to open it with a real corker, a masterpiece of lyrical doom and gloom, pounding fear and hellfire known as Verdi’s Requiem. Expectations ran high in a sold-out Disney Hall.
The maestro, in white tie and tails, strode heroically onstage. He waited for complete silence and then began, the muted cellos playing so softly and distantly and intensely the listener leaned forward to hear, was instantly transported into another world until … a cell phone went off. It was a rock tune, strangely familiar yet what was it? I couldn’t quite put my finger on it. The rock tune went off again and one half expected Mr. Bean to stand up with a dumb grin on his face, fumbling in his coat pocket to turn the thing off.
Dudamel stopped the orchestra, the audience hissed, he waited for silence and then began again. OK, so it was only a concert after all. Thanks for the reminder, Mr. Bean.
Still, it was quite a concert. This was only Dudamel’s second go at Verdi’s Requiem in his career, but he already seems to have the massive work under his skin. What’s more, it’s a work that his predecessor, in 17 years, never conducted here. Not really his style. But it is Dudamel’s. The young man enjoys swinging for the fences while he wears his heart on his sleeve.
Written in memory of the great Italian novelist, poet and father figure of modern Italy, Alessandro Manzoni, Verdi’s Requiem is not a comforting work, with its unworthy sinners begging for mercy from an apparently merciless god, death and destruction everywhere, no hope. It may be a little odd to consider it entertaining, but entertaining it is, nevertheless. It is extravagantly Italian in its emotions and was criticized, as a sacred work, for being too operatic. But of course that’s where its potency lies. There’s no treating the text here with kid gloves. When the gates of Hell open up you know it.
Dudamel’s reading had many strengths, and even some of its weaknesses eventually seemed like strengths. Precision wasn’t its main concern; this was no holds barred. Fortissimos were raucous and roof-raising, also, at times, a big jumble texturally. Coordination between the solo vocal quartet and the orchestra was often loose. Even by itself, the orchestra could be unsettled, not in complete lockstep.
But there was method here. It was as if Dudamel had taken the chains off the musicians. Everyone was playing out, singing out, shouting out. The looseness allowed expression, flexibility, warmth. It unleashed energy. It unleashed lyricism.
The exultant oratory itself was well controlled. Broad strokes were matched by telling details. Dudamel managed the pace expertly and coaxed ample and shapely phrases throughout. The famous opening of the “Dies Irae” truly frightened, the conductor getting airborne. With trumpets spaced around the hall, the “Tuba Mirum” became a coup de theatre. The “Lacrymosa” swelled to a glorious outpouring. The “Sanctus” vaulted exuberantly.
The vocal quartet sang handsomely, forthrightly. Bass John Relyea boomed in aptly sepulchral tones, gaining steel with volume. Tenor David Lomeli proved prone to hollering, but sang a convincing line with conviction. Mezzo-soprano Ekaterina Gubanova supplied liquid opulence and pointed nuance. Young soprano Leah Crocetto, a first-year Adler fellow at San Francisco Opera, impressed with equal parts poise, velvety tone, power, sensitivity and emotive immediacy.
The Los Angeles Master Chorale thundered and literally whispered with springy agility and well marked rhythms.
In short, a memorable Verdi Requiem. Hard to ask for more.
After leading three more Requiem performances this weekend, Dudamel oversees three additional programs in multiple performances this month, with music by Berio, Schubert, Mozart, Berg, Salonen, Adams and Lou Harrison and stellar guest soloists on order.
It’ll be a great opportunity for the orchestra, and for us listeners, to get to know him better. Leave your cell phones at home.
- Los Angeles Philharmonic
- With: Gustavo Dudamel, conductor; Los Angeles Master Chorale; Leah Crocetto, soprano; Ekaterina Gubanova, mezzo-soprano; David Lomeli, tenor; John Relyea, bass
- Where: Walt Disney Concert Hall
- When: Nov. 5
- Next: 8 p.m. Nov. 6-7; 2 p.m. Nov. 8
- How much: Call for availability
- Call: 323-850-2000
- Online: laphil.com
photo: anna hult
Reader Comments
Comments are encouraged, but you must follow our User Agreement.- Keep it civil and stay on topic.
- No profanity, vulgarity, racial slurs or personal attacks.
- People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
37 Comments
-
ADVERTISEMENT
-
-
-
About the bloggers
-
-
16th annual People's Choice
From your favorite restaurants and shops to the best day spa in town, here are your choices for the number one places to eat, shop and play in O.C.
