Knowing Huber's symphonies,
I received this disc with great expectations.
There are comparatively
few Swiss composers of whom Frank Martin
is undoubtedly the finest but not in
fashion due to the fickleness of the
music public. Music lovers are unsteady,
unfaithful and sometimes volatile and
they move with convention, that is to
say what is generally acceptable as
fashionable at the time, and, as a consequence,
composers suffer. Honegger was a fine
Swiss composer (his work Joan of
Arc at the Stake is a masterpiece)
as was Willy Burkhard but whenever is
he played? His cantata The Flood
is a fine choral work and there
is a very satisfying Violin Concerto,
among many other things.
Huber was born on 28
June 1852 in Eppenburg and, in the process
of time, studied at the Leipzig Conservatory
studying piano and composition. All
his life he was an admirer of the music
of Robert Schumann and in 1874 at the
age of 26 gave a public performance
of Schumann's Konzertstück for
piano and orchestra seven months after
premiering his own composition in that
form and with that title. This was,
of course, a student work, and is lost.
One wonders whether
the dual role of a concert pianist and
composer always works. With great pianistic
composers such as Liszt and Rachmaninov
it does, but, I suggest, in a restricted
way. I further suggest that they wrote
music that suited their own techniques
and this is why Chopin never wrote what
could really, or truthfully, be called
a virtuosic work. Some people may not
be aware that fine pianists of more
recent times have written works for
the piano. Wilhelm Kempff is but one
example.
Perhaps the Schumann
Piano Concerto is the model for Huber's
first concerto as it was for Edvard
Grieg who clearly imitated it too closely.
What concerns me about the Huber C minor
concerto is that it is more symphonic
than a concerto and that the music often
starts strongly and then declines. If
one claims that this music is fundamentally
lyrical so be it, but, in that case,
the content has to be of such quality
as to maintain a large-scale movement
if it is to be predominantly lyrical.
If it is just lyrical it will lack tension
and contrast and be something of a damp
squib. But there are many works that
begin with an impressive opening and
that is all; the music thereafter falls
away into ordinariness or poor quality.
Britten's Sinfonia da Requiem is
an example. What a splendid start, truly
superb, but then, what? How many times
have people admired the opening of Tchaikovsky's
Piano Concerto no. 1 in B flat minor
and regretted that that superb opening
never returns? These are thoughts that
one entertains with these two concertos
by Huber.
Generally, I hate comparisons
since that can pigeon-hole composers
and affect the judgment of the innocent.
For example, if someone said a new work
sounded like Elgar, I would certainly
not wish to hear it but that comment
could be completely wrong and deprive
me of what may be a good work. If you
think that some Chopin is anaemic, effeminate
or a little feeble (and that is a decision
you must make) then we are approaching
the style of the Huber works. To Hans
Huber's credit he does try to shake
off Chopin's dress (no pun intended)
and his music tries to grow up and sound
like Rachmaninov or the Brahms of his
superb Piano Concerto in D minor. The
first concerto of Huber starts with
a limpid orchestral introduction that
borders on being dreary followed by
a piano flourish, but it is heavy-handed
and not exciting and then proceeds,
as does the Schumann, to accompany solos.
The Schumann melodic influence is obvious.
There are a few impressive moments but
I find that leisurely and sweet music
seldom convinces. It is what I call
pale music, often uneventful. The second
movement, which is in A flat, is devoid
of any real ideas and originality. It
has piano features such as broken chords
which become tedious, as it does to
a even greater extent in Schubert. Often
the piano writing is in octaves but
without any melodic or rhythmic interest.
Compare the famous movement of Prokofiev's
Piano Concerto no. 2 in G minor which
is all in octaves and how truly magnificent
it is because of the sheer energy in
the music. The third movement of the
Huber is a scherzo but it stops and
starts and does not completely satisfy.
The finale seems to run out of ideas
and quotes from previous movements.
However, there are some good moments.
The con fuoco ending is almost breathtaking
and superbly written both for the piano
and the orchestra. So, perhaps we should
all listen to the work several times.
First impressions can be wrong and some
works grow on you ... but then some
works don't. Some music I admired forty
years ago I do not like today and I
am sure that is the same with many of
us.
Basel approved of Huber
and his music and in that city he spent
most of his career as a composer, conductor,
pianist, choral conductor and teacher.
I think it is true
to say that his symphonies fared better
than the piano concertos. The Piano
Concerto no. 3 is , in my opinion, a
better work than the first. It is more
pianistic and presents some technical
difficulties and challenges to the pianist.
Huber was no fool. It was too difficult
for him and so he dedicated it to a
bravura pianist, Robert Freund, who
premiered it under the composer's baton
on 26 February 1899 in a concert which
included Berlioz's sprawling Harold
in Italy which was given a dreadful
performance at last year's Promenade
concerts (2003).
The Piano Concerto
no 3 opens with a set of variations
but the tempi are so pedestrian that
the music lacks life and could pass
for a corpse. Should a concerto not
start with something that grasps the
audience's attention? It does not have
to be fast or noisy. The opening of
Berg's Violin Concerto is neither fast
nor noisy but is very impressive as
is the whole work. A set of variations
can make the work sound episodic or
rhapsodic and result in the piece being
formless and not hanging together -
stop and start music. The second movement,
a scherzo, is also in six-eight time
so there is no contrast. The tranquillo
section is sombre. The following Intermezzo
does not work. As with much of Huber's
music it starts well and then fizzles
out. Here we are threatened with a big
fugue but the music succumbs to dialogue
between the piano and soloists in the
orchestra. This leads into a finale
which, thankfully, has a sense of form
and therefore coherence, and is occasionally
exciting. However, all too soon, our
hopes are dashed and, as has already
been noted, there is insufficient quality
material in these works to maintain
interest.
I do not have the scores
and so I cannot comment on whether the
performances are faithful to the scores.
I think some of the piano playing is
a bit hesitant, or uncertain, in the
big passages but it scintillates in
the mercurial sections. It appears that
the orchestra are on good form and I
think many people will enjoy these concertos.
It seems that I have been too damning
but then there is a wealth of better
music that is not recorded.
This disc also poses
the question as to why more music from
Switzerland is not readily available.
Is it a musical backwater?
Huber died on Christmas
Day 1921. He was 66 years of age. Clearly
he was a fine musician and perhaps readers
should investigate his symphonies.
David Wright
see also review
by Rob Barnett
Dan Franklin Smith (piano) 