Violinist Aaron Redner

MIXED RESULTS FOR COM SYMPHONY IN NOVATO CONCERT

When I review a program, the hope is to provide performers with material they might use in future publicity, and there is an expectation of being moved by the performance and a desire to tell friends. The College of Marin Symphony Orchestra concert Nov. 21 in Novato’s Unity Church had less than sterling merit, the needs of the music largely unfulfilled.

In the Boxy wood-frame church at Hamilton Field the orchestra took up several front rows, the rest of the main floor was about eighty percent occupied, and this reviewer along with a few video cameramen were the only occupants in the balcony.

For those with little knowledge of how orchestral programs work, it’s a given out that most of a concert’s work is done in rehearsal. The plan of the program, dynamics, interpretation and such are dependent on the conductor’s rehearsal technique and organizations. What happens at the performance has already been determined. Another factor is programming and the pieces should be appropriate for the orchestra and its players. In Sunday’s concert there was little evidence of either of the above. The Orchestra seems to be comprised of older students, local professionals, and occasional members of the Highway 101 Symphony (Freeway Philharmonic).

Aaron Redner, a College of Marin alumnus and soloist in Mendelssohn’s Violin Concerto in E minor, Op. 64, presented himself on stage in a greenish tee shirt. What he wore would not have made a difference if his performance measured up. He had wonderful tone but his playing bordered on the slick, and he often softened the hardest parts so much that the orchestra, loosely controlled by its conductor, drowned out his playing. While the start of this work was marked by the rough entrance of the orchestra, an egregious failing which happened at many of the starts of the various movements in the two works performed.

Mr. Redner’s violin technique was adequate but in a number of times, following an upward passage, his bow arm swept wildly into the air. The first time this brashness occurred, the intonation of the run’s final note was affected. However, as the concerto progressed, both soloist and orchestra became better balanced. It should be noted the most difficult conducting is that of accompaniment, and more concise management of the dynamics would have helped this performance. During the eighth-note passages in the third movement, while not the soloist’s prime material, the melodic line was frequently drowned out by the orchestra. Mr. Redner seemed to tire in this third movement, the lyrical momentum decreasing.

Sibelius’ Symphony No. 2 in D major, Opus 43, is neither a work for a faint-hearted musician nor for those whose listening skills need polishing. A huge amount of material is presented by the composer, and an audience needs some skill in the art of listening. That the work is enjoyable, particularly in the Fourth Movement, is a given. The conductor provided oral program notes, enabling many in the audience to better focus on the work. In Ms. Flandreau’s conducting there was less cuing and less attention paid to dynamics gradations than the Symphony needed. Only in the vivacissimothird movement of this great work did I hear cogent conducting. Here and in the fourth movement there was continual parallel use of arms and disconcerting graceful hair brush backs with the left hand from the podium, but the section cuing, dynamic flexibility finally improved and helped the Orchestra maintain the soaring musical line. At the return of Sibelius’ grandiose theme in the finale, the Orchestra’s tempo was slower than what Ms. Flandreau wanted. It was a satisfactory reading of the work, the orchestra following the score closely.

At the concert’s conclusion the sections of the orchestra were each given bow.