Alexander Scriabin(1865-1913)
         Etudes For Piano

Etude, Opus 2
Twelve Etudes, Opus 8
Eight Etudes, Opus 42
Three Etudes, Opus 65

Auvidis/Valois 4714
Recorded 1992
Nikita Magaloff, Piano
TT 55:30

Etude, Opus 2
Twelve Etudes, Opus 8
Eight Etudes, Opus 42
Etude, Opus 49
Etude, Opus 56
Three Etudes, Opus 65

Supraphon 3324
Recorded 1995
Arthur Greene, Piano
TT 57:55

Nikita Magaloff was born in St.  Petersburg in the year 1912.  He did
not personally know Scriabin as the composer died just three years after
Magaloff's birth.  However, he often heard his parents playing the music
of Scriabin, and he developed a life-long affection for Scriabin's music.
Magaloff became one of the pianistic giants of his time and had close or
familiar relationships with Ravel, Stravinsky, Rachmaninov, Prokofiev,
Haskil, Lipatti, and Szigeti.  Magaloff died just a few months after this
1992 Valois recording was made.

To recap from Parts 1 & 2 of this review project, I have reviewed the
Complete Etudes of Scriabin from Alexander Paley, Chitose Okashiro, and
Piers Lane.  Although none of the three recordings is without merit, I
found that none of them consistently reveals a strong identification with
Scriabin's music; Paley comes the closest, but he's still well off the
mark.

A major difference between the three above artists and Magaloff is that
only Magaloff was around in the early 1900's and part of the Russian
musical scene at that time.  Given this situation and the exceptional
artistry of Magaloff, my expectation for a set of performances better than
the ones I've already reviewed is strong.  The results do tend to go along
with my expectation, but all is not at perfect levels.  Put another way,
Magaloff takes us much closer to Scriabin's psychology than most other
recording artists, but there is still room at the top.

A minor difference between Magaloff's recording and the other three is
that Magaloff does not include the two short etudes of Opus 49 and Opus
56.  Since these two works only add up to about one minute of music, their
omission is not cause for concern except to those who need the full degree
of completeness.

Compared to Magaloff, Arthur Greene is just a 'young pup'.  He started
performing in public in the 1980's including a Carnegie Hall debut in 1987.
Greene is currently on the faculty at the University of Michigan School of
Music and has performed with some of the major orchestras in the United
States and Asia.

Here's my take on the Magaloff and Greene performances of the Scriabin
Etudes:

Etude, Opus 2 - Sofronitsky takes us on a commanding journey through a
bleak terrain of despair and urgency.  What most impresses me about this
version is the concentrated manner in which Sofronitsky accumulates and
releases energy as he alternates between tenderness and anger.  Magaloff's
reading is not concentrated at all; it has much rhythmic elasticity.
Essentially, Magaloff does not venture into the recesses of the mind to
the degree exhibited by Sofronitsky.  Also, Magaloff's is the fastest of
any version I've heard, and I am skeptical that such a tempo can fully
convey Scriabin's torment in this particular etude.

Whatever less than perfect elements may reside in the Magaloff reading,
it is much better than the Greene performance which is lacking much
tension.  Greene is very slow with wide intervals between notes and chords.
Given this situation, it is critical that his articulation and accenting
convey strength.  Unfortunately, Greene is often slack and wears thin as
his performance progresses.  The reading has a numbing effect on me.

Etudes, Opus 8 - The 1st etude has a delicate and tense nature with
fluttering triplets which speed along in the first section; the second
section injects drama into the music.  My current favorites come from Piers
Lane's exciting version on Hyperion and Elena Kuschnerova's highly sensual
reading on Ars Musici.  Magaloff rivals them with interesting rhythmic
patterns and superb articulation.  Greene does a nice turn-around from his
Opus 2 performance.  He excellently captures the tension of the piece,
although his rhythmic patterns are a little choppy and don't flow very
well.

In the 2nd Etude from Opus 8, Sofronitsky and Piers Lane present two
very different views with Magloff closely aligned to Sofronitsky.  Lane
is big and romantic; Sofronitsky is driven and tormented.  He conveys deep
emotional themes while Lane conveys a style.  Magaloff is just a little
less driven than Sofronitsky, and Greene presents a half-way point between
Lane and Sofronitsky.  Greene's problem is a weak and uninteresting lower
voice.

