|Your recent CD Elgar: Orchestrated By Donald Fraser, Piano Quintet, Sea Pictures reached the Amazon Best Seller Top 10 last June! In his youth, in 1870s, Elgar himself arranged many works by Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven for quintet and wrote his Harmony Music and Shed Pieces, which had a strong, yet personal, Mozartian writing, do you think that the influence of those composers on his music still emerges from his later works? And if yes, how?|
Elgar is an interesting figure, because his own compositional voice is so strong
and so consistent across his entire maturity. Composers like Shostakovich or Beethoven,
or even Mozart, went through huge changes of style in their careers, while the differences
between early Elgar and late Elgar are pretty small. The only composer I can think
of who has such a consistent and recognizable voice is Brahms. Elgar's voice was
so strong, that even his orchestrations of other composers sound like Elgar.
This means it's quite hard to spot the influence of other composers in Elgar's music. His knowledge of Brahms, Beethoven, Wagner, Schumann, Mozart, Haydn and Bach (I'd say those are the composers who shaped his language and technique the most) is so deeply assimilated and integrated into his own musical world that one almost never thinks «Oh, that sounds a bit like…».
What Elgar ultimately learned from the Austro-German masters is a multi-layered approach to motivic development. There are thematic connections in his music that are very obvious, and there are those that are almost undetectable. In a piece like the Piano Quintet, there are obvious moments of cyclical structure, where whole themes return at the end of the piece which we know from the beginning and which are easy for anyone to spot, and then are tiny, microscopic relationships of intervals and ideas that are very important to the musical logic, which one can only really dig out with lots of analysis while looking at the score.
Haydn and Schumann were the greatest masters of this kind of layering, but Mozart excelled at it too.
|You are a well known promoter of Haydn's music, also through your own blog A View from the Podium, what are your considerations on your activity on Haydn and on the importance of building a wider knowledge of his music, still, unfortunately, a bit neglected? In September you have conducted the beautiful Symphony no. 80 by Haydn, what have been your thoughts, while preparing your performance? Written in 1784, 2 years before Mozart's Prague K504 and 1 after Linz, do you think this Symphony by Haydn somehow influenced Mozart's late symphonic writing?|
I think there are two main reasons why Haydn's music is still mostly misunderstood
or underappreciated by the general public. First, I think he's been very badly served
by performers and writers who have tried to tame him as both a human being and a
musician. The banal image of the benevolent Papa Haydn is only a tiny portion of
a complex and fascinating personality – he was a man of tremendous temperament,
great tenacity, capable of great anger and passion, and someone who took great personal
and professional risks throughout his career. He must have been a genius at dealing
with people – think of what it took to keep that incredible orchestra together at
Esterháza with all those great artists and strong personalities. The musical manifestation
of this problem is that we keep Haydn's music behind glass. Too many Haydn performances
are too bland – everything is made polite and genteel. I think his music is overflowing
with madness and genius. It's not just gently witty.
Of course, Haydn, even well performed and well curated, asks a lot of listeners. It's very sophisticated and endlessly modern music.
But I've found that if you strip away all the accrued politeness and gentility that has become attached to his music and play it with real commitment and total abandon, audiences hear it and are just stunned.
As far as Haydn's influence on Mozart, it's not an easy thing to describe in a few words. They were writing during an era in which the language of music was as standardized and codified as pretty much any time I can think of – the only parallels I can think of are movements in popular music, where certain formulae completely dominate the discourse for a while, like doo-wop, rockabilly or ragtime. Mozart and Haydn were fairly unique in taking a system of stock musical gestures and using them to create incredibly expressive and completely radical music. Both of them understood the power of expectation – how to create it and how to undermine it. Haydn provided the structural framework for Mozart by creating or perfecting the forms in which Mozart would excel: sonata form, the string quartet and the symphony.
But by the time you get to Mozart's earliest mature symphonies like 25 or 29, you can see he's a totally different character than Haydn. There's a melodic brilliance and emotional directness one almost never finds in Haydn, but it lacks Haydn's wildness and technical genius.
What's touching is that they clearly understood and loved each other's music without any hint of jealousy or condescension.
HAYDN & A VIEW FROM THE PODIUM (by Kenneth Woods)
• Haydn's Music- Bathed in Fire and Blood
• Haydn in The Oregonian
• Haydn the Yurodivy
• Reading Haydn from Beginning to End
• Haydn- more talented than Mozart
• Haydn- smarter than Brahms
• Controversy over Haydn and magic with Schumann
• RCCO- Schubert and Haydn
• Haydn the Subversive
• Podcast- The "true" story of Haydn 59
• Listen Again- Haydn Trumpet Concerto
• Haydn- More fun than Mahler!
• More Haydn
• Haydn's on- let's cancel the concert and rehearse
|You have published also a really beautiful series of CDs with music by the Austrian-British composer Hans Gál. Among them, Gál's Concerto for Piano and Orchestra and, in the same album, Mozart's Piano Concerto K482: what led you to create this special combination? You have in your repertoire also a few rare works from 18th/19th century like the Harmoniemusik after Mozart's Don Giovanni and Figaro by Triebensee and Wendt: do you think this special charming type of works, which had also a specific social value when written, should receive more attention in Concert Seasons, in order to enrich them?|
Gál is a special case.
