It is my intention, as I gradually re-review
the “Hatto” discs I have discussed on
this site, to retain the body of the
original review. Quite frankly, I wouldn’t
expect anybody to believe me if I said
it all sounded quite different now,
unless I could show that the manipulation
had been very drastic indeed. The important
thing is that praise or blame is attributed
to the person who deserves it.
However, I think I should first record
the differences between the present
discs and the Hattified version. Just
to confuse matters, as I have noted
above, the “Hatto” discs in my possession
are the 2002 ones, not those on which
CHARM based its famous report. It is
evident from their findings that the
Hattification process had been taken
a stage further by then, since they
report instances of time-stretching
which I don’t find here. Nevertheless,
if what I have is a relatively early
and unsophisticated piece of Hattification,
there is still abundant evidence of
an intention to deceive.
Firstly, let me confirm that ALL the
performances on the Hattified discs
are taken from Indjic. I don’t deal
in wave-patterns and whatnot, so let
me explain my system. In the very first
Mazurka, for example, Chopin has three
times marked a “ritardando” – and this
becomes five times because of the repeats.
Indjic actually makes a ritardando before
the written ritardando and returns
to his original tempo when the ritardando
marking arrives. After that he slows
down again. And the point is that he
does it slightly differently each time,
sometimes the ritardando is quite marked,
sometimes it is very slight indeed.
These are things which would stand out
even if the Hattified version had the
tempo doubled or halved, and in fact
they emerge exactly the same in the
two recordings. There is also an unmarked
drop to mezzo piano at b.49 which
is identical. In other words, I wasn’t
looking for just a general impression
that the performances were the same,
though I did get this too. I won’t bore
the reader with the details, but with
each Mazurka I listened first to “Hatto”,
noting two or three little personal
touches of the kind that no two pianists
would play exactly the same way and
confirmed that these points were identical
in the Indjic.
I can also state that the timings are
all identical, except for the special
cases I list below. As is customary
with a Barrington-Coupe operation, however,
this is not the impression anyone is
going to get by looking at the printed
timings.
Hattification has attempted to disguise
the recording in the following ways:
1) Indjic plays the unnumbered Mazurkas
at the end of the second disc, as listed
above. The Hattifiers have shifted the
first two to the beginning of the first
disc, neatly confounding the timings.
Amusingly, a plausible musicological
justification is provided in the notes.
Unlike the other four pieces, which
were unpublished during Chopin’s lifetime,
these two very early pieces were
published, though before he began to
attach opus numbers to his music. This
is a reminder that when the enterprising
burglar isn’t a-burgling, as W.S. Gilbert
put it, this particular burglar actually
has a very wide knowledge of pianists
and piano music.
2) Three seconds of silence have been
added at the end of op.34/4 and the
posthumous A flat major.
3) Although track 13 is listed as op.17/2,
the track actually starts with the trio
of op.17/1. Op.17/2 begins at 01:25
of the track.
3) Indjic, or more probably the edition
he is using, omits repeats in op.6/4,
op.17/1 and op.33/3, to the evident
disapproval of the Barrington-Coupe-Hatto
camp, who reinstate them! Other omitted
repeats are not reinstated, but a particularly
ingenious piece of Hattification has
been applied to the unnumbered G major.
There are two versions of this in the
Polish Edition, numbered 53 and 53 bis.
By careful juggling with the repeats
it is made to appear that “Hatto” plays
53 while Indjic plays 53 bis. This Mazurka
gains about 30 seconds in the process.
4) The sound picture has been considerably
modified. At a simple level, the Hattified
version has had a considerable part
of its treble response removed. At the
end of op.6/3 the upper note is inaudible
in the “Hatto”; in the original it is
delicate but present. The last – very
high – note of op.7/3 is missing from
“Hatto”. Again, it is very delicate
but present in the original. Similarly
in op.17/2 the high E in b.66 is missing
from “Hatto”, present in Indjic. Listening
through loudspeakers, you might just
think you had missed them. A hearing
on headphones confirms their absence,
at least at any acceptable listening
level. The reduced treble response does
not only affect high notes, of course,
since every note has within it upper
partials which create its timbre. By
removing them, what started out as a
fairly close, bold and vibrant recording
is made to sound distant and somewhat
gentle.
