I recently obtained a copy of the Samson Francois recording of Chopin's two piano concertos issued as an EMI Great Recording of the Century. The Francois recording has been somewhat controversial with some considering it an absolutely revelatory performance while others think of it as a perverse reading which destroys the poetry of Chopin's conception. Chopin's piano concertos are among the most performed and recorded piano concertos in the classical repertoire. He wrote both of them at a young age, and his orchestrations, although rather simple, blend beautifully with the piano and can add much drama and strength to the works. Chopin's so-called first concerto in E minor Op. 11 was actually composed soon after the F minor Op. 21 which was written in the year 1829 when Chopin graduated from the Elsner Conservatory. The recordings in my survey are: #1 & 2 - Ohlsson/Kord/Warsaw Philharmonic - Arabesque Z6702(1998). #1 & 2 - Argerich/Dutiot/Montreal - EMI 56798(1999). #1 & 2 - Zimerman II/Polish Festival - DG 459684(1999). #1 - Pires/Krivine/Chamber Orch. of Europe - DG 457585(1998). #2 - Pires/Previn/Royal Philharmonic - DG 437817(1994). #1 - Ax/Mackerras/Age of Enlightenment - Sony 60771(1998). #2 - Ax/Mackerras/Age of Enlightenment - Sony 63371(1997). #1 & 2 - Arrau/Inbal/London Philharmonic - Philips 438338(1970). #1 - Perahia/Mehta/NY Philharmonic - Sony 42400(1980). #1 & 2 - Francois/Fremaux/Monte Carlo - EMI 67261(1965). #1 & 2 - Zimerman I/Giulini/LA Philharmonic - DG 415970(1979/80). #1 & 2 - Rubinstein/Skrowaczewski(1), Wallenstein(2) - RCA 5612(1961/58). #1 & 2 - Bachauer/Dorati/London Symphony - Mercury 434374(1963/64). #1 - Pollini/Kletzki/Philharmonia Orchestra - EMI 66221(1960). For this survey, I'm breaking with my custom of listening exclusively on headphones and switching to my great B & W speakers. There's a lot of powerful music in these concertos, so I'm going with my most powerful equipment. Also, I won't be referring again to the concertos by number, just F minor and E minor, and I'll start with the F minor concerto. F minor Concerto First Movement(Maestoso) - This first movement is superb music-making. It has power, drive, momentum, tenderness, lyricism, and poetry to die for. The orchestral contributions tend to be subservient to the solo instrument, but there are certainly passages where the orchestra's weight and drive are crucial. Concerning the orchestral contributions, I find them important and highly enjoyable except for the orchestral coda which is rather lame and uneventful. Ohlsson's first movement is a joy to listen to. His is a very beautiful reading of great poetry, clocking in at 14'30". The pacing is excellent and the orchestra well supports Ohlsson. I find this a highly mainstream reading with superb piano sound. It is a little lacking in drama and power, both pianist and orchestra. Argerich, although a minute faster than Ohlsson, seems like a longer performance. That's because Argerich is too soft-focused at times, and this inclination makes the reading drag. There are even moments when the piano sound tends to dissolve. Also, there's a "glassy" element to the high piano notes. These problems wouldn't seem very significant if Argerich gave a special performance, but she gives an ordinary one. Unfortunately, Argerich's first movement does not meet any high standards. Zimerman II is outstanding; his reading takes 15'33" and it's packed with superb orchestral drive/power and sensational piano playing from Zimerman. He has all the power lacking in Ohlsson's reading and superb poetry and tenderness as well. Just check out the thrilling solo piano passage starting at 4'34" - it's revelatory and a good example of what Zimerman brings to this movement. The only reservation I have is that Zimerman momentarily softens the orchestra at 41" and 51" into the movement. That's a bad time for such a decision as it robs the opening of some of its momentum. Otherwise, I consider this performance a piece of perfection. Zimerman I has much to offer also at a relatively fast speed (14'5"). This is an urgent performance with Giulini delivering outstanding direction. Zimerman is not quite as poetic as in his subsequent effort, but he's very good. What tips the scales in favor of Zimerman II is its better overall sound; also, the piano sound in the earlier recording, as was typical of the period, has a slight "ping" which does detract from the total experience. The Bachauer version substitutes a "glassy" sound for the ping and has considerable hiss. Bachauer is not particularly lyrical or tender; nor is she very exciting. The saving grace of this performance is Dorati whose direction is powerful and magnetic; pace is moderate at 14'33". Although not on a high level, Bachauer's version does surpass the Argerich; every note comes through clearly. The Rubinstein version has a slight hiss and the orchestral sound is a little boxy, but those are minor sound blemishes with Wallenstein and Rubinstein at the helm. The performance is a fast one at 13'15", but Wallenstein provides outstanding weight, poetry, drama, and pacing while the Symphony of the Air glides magnificently through the music. Rubinstein is the master of Chopin's lyricism and tenderness; it is a privilege to listen to him as he digs into the very soul of the kinder and gentler side of Chopin. But, I can't say that Rubinstein is special when power and excitement are required. Overall, this version is on the level of Ohlsson and Zimerman I. Arrau is the flip-side of Rubinstein in that he is thrilling in the more dramatic and urgent music but not quite tender enough in the softer passages. Inbal and the London Philharmonic provide excellent support. Speed is moderate, and sound quality is superb for 1970 and current time as well. This is a very exciting interpretation as good as Zimerman I. Pires and Previn are a class act throughout the movement. Both Pires and Ohlsson are great mainstream versions - average speeds, great sound, highly poetic, and providing a sufficient level of excitement. I was very impressed with Previn's urgency and violins. Pires, however, does not scale the heights as profoundly as Zimerman II, Rubinstein, or Arrau. Ax and Mackerras deliver a very special performance. Theirs is the only surveyed version on period instruments, and it makes a big difference (not totally favorable). The orchestra sounds fantastic; detail among the instruments is heightened, and Mackerras gets every last ounce of drama out of the music. The orchestral contributions exceed those of any other version, and Ax with his 1851 London Erard is so heart-felt and beautiful in the slower/softer passages. However, be it Ax himself or his instrument, there is some lack of power and resonance in his performance. On balance, this is a version of the first movement to treasure as much as Zimerman II. At a similarly high level is the Francois reading. There isn't much point in reporting whether he's poetic or exciting. The primary factors are how individual, dynamic, and flowing his intepretation is. His is certainly the most interesting performance, and he never makes a bad decision. For what it's worth, his poetry matches that of Ax and Rubinstein. Fremaux is also excellent, and the orchestra sounds superb. In fact, the recorded sound is fantastic for 1967. Excepting for Bachauer and Argerich, every version is either highly rewarding or exceptional (Francois, Ax, Zimerman II). Bachauer is slightly better than Argerich, and that's the doing of Dorati. Don Satz [log in to unmask]