This is an entry in which I am going to talk about thoughts and feelings I do not understand. To do so is always dangerous. But here I am.
This past weekend I had the good fortune of taking a brief trip to Chicago. It was the kind of impulsive thing I should do more of. James Ehnes was soloing with the CSO in Shostakovich 1. Longtime readers will know that I love James’s work. I owe that work a lot. Plus, there were some Minnesota refugees subbing in Chicago, and it’s always exciting to see friends in new places. It feels delightfully conspiratorial.
I haven’t been to a non-Minnesota-Orchestra-Musician concert since the lockout began. And accordingly, I felt completely disoriented. The audience was completely noncommittal. My fellow patrons weren’t talking about the orchestra or the repertoire or the soloist…or the CSO board or the CEO or the latest financials. Nobody waved to one another. Nobody hugged. Nobody laughed. Nobody cried. The manic electricity I’ve unconsciously grown used to in Minnesota was nowhere to be felt. It was a concert: one great big concert in a never-ending, centuries-long lineup of great big concerts.
The extraordinary had become routine.
Of necessity, maybe, but…
When the lights dimmed, there was a quiet faraway droning sound. It turned out to be applause. I joined in, distracted. In Minnesota, we whoop, we holler, we stamp. This sounded so meek, so anemic. So perfunctory. But – it’s normal. I had to remind myself: this is what people do when their orchestras aren’t in crisis. When they aren’t in danger of disintegrating before your very eyes. Heck, this is what we did, a couple years ago. I felt a churlish wave of homesickness. I only felt better once I looked up at the couple of familiar faces onstage.
I prepared myself to be blown away. But I – I wasn’t, and not by a long shot. I felt like everyone onstage was thinking of things like grocery lists and mortgage payments. Whether they left their curling irons plugged in. What they might cook for dinner tomorrow. Not whether the very future of the art of orchestral music was in their hands. They sounded like a disparate group of the greatest virtuosos on earth…and accordingly, they played as if they had nothing to prove. Then I thought: well, when you play so many concerts a year, how can you leave your soul on the stage every night? You can’t, can you? That’s nobody’s fault, is it? There are only so many times in a week you can tear your own heart out. Or even pretend to. But I missed the electricity. And the manic, sacred sense of purpose.
Polite applause again. A great orchestra – what a miracle! – and yet nobody really seemed to care, particularly.
Then James came onstage. James was a miracle. Any intensity the CSO may have lacked, he brought onstage fivefold. His concentration was, bluntly, terrifying. I had to bite my lip to keep from crying aloud.
As I wept, the woman next to me placidly paged through the month’s program notes, serenely disinterested, oblivious.
During the third movement passacaglia, various instruments gradually disappeared until the only sound in the hall was a solo violin, charged with expressing all the fear and sorrow of the world. It began slowly, quietly…the most haunting sound imaginable, a cold wind of sound sprinkling goosebumps on the backs of bare arms. What enables a musician to descend to such depths at will? The pace was very slow. Very unyielding. The cadenza was a screw tightening, tightening, tightening. Each second that passed, I knew another level of intensity simply could not be reached – but then came another chord, another gradation of dynamics, another whirlwind of notes. Screams of fear and sorrow gave way to manic, frenzied, laser-focused determination. Bow hair cracked apart and then fell limp in the air.
I skipped out on the second half’s Fantastique. There is a passage in Cather’s The Song of the Lark that explains why:
If Thea had had much experience in concert-going, and had known her own capacity, she would have left the hall when the symphony was over. But she sat still, scarcely knowing where she was, because her mind had been far away and had not yet come back to her.
After ten years of extraordinary concerts, I know my own capacity.
So after intermission, I walked back to the hotel. The wind was cold, and I held my collar to guard my throat against any blowing snow. Well. That was The Great American Orchestra, right there. That was what we’re working to achieve, basically. That or something like it. A stable world-renowned orchestra. If I hadn’t had the last two years to look back on, maintaining a stable world-renowned orchestra would seem a noble, fulfilling goal. But in the second year of lockout, that alone seemed a dreadfully shallow, horribly useless thing to work for. Over the last year especially, we’ve been made aware of even more thrilling goals and achievements.
There needs to be more. Yes, a world-class orchestra as a starting point, but something else, in addition. The kind of commitment James brought to the stage, maybe. The kind of desperate affection the audience expresses in Minnesota. The kind of camaraderie that only happens in a fierce battle for high standards. The high-wire thrill and risk of self-governance? … I don’t know.
