LPO, Jurowski, Royal Festival Hall

As always, this is both a comprehensive and enlightening review from David Nice of Wednesday night's LPO/Prokofiev/Myaskovsky concert at the RFH which I also attended. Yet again, Vladimir Jurowski and the LPO have us in their debt for bold, imaginative and exploratory programming, and the rare opportunity to hear Myaskovsky’s Sixth Symphony set against one of Prokofiev’s more demanding works, the Symphony-Concerto for Cello, made this concert unmissable. In the event, the Myaskovksy was absolutely fascinating, a very fine piece with a unique symphonic voice growing out of and beyond the palpitations of Scriabin’s hothouse; grand without being overblown, but also presenting a gloriously memorable melodic gift and exquisite orchestration, as in the Presto’s Trio section, this is a very moving work that I shall undoubtedly re-visit. The hair-raisingly difficult Prokofiev Concerto received a fine performance from Danjulo Ishizaka, apart from an extraordinary crash in the second movement, and I am rather concerned that I have a significantly different perception of what actually happened. I have also read reviews by Ed Seckerson and Classical Source, and all of you, to a man, state that the cellist's walk-off during the Prokofiev was due to a broken string. Now I was sitting in row K, (Ed Seckerson was in J as I recall), so not very far from the action, intently watching the cellist, and I certainly did not see or hear a string go. When a cello string breaks, it makes one hell of a ping and flops about all over the place. I certainly did not see that happen. What I did see was Ishizaka suddenly stop and look up disconsolately at Jurowski and walk off, but not trailing a broken string. This looked to me, and I've seen it before, like a very unfortunate memory lapse. It was quite some time before Ishizaka came back on, and one of the percussionists was clearly sent off to find him or find out what was going on. Everyone looked mystified, including Jurowski. These incidents are profoundly distressing for the artist and very disconcerting for the audience. However, fortunately, the soloist returned to warm applause, completed the performance and received a very enthusiastic and well-deserved reception. I'm not trying to be ungenerous to anyone here, least of all to a very capable and brave young soloist, but I am rather disconcerted about the differences between what I thought I witnessed and what I am actually reading about. Why would that be? A broken string is a clearly broken string; a memory lapse is a memory lapse. Which was it?

I completely disagree with your review of this concert. I regard the Symphony-Concerto by Prokofiev as one of his least inspired works, although I agree that the performance was excellent. Myaskovsky's 6th Symphony, by contrast, I regard as an epic masterpiece, which should be much better known. The suggestion that the order of the works should have been reversed, with the Prokofiev coming after the interval is absurd. I did think, however, that the fine choir inthe Myaskovsky work should have been either on or off the stage, rather than half on the stage.

Sincere thanks for the extremely conscientious approach to this - in a sense way beyond normal responsibilities as a critic rather than 'investigative reporter'. The clarification is clearly important for everyone, and especially for the performer. I am most grateful for these efforts and for the report of a verification by VJ himself and others that this was indeed a broken string. The repeat breakage in the same passage (and Ishizaka's use of Rostropovich's) cello does add a particularly weird dimension of 'spooking'.

My perception of the broken string episode was the same as yours, but my friends, who were sitting nearer to the stage heard the string break. I also am much more in agreement with your review of the concert than the one written by David Nice who is clearly totally unsympathetic to the Myaskovsky work. Paradoxically, for me, it was the Prokofiev work which, notwithstanding the unscheduled break, seemed to go on interminably (and I say this as an admirer of Prokofiev).

It would be best if 'critics' ould read up on works they hear , too often they reveal their ignorance more than their knowledge s Nice does once more....Myaskovsky's sixth is among the great Russian symphonies. reading his criticism as I do Seckerson's about the work's longitude reminds one of the criticisms made iof Bruckner and Mahler when they too were not 'flavour of the month'. This symphony was influential to many sucha s hostakovich in the underlying angst and bitterness of the revolution, rather than a revolutionary hero, it is more a requiem to those who died in the revolution and for the hopes of the russian intelligentsia

I certainly would not claim that 'I know best' when it comes to Myaskovsky's 6th Symphony, but surely it is not unreasonable to comment (especially as your arts desk has a 'comments' section, which presumably invites comments) on an almost exclusively negative review of a work which one holds dear, especially when the reviewer claims to represent the view of a host of people: '...left many of us unmoved...the verdict shared by most of us..etc' I was also with a group of people (five to be precise) all of whom were captivated by Myaskovsky's score and who only experienced 'longuers' during the Prokofiev work (and I too am an admirer of Prokofiev). My own final word on this is to say that I as very moved by the performance of Myaskovsky's 6th Symphony, especially the wonderful flute episode in the trio section of the scherzo and by the incredibly moving conclusion, and to say that I am inclined to agree with the view which regards Myaskovsky's 6th Symphony as the greatest Russian/Soviet symphony between Tchaikovsky's Pathetique Symphony and Shostakovich's 4th Symphony.