Performing the entirety of Bedrich Smetana’s Ma Vlast is no easy feat; its one hour and fifteen minute duration comprises of six symphonic poems, each functioning as a depiction of Smetana’s home country of Czechia. Individually, each movement can be viewed as both self-contained – because of the nature of the symphonic poem, movements such as Vysehrad and Vltava are often performed individually – and as part of the larger cycle creating interpretational challenges. OUPhil, conducted by third year music student James Norton, rose to meet the challenge with much success.
Let me start with this: OUPhil is a very good orchestra with a multitude of highly skilled instrumentalists. As an ensemble, they work well together and have clearly worked hard to blend as an orchestra. The sound they produce is wonderful as highlighted through the many orchestral tuttis throughout the concert, and the level of musicianship that is inherent within the members of the orchestra is particularly evident. They undoubtedly have the potential to be brilliant. The following review aims to be a reflection of this: the criticisms that I offer are highly specific and are minor things that I felt just held the performance back a little.
Ma Vlast formed the second half of the concert; the first was the performance of Emilie Mayer’s Symphony No. 4. While the Mayer provided suitable contrast from the Smetana, I do not think the programming was quite right; however, with a work of such size and scale as Ma Vlast it does make programming difficult. The Mayer was performed well. Opening with the dramatic tutti of a fragmented first theme full of depictions of turbulence and a storm, the orchestral stabs were full of force and drama. Although there were a few slight variations in the precise sounding of these stabs within the opening, when the material returned in the recapitulation, these were corrected. The sound produced by the full orchestra was almighty; therefore, once the tuttis retreated for the lyrical second theme, there was a great sense of contrast and release as this melody soared by the violins and woodwind. During the second theme, there was, at times, too much 'cello within the balance of the ensemble, and, prior to the recapitulation, some of the high violin decoration passages were slightly out of tune. During the development section, some of the textures were a little thick throughout the balancing of the ensemble and a few notes went awry. Once the recap did make its presence heard, the orchestra had fully settled and the work spun towards the close of the thunderous opening movement with precision, largely driven by the enthusiasm of Alfie Mitchell on the timpani; in fact, throughout the concert, I think the percussion section, consisting of Thomas Blore, Tom Constantinou, and Mitchell, were one of the standout sections of the orchestra.
The second movement provided much contrast and repose following the drama of the Sturm und Drang of the first. Opening with homorhythmic textures, the strings provided a warmth and richness to the opening theme; however, sometimes the balance of the different sections was slightly off. When the wind entered, I would have liked more volume to match the standard set by the strings. However, when the flutes operated as an individual unit, they had both grace and elegance and soared above the textures. A few notes within the horns were split and the intonation was not quite there; however, in imitative passages with the violins, they matched with poise. The last chord of the movement, described as ‘calming’ within the programme notes, was not quite reflective of that description in terms of balance and intonation which left a slightly disappointing close to what was otherwise a very elegantly performed second movement.
The third movement, full of incoherent themes that drag on for excessive lengths, is, by nature, difficult to pull off. However, I think this movement was well executed by OUPhil. The intensity of the unison textures was articulated well, the charming elegance of the contrasting themes captured with tight intonation throughout. Again, the timpanist was excellent and helped keep the movement from dragging. The finale of the symphony was also nicely handled. The humour that Mayer composed into this movement was well captured by the orchestra through tight and contrasting articulation. The oboe solo was a particular highlight which was answered expressively by the string section. The cello interjections are central to the movement in providing contrast and keeping the work moving, and, for the most part, they were executed well; however, there were moments where the tuning faltered, and this was made more evident in the facial expressions of the cellists. Regardless, the high brass lines were played beautifully, and the trombone presentation of the opening theme had a lovely sense of direction and shape.
Given the limitations of the piece, it was performed to a particularly high standard. There were some discrepancies amongst the orchestra as to amount of vibrato being used, with some players using lots and others very little. For a work published in 1860, you might expect more vibrato; however, the form and material of the Symphony felt much earlier so perhaps a bit less. Either way, I felt a definitive decision would have allowed for a more unified sound throughout the orchestra. In addition, I would have liked to see more eyes regularly looking at the conductor and less fixed on the page. This music is difficult, so I completely understand being focused on the score; however, if people watched Norton a little more, they may have picked up on a few moments where I felt he was trying to push the tempo a little. Having said this, I felt Norton could have been more expressive; at times, it often felt that the conducting didn’t match the drama and nature of the music. Conducting efficiency felt prioritised over expression in a manner similar to the Richard Strauss school of conducting: if you break a sweat by the end of the concert, you have done something wrong (watching Strauss conduct does make an interesting experience). With all this being said, the orchestra hung together with precision to produce a performance full of contrast and excitement.
Ma Vlast was performed equally well. Each individual symphonic poem had clearly been well thought through in terms of internal trajectory and shape. The harp opening of the first movement was played beautifully by Alice Boyle and this was answered well by the horns. The brass and horns had a delightful tone throughout the movement and were perfectly together throughout the fanfare ideas. Before the return to the opening material within this large scale and modified ABA form, Smetana hints at this return through minor mode fragmentation of the opening theme, and this passage felt on edge which was quite refreshing. I particularly enjoyed this retransition back into the A section. Towards the end of the movement, I would have liked a little more emphasis on the sighing motifs; however, overall this movement was performed fabulously.
Vltava is the most famous of the six poems of Ma Vlast for good reason and OUPhil performed it with grace and elegance. I would have liked more resonance and vibrato on the string pizzicatos at the very opening and more change in colour prior to the main theme when the woodwind scalic figuration is passed to the violas. The brass and piccolo sound perfectly matched the volume of the orchestra and intensity that was produced throughout the movement. A couple of violin passages near the end were almost painfully out of tune and the final chord needed a little more blending; however, aside from tuning issues, this movement was a joy to hear.
Throughout the rest of Ma Vlast, the percussionists were excellent; the clarinet solo in the third movement was very nice and the cello solo was equally well performed; the horrendous string writing in the fourth movement was navigated with precision and again, the clarinets and horns were lovely; interplay between the different sections of the orchestra was wonderful, highlighting the contrast between the sustained textures and the brass and percussion rhythmic textures. The tuttis throughout were full of drama and force and they were explosive, perfectly matching the pompous nature of the work.
I would have liked a little more sense of trajectory across the work as a whole; however, this is particular difficult given the self-contained nature of each symphonic poem. I felt that some of the tuttis in the middle movements could have been a little more restrained to allow the full force of the orchestra to present definite closure in the final movement. Smetana’s Ma Vlast is not a subtle work, nor is it restrained. OUPhil, under the baton of Norton, captured this essence perfectly. The enjoyment and pride that the members of OUPhil got out of performing such a work was truly a joy to watch. At one point, following the conclusion of the third or fourth movement, I saw one of the cellists turn to their desk partner and mouth something like ‘so so good’. The concert really was great, and I enjoyed hearing and seeing such a fine bunch of musicians perform together. I look forward to seeing what OUPhil perform next.
Comments