Browse the 2009 Best of Orange County winners -
ADVERTISEMENT
PERFORMANCE WAS FLAT.
INGEMISCO WAS LUKE WARM .SUNG WITHOUT PASSION.PATHETIC.
CONFUTATIS WAS MUFFLED. LACKED DRAMA AND INTENSITY BY BASS AND ORCHESTRA.
WITHOUT PRECISION IT DOESNT WORK .AT LEAST NOT WITH THE LA PHIL AND 2ND RATE SINGERS.
IN COOKING VERNACULAR ITS CALLED CHICK CHUCK.
DUDAMEL NEEDS TO FOLLOW THE RECIPE OF PAST MASTERS.
IT IS NOT REQUIRED TO REINVENT THE WHEEL WITH AN AUDIENCE THAT BASICALLY KNOWS NO BETTER OR WORSE.
I COULD GO ON AND ON .TOO BUSY.
You COULD learn to un-lock your CapsLock button instead of shouting at us!
HE’S TOO BUSY, RICK!
Thanks for the review, Tim. Wanted to attend this weekend, but alas, it is not possible. Grateful to have your account of the proceedings.
I find it interesting that after the season’s opening concerts (Adams/Mahler and Chin/Mahler) and now this one, it seems from your reviews and from comments made here on the blog by those who have been sitting in WDCH for these concerts, that the new maestro is really pushing for more musical expression seemingly at the expense of precision.
This never seemed as much of an issue with any of his programs prior to becoming music director, even though there were many “heart on the sleeves” type of performances as well. As MarK had pointed out a few weeks ago, GD can conduct more for precision (as he did in City Noir) when he chooses. The orchestra under EPS had gained such a well-deserved reputation for flexibility and rhythmic precision that it seemed to carry with it even under guest conductors, including GD under his previous visits. Perhaps he is taking more liberties as music director than he did as a guest.
It should be interesting seeing how this pans out in the coming weeks, especially given the programming ranges from Mozart and Schubert to Berg, Berio, Salonen, Harrison, and Adams. The Mozart symphonies in particular will be fascinating. Looking forward to it all.
Thanks for the review. What a wonderful bombastic, operatic, even profane work it is. Much more fun than funereal and all the better for it. And a markedly more disciplined rendition than that of LA Opera a year or so ago. (I guess it was actually played in Church for Manzoni’s send-off. That would have been an interesting performance to have heard.) I might quibble with you a bit about the quality of one or two of the soloists, but, overall, I thought it a blast. And you show admirable restraint in your review in that while, of course, you placed the conductor’s name first in your write-up, you did, at least, mention the composer in your first paragraph. Viva Mangan. Viva Verdi.
Why not quibble a bit? To my ears, only one of the four soloists was on the level that is required by the piece. Who was your favorite?
Thanks Tim, as always your review made me feel as though I was there, and made me wish I was there.
Dudamel was just in Paris last week, and he conducted with the Paris and Simon Bolivar Youth Orchestra, Berlioz, “Fantastique”
You can see the entire program on, “arte live web” on google. Just MIND BOGGLING.
http://liveweb.arte.tv/fr/video/Dudamel_dirige_le_Philharmonique_de_Radio_France_et_le_Bolivar_Youth_Orchestra/787/
check it out.
I notice that concert lacks some of the visceral, full quality of sound that is detectable in this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2i_YEYFkIJE
Some say otherwise, but I think right up there with the quality and skill of the conductor, musician and, for that matter, composer is the acoustic of the space where a performance takes place. In other words, when listeners are picky and very discriminating about how a piece is played — based on the abilities of the conductor and musicians, assuming they’re all at least reasonably talented — for them to then take lightly the underlying acoustics (of good or poor) of the performance space calls to mind the question of: “And other than THAT, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play!?
I listen to the following performance conducted by another wunderkind (although at a much older age than Gustavo Dudamel is of today), with musicians from one of the world’s top orchestras in what appears to be one of those beautiful classical European concert halls….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jQZ_zHNMfY&feature=related
But I find the performance less effective not because of Leonard Bernstein, or because of the musicians, or certainly because of the composer. I find the sound just doesn’t affect me in the same way as it does in the performance in Los Angeles from October. I really do sense slight tears welling up in my eyes at certain moments when hearing portions of the exact same piece played in the other video, and I don’t think that’s just because I’m of the female persuasion.
This is an illustration to me of why I’ve heard it said that the sound in Disney Concert Hall has a visceral quality. Only downside is I do hear a lot more background noise (more coughs) in Disney than in the hall hosting the performance led by Bernstein.
