Frederic Chopin(1810-1849)
     Twenty-One Nocturnes

The association between Frederic Chopin and the Nocturne is so strong
that it is often forgotten that this genre was inspired by Chopin's Irish
predeecessor John Fields who wrote eighteen nocturnes before he drank
himself to death in 1837.  Of course, Chopin elicted a much wider range of
dynamics and emotional themes into his nocturnes than Field could possibly
manage.

Just what is a nocturne? Essentially, it is a musical piece to be played
At night and/or evocative of the night; it does not have to be composed
during the night, although the night atmosphere might add to the composer's
inspiration.  Chopin's Nocturnes tend to be slow, highly lyrical, and
supremely poignant.  One interesting aspect of Chopin's twenty-one
nocturnes is that the last one based on Opus number was actually the first
Chopin ever composed, once again proving that opus numbers and dates do not
always have a positive correlation.

The typical structure of a Chopin nocturne is in three parts with the
second part providing the contrast.  The concept generally involves a
dream-like melody over a broad accompaniment relying on the use of the
sustaining pedal.  They tend not to be virtuosic, although the C minor
Nocturne of Opus 48 is Lisztian in nature.  Also, they are not very
adventurous.  However, you can't find more beautiful music in the world,
and many of the themes in Chopin's Nocturnes are famous even outside the
classical music community.

Chopin's twenty-one Nocturnes are arrranged as follows: Opus 9(3), Opus
15(3), Opus 27(2), Opus 32(2), Opus 37(2), Opus 48(2), Opus 55(2), Opus
62(2), Opus 72(1), and Opus Posth.(2).

For Part 1, the following 11 recordings are reviewed:

Claudio Arrau........Complete - Philips 456336(1978)
Vladimir Ashkenazy...Complete - London 452579(1970's/80's)
Daniel Barenboim.....Complete - Deutsche Grammophon 453022(1981)
Sandor Falvay........14 of 21 - Amadis 7130(1989)
Dame Moura Lympany...19 of 21 - Dutton 9715(1960)
Ivan Moravec.........19 of 21 - Nonesuch 79233(1965)
Maria Joao Pires.....Complete - Deutsche Grammophon 447096(1996)
Arthur Rubinstein....16 of 21 - Classica D'oro 3011(1936/37)
Arthur Rubinstein....19 of 21 - RCA 63026(1949/50)
Arthur Rubinstein....19 of 21 - RCA 63049(1965)
Maria Tipo...........Complete - EMI 55073(1993/94)

These versions should present a very high level of performance standards;
I've stacked the deck here with a combination of wonderful interpretations
and those which have received much praise.

I have just a couple of admin.  notes before starting the review.
Concerning the Rubinstein performances from the 1930's, I obtained the
Classica D'oro instead of the RCA, even though the RCA has more nocturnes.
Pricing was the reason, and I realize that the Classica D'oro sound is
likely not as fine as the RCA.  However, I have been well satisfied with
the sound on the Classica D'oro discs I've bought to date.  The second note
is that all of the reviewed versions are in print excepting for the Maria
Tipo set which occupies the used disc compartments in record stores.  It's
now time for Opus 9:

Opus 9, No. 1 in B flat minor - All it takes is one listen to the B flat
minor to know that Chopin was an "All-Star" musical genius.  I don't know
how he came up with such strings of magical melodies, but only Mozart holds
a candle to Chopin in that aspect.  The themes emanating from the upper
keyboard possess great melancholy and depth of emotion, while the left
hand gives us a six-note accompaniment that's insistent, pervasive, and
tightens/lengthens the despair.

The liner notes to the Amadis disc say nothing about Sandor Falvay, but
his B flat minor does more than hold its own with the competition.  Whether
tender or emphatic, Falvay has command of the music.  Compared to Lympany,
he is very insistent, gritty, and more in the soul of the real world than
a dream.  Lympany takes me on a sublime journey not possible on Earth; her
poetry is stunning and her climaxes natural and perfectly balanced with
the rest of the piece.  Falvay's sound is fine except for having little
atmosphere, and Lympany's has a slight hiss and lacks some crispness.
There's nothing in either soundstage to detract from such exceptional
readings.

