Bach vs. Haydn 1788/90
Franz Joseph HAYDN (1732-1809)
Trios for piano flute and violoncello
Trio in D (H XV,16) [21:33]
Trio in F (H XV,17) [17:34]
Trio in G (H XV,15) [23:55]
Piet Kuijken (fortepiano), Barthold Kuijken (transverse flute), Wieland Kuijken
(cello)
Carl Philipp Emanuel BACH (1714-1788)
Quartets for harpsichord, flute and viola
Quartet in G (Wq 95 / H 539) [15:58]
Quartet in a minor (Wq 93 / 537) [14:06]
Quartet in D (Wq 94 / H 538) [14:19]
Ewald Demeyere (harpsichord), Barthold Kuijken (transverse flute), Ann
Cnop (viola)
rec. 2014, AMUZ, Antwerp, Belgium. DDD
ACCENT ACC 24293 [63:03 + 44:24]
By and large Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach and Joseph Haydn
are allocated to different stylistic periods in music history. The former
is associated with a period which is called Empfindsamkeit or
Sturm und Drang; this was also the time in which the galant
idiom manifested itself. Haydn, on the other hand, is considered one
of the three great representatives of the classical era. However, they
were largely contemporaries. Bach was almost twenty years older than
Haydn; the latter was clearly influenced by him, but Bach in his turn
appreciated the oeuvre of Haydn. When Bach died in 1788 Haydn had already
established himself as one of the main composers of his time. Only three
years later he was received in England as the greatest composer in Europe.
The present disc combines two series of compositions by Bach and Haydn
which were written at about the same time. The three quartets for keyboard,
transverse flute and viola by Bach date from 1788, the year of his death.
Haydn composed his three trios for keyboard, flute and cello in 1789/90.
This makes their juxtaposition on this set historically plausible. It
is also quite interesting to compare them.
In his liner-notes Barthold Kuijken writes: "The stylistic differences
between the two [composers] are enormous. In Bach, we find Sturm
und Drang (storm and stress), Empfindsamkeit (sensitivity),
contrasts and unexpected events. In Haydn, alongside his typical wit
and moving depth, we find (apparent) simplicity, clear forms, elegance,
charm and the cantabile of Viennese classicism". In general terms that
seems a very good characterisation. However, it doesn't cover the whole
oeuvre of both masters. The opening movement from Haydn's Trio in
D recorded here, for instance, is certainly not devoid of surprises,
especially a number of unexpected general pauses.
The two composers also differ in regard to the place of the transverse
flute. Bach composed a large number of works for the flute or with an
important flute part, including solo concertos and solo sonatas. That
is not so much the effect of his employer for a number of years, Frederick
the Great of Prussia, being a fanatical player of the instrument; after
all, he hardly appreciated the style of his harpsichordist. It was rather
the fact that the flute was the most popular instrument among amateurs
which inspired Bach and other composers to write for it. Chamber music
was mostly aimed at amateurs, and that explains why the flute takes
an important place in Bach's chamber music oeuvre. Haydn, by contrast,
composed very little for the flute. The three trios recorded here are
the only example of this scoring in his catalogue. He didn't compose
any flute quartets - for flute and string trio, another highly popular
genre in the second half of the 18th century - or sonatas for keyboard
and flute. As far as we know there is only one concerto and that has
been lost. Even so, chamber music by Haydn with a flute part is regularly
performed and recorded. In such cases we are making do with arrangements
by contemporaries: Haydn's music was very popular, and amateurs wanted
to play it. That created a whole market for quartets, trios and other
pieces in which one of the parts - mostly originally written for the
violin - was arranged for flute.
The three trios are the result of a commission of the London publisher
Bland. He issued first the trios in D and G, and later the third in
F. At the same time they were published by Artaria in Vienna. It is
interesting to note that in the latter trio the flute could be replaced
by a violin. At the title page of the first two trios in the London
edition the exact scoring is not given, only the keyboard (fortepiano
or harpsichord) is mentioned, "with accompaniment". Whether a cello
is added is probably down to the interpreters. It is worth mentioning
that the cello largely supports the left hand of the keyboard part;
as with all Haydn's piano trios it can be omitted. However, the fortepianos
of the time were rather weak in the bass, and that makes the inclusion
of a cello plausible. The three trios are different in character: the
trios in D and in G are comparable in that both are in three movements,
the first being longer than the two remaining movements. The closing
movements are in rondo form, the middle movements are of a pastoral
character. The Trio in F has two movements and therefore falls
into the category of the divertimento. The second movement is a menuet.
