Wolfgang Amadeus MOZART (1756-1791)
Piano Concerto No. 15 in B flat major, K450 (1784) [24:30]
Piano Concerto No. 26 in D major, K 537, Coronation (1788) [31:31]
Piano Concerto No. 15 in B flat major, K450 (1784): Andante (first version) [5:32]
Robert Levin (fortepiano)
The Academy of Ancient Music/Christopher Hogwood
rec. Grosser Saal, Mozarteum, Salzburg 3–5 February 1997. DDD.
L’OISEAU-LYRE 455 814-2 [62:07]

Mozart’s Piano Concerto No. 15 is like a carnival parade of elegant floats. There’s a profusion of themes, four distinct ones in the orchestral introduction. Christopher Hogwood’s introduction is light and playful, Robert Levin’s fortepiano can be heard providing accompaniment, all in gentle accord. This is not any fortepiano, either. On this CD are the first concerto performances using Mozart’s own concert instrument, built by Anton Walter in Vienna around 1780. It has a small, glistening tone, more like a harpsichord than later fortepianos with a more subtle and subdued colouring. This makes it neatly incisive with the orchestra but the important thing is that the orchestral effects are kept in scale with the piano, so the emphasis is on refinement of expression. This in any case matches the character of the work where what is the second main theme (tr. 1 3:25) is proposed by the piano only as a gambit for flights of fancy.

The slow movement is here presented as a warmly sensitive theme, like a song of thanksgiving. It seems complete in itself, presented by strings with a solo piano repeat with delicately added embellishment, and additional touches provided by Levin yet in keeping with the whole. But then a second, more aspiring strain appears with its own tasteful climax and release. A second novelty of this CD, apart from Mozart’s fortepiano, is the inclusion on track 7 of the original version of this movement in which the theme is darker in colour, more austere and ruminative, less vocal. You’ll prefer Mozart’s revision which is the familiar version (tr. 2) but it’s rewarding to be able to realize the improvements he achieved. The structure is unchanged, as is the coda. After the first full presentation of the theme you get a first variation (tr. 2 1:27) which initially has the piano floating arpeggios above the strings. The second variation (2:53) allows the piano still more free rein while the orchestra keeps the theme brightly in focus. Here the revision is a more airy improvement on the fussier original. The coda (4:38) seems to enfold itself in growing intimacy – all to magical effect.

For the rondo finale Mozart supplies one of his catchiest tunes giving rise to the raciest elaboration, especially in this performance. It’s felicitously cheerful with the extra fillip of a flute added to the orchestra for the first time in this or any Mozart piano concerto, a wonderful flurry of notes that seems more sheer exuberance than virtuosity, while the second subsidiary theme (tr. 3 1:47) has a sudden wealth of contentment which nevertheless blends with the overall bold sweep. Levin and Hogwood make it all sparkle yet with more than a hint of mischief. Just admire how the oboe copies the piano’s ornamentation from 4:22 which the Barenreiter urtext does not require, then admire further the extra ornamentation of the rondo theme Levin provides from 4:36, again in keeping with the whole mood.

I compared the 1984 recording by Malcolm Bilson and The English Baroque Soloists/John Eliot Gardiner (Archiv 463 111-2). Here are the comparative timings:

Timings	I	II	III	Total
Levin & Hogwood	11:16	5:25	7:49	24:30
Bilson & Gardiner	10:18	5:05	7:50	23:13

Bilson’s fortepiano is a copy by Philip Belt of Mozart’s instrument – the one that Levin plays. It appears to have a fuller bodied tone, perhaps because the recording of piano and orchestra is closer. I prefer L’Oiseau-Lyre’s slightly greater distance. Bilson and Gardiner’s approach is more measured and courtly, less frolicsome than Levin and Hogwood’s. Bilson’s second main theme is more casually suave. He plays Mozart’s cadenza which is a neat reflection of the themes blended with virtuosity. Levin decorates the pause at the end of his first solo substantially (tr. 1 2:11 to 2:27), trying out cheeky variants of the first theme before playing it solo for the first time. His phrasing glides with more individuality and unpredictability than Bilson’s. His second main theme is warmer and more reflective, his development (4:58) more thoughtful and with an insistent momentum about it. Levin plays his own cadenza which offers a boisterous start and notable recall of the introduction’s third theme set in a dramatic context. 

