Barber's Violin Concerto
John GibbonsIf I approach this work (composed in 1939) with hostility, I can say nothing valuable about it. And if I object to the piece’s seeming lack of complexity, this only says that I personally prefer complex music, which I do, but which is totally irrelevant to any meaningful discussion of the Barber. One of the comments in these pages expressed incredulity that I could even consisder the possibility of Barber’s popularity waning. Well, I can conceive this possibility because of what happened to me from my conservatory days to the present, which is the central musical irony of my life. I used to love Barber, and American populism generally. I’ve always been attracted to the song literature, and Barber, Britten, and even Rorem meant a lot to me when I was 18-22 or so years old. The irony is that my conservatory teachers had total contempt for this literature and my enjoyment of it, and pushed academic modernism on me as the only possible aesthetic. I pushed back, and my conservatory career was less successful than it could have been because of my stubborness. And I loathed Webern. This was unfortunate, because of the climate I inhabited at the time. Nowadays, it is perfectly acceptable to prefer Barber to Webern. The irony is that my personal growth has led me in the completely opposite direction. So I’ve been at loggerheads both in my past and present. I should’ve grown out of academic modernism and into neo-romantic lyricism instead of the other way around. That would’ve been convenient, alas.
Barber’s Violin Concerto is very close to certain aspects of “popular” music; it (the first two movements) exhibits complete unconsciousness. It attempts, and magnificently succeeds in, creating obviously beautiful and appealing melodies. Make no mistake, Violin Concerto though it may be called, the first two movements are luscious songs. The extraordinarily clear and simple use of textbook sonata form in the first movement is there simply because the tunes have to be ordered in some way, and sonata form is as useful a vehicle for this purpose as anything else. Barber didn’t know much about the possibilities inherent in sonata form however, and most probably didn’t care about these possibilities; the mature Haydn or Beethoven at any time wouldn’t be caught dead concocting such a simple, textbook design. Notice how Barber telegraphs the beginning of the development and the beginning of the coda with a similar textural device of tense timpani thumps undergirding a pensive passage in the violin. Anyone can follow the design with absolute ease, as rarely happens in the classical masters. Also, notice the clarity of the second subject, with its trademark “Scottish snaps”, can’t miss it. In a quartet by Haydn or Mozart one is often hard put to categorize passages as subject, variation, or transition…not here. This is pleasing for many people, they can grasp the formal design with minimal effort, and are thereby free to luxuriate in the beautiful melodies. The orchestration is great, by the way; rich but non-intrusive, luminous and vivid.
If I say I don’t perceive any particular inner necessity in this piece, what does that mean? If I think the piece is “irrelevant” what does that mean? What piece in all the musical literature needs to exist? Is my response infected with what Taruskin calls the (dying) idealogy of German Romanticism? I guess so, but to quote Martin Luther, “Here I stand; I can do no other.”
A couple notes on the piece: apparently the hot-shot violinist who had the piece commissioned for him didn’t like it, for whatever reason, and never performed it. What an idiot. He plays junk by Wienawski and Sarasate and won’t play this piece, which just about screams, “I am going to be one of the most popular violin concertos in history, and I will make your career.” Dumb, dumb Dexter. The finale is a problem. No, not because it’s in a different style than the first two movements (the finale is a toccata like perpetuum mobile). I laughed out loud when the liner notes said the finale was in “a harder edged, uncompromising style”-it is just as simple and accessible as the first two movements. Also risible was one of Barber’s biographers saying that “Barber grew impatient with self imposed restrictions” in the first two movements. The finale is a problem because the work doesn’t feel like it is over when in fact it is over. Barber wanted to end with excitement, when in fact the piece ought to have ended elegiacally. Barber had problems with finales, generally.
Listening to this piece was a chore for me. It felt like a guy seeing an old girlfriend he used to find attractive walking down the street and realizing that he no longer finds her attractive, although everybody else continues to find her attractive. And I sacrificed something by going to bat for this literature in my conservatory days, and it feels like it all went for nought. Oh, well. I solaced myself by listening to another conservative concerto from roughly the same time period, Hindemith’s magnificently quirky viola concerto, weirdly called “Der Schwanendreher” that I enjoyed, let me tell you.
Barber concertos for violin, piano and cello, conducted by Leonard Slatkin with the Saint Louis Symphony Orchestra. Soloists: Kyoko Takezawa (violin concerto), John Browning (piano), Steven Isserlis (cello).
Reader Comments (8)
I hereby give you permission to like or dislike any piece you like or dislike. Nobody is to be judged on their tastes. But you express more than taste; to wit:
"Anyone can follow the design with absolute ease, as rarely happens in the classical masters. Also, notice the clarity of the second subject, with its trademark “Scottish snaps”, can’t miss it. In a quartet by Haydn or Mozart one is often hard put to categorize passages as subject, variation, or transition…not here. This is pleasing for many people, they can grasp the formal design with minimal effort, and are thereby free to luxuriate in the beautiful melodies."
