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
[62:07]
