MOZART ON THE HASS CLAVICHORD

Rationale:

Our understanding of Mozart’s solo keyboard works has been immensely enhanced in recent decades by performances and recordings on the Viennese fortepiano (rather than a modern concert grand piano). The light, clean and crisp sound–world of these instruments (of a kind Mozart would have used) have revealed significant aspects of his musical language and of performance practice that go beyond his notated texts and which are obscured by the tonal qualities of the modern piano. Yet a dimension of these works remains wholly unexplored, ironically because of the recent concentration on the fortepiano as a vehicle for their appropriate performance. That is their existence as purely domestic music in the households of Mozart’s day played on the German domestic keyboard instrument par excellence: the clavichord.

Outcome:

The proposal is a practice–based research project whose outcome promises a revised understanding of the sound of Mozart’s solo keyboard music presented in the form of a CD recording by the applicant (a performer and musicologist with special interests in Mozart and early keyboard instruments) on a historical German clavichord dating from 1763 which Mozart is thought to have played himself as an 11–year old prodigy in Amsterdam in 1767.

Specifics:

  • This instrument is in the Russell Collection of historical keyboard instruments, University of Edinburgh. It is in fine playable condition and has previously been recorded (including by the applicant in a previous project funded by the BritishAcademy).
  • The applicant has good professional connections with the Russell Collection, and the Curator of the Collection has been consulted and is supportive of this project.
  • Dedicated instrument tuning and maintenance will be provided on site by the assistant curator.
  • High–quality recording facilities exist at the Department of Music, University of Edinburgh and agreement for their usage within this project has already been obtained.
  • The applicant (Director of The Institute of Musical Research, School of Advanced Study, University of London) is a Mozart specialist with four published books on Mozart to his credit (another, Understanding Mozart’s Piano Sonatas is currently in press with Ashgate Publishing)
  • The applicant is also an experienced performer in the field of historical performance practice who has previously recorded a CD of mid–18th century solo keyboard works (including examples by Mozart’s father) on a 1764 harpsichord by the same maker as the clavichord in the Russell Collection – a project funded by the British Academy (3–10 January 2008 – CD now in the final editing stages).
  • The process of recording would take 3–4 days probably in January 2011, with editing taking place in several sessions spread over a period of approximately one year thereafter
  • Repertoire: a CD–length (c.65–70 minutes) programme including a selection of early Mozart pieces such as he might himself have played on this instrument in 1767; one of the sonatas (K.283 in G) from his earliest surviving set (1776); and three works from the 1780s – the Sonata in C, K.330 (c.1782); the Fantasia in D minor, K.397 (c.1782); and the Sonata in B flat, K.570 (1789).

PRACTICE-AS-RESEARCH ISSUES

A broad range of research questions will be addressed in this project, in each of which the applicant is crucially involved as a practitioner–researcher. Questions and issues will derive from the use of this particular instrument combined with relevant historical performance practice, and include the following:

  • To what extent do the clavichord’s tonal qualities affect the performer’s choices in playing this repertory (especially in regards to nuances of touch)?
  • What difference to the overall shape of phrases, sections, movements and also the contrast of character between successive movements stem from the fact that the dynamic range is so limited (compared to performance on a fortepiano)?
  • How does the player respond to the challenge of realising the degree of dynamic and articulation contrast notated by Mozart on such a relatively quiet instrument (specifically, how are subtle contrasts of colour between different registers of the instrument conveyed by the player’s physical touch on the keyboard in order to maximize the music’s expressive potential)?
  • What decisions on balance, tempo, articulation (especially staccato), ornamentation does the performer need to make in this context?
  • What changes of scale in the overall concept and realisation of the musical structure result from performing this as domestic music on a clavichord(rather than as concert music on a fortepiano), and how are these to be captured in the shaping of individual phrases?
  • In what musical contexts should the clavichord’s unique expressive devices of Bebung be applied – as local ornament or a marker of broader structure (or both)?

These recordings will apply contemporary performance practice advice (for instance, as recommended in the 18th–c textbooks of CPE Bach, Quantz and Türk). This covers a wide range of issues, of which three are selected for illustration here:

Beat–hierarchy:

18th–century treatises on performance routinely make a clear distinction between the stronger and weaker stresses within bars and across successive bars within a phrase, treating this as a central feature of musical grammar and a pre–requisite for adequate expression in performance. This approach waned in the early years of the 19th–century in which an opposing approach foregrounding a general uniformity of stress within the bar and across the phrase along with a legato approach to phrasing that is still the norm in modern performances. Restoration of this ‘beat–hierarchical’ approach to performing the sonatas will be a central feature of the recording. The tonal and mechanical qualities of the clavichord are well adapted to such an approach and indeed, its playing techniques as outlined in contemporary performance manuals, especially that of CPE Bach (1753), result in a deliberate inequality of beat stress more or less automatically.

