Chopin: Complete Nocturnes. Alberto Nones, pianist. Halidon 8030615071050.
::Sigh::
I don't start out looking to be negative about releases like this one. On the contrary, I very much begin from the wish to promote smaller labels and lesser-known artists. Alas, too often honesty prevents me from being as positive as I'd like. In which case the duty to render a faithful verdict quickly takes over. Such is the situation here. I won't say nothing would have made me happier than giving Mr. Nones a glowing review. (Some zillionaire randomly paying off my mortgage would inevitably have rated higher.) But it is nonetheless true that I was hoping to do so.
Why all of this hand-wringing? Well, today on social media somebody told me that he didn't appreciate my negativity in Recording Review #29. I guess maybe I was a bit harsh there. But do you know what else I was? Honest. I feel I owe my readers this, even when they won't like what I have to say. If I came off mean on that occasion, I apologize. Harsh? Maybe. But I don't think I was mean. (There's a difference.) Each of us individually is ultimately responsible for what we put out there, whether it be critical prose, recorded music, or something else. Risk comes with this; in addition to the expectation of reward, you're also risking negative feedback or poor commercial remuneration. I don't know Mr. Nones, and I bear no ill will toward him. But in the end I cannot recommend his Chopin Nocturnes, as much as I wished to say the opposite.
That is not to say fine playing is absent here. There are plenty of nice moments! But what really marks this set of interpretations is inconsistency. It comes in two varieties. The first is an inconsistent approach to following score directions — often Nones likes doing it, but once in a while he doesn't. The second is an inconsistent approach to things like dynamics, tempo, pedaling, and articulation. Not just from piece to piece, or section to section...but occasionally also from measure to measure. The result in many of these nocturnes is an impression of whimsy that ends up sounding haphazard.
I don't think there is any need to go through every individual number; a few illustrative examples will suffice. Perhaps appropriately, we'll start with the first nocturne, Op. 9/1 (B-Flat Minor). Now, I haven't seen the manuscript score, and I don't know what Chopin's interpretation of Larghetto was. Nor do I know if the ♩ = 116 metronome marking atop this piece can be traced to him. What I do know is that both term and marking are found in nearly every edition I have seen, going back to the middle of the 19th century. So why Nones thinks he needs to take the opening tempo at about a Grave is beyond me. Maybe this is his way of reflecting the espressivo marking that's also present. If it is, I think he goes overboard. For all of its colorful harmonies and slick chromaticism, Chopin's art rests on a melodic foundation. Excessive slowness causes listeners have to have a hard time following the tune. I believe the reason this metronome marking is there is to keep pianists from doing exactly what Nones ends up doing anyway: losing the motion necessary to project the melody. In truth Nones's opening pace sounds like a practice tempo. (He similarly plays Adagio instead of Lento to open Op. 48/1.) All of this is even more puzzling in light of his decision to speed up considerably with the beginning of the B section at measure 19. Why?? There is no direction to do so! (Sotto voce is not such a direction.) By the time Nones arrives at the C section, we become aware of other issues: he can't play a proper pianississimo at measure 24 and after, and he sets a pattern that rears its head throughout the cycle: a tendency to occasionally *thump* notes too sharply, even when there are no accents or other dynamic imperatives to do so.
The Op. 9/3 Nocturne in B Major perhaps illustrates Nones's inconsistency best. I have never heard the opening of this piece played in the strange way that he does. First, he over-observes the rests in between pitches of the main melody, making some of them sound like they're staccato notes (they're not!). The over-pedaling that afflicts much of the rest of this recorded cycle suddenly gives way here to under-pedaling, which just accentuates the right hand "staccato" notes and also those in the left hand coming at the ends of three-note groups. If this all was supposed to surprise me, it succeeded! I think I gasped during my first listen. (Nones's apparent fear of playing through rests similarly results in plunkiness replacing legato in Op. 37/2.) Then, just a few measures later, we get something closer to the smooth legato we're all accustomed to. For me it characterizes good performances (like this one). I simply can't account for the alternation. The intense section immediately preceding the final return of the A area is over-pedaled and sounds labored. Nones frequently lapses into this kind of playing when there are sudden bursts of passion - witness his lurching con fuoco B section in Op. 15/1.
Op. 32/2 is one of the hardest Chopin nocturnes to approach interpretively. It has to be done just right to save it from the appearance of monotony. But here it mainly serves to illustrate a few more general shortcomings. First, the trills are too notey (as they are in Opp. 15/2, Op. 55/1, and perhaps a few other places). Then, the middle section sees him rolling right-hand octaves where no rolls are indicated. Furthermore, the louder, passionate parts sound "poundy." Which reminds me...what is this instrument?? Occasionally it sounds twangy, especially whenever there are forceful chords played in the upper register. I remarked to my wife that at one point an image of a fellow cranking these pieces out on an old Everett piano in a country church basement ineluctably came to mind.
Okay, by now some of you probably think I'm being too harsh. I'll temper this by briefly recounting what I thought was good. Op. 48/2 gets off to a lovely start, notwithstanding its dramatic bursts of tempo. Slightly gooey pedaling flecks the famous Op. 9/2, and so does instrumental twanginess. But otherwise it's a fine interpretation. Alone among the set, I thought Op. 32/1 well done all the way through. In general Nones deftly brings out inner voices, for instance in measures 20 and following in Op. 27/1. Here and elsewhere, he creates very nice sound and atmosphere.
But let's face it: this repertoire has some steep competition in the recording catalogue. Even if Nones's performances here had much better consistency, I don't think his pianism would be strong enough to merit special recommendation. Whether his inconsistency is calculated or incidental, you can safely place this release a ways down on your Chopin Nocturnes Listening List. If you're just in the market to buy one or two trusty sets, you're better off avoiding it altogether.
Collectors Only
No comments:
Post a Comment