Chopin Recordings

[George]

Which Chopinists bring out the tensions between the different voices most imaginatively? I'm most interested in the solo piano music.

Not sure about "most" imaginatively, but Gekic's full set of the Etudes seems to fit the bill well, as does many of Cortot, Cherkassky and Moiseiwitsch's recordings. Sorry, on the last three I don't have any specific recordings I can cite.

[Mandryka]

You're all thinking of which voice leads, but that's just one aspect, maybe the least interesting aspect.

You can give each line its own rubato, so that the voices have really distinct characters, sometimes acting to support each other, sometimes one voice seeming to hold another back or push another forward. That's the sort of thing that I was wondering about in Chopin. That's what I was thinking about when I said play  the counterpoint "imaginatively". That's what Vatalij Margulis is starting to do op 10/2 and elsewhere.

Most Chopinists seem to play the music like a Schubert song. One voice is (mostly)  the dominant one -- the one where the tune is. That's the analogue of the human singer in the Schubert song. And the other voices, even though they may have melodically independent material, rhythmically they all follow the main voice. It doesn't have to be like that does it?

[aquablob]

Most Chopinists seem to play the music like a Schubert song. One voice is (mostly)  the dominant one -- the one where the tune is. That's the analogue of the human singer in the Schubert song. And the other voices, even though they may have melodically independent material, rhythmically they all follow the main voice. It doesn't have to be like that does it?

I'd say that there's good evidence that that's what the composer intended, but no, it certainly doesn't have to be like that. I hope you get some answers from more seasoned listeners, because it's an interesting question.

[kishnevi]

You're all thinking of which voice leads, but that's just one aspect, maybe the least interesting aspect.

You can give each line it's own rubato, so that the voices have really distinct characters, sometimes acting to support each other, sometimes one voice seeming to hold another back or push another forward. That's the sort of thing that I was wondering about in Chopin. That's what I was thinking about when I said play  the counterpoint "imaginatively". That's what Vatalij Margulis is starting to do op 10/2 and elsewhere.

Most Chopinists seem to play the music like a Schubert song. One voice is (mostly)  the dominant one -- the one where the tune is. That's the analogue of the human singer in the Schubert song. And the other voices, even though they may have melodically independent material, rhythmically they all follow the main voice. It doesn't have to be like that does it?

Vladimir Horowitz once said that Mozart should be played as if it was Chopin, and Chopin should be played as it was Mozart, so he obviously thought "it doesn't have to be like that".

[Mandryka]

Here's a taxonomy of contrapuntal textures  I found on this board, based mostly on a post by Jochanaan. It may be interesting to seem what you find in Chopin.

Homophony:  Two or more musical  lines playing in unison, with the same rhythmic values

Polyphony:  Two or more musical lines of about the same prominence with differing rhythms. 

Monody:  Two or more musical lines, one of which clearly dominates.

Heterophony:  Two or more musical lines, sometimes accompanied by others, one of which is a variation of the other. 

Polyrhythm:  Beyond mere polyphony, involving two rhythms that conflict with each other, or seem to. 

Polythematic texture:  Again beyond polyphony in the sense that each musical line is a theme in its own right. 

Polytonality:  Two clear "keys" are played at the same time and neither dominates the other.

[aquablob]

Here's a taxonomy of contrapuntal textures  I found on this board, based mostly on a post by Jochanaan. It may be interesting to seem what you find in Chopin.

Homophony:  Two or more musical  lines playing in unison, with the same rhythmic values

Polyphony:  Two or more musical lines of about the same prominence with differing rhythms. 

Monody:  Two or more musical lines, one of which clearly dominates.

This is all kind of beside the point, but words for texture infuriate me to no end, because musicologists use them so inconsistently!

"Monody" is sometimes used as a synonym for "monophony" (one unaccompanied melodic line), but it's most commonly used to describe a specific style of accompanied song that was popular in Italy in the early Baroque, a style that had a lot to do with the origins of opera. It's a confusing term.

The definition you've given for "homophony" is one of two common definitions for it, but there's already an unambiguous word for that one (homorhythm). The other definition is what you've labeled monody: main melody + accompaniment.

Polyphony can either mean "multiple parts are present" or it can be used as a synonym for counterpoint, meaning "multiple relatively independent parts are present."

