BBC Proms: West-Eastern Divan Orchestra, Barenboim (Concert 3)

This review does not describe the concert I attended last night. I really think this review tells us more about the reviewer than the concert.This was a life enhancing performance by a wonderful conductor and a very gifted and talented orchestra.This review is so very smug and "clever", I think the reviewer needs to "ligten up " and try to just enjoy listening and watching this fantastic ensemble and conductor

I missed the Pastoral Symphony and so am unable to comment; but I am afraid that I felt that the Fifth was a travesty, in which Barenboim depoloyed every cheap trick in the book to generate superficial excitement. If this was better than the Pastoral, I am glad I missed a mind-altering (and probably rather infuriating) experience! In a good performance of the Fifth, greatest of all works, no cheap tricks are needed. I am glad that Ms Coghlan mentions last season's series with Chailly, since that provided a reference point for how to play Beethoven with individuality while still being true to the composer's intentions. No doubt I will attract plenty of brickbats for saying so, but I simply have no truck with the heavily italicised, sluggish (and in places outright vulgar) music-making in which Barenboim indulges every time he conducts Beethoven. The Fourth Symphony on Saturday was a case in point; the opening introduction made me wonder if Mr Barenboim had been the victim of a cruel hoax, in which someone had crossed out 'Beethoven' and written 'Bruckner' on his score instead. And the timpani... good grief. Apocalyptic, gung-ho interventions have their place, but not in a work so witty and harmonically fragile as Beethoven's Fourth. I digress... the Fifth. Let me be specific: 1) The first movement was taken a plodding, heavy speed and, although certainly weighty and plush, stripped the movement of all its latent fury and athleticism. Not every performance has to sound as though it is being pursued by the Furies, but when it's as heavy as this then it loses a lot of its power. Structurally, it's also stronger if played without a giant (and unwritten!) ritardando when the motif returns just before the end; if played straight through, the effect is breathtaking, like a musical slap in the face, after which the movement ends so suddenly it takes you off-guard. Not if it's telegraphed like this it doesn't... 2) Second movement - agreed about the 'moderate warmth' - how can you have such a huge string section and yet generate so little light and shade? Since warmth is one thing that Mr Barenboim is supposed to do rather well, I was surprised by how plain this movement was. 3) Scherzo - all well and good but a little on the steady side, which really causes problems when you get into... 4) the Finale. Yes, it was exciting (up to a point), and lovely to be able to hear the contrabassoon for once. But am I the only one who noticed that the pulse of the finale was faster than the pulse of the scherzo? The score says it should be the opposite way round! The whole idea is that the finale is broad and majestic, not a free-for-all frat party of making as much noise as possible as fast as you can play. There is no explanation for turning these tempo relationships around, unless the aim is to whip up an audience (in which aim Mr Barenboim was wholly successful). Also - given the generally broad thrust of the reading, why no exposition repeat in the finale? I know Mr Barenboim is usually cavalier with such things, but surely he (with his huge and much-vanuted musical intelligence) could see that he really missed a trick. Lastly: the piccolo (already given a dishonourable mention by Ms Coglan) was painfully out of tune, and to cap it all, Mr Barenboim imposed a huge (again unwritten) slowing over the last three bars, before having his timpanist launch into a fusillade that wouldn't have been out of place in a war film. I am sorry to be so dismissive, but I felt that this was a poor performance - the blame for which has to be laid at Mr Barenboim's door. I know there is a market for this type of performance, in which the conductor's 'ideas' are imposed wilfully all over the composer's lovingly crafted masterpiece, but this really was disappointing. All the more so because, by indulging in so many cheap tricks and distortions for effect, the sheer splendour and glory of the work was overshadowed. It hurts me to see this done, as I know this score by heart (literally, and could write it out if asked) and understand how marvellous it is if only it is allowed to speak for itself. It seems a pity that so misguided an interpretation as this is given such praise and publicity, when you can regularly see truer manifestations of this great work almost every day in concert halls around the world. Thank goodness that some major conductors (Chailly especially) are still around to show how it can be done. If you want to know what the weighty German approach can do when allied to fidelity, you need only listen to Gunter Wand's recordings from the 1980s.