On Monday afternoon I went to Good Shepherd Church on West 66th Street to hear another performance by the Jupiter Players. The program on this occasion highlighted the works of composers who were also in their day well known pianists. These included Johann Nepomuk Hummel, Liszt, Rachmaninoff and Chopin as well as contemporary composer Adam Neiman who, as pianist, was also the featured guest artist.
The program opened with Hummel's Grand rondo brillant in G Major Op. 126, for flute and piano (1834). Hummel is one of those musical figures who, during their day, stood at the center of European culture and exerted great influence on the next generation of musicians and composers but who then, at their deaths, were almost immediately forgotten, their repuations allowed to slide into obscurity. A contemporary of Beethoven, Hummel studied with many of the same teachers - Johann Georg Albrechtsberger, Joseph Haydn, and Antonio Salieri - after first having been a pupil of both Mozart and Muzio Clementi. In turn, Hummel exerted considerable influence on the early Romantics. Schubert dedicated his final three piano sonatas to Hummel (although the dedicatee was changed posthumously to Schumann by Schubert's publisher); Liszt studied piano under Hummel's pupil Carl Czerny; and Chopin may have been inspired to compose his Preludes after having heard Hummel's own Op. 67. The present piece was a late composition written only three years before Hummel's death in Weimar where he had in his last years become close friends with Goethe.
The next work was Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No. 9 in E-flat major (1847), titled "Carnival in Pest," as transcribed by the composer for piano, violin and cello. Like the other Rhapsodies, the work was originally conceived as a virtuoso piece for solo piano and incorporated the folk music of Liszt's homeland. In this case, the themes used were among those the composer had heard while visiting an actual carnival several years earlier. Bartók was later to praise the piece as a "work of perfect authenticity," and what better judge than he? Usually, I strongly prefer to hear works in their original instrumentation rather than in transcription. This piece, however, definitely seemed to benefit by the addition of strings, most notably in those sections where the folk influence was strongest. It was really the violin that best captured the carnival spirit.
The first half of the recital concluded with Rachmaninoff's Two Morceaux de salon Op. 6 for piano and violin (1893). Although these two pieces were written fairly early in Rachmaninoff's career, as the low opus number indicates, they are nevertheless extremely accomplished works. This is worth mentioning because they preceded by only two years the Symphony No. 1, whose disastrous premiere in 1897 precipitated a psychological crisis that caused the composer to lose all confidence in his ability. Though only miniatures, the Morceaux reveal a composer fully in command of his material. Rachmaninoff was, of course, one of the greatest twentieth century pianists; but in these pieces greater weight is given to the violin, played here exceptionally well by Stefan Milenkovich. The titles of the two movements provide a fairly accurate indication of the music contained within them. The first is called Romance while the second is labeled Danses tziganes 'Danse hongroise.' The latter was a decidedly appropriate selection to follow Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody.
After intermission, the program continued with Adam Neiman's Trio for piano, violin and clarinet (2017). In his introductory remarks, Mr. Neiman mentioned that the ten-minute piece had been commissioned by a Midwest music festival for exactly that length of time and that combination of instruments. The work was to be sandwiched between two Brahms works, and the festival organizers wanted a piece that "bridged the gap" between the younger and more passionate Brahms and his older and more philosophical persona. As for the style of the trio, Mr. Neiman - who is often referred to as a neo-Romantic - described it as "unapologetically tonal and melodic." And that it was. Perhaps for that reason it was much more enjoyable than most contemporary music I've heard recently. It proved to be an extremely accomplished work. Surprisingly, considering Mr. Neiman is best known as a pianist, and a good one at that, great weight was given to the strings throughout the work while the piano remained "a constant and subdued presence."
The recital concluded with a performance of Chopin's Piano Trio in G minor, Op. 8 (1828-1829). This early work is something of an anomaly in the composer's oeuvre that seems far removed from the Romantic miniatures for solo piano that would characterize his later work and win him fame. Part of the reason for this is that Chopin was still a student in Warsaw at the time the trio was completed, a pupil of the composer Józef Elsner, and the work was at least partly in the nature of an assignment. Its structure and tone are Classical rather than Romantic and hearken back to Beethoven (as well as Hummel). Some critics have even heard in the adagio sostenuto the influence of Beethoven's Sonata No. 5 in C minor. Nevertheless, the tone of the work, particularly in the slow movement, is unabashedly Romantic, an indication that even at this early point in his career Chopin was fully able to imbue his music with the force of his personality. If there's any problem with the piece it's Chopin's lack of experience in composing for strings. Even though he had assistance in writing those parts, there is never any of the interplay among the strings and piano that one finds in the work of more experienced chamber music composers. Nevertheless, the work was well received at its premiere and deserves to be heard more often today. In his usual hyperbolic style, Schumann wrote of it: "Is it not as noble as one could possibly imagine? Dreamier than any poet has ever sung?"
No comments:
Post a Comment