It's all such a confusing mess! Here's the terminology I use when I teach music fundamentals to undergrads:


Monophony: one unaccompanied melodic line

  -Heterophony: multiple performers playing the same monophonic line at the same time but not in exactly the same way (extremely uncommon in Western classical music)

Polyphony: multiple simultaneous lines

  -Counterpoint: polyphony where the lines have a high degree of independence (i.e., none of the lines stands out as the "main melody")

  -Homophony: polyphony where one of the lines does stand out as the "main melody"

  -Homorhythm: polyphony where all parts have more-or-less the same rhythm


I emphasize to my students that not all of these categories are mutually exclusive. For instance, within a homophonic texture, the "accompaniment" can range from simple homorhythm to intricate counterpoint. This leaves ample room for me to teach in-between situations like secondary "obbligato" lines in homophonic music of the Classical era (i.e., lines that are subservient to the "main melody" but more prominent than the rest of the accompaniment) and the chromatically adventurous accompaniments in Romantic piano music by Chopin and Schumann.

I do teach them that within the context of Western classical music, they'll often hear "polyphony" used as a synonym for "counterpoint." And I warn them that they might encounter the other definition of "homophony" (i.e., homorhythm).

I reserve "monody" for the aforementioned historical genre.

[Mandryka]

Thanks for those definitions. I need to think about what you're saying.

One record which I think is clear and sensitive and imaginative about the relationships between the voices  is Samson François playing sonata 3. I started listening to Gould playing the sonata, but it just didn't seem a very enjoyable performance to hear, and then stumbled across this one from François by accident. I shall have to listen to more Samson François now that I've become interested in Chopn's counterpoint.

I also listened to Gekic playing the first few op 25, as per George's suggestion. But it 's not quite what I'm looking for right now from the music.

[aquablob]

In a paper called "Chopin in Performance," James Methuen-Campbell wrote this (emphasis added):

Of [Theodor] Leschetizky's pupils one can include a [great] number who achieved fame as Chopin pianists: the Poles Ignacy Paderewski, Ignaz Friedman and Józef Śliwiński[,] the Russians Ossip Gabrilowitsch, Mark Hambourg, Benno Moiseiwitsch and Alexander Brailowsky and the American Fannie Bloomfield-Zeisler.

As was the case with the Liszt pupils, many of the Leschetizky students were great individualists, and as such one should not look for a consistency of artistic vision in their playing. However, a highly developed appreciation of and attention to the polyphonic life of Chopin's music does establish some common ground, as does a profoundly mellow and soulful use of tone. The former characteristic is more regularly noticeable here than in the Liszt pupils.

He also mentions Josef Hofmann: "In various discs taken from concerts of the late 1930s one hears playing that is wilfully original in its obsession with balancing right- and left-hand parts. Carefully selected notes of the accompaniment are brought out to grotesque, though tantalizing, effect (e.g. in the Berceuse and the Eb minor Polonaise, Op. 26 No. 2)."

So it might be worth seeking out recordings by those old pianists if you're interested in hearing the "polyphonic life" of the music brought out. (And if you do, you can report back and tell us if the above descriptions seem accurate to you.)

[Mandryka]

In a paper called "Chopin in Performance," James Methuen-Campbell wrote this (emphasis added):

He also mentions Josef Hofmann: "In various discs taken from concerts of the late 1930s one hears playing that is wilfully original in its obsession with balancing right- and left-hand parts. Carefully selected notes of the accompaniment are brought out to grotesque, though tantalizing, effect (e.g. in the Berceuse and the Eb minor Polonaise, Op. 26 No. 2)."

So it might be worth seeking out recordings by those old pianists if you're interested in hearing the "polyphonic life" of the music brought out. (And if you do, you can report back and tell us if the above descriptions seem accurate to you.)

Well when I've listened to some these pianists before I haven't really been struck by interesting relationships among the voices just because they are often about maximising beauty. I would say that's even true for major recordings like Ignaz Friedman's Op 55 / 2 nocturne. Yes it's wonderfully balanced, but I don't think you get a sense of musical lines interacting. Same for Mark Hambourg's op 55 /1. Others may hear things very differently. And what I'm looking for may not exist anyway, at least in the music they recorded.

Hofmann's Chopin I hardly know, I should say. Some of the others didn't leave very much on record.

But one thing which IS interesting is Leschetizky's own recording of op 27/2. It's a Welte Mignon roll, and I don't know enough to comment on how truthful it is. But I do think it is fascinating as a performance, truthful or not,  from the point of view of counterpoint at least. I remember once have the shocking experience of playing Leschetizky and Moravec side by side. Leschetizky almost gives equal prominence to all the voices - an idea which is familiar to people who are interested in baroque.

You know, all this could indicate that I'm just not really a great lover of Chopin's art. I'm close to saying I'm more interested in it played on a piano roll machine than on a concert grand 

https://www.youtube.com/v/YQY7ZVnKfI4

[Mandryka]

This is Charles Rosen's recording of mazurkas. From the point of view of voicing, this is maybe the most revealing recording I've heard. It's now on symphonyshare.

