Slušajući uživo izvodjenja dve simfonije koje naročito volim i to nedelju za nedeljom, je za mene predstavljalo ne samo veoma intenzivno muzičko iskustvo, već me je nagnalo da isto tako intenzivno razmišljam o tome šta čini Šostakovičevu Četvrtu i Malerova Devetu tako važnim delima. A onda su se misli logično nadovezale i na traženje sličnosti među njima – izuzimajući već dobro poznatu činjenicu da je Maler iz 1909. snažno uticao na Šostaka iz 1936. godine.

Izvođenje Šostakovičeve IV Simfonije 19. januara na Kolarcu bilo je posvećeno i ubedljivo – to je bila jedna snažna interpretacija koju je orkestar Beogradske filharmonije prikazao u najboljem svetlu – od snažnih tutti-ja stotine muzičara do čestih neočekivanih dugih sola instrumenata kao što su trombon, fagot ili pikolo.

Priča o tome kako je simfonija povučena pred svoju premijeru 1936. godine iz političkih razloga, te da je neizvođena ostala čak do 1961., je dobro poznata. Za mene pravo pitanje glasi – koliko bi drugačija bila istorija moderne muzike da je ovo delo izvedeno širom sveta onda kada je napisano, tridesetih godina dvadesetog veka. U to vreme najkreativniji kompozitori su se kretali ili u pravcu Šenbergovog 12-tonskog sistema ili ka neoklasicizmu Stravinskog. Šostakova IV simfonija ne pripada nijednom od tih pravaca – umesto toga ona kao da opisuje jedno fantastično putovanje kroz naizgled kontradiktorne i često groteskne muzičke ‘scene’. Možda je autor poslednji put pokušao, i omanuo da opiše jedan mogući novi svet nakon Sovjetske revolucije. Mnogi tvrde da je njeno pravo ‘značenje’ upravo suprotno od toga, međutim meni se čini da ni jedno stanovište nije ispravno.

Svaki put kada slušam poslednje minute simfonije, čiji trijumfalni klimaks brutalno podvučenih disonanci zamenjuje duga, tiha i ‘traumatizovana’ koda, moja emotivna reakcija je uvek drugačija, ili da budem precizniji, svaki put dodajem još jednu moguću interpetaciju, koja je već ionako zamršena i kontradiktorna. Šostakovičeva muzika jednostavno ne dozvoljava prosto prepoznavanje i razumevanje, kao što je ne dozvoljava ni realan svet niti njegova ličnost. I upravo to je za mene najznačajniji aspekt Malerovog uticaja na Šostakoviča.

Na putu ka kući nakon drugog koncerta, 26. januara, na kome je Beogradska filharmonija izvela Malerovu Devetu simfoniju, odjednom mi je sinulo da je u izvesnom smislu Maler bio isto tako radikalan i avangardan kompozitor, kakav je kasnije bio Džon Kejdž, iako u različitim ‘dimenzijama’. Kejdžova muzička revolucija se sastojala od tvrdnje da nijedan zvuk nije nemuzički, da svaki zvuk može da se shvati kao muzika. Malerova revolucija, sa druge strane, potiče iz realizacije da nijednu emociju nije nemoguće opisati kroz muziku, tj. da cela paleta ljudskih osećanja može i treba da nađe svoj muzički pandan. Zato njegovu muziku za njegovog života mnogi nisu prihvatali – uz časne izuzetke kao što su bili predstavnici Druge bečke škole – na primer ritmički motiv na samom početku IX simfonije, čija se najava tragedije samo intenzivira u daljem toku prvog stava, jasno podseća na takođe mračne haupt ritmove Violinskog koncerta Albana Berga (koji je Beogradska filharmonija takođe nedavno izvela) ili opere Lulu. Ovakav diverzitet i ambivalentnost emocija se često objašnjava time što se Maleru pridaje sposobnost da izvuče nešto važno i duboko čak i iz najtrivijalnijih muzičkih izvora. Primer za ovo bi bio jedan običan ukras u melodiji koju nose gudači u poslednjem stavu Adagiu, kome Maler daje ogromnu ujediniteljsku snagu žudnje, ljubavi i žaljenja za izgubljenim. Isto tako je važna i njegova sposobnost da muziku odvede u potpuno suprotnom smeru, da pronađe nešto neverovatno banalno u momentu velike nežnosti ili ekstaze.

