Two critics on Dudamel: Real or mirage?

The hall was packed, the music was hot and the reception was loud.

But all that could have been predicted for last night’s Philadelphia debut of Gustavo Dudamel with the Israel Philharmonic at the Kimmel Center. The current tour, which includes the important venues of New York, Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia, is for many people the first live introduction to the 27-year-old Dudamel, who in only three years has emerged from his native Venezuela to become a major international conducting talent and recording star - one who was made chief conductor of Sweden’s Gothenberg Symphony last year and will become the Los Angeles Philharmonic’s music director next year.

Like Barack Obama, Gustavo Dudamel has all kinds of people with all kinds of hopes invested in him. Hope was an audible commodity at intermission. “Adorable,” said one woman. “If it’s good for classical music ….” said an orchestra administrator.

Under normal circumstances, though, Dudamel’s trajectory would be too much, too soon, too fast. After the concert, Inquirer music critics Peter Dobrin and David Patrick Stearns put their heads together in an attempt to determine: Is this talent real or a charismatic mirage?

Since part of our job is to be an intermediary between the music art public and the hype of the music industry, I’d like to suggest we start on with a somewhat cynical but important question. I think we’d both agree that Gustavo Dudamel is one of the more animated conductors to appear lately. To what extent do you think he was performing for the audience - as opposed to doing everything he could to unleash the contents of Brahms’ Symphony No. 4?

It’s true that in the Brahms he was all about the visuals. There was a lot going on - the springy hair, the enormous gestures. Some of what was going on in the orchestra was clearly beyond his control. He can’t necessarily make the first violins more accurate or the horns sound less tubby, though he could have done something about the balance. As far as ideas, I’m not sure that simply getting a lot louder at the end of the first movement qualifies as an interpretive insight. Did you hear any ideas?

DPS: I was pretty happy with in the Brahms until the final movement, which is tightly organized music that I believe has to sound like it’s diving through the various of grief. The strings did get out of control. It was loud for its own sake. But a lot of conductors need decades before they can pull off this movement. In the previous movements, I liked the way he gave the orchestra’s individual sections their due while not becoming unduly heterogenous - lots of working parts, but always cohesive.

Many young conductors create false excitement through surface tension. With Dudamel, the piece was heating up from within, which is infinitely preferable. Also, I was happy to see him letting the orchestra just play on its own throughout most of the second movement. When a transition came along, he’d just raise and stiffen his hands, guide the orchestra through and let the players go again. His tempos weren’t particularly original, but well chosen.

He had a more important contribution to the Bernstein on the program. In Concerto for Orchestra ("Jubilee Games”), he had pretty terrific technique. It was more clear and expressive than a lot of much older conductors, like Rattle. He had authority, but it wasn’t the kind of authority that comes with imposing control. It wasn’t like, “Let me bend the ensemble to my will,” but rather, “Let me show you how fun and meaningful this can be.” It’s a style of authority that’s especially well-suited to our times.

I was also impressed with the lack of gymnastics in the Bernstein. His gestures were clear and refined. He was clearly in contact with the sound of the orchestra. His feet didn’t leave the ground, which was not the case in the Brahms. I don’t think too highly of Concerto for Orchestra - it’s a lot of theater, a lot of schtick, and not a lot of great music - but Dudamel pulled some gorgeous moments out of it.

Didn’t he seem like a different conductor to you in the Bernstein?

Oh yes, he had to be a different conductor in the Bernstein - and he is quite different

from

Bernstein. Their physicality is similar, their performances both burn at high temperatures, but Dudamel is much more an objective classicist. He doesn't fuss with tempos. He isn't out to teach us about deep philosophical matters through music. In those respects, I'd compare him more to the late Carlos Kleiber. Also, his interpretive priorities in

Concerto for Orchestra

were quite different from those in the composer's performances. Under Bernstein, that noisy, crazy first movement - it sounds a bit like the

West Side Story

"Mambo" on crack - peaked early on. Dudamel kept a lid on it at the beginning, which allowed him to create a steady upward progression that peaked in the final moments. That's partly because the improvisatory sections that occur about two-thirds of the way through made sense under Dudamel, but didn't always under Bernstein.

I like a lot of the Concerto for Orchestra and love the final "Benediction" movement with the sounds of the orchestra tuning up and then that entrancing prayer-like melody that's sung by an uncredited baritone on tape. But Wednesday's audience might be interested to know that momentary pre-recorded blast of first-movement sound was a mistake. Somebody hit the wrong button.

PD: The first encore - the "Intermezzo" from Puccini's Manon Lescaut - was a peek into what he can do with a very different kind of repertoire than we heard on the rest of the concert. He has a great feeling for the line in a melody. I'd like to hear more of him in opera. Of course, the next time we hear Dudamel in Philadelphia will probably next season. The Kimmel has him booked I believe with the Los Angeles Philharmonic in a national tour for his first season in L.A.

That'll be a real crossroads for his reputation. He's got a great story, dimples and lots of technique. But if this is to be a durable career, he's going to have to reveal substance in that first season with Los Angeles.

One of the things I'm encouraged by is the fact that Dudamel is one of a group of conductors in their 20s and 30s who are quite promising. I'm excited about Vladimir Jurowski of course, and Yannick Nézet-Séguin seems suddenly major. Both are here in the next few months.

So in the end, how did this performance change your impression of Dudamel? I think of him as extremely promising but with some important developing still ahead.

DPS: The performance confirmed what I've heard in recordings, videos and lots of webcasts from Europe: His greatest strength isn't his dimples, hair or even energy. He seems to have an inner safety net that keeps his interpretive fantasy from going outside the music's organic perimeters. I can't say that I have that kind of confidence in Jurowski or Nézet-Séguin, at least yet. Some people have to develop infallible instincts. Dudamel - like Kleiber - might've been born with them.