It is often perplexing as to why certain pieces in the repertoire don’t receive the attention that they perhaps merit. Rachmaninoff’s Piano Concerto No 1 in F# minor, Opus 1, (1891) is one such case. Compared with its younger siblings, Concertos No 2 in C minor and No 3 in D minor, No 1 receives disproportionately very few performances. Perhaps it needs to be associated with an Academy Award winning film (the so-called ‘Shine’ effect in the case of No 3), or be transformed into a No 1 selling popular song (as Eric Carmen did for No 2). Or perhaps it just needs a powerful advocate to bring it to the forefront of the collective musical consciousness. If so, then surely that advocate will be the young Russian pianist, Daniil Trifonov.
Having enthralled a capacity audience at the Melbourne Recital Centre on Tuesday in a solo program of Schumann, Shostakovich and Stravinsky, Trifonov joined forces with Sir Andrew Davis and the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra to plead his case for this too-neglected work – surely the most under-rated Opus 1 ever? Composed while Rachmaninoff was still a student in Moscow in 1891 (later revised in 1917), its modelling on Grieg’s popular A minor Concerto (1868) is immediately evident from the cascading fortissimo double octave flourish that opens the first movement. Though a youthful work, it nevertheless displays elements of originality that were to distinguish the more mature, if not always self-assured composer, that he was to become. Broad-sweeping, ardent orchestral melodic arches intersperse with delicate piano filigree throughout the opening movement before a majestic cadenza – one that anticipates the D minor Concerto’s mighty cadenza – brings the movement to a close. The concise, lyrical slow movement powerfully convinces of the acclaim Rachmaninoff would have garnered had he been enticed to Hollywood as were many of his contemporaries. The finale provides a barn-storming, fasten-your-seatbelts conclusion as all concerto good finales should.
The concert however began with an animated Sir Andrew Davis, sans baton, leading the MSO through a suitably ebullient reading of Richard Strauss’s symphonic poem Till Eulenspiegel’s Merry Pranks (1895). Strauss’s vivid orchestration was detailed in its realization, marked particularly at the outset by silky-toned strings, euphonious woodwind and after an initially tentative beginning, richly-toned, lyrically confident brass.
Then came the Rachmaninoff. In the opening movement Trifonov’s big-toned muscularity asserted itself convincingly throughout, but proved especially advantageous in the expansive bravura Cadenza. However it was in the eloquent lyricism of the succeeding slow movement that the true appeal of Trifonov’s artistry came to the fore. With a seemingly limitless tonal palette, and with the orchestra taking a temporary breather, the extraordinary delicacy of Trifonov’s left hand lent deftly-nuanced support to an unadorned right hand melody, whose appeal lay in its simple direct cantabile lyricism. Trifonov has the rare ability to be able to project pianissimo melodies so that they carry throughout the vast spaces of large auditoriums, without sacrificing any sense of refinement. A rare gift.
The athletic finale, with its rapidly shifting metres and tempo changes, necessitated close communication between conductor and soloist. Despite the rapid-fire to-ing and fro-ing between soloist and orchestra Sir Andrew managed to elicit a consistently reliable tautness of ensemble. Trifonov’s crystal clear articulatory brilliance was evident throughout the movement, though yet again it was the central slow espressivo interlude that revealed his real artistry, with an ability to shape finely-wrought melodies and even more finely-nuanced counter-melodies. After a reprise of the opening material, a whirlwind coda resulted in an exciting edge-of-your-seat denouement.
If the night’s first half was youthfully exuberant, then the program’s gravitas certainly arrived after interval in the form of Tchaikovsky’s the Symphony No 6 “Pathétique”, (1893) a work which surprisingly post-dates Rachmaninoff’s concerto by two years, and which structurally is perhaps the most revolutionary and daring symphony since Beethoven “Choral” Symphony of some seventy years earlier. Under the assured direction of Sir Andrew – at times expansive and lyrical, at others highly energetic – the orchestra gave one of its finest readings of what would prove to be the Russian composer’s farewell to music and farewell to life. Has a symphony ever been written with four more distinctly individually characterised movements? Perhaps not, yet Sir Andrew brought them together into a cohesive, tautly bound whole. Highlights, amongst too many to mention, included David Thomas’s hauntingly beautiful opening movement clarinet solos as well as the entire string section’s evocatively liquid-toned, vibrato-rich finale. And the capacity audience played their part too, resisting the temptation to burst into applause after the high-spirited penultimate Scherzo, allowing Sir Andrew to lead uninterrupted into perhaps the most grief-stricken finale ever conceived. And the orchestra duly delivered.
All in all, this was a night of contrasts – elder statesman maestro teaming with intensely-focused youthful virtuoso, music that ranged from the unashamed exuberance of the Strauss to the desolate despair of the symphony’s finale, and compositions that represented alternately the first and last efforts of Russia’s two most popular Romantic composers. The night’s honours were shared equally by the outstanding guest soloist Daniil Trifonov – one fervently hopes he returns soon – and the MSO, under the experienced direction of its chief conductor, Sir Andrew Davis.
As a post-script – after interval, noted Arts Administrator Mary Vallentine AO, who has contributed to Australian music in a range of significant and diverse roles, notably for her stellar, recent stewardship of the Melbourne Recital Centre, was awarded the University of Melbourne’s prestigious Sir Bernard Heinz Award for distinguished service to music. Hail to thee, Mary!
Editor’s note: Although the above title is correct, our reviewer (understandably) filed it as MSO with Daniil Trifonov!
