Perplexing program from Chestnut Hill conductor

by MICHAEL CARUSO

Chestnut Hill’s Ignat Solzhenitsyn brought the 2004-05 season of the Chamber Orchestra of Philadelphia to a close this past Sunday afternoon in the Perelman Theater with one of the most perplexing programs I’ve ever heard. This is all the more unexpected coming from a musician who, throughout this very season, has shown remarkable development when it comes to assembling rosters of pieces that both work convincingly within themselves on paper and succeed memorably in performance in regard to challenging and pleasing both players and listeners.

Sunday afternoon’s concert did neither. What’s worse, it didn’t have to turn out so badly because there were elements of the program that not only were admirable but that pointed to how the entire endeavor might have been a triumph.

The afternoon’s two substantial choices were Mendelssohn’s masterful Violin Concerto in E minor, Opus 64, with Curtis Institute of Music alumna Leila Josefowicz as soloist, and Schubert’s delightful Symphony No. 3 in D major. Both scores closed their respective halves with a feeling of rewarding culmination.

Both works come directly out of the great tradition of Austro-Germanic classical/romantic music. You can hear Haydn at its roots in the Third Symphony as Schubert leads the way out of the more structured classical style into the more effusive manner of early romanticism when he was a mere 18 years old in 1815 at the time he composed it. You can hear the flamboyant vocalism of an aria by Mozart as well as the more intimate lyricism of Schubert lieder in the Mendelssohn concerto once the romantic movement was in full swing. Wouldn’t Weber’s Overture to Oberon have made a splendid opening work, with Mozart’s Overture to The Marriage of Figaro bringing down the house as the finale?

These are only two of the many pieces of music that would have made better choices in and of themselves and that would have worked more organically with the Mendelssohn and Schubert than the perfectly innocuous and negligible Eight Instrumental Miniatures by the poorly served modern genius, Stravinsky, and the balefully disappointing Variations on a Theme of Hugo Wolf by the contemporarian, Michael Hersch.

While it may be true that Stravinsky never found either the imagination or the courage to follow up on his groundbreaking Rite of Spring of 1912 during the six remaining decades of his life, he did manage to produce many pieces of admirable artistry. If, for whatever reason, a Stravinsky score was an absolute must, surely a more memorable one than these Eight Instrumental Miniatures could have been found, scheduled and played.

As for the Hersch, I found it tedious in its length, dreary in its orchestration, brutal in its loudness, obvious in its variation technique and altogether inexplicable in its having been chosen as a Chamber Orchestra commission funded by the Philadelphia Music Project of the Pew Charitable Trusts and performed by the ensemble in its final concert of the season. Is it possible that this is the best the Philadelphia community has to offer?

Fortunately for the state of local musical appreciation — to say nothing of potential subscribers to the Chamber Orchestra’s 2005-06 season — both the Mendelssohn and the Schubert received glowing readings. Josefowicz offered a pristine tone, elegant phrasing and dazzling virtuosity in the former, while Solzhenitsyn elicited beautiful playing from his chosen band of musicians in the latter. Over the past few years, he has assembled an excellent core of players, most especially those of the woodwind choir. Flutist Edward Schultz, oboist Geoffrey Deemer, clarinetist Doris Hall-Gulati and bassoonist Michelle Rosen are among the most consummate musical artists in a region replete with many shining soloists.

‘ROMEO AND JULIET’

The Pennsylvania Ballet is bringing its 2004-05 season to a close with one of the most spectacular and consistently successful presentations since it was founded four decades ago by Barbara Weisberger. Artistic director Roy Kaiser, of Erdenheim, has brought together a cast that can dance and act John Cranko’s dramatic 1962 choreography, a production team that can conjure up the look of Renaissance Verona on the stage of the Academy of Music, and a conductor in Terence Kern who drew a surprisingly exhilarating rendition of Serge Prokofiev’s masterpiece from his musicians in the pit.

As though that weren’t enough, even the most jaded balletomane would be forced to concede that not just one but three stars have been born during the run of this production — Julie Diana, Zachary Hench and Philip Colucci — while a fond farewell is being wished to another established star, West Mt. Airy’s David Krensing, as he retires after 19 years of passionate and intelligent dancing with the company.

Romeo and Juliet probably contains more of Prokofiev’s finest music than any other score. The sheer melodic beauty of its themes, the bracing harmonies of its progressions, the shimmering colors of its orchestration and the propulsive rhythms of its dances combine to sonically delineate the condensed narrative of one of Shakespeare’s most popular plays and reveal the motivations behind the actions of every character in the mildly contrived and wildly sentimental plot. No wonder, then, that John Cranko produced his finest choreography to this story and score — dance in which both the centuries-old traditions of classical/romantic ballet are readily discernible but visually, spoken in the accents of a modern world in which the diverse contributions of varied influences are seen and heard.

The first thing that strikes you when the curtain goes up is the simple yet evocative beauty of the costumes and sets from the National Ballet of Canada. But almost immediately thereafter, it’s the dancing that takes over. Once again, the corps de ballet has made great strides over its most recent appearances a month ago, when it looked tighter and brighter than it had in its previous set of performances. One of the signs of a great ballet company is the steadiness of its corps. By that standard, the Pennsylvania Ballet has never been in better shape.

All the same, a company’s success with its audiences heavily depends upon those who dance the solo parts in full-length productions such as Romeo and Juliet. Once again it can’t be argued that the Pennsylvania Ballet has never been stronger than it is today.

Through their performances Saturday night in the title roles of the two doomed lovers, Zachary Hench and Julie Diana entered that elite pantheon of mythic duos such as Astaire and Rogers, Nureyev and Fonteyn, and the company’s own William DeGregory and Tamara Hadley. Their palpable chemistry and transcendent technical mastery translated into dancing that touched the heart and took the breath away.

Within the span of less than three hours, Julie Diana transformed herself from a giddy teenager into a tragic heroine, maturing from Sandra Dee into Greta Garbo. When Norma Desmond, in Sunset Boulevard, says, “We didn’t need voices, then — we had faces,” she could have also been speaking about Diana, whose arms and legs spoke more tellingly than any tongue. Her gestures at her first sight of Romeo, her repugnance at marrying anyone other than him, the strength of her conviction to die rather than pretend to live without him — all were communicated with peerless precision and heartfelt emotion. Surely, even in a democracy, this is a “prima ballerina” of merit.

David Krensing was recklessly noble as Tybalt, James Ihde was tragically misguided as Count Paris, Christine Cox was a sympathetic nurse and Matthew Neenan was a saucy Benvolio.

Romeo and Juliet continues at the Academy of Music through Sunday, June 12.