The third volume in
Joyce Hatto’s Mozart cycle opens with
a relatively little-played sonata. The
probable reason for this is the first
movement which is of a type commoner
in Haydn than Mozart, a 2/4 "Allegro
moderato" which almost goes four-in-a-bar
rather than two. Such movements must
not be hurried and in inexperienced
hands they often are. Hatto’s tempo
seems to me absolutely spot-on, allowing
the music to unfold naturally and easily,
yet not without hints of graver things,
particularly in the sinking harmonies
of the development section. The "Andante
cantabile" is very warmly phrased,
with a magically hushed change to the
minor key in the middle section.
Writing of another
C major sonata – K.309, included in
Vol. 2 – I wondered if Hatto’s concluding
"Allegretto" was not a shade
slow for a finale. Here again she takes
her time in the final "Allegretto"
but this time I had no problems, finding
it beautifully poised and graceful throughout.
If you disagree, Alicia de Larrocha
provides a swifter alternative. It is
notable that Hatto, with her slower
tempo, is able to play the left-hand
semiquavers (16th-notes)
staccato when the theme is reprised
at b.9 and similar places, and very
delightful they sound; de Larrocha’s
faster tempo means they have to be played
legato and ultimately her version comes
out plainer. The two artists take remarkably
similar views of the earlier movements.
Complete cycles are
sometimes inclined to fall flat at the
very moment they confront the most famous
(and most-recorded) works in the series.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say this
happens with Hatto’s A major sonata
– the one with the famous "Rondo
alla turca" and almost equally
famous variations as its opening movement
– but I did find the initial statement
of the variation theme less than ideally
graceful. On the other hand, de Larrocha
is somewhat heavy too, but I preferred
the Spanish pianist in the first two
variations, in which I found Hatto a
little too perky. I also wondered about
her very short, staccato left-hand chords
in the first variation. Hatto lets them
vibrate for their full value of one
quaver (8th-note), which
I must say I prefer. But Hatto’s account
comes into its own later, with a very
beautiful rendering of the "Adagio"
variation and a joyful if unhurried
final "Allegro".
The "Menuetto"
reinforces my idea that perhaps de Larrocha
has a little more spring when it comes
to a dance movement, but I would not
be without Hatto’s warmly expressive
trio. In the celebrated finale Hatto
score a definite win. For once she is
slightly faster than de Larrocha (though
nothing like as fast as young students
will play it if their teacher doesn’t
put his foot down) and her perky, up-front
reading belongs securely to the world
of Mozart’s janissaries in "Die
Entführing". De Larrocha is
a mite heavier here. There is another
way – I seem to recollect that Gieseking
took an affectingly gentle approach
and I trust his pioneering cycle has
not been forgotten.
The opening "Allegro"
of the F major sonata is allowed to
unfold with a steady, symphonic gait
– reminding us that some of the figuration
is after all not far removed from that
in the first movement of the late E
flat major symphony – and the "Adagio"
is beautifully, calmly expressed. The
"Assai Allegro" is full of
delicate vivacity. Here, however, I
began to wonder of this was not another
of Hatto’s Klemperer-like finales that
seem fine at the beginning but ultimately
seem to lack "go". But then,
when I turned to de Larrocha’s faster
performance I began by admiring her
Scarlatti-like brilliance and then began
to feel I was not being allowed to savour
the music to the full as it hustled
by. So I’m very glad to have both of
them. The differences between the two
pianists are smaller in the first two
movements and centre more on the rather
richer-toned, but also closer, recording
which RCA have given de Larrocha – the
slightly gentler Concert Artist recording
may strike some as more genuinely Mozartian.
All through this series
I have found myself querying – rather
than actually criticising – two matters.
One is the tendency to make quavers
very short and clipped (as noted above
in the first variation of the A major)
when Mozart himself put no staccato
dot over them. Another example is the
brief phrase in bb.39-40 (and those
following) of the finale of K.330. Having
written a staccato dot over the last
semiquaver of b.39, surely Mozart could
have written one over the first quaver
of b.40 if he had wished. Would it not
sound more beautiful if the quaver were
allowed to sing for its full value?
The other regards the interpretation
of "appoggiaturas" and "acciaccaturas".
Even allowing for discrepancies between
the sources, surely my allegedly Urtext
Peters Edition cannot be wrong in every
case and Hatto frequently treats these
two ornaments the opposite way round
compared to what is generally considered
correct, her "appoggiaturas"
sharp and clipped, her "acciaccaturas"
slower and more melodic. For example,
if it is correct to treat the "acciaccatura"
in b.19 of K.330 as two equal semiquavers,
then why did Mozart actually write two
equal semiquavers when the theme returns
four bars later? Are the two equal semiquavers
not intended as a variation on what
was previously heard? With this, de
Larrocha seems to agree. Or does Hatto
have evidence that our normal interpretation
of these ornaments is mistaken?
I should add that Hatto’s
solutions are always musical in themselves
and the matter is more one for specialised
debate than for the general public,
who can rest assured that they are getting
faithful and very musical versions of
these sonatas, worthy to be compared
with many more blazoned names.
Christopher Howell
Volume
1 Volume
2 Volume
3 Volume
4 Volume
5
Joyce Hatto (piano) 
