Chamberness in genre-stylistic field of Piano concertos by Johannes Brahms
Authors: Kashuba Denis 
Published: November 2019

Introduction. In recent years, there has been indefatigable interest of scholars in the concerto genre, and that can be proven by constantly appearing research article and dissertation, devoted to it. For example, in 2017 and 2019 candidate dissertation [Ph. D] have been published, that illuminated previously obscure pages of, respectively, French tradition of this genre, embodied in concertos for various instruments with orchestra by C. Saint-Sa&#235;ns, and AustroGerman of the first decades of XIX century (including those by J. N. Hummel, I. Moscheles, F. Ris). Expansion of the knowledge about this genre in historical aspect is accompanied by refinements and changes of viewpoints on its essence, that allows, in particular, to comprehend the phenomenon of intersection of different traits of a symphony, a concerto and an ensemble in composers’ activity of XX – beginning of XXI century. A presumption is made, that between these stated genres there is some kind of interlocutor, that is dialogism. At the same time, it is noted, that various types of a dialogue in given work do not lead inevitably to some “mix” or ambivalence, but can contribute to realisation of the potential of the concerto genre. The last one can be applied to the Piano concertos by J. Brahms. Objectives. The goal of the given article is to reveal signs of chamberness in genre-stylistic field of Piano concertos by Johannes Brahms. Results and discussion. In spite of widely disseminated opinion that they belong to predominately orchestral type or even are “symphonies with piano obligato” (Kuznetsov, 1980; Beyer, 1897), they reveal influence of another essential characteristics of the genre, including chamberness. This can be explained either by classicism of J. Brahms’s composer style, who has always orientated towards tradition of his times or by integrativity, that is an iconic trait of late-Romantic music. The examples are given of grand-scale symphonic conceptions deriving from primal ensemble ideas. It is noted, that while the understanding of the genre’s nature remains stable, in each Concerto the proportion of symphonism, concertoness and chamberness is singular due to a significant time interval passing between them and noticeable difference in level of composer’s maturity. Both Concertos reveal the following attributes of chamberness: frequent usage of separate orchestra groups, eventual appearance of “ensemble of soloists” on the background of certain groups or without any accompaniment, significant dramaturgic role played by solos of the piano either slightly supported by sparse instruments while their parts are rather scattered or absolutely unaccompanied. It is stressed that regarding playing piano one should not equate one performer with one part as there are parts of right and left hands and dialogues appearing between them (Polskaya, 2001). On the other side, mono-pianistic expression doesn’t necessarily coincide with a monologue, as self-comprehension of a personality can be marked by a significant dialogism and even conflict (Misitova, 2004). The Piano concertos by J. Brahms can serve as an example for the last observation as appearances of the soloist (chiefly, solo) create additional thread of dramaturgy, sometimes governing the development of music and its images. In the First concerto, given its allusions to the Baroque era, one can discern frequent usage of chamber, sometimes exclusively string orchestra. It is pointed out that initial image of Maestoso, that is supposed to be portrayed by sonority of the accentuated brass group as it has tremendous and formidable mood, is in fact embodied by strings with occasional illuminations of another groups. In Adagio the archi section also plays the leading role, being in dialogue with two bassoons in the first orchestral episode, later entering compassionate dialogue with the piano. In both movements the full orchestra is used only in the climactic moments, often with the soloist involved. And the Finale is the only movement where the semantics of the competition and festivities of the masses urges the composer to use entire orchestra. The logic of changes of emotional states in the solo part is quite clear. It is a personification of a “lyrical hero”, who is in a state of an inner dialogue, and that engenders a conflict situation, largely contributing to the dramatism of further events in the music. Employments of the ensemble are sporadic and are usually illuminated by a background of the orchestra. In Second concerto, while the strategy of chamberness of orchestra and raising the significance of the soloist remains stable, on the contrary, different means of ensemble communication are developed, including those involving “satellite” instruments. Their activity is revealed in the very first bars of Allegro non troppo, where French horn and piano resemble quiet and leisurely conversation. This duet in its further appearances marks the borders of large chapters of the structure, therefore acquiring compositional significance. Ensemble qualities are intrinsic for Andante from this Concerto, where another soloist appears, singled out from the group of cellos, and later oboe, clarinets make their entrance, and the score turns into sheer dialogue of soloists. Conclusions. Comparison of two Piano concertos by J. Brahms allows to state that composer simultaneously has firm understanding of this genre and favours different traits of chamberness in each of them. In the latter one “satellite” timbres are used, ensemble structures are more significant. And this paves the way for ensemble differentiation of the orchestra, that can be regarded as one of the first portents of modern understanding of concerto genre and abovementioned processes of “mixing”.