Before going on the next etude, I'd like to provide a thought I'm having
about Magaloff.  His first three performances have been illuminating,
but I sense that he does not possess the extreme personaity traits of a
Scriabin or Sofronitsky.  He might simply be a better adjusted individual,
and that accounts for a somewhat polite view of Scriabin.

The 3rd Etude presents a musical tempest which I love for its power,
rhythmic patterns, and imagery of humans frantically losing their minds.
My favorite version comes from Alexander Paley on Naxos whose rhythms are
razor sharp; he's now joined by Arthur Greene who is more conventional in
his rhythms but more powerful.  Both supply the highest levels of tension
and disruption.  Magaloff isn't quite there as that polite quality doesn't
allow him to go off the cliff's edge.

Gorgeous music with cross-rhythms to provide tension are the great appeal
of the 4th Etude.  Most recorded versions provide the beauty but without
significant tension; its worst manifestation is exemplified by Nikolai
Demidendo who treats the piece with soft curves and a velvet touch.
Magaloff quickens the tempo and the cross-rhythms are filled with tension;
this is a wonderful reading.  Greene is also quick and quite enjoyable
except that he inexplicably goes slack in the middle section which has the
more dramatic music.

Speaking of gorgeous music, the dance rhythms of the 5th Etude and the
sprightly touch required of the upper voice create a delectable recipe.
Does tension still reside in the music? Sofronitsky would certainly answer
in the affirmative, as his interpretation is dominated by deep and dark
thoughts without any loss of the sprightly nature of the music; the
contrasts are illuminating.  Piers Lane shows that the music can also
well accomodate a quick performance of playful proportion.  For his part,
Alexander Paley exudes sensuality in his very slow reading.

In the 5th Etude, both Magaloff and Greene are quite demonstrative.
Magaloff gives the music quite a bounce and a playful quality that Lane
would appreciate.  Greene is a mix of darkness and sensuality.  Overall,
I think that Greene's reading offers a wider palette to explore than
Magaloff's.  For a playful performance, I prefer Lane to Magaloff whose
rhythm is a little stodgy.

So far, consistency is more on display from Magaloff than Greene.
Although I am enjoying Greene's interpretations, I'm often making notes
to the effect that Greene has a tendency to slacken the tension he offers.
He has hit this rut in half the etudes I have reviewed.  When he avoids
this particular problem, he's every bit as good as Magaloff.

The 6th Etude of Opus 8 is a shimmering and nostalgic study in sixths
for the right hand.  I prefer a heart-felt reading, and Lane's is straight
from the heart with much warmth.  Greene and Magaloff are cooler but
very effective; Magaloff is the one who maximizes the rhtyhmic variety.
Concerning the 7th Etude, I like the piece best when played in a driving
manner with demonic activity on the horizon; at the very least, the music
needs to provide unbalanced emotions.  Both Magaloff and Greene are
helter-skelter; that's all to the good.  However, both are also relatively
demure in comparsion to Okashiro on Pro Piano who drives and slashes her
way through the underworld she creates.

For the 8th Etude of Opus 8, I just have to comment on the Horowitz
recording on Sony.  The 8th has fairly prevalent hushed passages, and
listening to Horowitz reminds me that nobody plays soft music as well as
he does.  Although light as a feather, Horowitz projects so clearly with
fantastic articulation and pierces my heart.  With Magaloff's reading,
I most notice the confidence and boldness in his pianism; this is an
excellent quality which he often conveys in the set.  Greene's performance
goes back to the slack tension that I've mentioned before.

There's nothing lacking in Greene's tension in his fiery performance
of the 9th Etude.  This Etude is made for the extreme spilling-over of
emotions, and the bass provides a great means to tighten the tension to
make the emotional levels sound natural.  Greene does just that with a
grumbling and stern bass-line.  Greene also never lets up the pressure
except appropriately in the second section.  Magaloff holds back some,
as he seems to place much priority on detail.  Although I appreciate the
effort, I don't think that detail is as significant for this etude as great
washes of sound and emotional fury.  Greene delivers the whole package.

Magaloff's excellent detail serves him much better in the 10th Etude which
is a study in perpetual motion for the right hand.  However, he's no match
for Horowitz who uses a right-hand staccato brilliantly to enhance the
music's emotional breadth, excitement, and tension.  Greene's detail and
reading are rather ordinary.

