There’s a certain amount of irony about
trying to say something meaningful about 19thC orchestral in a single
paragraph, given the monumentality of these pieces by the end of the 19thC.
It’s no wonder these massive public works form the bulk of our North American
concert and radio broadcast programming. The sound envelops you and can
penetrate to your core, if you let it. If you want to understand the aesthetic
of the sublime, play in the orchestra or sing in the choir for a performance of
Mahler’s “Resurrection” symphony. The number of musicians required to perform
pieces like that symphony could make the contractor of a typical North American
symphony orchestra pale. I suppose the prohibitive cost of performing these
pieces explains why they’re generally reserved for special occasions:
beginnings and ends of seasons or anniversary concerts. This year, the Toronto
Symphony Orchestra is doing Mahler’s
Symphony of a Thousand at the end of their seasons. An orchestra in a
delicate financial situation, such as our own Orchestra London can’t
really afford to perform these works very often. University orchestras can and
do. I still remember some of the performances of larger pieces like Mahler’s
“Resurrection,” Verdi’s Requiem, Berlioz’s Requiem that my university orchestra
played. For the requiems, we had to change our venue from the concert hall in
the music building to a large Cathedral just to accommodate the players. There
were two conductors, and one used a video monitor to see the other. At the climax of the pieces you could feel the building vibrate.
I
find it equally amazing that while there was this desire for grand concerts
with ensembles requiring over 100 performers composers still wrote for chamber
ensembles. When I hear that in the 19thC these pieces were performed in the
home, I tend to think of high school when my quartet would get together at
someone’s house to practice the music for a wedding. If you read the letters
and diaries of someone like Fanny
Hensel (Felix Mendelssohn’s sister), you discover that the “home” could
often be a mansion and that there might be over a hundred “friends” in attendance.
This challenges our understanding
of the private and public spheres. I suspect the real difference is that you
have to be invited in order to be able to attend. And if you think that the
concept of the 19thC salon—intellectuals getting together to play music with
friends and discuss artistic and social concepts with artists and musicians on a
regular basis—is a thing of the past, think again. In Milan, Italy, at least,
the tradition is alive and well. I once had the opportunity to attend one of
these and it was fascinating. One Saturday night, I tagged along with a friend
of mine who had a piano trio to a Salon held in this 18thC apartment in a chi chi district of Milan.
There was this fascinating mix of famous artists, poets, and musicians with
regular amateurs. It was like a party, but instead of catching up on gossip or
shooting the breeze about the latest political scandals, people presented their
music or art. Through the course of the evening everybody just got up and
played, or put their unframed paintings up on the keyboard of the baby grand
and explained the concept, or read a passage from their latest novel or poem.
Afterwards everybody drank wine and ate spaghetti standing up, on paper plates
served from a giant salad bowl. I’m not sure what people discussed because my
Italian wasn’t very good. While I’ve never heard or of this kind of thing
happening in London or Montreal, you can join an organization designed to put
people together who want to play chamber
music. Maybe we could have a salon for this course!