Karol Rathaus’s chamber works for violin and piano, though encompassing just five pieces, constitute an unusually important part of the composer’s artistic legacy. The works written between 1925 and 1949 show the composer’s entire adult life in cross-section and prove his versatility. Depending on the circumstances, the composer masterfully makes use of an innovative compositional language but also writes commercial music.

During the Berlin period (1920–32), Rathaus finished the first two chamber works featuring violin – Sonata No. 1 for violin and piano, Op. 14 (1925) and Suite for violin and small orchestra or piano, Op. 27 (1929). The Sonata was dedicated to the music critic Walter Schrenk, while the Suite to the Warsaw-born violinist Stefan Frenkiel (Frenkel), who was Rathaus’s friend of many years. Frenkiel performed Rathaus’s violin works and made his own arrangements of the composer’s scores. Several years later, when living as expats in New York, they still kept in touch with each other (e.g. Frenkiel wrote a miniature for violin and piano, the melody of which was based on the themes borrowed from Rathaus’s film music).

When looking for a little deeper source of inspiration for Sonata, it seems essential to mention a broader context accompanying historical, political and social changes occurring over the decades in question on the European continent. The entire social-political unrest as well as a crisis of values became fully manifested in the then music. Its mood is characterized by instability, variety of colours reflecting individual emotional states, and polemics with authorities and works from past epochs. The ideals of positivism, rationalism and empiricism mix up with fatalism, irrationalism and mysticism. That was the atmosphere in which Sonata No. 1 for violin and piano, Op. 14 was written. Rathaus reaches for the most classical of all forms – the sonata form. This is not, actually, the first attempt
at writing Sonata. Five years earlier he composed the virtuosic, four-movement Sonata for violin and piano, Op. 2, which became a gateway for him to continue his education with Schreker after the turmoil of World War I. The Sonata, Op. 14 was considered by Rathaus himself an important work of particular significance for his overall compositional output. The piece was written exceptionally quickly.

From Rathaus’s letter to Georg Schünemann (German musicologist, 1884–1945), we learn that it took him just five days to finish the first movement and he completed the whole work in May 1925. The Sonata was premiered in Berlin on February 4th, 1926. The composer appeared on stage alongside the violinist Stefan Frenkiel.

The Sonata, Op. 14 was highly acclaimed by critics, though its premiere did not make a particular impact on the musical milieu. There is, however, an interesting quote showing how the work was perceived then. This is what Adolf Weissmann wrote about it: “The Sonata is an experiment and the form given to it deliberately carries this work far beyond mediocrity of the then compositions of that kind.” The three-movement Sonata, Op. 14 is a composition that can potentially make a huge impression on the audience thanks to its coloristic wealth and virtuosity of both parts. Before the outbreak of World War II, it had already been performed on numerous occasions in, for instance, Mannheim, Dresden, Vienna, Paris, Leipzig or Warsaw by such violinists as Felix Eyle and Josef Wolfstahl, accompanied by renowned pianists like Claudio Arrau. In the Universal Edition brochure, one can find information saying that also Irena Dubiska, Jelly d’Arànyi
or Hans Bassermann incorporated the Sonata into their repertoires. Post-war performances of the piece are well- documented: the work was on the programme of a concert commemorating the tenth anniversary of the composer’s death. It was held in the Amerika Haus building in West Berlin on 8 April 1964, and was performed by Hans Baastian and Grete von Zieritz.

The Sonata, Op. 14, is a work wherein a performer is confronted with a multilayer structure of the composition. The sound material of the Sonata, put into atonal structures, varies in terms of agogic. What is more, the composer juxtaposes homophonic fragments with polyphonic ones. The changeability of dynamics causes that Sonata can be interpreted as emotionally charged.

The message behind the work is to show diversity through changing moods. Melodies by Rathaus divert from the major-minor system. They are based on large interval leaps and what can be observed is the intensity of dissonances. Melodic lines are led with a relatively high variability of registers. Rathaus uses Italian and German terms interchangeably, with German ones employed for a more detailed description of agogic and articulation changes. Over the entire piece, the composer freely operates with tempo and time, thus emphasizing a multidimensional musical narrative. The character of the Sonata is dramatic. It seems that it is the emotional factor that should be considered the key one for its interpretation.

