What can I say about Francis Poulenc?
Not much really because I know nothing about the man or his music. Oh, I’ve heard of Poulenc, but I couldn’t name a single piece by him. That’s why I decided this week to listen to something by Poulenc. As a matter of fact, I had to run a Google-search on “list of works by Francis Poulenc” (HERE) to choose something. I landed on the Concerto for Two Pianos because I always love to explore works for multiple pianists and/or pianos, So what can I say about Francis Poulenc and his Concerto for Two Pianos and Orchestra? Well, think of an eccentric mix of Mozart and Igor Stravinsky -- and then blend in some George Gershwin and Pee Wee Herman (think Danny Elfman’s score for “Pee Wee’s Big Adventure”). Poulenc's concerto is written in three movements, and the first starts with two primal beats a la “The Rite of Spring,” and then the pianos take off at breakneck speed – almost like music for a silent movie where the projector is playing the film in hyper-drive. About two-and-a-quarter minutes in there is a slower section, marked “Le double plus lent,” that allows everyone to catch their collective breath. Oddly enough, in this section I can’t help but hear the unmistakable rhythm of Chopin’s familiar funeral match. Was that intentional? Two minutes later, the tone returns to its jaunty and playful origins before a return to a très calme dreamlike section that leads into the second movement, a Larghetto. In the second movement, Poulenc pays homage to the well-known Andante from Mozart's D Minor Concerto, K. 466. Poulenc said of the movement, "In the Larghetto of this Concerto I permitted myself, for the first theme, to return to Mozart, because I have a fondness for the melodic line and I prefer Mozart to all other musicians. If the movement beginsa la Mozart, it quickly diverges at the entrance of the second piano, toward a style that was familiar to me at the time.” Parts of the final movement, marked “Allegro molto,” reminded me of George Gershwin’s Piano Concerto in F, written seven years before this concerto. However, the best characterization I can offer of Poulenc’s concerto’s final movement is this quote I found from freelance music writer Roger Dettmer: “Returning to the mood of the first movement, the finale begins with percussive flourishes before it takes off like an Alfa-Romeo in a Grand prix through the avenues and allées of day-and-night Paris, past marching bands and music halls. There is, however, an interlude lyrique et romantique when the Alfa stops for a bedroom tryst, where perfume and perspiration mix with the smoke from Gauloises, after which the race resumes, even more racily.” So there you have it. What can I say about Francis Poulenc and his Concerto for Two Pianos and Orchestra? I liked it. I liked it a lot.
0 Comments
A couple of weeks ago I was listening to some classical music on my car radio, and I caught the tail-end of a piece that featured the tuba. That reminded me of the time I listened to and commented on Giovanni Bottesini’s Concerto for Double Bass (HERE), a work written for an instrument rarely featured on the concert stage.
I thought I’d do that again this week – spotlight a piece for an oft-neglected instrument – and I chose Jonathan Russell’s Concerto for Bass Clarinet. Mr, Russell, if you ever happen to stumble across this page, please know that my low rating is no reflection on you as a person – and I’m sure that you compose beautiful, interesting pieces. I just didn’t think this was one of them. However, many people did like it – just check out the comments below the video linked above. Perhaps some of the issues I have with the piece were due to poor recording techniques? One commenter on the video said, “it’s too bad the soloist wasn’t mic'ed better; hard to hear in the tutti sections.” Another said, “Everyone sounds just fantastic, but I would like to hear more bass clarinet and a little less orchestra, esp. in the tutti sections. This sounds less like a concerto rather than an orchestra piece with bass clarinet obligato.” So maybe my response was due to bad mic’ing? Well, perhaps that played a part in my low rating, but I also found the piece to be bland and uninteresting. There was too much bass clarinet played at a high register. I was hoping for more of a focus on the low register to showcase the nature of the instrument – and often when it was playing in the low register, there was an annoying raspiness to the tone. Plus, the orchestral part was banal – no contrapuntal melodies or harmonies – just everyone playing the same notes at the same time with the same rhythms. It sounded amateurish. Am I being too harsh? I dunno. Another comment under the video stated, “But the paltry audience applause is what stuns me. This piece deserves much better than that.” Hmm. Maybe they heard what I heard?