Although theoretically the keyboard part can be played at the harpsichord,
the fortepiano seems the most plausible option, certainly if one realizes
that these trios were published in England where this instrument had
fully established itself. In this recording Piet Kuijken plays an interesting
instrument, from the Longman-Clementi workshop and dating from 1799.
However, in its sound it is quite close to instruments with a Viennese
action: this allows a speechlike interpretation which is far harder
to realize on most fortepianos with English action, especially Broadwoods.
That seems appropriate, because Haydn composed them before his first
stay in London. At that time he was only acquainted with Viennese instruments,
and that must have been the sound he had in his mind while writing these
trios.
The quartets by Bach are clearly intended for either professional players
or highly-skilled amateurs. Kuijken suggests that these pieces may have
been composed for some of the children of the Jewish banker Itzig in
Berlin. Two of them, Sara and Zippora, were keyboard players. Sara's
husband Salomon Levy played the flute and her elder brother Benjamin
the viola. The two sisters were in close contact with Carl Philipp Emanuel
and his elder brother Wilhelm Friedemann, and very interested in the
music of members of the Bach family, including Johann Sebastian. They
were well-versed in playing the keyboard: Sara regularly performed keyboard
concertos by Emanuel and by his father and commissioned Emanuel's concerto
for harpsichord and fortepiano.
Scoring has always been a subject of debate. Bach called these works
quartets but then only mentioned three instruments on the title page.
In his personal catalogue he added "and bass". There are various theories
about this. Some believe that the term "quartet" only refers to the
number of parts, and point out that the right and left hand of the keyboard
are treated on equal terms. This contrasts with what was common in works
for keyboard solo and for keyboard with instruments, in which the left
hand was confined to an accompanying role which could then be supported
by a string bass. Others think - especially considering Bach's description
in his own catalogue - that the addition of a cello is expected without
mentioning it. This can be compared with the use of a string bass in
a basso continuo part which use was never indicated. The cellist could
simply follow the left hand of the keyboard and now and then add something
of his own.
We could consider a third option. Maybe Bach wanted to leave it to the
performers to decide whether or not to use a cello, depending on the
choice of keyboard. This brings us to another issue: which keyboard
instrument Bach had in mind? The original manuscript in the archive
of the Berlin Singakademie and Bach's own catalogue specifies clavier
which in the 18th century was mostly a reference to the clavichord.
It could also refer to any strung keyboard instrument, and in this case
the clavichord itself has to be excluded. The keyboard part has the
indication clavicembalo. However, the keyboard part includes
quite a number of dynamic indications and this suggests the use of the
fortepiano. That could be the reason Bach added "and bass", probably
meaning ad libitum. The fortepiano had established itself as
a serious alternative to the harpsichord, but especially some of the
older types were rather weak in the bass. In that case a cello could
be useful to reinforce the keyboard's bass part.
Here it was decided to use the harpsichord, and omit the cello. The
decision to use a harpsichord is partly based on practical considerations:
the lack of a really appropriate instrument. A Silbermann was considered
too old-fashioned, a Stein or Walter "too 'classical', too 'Mozartian',
too modern, too extroverted". The presence of dynamic markings in the
keyboard part doesn't exclude the use of a harpsichord. This seems a
very plausible option. A fortepiano is certainly not out of the question,
but too often performers out of laziness turn to a copy of a Walter
fortepiano. It is praiseworthy that Kuijken and his colleagues have
realized that such an instrument is not appropriate and were willing
to accept the consequences.
These quartets are every inch vintage Emanuel Bach. The many twists
and turns we know from his keyboard works are very much present here
as well. That is perfectly conveyed in these performances. One doesn't
miss a more dynamic keyboard, such as the fortepiano. However, the balance
is not ideal: the flute is too dominant in relation to the harpsichord.
It is the latter which should have the lead here, but it is somewhat
underexposed. Even so, these are outstanding performances. I would even
consider the interpretations of Haydn's trios as the best available
right now. That has everything to do with the choice of the fortepiano
which turns out to be the ideal instrument for these pieces. Piet Kuijken
plays with great panache, in a really speechlike manner, with clear
dynamic accents. The differentiated treatment of dynamics is one of
the features of these performances. This is Haydn at his very best.
The overall quality of these performances and the combination of two
series of pieces which are so characteristic of their respective composers
make this set a winner. Even if you have good recordings of these works
in your collection there is every reason to add this set.
Johan van Veen
www.musica-dei-donum.org
twitter.com/johanvanveen