Thank you, Deborah, for your interesting finds. However, no matter how you slice that turkey (sorry for mentioning it two weeks too early), the music comes first, the performance second, and only then - the acoustical qualities of the space.
The Vienna-Bernstein recording was made between thirty and forty years ago. The hall - Vienna’s famous Musikverein - is one of the greatest in the world acoustically. The Vienna Phil of that time was better than the LA Phil is today and a mature but not yet old Bernstein was a more convincing interpreter of Mahler than the 28-year-old Dudamel is right now. The only small advantage of the recent video is that the sound recording technology has advanced during these thirty years, but, in terms of the results, not dramatically by any means.
So, how can this new - good but very imperfect - recording be so much more enjoyable for anyone to listen to than the older but better one, is quite puzzling to me. The only explanation i can come up with is that the memory of being inside of the WDCH and enjoying orchestral sound there plays a very important role in a person’s aural impression while listening to these video recordings.
Are you aware that the video of Leonard Bernstein conducting Mahler No. 1 was NOT recorded in the Musikverein?!
I imagine you pride yourself on being very attuned to the finer details of orchestral sound, if not sound in general. That’s fine and all. But it’s therefore even more puzzling to me that you can listen to 2 videos and not detect the different sound quality in one compared with the other.
Forget the orchestras involved, forget the conductors involved, forget the age of the recording, forget the composition that’s being performed. Just focus on the sound. After doing that, if you still can’t detect a noticeable difference between one and the other, then I can’t help but believe your aural acuteness is not as fully developed as it might otherwise be or you’re being contrarian for contrarian’s sake.
It is true that the hall in that video was not the famed Musikverein, but whatever it was sounded quite nice anyway. By the way, Deborah, where in my comment did you see me say that i heard no differences in the sound? Why are you inventing something i never said and attribute it to me? Please explain.
Of course, i heard clear differences in sound, and to hear them i didn’t need to “forget’ about anything. But, once again, the quality of the performance is much more important to me (given that the music was the same).
When i listen to music, i listen to all of it - and the importance of all the numerous components of the performance (tempos, volume, color and timbre of the tone, precision, phrasing, style, taste, emotion - just to name a few) far outweigh the importance of the acoustical subtleties of the space.
That is why i stand by every word in my previous comment.
“…where in my comment did you see me say that i heard no differences in the sound?”
Certainly differences beyond the miniscule, in that that you did state “the only small advantage of the recent video is that the sound recording technology has advanced during these thirty years…” Just as notable to me is your attributing such a minor difference to new technology as much as anything else.
You also state that “tempos, volume, color and timbre of the tone, precision, phrasing, style, taste, emotion - just to name a few) far outweigh the importance of the acoustical subtleties of the space.”
Please allow me to say that strikes me as similar to a comment along the lines of: “Wall color, crown moulding, carpeting, bathroom tile, light fixtures, faucets, sinks and grouting far outweigh the importance of the foundation — whether creaky and termite-ridden or strong and durable — that the house rests on.”
Or how about this: “The mayonnaise, ketchup, salt, pickles, lettuce, onions and tomatoes far outweigh the importance of the hamburger, be it either Kobe sirloin or Grade B beef.”
Not every difference creates an advantage. Some may be a cause for a disadvantage. Others may be neutral. Blue and green are very different colors. Which one has an advantage? Apples and oranges are very different. Where is the advantage? So, what i was saying was that i saw only one advantage of one recording over the other, but this does not mean that i did not hear differences in the sound.
As for your home improvement and fast food comparisons, they are completely topsy-turvy, upside-down, inside-out - any way you want to put it. You are talking about it as if the purpose of the music is to fill acoustical space. In fact, exactly the opposite is true. The purpose of building the hall is to enable people to perform and enjoy the music in it. Music can be played on the streets - and often is, for that matter - with many people enjoying it very much. A beautiful hall with great acoustics is worthless if no music is being played there.
Welcome to Ambassador Auditorium in Pasadena! Such a sad and unfortunate waste… In other words, musical piece is primary, performance of it is secondary, and listeners’ ears are the third essential component - with good acoustics being an enhancement that may increase the enjoyment but is not absolutely necessary.
Your premise about acoustics being “the foundation” is fundamentally wrong. It is actually much closer to wallpaper - can make certain rooms look better but not essential for living in the house.
“Not every difference creates an advantage.”
