Customer Reviews

Philip Glass: Concerto For Violin And Orchestra / Alfred Schnittke: Concerto Grosso No. 5, for Violin, an Invisible Piano & Orchestra - Gidon Kremer

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I agree with reviewer Karl Henzy that the Glass violin concerto does a barely concealed recycling of material from Glass's best work from the 70's and 80's, so I wouldn't call the composition truly original, let alone ground breaking or virtuosic. Even then, I think it has popular appeal, and so the focus is on the solo violinist and then the orchestra. I enjoyed both - I think this is certainly a much better recording than the Naxos one, where the soloist doesn't produce as full a sound as Kremer, though the orchestra is as good. By the way, both three movements of the concerto were used a lot in the soundtrack of Carrère's "La Moustache," and I believe the recording used was the Naxos.

The Schnittke piece is, as one familiar with his work would expect, much more virtuosic in both composition and the demands placed on soloist and conductor. As with the Glass, I enjoyed the playing of Kremer, who really displayed his talent specially in the cadenza-like first quarter of the 3rd movement ("Allegro Vivace"), which I suspect involved microtones, like the rest of the piece. I have to agree with the other reviewers that the emotions expressed in this work are squarely in the heavy and dark side of the spectrum, and which to me are emphasized by the lower to mid register chords of the off-stage piano - they seem to float ominously over the sound of the orchestra and solo violin. And I also think that in its use of both tonality and atonality, this belongs with Schnittke's later work.

The second movement of Glass' concerto is one of the most beautiful violin pieces ever written. And I think that Kremer's rendition captures all the tragic feeling of this piece, which is dark, haunting, obsessive. It is like a real feeling of pain, it starts slowly, in piano, then it reaches the climax and it fades away, slowly, more like becoming a memory of pain. This second movement is nothing like Tchaikovsky's violin concerto: with Glass you cannot afford to burst into tears, because the sorrow is too dignified.

Philip Glass's violin concerto (apparently it's no.1, since he has reportedly written another) was his first large-scale (non-vocal) orchestral works, at least for a regular orchestra. It is also one of his most enduringly popular work, mostly because of the poignant middle movement, and has received several recordings. Stylistically it is a pretty typical works; superimposed rhythmic patterns, motoric ostinatos, simple but effective harmonies and relatively variegated patterns of melodic fragment gradually developed (well, more or less repeated - changed, certainly, but not really ever developed). That said, it isn't a particularly melodic work - it is, indeed, hummable, and many of the figurations stick in the listener's memory, but they can't reasonably be called melodies (rather than melodic fragments). The end effect, however, is interesting, to a large extent due to the interesting contrast between the inherently "songful sound" of the violin, which is never allowed to actually sing in this music, set against the chugging rhythmic patterns of the orchestra. I am not going to claim that it is a great work, not even among Glass's best, but I must say I found it rather attractive.

It is coupled here, somewhat bizarrely, with Schnittke's fifth Concerto grosso. The point of similarity is no more or less than the fact that Schnittke's work is for all practical purposes a violin concerto as well. It is a far grittier work than the Glass, of course, and I suspect that those who are drawn to this release for the Glass might have a hard time coming to terms with it. It purportedly describes a cycle of seasons, with a sardonically lilting mock-waltz for spring, a march-like/dance-like Stravinskian summer, a disconcerting, very aurally disturbing and modernist autumn and a long, haunting, somewhat Shostakovichian winter. It is, in other word, stylistically super-eclectic (although Schnittke didn't at this point quote other composers as he used to), but the net effect is slightly forbidding - it grows on repeated listening, but I cannot really shake the feeling that there is less profundity to the work than it seems to promise the first time around. I cannot imagine more distinguished advocacy than it gets here from Gideon Kremer and Christoph von Dohnanyi with the Vienna Philharmonic (and Rainer Keuschnig on "invisible piano" in the Schnittke); and that goes for the Glass work as well. I am frankly not in a position to determine how they fare in comparison with the competition, but to my ears these sound like very fine and committed performances. The sound is good; recommended, if not a mandatory release.

