The first thing I want
to say is that I am not going to discuss
all the works on this CD. In fact I
intend to look at one piece in particular,
another briefly and the rest I am going
to deal with in these few opening words.
This is an excellent
CD. The programme makes a fine introduction
to the music of two of the greatest
composers for piano the world has known.
The first half of the recital is dedicated
to four Impromptus by Schubert
followed by his two of his Moments
Musicaux – both works that date
from the end of his life.
The second half is
an all Chopin event. The pieces are
culled from a 12 year period and reflect
different moods and styles. Perhaps
the greatest work here is the Ballade
Op.23 No.1. Beliavsky’s presentation
of this work is second to none. I have
known this piece for most of my adult
life, but this recording opened windows
for me in my appreciation of it. And
that ‘opening’ is the leitmotiv of this
CD.
I sat and listened
to the Schubert Impromptu in Gb
with a friend of mine whom I value for
comment and insight –especially when
thinking about Schubert and Chopin.
She, like me has a bit of a fetish about
Alfred Brendel’s version of this work.
In fact, up to press it was our favourite
version by a good margin. After about
two minutes of listening to Beliavsky
play this work she said to me – ‘You
know I think that I like this version
better than Brendel.’ I was, to use
a Yorkshire-ism ‘gob smacked.’ Rightly
or wrongly I had been feeling my way
to this conclusion too, but was afraid
of admitting it, lest she thought I
had lost the plot. I asked her why?
And there was the problem. We disagreed
as to the reason we thought this recording
may be the new benchmark. So we dug
out Brendel and ran him by. Obviously,
the Brendel is well regarded as a masterpiece
of playing and is perhaps considered
by many as the ideal interpretation.
So after a couple more hearings of each
version we finally agreed that perhaps
this present one has much to offer.
Maybe this could be a new benchmark
recording? At least for us it has become
so…
I hasten to add that
I listened to one or two other recordings
of this piece and none came close!
Now as to the disagreement
between us it went something like this.
I felt that Beliavsky’s interpretation
was more Classical and my friend felt
that it was more romantic in its realisation.
She used the expression ‘tentative Romanticism’
– in the sense that it was played in
a manner which looked forward to Liszt
than back to Beethoven. Yet I felt the
opposite: I was of the opinion that
‘Classical confidence’ was at the back
of this interpretation. There was only
one way to get to the bottom of all
this subjectivity. I emailed Daniel
and received by return an excellent
reply which helped me get to grips with
this work and the recording as a whole.
The first thing that
Beliavsky said was that there was ‘nothing
tentative about his playing.’ So that
was one up to me! However he went on
to say that it was probably not accurate
to say that the interpretation was Classical
either. It is now a draw…
He went on to explain
his ideas about the interpretation of
this piece. The Impromptus were
written towards the end of Schubert’s
life - in fact the year before his death.
At this time the composer was on the
cusp between Classicism and Romanticism.
In fact there were elements of both
musical styles in this work. The Classical
ethos considered formal structure very
highly, whereas composers of the Romantic
reaction tended towards ‘fantasy’ forms.
We know this eventually resulted in
cyclic forms and the final breakdown
of structure in the ‘sixties and ‘seventies
of the twentieth century.
Schubert’s Impromptu
in Gb is in fantasy form. Yet there
is a classical concentration here on
harmonic structure and rhythm. There
is no hierarchy of themes in this work
– most of the interest is derived from
the harmonic development of the basic
motif.
Beliavsky concluded
his thoughts by saying, that for him,
Schubert in the Impromptus encompasses
both late classical sensibility and
the early romantic tendencies that were
just appearing on the horizon. So, and
I quote ‘the interpretive line [he]
takes with this music combines both
these elements, so maybe in the final
analysis, there are parts that reflect
BOTH tentative romanticism and the assured
gestures of late Classicism.’
We both breathed a
sigh of relief. We were both happy that
our several assessments had been ‘correct.’
A few days later, I
was listening to the Fantasie-Impromptu
when another friend arrived on the scene.
She sat down to listen carefully. Her
‘ideal’ performance of this piece is
by Horowitz. [As an aside there are,
at the moment approximately 129 recordings
of this work in the catalogue!] I asked
her what she thought of the present
version of this work. Her comments were
interesting. She said that it was as
if no player were coming between the
notes on the music desk and the sounds
of the piano. It was not quite
as if it was a Pianola or other mechanical
music making machine – but somehow she
felt it was just too perfect to be being
played by anyone. I agreed with her
that it was one of the most satisfying
performances of this work I had heard.
What my friend had said nodded unwittingly
to the thoughts of Professor Kidgi…
The second CD in this
Sonatabop production is rather unusual.
Without spoiling the effect I just say
that Daniel Beliavsky talks to this
rather opinionated Professor Ulysses
Kidgi. Now I am not quite sure if this
adds a lot to the CD as Kidgi’s ideas
are a little obtuse to say the least.
However, the main reason that the interview
is given is to allow the pianist to
put forward his views on interpretation
and performance of the works on this
CD. I notice that the philosophy of
Professor Kidgi is what might be called
‘anonymous perfection.’ In other words
his ideal performance would be a listener
sitting with the score of the work and
imagining the music in his head. Only
then would the perfect performance be
‘given.’ However, in the interview Beliavsky
puts forward his own more practical
view. If Kidgi had his way, Daniel would
be on Welfare!
I hasten to add that
none of this discussion is necessary
to an understanding, appreciation and
enjoyment of this fine disc. In fact
I imagine for many people the interview
will be superfluous.
The music is played
on a Steinway piano and the recording
certainly does justice to the piano
and player. The programme notes are
not particularly helpful – at least
as far as the repertoire goes. The mini
essay is really more of the pianist’s
thoughts about interpretation rather
than an exposition or history of the
pieces. However it is fair to say that
all these works are widely known and
are well covered in the reference books
– so it would not be too difficult to
get to the bottom of the whys and wherefores.
The CD company Sonatabop
http://www.sonatabop.com/
seems to be a ‘new boy on the block’:
they offer a small catalogue of classical
music at this stage. Their operation
appears to be confined to the Internet,
so I doubt that this disc will be found
in Banks Music in York or Forsyth’s
in Manchester. Their current releases
include works by Johannes Brahms, George
Antheil and Edward MacDowell. However
Daniel Beliavsky seems to be their leading
luminary with three CDs to his credit.
He has recorded Mussorgsky’s Pictures
at an Exhibition and Sonatas
by Scarlatti. I recently reviewed
his complete piano works of Lukas Foss
and found this to be the definitive
account.
I think that Daniel
Beliavsky is a pianist to watch. He
seems to have determined views as to
how a piece should be interpreted and
he is not afraid to take risks in order
to make his point. His pianism is backed
up by erudition: he is on record as
saying that interpretations are very
complex processes. Any one recording
should not represent the only way a
pianist handles his or her art.
We can only hope that
more recordings are forthcoming from
this pianist. One can perhaps imagine
a complete cycle of Chopin or maybe
all the Schubert Impromptus and
Moment Musicaux. Yet I do know
that he is keen on introducing American
works into the legacy of recorded music,
and this too is a vital project. I shall
watch his career with considerable interest.
John France