What is a great performance without a hugely committed audience to appreciate it? What kind of commitment is fair to expect or desire?
What exactly does commitment from a great orchestra look and sound like, and how realistic – and how healthy – is it to expect it every night?
Is every other orchestra and every other audience besides Minnesota’s now going to disappoint? Will I ever feel at home again anywhere else? … The thought I might not is going to haunt me now.
Deep down, am I grateful this lockout happened, so that I might learn these things – and meet these people – and have these experiences?
What do I really want to have?
Here is the paragraph I would insert my neat conclusion into, if I had one. But I don’t. I said at the beginning: I’m talking about thoughts and feelings I do not completely understand.
Before I flew home, I went to the Art Institute to pay my respects to the painting The Song of the Lark. I named the blog that in 2011 because I liked the idea of a blog named for a book about music named for a painting. Over the last hundred years there have no doubt been thousands of people just like Thea Kronberg who have ascended the big staircase and drifted past the Renoirs and Corots to the sentimental Breton, to greet the woman in the dawn transfixed by a beauty we the viewers cannot see or hear. Maybe she is even singing herself. We don’t know, and the painting doesn’t tell us. I said hello to it, then wandered around the gallery, always conscious of it behind me.
Just as I was about to leave, a group of women flocked to and sat down around the Breton. An informal lecture was just beginning on The Song of the Lark and the work the painting has influenced. So I sat down on a bench and listened and learned.
I was acutely aware I wasn’t supposed to be there. I wasn’t going to even come to Chicago until I decided to a couple weeks earlier. My flight home had been canceled the night before; I was there by a total fluke. Heck, if I’d spent five fewer minutes in front of the Van Gogh or Seurat, I would have missed the discussion entirely. When real-life plot twists like this occur, it becomes increasingly difficult for sentimentalists like me to write off the completely absurd idea that – at least occasionally, and for whatever crazy reason – we’re dropped into situations that, for lack of a better term, are simply meant to be.
Yesterday I stumbled upon a passage from the novel that, in the midst of this tired bleary-eyed post-trip confusion, made me cry. Thea Kronberg has just been to see the Chicago Symphony. People, just by the nature of their existing, are bothering her, because they are taking her out of the sacred memory of great performance:
Thea came back to the corner and stood there irresolutely. An old man approached her. He, too, seemed to be waiting for a car. He wore an overcoat with a black fur collar, his gray mustache was waxed into little points, and his eyes were watery. He kept thrusting his face up near hers. Her hat blew off and he ran after it—a stiff, pitiful skip he had—and brought it back to her. Then, while she was pinning her hat on, her cape blew up, and he held it down for her, looking at her intently. His face worked as if he were going to cry or were frightened. He leaned over and whispered something to her. It struck her as curious that he was really quite timid, like an old beggar. “Oh, let me ALONE!” she cried miserably between her teeth. He vanished, disappeared like the Devil in a play. But in the mean time something had got away from her; she could not remember how the violins came in after the horns, just there. When her cape blew up, perhaps—Why did these men torment her? A cloud of dust blew in her face and blinded her. There was some power abroad in the world bent upon taking away from her that feeling with which she had come out of the concert hall. Everything seemed to sweep down on her to tear it out from under her cape. If one had that, the world became one’s enemy; people, buildings, wagons, cars, rushed at one to crush it under, to make one let go of it. Thea glared round her at the crowds, the ugly, sprawling streets, the long lines of lights, and she was not crying now. Her eyes were brighter than even Harsanyi had ever seen them. All these things and people were no longer remote and negligible; they had to be met, they were lined up against her, they were there to take something from her. Very well; they should never have it. They might trample her to death, but they should never have it. As long as she lived that ecstasy was going to be hers. She would live for it, work for it, die for it; but she was going to have it, time after time, height after height. She could hear the crash of the orchestra again, and she rose on the brasses. She would have it, what the trumpets were singing! She would have it, have it,—it! Under the old cape she pressed her hands upon her heaving bosom, that was a little girl’s no longer.
No matter the cost to them, Thea would have it – Cather would have it – and apparently so will we.
Here is the musicians’ new season. See you there.
19 responses to “Having It”
A beautiful piece of writing. Thoughtful, and deeply felt.
