Three is a crowd on the stage. Of all of the classical genres, few have
taken the beating that the piano trio has - the piano seems over matched
in balance, power and and weight - problems in balance seem insurmountable
- to solve these problems is to form the basis for a new style of trio.
- - -
The original concept of the trio started from the harmonic nature of the
keyboard - continuo - and the melodic role of strings or other instruments.
Many "concerti" and sonatas are really "keyboard quartets" so important is
the role of the figured bass.
The classical age increases the importance of the pianist. Remember that
Beethoven's "violin sonatas" were originally "Sonata with violin obligato"
and so on. The problem that we face now - of a piano forte recently
increased in power against a violin or cello that has not quite caught
up - has an analog.
- - -
The means of balancing - deploying both strings together - and thereby
using the classical orchestral model as a guide, voicing and increasing
the percussive role of the keyboard to leave the sustains to the strings -
along with judicious dropping of notes on the pianist's side to give more
air to the violinist - fit well within the classical model. Grammar was
stressed as the way of reigning in the pianist.
The ensemble was curcial - Beethoven's first symphonies were issued in
arrangement for trio, and a large fraction of Beethovne's output amounts
to folk arrangements for piano, and optionally violin and cello filling out
the sonority. These popular pieces, often written for much needed income,
helped fuel the Romantic movement in Germany, since the songs selected were
of the blossoming "folk song" movement lead by poet/transcribers such as
Burns.
- - -
For the moment I'm going to skip over the 19th century, since it exploits
the idea of a grammatically structure sonata. This is not to slight
Mendelssohn, Schumann - or most especially Brahms - but it is to say that
the idea - harmonic piano and melodic strings - remained the same.
- - -
Now let me ask a simple question - are there solutions?
The modern never really tackled the genre well. It wasn't important for
economic reasons, and socially it had fallen far from the days where the
first girl learned piano, the second violin and the third cello. There are
solutions in the modern, but on the whole the ensemble did not do anything
better than others which were available - ie including clarinet into the
mix.
The post modern could tackle the genre like any other- pastiche together
ideas. One could easily arrange jazz for the trio and go from there. The
other solution is the electronic age solution - wire the piano, mic the
strings, make a sampler part of the mix and create an entirely new reprtory
for electronic enhanced trio.
But what of the artist who looks at Modern as what their grandparents
watched flower? What of those of us who can be called part of the radical.
Radical because every commercial, every cheap film takes advantage of
digital mix, reverb and sound, the creation of new sound effects is the
most conservative of musical approaches. People hear sounds they like,
they applaud. Structure is always more radical, because it is not
something that one can applaud on realisation, and its expression is the
work of time.
- - -
The solution of the classical age was grammar. The 19th century gradually
moved to the piano quartet and later quintet as frequent genres - the group
of strings providing enough contrapunctal and melodic power to balance the
piano.
The solution I search for is of a like one to the solutions of the
classical - the spinning out of the narrative itself provides opennings
and meanings which create space for the violin and the cello. The means
by which the two are perceived, being different and out of phase from the
piano, means that they will be tracked, even if the piano has, temporarily,
become overwhelming in volume.
The use of phase, grammar, timing and shape of organic development together
provides ample ability to place the piano as the dominant sound generator,
while still having all three instruments being equal in the course of the
music. The problem of the trio is more difficult, more astringent - and
hence more worthy, more appealling, as is any mountain where the climbs are
more difficult, the air thinner and colder, the weather less forgiving.
- - -
The difference is that the trio is much like those drwings done on neutral
paper with both dark and light pencil or crayon. The string quartet is
monochromaitc - paper and charcol or graphite, all effects are made by
the imposition of line.
The trio however has the dark line drawing power, and the strings the
creamy highlights, each can be applied alone, but they stand in relation to
each other. And the most powerful effect is not when they are distant, but
instead, when they overlay each other.
- - -
The colouristic use of these ideas is simple enough to demonstrate,
given the whole sound world of the orchestra, it is easy enough to set
one voice out by appropriate positioning. But in the chamber world many of
the easier devices of rhythmic offset, temporal counterpoint and harmonic
suspension loose a good deal of their weight. Having a voice enter in a
new key early simply sounds like any other kind of voice leading, rather
than the signal of the interlocking of two sections.
It is here that the unique nature of the medium imposes its challenges -
there must be common shapes which differentiate chromaticism with a key or
mode, and that which is contrapunctally functional. These shapes must take
advantage of the particular nature of the instruments.
- - -
And it is here that some of the changes in the genre work to modern
advantage. Many of the classical trios are meant for more moderate
abilities than the solo sonatas or obligato sonatas (sonata and one
instrument). While the Archduke makes demands equal to any, many other
trios, the majority of Haydn's for example, are clearly more laid back in
focus. The cello was not yet a virtuoso instrument on par with even the
violin. Time has helped make the balance more equal.
But sheer virtuosity is a limited resource. The other changes that have
occured are in the range of playing. Even the most average player cna
ascend to heights that Berlioz listed as troublesome for professionals of
his day. The more powerful strings draw in more powerful harmonics, and
there are a greater range of bowing effects available. The colour of the
chalk is richer in these times.
Finally there is another advantage. The trio and quartet are among the
most intimate of genres. There is a beauty to allowing one player to relax
while his fellows play, because for that instant he may be audience as well
as participant. A current trio would be a more public genre, with all of
the advantages that that entails.
- - -
Some hints of the necessities faced can be heard in many classic piano
trio performances. One which is exemplary is a trio which featured Casals
playing Mendelssohn. The piano style tiself enforced lightness. The piano
was not held back, but instead the pianist spent a great deal of strength
in restraint. But the string playing was the other half of the equation.
Within the space that the notes created in the piano, the most intense and
biting fingers were used in the passage work, combined with the sweetest of
cantilena. The tension of this Wagnerian grammar applied to Felix created
vibrancy in the strings.
What is problematical about Felix's trio number one is the very heavy air
of an older sound world that hangs upon it, harmonies more approriate to
Hadyn's day were much in evidence, even Felix could not make his solution
fluid.
- - -
Between these ideas - organicism, lyric counterpoint, increased range and
virtuosity, and public, there should be enough to cast a new the form.
Three *is* company.
Even when one is an audience.
Stirling
|