The full of impetus and emotionally charged Suite, Op. 27 calls for great imagination on the part of a violinist. The work exists in two original versions – either for violin and small orchestra (symphony one), or for violin and piano. The applied musical language seems to be both classical and innovative, it totally captures the listeners’ attention. In the following sections of the Suite, Rathaus appears to arrange pitches in a mathematical order, still maintaining the entire work in a lively mood that is full of fantasia. Apart from expressionistic elements visible in the Suite, what attracts our attention is the composer’s interest in jazz music. The melodic line of the violin in the 3rd movement – Capriccio – gives an impression of the improvised one, and the performing body of the orchestra features a banjo, imitated by the piano in the chamber version. According
to Walter Schrenk’s review, the work was premiered at the concert given by the Łódź-born conductor Michael Taube and his orchestra founded in Berlin in 1926. The concert programme featured Joseph Haydn’s Symphony in D Major No. 101 (‘The Clock’) and premiere performances of Karol Rathaus’s Suite, Op. 27 and Ernst Toch’s Bunte Suite for orchestra, Op. 48. Walter Schrenk wrote about the Suite:

“I suppose this work will be successful no matter where it will be performed, just like it was a success on the day of its premiere.”

The Suite, though written in 1929 (and published in 1930) – i.e., only four years after the Sonata, is a considerably different work, both in terms of applied elements of compositional technique and means of artistic expression. What differs is also the composer’s approach to the quality and timbre of sound, which stems from differences in the selection of proportions between violin and piano parts, as well as the different character of music. This requires a totally new approach on the part of the performer. The Sonata is a relatively homogeneous work in terms of texture and dynamics, whereas each movement of the Suite constitutes a separate expressive unit. In the Suite, Rathaus constructs the piece in a typically expressionist manner, based on contrasting segments with a different narrative developed in each of them. He bases melody on a clearly outlined interval leaps, frequently of a dissonant character. Compared to the Sonata, Op. 14, the process of introducing following musical threads is much more diversified, one might even define the Suite as a work meant to evoke the feeling of anxiety. Again, compared to the Sonata, the placement of climaxes and manner of developing the work’s form in the Suite seem to be more predictable. Rathaus builds up dynamic intensity in the way that helps listeners to anticipate the development of musical narration. What also matters is the positioning of the instruments’ roles. In the case of Sonata, both parts appear to be more independent from each other. In the Suite, melodic motives are more entwined and introduced in line with the principle of interchangeableness.

It is unclear what made the source of inspiration for Rathaus to write the Suite. As a result of German bombing of London, part of the “Blitz” operation in 1940–41, the letters in which one could find some information on the issue were destroyed. Rathaus hardly ever officially spoke about his works. The Suite, Op. 27 was written by the composer in two versions: the original one for violin and piano, and the second for violin and orchestra. Currently, the work is more often performed as a chamber composition for violin and piano, and less frequently with orchestra, which is the version where the composer enriches instrumentation with wind instruments and banjo, so rarely used in orchestration.

The Sonata No. 2 for violin and piano, Op. 43 was composed in London in 1937 and is one of very few preserved pieces from that period (the London house where Rathaus had left his scores before his departure for the USA was destroyed during German bombings). It is a fully-rounded work, showing the entire coloristic potential of both instruments. What should be noted is a lyrical theme opening the first movement, appearing as well in the culmination of the finale and thus becoming the leitmotif of the entire composition. The composer strikes a balance between fragments of naturally and calmly developing melodic line, and motives of a stronger emotional charge. The second movement reminds in its structure a parallel section from the Suite, Op. 27, except for the fact that the opening theme in the Sonata is the violin’s monologue. Despite agitation and enhanced motoric intensity in the middle section, the whole movement has a contemplative character. The bodacious final movement, based on the rondo form, is a free fugue, full of fantasia.

In order to start an analysis of the Sonata No. 2 one should compare it and contrast with the Sonata No. 1 written 13 years earlier. Both works differ considerably. The type of expression presented in the Sonata No. 2 from 1937 is different. Dynamic and timbral contrasts are not as visible as in the Sonata No. 1. Changes are implemented smoothly, and particular motives, constituting separate sections, are frequently combined with melodies of the themes. Their melodic structure is simpler than the one in the Sonata
No. 1, and melodic lines are arranged in a more melodious way, which makes an impression of the themes being “more classical” in their expression. The ambitus of main melodies does not involve large interval leaps. Despite no fixed key, though thanks to much clearer tonal centres, the Sonata No. 2 can be analysed as a work written in the major-minor system.

Similarities between the two sonatas comprise, for instance, the layout of the whole cycle and its texture. Both cycles start with the sonata allegro form and culminate with the final rondo. It is noteworthy how freely Rathaus treats classical forms. For example: a typical, two-theme sonata allegro in Opus 14 cannot be found in Opus 43, where the developmental technique predominates. The Rondo-Finale in both sonatas, in turn, is multi-thread and does not display a clear classical layout (episodes evolve directly from the theme). Interestingly, Karol Rathaus interweaves particular themes of the narrative of the Sonata, Op. 43, using them in adjacent movements, e.g. the theme from the 2nd movement is shown in the recapitulation of the sonata allegro, while the main theme of the 1st movement is repeated in the 3rd movement.

