Premise Checker
2006-06-11 20:40:45 UTC
Todd reviews Yves Nat's Beethoven Cycle
Stereophile Forums: Beethoven's Piano Sonatas; Or: A whole lotta cycles!
in
http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4414&page=0&fpart=all&vc=1
by Todd #4544 - 02/12/06 01:41 PM (67.2.53.185)
Yves Nat
About the same time that I preordered the Decca Original Masters
set containing Friedrich Guldas first complete Beethoven piano
sonata cycle, I also ordered Yves Nats complete cycle. I originally
planned to do an A/B comparison of each cycle. But Im impatient,
particularly when it comes to new Beethoven recordings, so I
promptly started listening to the Nat cycle since it arrived first.
So I figured I might as well offer a few, brief observations.
I would have been hard pressed to find a pianist who offers a more
worthwhile contrast to Friedrich Guldas approach. Whereas Gulda is
about speed, agility, and lean, non-vulgar virtuosity leading to
Beethovenian truths, Nat is all about a richer sonorities, slower
(but not slow) tempi, controlled emoting and a lower-register-heavy
approach leading to weightier Beethovenian truths. The one thing
both pianists have in common is seriousness. While Ive only made my
way through the first seven sonatas (all tonight), my impressions
of Nats approach is as I described. I cant imagine things
lightening up or changing much from this point forward.
So I might as well cover the openers. The Op 2 as presented by Nat
are weighty, powerful, and if they were written by a youthful Lou,
they are not really presented as youthful music. Nat obviously put
much time into formulating his approach; while Nat plays more
emotionally than Gulda, his is not a hyper-romantic or even
markedly romantic approach. In the early sonatas, thats fine, but
these are not jovial. Right from the start, Nats rich, rounded tone
and occasionally thundering lower octaves banishes many thoughts of
playfulness. He produces a big sound, one that reminds me more of
Annie Fischer than anyone else, and when he comes to the closing
movement of the first sonata, it is moderately quick (though not
quite prestissimo) and meaty, though the last note is peculiarly
unaccented. For those who like a lighter take, listen elsewhere.
The next two sonatas are pretty much the same. A few times, Nat
shows his age and technical limitations, particularly in Op 2/3,
where he becomes muddled and a bit disjointed in the last two
movements, seeming to skip over a few notes and seriously underplay
a few others. Tis no matter: this is some heavy-duty early
Beethoven, and I like it! Okay, I like Gulda even more, but surely
both approaches have their merits.
The Op 7 fares relatively better here than with Gulda. Nat takes
the opening relatively quickly, and once again his fallible
technique can be heard, but a few minor reservations apart, he
proceeds to deliver a nicely lyrical and rich reading. The second
movement sounds Largo, with each note and chord properly placed and
played, and the concluding movement offers just the right blend of
lyricism and heft.
The Op 10 works offer greater riches yet. Again, swiftness is not
really Nats forte; playing forte is his forte. The first sonata
opens in loud, strong, and powerful fashion, showing that a swift
opening is not the only viable way to go. Nat allows every thing to
sound out as appropriate, and he maintains a high level of musical
tension and meaty playing. The second sonata in the group is the
quickest of the lot, and if that implies that it is prosaic, its
not; no, its exciting, filled with jaunty, humorous bits all
delivered with earnestness and seriousness of purpose that
simultaneously delights and stimulates. Nat should have included
the third movement repeat, because it ends too quickly! I wanted
more. The final sonata in the set is likewise superb, and if a
couple noticeable slips can be heard in the final movement, they
are ultimately inconsequential.
So, the cycle is off to a strong start. I cant quite abide by the
hagiographic liner notes in assessing Nats artistry; so far, I can
think of pianists I prefer in every sonata. But his level of
achievement is high, his insights unique and ultimately invaluable,
and if the rest of the cycle is at least as good as what Ive heard
thus far, it will make a more than welcome addition to my
collection. Thus far, Id say think of him as a Gallicized Annie
Fischer: hes passionate, powerful, intense, and serious, just with
a bit of restraint and intellectual rigor holding everything back,
though never harmfully so. The 1955 recordings all sound
surprisingly robust, with a strong low end and more than acceptable
clarity and warmth off-set only slightly by a bit of dimness, a few
patches of distortion and other spurious noise, and some obvious
edits. I should probably listen to a few more sonatas here pretty
soon.
--
Another night, another lucky seven sonatas. Tonight started much
more promisingly. Indeed, Nats reading of the nights opener the Op
13 is a great recording, plain and simple. Here he brings all of
his strengths together in a passionate yet controlled reading to
excite. This work can be played any number of ways, including an
appropriately pathetic way, but Nats is more about fiery intensity
and urgency. While neither dizzyingly fast nor overwhelmingly
powerful, Nat brings enough of each of those traits to render a
near-edge-of-the-seat performance. I hung on every note, and even
when playing slowly, he captivates. His technical lapses are once
again noticeable, but utterly irrelevant. More troublesome is the
worst sound in the fourteen sonatas Ive listened to. Much spurious
noise can be heard, and it sounds as though at least part of the
transfer was made from a less than pristine condition LP. Wouldnt
you know it the best performance has the worst sound.