We can add Daniel Barenboim's among the best versions of the B flat minor.
Although I feel that he plays a little too softly at times, there's always
a fine sense of tension.  The best moments are the climaxes where Barenboim
lets his hair down and dives into the core of inner turmoil.  Dynamic range
is very wide, and contrasts are enhanced.  Ashkenazy's performance is also
exceptional with an abundance of stunning nuances and emotional depth.

In dynamics and contrasts, Claudio Arrau is even more expansive than
Barenboim.  He goes from hushed to highly demonstrative utterances with
the greatest of ease, and the urgency he injects is at peak levels.
Arrau's six-note accompaniment is the most pronounced of the nine versions,
and I think it would be fair to think of the overall reading as coming from
one in total command of the idiom and structure.

Maria Tipo gives one of the slowest interpretations on record, but she
always is well projected.  Further, her climaxes are stunning, and the
Entire reading highly inspirational.  This is a superb performance with
a great mix of contemplation and drama.

I am smitten with the Pires version which has wide dynamics, fantastic
transitioning to climaxes, and a bass line that's pervasive and creates
much impact.  More than from any of the other performances, I feel a story
is being conveyed to me.

Ivan Moravec goes well beyond Barenboim in employing the 'soft' approach,
and I feel he crosses the line.  Although there are numerous exceptional
touches to Moravec's reading, he's simply too relaxed for relatively long
periods of time with a resulting loss of urgency.

That leaves the trio of Rubinstein performances, and the earliest one most
wins my affection; the other two do not possess the tension and vitality of
the first which is quicker and more urgent in its messages.

With Barenboim, Falvay, Ashkenazy, Tipo, Lympany, Pires, Arrau, and
the first Rubinstein very much on my mind, I listened to each a few
more times to see if any of them would most win my heart.  An affirmative
result was obtained, and Lympany and Pires take first position.  If
anything, I enjoyed both of them more as the listenings increased.  First
and foremost, the music is gorgeous, and Lympany's is the most beautiful
version of the nine.  At the same time, she doesn't stint one bit on the
build-up and glorious release of tension and energy.  Every moment of
Lympany's transcendent reading lingers in the memory, including the
intervals.  Pires is more demonstrative and urgent, and she conveys these
qualities with perfection and quite a bit of diversity.

Opus 9, No. 2 in E flat major - Highly sentimental music likely Chopin's
most famous nocturne.  From my view, it needs to be draped with rhythmic
vitality and some effective changes in tempo and dynamics.  Otherwise, the
piece is too sleepy, subdued, and maudlin.  There are certainly wonderful
climaxes, but most of the music is soft-grained; the question is how softly
to play it.

Three of our pianists unfortunately do take the subdued approach with
somewhat boring rhythms devoid of sufficient lift: Barenboim, Lympany, and
Moravec.  Lympany is particularly linear and without much in the way of
angles; Moravec, as in his B flat minor performance, is not sufficiently
animated.  The common element in these three performances is some lack of
engergy and lift.

Maria Tipo takes the E flat major at a very slow tempo with a constant
regimen of hesitations.  Given the approach, the importance of the
intervals is critical since empty space can lead to a loss of
concentration.  Tipo only gives us empty intervals, and my attention
definitely was impacted.

Those Rubinsteins are here again, and the most recent is far more subdued
than the two earlier ones.  Yes, the playing is gorgeous and structurally
compelling, but I want a more energetic approach.

Sandor Falvay has a novel approach.  Why nuance your way through the music,
when you can bully on through? His levels of urgency are off the charts,
and that's oppositional to much of the music's nature.  Yet, I do enjoy
the performance.  It may be bigger than life and on the austere side, but
Falvay creates impact.

