ARIEL DECHOSA?S recent solo piano recital at Philamlife Theater is a testament to why erudition need not be an approach to art, which immediately calls to mind the relegation of the works of the masters to museum pieces.
One crucial aspect of any artistic endeavor requires emphasis: integrity of intention. This is not in deference to the Romantic ideal of the self-determining, expressive subject but an inevitable contextualization of the subject.
Dechosa?s dynamism that night, for example, was a reflection of his understanding of art. Unless one believes that we ought to let the artist be taken over by pre-Platonic mysticism, he is governed by an intellect that ?intentionally? communicates interpretation after interpretation.
Commendable programming
Even Dechosa?s programming was commendable, which mirrored his faith in the intelligence of the Filipino audience, not shortchanging them with mere bravado. His Brahms F Minor was a mixture of attentiveness to both formal details and sound production, where tone production and color were residual effects or consequences of careful thought given to structure. Form ceased to be just an adjunct to the discernment of any piece of music.
Some might insist on the empty and static rhetoricism of musical design (and style), but Dechosa maintained a more active conception of structure as experience or process and not as a pile of pre-arranged, printable accumulation of figures and formulas on the page.
The entire sonata was performed with an overwhelming breadth of ideation. I am partial to the relevance of thoughtful dynamic spacing as opposed to pure reliance on a wide dynamic range because the former involves conscious planning in maximizing the progress of movement and direction.
Dechosa?s naturally robust sound and immutable consistency of pacing always resulted in a gratifying buildup. In passages like the pivotal transition leading to the colossal recapitulation in the allegro maestoso or more memorably the searching andante molto of the second movement, Dechosa let loose a copious wash of tones that was even more admirable for the control exhibited (less a matter of restraint, though, than intentionality).
Unduly overlooked
His rendition of Prokofiev?s A Major Sonata had an unsettling rhythmic vitality to it, which, more often than not, is a minimum requirement for the performance of most works we routinely label, not without much controversy, as modern.
If it is already a given that such a work?s ?dynamis? can be potentially conveyed through rhythmic means, then it will take an exceptional artist to ensure the re-conception of ?energeia? (in order to fuel an actuality) as something that belongs to the province of intellect rather than to a mere capacity for brute, mindless force.
Dechosa?s astuteness extended far beyond all these to include the keenest treatment of texture ? both structurally and tonally ? which is an aspect of Prokofiev?s music unduly overlooked by some pianists.
The two great sonatas were each preceded by shorter works ? the Bach-Siloti B Minor prelude and the Prokofiev ?Harp? prelude.
After the concert, one might either grumble about the grave seriousness of it all, wondering about the thin line between hors d?oeuvre and pičce de résistance; or marvel at how Dechosa?s Bach-Siloti, come to think of it, was slightly more interesting (or haunting even) than Gilel?s.
In Virgil Thomson?s review of a Webster Aitken recital, he ranted about the young pianist?s ?throwing away of genuine charm? for an old-master effect,? after having endured sitting through a program consisting of a Bach toccata, a Mozart rondo and Beethoven?s ?Diabelli.? Other than the fact that he was waiting, according to him, for a tidbit or sweetmeat after all that, what he found unbecoming was the feigning of an effect.
There was nothing of that sort in Dechosa?s recital ? only the sincerity of an artist who refuses to be held responsible for anything other than music itself.