Naravno, ovako kompleksnu sliku je jedino moguće doživeti tokom angažovanog i predanog izvođenja, kakvo je bilo izvodjenje Beogradske filharmonije i dirigenta Gabrijela Felca. Za mene je to bilo najbolje izvođenje orkestra koje sam do sada čuo. Dolaskom novog šefa dirigenta već je očigledna jedna nova energija i dubina zvuka orkestra. Radujem se svakoj sledećoj saradnji koja će u budućnosti nastaviti da se razvija i sazreva, a naročito u ovako kvalitetnim repertoarskim komadima kao što su to bile ove dve simfonije.

Ričard Beret, prevod Milana Zarić

Shostakovich and Mahler

Being able to hear live performances of two of the orchestral pieces I feel closest to was an opportunity not just for intense musical experiences but also muc thought and contemplation as to why Shostakovich’s 4th Symphony and Mahler’s 9th are so important to me, and indeed what they might have in common, apart from Mahler’s work (completed in 1909) obviously informing and influencing Shostakovich’s (from 1936).

The later of the two works was performed first, in an urgent and committed interpretation that showed the orchestra at its best, from the strident tutti of over a hundred musicians to the frequent solos from unexpected instruments such as bassoon and trombone. The story of its withdrawal before the first performance for political reasons, after which it lay unperformed until 1961, is well known. For me it raises the question of how different musical history might have been if this work had been performed across the world in the 1930s.

This was a time when many of the most creative composers were tending in the direction either of Schoenberg’s twelve-tone music or Stravinsky’s neoclassicism, and Shostakovich’s piece shows neither of these tendencies, instead tracing a complex and fantastical journey through seemingly contradictory and often grotesque musical “scenes”, perhaps a last (and indeed failed) attempt to interpret the aftermath of the Soviet Revolution musically in terms of creating a new world. Many would claim that its “meaning” is the opposite of that, and it seems to me that neither interpretation is completely right or completely wrong. Every time I hear the final minutes of the symphony, with its triumphant climax brutally undermined by dissonance succeeded by a long, quiet and shell-shocked coda, my emotional reaction is somehow different, or, to put it more precisely, has another layer added to the contradictions already there Shostakovich’s music simply does not allow for simple comprehension, like the world and the personality it reflects. And this is for me the most important aspect of Mahler’s influence.

On the way home from the second concert it struck me that in a certain way Mahler was as radical and groundbreaking a composer as John Cage, but in a different dimension so to speak. Cage’s musical revolution consisted in asserting that no sound was an unmusical sound, that any sound at all could be heard as music. Mahler’s revolution on the other hand came from the realisation that no emotion was an unmusical emotion, and that the entire range of human feeling could and should find musical expression.

This made his music rather difficult in its time for many to take, with notable exceptions, particularly the Second Vienna School – the opening rhythmical motive of the 9th symphony with its sense of foreboding which only increases as it recurs through the first movement is a clear inspiration behind the similarly ominous Hauptrhythmen of Alban Berg’s Violin Concert or Lulu. This range and ambiguity of emotion is often explained in Mahler’s ability to find something poignant and profound in the most commonplace materials, one example of which is the ornamental turn expanded into an all-pervading image of yearning and loss in the last movement of his 9th Symphony. But just as important is his ability to take his music in the opposite direction, to find something disturbingly banal in what begins as a tender or ecstatic moment.

Of course this complexity can only be experienced in the context of a committed and visionary performance, and I’ve never heard the Philharmonic playing better than in their Mahler 9th conducted by Gabriel Feltz, whose arrival as chief conductor seems already to have lent new energy and depth to the orchestra’s sound. I’m sure there is much to look forward to as this relationship continues and matures, especially with such powerful repertoire as in these two concerts.

Richard Barrett