Witold Lutoslawski - Concerto For Orchestra (w/ score) (1950-54)

[maestrob]

Chicago Symphony Orchestra/Paavo Jarvi

A remarkable work, not my first hearing, but this is a searing performance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IYw_8xzkWE

[diegobueno]

A real powerhouse score. The last movement especially packs a wallop. Lutoslawski favors finale-oriented works where the opening movements are short and not quite complete, so that all the drama is worked out in the finale. He wrote this in the 1950s, when the Polish government was still enforcing a "socialist realism" agenda in the arts, although much more lenient than in Stalinist Russia.

I have Christoph von Dohnanyi's recording.

[Belle]

I have never really understood the concept of a concerto 'for orchestra'. It seems tautological to me because an orchestra does have groups of instruments which interact and are in dialogue anyway.

Suffice it to say this is a dynamite work from Lutoslawski (we should hear more of his composer) and thanks for posting it. That tumultuous first movement is so reminiscent of Brahms, Stravinsky and even Mahler and yet you can almost hear the composer straining to break free from those ties!! It's a real tussle.

It helped having the score. The unsettling Passacaglia of the third movement is ominous and very reminiscent of a dark world weary city and the mean streets; in this sense it's also quite cinematographic and evocative. The final movement bookends this visceral work with a turbulent conclusion; occasionally flutes can be heard skittishly negotiating the heavy orchestral timbre.

Hats off to the CSO for absolutely virtuosic playing!!! I agree it's a searing performance and it's no wonder that orchestra is amongst the top four or five in the world, IMO.

[diegobueno]

I have attached a long chronological list of works entitled "Concerto for Orchestra"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerto_for_Orchestra

The earliest piece on the list is Hindemith's Concerto for Orchestra (1925). Many of the early examples are using the model of the baroque concerto grosso as a starting point. This was the era of neoclassicism in music, when composers reacted to the chaos of World War I by seeking out logic and order, which they felt was embodied in the music of Bach. Stravinsky's Dumbarton Oaks Concerto is the prime example. It's not included in the list since it has a specific title. Stravinsky followed the example of the Brandenburg Concertos by naming his concerto for orchestra after the location of the patron who commissioned it (Dumbarton Oaks is the palatial estate of Robert Wood Bliss in Washington D.C. which is open to visitors today. The gardens are well worth seeing on their own, especially in spring when the grove of cherry trees surpasses the city's tidal basin in beauty, and is considerably less crowded).

The most famous and most beloved Concerto for Orchestra is that of Bela Bartok (1943). Bartok thought of his work as a virtuoso display piece for every member of the orchestra, where every player would have a chance to shine. This is generally how most composers since then have conceived of their concerti for orchestra.

[Belle]

Thanks for that information. I'm very familiar with Bartok's work, having examined it at university.

[Ricordanza]

I have attached a long chronological list of works entitled "Concerto for Orchestra"

That's quite a list! In addition to Bartok, I have heard two others in concert--Jennifer Higdon and Gabriela Lena Frank--and enjoyed both.

[Lance]

If you love concertos for orchestra, or concertos for string orchestras, take a gander at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerto_for_Orchestra

[Belle]

I've been thinking about you, Lance, and your massive collection of recorded music and our recent discussions about this. Do you think the search for performance perfection plays some part in this?

[Lance]

No, not at all. I've always felt every artist has something to say. The performers are reading basically the same notes on the page but interpret it in different ways or use cadenzas in concertos that are not normally heard or have been recently composed and thus inserted into a performance. [Think Beethoven's Violin Concerto played by Gidon Kremer using the Schnittke cadenza, or Artur Rubinstein using Saint-Saëns' cadenza in Beethoven's Fourth Piano Concerto, etc.] But there is so much more in an individual's interpretation, their tone quality, their rubato, their balances, and all this also applies to conductors, vocalists, the gamut. The fact that I have a keen interest in performing artists, almost to unthinkable degree, also plays a part of this. When one assembles a collection over many decades, it is bound to increase, sometimes staggeringly and maybe without realization until you start counting! I cannot live with just one "Emperor"concerto. Yes, among these varied performances, sometimes there are huge let-downs, too. Also, as a classical radio music broadcaster [now for 56 years], I want to have choices of artists and repertoire to offer that I believe is the artist's definitive performance. Does any of this make any sense? Listening to the same piece of music performed by various artists gives much greater insight into the music, at least for me. I love your question, Belle! It's not often I get to give this kind of explanation.

I've been thinking about you, Lance, and your massive collection of recorded music and our recent discussions about this. Do you think the search for performance perfection plays some part in this?