Other Links
Editorial Board
- Editor - Bill Kenny
- London Editor-Melanie Eskenazi
- Founder - Len Mullenger
Google Site Search
SEEN
AND HEARD CONCERT REVIEW
Bach,
Chopin, Debussy and Mozart:
Richard
Goode (piano)
Queen Elizabeth Hall, London, 27.2.2008 (MB)
Bach
– Prelude
and Fugue in C major, BWV 870
Bach – French Suite no.3 in B minor, BWV
814
Chopin –
Mazurka in C, Op.24 no.2
Chopin – Mazurka in G, Op.50 no.1
Chopin –
Mazurka in E minor, Op.41 no.2
Chopin – Mazurka in B minor, Op.33 no.4
Chopin – Impromptu in F sharp major, Op.36
Mozart – Rondo in A minor, KV 511
Chopin –
Scherzo no.4 in E major, Op.54
Debussy – Etude no.11: ‘Pour les Arpèges composés’
Debussy – Etude no.5: ‘Pour les Octaves’
Chopin – Nocturne in C minor, Op.48 no.1
Chopin – Nocturne in B major, Op.62 no.1
Chopin – Polonaise in F sharp minor, Op.44
Richard Goode opened his Queen Elizabeth Hall recital, ‘Homage to
Chopin’, with some of the best Bach playing I have heard. He took
full advantage of the modern piano without ever straying into
merely ‘pianistic’ vulgarity. The C major Prelude and Fugue from
Book II of the ‘Forty-eight’ was a perfect curtain-raiser,
functioning rather like an overture in an orchestral programme.
Bach’s counterpoint was wonderfully clear throughout, yet never at
the expense of the manifold harmonic implications of the score.
‘Implications’ seems an especially appropriate word for the
Prelude, with its parts that grow into chords: Goode’s mastery of
the numerous held notes on which this depends was something quite
rare, in every sense. So was the splendidly vocal quality to his
part-playing, both in the Prelude and in the little three-part
fugue. To this was added, in the third French Suite, a markedly
orchestral sense. Goode’s characterisation of individual lines was
so apt that one could imagine this part being allotted to a flute,
that to a ’cello. Moreover, he showed a rhythmic security,
attentive to the harmonic implications of the work’s rhythms,
characteristic of the best performances of the Orchestral Suites:
Klemperer or Karl Richter, for example. This was never at the
expense of the piano’s unique qualities, however; far from it. The
hushed return of the fifth movement’s Menuet, for example, was
quite magical in purely instrumental terms.
Chopin also adored Mozart, and the Rondo in A minor, perhaps
Mozart’s single greatest work for solo piano, is more than
suggestive of why. Some of its highly Romantic piano writing
clearly looks forward to Chopin and even beyond. The music is
often highly chromatic, as is the melodic line of the rondo theme,
which suggests a vast range of harmonic possibilities, as in Bach.
Textures are more complex than is often the case in the sonatas.
Yet I did not feel that Goode responded strongly enough to these
rewarding although admittedly treacherous possibilities. Whilst
his Mozart was thankfully not of the ‘Dresden china’ persuasion,
it still felt somewhat inhibited, despite marvellous incidental
beauties, such as the perfectly articulated left hand staccato
runs. The arrival of the A major episode, which should be a moment
of utopian beauty, seemed oddly matter-of-fact. And where Mozart
really goes for the jugular, at the beginning of the coda, Goode
seemed far more wary of exploiting his modern instrument than he
had in the Bach works.
Debussy’s celebrated line, that ‘Chopin is the greatest of them
all, for through the piano he discovered everything,’ was quoted
in the programme. One of Chopin’s greatest disciples was
represented by two Etudes. The first, ‘Pour les Arpèges
composés’, suffered from sounding excessively like a homage to
Chopin. There was a full-blooded Romanticism, occasionally verging
upon the heavy-handed, to its Scherzandere middle section,
which, although it might have made sense in terms of the
programme, did not really work in practice. ‘Pour les Octaves’,
however, was marvellous, as full of suggestive wit as
post-impressionistic ambiguity. Goode’s touch was fully equal here
to whatever Debussy demanded. The composer’s marking, ‘Joyeux et
emporté, librement rythmé,’ is an apt summation of Goode’s
performance.
Chopin himself was well served. The selection of Mazurkas was
masterfully characterised, both as a group and in terms of the
individual character of the pieces. As with the Bach suite, Goode
exhibited great sensitivity to the difficult balancing act between
the dance origins of the works and their new life as instrumental
pieces. Thus the rhythms danced and the progressions were suitably
accented, not least the stomping middle section of Op.24 no.2, but
this was accomplished through pianistic re-creation rather than
slavish imitation. The painful sadness of Op. 33 no.4, marked
Mesto, shone through as an exile’s longing for his homeland
and his pain at that homeland’s suffering. At the same time, its
dancing qualities ensured that it never descended into
mawkishness. The larger pieces – the F sharp major Impromptu, the
E major Scherzo, and the final F sharp minor Polonaise – received
typically thoughtful performances. Effortless bravura is not
Goode’s way, though this in no way implies any shortcomings in his
technique. However, despite the thoroughly musical virtues of
these performances, they could occasionally sound a little wanting
in charm, when compared to the greatest Chopin players.
Voice-leading, for instance, was for the most part carefully
handled, with some revelations concerning inner parts; but the
twinkle in the eye with which, say, Shura Cherkassky might have
accomplished some such devilish feat was not to be seen (or heard,
should that be possible). That said, the quasi-orchestral
characterisation familiar from Goode’s Bach playing made a few
appearances in his Chopin, and to equally good effect.
This was also apparent in the two selected Nocturnes, concerning
whose performance I had no reservations whatsoever, at least after
a slightly underwhelming opening to the great C minor Nocturne,
Op.48 no.1. It is marked mezza voce, but this should not
preclude, indeed it should encourage, a truly aristocratic poise.
Thereafter, however, the growth of tension was unremitting, which
owed a great deal to Goode’s understanding and projection of the
underlying harmonic progression. The Doppio movimento
section veritably seethed, all the more in retrospect, following
the magical calming of the waves at the concluding diminuendo e
rallentando. In the B major Nocturne, Op. 62 no.1, Goode’s
expertise in part-leading came fully to the fore; here was the
magic that was sometimes lacking in the larger Chopin works. There
was magic too, in the purely pianistic roulades, spun with an
almost Mendelssohnian gossamer. It was fitting that for his
encore, Goode treated us to another Nocturne, that in E flat, Op.
55 no.2, whose fine performance reminded us of the virtues of its
predecessors.
Mark Berry
Back
to Top
Cumulative Index Page