Joseph Haydn: Trios with Flute (Hob:XV No. 15-17, London Trios Hob: IV)

Description

When one reads “Piano Trio” on a concert season’s brochure, one is forgiven for taking it for granted that the performers will be playing the violin, the cello and the piano – in this order, i.e. as they appear in the layout of the current published scores of, say, Beethoven’s or Brahms’ or Shostakovich’s Trios.
In the eighteenth century, however, the matters were not as straightforward as they might seem today. Firstly, we might consider the keyboard instrument: which one? In the second half of the eighteenth century, the pianoforte gained increasing importance over and against the harpsichord, but, for instance, the clavichord continued to thrive for a rather long time. These three instruments have radically different ways to produce sound: through hammers (fortepiano), through plucked strings (harpsichord), through tangents which bring the performer’s fingers in as close as possible a contact with the resounding strings (clavichord). Not only in timbre, but also as concerns the volume they can produce, these three instruments are very different: today’s pianos are obviously more powerful than either of their fellow keyboard instruments, but in the eighteenth century a large harpsichord might produce more sound than a small piano. The clavichord, alas, was always last in line, and this had important consequences when the delicate balance of instruments typical for chamber music was called for. Then there were the other two parts – and I am purposefully speaking of “parts” rather than of instruments. Johann Sebastian Bach, to name but one, wrote some “Trios”, or rather Trio Sonatas, which can be played either by a single musician performing on an organ (two manuals and a pedalboard) or by more performers, one for each part and perhaps two for the bass (for instance cello and harpsichord). In Bach’s works, to remain by the chosen example, the three parts are usually almost equivalent as concerns their importance and difficulty, though the bass has a different behaviour than the two higher parts. But many Trio Sonatas of the late Baroque and early Classical era may display very different hierarchies as concerns the parts’ importance and their roles.
Finally, one aspect which the present-day listener might find puzzling is that frequently there is no unambiguous indication of the performing forces, and instruments with a very different timbre, such as the violin and the flute, might be considered as interchangeable. The label “Trio” thus applies to works with very different conceptions. This is also due to what we might define as the genealogy of the “modern” (i.e. late Classical/Romantic) Piano Trio. On the one hand, its roots are influenced by the keyboard Sonata “with accompaniment” of two added instruments, one high and one low. Occasionally, these two very expendable other instruments could simply double the keyboard part, and their role was merely to fill the timbral space by adding their own specific colour. But, on the plane of “the notes”, little if anything is lost if the keyboard player performs solo.
The other ancestor to the Piano Trio is the solo Sonata for a high-pitched instrument, accompanied by thorough bass played by a keyboard instrument and a cello. In this case, we have another clear protagonist, i.e. the high melodic instrument, and two background figures, clearly subordinated to it. And, of course, there is the model we discussed a few lines above, the “Bachian” model, consisting of three equally important contrapuntal parts; this is probably the most demanding of these three styles, since it requires perfect coordination and great command of the polyphonic texture. Of these three models, this last one is the least likely to be played by amateurs; solo sonatas are frequently very demanding as concerns the solo part, while the others could often be played by non-professionals; and keyboard trios “with accompaniment” are normally the most accessible of the three genres. The itinerary toward the “modern” conception of the Piano Trio thus was complex and not linear at all. It involved twists and turns depending on the composer’s taste, on the intended destination (personal performance? Performance by, for instance, aristocratic amateurs? Dissemination through printing?), and on the occasion of composition. Franz Joseph Haydn is probably the most august protagonist of chamber music in the eighteenth century. He is rightfully considered as the “father” of the string quartet, but his output in the field of piano (or keyboard) trios comes immediately after. Still, the numerous masterpieces he wrote in this genre are largely missing from the concert halls, and also comparatively rare in the discographic catalogues.
The Trios recorded in this Da Vinci Classics album, which therefore represents a welcome addition in the recording panorama, all involve the presence of one or more flutes. And this does not happen by chance, since all of them were conceived with the English market in mind. By the end of the eighteenth century, when Haydn was writing these Trios, the transverse flute was in fact a prime actor in the field of English instrumental music. Being comparatively easier to play than the violin, it attracted the attention of many amateurs from the nobility and the high bourgeoisie, taking the British Islands by storm.
