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
|
Support us financially by purchasing
this from
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|