And one can say that the difference between the LA Philharmonic and the Vienna Philharmonic, or the difference between the younger Gustavo Dudamel and the older Leonard Bernstein is not an advantage, too. Or maybe that should be such a difference is not a disadvantage? However, I’d never make that type of claim, because such a difference is worth noting.
So where does a desire for a sort of cultural egalitarianism begin and end? If one flinches at stating that a particular difference is good or bad, or appealing or unappealing, pretty soon people end up saying that everything either matters or everything doesn’t matter.
“You are talking about it as if the purpose of the music is to fill acoustical space.”
I think you’re over intellectualizing the subject. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a good acoustic for music is a good acoustic for music. And just because the sound in a particular location is good for orchestral performances, why does the subject of music no longer being performed in such a location even relevant? It only would be if concert halls or other places with good acoustics had a long track record of eventually being abandoned or shutdown.
“It is actually much closer to wallpaper - can make certain rooms look better but not essential for living in the house.”
And a description as esoteric as “color and timbre of the tone” somehow represents greater impact or import? And, no, I’m not referring to color and timbre from, for example, kids in a high-school orchestra compared with professionals in a major symphony. I’m talking about “color and timber of tone” emanating from professional, experienced players in various major (and, better yet, generally well-regarded) orchestras, whether in America or Europe, or elsewhere.
So if the general acoustic of a setting where such major orchestras are performing is the wallpaper, then the relatively nebulous or finicky nature of something like “color and timber” of their playing has to be the glue on the back of that wallpaper. Or perhaps “color and timber of tone” is merely a bit of the design or pattern on that wallpaper.
If I’m not mistaken, that is Vienna’s Konzerthaus in the Bernstein video. It’s an exceptional hall acoustically. I heard the Pacific Symphony perform there on tour in 2006. It gives nothing away to Disney Hall, acoustically speaking.
“It’s an exceptional hall acoustically.”
Based on the recording, therefore, the audio attached to it has to be several degrees below the actual quality of sound that one hears live, in person, at the Konzerthaus in Vienna.
Yes, Deborah, that would be my point.
I’d be interested in your posting a link to a recording made in the Konzerthaus — or any other hall prized for its sound — and say that based on your personal experience it represents a fairly accurate representation of that location’s acoustics.
As we have discussed previously, recordings are not reliable indicators of the way music sounded in live performance - it can certainly make the sound worse, and in some cases, a good sound engineer armed with contemporary recording equipment can actually make the sound better as well.
So most of the recordings you have in your collection all represent what? Noticeably degraded versions of live performances or noticeably improved versions of actual performances? How about any that at least come quite close to being an identical twin — aurally — of what was recorded?
I can often detect inherently good sound properties in concerts recorded in Disney Concert Hall, and I’d be interested in learning whether such qualities are or are not evident in other places where music has been performed and recorded.
Most recordings are made in the studio, or in studio conditions. Live recordings sometimes capture something of the acoustics of the hall, but it’s never the same as being there. It’s rather like looking at a photograph of the Grand Canyon. One never feels that it’s “exactly” like the Grand Canyon, no matter how well done and beautiful. It’s two dimensional, for one thing.
What’s more, as stated here more than once, a recording is always listened to in a different acoustical environment (a carpeted living room with furniture, say) and through the intervention of stereo equipment (as well as the microphones that caught it in the first place). It’s just different — not worse, not better — OK?
I don’t feel we need to say any more on this subject. At this point, we’re just going round and round, and getting rather pedantic.
Rather pedantic? Surely not!
This thread of comments reminds me of the endless debate in the Musical Heritage Society newsletter 20+ years ago when they began to offer CDs in addition to LPs. The LP-ers relentlessly attacked the new medium as inferior. After a few years, MHS earned the undying enmity of the LP-ers by discontinuing LPs altogether.
Bottom line: classical music lovers are a passionate & opinionated bunch!
Actually, i was kind of enjoying this exchange, because frankly i have never encountered people with Deborah’s point of view before, and so i was curious and honestly tried to find some kind of reasonable rationale there, but i must admit that i have not succeeded in this endeavor.
The scenario i am imagining is that the Berlin Philharmonic is coming to town but is scheduled to perform at a local high school auditorium because on that very evening the student orchestra from that high school is playing a concert at the Walt Disney Concert Hall. Only one ticket is available for each of the events and Deborah is in front of me in line. Fortunately for me, i know that i will get the ticket i want because apparently she will prefer the other one.
Looks like it works to everyone’s advantage that people’s tastes are so different.