But dont take that to mean that the Op 14 sonatas arent
spectacular. They are! These 1953 recordings (along with the Op 22)
are the best sounding of the cycle thus far, and they find Nat in
better technical form. There are a few minor slips, but nothing
detracts from the supreme music making. In both of these works he
plays relatively briskly. Not as briskly as Gulda, but definitely
briskly for Nat. And his strong left hand is on display again, but
only and always to serve up nothing more than a delicious
underpinning for the even tastier melodies that Beethoven spins
out. The runs and figurations sound nearly effortless, and if Nat
maintains a sober, serious sound overall, a few instances of
relative levity make themselves known. I was expecting something
more akin to the Op 10 works, but what I got was some truly
top-notch playing that compares to the best around. Okay, I still
prefer Gieseking and Richter, but Nat joins the short list after
those two.
Three remarkable performances in a row give way to merely
outstanding one. Nats Op 22 again demonstrates his traits serious,
slower, heavier, richer playing that never or at least almost never
veers into ponderousness to extraordinary effect. He opens a little
on the slow side but quickly picks up the pace, winding his way
through the first movement with, well, brio, and introducing an
eminently tasteful and well-nigh flawless rubato deployed in just
the right measure at just the right times. Hell bring out an
interesting point here and a serious one there, and, just when you
think his variety cant be bettered, hell sock it to you with a
witty little phrase punched out right after some serious note
spinning. His lower register playing is pronounced but not as
relatively pronounced as elsewhere; he keeps thunder in abeyance so
as to never muddy anything further up the ivories. Perhaps French
pianists have a special affinity with this piece, but whatever,
this is a superb reading and if it just barely misses out on top
honors, it assumes a place of honor after Pommier and Gulda.
As if to show that no one can keep a streak alive for too long, the
Op 26 is not quite so successful. Oh, sure, the opening is strong,
with some of the variations taken at an exhilarating pace, and the
funeral march is suitably funereal, and the ending satisfies. But
it still misses that extra little something. Part of the problem
may be the slips, particularly in the funeral march. Nat is not
bad, mind you, but some of the slips seem to be too much. (Perhaps
hes telegraphing really telegraphing a desynchronization of the
hands, but mostly it sounds like less than exemplary pianism.) Nat
again deploys his tasteful rubato to good effect, but it cannot
prevent me from saying that this work is a relative let-down. Its
still good, but its bettered by the surrounding works.
And the works on the aft side are remarkable. Nat nails both of the
Sonatas quasi una fantasia. The first, much my favorite of the two,
is dashed off with charm, wit, humor, power, richness, speed, a tad
more power, and a sense of fun. Nat adopts a brisk, choppy
approach, and if perhaps the final movement doesnt exactly sound as
lyrical as I like (and thus, for me, not quite as fantastic as my
ideal), he nonetheless knocks this one out of the park. Open to
close, hes on and hes on fire. The Mondschein fares quite well,
too. The opening is somber and dark, just like I like it, the
second movement offers a rest of sorts, and the conclusion is fast,
driven, and pungent. Nats tone takes on a clangy, sharp sound in
the closing movement, but the swift, unstoppable rolling notes
build enough momentum to carry it to the end without a real
complaint. Yep, I like these. So, while Nat shows signs of minor
inconsistency, the overall level of achievement seems to me even
higher than last night. I cant wait to dig into some of the big
works coming up.
--
Night three saw a slight diminution in the number of sonatas
ingested I cut back to a half dozen. But as we all know, quality is
more important than quantity. And four of the six morsels, well,
theyre musical meals unto themselves! The Pastorale! The Op 31
Triumvirate! Oh my!
Alas, this evening did not get off to the start I had hoped for.
The problems with Op 28 sonata are apparent from the get-go. Nat
opens slowly, heavily, and, truthfully, somewhat ponderously. I
suppose I can live with the slowness, but the deliberate,
overemphasized left hand chords distract, and the rubato detracts.
I dont mean to make it sound as though Nat kills the piece he
doesnt its just that when I think of the other fine versions on
offer, this one is lacking. The inner movements both sound
appreciably better, and more in line with the nature of the piece,
or at least how I like it. Nat is tauter than ideal at times, and
he still brings some force to bear on them keys, but tis all good.
Alas, the closing movement is not. It suffers from the opposite
fate of the first movement its too fast, though it, too, has some
hefty left hand playing. I want more grace and lyricism. Indeed,
thats what I want for the whole piece. Well, as has been my
experience with every LvB sonata cycle, no pianist can play them
all equally well.