That, my friend, is snobbery, directed not at Barber but at the "many people" you despise, and listening to Barber gives you the chance to luxuriate in your contempt. For that you do deserve a rebuke.
John,
In the interest of accuracy, your initial comment on Barber's popularity was that you had doubts that his music will survive for a long time. My response was that your doubts on Barber's longevity "surprised me greatly", which is NOT the same as being "incredulous" about "the possibility of his popularity waning". Of course his popularity may wane; the number of performances given any composer relative to other composers is always shifting.
What I am saying is that Barber is now performed so frequently that his ongoing presence in the symphonic repertoire should be quite lengthy. As an example, suppose that Barber's Violin Concerto received only 30% of the performances which it actually enjoyed over the past seven years in the US, meaning 27 performances instead of the actual 91. Those 27 performances would still more than those of Milhaud's Creation du Monde, or all of Webern's works after Op 1, or all of Ned Rorem's compositions.So Barber's popularity can wane a LOT and his music will still be part of the standard repertory.
What I am NOT saying is that this means anything about the "intrinsic artistic quality" of any of these works. I'm merely reporting the ASOL data on the US musical marketplace. And I believe that you said in one of your earlier posts that over a "long" time period (whatever long is) the people will always decide.
I also am not saying that I particularly value this concerto. In fact, my two favorite violin concertos are the Berg and the Shostakovich 1. But the one I'd most like to hear live is the full original version (all 52 minutes) of the concerto by George Rochberg.
I think the Barber concerto is a great work, It just has worn off for me.
Here are a couple of CD alternatives for the Barber Violin Concerto. Available in the UK for 7.23 pounds (but not listed on arkivMusic) is another triple-header of all three concertos:
Violin Stern/Bernstein/New York Phil
Piano Browning/Szell/Cleveland
Cello Yo Yo Ma/Zinman/Baltimore
If you want an all violin CD, the Gil Shaham/Previn version includes the Korngold Concerto (which has a really good third movement) and a Suite for violin and piano of Korngold's incidental music for Much Ado About Nothing. When your ballerinas show up, this is the version to play as it will give you an un-interrupted 50 minutes of luxuriating bliss.
Great, thanks. By the way, I meant that your 'incredulity" my word, was directed at my own lack of understanding, not the possibility of Barber's popularity waning. I suspect that many people who read the Barber post will understand that I'm really attracted to the piece, like so many others, but "have issues"; I just don't know who I am anymore! Some guy said that my waiting for those ballerinas (they'll be here!) is like Linus waiting for the Great Pumpkin. He's wrong, isn't he? Well, isn't he!
John,
I'm not nearly as educated or articulate as you or some of the people that post on here. I'm not as well read and only have limited knowledge on some of the pieces you discuss because I have performed them. The more I read your thoughts the more I grow concerned.
While western music is a massive subject that is full of things to study from an academic view point, I often wonder if music and it's "magic" is lost on you. Sometimes the "genius" of a composer is the fact that the music they compose is accessible to many people. A perfect example of this would be how few people like Schoenberg or Webern. To me their music was composed to please their own academic ideals and whatever greatness there is in it (and there is) is lost on many of us.
Why can't a piece just be beautiful and moving? Why does it's form have to be judged? What if a piece is in minor and closes with the use of a piccardy third? Is that so bad? I'm sure art scholars love to look at a Monet painting up close to see and study the individual brush strokes because that's where the "genius" is. But wouldn't it be a sad world if you never just stepped back and looked at the painting and noticed it's beauty as a whole?
I'm not trying be overly critical of you but maybe that is how this coming off. I would just love to hear you say something is beautiful because it just is and not because of it's use of polytonality or because the closing dominant function in the first movement goes through a very long sequence of secondary dominants or functions before arriving back at the tonic. It's great that you have the ability and knowledge to look deeper into a piece and find out why it sounds the way it does but that ability comes at a price because it also makes you dislike the Barber Violin Concerto because you don't like his use of Sonata form. Maybe his use of Sonata form was simple so you can enjoy the beauty of its texture and melodies?
Like you, Ry, I love music so much it hurts. You should go to one of my classes where I'm discussing the "Davidsbundlertanzen" or "Winterreise" or Nielsen's Third Symphony. You'd know how much I love, and am moved by great music. And I've never said a piece was great because of secondary dominants or whatnot. All the terminology is a bunch of shibboleths to give us articulate words for our concepts. And who are the most popular composers? Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Verdi, Schubert and Brahms. And those are my favorites, as well. Since I'm not going into work today, if the French ballerinas show up, send 'em over here.
John,
I know you love music....probably more than me. Sometimes I have a hard time with your points of contention. Have a good time with Strauss!