Conclusion

Conclusion

I generally think, in my experience, that 20^th century pieces are harder to perform than classical works because of the increased technical demands that are placed on the soloist. But I believe that the Haydn Trumpet Concerto is not easy to play compared to the Arutiunian and in some respects even harder. Having compared the two concerti, I found that there was surprisingly a lot in common.

They both:

Have chromatic slow, lyrical sections with the use of infrequent cadencing to build the tension.
Are the composer’s most famous concerto for solo instrument, which makes them also very popular.
Have faster, more energetic outer sections.
Have a similar pitch and dynamic range.
Are more similar than I thought when I began this project.
Are technically and physically difficult to play.
Have only one cadenza.

The differences can be attributed to the fact that they were written over 150 years apart. The Haydn is much more rhythmically unadventurous as there are no changes of meter, tempi, etc…, but it does serve as a model Classical concerto.

I found that the Arutiunian had the following qualities:

Lyrical, song-like melodies
More adventurous modulations
Harmonies are very rich
Powerful use of discords
Chromatic notes
Perhaps a closer link with art and literature (see appendix no.7)

Only a couple of these qualities existed in the Haydn.

Another new development in the Arutiunian is the blending of the

Cadenza with the general flow of the concerto by accompanying it instead of letting it be a solo bravura part. The whole tone melodic ideas and the intense rhythmic drive of the work also gives the concerto a Russian folk feel.

These are all traits from the Romantic period and having researched Russian Trumpet concerti (see appendix no.6) I can conclude that the Arutiunian is a Neo-Romantic Russian Trumpet concerto.

I might even suggest that if Haydn was alive today he may well have written a work very similar to the Arutiunian concerto.