The Program
BÉLA BARTÓK
Hungarian Peasant Songs
An Electric
Heartbeat
In Bartók, the folk element is not an exotic special effect, but rather the
electric heartbeat of the music. Folk-song suites—such as the Hungarian Peasant Songs—reveal Bartók’s
normally complex aesthetic pared down to its essentials, much as Viennese folk
songs are at the core of Schubert. The intoxicating rhythms, chants, and modal
harmonies of this centuries-old music appear in their clearest outlines, whereas
in works like the Piano Concerto No. 2 (which was premiered in 1933, the same
year as this suite), they are abstracted and reinvented without losing their
essential piquancy.
Relatively obscure in America, the Hungarian
Peasant Songs are not played as frequently as other Bartók pieces in this
genre (such as the Hungarian Sketches
and Romanian Folk Dances). They were
originally piano pieces Bartók used as encores in his recitals; the
orchestrations are highly imaginative, especially the woodwind coloring, but
not heavy or hyped, and the moods vary considerably—from the eloquent sternness
of the opening song to the chirpy airiness of the penultimate dance and the
joyful openness of the bagpipe sounds in the finale.
—Jack
Sullivan
© 2011 The Carnegie Hall Corporation
BÉLA BARTÓK
Piano Concerto No. 2
The Total
Bartók
In more than mere chronology, Bartók’s Piano Concerto No. 2 falls directly in
the middle of the three piano concertos.
Neither as expressionistically “difficult” as the First Concerto nor as
lyrically accessible as the Third, it offers
both sides of Bartók’s musical personality: the experimental modernist
as well as the full-throated lyricist—plus a sonic world uniquely its own.
New
Worlds of Sound
Sound worlds—plural—might be more accurate, for each movement has a different
ensemble. The first eschews strings, emphasizing instead the pungent sonorities of winds, brass, and percussion; the
Adagio portion of the second brings in the strings for the first time,
muted and mysterious, supported by typical Bartókian timpani glissandos; the
scherzo, which erupts in the middle of the same movement, adds a group of wind
and percussion instruments; and the finale, for the first time, brings in the
full orchestra.
A
Different Kind of Concerto
This careful attention to orchestral sonority is consistent with Bartók’s
extensive, meticulous program note on the concerto that appeared in 1937 in
Lausanne, Switzerland’s La Radio, in
which he stated that “neither of my two piano concertos is written for piano
with accompaniment from an orchestra, but for piano and orchestra. In both works
I wish to realize absolute equality between solo instrument and orchestra.”
Never mind that Bartók was himself a great concert pianist, one who frequently
premiered his own works; the whole 19th-century notion of a concerto as a
virtuoso display piece for the soloist did not interest him.
About the
Music
The structural intricacy of the concerto is
also typical of Bartók. The finale is really a series of variations on
the first movement (a technique Bartók also used in his Second Violin
Concerto)—not only thematically, but
architecturally: Both movements have inverted themes in their recapitulations,
and both play the opening themes
backward in their codas. The
remarkable second movement—a dreamlike slow section interrupted in the
middle by a scherzo that sounds almost like
electronic music—fits into a similar scheme
since the listener experiences it as a structure in which the last part
is a variation on the first.
A Closer
Listen
None of these ingenious technicalities (and
there are many more) interferes with the vitality, poetry, and visceral power
of this concerto. The first movement, with its brilliant brass fanfares
(reminiscent of Stravinsky’s The Firebird
and Petrushka) and relentlessly
active piano writing, offers nonstop excitement from the first swooping
glissando in the piano to the final one in the orchestra. The second movement, with its haunting muted string
sonorities and dizzy piano scamperings in the scherzo, is Bartókian
“night music” impressionism at its most exquisite; the finale, with its
thunderous use of the piano’s percussiveness, is an exhilarating example of
Bartók’s folk-inspired primitivism.
A Plea
for Acceptance
The concerto is thus an amalgam of Bartók’s
different mature styles, each presented with maximum expressiveness.
Still, it is odd to read Bartók’s proclamation
that this concerto is more “agreeable,” “more conventional and simpler,”
than his usual. Certainly it is more accessible than the aggressively modern
First Concerto, but it is still a complex, demanding
work—in no sense “easy listening.” What Bartók’s remarks really
communicate is a poignant plea for acceptance, a need to reach out to a larger
audience after years of indifference and hostility.
This larger acceptance did not come until
the popular reception of the Concerto for Orchestra, written while Bartók was dying of leukemia. Nonetheless,
the Second Piano Concerto, premiered
by Bartók himself in 1933, has a sinewy toughness that reveals the
composer’s inner integrity in the face of hardship.