Beautiful. I am certain Eriko Matsukawa would resonate with this. Thank you for sharing. Our orchestra and our listening audience create a unique experience of humanity at its best. We have so much to share with each other. It will be a fantastic season.
Extraordinary experience in Chicago; written very eloquently.
You’ve left this reader in tears. Emily. Such poignance. I heard the concert through your words. And I heard the anger, that we can not have this because of “power abroad in the world”; I want to shake those complacent audience members, to remind them not to take this extraordinary gift for granted. You are not entitled to have this. You must want it to keep it.
If we’re talking about complacency, let’s not forget this is the orchestra that went on strike two hours before the opening concert of their 2012 season. Who is taking whom for granted?
Go class of ’79!
Wow Emily. That was one helluva powerful piece of writing! I really identify with what you observe about the camaraderie and emotion of the last year. The concerts have been breathtaking and have touched my heart in a way that never happened in the old days. Of course I want the lockout to end but I hope we never stop being moved to stomp our feet, cheer, and embrace each other and the musicians as we have been doing. It has been an exhilarating ride, that’s for sure.
Brava! You leave hope for a silver lining to the cloud of the lockout, inviting a tear nonetheless.
I remember seeing the London Philharmonic years ago. Because of how the London orchestras run with players knowing they could be booted at the end of the year – through peer review – there was a heightened edge to the players. The way they held themselves, the way they paid attention alerted you to how important their individual performances mattered to each member. I sense something of that urgency will be present this spring with our own ensemble.
As an addendum… Some people on Facebook are interpreting this entry as my spitting on the CSO when they have been so very, very generous to our musicians. That is not the case at all. My heartfelt gratitude goes out to the CSO for hiring so many of our musicians.
Emily, your article and the emotion you conveyed through it was absolutely stunning and brought me to tears, as it did others. I didn’t interpret your comments about the CSO as negative at all; rather, your message reminded me of an old pop tune from way back “You don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone.” You are helping us to understand the source of the enormous passion we all are feeling right now, due to the horrid situation in which we find ourselves and our orchestra. I, for one, enjoy the pep fest atmosphere of the concerts with our musicians – it gives me a chance to blow off some of the frustration by celebrating something wonderful, and to appreciate the extraordinary gift that the Minnesota Orchestra is to all of us. Brava for a magnificent article!
Hiring, and also donating, as so many of the ICSOM orchestras have (you probably know this, just making sure you’re aware)
Absolutely!! The audience here is so thankful to all those who have supported the musicians.
Some people on FB are several whole steps short of an octave. Don’t let them get to you.
Robert, your post was so thoughtful. Thank you.
Well, yours caused me to think, so I think on balance I’m still in your debt.
Connections between the CSO and orchestral musicians in the Twin Cities run deep. Getting to hear them perform Bruckner with Solti in our own Orchestral Hall was one of the highlights of my concert-going experience. I think many of us share your feelings, standing outside, looking in and understanding how easily things we cherish can be lost.
I find your comments regarding the CSO rather superficial and naive. You heard one of the finest orchestras in the world and do not really discuss the quality of the orchestral music-making. Instead, you take issue with the applause of the audience and their failure to acknowledge one another (I have often seen patrons wave at one another – – – not unusual at all). As for hugging, laughing and crying, this is, after all, a concert, not a funeral. You cement your characterization of the musicians’ non-commitment (grocery lists?). But what of the performance? And you weren’t even polite enough to stay for the Berlioz. How rude!!!! As a long time CSO subscriber, I will acknowledge that not all performances are absolutely the best but often that may be attributable to the quality of the conductor, not the orchestra, for it is the conductor that shapes and molds the presentation. For a different take on the concert, you may want to consider John von Rhein’s column on the same concert (google “Chicago Tribune” and search for “James. Ehnes”). Please come again for an entire concert and blog with a more critical review of the performance, Who knows, once you concentrate on the sound and interpretation of the orchestra, you may recognize that these are the most important elements of a concert.
And all completely fair points.
I do want to clarify, though: this is not a review. If I was writing a review, it would have been a very different document, and I certainly would have stayed past intermission. Rather, this is an extremely personal essay in which I discuss confusing emotions I felt within the context of the Minnesota implosion. There is a massive distinction between the genres of review and memoir-essay, in my opinion, and this piece falls very squarely into the latter camp.
Thanks for your words.
Amazing reply. You are wise beyond your years. Me, I was born middle-aged and have been regressing ever since.