Chopin's Nocturnes in the best possible sound?

[Holden]

Listening to Op 9/1 and tempo seems to be an issue. He starts Largo (maybe even Lento) as opposed to Larghetto, brings it up to the prescribed tempo then slows down again. His pace in the middle section is also variable. What will become slightly annoying I think is that he speeds up as the dynamic level rises and does the reverse as it lowers again. That's amateur stuff! This nocturne is my first yardstick when I'm evaluating a complete set and Lisiecki doesn't pass muster on this one.

Op 27/2 is another yardstick, can you play it slowly and still keep the piece moving forward. Many pianists choose a slightly faster tempo to get around this issue and can make it work. Lisiecki comes close but at 90 seconds slower than either Solomon or Lipatti has he overcooked it? There is also a wide dynamic range but some of the dynamics don't seem apt for the work. 

Op 48/1 is possibly the one of the best things Chopin ever wrote and is my third point of measure. He misses the point by not bringing out the left hand in the opening bars. This is what characterises this work making it sound very dark which it should be for a C minor key. Once again there are tempo fluctuations and though they work in the main they don't for the second section which sounds a little bit strange.

Finally to Op 55/1 which is my favourite nocturne. I learned to play it at a very young age because it's quite simple. And that's what makes this work so hard to really bring off - making it sound simple. And this is what Lisiecki does - he keeps it simple in the main and it works really well. No awkward tempo fluctuations, just playing the ritards and accelerandos where they are indicated. Well done here.

A few other points. He employs a wide dynamic range at times which can work very well with these works if used correctly. No overuse of rubato gets him some good marks from me and I would rather listen to him than pianists who do this and ruin the flow of the works.

Is it better than Rubinstein or Moravec - not even close but it's still a good recording and I can see people liking it. There are some fine oments and the DG sound is very good.

[amw]

Op 27/2 is another yardstick, can you play it slowly and still keep the piece moving forward. Many pianists choose a slightly faster tempo to get around this issue and can make it work.

Always worth noting that Chopin's prescribed tempo for the nocturne is dotted crotchet = 50. Allowing for some tempo flexibility, that's roughly a three to three and a half minute nocturne; playing slowly is the opposite of what you're supposed to do. (A similar problem exists for the Etude op. 10/6, and to a lesser degree pieces like the Mazurka op. 17/4 etc.) If it's hard to make it work when playing it slowly, that's... kind of the point.

[Brian]

Also Op. 10/3 I think?

Totally a digression but I was recently astonished by the 1920s recording of Emma Boynet playing the Schubert G flat impromptu D. 899/3 in just 4:16.

[Mandryka]

Listening to Op 9/1 and tempo seems to be an issue. He starts Largo (maybe even Lento) as opposed to Larghetto, brings it up to the prescribed tempo then slows down again. His pace in the middle section is also variable. What will become slightly annoying I think is that he speeds up as the dynamic level rises and does the reverse as it lowers again. That's amateur stuff! This nocturne is my first yardstick when I'm evaluating a complete set and Lisiecki doesn't pass muster on this one.

Op 27/2 is another yardstick, can you play it slowly and still keep the piece moving forward. Many pianists choose a slightly faster tempo to get around this issue and can make it work. Lisiecki comes close but at 90 seconds slower than either Solomon or Lipatti has he overcooked it? There is also a wide dynamic range but some of the dynamics don't seem apt for the work. 

Op 48/1 is possibly the one of the best things Chopin ever wrote and is my third point of measure. He misses the point by not bringing out the left hand in the opening bars. This is what characterises this work making it sound very dark which it should be for a C minor key. Once again there are tempo fluctuations and though they work in the main they don't for the second section which sounds a little bit strange.

Finally to Op 55/1 which is my favourite nocturne. I learned to play it at a very young age because it's quite simple. And that's what makes this work so hard to really bring off - making it sound simple. And this is what Lisiecki does - he keeps it simple in the main and it works really well. No awkward tempo fluctuations, just playing the ritards and accelerandos where they are indicated. Well done here.

