You can call it the best program you’ve never heard in your life. You can call it the almost revelatory program that almost happened- what you can’t call it is the program for the final concert of the Harlech Orchestral Summer School, which I’m now preparing for.

Harlech is an intense week long program that covers an immense amount of substantial repertoire. Some is simply workshopped and read, while a few pieces are selected for extra rehearsal and the final performance. This year it has been a given that Mahler 5 is going to be on that program- in this year, how could it not be? But what to pair it with?

As it turns out, part of the equation includes a premiere of a new work by Duncan Stubbs written for the winds of the academy called “Harlech Variants.” Given the massive scale of the Mahler and the presence of the Stubbs, it would seem that all that is needed is a relatively slight work to open the program.

Of this year’s repertoire, the obvious choice is Ravel’s La Valse, although one would never call it slight! The parallels with the Mahler are obvious and fascinating- the Scherzo of the Mahler seems an obvious model for the Ravel. Both use dance, notably (but not exclusively) the Viennese waltz, to delve into the darkest corners of the human psyche.

However, as we get closer to the beginning of the festival, there is another work in the repertoire I’ve longed to program alongside the Mahler. I even went so far as to suggest to my colleagues that we ought to ditch the Ravel and do it instead- in spite of the fact that it would make for a ridiculously long program and a very exhausting week of rehearsals. My associates wisely talked me down from that particular ledge.

The piece, of course, is Shostakovich’s 6^th Symphony. Why? Surely the Ravel is the obvious and perfect pairing? Is this just a case of Ken the Shostakovich nut looking for any possible chance to perform a Shostakovich symphony?

Well, I can’t rule that out, but there was more to it than that. First, the Ravel is the obvious pairing. The Shostakovich is just the more interesting pairing because it seems that putting these two great but highly unorthodox works on the same program could be much more illuminating, and could help us to hear both works with clearer ears.

Shostakovich 6 is one of those pieces that is often described as “enigmatic.” It is in 3 movements- one very long slow movement followed by two very short fast movements. It has always had its advocates (Lenny loved it and conducted it brilliantly), but many people can’t get past the fact that it doesn’t seem to do what symphonies after Beethoven are supposed to do, which is to reconcile and resolve large-scale tensions.

The Largo completely overshadows the other two movements, obviously in terms of scale, but also in terms of emotional impact. On the other hand, surely a genius like Shostakovich knew which rules he was breaking and why. Surely Beethoven taught us  that what a symphony ought to do with a movement like the Largo is to balance it with a Finale of equal scale and weight? That’s what his 5^th and 9^th symphonies do so well, and it’s something Mahler mastered in his 2^nd Symphony.

In fact, Mahler 2 might be the ultimate symphonic example of a vast, tragic opening movement (like the Largo of Shostakovich 6) which is followed by some shorter intermezzo-like movements (again like the Shostakovich), which culminates and a vaster and more dramatic triumphant Finale in which all the darkness and tension of the first movement is transcended and resolved (something conspicuously missing in the Shostakovich).

If Mahler 2 is the grandest and most perfect example of that approach to symphonic form, it’s certainly not the only example. Bruckner deals with it in his 5^th, 8^th and 9^th Symphonies (we can see from the fragments where he was going with the Finale of his 9^th). And, even if the 2^nd is the most powerful and explicit example of a cathartic Finale in his music, Mahler’s 1^st 4 symphonies all treat the Finale in a similar way- as a summing up and culmination of all that precedes them.

However, in the 5^th Symphony, Mahler for the first time goes in a different and more ambivalent direction. The 5^th is written in 5 movements, which are grouped into 3 parts. The 1^st part of the symphony is unmistakably where the center of gravity of the entire work is located- two movements of unprecedented darkness, intensity and ferocity. Part I of Mahler 5 ends in as black an abyss as anything in the repertoire I can think of (like the Largo of Shostakovich 6). Dark as the Funeral March is which opens the 2^nd Symphony, there still seems to be room for the drama to continue from that point. The ending of Part I of Mahler 5 is so black and nihilistic that it seems impossible that anything could follow which would be able to balance or transcend that darkness.

Mahler follows this in Part II with an ambivalent Scherzo which you can read about here. Like the Ravel, it is in many ways a dance of death, or at the very least a dance which expresses a certain affection for oblivion. Again, Part II of the Shostakovich is similar- it is also a Scherzo, but the mood is hardly carefree.

