Comparison: Pierre Hantaï
(Mirare, 2003)
The Goldberg Variations
never cease to intrigue scholars, musicians
and audiences alike. Many harpsichordists
seem to consider this long work the
ultimate challenge. That is reflected
by the large number of recordings available.
That number continues to grow every
year.
One wonders what all
the fuss is about. There are more variation
works in music history, both before
and after Bach. What makes this set
of variations so special? In his liner
notes, Lajos Rovatkay characterises
the Goldberg Variations as a 'Tower
of Babel'. "The abundance included in
a single harmonic framework and the
organisation of the musical figures
appears as the complete vision of an
ideal universe of musical art, as apotheosis
of the sensual-spiritual area of conflict
and the tonal material that was used
as his basis".
There is no reason
to deny the inner coherence of the Goldberg
Variations and their rooting in the
rhetorical tradition and the connection
to medieval musical thinking, as Rovatkay
writes elsewhere. But at the same time
one shouldn't exaggerate this aspect.
Two factors could bring us down to earth
again.
First of all, there
is reason to believe that the first
version of the Goldberg Variations consisted
of the first 24 variations only, preceded
and followed by the Aria. It is in this
form that they were probably written
for Count Keyserlingk, who wanted them
to be played by his harpsichordist,
Johann Gottlieb Goldberg, during his
many sleepless nights.
Did Bach have its present
concept in mind right from the start
or only when he prepared the work for
publication in 1741?
Secondly, the fact
that Keyserlingk asked Goldberg during
sleepless nights to play "one of my
variations" proves that these can stand
on their own feet, out of their context.
Special attention has
been given to the Quodlibet (Variation
30). Rovatkay writes: "The two associated
texts provide, so to speak, a latent
dialogue between the bass framework
and the so long put off 'Aria' upper
voice (...). The re-unification of the
two partners is completed with the closing
return of the 'Aria'. (...) the reappearance
of the 'Aria' is the fulfillment of
a multiple geometric proportions structure
(music as 'mathematical science' of
the medieval 'Quadrivium') and at the
same time the enlightening closure of
contents expressed by the concept (music
as a rhetorical-emotional communicating
art of the humanistic 'Trivium')."
The view that the two
songs in the Quodlibet symbolise the
return of the Aria is not uncommon.
But most scholars believe that this
Quodlibet also refers to the habit of
members of the Bach family to sing popular
songs at their family meetings, and
that Bach was even "poking fun at his
own contrapuntal inclinations" (John
Butt, in the Oxford Composers Companions’
volume devoted to Bach).
This humorous aspect
is characterised by Rovatkay as a "superficial
view". It seems this way of thinking
left its mark on his interpretation
of the Goldberg Variations as a whole,
which is deprived of all joy and exuberance.
I didn't find it very easy to listen
to this recording at a stretch. One
of the features of this work is the
great variety in character between the
individual variations. That hardly comes
across in this performance. There is
great uniformity in tempo: some variations
are too slow, others too fast. The interpretation
as a whole is pretty rigid and ponderous.
Let me give some examples
to illustrate this. Variation 4 is a
passepied. Rovatkay's playing never
makes the listener realise that this
is a vivid and playful dance. How different
is the way Pierre Hantaï treats
this Variation!
Due to the lack of
differentation in Rovatkay's playing
the rhythmic accents in Variation 5
are hardly noticeable.
According to Bach's
contemporary, Johann Mattheson, a canarie
should be played "sehr geschwinde" (very
fast) and "kurtz" (which means that
the notes shouldn't always get their
full weight). That is exactly how Hantaï
is playing Variation 7, but nothing
of the sort is realised by Rovatkay.
The Goldberg Variations
in its present form consists of two
halves. The second half begins with
Variation 16, a French overture in two
contrasting sections: the first stately
and majestic, the second fast. In Rovatkay's
interpretation these two sections are
not contrasting enough. The tempo of
the first section is alright, but the
second section is too slow.
Generally there is
little variety in the way Rovatkay plays
these variations. There is also very
little ornamentation, not even in the
repeats.
This interpretation
by Lajos Rovatkay doesn’t seem to me
an interesting addition to the long
list of recordings already available.
Johan van Veen
Lajos Rovatkay, harpsichord (Rainer Schütze,
1976, after Blanchet, 1737) 