Rhetoric:

The applicant’s approach to performance will also regard Mozart’s music as a succession of rhetorical figurae (outlined in 18th–c composition and performance manuals, such as that of CPE Bach – the foremost clavichord performer of his age) and will apply this concept to the application of fingering. Such an approach will necessarily depart from later performance practices from the 19th century and subsequently (in which uniformity and a legato touch were the aim), and introduce both an articulate approach to surface detail, and a strong element of rubato.

Embellishments:

It was normal 18th–century practice for the performer to improvise embellishments when phrases or sections are repeated, and this is the approach to be taken on these recordings. A variety of approaches will be adopted here, ranging from simple addition of ornaments to particular notes, to the wholesale recomposition of phrases when sections (eg expositions in sonata forms) are played. In the case of the D minor Fantasia, K.397, there will of necessity be improvisation as composition since the work is unfinished (other fantasias by Mozart will be taken as procedural models here). There is good evidence from Mozart’s letters that this is the approach he took in his own performances. Both sections in sonata form movements are marked for repeat, and whereas normal practice is to omit the second repeat, these recordings will offer both (and both will be embellished). This approach radically alters the perception of the overall tonal structure, by returning to the dominant key in the middle of the movement, and to some extent undermines subsequent anachronistic 19th–century teleological assumptions regarding the dramatic purpose of the return of the tonic key within the so–called recapitulation (supplanting these with a more open–ended, episodic shape).

Preparation will include a certain amount of ‘sketching’ of possible recompositions before the recording sessions. This process to be documented separately, as ongoing self–reflective practice on the process of embellishment/composition. The relevant preparatory sessions (on the applicant’s own clavichord) will be recorded (using a portable Zoom H2™ recording machine already owned by the applicant) and written up in an expanded form separate from the CD booklet notes. A selection of these preparatory session recordings (in unedited form), a live commentary on these by the applicant and a textual commentary on the sessions written afterwards will be archived permanently on PRIMO(the online practice–as–research resource hosted by the IMR –

During the eventual recording sessions in Edinburgh, these preparatory sessions will be drawn upon to some extent, but the aim is, in the main, to improvise embellishments ‘live’, the best takes of those embellished additions being selected subsequently during the editing process. In this respect, the applicant will draw on his recent experience of recording sonatas by Leopold Mozart and his Salzburg contemporaries on a Hass (1764) harpsichord (also in the Russell Collection). Valuable lessons were learnt from that exercise (though the degree of embellishment applied there was considerably more limited than is envisaged in the present proposal) and will be applied in this clavichord project. Specific examples:

  • length of takes occasionally an embellishment was not cleanly enough played, and was better in a different take which was, however, unusable for technical reasons because it came too close to the beginning of that take for sound–matching [revised policy: ensure more than adequate ‘lead–in’ time for retakes of embellishments specific to a particular beat, bar or even phrase]
  • texture sometimes inconsistencies with the texture (eg to thin or too thick a texture in different takes of the same passage) made a preferable embellishment unusable in context [revised policy: allocate time within the recording sessions for specific assessment of takes from the textural point of view, recording more takes of particular passages if necessary to ensure textural consistency and ease of subsequent editing]
  • harmonic succession very occasionally an improvised recomposed harmonic succession was adopted and for grammatical reasons did not match that of a different take of the same passage, producing difficulties in the editing process when it would have been useful to match selections from both takes in the final edit [revised policy: allocate time within the recording sessions for specific assessment of takes from the harmonic point of view, recording more takes of particular passages if necessary to ensure grammatical consistency and ease of subsequent editing]

REPERTOIRE:

In 1767, during his grand tour of musical Europe, Mozart, along with his father and sister) visited the house of the wealthy Amsterdam merchant, Jan Six, whose clavichord the 11–year old prodigy played. The CD will include a selection of Mozart’s early keyboard minuets, marches, polonaises and the like from the years 1762–6 (eg from the so–called ‘Nannerl–Notenbuch’ and the ‘Londoner Skizzenbuch’) – repertoire upon which he might have drawn when playing Six’s fine clavichord.

Mozart’s first surviving set of six solo keyboard sonatas (1776) was clearly conceived for a touch–sensitive instrument on which both soft and loud sounds and – crucially – subtle gradations between these two levels could be made by the performer. (This instrument could not have been a harpsichord, which is incapable of these sorts of gradations.) Yet, at this stage in his life, he is not known to have encountered a fortepiano. A surviving account of his playing at the same time as he composed these sonatas makes it clear that his technical control of the fortepiano left something to be desired. The careful notation of Mozart’s autograph manuscript (University Library, Krakow, Poland) leaves no doubt that these sonatas (K.297–84) were conceived with touch–sensitivity in mind, suggesting that they were intended for himself and his sister (also a fine keyboard player) to perform at home on the family’s 5–octave clavichord. One of these (K.283 in G) will be included on the CD.

