Elgar/Tchaikovsky, Berlin Philharmonic, Petrenko. RAH BBC Proms, 2/9/26

Elgar ‘Enigma’ Variations; Tchaikovsky Symphony No. 4 in F minor. Berlin Philharmonic Kirill Petrenko conductor

So – the big one; more or less the first classical Prom to sell out this year on Day 1 online (at c. no 6000 in the online waiting on the first day of booking I couldn’t get my first choice of tickets). It’s a characteristically short programme – and you know from the outset that these guys don’t do encores……But….it is the Berlin Phil, and, what’s more, the Berlin Phil playing Elgar, a composer Petrenko has conducted since his first appearances with them 15 years ago (Elgar 2 – very different from the von Karajan response – ‘Elgar is a second-rate Richard Strauss’). Petrenko is also presenting this programme with the BPO in their first concert of the season in Berlin – nice to have Elgar in high profile on the ‘Continent’. It’s not that easy to see the programming logic of bringing together these two great works, though, except perhaps that both were by composers who were outsiders in their society – Elgar, self-taught and Catholic at a time when the latter was still an issue for many people; Tchaikovsky as a gay man in Tsarist Russia.

This was an extraordinarily good concert – and the programme chosen was, as it unfolded, actually very effective because it showed the ability of the Berlin players in the two pieces both to handle the delicate, almost chamber-music aspects of the Elgar and Tchaikovsky beautifully, alongside delivering the romantic sweep and flair of much of the Tchaikovsky, and which also features in some of the Enigma –  e.g. the finale and Nimrod as well as the beautiful melancholy variation 12, B.G.N. Both works also allowed the Berliners to demonstrate their astonishing dynamic range, from the whispered start of Nimrod and the delicacy of the first few bars of the pizzicato 3^rd movement of the Tchaikovsky to the roar of the final moments of the Elgar and the manic announcement of the ‘Fate’ motif in the Tchaikovsky final movement, and with no sense at all of any deference having to be paid to the quirky acoustics of the RAH. And, of course, both these works gave opportunities for soloists to do their utmost – with wonderful phrasing or spectacular pyrotechnics (the solo ‘cello playing in B.G, N, and the quite tremendous piccolo in the trio of the Tchaikovsky Scherzo, not to mention the horn and the oboe at various moments.

Kirill Pterenko is riveting to watch as a conductor – he manages to deliver a high-intensity rostrum performance which is wholly focused on the orchestra and with not a hint of playing to an audience. He crouches, he waves his stick exuberantly at the brass or woodwind or percussion, he scoops up the first and second violins with his left arm, he jabs his stick at solo instrumentalists, he almost jumps at the climaxes, but all with a manic gleam in his eyes daring his musicians to give beyond what they think they can achieve.

Inevitably the hall was packed out, and with a big buzz in the audience. The Enigma Variations was receiving its 106^th performance since 1900 at the Proms!!  I guess the overall pacing was quite brisk, but with many moments of lingering and sensitivity…..There were so many good things about this performance – the achingly slow and series account of the ‘theme’, the way it was so subtly phrased, the complexity of the orchestral sound in its repetition (when normally you only hear the strings – here there were all sorts of woodwind undertones); there was the nobility of the horns in variation 1, the complexity of texture in Variation 2, all fantastically clearly articulated. In Variation 4, the sudden immense noise of the BPO in forte mode, indicating how delicately they had been playing hitherto, and in Variation 5 the shades of light and dark beautifully brought, with some lovely string and woodwind playing; in Variation 7 the most spectacular timpani playing…… Nimrod was overwhelming – the depth of the string sound was extraordinary, the aching oboe, the seemingly natural build-up to the most wonderful full orchestral sound, the lack of any coarseness in the brass, and the final slow-down again to ppp pop. I could go on (and on). The finale was taken fast, very convincingly, but loved where needed. I have never heard a better performance……

After the interval, Tchaikovsky……and I have begun to run out of superlatives. The 4^th Symphony is in a sense a work more complex and denser than the Elgar, and, again, what was remarkable was how often you heard both complexity and then the transparency growing out of it – e.g. in the restatings early on of the main theme of the first movement, after the ‘Fate’ motif. The rhythmic pointedness of the first movement was more exciting than I have heard it before, the slow ‘folky’ second theme of the first movement most delicately, yearningly, phrased, the brass and strings of the development section overwhelming at its climax as the Fate motif is repeated again and again, and the coda of that movement frighteningly powerful and intense. Throughout, one had that sense – as one did with the Met Orchestra – of players listening to each other and responding almost in the moment. One of the things I wasn’t expecting was at what a measured pace Petrenko took the first movement – really allowing acute rhythmic pointedness and soloists able to make their point, and giving a sense of grim inevitability. By contrast I did think – my only real criticism of the whole concert – that maybe the last movement was a bit too fast for all the off-beat emphases to come through effectively, and that excitement was holding sway over clarity and expressiveness. But it was tremendous……! I cannot imagine the second or third movements being better played – both taken on the fastish side, with gorgeous phrasing and wonderful string playing

What an amazing orchestra and conductor………………every phrase of both works seemed newly minted, and the whole offering insights and sounds I had never heard before