The versions from Pires, Arrau, Ashkenazy, and the two Rubinsteins are the
preferred performances; each presents the nocturne as vital music without
disturbing the inherent poetry and beauty.  Upon further reflection, my
favorites are the 'middle' Rubinstein and Ashkenazy.  Surprisingly, this
Rubinstein version is quicker and even more energized than the earliest
one.

It's brimming with life's juices, and has accenting/articulation to die
for.  Ashkenazy's approaches a perfect reading; it's the most lovely, has
great pacing, articulation is stimulating, and proportions are beautifully
balanced.

Update: Since he's the least known of our sixteen pianists, I thought
I'd start with Sandor Falvay.  Mr. Falvey certainly has been a tower
of strength as he drives Chopin's music forward with great vigor and
determination.  Of course, Chopin offers much more than urgency and
determination.  Falvay's approach which worked so well in the 1st Nocturne
doesn't pay as many benefits in the generally softer 2nd Nocturne.  If
Falvay continues playing as in the first two nocturnes, he will likely have
quite a few 'hits and misses'.  Although a lighter touch is defintely in
order, what Falvay does offer is quite distinctive and he presents it very
well.  Those preferring a much softer approach to Chopin would likely not
care for his disc, unless some change comes over him in the ensuing
nocturnes.

Concerning Ivan Moravec, I am well aware of the high standing his recording
of the Nocturnes has among reviewers, critics, and Chopin enthusiasts.  But
at this point, I have to take a different view.  There's so little life to
his readings of the initial nocturnes.  Soft, delicate, and lovely are what
Moravec is giving me, and the effect is not invigorating, inspirational, or
illuminating.

One more item.  Seems to me that some of the performances approach Chopin
without appreciable lift or zest.  I find this approach earth-bound, and I
can't believe that Chopin would have wanted his music somewhat drained of
life.

Opus 9, No. 3 in B major - Draining some of the life out of Chopin's
music continues to be problematic with the B major.  Although a few of the
versions supply a vital demeanor, some just tend to drag along in a most
linear fashion.  This piece also has a middle section of great tension and
desperation which needs to strongly be conveyed through the middle and
lower voices.

Lympany has no problem with vitality, but her trills in the first section
really bug me; they are too pronounced and diffuse.  Further, her second
section has a weak bass line and little desperation.  Falvay joins Lympany
on the bottom rung with a performance of insufficient nuance and a
surprisingly weak second section which should have played into his
strengths.

Barenboim is a 'life drainer' in the B major's first section, but I can't
deny that it's a gorgeous reading.  Add in a very tense second section, and
Barenboim's performance has much to offer.  I find that Pires and Ashkenazy
share the same conception as Barenboim and execute equally well.

Moravec doesn't drain life out of the first section; he starts out without
a heart-beat.  His second section is better, but not by much as the tension
is only moderate.

Tipo is even slower than Moravec and tops the eight-minute mark.  However,
her accenting is alive, while Moravec's is sleepy.  At a very slow pace,
Tipo allows us to savor the music.

Rubinstein '65' has a rhythmically vital first section, but is far too
sedate in the second.  Switch to his first two performances, and the
desperation is at fever pitch.

The best three versions come from Arrau and the first two Rubinsteins.
These three have interesting rhythms which are vital, and 'killer' second
sections with churning voices.  The Rubinstein performances are quite
Similar to one another and take an aristocratic and strong focused view
of the music.  Arrau is the more expansive and romantically inclined.

Update: A clear pattern has emerged up to this point with five versions
taking the lead: Pires, Arrau, Ashkenazy, and the two first Rubinstein
recordings.  Each treats Chopin's music as both life giving and reflecting.
Moravec has only been reflecting; Falvay steers clear of reflection.

Rubinstein's performances from the 1960's have been much more subdued than
the earlier ones and suffer for it.  It appears than Tipo will be the slow
one of the group, and she is often illuminating as a result.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]