Part III of the Mahler promises a return to life. It is now well known that in many respects, the famous Adagietto is a love song, but it is also filled with references to Mahler’s own Kindertotenlieder, or Songs on the Death of Children. Yes, it has moments of stunning tenderness and exquisite longing, but it, never mind what today’s politically correct writers tell you, includes passages of searing anguish and deep, deep pain.

In Mahler 2, the last grand and dramatic Finale is preceded like a structural upbeat by the song Urlicht. Like the Adagietto, it is intimate and tender music in which hope seems to begin to awaken, if not assert itself. However, where the Finale of the 2^nd begins with a savagely dramatic outburst (obviously related to the opening of the Finale of Beethoven 9), the Finale of Mahler 5 begins with a joke. Mahler quotes one of his own songs (Lob des hohen Verstandes, or “In Praise of Lofty Intelligence”) about a singing competition between a cuckoo and a nightingale judged by an ass. It hardly promises a Finale in which the tragedy of  Part I can be overcome, and it turns out to be.

The Finale of Mahler 5 is humorous, virtuosic and passionate. The humor is sometimes warm and bright, other times black and sardonic. It makes extensive reference to the music of the Adagietto, now played in a genuinely carefree, breezy style, perhaps as if to say love is as much a game as anything else. There is only one reference to Part I, but what a reference it is- just before the end, he brings back the great chorale of the 2^nd Movement. This overpowering peroration had collapsed into abject crisis the first time it was heard, but here, it shines out in triumphant confidence. If the symphony ended here, he might just have pulled of the kind of transcendent ending we’d been hoping for all along, and what a feat that would have been!

But Mahler chooses not to do so. Instead, the piece continues just long enough to undermine the Chorale. Instead of ending in catharsis, the piece ends in laughter – perhaps, like love, triumph is also all just a game, or perhaps he is saying that the culmination of the chorale is the ending to yesterday’s story- life goes on! The piece ends with a torrent of whole tone scales- the most ambivalent of musical structures. Is it light or dark humor? Is there an edge of madness in that laughter? Those whole tone scales seem to signal we can’t be sure Do we all live happily after? Are all life’s problems solved? I don’t think so, but life goes on, and in Mahler’s world the primal force of life is extraordinarily powerful.

Likewise, the 3^rd Mvt of Shostakovich 6 doesn’t try to fix what the Largo has broken. Like Mahler’s Finale, the primary emotion is humor, both dark and light. Much as I love, and much as the world needs the Finale of Mahler 2, the Finale of Maher 5 is truer to life, hard as that is to accept. My sense is that Shostakovich 6 is also a pretty profoundly true-to-life work. Perhaps he is saying that suffer as you will (remember the Largo), don’t expect the heavens to open and for God to give you all the answers. Life goes on, in all its hilarity and insanity.

Side by side, the Shostakovich looks a little less of an enigmatic failure and much more a triumph of ironic realism, and the Mahler looks less Beethovenian and more modern.

Of course, it’s possible there is an even darker truth in the Shostakovich- we know he advertised that his original intention was to make the work a portrait of Lenin, complete with choral Finale. Maybe the work was meant to look more like Mahler 2, and the 2^nd and 3^rd movements were kindred intermezzi to the 2^nd and 3^rd mvts of Mahler 2?

However, in 1939, Russia was still waiting for the happy ending to the Lenin drama. Perhaps the deafening silence that follows the 3^rd mvt of the 6^th is the point. Shostakovich didn’t write a Finale because life hadn’t given him one to depict?

It sounds good, but I’m not convinced. The Largo seems to introverted and personal to have anything to do with politics and history- if it’s about anything other than despair, it is about music. More on that to come, I hope.

It has always bothered commentators that the ending of Shostakovich 6 doesn’t feel like an ending worthy of its beginning. Isn’t that obviously his point? Of course the piece is unfinished- he doesn’t want you to walk away from the symphony ready go out for a drink. He wants us to be thinking about what the piece means, to be struggling to make sense of its pain and contradictions. The work of the listener is just beginning when this piece ends.

A few places remain for the 2010 Orchestral Summer School at Harlech College in North Wales. We’re working on an astounding collection of repertoire in a truly idyllic setting, complete with castle and the most beautiful beach in Britain.

See below for registration details and course information. The workshop is open to advanced students over the age of 18 (or those accompanied by a guardian), young professionals and amateurs of high standard.