A few other points. He employs a wide dynamic range at times which can work very well with these works if used correctly. No overuse of rubato gets him some good marks from me and I would rather listen to him than pianists who do this and ruin the flow of the works.

Is it better than Rubinstein or Moravec - not even close but it's still a good recording and I can see people liking it. There are some fine oments and the DG sound is very good.

I'd take Lisiecki over Moravec in 27/2 -- Moravec far too self conscious for me. And indeed slower. Rubinstein seemed to get faster in that one as he got older, I quite like the 1930s recording, but my later one (v.26 of the Rubinstein Collection) has dynamic variation which, for me, sounds less "apt" than Lasiecki!

[Mandryka]

Always worth noting that Chopin's prescribed tempo for the nocturne is dotted crotchet = 50. Allowing for some tempo flexibility, that's roughly a three to three and a half minute nocturne; playing slowly is the opposite of what you're supposed to do.

Bloody hell. The fastest I can find is Hofmann, Take 2 in the Marston box.

[staxomega]

Bloody hell. The fastest I can find is Hofmann, Take 2 in the Marston box.

What is the timing? I have the individual volumes and not the box.

As a whole cycle of recent I have been pretty floored with Pascal Amoyel . Recording quality is a bit too good as you often hear the pedals.

[Mandryka]

What is the timing? I have the individual volumes and not the box.

4.51

[Mandryka]

But I can beat it, I have a concert recording of Pollini in Cologne in 2009 which gets it out of the way in 4.49  -- it's really good! Concert with Schoenberg op 11 and the Schumann Fantasie. I shall have to listen to the whole thing now, he was clearly on good form that night.

[George]

What do folks think of the new Jan Lisiecki set of Nocturnes? They are up on Spotify and also can be sampled here.

I listened to a few Nocturnes from this set this afternoon. Both sounded slower than I am used to. Sound is a bit murky too.

[amw]

Bloody hell. The fastest I can find is Hofmann, Take 2 in the Marston box.

It's interesting that Hofmann was just around average for the 1930s, while the average performance has become more than two minutes slower in the intervening decades, despite the fact that the piano hasn't changed significantly, and despite the revival of historic pianos.

Pollini has become more consistent about taking the tempo seriously since his studio recording. I'm not a huge fan of his style with its constant ritardandi and so on, but he does give a much better idea of the intended sound of the piece. (This one is 4:12 without the applause; tempo here averages about 40 to the dotted quarter if one disregards the slowdowns at the end of each phrase.)
https://www.youtube.com/v/6cxkLZoEFEk

For comparison, here's Koczalski 1924
https://www.youtube.com/v/W9MY_h6Q1Os

and here's someone attempting it on a Pleyel
https://www.youtube.com/v/WWKl6e5BU8s

When actually going thru the score of the nocturne it becomes clear that the "point" of the piece is the tension between extreme virtuosity and extreme emotional calm; the figurations and cadenzas need to take on a mesmeric quality. It is presumably meant to be one of the more difficult nocturnes to play, in the same way op. 10 no. 6 is one of the more difficult etudes just because it can't sound overtly virtuosic.

[Mandryka]

For comparison, here's Koczalski 1924
https://www.youtube.com/v/W9MY_h6Q1Os

That's faster than the two on spotify, in The Great Polish Chopin Tradition series, vols 6 and 7

[Mandryka]

I listened to a few Nocturnes from this set this afternoon. Both sounded slower than I am used to. Sound is a bit murky too.

My goodness me, is he really slower than Arrau? 

[SonicMan46]

I listened to a few Nocturnes from this set this afternoon. Both sounded slower than I am used to. Sound is a bit murky too.

Hi George - I too was listening from Spotify this morning (to my Sonos bedroom speaker, so decent sound) - I agree w/ you, i.e. slow and soft.  Dave

[George]

Also Op. 10/3 I think?

Totally a digression but I was recently astonished by the 1920s recording of Emma Boynet playing the Schubert G flat impromptu D. 899/3 in just 4:16.

Is that from the APR set, Brian? If so, what did you think of it? I am considering it.