At first sight this was a disparate programme. Brahms and Messiaen do not immediately strike one as natural concert companions. The composers and works in this programme seemed to have nothing whatsoever in common: Brahms teems with polyphony and darkness while Messiaen is about light, timbre, vertical chords, vibrant colour – indeed Messiaen hated Brahms, declaring that “it’s always raining” in Brahms’ music.
But unlikely or daring juxtapositions can create interesting and unexpected contrasts and connections, as one work shines a new light on another, enriching both listener and performer’s experience – and this was certainly my take on this remarkable concert by Pierre-Laurent Aimard and Tamara Stefanovich at St John’s Smith Square.
If there are connections to be made between the music that made up this large-scale programme it is that both works are mighty musical edifices, two great mountains which transcend mere notes on the page and which demonstrate each composer’s wish to remain in long moments of emotional distress, relaxation or ecstasy. Both works also display a high level of perfectionism in their structures and organisation, replete with many details, motifs and musical pathways which could easily become blurred in a lesser performance.
The Sonata in F minor for two pianos was originally cast as a string quintet, then as the two-piano sonata, and finally, urged by Clara Schumann, recast as the Piano Quintet, Op.34, its most familiar form. If one was looking for string textures in this two-piano version, they were replaced by opulent orchestral polyphony, particularly in the first and final movements where both performers sought to explore not the melding of sounds in each piano part, but rather the tensions between them. This, for me, created an unexpected lightness and clarity, often overlooked in performances of Brahms’ piano music. His colour scheme may be as dark as mahogany, his palette as rich as Sachertorte, but Aimard and Stefanovich’s sensitive virtuosity revealed the works ambiguous harmonies, melodies, rhythms and the overall narrative which was satisfying but never cloying.
The slow movement, which unfolds in the manner of a chorale or gentle folksong, was Schubertian in its serenity tinged with darkness and impending intensity, while the Scherzo was a rambunctious march. The finale opened with an unsettling yet simple rising melody, which recalled a Baroque recitative while also looking to Schoenberg in its loose tonality, before an explosion of ideas: lush ambiguous harmonies, marching rhythms and complex counterpoint, all handled with powerful drama and a keen sense of onward propulsion to create a finale of seemingly impossible virtuosity.