Orchestral Summer School – course details

August 7th – 14th 2010

Conductor: Kenneth Woods
Course Organiser: Janet Minot

How to Apply

Book and Pay Online

Application forms should be returned as soon as possible along with the appropriate non refundable deposit (£25 resident, £10 non resident) to Julie Roberts, Student Admissions Officer at Coleg Harlech. If you prefer to pay by cheque you can download an application form here.
Please note the minimum standard required for wind and brass is Grade 8, for all other players Grade 7.

Applicants should be 18 or over, unless accompanied by an appropriate adult. The closing date for applications is 30th April 2010, and those who are accepted will be notified soon after this date. Late applications may be accepted if there are still vacancies in the relevant section. Acknowledgement of a deposit does not necessarily mean acceptance.

The Orchestra

The symphony orchestra usually has over 80 players. The age range is wide and many different occupations and backgrounds are represented. Over the years this established orchestral summer school has been host to a number of distinguished conductors, such as, Baldur Brönnimann, Michael Lloyd, Gareth Jones, Vilem Tausky, John Pryce Jones and Wyn Davies. This year we are delighted to welcome Kenneth Woods with whom the orchestra will be meeting twice daily.

Daily Sectionals

In addition to the full orchestra rehearsals, the specialist tutors take the daily sectionals.

Chamber Music

A wide selection of musical groups meet each day, such as chamber, string and wind orchestra, and brass ensemble. Some of the items rehearsed are performed in the concerts. There is also the opportunity to play chamber music informally (participants should bring their own chamber music). If you play more than one instrument, you may be able to play in both string and wind orchestras so bring as many as you can carry! A pianist will be available to play trios, piano quartets etc. These sessions are not officially timetabled and afternoons are often free for relaxation and exploring the beach and the fascinating village of Harlech itself.

Repertoire August 2010

The repertoire for full orchestra will include the following works:

• Arnold- The Inn of Sixth Happiness
• Hoddinott – Investiture Dances
• Janacek- Taras Bulba
• Mahler – Symphony No 5
• Nicolai- Overture to the Merry Wives of Windsor
• Prokofiev- Selections from Romeo and Juliet Suite no.2
• Rachmaninov – Isle of the Dead
• Ravel – La Valse
• Rozsa – Suite from Ben Hur
• Shostakovich – Symphony No 6
• Walton- Variations on a Theme of Paul Hindemith

There will also be a wide selection of music for Chamber, String and Wind orchestras and brass ensemble.

Wind Orchestra
Amongst the varied repertoire for the week will be a specially commissioned item by Duncan Stubbs.

String Orchestra
There will be the opportunity to play a number of pieces including Variations on a theme by Tchaikovsky (Arensky) and Five variants of Dives and Lazarus (Vaughan Williams).

Chamber Orchestra
The two main works will be Czech Suite (Dvorak) and Pelleas and Melisande (Fauré).

Concerts

There will be two public concerts during the week:
a Chamber concert on the Wednesday, performed by the professional tutors with some items from students, and a symphony concert on the Friday evening.

What to bring with you?

Please note that participants are required to bring their own music stands. Cello and double bass players must also bring end-pin rests. Evening dress is not required for the concerts. Dress code is smart casual. Please remember to bring a bath towel. Hand towels are provided.

Accommodation

Accommodation for all residential guests will be in the Hall of Residence. All rooms have washbasins and there are bath and shower facilities on each floor. Launderette facilities are also available.
There is a communal lounge in the halls of residence, which is available to short course guests this has an occasional residents’ bar subject to demand. If you prefer to look for alternative accommodation details can be found on www.secretsnowdonia.co.uk.

For more information about the following tutors follow the links below

• Return to booking page
• Conductor – Kenneth Woods
• Course Director – Janet Minot
• Violin 1 – Nic Fallowfield
• Violin 2 – Peter Lilley
• Viola – Philip Heyman
• Cello – Dale Culliford
• Double Bass – Mary Condliffe
• Woodwind – Chris Swann
• Brass – Bob Hughes
• Deputy Course Director and Co-Librarian – Fiona Hughes
• Co-Librarian – Huw Hughes
• Alexander Technique – Patrick Grundy-White