As regards relations between the two instruments, Rathaus shows them both as two sound planes developed simultaneously. He introduces, however, some sections in which either piano or violin is treated in a virtuosic manner, which substantially determines the performing technique.

The only composition for violin and piano written in New York is Dedication and Allegro, Op. 64 (1949). Judging from its gentler character, Dedication and Allegro seems to be an example of the composer’s adaptation to the conditions and reality of a concert life in the USA. The work was commissioned by the violin virtuoso Tossi Spiwakowski. Comparing Dedication and Allegro to the works composed in pre-war Europe, one can immediately notice a huge influence of the American musical world and local market demand. The piece was composed for a strictly commercial purpose. Analysing concert programmes of that time, we know that the work promptly gained popularity and was incorporated into recital programmes. It was also titled Hommage à Chopin, the obvious aim of which was to grab the audience’s attention.

When analysing the score of Dedication and Allegro, what immediately comes to mind is the connotation with numerous original works and transcriptions by such masters of the violin art as Fritz Kreisler or Jascha Heifetz. The composition beams with tunefulness, melodiousness, and colour in the first movement, while in the second one – with vitality and vigour. The structure and character of the work prove Rathaus’s enormous inventiveness and creativity.

Containing diverse elements of the brillant style, popular in the Romantic era, Dedication and Allegro, Op. 64 was written as a tribute to Frederic Chopin on the centenary of the composer’s death. The primarily expressionistic character of previous compositions gives way to the neoromantic stylistics. What is noteworthy in Rathaus’s last work for violin and piano, are virtuosic elements (particularly in the violin part). When developing the work’s melodic line, Rathaus makes use of folk motives.

In cantilena fragments, he evidently aims to build up the mood of nostalgia, so typical of Frederic Chopin’s compositions. Comparing the character of Rathaus’sDedication to Chopin’s legacy is essential for the analysis of the means of performance and stylistic elements. Rathaus seems to emphasize nostalgic and folk themes. The combination of the two spheres of Chopin’s romanticism makes Dedication a work of exceptional emotionality and deepened expression. The composer not only imitates Chopin’s style in a masterly way, but also adds his own musical thought to it by enriching the narrative with a contemporary musical language.

In Allegro, just like in Dedication, Rathaus applies a homophonic texture: violin is the leading instrument, whereas piano plays the accompaniment part. The composer changes moods through juxtaposing contrasting motoric fragments (built upon scalic sequences maintained definitely in the forte dynamics) with cantilena sections drawing on stylized folk melodies.

When performing Dedication and Allegro, we had an impression that Karol Rathaus had written a virtuosic piece that would allow the violinist and pianist to show their technical skills on the one hand, and on the other would accentuate vitality and bravado. Rathaus based the Allegro on coloristic contrasts, he included both sections of a melodious character and those containing notes of distinct dynamics and sharp articulation. This dichotomy of the type of sound quality constitutes a peculiar idée fixe developed by Rathaus in Allegro. Simplicity (rudimentary character of melody), arising from the folk nature of music, serves only as the coloristic background of the piece. In reality, the key element for interpretation of the work becomes virtuosity, so characteristic of the brillant style. In Allegro, Rathaus demonstrates the changeability of moods employing vigorous musical motives, “frantically wild”, as well as motives musically “withdrawn”. Powerful expression is based on loud arpeggio sequences, octaves or double stops. The composer avoids excessive ostentation. Although the work might seem to be cliched, imbued with the “sentimental tone” even, this does not downgrade its artistic qualities. On the contrary, this confirms a certain musical vision founded on the simplicity of traditional music. When looking for the source that might have been an inspiration for Rathaus, one should not forget the dance character of folk music. It is not easy to determine which of the dances the work directly draws upon. The outline of a melodic line, with numerous twists, together with rhythm and varied articulation bring to mind the quick oberek. On the other hand, the duple metric notation, appearing on numerous occasions, would rather suggest analogies to the polka. The polka is not considered a Polish national dance, yet its various forms can be found on the ethnographically indigenous Polish territories, Lesser Poland included. Later in the piece, characteristic features of the two dances interweave on numerous occasions. Rathaus might have also intended to seek inspiration in the forms present in the borderland cultures, i.e. the tramblanka or polka-mazurka. Vienna from Rathaus’s youth was, after all, a conglomerate of various cultures and styles.