Bilson and Gardiner’s slow movement is of restrained, classically poised reflection with an abstract quality to the variations. Though slightly slower, Hogwood’s introductions have more warmth and Levin’s piano responses more flow. There’s a more involved continuity about the variations and the coda contrasts more distinctly the piano’s delicacy against the orchestra’s crescendos of potential foreboding. In the finale Bilson and Gardiner are bright, blithe and clean-cut yet more polite than the racier, more breezy approach of Levin and Hogwood, with twinkling lighter piano tone. Even though there’s no difference in timing Levin and Hogwood have more swing to the presentation of the rondo theme and zip to the whole. Bilson plays Mozart’s decoration at the pause before the rondo theme’s return and Mozart’s cadenza which concentrates on the rondo theme, especially in the bass. Levin’s own decoration combines bravura and poetic reflection while his cadenza meditates warmly on the first subsidiary theme - first heard at tr. 3 0:48 - and toys musingly with the rondo theme before a firework display of pianism. Levin’s interpolations suit his performance as convincingly as Mozart’s make an impressive part of Bilson’s.

Piano Concerto No. 26 gets its nickname because it was performed just after the coronation of Leopold II. The work was then two years old and it sounds as though woodwind, horns, trumpets and timpani parts were added to a concerto in which the piano only interplays with the strings, at least in the first movement. In the orchestral introduction here there’s a thrill of anticipation and then weighty blasts, especially from the drums. By contrast there’s the protracted graceful lead into the perky second theme (tr. 4 1:05) and playful third one (1:43). Levin presents the piano solo version of the opening theme directly and neatly leading to an easy succession of cascading scales. Suddenly more probing, even troubled, is a piano theme not previously heard (3:42). Levin and Hogwood ride out with bravado a development (6:55) based just on the closing cadence of the exposition. Levin’s own cadenza blends well the virtuosic scamper and the contrasts of mood between the orchestra’s second theme and piano’s probing one.

Levin and Hogwood get across well the inbuilt repose and contemplation of the slow movement without being too static. Notable is the delicacy Levin applies to the climax of the theme’s second section (tr. 5 1:25). Also welcome is his decoration added to the theme’s returns, relieving those four crotchets on E with which it opens. In the rondo finale Levin shows delicacy and fluency while Hogwood provides sprightly back-up. The rondo theme is neatly and daintily treated by Levin and Hogwood but the piano’s second theme (tr. 6 1:14) is more strikingly regal and proves the essence of the development as it moves from major to minor (5:25), mirroring the treatment of the second main theme (2:22) introduced in the minor by orchestra but repeated by piano in the major.

I compared the 1986 recording by Malcolm Bilson and The English Baroque Soloists/John Eliot Gardiner (Archiv 463 111-2). Here are the comparative timings:

Timings	I	II	III	Total
Levin & Hogwood	13:47	6:35	11:09	31:31
Bilson & Gardiner	13:42	5:46	10:40	30:08

Bilson and Gardiner’s first movement is more stylish and formal, more consciously crafted. Bilson’s emphasis is on mellifluousness so the piano theme (tr. 5 3:42), to which Levin gives more edge, Bilson smoothes over. Levin and Hogwood are more eager with more emphasis on momentum, sunny strings and bright full orchestra passages. Levin’s phrasing is more individual than Bilson’s.

Bilson and Gardiner’s pacier slow movement makes it more ingenuously contented while there’s more urgency to the central section. Levin and Hogwood have a more reflective quality, more savouring the essence of the contentment, for example giving more allure to the orchestra’s chromatic descents (tr. 2 2:05) and more relaxation to the central section. Levin’s 30 second linking passage (3:50) is more reflective than Bilson’s 12 second simplicity which, however, works well in its surroundings. Bilson and Gardiner’s pacy finale strongly contrasts a slightly toying piano rondo theme and bouncy orchestral repeat. Similarly Bilson points up his major version of the orchestra’s second main theme in the minor but the piano’s independent second theme is smoothed over. The more intimate tone of Mozart’s own instrument makes more contrast with the orchestra while Hogwood’s accompaniment is bracing and soothing by turns with an ambience that’s more spirited than Gardiner’s disciplined authority. Levin’s daring linking passages (tr. 6 4:03, 8:36) and greater and varied use of ornamentation at the returns of the rondo theme make these fresher. So the novel use of Mozart’s instrument which meant recording in Salzburg is vindicated by the fresh and creative approach to the interpretations. The Arkiv CD under review doesn’t have booklet notes but I gather all future releases will and existing releases are gradually being upgraded.

Michael Greenhalgh 

 

 

Return to Review Index