For the past four decades or so I have been quite content with Arthur Rubinstein's RCA recordings of the Chopin Waltzes on LP and CD, his perfectly chiseled renditions having weathered the tests of time. So it is with strong competition that any recording, like this new one from Alice Sara Ott, enters the field. Yet, Ms. Ott's interpretations are different enough, her passions strong enough, and her technical expertise proficient enough to make her new DG release more of a complement to Rubinstein's album rather than a rival to it.Here's the thing one cannot help noticing in the first few Waltzes: Ms. Ott is more mercurial than Rubinstein. She exercises a wider and more-flexible range of tempos and dynamic contrasts than Rubinstein, pausing more often, changing up more often, speeding up and slowing down more often. Perhaps this is attributable to her age, early twenties when she recorded the program in August of 2009. Where Rubinstein is rock steady, Ms. Ott is more volatile, which, as I say, makes her disc worthwhile for its variation of approach. Nevertheless, she is never anything less than lyrical and poetic throughout, and she displays a genuine love of the music. When she needs to be playful, her music is playful; when she needs to be rhapsodic, she's rhapsodic; when she needs to be melancholy or somber or nostalgic or Romantic, she is up to the task. These are delightful interpretations in almost every way, even if they're not so conventional nor so authoritative as Rubinstein's.
Another thing in favor of Ms. Ott's disc is that she is one of only a handful of artists who performs all of Chopin's Waltzes, including the five or six that researchers discovered long after the composer had died. And she prefers to perform them from the original autograph manuscripts, regarding the autograph scores as truer than later published versions. Her attempt, she says, is to find "the true smell, the true colour" of each piece.
The DG recording engineers were also apparently attempting to capture true colors, in their case the true color of Ms. Ott's piano, a job the company usually do quite well. I have always enjoyed DG's piano sound, and they do not disappoint one here. The piano is never too close or too far away but miked at a moderate distance to simulate a stage performance from a few rows distance. While the sound is smooth and warm, to be sure, it is also nicely detailed, although not quite up to the standards of Rubinstein's old recording, which still sounds exceptionally good. Regardless, Ms. Ott's recording might just please more modern listeners with its velvety tones. The audio, therefore, reinforces a fine set of performances.
Incidentally, DG use a Digipak for this release, which continues to mystify me. People in the industry tell me Digipaks actually cost record companies more than standard jewel cases, so I have to assume the companies feel the public prefers them. Yet for me the Digipak is scary because if it breaks in any way, it's over. It's not like you can simply buy another jewel case. Well, it's neither here nor there. The packaging does look nice, I suppose.
JJP
I have a question and hopefully you will be able to help answer. I came across this album lately on Amazon and read the following review:
ReplyDelete"In the "Golden Age", one could easily tell a pianist by his/her individual sound and approach to the music. By the latter half of the 20th Century, that was less & less the case, as the purist approach and interpretive anonymity became fetishized. Now, the pendulum has swung back - and how. There is a growing trend in Classical music performance and Ms. Ott is part of it: with the endless duplication of recorded repertoire, musicians are becoming desperate to distinguish themselves from their peers. It seems musicians are offering increasingly bizarre interpretations not for personal expression, but to be different for the sake of being different.
Take, for example, Ms. Ott's performance of the Waltz in A-flat, Op. 42 (the so-called "Two-Four" waltz): the charm of this piece rests on the conflict between the melody, which is shaped as if it were in 2/4 time, and the accompaniment, which is clearly in ¾ time (the actual notation of the waltz is in ¾ time, of course). If this waltz were an opera aria, it would depict a husband and wife bickering with each other. Ott throws rubato all over the place and constantly changes tempo, so that the point of the piece is lost. Ott fusses with the music far more than, say, Rachmaninoff would have, and in a totally inorganic way which is poles apart from the inner-logic of the late-Romantic generation.
Clearly, Ms. Ott understands neither Chopin nor Romantic performance practice. Believe it or not, there were rules during the Romantic era. One such rule was to always begin a piece in a direct manner, so that rubato and other expressive devices would be effective when employed later in the work. In other words, rubato is an effect, not a constant."
Does this review do the Album and the Pianist justice? I mean most complaints toward new virtuosos these days are with regards to the lack of musicality despite technical prowess. The pianist is clearly trying to do a new interpretation, and as you said, the young pianist is more volatile here. You pointed out that she was more mercurial than the stable Rubinstein.
According to the reviewer above, however, Ms. Ott violated the rules of Romanticism by abusing her usage of rubatos. I am really interested in your take. Is there a proper way to play the Waltzes? Is Ms. Ott's approach a violation of Chopin's romanticism?
I am a very new listener but these questions intrigue me. I have listened to Dinu Lipatti's version of the Waltzes as well as Stephen Goughs. Both are vastly different to Otts'.
Source of review is Amazon. (I know, I know...but the reviewer "Hank Drake" seems to be pretty well regarded in reviewing Piano recordings)
Why does any musician record a piece of music that others have already recorded a hundred times before? Why does any buyer want to hear yet another recording when there are already hundreds to choose from? A new interpretation of an old favorite? A better sounding recording? Listen to some recordings by the composer himself, and you'll find you may not like them as well as how other artists interpret them. Unbreakable "rules" for performance? No, just tradition, which may or may not be what's best for the music. What's "best" is what the individual listener enjoys most, given that the artist hasn't completely subverted or distorted the obvious intent of the music. For instance, I have no objection to Ms. Ott's freer interpretation of Chopin's waltzes, but why should I care? When I sit down to listen to Chopin's waltzes, I'll still listen to Rubinstein. :)
ReplyDeleteSounds good. I appreciate your response, John.
DeleteI can't agree more nor say it more clearly. I am listening to Ms Ott's recording of Chopin's Waltzes as I am reading you two and it's been a moment of real pleasure.
Delete