The method of tone production on a clavichord is very simple and because it does not involve a system of levers the player has direct control over the way in which the string is sounded. In addition to allowing fine gradations of volume, performance on the clavichord is notable for its expressive technique of Bebung or vibrato (by which the oscillation of the key generates an expressive pitch–variation on individual notes). Mozart’s musical language incorporates numerous moments of melodic, harmonic and temporal focus that have clear expressive intention and which require realisation from the performer in some form. The Bebung technique of clavichord playing is uniquely suited to such moments and the repertoire will be chosen especially to allow its exploration in contrasting contexts (eg Sonata in C, K.330 (1782); Fantasia in D minor, K.397 (c.1782); Sonata in B flat, K.570 (1789).

Choosing to perform on the clavichord works from the 1780s, composed once Mozart had removed to Vienna to pursue a career as a freelance performer in the environment of public concert–giving, might seem misguided. Yet we cannot be sure that the fortepiano (still a relatively new and expensive instrument in the 1780s, existing in a variety of different mechanical designs – not all of them perfected by any means – and facing strong competition from the older, more established harpsichord) was widely–owned or known in Vienna outside of the exclusive salons (house concerts) promoted by, for instance, Countess Thun for whom Mozart regularly played. For his own concerts, Mozart is known to have moved his own instrument to the venue; but he would not have done that in his teaching – he would have used whatever instrument was to hand in the pupil’s home, and that would most likely have been a harpsichord or a clavichord. It is, therefore, still worth pursuing the sound–world of Mozart’s later solo sonatas on the clavichord. Indeed, clavichord building enjoyed something of a resurgence in the latter years of the 18th century.

THE INSTRUMENT:

The clavichord to be used on the recording is a 5–octave (F’–f’’’) clavichord by Johann Adolphe Hass (c.1715–1776) made in Hamburg in 1763, owned by the Russell Collection, University of Edinburgh (cat. No. C2–JH1763.22). Hass was one of the finest makers of his generation. This instrument is one of the most lavishly decorated of any or his surviving instruments (both casework and soundboard are decorated); the natural keys are topped with tortoise–shell and fronted with ivory, and the sharps with mother of pearl. The stringing (in brass) is bichord throughout, and the lowest register (the bottom 19 notes) are equipped (fairly typically for an instrument of this design) with an extra set of 4’ strings giving added resonance. The instrument has been carefully restrung in modern times according the gauge numbers written by Hass next to the tuning–pin holes, using appropriate materials and string diameters. Tuning pitch is A=406Hz, in Kirnberger III unequal temperament (not the ‘equal temperament of modern performance practice, but one widely used in Mozart’s day).

So far as is possible, then, the sound produced by this instrument approximates to its original state in 1763. Its first owner was the Amsterdam merchant, Jan Six, whom the Mozarts visited in 1767. It is ideally suited to the performance of Mozart’s sonatas within a domestic context due to its relatively powerful and surprisingly colourful sound, rich – even pungent – in overtones. In particular, the pronounced clarity of sound produced in all the different registers of the instrument enables the contrasting colours and textures of Mozart’s music to be brought out effectively in performance, more than compensating for the fact that, in terms of sheer volume, the clavichord is a quiet instrument. These tonal features also allow the separation between registers and between melodic and accompanimental textures to play their full part in the expressive rhetoric of the music in performance (a feature not readily apparent from simple inspection of the musical notation alone). Polyphony is always clear, and at the same time, the instrument offers the performer a ‘singing’ mode of playing (with minimal ‘attack’ at the front of each note, in contrast to the fortepiano) which enables the capturing of Mozart’s slow movements in a particularly effective way. Added to this is the potential for varied and subtle shadings of dynamics which can be drawn out of the instrument by nuances of touch.

MONITORING

Preparation stages

The applicant will spend approximately three months of detailed practice/preparation for the recording project. As he is a practitioner in the field of historically informed performance on the harpsichord, clavichord and fortepiano, a regular daily regime of personal technical/ musical practice already exists; preparations for this particular project will form a specific direction for his ongoing performance work for the duration of the project.

In addition to the minute–by–minute monitoring of technical and musical aspects, and of progress towards defined quality goals that forms an essential core of the applicant’s normal daily regime of practice (as it does for any performing musician) it is proposed that during the lifetime of the project (3 months) the applicant will record selected practice sessions (one session per week, typically of one hour) on a personal Zoom H2™ recorder (already purchased, and not part of this project bid), and that these will be variously used (i) as the basis for self–reflection on progress of the project as a whole over time; (ii) for self–reflection on the detailed level of technique and musicianship (including historically informed performance issues) relating to individual pieces, movements and phrases; (iii) as a check on progress in the mastery of clavichord touch and its application to the specific notated details of Mozart’s sonatas; (iv) as a stimulus to creative ways of experimenting with/refining the relationships between the clavichord’s mechanism of sound–production, the player’s touch and the expressive potential of Mozart’s music. Each of these stages will be separately documented, and both the audio and written records archived on PRIMO.