—Jack
Sullivan
© 2011 The Carnegie Hall Corporation
FRANZ
SCHUBERT
Symphony No. 9 in C Major, D. 944, “Great”
Beyond
Sorrow and Joy
Heralded
by Schumann as the first Romantic symphony, Schubert’s “Great” C-Major combines
Beethoven’s elemental power with Schubertian songfulness to create a new
musical universe. In Schumann’s words, more than “merely lovely melody” or
“novel intricacies” are offered in this work: “Something beyond sorrow and joy,
as these emotions have been portrayed a hundred times in music, lies concealed
in this symphony … we are transported to a region where we can never remember
to have been before.”
A Joyful
Discovery
Schumann was not only the most eloquent champion of this music, but he was also
its discoverer. Schubert tried to get the work performed at Vienna’s
Musikverein, but in the last of the many crushing disappointments of his
career, was turned down. In 1838, a decade after Schubert’s death, Schumann
found the symphony while rummaging through a heap of musty manuscripts
preserved by Schubert’s brother Ferdinand: “The sight of this hoard of riches
thrilled me with joy … Who knows how long the symphony might have lain buried
in dust and darkness …”
A
Scornful Reception
For a while, the symphony got buried again: Mendelssohn conducted the premiere
at the Leipzig Gewandhaus in 1839, but when he tried to program it in London in
1842, the London Philharmonic string players giggled scornfully at the repeating
triplets in the finale—so much so that Mendelssohn withdrew the score. In
Paris, the reaction was also disastrous, with the orchestra refusing to play
more than the first movement. The newly formed Philharmonic Society of New York
was daring enough to take on the entire symphony, but not until 1851.
About the
Music
“How direct and simple everything is,” wrote Alfred Einstein much later of this
symphony, and indeed the generation of a vast musical cosmos from basic
songlike gestures does seem miraculous. The opening melody for horns is a case
in point: Much of the huge first movement springs from this tune, yet the
melody suggests more a simple forest pastorale than the introduction to a
“grand” symphony. The surging transition to the main Allegro is described by
Schumann as “wholly new … we are landed, we know not how.”
An analysis of the work, writes Schumann, is impossible: “One would necessarily
have to transcribe the entire symphony to give the faintest notion of its
intense originality throughout.” This
may sound like Romantic rhetoric, but more than a few commentators have
stumbled in their attempts to explain how Schubert manages to stay essentially
in sonata form while spiritually being in another realm altogether.
Visitations
from Another World
The slow movement is equally ineffable. A
gypsy-like oboe tune alternates with
a lyrical section that recalls the sublimity of another of Schubert’s
final works, the E-flat–Major Mass. Near the end of this section, in Schumann’s
words, “a horn call sounds from a distance
that seems to have descended from another world. And every other instrument seems to listen, as if some
heavenly messenger were hovering through the orchestra.” This juxtaposition of
earthy folk material with otherworldly
musings is characteristic of late Schubert. In addition, Schubert
contrasts heaven with a moment of hell—a loud outburst of anguish toward the
end. The exuberant Scherzo also features
abrupt shifts of mood. Although this movement has been compared to the
gargantuan Scherzo of Beethoven’s Ninth, the trio is pure Schubert: Like the
middle section of the slow movement in the “Farewell” B-flat–Major Piano
Sonata, it sounds like a yearning extension of a Schubert song.
Even more than the first movement, the
Allegro vivace finale is an unleashing of elemental rhythm.
The opening fanfare contains two rhythmic figures that throb throughout the
movement, and the four simple repeated notes in the second subject become,
through sheer primal emphasis, an orgiastic climax near the end. Conductor
Felix Weingartner once wrote that this “intoxicating” music evoked in him “the
effect as of flight through ether … Nature has denied us this joy, but great
works of art give it to us.”
A
Heavenly Length
It is odd that this symphony, so alive in every note, should have suffered for
over a century from the reputation of being too long. Even Dvořák, who found it “astounding” in its “richness and variety
of coloring,” criticized it for the
“the fault of diffuseness.” Yet the
C-Major is no longer than Beethoven’s “Eroica” and is shorter than the Beethoven’s Ninth—not to mention the
symphonies of Bruckner and Mahler, of which it is the progenitor. Only recently
has the work come to be regarded as having
an appropriately large scale. Again Schumann, citing in this case the
symphony’s “heavenly length,” had the last word.
—Jack
Sullivan
© 2011 The Carnegie Hall Corporation