The Trios indicated as Nos. 15-17 in the section of Hoboken’s catalogue dedicated to Haydn’s Trios (Hob. XV) were written by Haydn in 1790, on the request of a publisher based in London, by the name of John Bland. While we know this, about their composition, many other aspects remain obscure, largely because – as happened with numerous other works by Haydn – there is no surviving autograph manuscript to support our speculations. Haydn had met Bland in 1789, when the Englishman had visited him; however, with some shrewdness and with some entrepreneurship, Haydn sold his works to two publishers at once: to Bland in England, but also to Artaria in Vienna. Bland specified, in the scores published by his company, that he was to be credited with commissioning the works to Haydn, and also that he was the sole proprietor and owner of what we would now call their copyright. This is rather ironic, since by the time Bland had them printed, the composer himself had sold them to Artaria in direct competition with the other publisher…
The intended destination of these works is typically the milieu of the gifted amateurs, who devoted considerable time to music but aimed at musical entertainment rather than at demanding intellectual or spiritual content. In spite of this, pathos, emotions, affections and drama are not missing from these Trios. Haydn was ideally suited to please this audience – and it is not by chance that his fame preceded him and travelled throughout Europe – thanks to the irony, lightness, humour and bonhomie which suffuses so much of his music. Yet, he would not be the genius he was had he merely written “pleasant” music. Though he was frequently disinclined to shake the listener with anguished and tortured passages, he never aimed merely at eliciting a disenchanted smile. These Trios, written for the transverse flute, cello and keyboard (probably intending primarily the fortepiano) constitute however just the tip of the iceberg in Haydn’s output of keyboard trios: his catalogue numbers at least 45 such works (the “at least” is due to the doubtful authenticity of some youthful works), of which only these three list the flute as the preferred high-pitched instrument. In spite of the numerical minority, these Trios have a great importance in the history of the keyboard Trio with flute, since here Haydn treats the flute as a wholly independent and autonomous instrument, while pitching it in dialogue with the other two partners. This is true particularly of the keyboard, while the cello remains mainly anchored to the keyboard’s left-hand part. The process toward the establishment of a true equality in rank of the three Trio partners was still in the making at Haydn’s time, and indeed his works were no minor contribution toward that end. A few months after the composition of these Trios, Haydn himself ventured outside the Continent and across the Channel, where he was received triumphally and established a long-lasting and well-deserved fame. His first journey to England took place in 1791-2, after the disbandment of the Esterházy orchestra, and the second in 1794-5. It was during this second stay that Haydn wrote the “London” Trios with two flutes, which represent an entirely different perspective about the interaction of three instruments. In this case, to have two equal, and equally important instruments against a keyboard, required a completely different handling of the musical material and of the overall texture. The “London” Trios are a somewhat inhomogeneous collection, including two works in three movements (one of the standard structures of works in the Classical Sonata form) and two isolated movements. Whether these were intended to make the Trios as we now know them, or whether Haydn had other, perhaps more usual, combinations of movements in mind is unknown. Some of these movements, forming two self-standing Trios, were published in 1799 by Monzani (London), in a print which also provides us with the circumstances of composition. Allegedly, the works were conceived for two English noblemen, i.e. Baronet Willoughby Aston, and for the Earl of Abington, Willoughby Bertie. Abingdon was a respectable musician, composing his own music; Haydn wrote an accompaniment for a tune of his, and employed his The Lady’s Looking-Glass as the theme for the variations found in Hob IV:2. Here, as in the other Trios recorded here, Haydn’s inventiveness is at its best. He delights us with plenty of elegance, surprises, joy and lightness, while not disregarding moments of intense expressivity. The minor-mode sections, in particular, are often veined with a profundity one would not expect of works conceived for the delight of aristocrats. Haydn’s superb mastery of instrumental writing transpires also from his capability to employ an almost symphonic style in spite of the relative thinness of the performing forces, while never losing the proverbial transparency of his style. Together, these works offer us plenty of stimuli, for the intellect as well as for the heart; and we can easily imagine what, in Haydn’s music, so caught the imagination of his early English admirers.
Chiara Bertoglio © 2022