RSNO/Davis, Glasgow Royal Concert Hall
Michael Tumelty
Four stars
CAN anyone explain what might be going on? On Saturday night, after a stuffed week with loads to review, including tons of pieces in the RCS's new-music festival, I turned up at the Royal Concert Hall hoping for a lovely night with Mahler's Fourth Symphony in the famous and experienced hands of Sir Andrew Davis, to be greeted by a shocked-looking member of the front-of-house staff, telling me that only around 800 folk would be turning up.
What? Only 800 for Mahler Four: for one of the most popular and user-friendly Romantic symphonies in the book? Something is far wrong here. I trust the RSNO is scratching its head today. There is an issue. I don't know what it is. Is it the old issue? Is there too much on? Are there now too many choices? Are people's purses now too stretched? Or are they just unwilling to go out more often, and are therefore de-selecting options and making more-critical choices? I've got views, but the only views that count are from those of you who are not turning up.
As it was, Mahler Four was deeply-enthralling. It was a Mahler Four that, mercifully, didn't rush off in a spray of sleigh bells: it was beautifully-paced and well-breathed by Sir Andrew Davis. It scrupulously observed the intimate, chamber music ethic at the heart of the piece. It enhanced that interpretative stance with textures so transparent the light streamed through. And that allowed the gorgeous, gloopy moments to glow with beauty, outstandingly in the finale with Erin Wall's rich singing, which had also garlanded her earlier performance of Berg's Seven Early Songs.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article