Last night I attended a wonderful concert at Los Angeles Phil.  Esa-Pekka
brought back two Ravel showpieces that were on a program early last
season, if memory serves: "La Mere l'Oye" and "La Valse." Respectively,
they opened and closed the program.  Salonen and LA Phil glitter and
gleam in Ravel - it's ear candy.  This year, however, the climax to the
Mother Goose didn't send the chills down my spine as it had when last
performed here.  Still, it was beautifully done.

Then Karita Mattila - who is in her glorious prime and MUST NOT be missed
if you love a truly gorgeous, secure soprano voice - came on stage for
Strauss's "four last songs." The low notes of the opening song didn't
project well, but as the vocal line rose, Mattila produced a stream of
beauty, aching and aware, that was stunning.  The third song, about going
to sleep, was five minutes or so of perfection.  The audience had followed
protocol and not applauded between songs till then, but a few claps broke
out after that third song - I don't blame those people for not being
able to restrain themselves.

After intermission, we heard Lutoslawski's Fourth symphony, a LA
Phil commission from a decade ago.  Now, I attended the pre-lecture by
Stepehn Stucky, a composer who often gives pre-lectures for concerts with
contemporary pieces on the program - once last season, he gave the pre-
lecture for a concert whose opener was a piece by himself.

At any rate, as a speaker he is informed but dull.  His contention
last night is that Lutoslawski is already part of the standards rep.
He mentioned numbers of recordings of certain pieces (how many are NLA?)
and listed compositions most frequently performed.  He then extolled
how the music doesn't do any of those nasty things like "compromise to
audience taste" - and then a moment later he inissted that the music
is full of melodic lyricism!!  Well, what the heck does he think most
audiences want to hear?  Unmelodic anti-lyricism?!  He then ran through
the schematic structure of the piece.  I'll never forget his talk before
a program that included Rach's Third. He spoke of us he had long dismiised
the piece, but now he had respect for it (which means what, I wonder?).
He also admitted that he is completely unable to write a tune. And then
he broke down the opening melody of the concerto to show how it was built
up in phrases, contrasted low and high sections, etc.  - a completely
superfluous autopsy.  What cannot be analyzed doesn't exist for certain
music-lovers - and that is so sad to me.

Then before the performance of the Lutoslawski, Esa-Pekka took the
microphone - as is his wont, almost in variably, before leading the
orchestra in a "difficult" piece of music.  He proposed, reasonably,
that everything on the program was elegiac in nature, expressing sadness
over lost worlds - childhood, pre-WWII German culture, the Europe
represented by pre-WWI Wien - and then he provided a narrative for the
Lutoslawski.  You see, it's all about the oppression and misery of living
in a rigid Communist state. The sad, skittering violins are pathetic
human voices, and the blaring trumpets are the tyrants.  There's a sad,
"lyrical" false ending, and then an "ironic," accorinbg to Salonen,
triumphant ending.

Then we got to actually hear the music.  I believe it was Stucky who
referred to the piece as atonal, but I heard a lot of tonality.  I did
hear, in the opening clarinet lines, lyrical melodicism.  And the contrast
between the violins and horns was all there.

But I ask you - if there is a narrative to this piece, how
modern/contemporary is it?  Isn't narrative supposed to be a
middle-class narcotic, a contemporary no-no?  It seems to me that what
makes this piece so contemporary is that the lyricism is not sustained.
Blocks of texture are juxtaposed, altered, reconfigured - but a continuous,
integrated flow of musical ideas is not allowed.  Here's some pretty
clarinet noodling over an ostinato-like rumble - here's some string
rustling - now the horns will taunt and bellow - now the clarinets will
try to sing over the strings - the horns cut them off - Hey! Let's have
a loud climax!  OK - back to the strings.  And so forth.

This music must be exciting and invigorating to conduct and perform.
It must require a lot of concentration and skill.  I can understand the
appeal to conductors and some/many players.  And I want to make clear -
it was "interesting" to listen to.  But also - completely forgettable.
I will want to hear the third song (and all the others) of Strauss's
four last songs again this weekend, and many times in the future.
And the Ravel - I may wear out the Dutoit four-CD set I bought five/six
years ago and have to replace it.  The Lutoslaswki - I have heard it.
I wouldn't avoid hearing it again.  It is not harsh or ugly.  But it
is dated, to my ears, in ways that the Strauss and Ravel are not.

I did get one laugh from the Lutoslawski, in a way - as Salonen was
describing the horns as "tyrants," one of the trombone players waved
at the audience as if to say, "Hi!  I'm your tyrant for tonight!"

I left before the "La Valse," as I was tired and I had a correct premonition
that if I skipped out then I'd beat traffic from the nearby Laker game
and other area activities.

But all in all, with the amazing Ravel, the astounding Mattila singing
the Strauss, and the thought-provoking Lutoslawski, it was a great
Philharmonic evening.  If anyone in the LA area can make it to the final
performance on Sunday, I recommend you try your best to do so.

C Mullins
Redondo Beach