Throughout the decade or so I've been working on his music with the Gál Society, one thing I got from them was their deep conviction that his music shouldn't be assessed too much in terms of his biography.
There has been a lot of long-overdue interest in composers like Gál, whose lives were disrupted (or worse) by the Nazis. It's important that we let their music be assessed on merit, and not presented with too much special pleading because of their personal tragedies.
With that in mind, we've always coupled his works (with a few exceptions, like our disc of string trios by Gál and Krása) alongside works from the Austro-German tradition that he saw himself belonging to. Generationally, he was closer (by far) to Mozart and Schubert than I am to Shostakovich or Mahler.
Hopefully placing his music next to Mozart's helps us to better understand both composers.
As for the Harmoniemusiks– I think they're wonderful!
I'm a great fan of arrangements in general. Mozart was, too!
Audiences love these arrangements, and it's wonderful that one can showcase one's woodwind section using some of the greatest music ever written.
Orchestras don't feature their wind sections enough!
|When you work with the orchestra, preparing a new series of concerts, what are your pieces of advice and tips to the musicians on approaching Mozart and on approaching Haydn?|
On a technical level, I don't think musicians think as deeply about meter and metric
structure as they perhaps should in Baroque and Classical repertoire!
Understanding all the nuances of different kinds of impulses and strong and weak beats and bars is absolutely essential for giving this repertoire the right sense of variety and elegance. When you work with a good orchestra over time, you try to develop a shared understanding about how meter works in Mozart and Haydn (and Bach and Handel).
On a more spiritual level, Classical repertoire seems to bring out musicians' worst tendencies to imitate other people's performances and mannerisms. The HIP movement has made the problem even more common... it's become shorthand for a set of performance habits which are mostly the result of a very contemporary aesthetic.
If I'm feeling naughty, I occasionally point out that the aesthetics of Ikea furniture and many period instrument recordings are basically the same. It's all about clean lines, bright textures, standardized approaches. I would hope the study of performance practice would lead us to be more questioning and more radical, not to simply recycle the interpretations of a conspicuously brilliant generation of other conductors, whose aesthetics were obviously shaped by the British Cathedral choral tradition as much as anything else.
Why do so many performers ignore or downplay Haydn's use of fortissimo... a dynamic he uses very sparingly? Why do so many performers end every phrase in Mozart with a diminuendo, even when it precedes a subito piano? Surely these kinds of habits are very destructive to the music... it robs it of drama, intensity, contrast and expression.
I felt like I started to blossom as a Haydn interpreter when I freed myself of any worry about whether other people would approve of what I was up to, or whether anyone else had done it before the way I thought it should go.
You've got to be honest with yourself about what you find in the score and try to be true to what you learn from it. Once an orchestra feels free to try different things, to make different, more dangerous sounds, everyone's creativity and energy starts to flow.
Mozart and Haydn come to life when the performers are letting themselves really give their all to the music, instead of trying to imitate the sound of historic instruments, or conform to some emasculated idea of this music being terribly prim and proper.
|Your favourite work by Mozart and your favourite work by J. Haydn.|
Mozart... It has to be the Requiem, which is a work I've been immersed in most of
Haydn... It's harder to pick one piece with him than perhaps any other composer, as there are so many works of such staggering originality and beauty, and whatever Haydn symphony I've just played always seems the most miraculous. If I had to pick one work, maybe the Oxford Symphony (no. 92): it’s a work particularly close to my heart and a piece I learned a great deal from studying.
|Do you have in mind the name of some neglected composer of the 18th century you'd like to see re-evaluated?|
I was always fond of his Cello Concerto and it, and his other music, seem due for a re-appraisal.
|Name a neglected piece of music of the 18th century you'd like to see performed in concert with more frequency.|
|Any Haydn symphony before no. 92 that doesn't have a nickname!|
|Have you read a particular book on Mozart Era you consider important for the comprehension of the music of this period?|
Maynard Solomon's biography of Mozart is both an impressive piece of scholarship
and a touchingly human piece of writing.
I find it very moving.
|Name a movie or a documentary that can improve the comprehension of the music of this period.|
|Malcolm Bilson's documentary Knowing the Score is a great, compact introduction to the world of performance practice.|
|Do you think there's a special place to be visited that proved crucial to the evolution of the 18th century music?|
HAYDN, MOZART & BEETHOVEN IN VIENNA
Haydn's final Vienna home, here Creation & Seasons were written.
Mozart's only surviving Vienna home (1784-1787). Here the Piano Concertos K.466, K.467, K.482, K.488, K.491, the Haydn Quartets, Davidde Penitente & Nozze di Figaro were written.
• Beethoven's Eroicahaus
Here Eroica was written.
• Beethoven's Pasqualatihaus
Here 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th & Fidelio were written.
• Beethoven's Wohnung Heiligenstadt
Here 1802 works (ie. Tempest, The Hunt, Eroica Variations, Kreutzer) were written.
|Thank you very much for having taken the time to answer our questions!|