This may merely mean that the Hattifiers
had a lousy CD copier and this was the
best it could do. But really, even the
cheapest CD copying system produces
results that are identical to the original
to all but the most critical ear listening
on professional equipment, and this
has been so for at least a decade. I
therefore doubt if this is the answer,
especially as the degree of intervention
seems to vary from piece to piece. In
op.56/1, for example, the Hattifiers
evidently found Indjic sufficiently
golden-toned and delicate to leave him
almost intact, while the robustness
of the following piece is toned down
considerably. In some of the perkier
posthumous pieces I felt the tone had
been lightened and brightened.
Rather, I think the lost upper partials
are an inadvertent result of an attempt
to create a more “feminine” sound, a
sound more suggestive of the beautiful,
suffering soul we are told was playing.
This sort of diaphanous, golden sound
was characteristic of most of the first
“Hatto” discs I heard and seems to represent
an attempt to create a “Hatto sound”.
Later, perhaps at the moment where Hatto
herself was no longer able to influence
the operation, Hattification threw caution
to the winds. The critics had already
believed six impossible things before
breakfast so why not whet their appetites
for lunch? Thus Dukas and Albeniz followed
Messaien, with Hindemith and Tippett
in the wings …
In a few places, the distancing lends
enchantment. Op.6/4 sounds a little
plainer in the original version. On
the other hand, the playing is revealed
to have a wider dynamic range, with
greater strength and power where called
for, thus heightening the beauty of
those moments where Indjic really is
very delicate and wistful. I complained
before of a certain sameness. I’m not
sure that this criticism holds now,
or not to the same extent.
Out of fairness, I suppose I should
note that my comparisons were with the
2005 Calliope reissue whereas the Hattifiers
were obviously working with the 1988
Claves original. It is possible, though
unlikely, that Calliope have re-mastered
the recording to its advantage and the
Claves sounded like the “Hatto”. (We
have been informed that Calliope reissued
this recording for the first time in
2001, so this would have been the basis
for the first "Hatto" version).
Enough of Hatto. Who is Eugen Indjic?
From fleeting internet references I
learn that he was born in Belgrade in
1947, that he is American, that he is
French and that he is Franco-Canadian.
Any other offers? A private source tells
me he studied in Boston with Paul Doguereau,
who had much earlier taught Earl Wild.
More concretely, he came 4th
in the 1970 Warsaw Chopin Competition,
3rd in the 1972 Leeds Competition
and 2nd in the 1974 Artur
Rubinstein Competition in Israel. I
actually remember the Leeds event quite
well, having followed it on television.
This was the occasion where Murray Perahia
came first and Craig Sheppard second.
I still retain a quite clear mental
image of Indjic. I also remember that
I felt the jury had got the prize-winners
in the right order for once. The subsequent
careers of the three would seem to bear
this out. Still, even coming 3rd
at Leeds would be a dream come true
for many excellent pianists who never
succeed in getting placed at all. At
present Indjic seem to be still active
as a performer, adjudicator and teacher.
A Google search shows a number of young
pianists listing him in their CVs in
this latter role.
What of my original review of the 2002
Hattified version? Readers will note
that it was favourable but not exactly
a rave, and I ended by preferring another
version. I have returned to it, changing
names and pronouns and omitting a few
things which seem no longer relevant.
For instance, I had wondered if the
sameness was the result of recording
all the music in just two days. Since
we don’t know the dates of Indjic’s
sessions, this remark is obviously meaningless
now. And to think that Hatto, or her
husband in her name, actually wrote
to me about this point, assuring me
that she could take as long as she wished
over her recordings … (click here
to read the post-Hattogate version of
the review).