The essence of the 11th Etude of Opus 8 is the melancholy of falling
figures.  A more melancholy reading than Greene's would be hard find, but
I wish he employed more rhythmic vitality.  That's where Magaloff excels,
but he does it at the expense of some sadness.  I prefer the Horowitz
recording where melancholy and rhythmic vitality are both strong.

For the 12th Etude of Opus 8, we have a recorded performance by Scriabin
himself which exemplifies tension, power, and drama.  Arthur Greene holds
up very well in these areas, although he remains too demonstrative in the
softer passages.  Magaloff corrects Greene's problem but is a little less
powerful than Greene overall.  Both readings are excellent, although I
prefer the Scriabin and also the version from John Bell Young on Americus.

Etudes, Opus 42 - Works of greater complexity and harmonic adventure
than the Opus 8 set, we begin with the 1st Etude having swirling triplets,
strong cross-rhythms, a smouldering tension from the bass, and great
potential for interesting rhythmic patterns and diversity.  Although
Magaloff is on the lean side and not quite smouldering, he injects the most
variety of rhythm, tempo, and dynamics than any other version I know; this
is a wonderful performance to examine the music's architcture while also
enjoying it simply as a musical experience.  Greene is very rewarding and
robust; variety is not at Magaloff's level, but it surely rises well above
the meagre amount offered by Piers Lane on Hyperion.  I forgot to mention
that the 1st Etude is reffered to as Scriabin's etude of "swarming moths";
you'll feel like you're on a dynamite camping trip.

The 2nd Etude of Opus 42 is bleak music with left-hand figures shifting
across the beats; this effect leads to a subtle and brooding tension.
Neither Magaloff nor Greene fully captures this tension in comparison to
Richter whose cross-shifting comes across with much more strength and
detail although his recording is much older.

The 3rd Etude is a study in trills aptly named "The Mosquito".  At
a minimum, the music should be annoying.  Sofronitsky gives us a good
reason to tolerate these annoying trills - he conveys a mind careening out
of control as it passes through prisms of continuous opposites.  Greene
doesn't even annoy me; he seems to be seeking the maximum poetry in the
music.  Unfortunately, poetry carries little virtue in "The Mosquito".
Magaloff is much better, but his slow tempo is a little problematic.

With the 4th Etude of Opus 42, Scriabin is in unusually serene spirits;
the music is flat-out gorgeous and ever so comforting in the hands of
Piers Lane.  Greene's version is quite different from Lane's in that Greene
injects quite a bit of drama into the mix; however, I don't find that he
lays down any foundation for the overt display as he keeps moving from
serenity to overblown effects.  Switch to Magaloff who gives us nervous
and vivid rhythmic patterns that create the tension which flows naturally
into a reading more dramatic than Greene's.  As so often, tension is the
key and Greene sometimes falls short.  Magaloff can be counted on to
deliver the requisite tension on a regular basis.

The 5th Etude of Opus 42 presents a tremendous wall of sound from the low
end of the keyboard that won't even allow Scriabin to escape.  The best
version I've ever heard comes from Richter.  Although Greene can't match
Richter's impenetrable wall, he does offer one hell of a strong barricade.
Magaloff presents his usual vitality, but that last ounce of emotional
depth is lacking.  I have to go with Greene on this one and the 6th Etude
as well.  The 6th continues with the wall of sound from the low end, but
this time it has a porous quality.  Magaloff simply doesn't erect as strong
a wall as Greene.

Update on Magaloff:  Although Magaloff's set of the Etudes has been
more rewarding than the other complete sets, I do have one significant
reservation.  It strikes me that Magaloff just doesn't possess the type of
emotional make-up owned by Scriabin.  The composer's very extreme and deep
inner-world is only approached by Magaloff; he never really drills into it
with his entire mind and soul.  However, his rhythmic patterns, tension,
and vitality are exceptional qualities which easily lift his set above the
others.

The 7th and 8th Etudes complete the Opus 42 set.  Magaloff offers a hard
and galloping 7th Etude which is very stark, vivid, and detailed; it's a
great reading.  Greene is no slouch either, as he presents a tension filled
crunching bass line which takes me captive.  Conerning the 8th Etude, I'm
so attached to Richter that it's hard to think very well of other versions.
Richter offers a frenetic first section with notes that seem weightless,
while his second section is firmly rooted to the ground through confidence
and experience.  Both Magaloff and Greene are fine, but they don't stand a
chance when compared to Richter.

