"Thus Spoke Zarathustra" is a very famous symphonic poem, but I hadn’t really studied it before. So, last time I listened to it, I didn’t quite understand it. This time, the program arrangement was very unique. The first half included three overtures: Berlioz’s Overture to The Judges of the Secret Court, Debussy’s Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun (based on a poem by Mallarmé), and Berlioz’s Overture to King Lear (inspired by Shakespeare). These three overtures formed a roughly fast-slow-fast structure, seemingly paying homage to the structure of an Italian overture (commonly fast-slow-fast, with the two fast sections being closely related—many of Mozart’s operas use this structure). Both the first and last pieces in the program were by Berlioz here.
The final piece, John Adams’ minimalist work, lasted only four or five minutes, clearly serving as the outro for the concert. This means the three overtures were almost certainly intended to lead into Thus Spoke Zarathustra. However, the three overtures together took about 40 minutes, and Thus Spoke Zarathustra itself is just under 40 minutes. Can its content justify the buildup from the three overtures? Since the program was arranged this way, the conductor must believe it can. Therefore, I decided to prepare in advance by studying this famous symphonic poem by Strauss.
I had avoided preparing earlier because I felt it wouldn’t help. Back in undergrad, when studying Thus Spoke Zarathustra (the book), my understanding differed significantly from my teacher’s. (The sharpest disagreement was over the concept of the "Übermensch." I believed that the Übermensch doesn’t necessarily align with conventional notions of a "good person." It could even embody selfishness, hypocrisy, or other traits. Nietzsche argued that moral standards—good/evil, right/wrong—are constructs of the "herd mentality." So, the Übermensch cannot be described as simply good, positive, or virtuous. However, my teacher’s interpretation of the Übermensch was overly positive, which frustrated me so much that I had to drop the course. I decided I’d revisit the original text when I learn German.)
This disagreement led me to assume that Strauss’ interpretation would also differ from mine. However, Strauss wasn’t trying to specifically portray Nietzsche’s story or core ideas. Instead, he used music to depict a history of human development (from the perspective of Thus Spoke Zarathustra). The sunrise serves as the introduction, representing Zarathustra descending the mountain; followed by humanity’s darkness, ignorance, and doubts; religion’s response to these questions (despite Nietzsche’s critique of religion, the religious themes in the piece are still very beautiful); humanity’s desires, emotions, passions, and suffering; science’s restorative influence; and finally, the Dionysian dance of the Übermensch. The piece ends with its melody drifting away, the high strings concluding in B major while the low bass resolves in C major—a suspended ending, as if to say, “These are just stories passed down.”
Viewed this way, the three overtures—The Judges of the Secret Court, setting up themes of “human struggle and emotion”; Afternoon of a Faun, representing “nature and the blurred passions and the ambiguity of the love of humanity”; and King Lear, symbolizing “chaos, madness, question and uncertainty”—serve as preludes to Thus Spoke Zarathustra, which unfolds as an epic narrative. After the suspended ending, the program transitions into a minimalist, cyberpunk-like (though that’s very inaccurate) outro that returns us to the modern world (reality). V-E-R-Y C-O-O-L. Following this logic while listening, the entire concert felt cohesive and satisfying. Minor musical imperfections became negligible in the grand scheme, as the experience was greater than the sum of its parts.
One detail worth mentioning is the "science" section in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. When the bass strings introduce the theme, the bassoon enters with a phrase remarkably similar to the opening motif of Debussy’s Afternoon of a Faun. I only noticed this during the concert, and it completely blew my mind.
Musically, I felt the conductor’s dramatic interpretation of King Lear was a bit too ambitious, with excessive rubato. Watching the conductor, I could roughly guess what he intended, but the orchestra often struggled to follow. The frequent tempo shifts and cues led to inconsistent entries, and the final syncopated rhythms lost their syncopated effect. Afternoon of a Faun also felt slightly too slow, leaving me a bit dazed while listening. The first overture was excellent, though. The conductor’s demands on the interplay between sections were high, but the execution was impressive. Especially notable was the spatial arrangement of the two violin sections on opposite sides of the stage, which enhanced the dialogue and back-and-forth effect. This clarity is something you can’t capture in a recording. The final piece, Short Ride in a Fast Machine, was an extremely challenging piece to coordinate, with its intricate, overlapping rhythmic patterns. It played to the conductor’s strengths and to the SFS brass section’s bright, polished style. Personally, I’ve always had a soft spot for minimalism (Corigliano’s work totally won me over!), so I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Overall, today’s program was entirely composed of programmatic music. The thoughtful structure made it a wonderful aesthetic experience. It was a fantastic concert.
P.S. Was there an organ on the stage? Or was it just an electric keyboard connected to organ pipes?