One of the disappointments of the previous summer was the forced cancellation of my first summer as conductor of the Harlech Orchestral Academy in North Wales. Asbestos was discovered in the housing facilities of the campus, so everything had to be closed for cleanup. Fortunately, everything has been made safe, and we’re now able to announce dates for 2010- August 7-14. The repertoire for the 2010 course will be

Arnold- The Inn of Sixth Happiness
Janacek- Taras Bulba
Mahler – Symphony No 5
Niccolai- Overture to the Merry Wives of Windsor
Prokofiev- Selections from Romeo and Juliet Suite No.  2
Rachmaninov – Isle of the Dead
Ravel – La valse
Shostakovich – Symphony No 6
Walton- Variations on a Theme of Paul Hindemith

Participants work under the guidance of a distinguished team of coaches, and the workshop culminates in a final concert, which this year will include La Valse and Mahler 5. The Academy is known for fine playing and a spirited atmosphere.

The course website will be updated in a few weeks, meanwhile, email the office at info@kennethwoods.net if you are interested or have any questions.

This post is part two of a group that began here.

I’m currently in rehearsals for a performance of the ever-popular Ravel orchestration of Mussorgsky’s Pictures at an Exhibition.

I doubt there’s any classical fan reading this who hasn’t heard this beloved warhorse many times- in fact, there’s no doubt that Ravel’s version has long since eclipsed Mussorgsky’s original piano piece in popularity. Out of the entire piece, of course, the last movement is the best known- “The Great Gate of Kiev.”

However, this very well known piece offers us a interesting example of the simple challenges of reading music. Perhaps after thinking about this example, you might conclude that you’ve rarely heard the notation for this music read accurately.

If one looks at a page of the score, you’ll quickly see that there are lots and lots of grace notes. Grace-notes are one of the most troublesome bits of standard notation, not because their meaning is imprecise, but because their meaning is flexible.

Other kinds of notes, crotchets, eighth-notes, whatever you like to call them, all express mathematical relationships to the unit of pulse. In the Great Gate, the rhythmic language is quite simple and foursquare, so all of the rhythmic relationships are easily figured out by the players and conductor.

Grace-notes, on the other hand, express a duration of time that can only be read given the context that they are in. In classical music (Mozart and Haydn), we have elaborate rules for knowing when a grace-note is on or before the beat, and what it’s duration is. In this music you quickly learn that a gracenote does not simply mean to play the note as quickly as possible.

On the other hand, very often grace-notes should be played very close to the beat and very fast, so often that many musicians forget that is not always the case.

The problem in orchestra is that often we play them so fast that they are no longer heard at all.

So how does one know how fast to play a grace-note? As fast as possible? If that’s wrong, how are we supposed to know that it’s wrong? Surely this is an example of the limitation of notation?

Nope, sorry. The problem in “Great Gate is that the orchestra version is a transcription, so the performers are reading the notation out of context. Notation creates context, so notation out of context loses some of its clarity. If one goes back to the piano version, you can see that the pianist has to jump and reset the hands in a new block chord after the grace note, so the grace note has to be played before the beat and not very fast. Most orchestras play these notes either so fast they’re not heard at all, or even worse, on the beat (this is a mis-reading of Ravel’s indication to play the grace-notes down bow in the strings near the end. Musicians look at those down bows and think “aha! he wanted those on the beat,” but what he wanted was for them to be really, really loud so they would have a similar prominence to what they have in the piano version).

Ravel could easily have omitted the grace-notes altogether as his not limited to having on one person to play all the notes in the chords, and, when you don’t hear them in an orchestral performance, you wouldn’t know you were missing out on them. However, if you look at the score, for instance the last two pages, you can see that he took a great deal of care to transcribe the grace-notes in the piano version as honestly and imaginatively as possible. He knew they were an important part of the original, so HE MADE THEM AN IMPORTANT PART of the transcription. (In fact, there’s a lot of important harmonic information in the gracenotes. At first Mussorgsky just uses them to lay down an e-flat pedal, but later, the harmonies move in the grace-notes).

If one knows or has even played though the piano version, you won’t be tempted to play the grace-notes any faster than a fairly broad eight-note, not the thirty-secondish note you usually hear. You’ll also know that, as the writing gets more massive and the leaps in the piano part get bigger, the grace notes must get slower and heavier.

Have a listen first to a decent performance of the orchestral version, then visit Evgeny Kissin’s piano performance. Do the fast, largely in-audible grace-notes in the orchestral performance still seem like an accurate reflection of the notation?