Richardson Auditorium in Alexander Hall, Princeton
University, Row 1, Balcony Center (free).
Trio members: Wolfgang Redik, violin; Matthias Gredler, cello; Stefan Mendl, piano.
Program
Piano Trio in A Major, Hob XV/18 by Franz Joseph Haydn
(1732-1809).
Piano Trio in A Minor by Maurice Ravel (1875-1937).
Piano Trio in B flat Major D. 898, Op. 99 by Franz
Schubert (1797-1828).
I again met up with David and Vivien for this
concert. Anne is overseas so I went to
Princeton by myself. It was raining
hard, with the area drenched by a thunderstorm caused a temperature drop (per
reading inside my car) from over 100F to the mid 70s in less than 30 minutes earlier
in the afternoon. Traffic was bad, but
not particularly so for this time of the day.
David and Vivien got to Princeton early and picked up the (free)
tickets, and we had dinner at Panera Bread before going over to the venue.
There were quite a few empty seats in the balcony,
probably because some people decided not to venture out due to the heavy
rain. Which is a pity as this was a
great concert. There was a lot of music
squeezed into the program, which, including the encore, lasted more than two
hours.
I don’t go to chamber music events that often – I joke
with David that 80% have been with him at these Princeton events – I certainly
don’t feel I understand the “genre” well.
Regardless, I thought there was something un-Haydnesque about the Haydn
piece: the techniques, the dynamics, the harmonies, are not what I would usually
associate with Haydn. Of course my
knowledge of Haydn is limited by-and-large to his symphonies, string quartets,
and a few choral pieces, but nonetheless … The three movements of the piece
are: Allegro moderato, Andante, and Allegro.
It was brilliantly played, and got the evening off to a great start.
The Ravel piece, in my opinion was the most interesting
of the three performed tonight. It has
four movements: Modere, Pantoum – Assez Vif, Passacaille – Tres Large, Final –
Anime. I don’t know French, and can only
guess at the meaning. No matter, it
appears to be a rather difficult piece, and again was beautifully played by the
trio.
Ravel supposedly was a bit frustrated people called
Bolero his most famous work. That
complaint probably had a lot of merit to it.
I did a quick review of my blog entries, and over the last few years I
have heard quite a few pieces of his, and – per my notes – I enjoyed quite a
few of them (notable except being “Mother Goose.”) If you ask me what I remember of yesterday’s
piece, not much – as evidenced by what I have written about it so far. But, if you ask me what Bolero sounds like, I
can probably tap out the snare drum rat-tat-tat correctly.
Schubert’s Trio is the longest at a bit over 40
minutes. It is very classical in
structure, complete with theme, development, and modulation. The four movements are: (i) Allegro moderato,
(ii) Andante, un poco mosso, (iii) Scherzo: Allegro, and (iv) Rondo: Allegro
vivace. In and of itself it is a great piece, however,
it felt a bit light-weight when compared to Ravel’s work. Which probably makes for an interesting
programming question: why not flip the two halves of the program around, and
have the concert end on the more exciting Ravel. Not that the energy level of the performers
was sapped by the time they got to the end, but the music did come across
somewhat that way.
While writing this blog, I looked at my iTunes library
and found out to my surprise (dismay) that I actually have a recording of the
Schubert piece. Didn’t I say I don’t
listen to chamber music that much? In
fairness, the first movement did sound a bit familiar …
The audience applause was very enthusiastic, justifiably
so. The Trio played an encore: a slow
movement from a piece by Schumann.
A few words about the Trio, gleamed from the short
writeup in the handout for the evening.
It has been around for about 20 years, and has an active performance
calendar. The members – all male – are all
middle-aged, not the usual age of chamber music players that perform at these
Princeton summer concerts. The two
string instruments are Guadagninis (1772 violin, 1752 cello.) One would think the tone and volume should be
quite similar. Not so, at least to my
ears, the violin’s sound is much more brilliant, and the cello is at times
overwhelmed. I wonder if my hearing is what
it used to be, or that there is quite a bit of learning to do …
One of those days I will be able to write a “real”
chamber music review, but not today.
No comments:
Post a Comment