The Manhattan Saxophone Quartet played seven pieces on Saturday, 1/25. All seven were played by all four members. Here’s the thing about a saxophone quartet—it’s interesting. At first. All seven of the pieces had a connection with French music. A lot of the composers set out to (or so it seemed to me) be as quirky as possible. As a result, there was not a huge variety in the afternoon.
All but one of the composers were new to me. I enjoyed the opening piece, the fourth movement of Jérôme Savari’s Quatuor pour saxophones – Allegro moderato (1861 or 1862). It was jaunty and, oddly, slightly jazzy, though that could have been the newness of hearing four saxophones all at once. The second piece, by Gabriel Pierné (the only composer I recognized) was Introduction et variations sur une ronde populaire (1934). It was slightly dark and somber. The variations began with a sprightly phrase and then were varied in tempo—slow/fast/slow and lilting/faster/really fast, and included modern harmonies that were not too jarring. Nuages (literally, clouds, in French) put me in the mood of a swirling snowstorm. The other multi-movement works didn’t quite do it for me.
The final work, Cache-cache (roughly translated as ‘Hide and Seek’ and written in 1930) was a fun, playful piece, and a very good way to end the concert.
On, now, to 1893.
The New York Classical Players – New Worlds; Dvorak and Debussy String Quartets.
Well, sort of. As it turned out, the program was:
Sonata for Violin and Cello (1922) – (dedicated to Claude Debussy) – Maurice Ravel (1835–1937)
String Quartet in F Major, Op. 96 No. 12, “American” (1893) – Antonin Dvorak (1841–1904)
String Quartet in G minor, Op.10 (1893) – Claude Debussy (1862–1918)
Why in the world Ravel dedicated a work to a dead man is beyond me, but c’est la vie. “La vie.” (Always go for the cheap laugh, taught Mikey.)
There were four movements of the Ravel. The second was my favorite. There were pizzicato sections for both violin and cello, then a very dramatic section followed by a very lyrical section. The entire work was good. But that second movement was my favorite.
The Dvorak quartet was a joy. The first movement had a lovely motif to open with—very tonal and lightly joyful and lush, at times. It was charming and captivating. The second movement was a gently rocking accompaniment to a solo violin line. The solo violin line was then thrown to the cello in an absolutely lovely and poignant way. The third movement brought back one of the themes from the first movement but expanded on it—a perfect blend of charm, poignancy, drama, and fun. The final movement was almost, but not quite, off to the races. It was energetic and effervescent, even though there were contrasting slower sections. But it finished with energy and charm.
As a plus, these four performers knew how to take a bow—often, performers seem hesitant about how to acknowledge and thank their audience. Four people taking their cue from one, bowing together, and deciding whether to take a second bow; it’s not rocket science but it’s also messed up from time to time. These four knew what they were doing.
After intermission, they played the Debussy quartet from the same year—1893. It was pleasant and very different in terms of style. My notes for the fourth movement sort of summarize my feelings about the entire work. It was charming, in a slightly dark way, and it perked up, energetically and dramatically, in an interesting but not really compelling way. It’s not that it was bad; it’s just that it paled when paired with the Dvorak quartet. As always, your mileage may vary.
No comments:
Post a Comment