I haven’t rerun the Milkina and Rubinstein
comparisons this time. Certainly, the
fuller recording quality of the Indjic
original would not be to its disadvantage.
Calliope’s notes are brief and not very
helpful. The “Hatto” had fascinating
if dated notes taken from a 1900 book
on Chopin by James Huneker. Further
proof that, when the enterprising Hattifier
isn’t a-Hattifying, he has a considerable
knowledge of the highways and byways
of pianists and piano literature.
Lastly, I suppose we’re all going to
get paranoiac about conspiracy theories,
but there’s something about the timing
of all this that fascinates me. The
Indjic recording had long been forgotten.
Its reissue in 2005 possibly provoked
the hastily re-Hattified “revised and
re-mastered” version as a further attempt
at disguise. Then came the CHARM report
and the scandal and the Indjic recording
was conveniently available for sale
when the news broke. Did Indjic perhaps
recognize his own recording and, feeling
he would not gain much by exposure if
no one could buy the original, arrange
with Calliope for its re-release, tip
off CHARM and await results? If so,
good luck to him. I think I’d have done
the same. (We have been assured that
the timing was entirely fortuitous.
To avoid any possible understanding,
I wish to clarify that I was only hypothesizing
a possible "complicity" in
the exposure of the fraud, not, of course,
in the fraud itself).
The only thing is, Indjic and Calliope
risked a rather embarrassing situation.
Since transparency towards the public
is the big issue here, I must protest
that anyone buying this recording would
have no reason to suppose it was not
made in 2001. A sin of omission rather
than commission, no doubt. But if CHARM
themselves had not known it was a reissue
of an earlier recording, Indjic and
Calliope might have hit the headlines
for plagiarizing Hatto! Still, an accusation
of that kind, subsequently disproved
by producing the Claves original, might
have boosted sales even more. (We have
been informed that French law required
this reference to the 2001 edition.
However, it is customary nowadays to
give the dates and location of the sessions).
Well, whatever, I hope this recording
has the success in 2007 it doesn’t seem
to have had in 1988. If Indjic cares
to set down anything else, I’ll be interested
to hear it.
Christopher Howell
A note from Tony
Haywood
Following Chris Howells'
exhaustive review of the Indic - Hatto
Chopin Mazurkas, he asks if anyone knows
any more of this pretty much forgotten
pianist, who is now getting some deserved
attention, however dubiously! He mentions
the 1972 Leeds Competition, when Idjic
was third place. I have some personal
memories of that occasion, and indeed
of meeting him. At that time, I was
an apprentice piano technician working
for the firm who serviced all the instruments.
Not being yet allowed the actual tuning
or voicing, my rather menial tasks included
polishing the ivories and cleaning out
the keybed and soundboard, which meant
getting underneath the strings. During
the course of this tricky job, done
on various days and on different instruments
with my boss in attendance, we met most
of the competitors, icluding all the
finalists. They were all charming and
interested in the levels of preparation
of the pianos, and they all gave encouragement
to this shy 16 year old, particularly
Idjic, who seemed totally without ego
and snootiness, though I was very young!
My chief perk was to watch all the rounds
right to the final, and I watched his
progress with interest, especially when
he played a Chopin selection, including
Mazurkas, which I seem to remember were
in the University Great Hall. I was
sat only yards from them in the final
(privileged spot for the technicians)
and I vividly recall Idjic and Sheppard
playing Rachmaninov 3 with Perahia's
Chopin 1 wedged in between. Yes, I also
think the jury got it right, but I did
always wonder what happened to him,
especially as the other two's careers
went into orbit pretty quickly. I remember
thinking of how well he'd played Chopin
and Mozart in the early rounds and wondered
whether the Rachmaninov was a gamble.
Still, I thought it was odd that he
just disappeared, especially as the
Leeds has since become better known
for the pianists who didn't get first
prize...
Eugen Indjic
(piano) 