I'm familiar with some works by Hector Berlioz – those works that many might refer to as his “greatest hits” (“Symphonie Fantastique,” “Harold in Italy,” the “Roman Carnival Overture,” and more) – but I’m by no means an authority on the composer. Therefore, this week I thought I’d listen to one of his unknown works (i.e., unknown to me), and I landed on his Grande Symphonie Funèbre Et Triomphale. From an article at Wikipedia (HERE): “The French government commissioned the symphony for the celebrations marking the tenth anniversary of the July Revolution which had brought Louis-Philippe I to power, for which it was erecting the July Column in the Place de la Bastille. Berlioz had little sympathy for the régime, but welcomed the opportunity to write the work because the government had offered him 10,000 francs for it.” The symphony, one of the earliest examples of a symphony for military band, is comprised of three movements:
The work was first performed in Paris during a parade to mark the anniversary of the July Revolution in 1840. The 1st and 3rd movements were played during the procession, and the 2nd premiered during the dedication proper along with a reprise of the 1st and 3rd movements – a good thing since little of the 3rd movement could be heard above the cheering crowds during the parade. More on the history of the piece can be found HERE. So what did I think of Hector Belioz’s “Grande Symphonie Funèbre Et Triomphale”? I thought that it sounded a bit more than amateurish – as if a student in a composition class was given the task of writing a funeral march, and then completing the assignment with nothing but hackneyed conventions.
It’s a dirge all right. There’s a plodding beat. There are surging drum rolls and drubbing, monotonous thumps. There are dreary woodwinds and deafening brass. **yawn** It’s not terrible. But it’s not at all exalting or even interesting. In the second movement, “Oraison funèbre,” the “funeral oration” is given by a trombone. The trombonist in the video linked above certainly has a clear tone, but again – to me – the piece was a bit quotidian. Crashing cymbals and blaring brass return in the final movement along with a stouthearted chorus. Sure. Why not?
I can listen to and enjoy most pieces of classical music, but there are a few works where I would not be bothered at all if I were never to hear them again. One is Richard Strauss’ tone poem “Till Eulenspiegel’s Merry Pranks.” I don’t know what it is about that piece, but it truly annoys me. Another is “The Tempest,” a “symphonic fantasie” by Tchaikovsky. That piece is a mess. Even he didn’t like it. Then there’s Anton Bruckner’s Mass in C Major – so banal and monotonous.
Well, two weeks ago I added another work to my list of pieces to avoid, Beethoven’s Piano Sonata No. 32, when I chose to listen to it for the first time (along with his Sonata No. 1). My comments and rating are HERE. I have to admit, though, it felt a bit perverse giving Beethoven my lowest ranking. I truly felt bad about it. It bothered me the entire next week. That’s why this week I decided to give Beethoven a second chance and choose another work I have not heard before, his Triple Concerto for Piano, Violin, Cello and Orchestra. Composed in 1803, the concerto features a piano trio – as you can tell from the title – and it is the only concerto Beethoven ever completed for more than one solo instrument. The work is divided into three movements:
I knew from the start that I would enjoy this piece much more than that vexing sonata. Although it opens very quietly with hushed tones from the basses, it only takes measures before it builds to a solid wall of sound. It then establishes an air of dignity and aplomb, and soon the piano trio is echoing those hushed tones from the bass that opened the work. The movement includes various repetitions and variations on themes that are as beautiful as they are grand. The second movement is a tranquil piece that features a tender aria for the violin. It then flows into the final movement without pause. And that final movement – oh what a joy it was. I suspect if one were to look up “delightful” in the dictionary it would say “see ‘final movement of Beethoven’s Triple Concerto.’” The entire movement is just delightful. Hmm, did I say that already? I can’t emphasize enough how delightful the movement is. I loved it. I am happy to say that this concerto earned my top rating! If you’ve never heard it, listen to it today! |
A New Hope:As the header above says, each week I will listen to a piece of classical music that I've never heard before, and then I will report out what I thought about it. Archives
September 2023
Categories
All
|