Violinist Midori (photograph by Timothy Greenfield-Sanders, courtesy of SFP)
Yesterday afternoon in Herbst Theatre, San Francisco Performances presented the second of Midori’s two solo recitals. The program accounted for the remaining works for unaccompanied violin by Johann Sebastian Bach. The first of these was the BWV 1001 sonata in G minor, which was followed by the remaining two partitas, BWV 1002 in B minor and BWV 1006 in E major.
Once again, two works by living composers were interleaved between the Bach selections. The first of these was a rhapsody by Jessie Montgomery, the first in a planned series of rhapsodies, each for a different solo instrument. The second was a 2011 composition by John Zorn entitled “Passagen.” By way of perspective, it is worth noting that Zorn is about 28 years older than Montgomery.
“Passagen” was definitely the high point of the program. It was given is premiere by Jennifer Koh and its first recording by Pauline Kim. Zorn’s program notes for his Lemma CD claim that the score “encapsulates a brief history of solo violin music.” As many will probably guess, it began with the (in)famous B-A-C-H motif. However, I must confess that the composers that Zorn’s notes enumerated never really emerged with any recognizable substance. On the other hand, while Zorn’s notes did not mention it, I could swear that the B-A-C-H motif was shortly followed by D-S-C-H, the latter having served Dmitri Shostakovich as effectively as the former has served Bach. Nevertheless, if Zorn’s “milestones of history” were not readily recognizable, Midori still delivered a dynamite account of his music, the most engaging selection in the entire two-concert program.
As had been the case during her first recital, the Bach selections left much to be desired. Only BWV 1006 came across with a convincing delivery, even if her appreciation of dance forms was as unconvincing as it had been for the BWV 1004 partita in D minor performed at the first recital. Most engaging was Midori’s dynamite account of the opening Preludio, and equally so was the Gavotte movement that Bach composed in rondo form. The other movements had more spirit in them than had been encountered in BWV 1004; and, if that spirit was not necessarily true to the act of dancing, it had a convincing rhetoric of its own.
The BWV 1002 partita account was far less compelling, primarily because each dance movement is followed by a “Double,” which basically adds rich embellishments to its predecessor. There are four of these movement pairings, and the attentive listener can be excused for beginning to tire before the half-way mark. BWV 1001 was equally weak, particularly where the fugue in the second movement was concerned. Where the other sonatas had a slow third movement, BWV 1001 had a Siciliano. Sadly, Midori never seemed to grasp the spirit of that style, meaning that BWV 1001 made as weak an impression as BWV 1002.
The best that can be said of Montgomery’s rhapsody is that it deserves further listening. It was composed in 2014, placing it in the same time frame as “Strum,” which has been given a generous amount of attention, and “Banner.” As the program notes by Eric Bromberger observed, her rhapsody posed a plethora of technical challenges for the violinist. However, while it may be said that Bach’s sonatas and partitas were intended for pedagogical purposes, I found it difficult to identify any compelling motive behind Montgomery’s score. Could it be that she is overreaching herself with her current rhapsody project?
No comments:
Post a Comment