“i have never encountered people with Deborah’s point of view before”
What?! That listening to an orchestra perform in a setting with good acoustics is preferable to listening to an orchestra play in a setting with poor or so-so acoustics?!
Allow me to be a bit sarcastic by asking whether you work or spend all your waking hours at the Institute for the Hearing Impaired?
“the Berlin Philharmonic is coming to town but is scheduled to perform at a local high school auditorium”
And, by the same token, if you, MarK, are at a concert of the Berliners performing in a school auditorium — and a truly bad one at that — will you be more aware of the “color and timber of the tone” of the musicians than the flatness, dryness and perhaps stridency of the sound in general?
If you agree that the quality of the performance comes first and acoustics are second, then we are in agreement. That’s all there is to it. If not, then we disagree. And that’s fine too.
In one of your comments above, you wrote: “I think right up there with the quality and skill of the conductor, musician and, for that matter, composer is the acoustic of the space where a performance takes place”. That is what i am referring to as your point of view. My point of view is that the quality of music comes first, quality of the performance second, quality of the acoustics third. Since i have never said that acoustics don’t make any difference, your sarcasm is misplaced and unwarranted.
At a hypothetical Berlin Philharmonic concert in a high school auditorium, i would certainly be dissatisfied with the acoustics, but the quality of the performance will more than make up for it (while no acoustics in the world will make a high school orchestra sound anywhere close to that - in fact, clear acoustics as in the Walt Disney Concert Hall make bad orchestras sound even worse because every little imperfection is amplified and magnified). Meanwhile, i am obviously quite happy that this Monday and Tuesday i am going to be hearing the Berliners at the WDCH.
Your disdain for the acoustics of high school auditoriums is truly outrageous, MarK. Santa Ana High School’s auditorium has excellent acoustics, perhaps the best in O.C. The Los Angeles Philharmonic used to play there. Giulini conducted there! Would he have conducted in an inferior acoustical space? I think not. I think that you should take back every word you’ve said on this topic and apologize to high schools around the country.
As we both remember, Tim, Giulini conducted at the Hollywood Bowl too. I rest my case.
“My point of view is that the quality of music comes first, quality of the performance second, quality of the acoustics third.”
If by “quality of music” you’re referring to the type of composition presented by an orchestra, then, yes, regardless of the quality of the acoustics, I’d rather listen to a memorable piece by Beethoven, Tchaikovsky or Mahler than the atonal monotony of, for example, Arnold Schoenberg.
However, I do recall some music, which I’d describe as rather avant garde, that when it was first presented in the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion was sort of sonic mush. But when it was later presented in Disney Concert Hall its inner notes suddenly came alive, allowing the complexity of the piece to come out, making even a bit of what I’d label as non-memorable music more appealing, or at least less unappealing.
As for the quality of performance, since it’s a given that top-notch musicians will be preferable to novices, I’m not even discussing the finer points of acoustics based on the possibility that members of the audience in a particular concert hall will be listening to either a group of first-year students instead of a group of professionals, or visa versa.
In other words, everything else being equal, acoustics may make a difference. That is absolutely true and no one would ever argue against that.
“Live recordings sometimes capture something of the acoustics of the hall, but it’s never the same as being there.”
But the “something” you refer to generally is accurate enough to detect the inherent sound properties of where an orchestra is performing. In other words, and assuming a recording isn’t greatly tweaked by the technicians after a performance — and the equipment they’re using is generally properly arranged and of good quality — music in a bad setting won’t suddenly sound good, and music in a good setting won’t suddenly sound bad. Or variations thereof.
You are correct, but it is important to remember your assumption, because in fact recordings are often “tweaked by the technicians after a performance”, sometimes “greatly” so - and it is very hard for a listener to know when they are and when they are not, unless that listener was there during the actual performance or at the very least knows the acoustics of the place extremely well.
“because in fact recordings are often “tweaked by the technicians after a performance”, sometimes “greatly” so…”
Then a lot of those technicians need to do a lot more tweaking, because so many of the recordings I’ve listened to often do not truly flatter the sound of the music. For instance, the quality of the acoustic that I notice in that recording of Mahler No 1 with the Vienna Philharmonic conducted by Leonard Bernstein in the Konzerthaus in Vienna.
I have to say the technicians must be more skilled at the LA Philharmonic and Disney Hall because the concerts they capture for posterity sound a lot better, including that brief clip of Mahler 1 led by Gustavo Dudamel several weeks ago.
They may be better, their equipment may definitely be better, and/or their acoustical taste may simply be closer to yours.