I bought this CD a month ago, spoiled by a live performance of Glass's piece that honestly impacted me. After cheking out on youtube again the Glass's concerto, and bearing in mind some of his soundtracks, I decided to get it at once.
After several hearings, I'm still of the opinion that Glass created a master piece. The violin concerto is certainly good, though I know there are many who do not appreciate Minimalism (many reviewers here). This kind of composition is certainly "different", melodies are not developed, the orchestra plays a kind of neverending ostinato, the soloist plays more or less the same melody that never "explodes", leaving a sense of "undone music". That is true. But at the end, the music has a very good "atmosphere" of secrecy, mistery, intimacy, uncovered feelings; a sense of "things to happen" is what I have at the end.
Schnittke's piece is rather different; full of disharmonies, much more modern, with a completely different composing style, its only link with Glass's is the fact of belonging to contemporary music. Nothing else. This is much more difficult "to hear"; it takes time to get used to, unless you're a devoted fan of Schoenberg, Webern and such. After many hearings, the music finally gives you what it has, and it deserves the time spent.
As a conclusion, a very interesting CD, worth the price, with two very different composers, that has the ability of giving you very good music at the beginning and afterwards. An advice: if you "hate" Minimalism or modern music, forget it, but if you're open-minded, get it. As far as competitors are concerned, do not worry: Naxos CD with Glass's concerto is far, far from this. Here you have Kremer, Dohnanyi and the Wieners... This is another galaxy.

the schnittke leaves one in shock, much like the same impact of his concerto grosso 1. don't know where the "fun" is from. there's cry and dispair, and also kremer's unmistakable tone and techniques, but certainly nothing laughable here. glass is nothing in comparison. but buy this for the schnittke 5. it worths anything.

After hearing the recording of Glass's violin c. on the radio, I bolted to the record store to get my own copy. What a reddition! The third movement is breathtaking. A must for anyone who wants to get familiar with contemporary music. Glass is a major composer, as though we didn't know before.

Paul Cook doesn't make any sense here, or he's listened to a different CD from the one I got. The Schnittke piece certainly doesn't feel playful--rather, it's quite anguished in several places. There's a sort of Ligetian undercutting in the orchestral background here and there. Anyway, it's a good piece that leaves one unsettled (a value in art). On the other hand, nothing could show the paucity of Glass's ideas than this Violin Concerto. Folks, we'd heard it all from him by the end of the 70s--he's just recycling now, and the material he's recycling was largely cliche to begin with. How does anyone still get excited about minamilism? The Glass isn't half full or half empty--it's just empty.

... That don't go together.

I really enjoyed the Philip Glass, but I think the Schnittke takes a more refined ear than I have. To me, it sounded atonal and disjointed, which I suppose, was the whole point.

I can't imagine a worse recording of the Glass. The orchestra, the sound engineers, or both simply did not care. How else does one explain the underheated, tinny performance?

I'm still working on the Schnittke.

This 1993 Deutsche Grammophon disc contains music for violin by Philip Glass and Alfred Schnittke with Gidon Kremer in the soloist role. Christoph von Dohnanyi leads the Vienna Philharmonic. It should be noted that this disc faces deletion. However, each of the pieces here was reissued in DG's "Echo 20/21" series, with Glass's Violin Concerto ending up on a disc with similar concertos by Leonard Bernstein and Ned Rorem, and Schnittke's Concerto Grosso No. 5 finding a new home on a disc alongside the Russian composer's Concerto Grosso No. 1 and "Quasi una sonata".

Philip Glass' three-movement "Concerto for violin and orchestra" (1987) is fairly entertaining but utterly uninsightful. I think minimalism is one of the greatest disasters to befall contemporary music, and has provided more charlatans than any other style (and I would definitely include Glass among such). I prefer the zahlenmystik of Gubaidulina, the frenetic business of Lindberg, or even the intellectual struggles and endless curiosity of Boulez. Yet, I can appreciate some works of Reich and Part. The music of Glass, on the other hand, lacks innovation and is so blatantly derivative of the passionate music of yesteryear, and this piece comes from what even many Glass fans consider to have been his darkest days.

Alfred Schnittke's "Concerto grosso no. 5" for violin, invisible piano, and orchestra (1990-91) is typical of the "late Schnittke", music written after his great stroke of 1980. While Schnittke's early "polystylism" work, such as the first four concerti grossi, abound with quotations from Bach and other great masters, this piece is typical of the late style in avoiding quotation. The form is unusual as well, highlighting the violin with elaborate cadenzas, while the piano, "invisible" in that it is placed off stage and amplified, provides only the simplest of supporting roles. Therefore, it is more of a violin concerto than concerto grosso. While some of the rhythmic motifs here are interesting, I find the piece to be as dissatisyingly pessimistic and undramatic as the lesser products of Schnittke's late work, and therefore do not return to this often.

I cannot recommend the disc much, but I would encourage all to sneak out Schnittke, especially the Moscow Studio Archives disc with his Concerto Grosso No. 2 and Viola Concerto, for this composer often showed brilliance.