The two short Etudes, Opus 49 & 56, are absent on Magaloff's disc and
might as well have been absent on Greene's.  Opus 49 has clipped two-note
phrases, a tonal center which hops all over the place, and sighing phrasing
which opens the motifs.  At a minimum, the 30 seconds of music should sound
'unusual', and Greene's only unusual for the first 10 seconds or so; he
seems to have abandoned his inventiveness at that point.  In the Opus 56
Etude, the music needs to be brilliant, and Greene isn't even close.

Magaloff returns for the Opus 65 Etudes, while Greene continues to strike
out with the mature Scriabin.  The 1st Etude is a study in ninths which
needs to be played in a scurrying manner; tension must not be lost, and
that's where Greene fails.  His reading is a minute longer than Magaloff's
and it tends to meander and do so very slowly.  It isn't a matter of the
spacing being too wide; Greene just can't handle it.  Tension is dashed.

Magaloff does much better in the 1st Etude with a sense of the long line
and enticing rhythmic patterns.  However, he never enters the extreme
pschological of Scriabin as does Alexander Paley who sounds like he's
desperately trapped in a maze; Magaloff only observes the situation.

Of the last two etudes of Opus 65, I'd like to key on the 2nd Etude where
both Magaloff and Greene fail in my estimation.  This is music which has
sensuality meeting an austere and atonal landscape; tension is the result
of the interaction.  Magaloff's projection of both sensuality and a stark
austerity is missing in action; Greene loads up on sensuality but can't
find the austerity.  In both cases, the contrasts are not effective.

Don's Conclusions:  In Parts 1 thru 3, I have reviewed five recordings of
the Scriabin Etudes:  Magaloff, Greene, Paley, Okashiro, and Lane.  From
my perspective, Nikita Magaloff's disc is clearly the most rewarding; his
tension, detail, and vitality are generally at high levels.  However, he's
not the 'last word' in Scriabin, because he rarely digs into the extremes
of Scriabin's psychological makeup.  Essentially, Magaloff does great with
the micro elements of intonatsia but falls a little on the big picture.

For second place, I'd go with Alexander Paley on Naxos.  Although his
sound quality is hardly 'state of the art' and he is not into playing
brilliantly, I do feel that he's more in sync with Scriabin than most
other artists who tackle the repertoire.

Arthur Greene is next with performances tending toward full textures and
sound quality stressing the rich bass.  When the requirements of tension
fall squarely on the lower end of the keyboard, Greene can be outstanding.
However, there are other times when his tension is almost absent and the
performances of little reward.  With his full textures and rich sound,
don't expect to hear much detail from him.

Fourth is Piers Lane who actually might be the best bet for listeners
who simply want to hear some excellent music played in a fetching manner.
Personally, I can't give 'fetching' top priority, but Lane certainly comes
up with smooth performances which easily meet the enjoyment test.  The
problem is that he often reduces the tension which is so important in
Scriabin's music.

Last is Chitose Okahiro who's claim to distinction is interesting and
lively rhythmic patterns.  Unfortunately, she uses Scriabin's notes to
indulge her preferred style of playing.  I find it has little to do with
Scriabin but does provide a good picture of Okashiro.

One fact to keep in mind is that few artists have recorded the complete
Etudes of Scriabin.  'Mixed' discs are the norm which might have a couple
of piano sonatas, etudes, preludes, mazurkas, etc.  to give a varied
program.  However, I do feel that the Etudes are worthy of the 'complete'
status, and the discs above except for Okashiro's are an enjoyable and
illuminating adventure.

As I leave Scriabin's Etudes, the most memorable performance that sticks
out in my mind is Sofronitsky's Opus 2 interpretation.  Although an early
piece, his performance in comparison to others points out the importance
of tension and using the elements of intonatsia to locate Scriabin's
psychological core.

Part 4, which is about half-done, presents four recordings of
Scriabin's Mazurkas:  Marta Deyanova on Nimbus, Beatrice Long on Naxos,
Fergus-Thompson on ASV, and Arthur Pizarro on Collins.  I'll also be using
some other performances from discs of a mixed nature.  Can you guess which
one of the four above doesn't have a clue about mazurkas or Scriabin? The
answer to this question and many others will be forthcoming.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]