Concerto in E minor(Allegro maestoso) - The first movement is very long
at about 20 minutes.  I think that the hardest aspect of performing this
movement well is to maintain the listener's interest throughout the piece.
Interest is not something that can simply be shut off then brought back to
life later in the performance; once it leaves, it can be very hard to get
it back.

The E minor first movement is similar to the F minor in that poetry,
lyricism, tenderness, urgency drama, excitement, and forward momentum all
have to be well conveyed for the performance to be excellent.  I do think
that Chopin displays greater orchestral inspiration in the E minor; I
particularly enjoy the stretching of the violins in the dramatic orchestral
passages.

Ohlsson/Kord is partially successful.  Kord starts off in a routine manner
but quickly gets out of the gate to provide excellent orchestral support.
Ohlsson is great in the softer/tender passages but doesn't really provide
much excitement when called for.  Overall, I feel it's a performance that
takes flight sporadically, not consistently.  So, there's plenty of room
for improvement.

I expected that Francois' performance would fill most of the distance
upward from Ohlsson's reading.  But, that distance wasn't covered at all.
In fact, I preferred Ohlsson.  Francois, although creative in the F minor
first movement, did not provide an interpretation that was beyond a
reasonable boundary.  Things change with the E minor.  Here is where
Francois significantly engages in unspecified tempo changes, and it sounds
as if he actually alters and/or adds his own notes.  Does it work? Yes,
from the point of view that it sounds different and interesting at first
blush; however much of it does not wear well with time.  Also, Fremaux and
his orchestra appear to have some trouble keeping up with the Francois
regimen, having insufficient knowledge of what he will do next.  The
clincher is that Fremaux takes a beautiful and heart-felt orchestral
passage at 1'39" into the movement and drains it of feeling.  Overall,
I don't think that the performance hangs together well at all.

Pollini/Kletzki deliver an outstanding performance.  Kletzki and the
Philharmonia Orchestra are superb, displaying the full measure of the
music's poetry, tenderness, urgency, and excitement in a highly classical
performance.  As for Pollini, his tenderness and urgency are perfect, but
I would have liked him to generate a little more excitement.  The best
feature of the performance is that it never drags and easily holds my
interest throughout.  This is a special interpretation which still leaves
a little room for improvement.  Recorded sound is very good.  I often read
that Pollini is "cold" and does not dig into the heart of many works.
That's not the case with his performance in this movement.  The warmth
of his reading shines through consistently with a deep glow.

Zimerman I is excellent.  Giulini does a great job, but I think he's
a little too slow at times compared to Kletzki; also, the EMI sound is
clearer than that for DG.  Zimerman generates a little more excitement than
Pollini, but his level of poetry and urgency, although fine, can't match
Pollini.  Not a special version, but a highly rewarding one.

Bachauer's version has much to offer.  She's very poetic and gives a
beautiful and romantic reading.  However, she employs a relative lack of
power in the stronger passages.  Dorati is excellent - a finely chiseled
performance.  He and Bachauer work fairly well together, although their
conceptions are not identical.  Also, Dorati speeds up the tempo suddenly
at 1'14" into the movement; I think it's an odd decision which only
detracts from the performance.  The sound is not the same as in the F minor
Concerto (different year, different equipment, same place).  The strong
hiss is now absent and overall sound definitely better.  So there are some
great aspects to this version and some which are not good at all.  If the
poetry of the music is the prime attraction, Bachauer is a fine choice.

The Pires version is special and as good as Pollini's although quite
different.  It's a very expansive and often dream-like reading with Pires
and Krivine in perfect union in conception and execution.  The sound is
fantastic and allows for great instrumental detail.  Pires gives me
everything I could want except for that last ounce of excitement.

Arrau's version takes as long as Pires but doesn't have an expansive
quality; that's mainly due to Inbal who seems plodding at times.  But Arrau
more than makes up for any orchestral lackings; his performance is amply
poetic, very exciting, and displays a mastery of the keyboard.  Overall,
I consider it on the level of Zimerman I.

Perahia joins Arrau and Zimerman with an impressive performance.  I
wrote "soft and gentle" often while listening, and that's the prevailing
perception I have of Perahia's performance.  He does it beautifully,
although it lessens some of the music's urgency.  But, in one of the most
urgent passages at 11'37", Perahia lets loose with a dynamic volley of
great impact.  I thought Mehta was fine but not distinguished.  The sound
is great, but I should note that Perahia does not sound forward of the
orchestra - he's blended in with the other instruments.  That likely would
not be favorable for many listeners.

Ax and Mackerras left me unmoved, a performance I admire from a distance.
This surprised me so I went back to their splendid F minor first movement
to figure out what's going on.  Although the recording venue is the same,
the sound for the F minor is rich and very clear, that for the E minor is
relatively thick and homogenized.  This affects not only the orchestra; the
playful and delightful playing in the E minor now doesn't have the sparkle
it did.  I feel this version is heavy and earth-bound, and that the sound
doesn't bring out the advantages of period instruments.  I should point out
that none of the reviews I have read mentioned any sound differences
between the two recordings, but they are immediately apparent to this
listener.

The Argerich first movement led me to revisit her F minor first movement
also, because I really enjoyed her E minor.  Going back, I feel that the
liberties she takes with articulation, phrasing, dynamics, and tempo in the
F minor are generally distracting and retard the flow of the music.  Her
creative decisions in the E minor are much more to my liking.  I can't give
the reading a best recommendation as I still have problems with the piano
sound, and there are times when Argerich is too strong for my tastes and
goes "over the top"; however, her performance is a stimulating and
distinctive one.  Dutoit acquits himself very well.

I was very interested in listening to Zimerman II's first movement because
of his more than 23 minute reading; every other version is less than 21
minutes with a few under 20 minutes.  Zimerman II's version sometimes
seemed like it would last a lot longer than 23 minutes, and it was often
very effective.  But the slow downs and pauses he works into his piano
interpretation to good effect are somewhat debilitating when he does the
same with the orchestra.  Just listen to the first minute, and you'll have
a fine idea what's in store for you.  Enough of the negatives.  There are
many occasions when the orchestra and the pianist are incisive, urgent,
exciting, very playful, and beautifully poetic.  For me, it's a roller
coaster ride with the best highs and a few lows.  It's certainly one of the
most unusual performances I've heard along with Francois, and Zimerman is
much more successful than Francois.

The best aspect of the Rubinstein first movement is Skrowaczewski and
the New Symphony Orchestra of London - an outstanding straight ahead
performance.  Rubinstein is very good, but I felt that he was a little
stingy with putting his emotions into the music.

The best first movements come from Pires and Pollini; theirs are
exceptional readings with outstanding orchestral support.  Argerich, both
Zimermans, Rubinstein, Arrau, and Perahia are highly rewarding issues.  The
Ohlsson and Bachauer versions are enjoyable.  I think that Ax and Francois
are not very successful; the Ax version is short on exuberance, and
Francois makes many dubious interpretive decisions.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]