The playing was masterful and the acoustics in Hill did it full justice, at least where I was sitting. I find Bach very elegant and cerebral and I found some of the visuals to be distracting and others essentially irrelevant. The only two that worked for me were in the middle part of the program: the woman holding and responding to a photograph; and what I interpreted to be a Japanese take on a mourning ritual.

However, I am so pleased that I went. Gil Shaham gave a wonderful performance.

By far the worst performance of a Bach partita I have ever heard. Sounded more like a Chopin Nocturne. Pretentious and too slow–it’s supposed to be dance music. Tempos uncertain and strange. As for the Schubert, I never realized that Bach and Schubert were the same person.

One does not have to be a purist to find fault. Turreck gives a wonderful classical performance and Pinnock another on the harpsichord. I don’t know whether Richter has ever recorded the partita, but his WTC is–like Levitt’s playing–very non-tranditonal. However, Richter gives an imaginative performance which while probably far from what Bach sounded like originally, is intellectually imaginative and emotionally ingaging. So I am not criticizing from the viewpoint of the original performance narrative…..

The audience obviously loved the Victors as the lead off. You did hear the audience reaction did you not? Trite? At a University-owned facility? I and almost everyone in the audience thought it was great. You are a snob and a curmudgeon.

The tone color was sometimes amazing. Ricardo Muti’s body language often gave a beautiful interpretation of the music. My standard when listening to familiar pieces is whether the performance makes me hear something new that I hadn’t noticed before – whether the performance refreshes my interest in familiar music. This was the case with both symphonies last night.

The UMS audience often lacks restraint. The obsession with cellphones is remarkable, but irreversible, I fear. One should not let in latecomers before the intermission. It is disrupting others’ focus.

Opening the concert with the Michigan song was not a good idea. It did not set the right tone. We don’t come to the concert so that we can clap to some marching song. We come to the concert focus and to quietly appreciate.

I really enjoyed the whole concert, but I am confused by the amount/volume of conversations and coughing that occurs between each movement of a work. This seems to be a regular occurrence in Hill and it tends to ruin the mood.

Hi Bernard,
Mr. Barnatan played Beethoven’s cadenza – that was noted in the program notes. Hope you enjoyed the concert!
Liz, UMS

Hello! The encore was Beethoven Bagatelle #4, from Op. 126.

For me, Sunday’s UMS concert by the Quatour Ebène will go down as one of the most exquisite and memorable in the 52-year history of the UMS Chamber Arts Series and in my 27 years of attending these Rackham concerts. The appreciative Ann Arbor audience lept to its feet at the conclusion of Mendelssohn’s Quartet in a minor, Op. 13 as the first half closed, sharing its collective awe in the superb quality of the quartet’s performance of the work. If you were there, you know how special that piece was as well as the opening Mozart and the improvised jazz and crossover pieces announced from the stage in the second half. If you missed the concert, learn more about this unique string quartet from France at http://ums.org/performance/quatuor-ebene/. That the concert was made possible by the Candis J. and Helmut F. Stern Endowment Fund, whose gift to UMS was announced on stage at the beginning of the concert, makes the event even that much more special. The Stern endowment will fund a UMS Chamber Arts Series concert each season going forward. Thank you, Candis and Helmut.

Well, we certainly found ourselves navigating some tricky performance culture terrain last night, didn’t we?

I think oftentimes the decision to present a show in Hill Auditorium (or any other venue, for that matter) can imply a certain type of concert experience, just as a performance by a particular artist or ensemble might suggest its own. And, depending on the expectations with which we walk in, an incongruence can result that deeply influences our experience – for the better, or for the worse. I’ve found myself thinking quite a lot about this issue this season. How do we reconcile the diversity of expectations with which such a broad spectrum of folks come into a any given performance experience?

Let’s take last night, for example. For some, late seating was disruptive – disrespectful, even. But for others, not having free rein to come and go and move as freely as they may be able to in a more traditional nightclub setting is similarly off-putting.

So, what do we do? Not present a group because the ideal venue doesn’t exist? Adapt or maintain “protocol” and risk alienating some subset of our patrons, new or old, who are the core of what we do? It’s a tough call, sometimes. Performance venue, start times, late seating, audience experience, these are all issues we think about, and we always strive to do our best to provide the best experience for the most people. Rest assured we’ll be spending a fair amount of time “post-morteming” this one in our production meeting next Tuesday.

Thanks for the feedback, everyone!

Mary, UMS

Each part of the performance was very well done–Malkovich’s acting was excellent, and the arias were beautifully sung–they just didn’t fit together. I found that when my attention was focused on Malkovich, the music was an unwanted interruption, particularly Baroque music that is characteristically repetitive. Then when I gave myself to the music his voice was startling and unwelcome. I agree with the person who suggested that the music should have been written by a contemporary composer and integrated more fully into the acting performance. It was an interesting but bewildering experience.