[Brian]

For a good time, compare the sound clips from these two new recordings of the Chopin preludes. It's fascinating. I don't think two performances could be more starkly different. Ingrid Fliter is slow, "standard," her performance wistful and a little nostalgic, if sometimes soggy. Andrew Tyson, by contrast, is speedy, staccato, and often willfully bizarre. Check out Prelude No. 2, where he obsesses over a single note until it pings out with the relentlessness of a machine. Or the almost exact opposite ways they phrase the first prelude, giving it two entirely different melodies. My favorite prelude, the microscopically tiny No. 7 in A, is a haunting question mark for Fliter; it sounds like a person appearing on the horizon, not knowing where they're going, and wandering off again into the heat. Tyson's No. 7 is more like little girls being given waltzing lessons which they don't quite understand.

Anyway, try it. It's not boring.

[Brian]

Following the death of his beloved wife, always-interesting pianist David Wilde sprouted a mammoth beard and recorded a new Chopin recital, dedicated to her memory.



The program includes some remarkable track timings!

Fantaisie in F minor... 16:04

Sonata No. 2 in B flat minor
8:38
7:07
12:33 (!!!!)
1:47

Also included: the 'Heroic' polonaise, 'Raindrop' prelude, and Nocturnes Opp. 9/2 and 27.

My MusicWeb review copy just arrived. I can't wait to hear it!

[Brian]

Cross-posting from Listening thread:



Well, damn. This is the most intensely personal, idiosyncratic Chopin recital I've heard in a long, long time. Recorded at the age of 80, immediately after the death of David Wilde's wife, the album shows many of the stages of mourning: there's sorrow, acceptance, and even anger in Wilde's playing.

And there's also extraordinary strangeness. His wife's death caused Wilde to veer into the territory of Pogorelich or Michel Block, stretching everything out to heavenly or hellish lengths. The Sonata No. 2, which lasts over 30 minutes, is anchored by a 12:33 funeral march which Wilde basically rewrites, adding shockingly loud and powerful bass reinforcements, and adopting Rachmaninov's habit of returning to the march, after the trio, playing ffff.

Surely not something everybody will like, so out of the ordinary is it, but this is the kind of recital that really gives you something to think about, and something to feel. At any rate, Wilde's Chopin is a billion times more engaging than most of today's young virtuosos seem capable of.

[Moonfish]

Any thoughts on Leonskaja's "Nocturnes"?

[asin] B000000SA7[/asin]

[Leo K.]

So I've adopted a fairly weird scattergun approach, of acquiring a variety of different artists' recordings so that each time I listened to a particular group of Nocturnes, or Preludes, or Walzes, etc, I could listen to a different interpretation - hopefully building up acquaintance with the music, rather than with some particular interpretation of it. And I'm trying not to attach too much weight to those that I think are emerging as my 'favourite' interpretations; but instead, give those a rest  in favour of others. For instance, one evening recently I listened to three successive recordings of the Nocturne Op.15 no.1, by Pires, Ashkenazy, and Leonskaja, expecting Pires (by reputation) to blow the others out of the water. Not so. Or at least, while Pires seemed to be offering liquid gold, Ashkenazy and Leonskaja were each offering, in their different ways, something less obviously glistening but still treasure nonetheless.

I'm not in a position yet to be able to articulate some of these differences in words, but I must say I'm enjoying this new multi-recording approach, and hope to make further comments here as my listening proceeds.

This is exactly how I've been exploring Chopin now and it's an amazing journey. SO many amazing performances. I finally finished all the pages in this thread and it's been a great help. Aces!

[Leo K.]

I've been enjoying this disk of Lympany's account of the Nocturnes. The tone has a subtle touch - nothing too soft but rhythmically driving forward, perhaps too fast for some. 

[George]

I've been enjoying this disk of Lympany's account of the Nocturnes. The tone has a subtle touch - nothing too soft but rhythmically driving forward, perhaps too fast for some.

Hmm....I'll have to keep an eye out for that one.

[Leo K.]

I'm so glad I checked out William Kapell's Mazurkas (which I first read about in this thread). Wow!



Another revelation is Sergio Fiorentino:



I can't even begin to describe his Chopin - it's radiant. Wow!

[Leo K.]

I've been enjoying Stanislav Bunin's Chopin, of which I've collected four disks. The albums above contain fantastic Chopin. His fingers seem to play the music through an abstracted lens, kaleidoscopic with angles and strong turns and nuanced phrasing. His playing captures my imagination. Aces!

[Leo K.]

There's nothing wrong with revealing great technique if you have it (which Lisitsa has in spades). I've never seen her on YouTube, I just happened to read a review and I'm now enjoying her account of the Etudes. I can't wait to hear the Schumann Symphonic Etudes next. Some very breathtaking nuances in the playing and a feeling of carefree confidence that work well with the Etudes. Aces!