Fortunately, things pick up in the mighty trio. Nat does a superb
job of making each work sound unique and remarkable in its own
right, while still making them sound as though they are temporal
brethren. For the first sonata, Nat eases up a bit, by which I mean
he discards his generally serious tone for a lighter, brighter,
and, hell, funner (yes, funner; Im just gonna use that word) sound.
He plays most everything for fun, and brings out all those little
figurations with a hint o delight, and when he plays that long
trill, well, its peachy. Other approaches to this work are just as
valid, and a decidedly weightier approach can pay dividends, but
this one is fine by me.
The second of the triplets is suitably darker. Nat relishes the
minor key piece, and he thrives on the stark contrasts and mood
swings within the work. Tempestuous this! His bold left hand comes
in handy many times, and his rubato, definitely from a world gone
by, aids in the effort too. If perhaps his technique shows a few
signs of faltering, that matters not one bit in the face of his
stormy, dynamic reading. Gulda rather handily trumps him, but Nat
is no slouch. Not at all.
So that leads to the concluding sonata. Is there a more
quintessentially Beethovenian work? Think about it. Heres a work
that is obviously brilliantly crafted, but at times it sounds as
though Beethoven thought most of it up on the spot. The piece will
sort of amble along for a moment or two, then, all of the sudden
and without reason or warning, Beethoven erupts into boisterous
laughter on the keyboard, then contemplates his good humor, moves
on to something seemingly more serious or perhaps truly serious,
just to burst out in (rightfully) self-approving laughter a few
moments later. His youthful prankishness and his middle period
heroics collide happily. Only his late philosophical style goes
missing. Nat is at home here, playing each part to near perfection,
and seeming to enjoy the outbursts when they come.
This trio of sonatas is one of the critical components I use to
assess the overall quality of a pianist in Beethoven. If a pianist
botches this set, said pianist just aint no great Beethovenian. Nat
succeeds in this set. Im not ready to declare him a great
Beethovenian just yet after all, another dozen sonatas remain but
he does a splendid job. Of course, Gulda does a mind-blowingly
great job, as does Annie Fischer, and a few others, but I did enjoy
my time with these works.
That leaves the Op 49 works as something of an afterthought. Nat
does well enough here, though perhaps hes just a tad too heavy in
the first sonata. The second sonata is plagued by ubiquitous,
intrusive distortion, but the playing still sounds fine.
Another batch down, and Nats overall quality is coming into sharper
focus. How good is he? Well, lets just say that I must listen to
more. Soon.
--
Night four heard another six sonatas, and once again proved a tad
uneven. The opening work this evening was the Waldstein, and this
sonata more or less set the pace. On the positive side, Nat opens
the work briskly and more or less keeps it that way. I generally
prefer this work on the swift-ish side (though there are
exceptions), and Nats fingerwork is plenty spiffy for me. Perhaps
he sounds just a tad taxed at times, but such concerns are
fleeting. The generally buoyant mood of the opening movement and
the appropriately held back second movement, delivered in superb
overall fashion, give way to a somewhat overwrought third movement.
Nat again plays relatively swiftly, but as he pounds out some of
the passages with some notable heft, the effect becomes slightly
tiresome. He resorts to the same tricks time and again, offering
less development and change that is ideal. All told, the sonata is
very good, but its not a contender.
The same applies to Op 54. Nat again adopts a faster-is-better
approach, and while such an approach can work Richter makes it work
wonderfully the pianist must possess the technique to make it come
off without a hitch and must be able to hold the musical line. Nat
sounds too choppy at times. As he introduces a more robust,
full-bodied sound akin to what Annie Fischer brings, hes not up to
snuff in that regard either. His passion is forced. Again, while
hardly terrible, this aint no top tier recording.
The Appassionata fares no better. Again, it seems best to consider
Nat as something of a blend of Richter and Ms Fischer in approach,
lacking the control, speed, and precision of Richter, and the
punishing (in a good way!) intensity of Saint Annie. The furies of
the outer movements are rousing, but ultimately not satisfying
enough. The slow movement is moving and searching, just not moving
and searching enough. In this sonata, I admit to being extremely
biased: Annie Fischer blows all comers into the weeds as far as Im
concerned. Only Richter has mounted a suitable challenge to her
sovereignty (and twice, at that!), but even he cannot unseat the
regal musical deity. Nat more or less blends in with the crowd.
Lets just move on.
The two little ditties otherwise know as Op 78 and 79 suffer the
same fate as the Op 54: they are overwrought. Though short, they
aint dainty, but even so, they can be overplayed. Nats penchant for
a powerful bass underpinning continues unabated here, and as one
progresses through the works, such a standardized approach becomes
limiting and stifling. A bit more nuance is needed, or at least an
altered deployment of technical means. Op 78 is the less successful
of the two, but even Op 79 doesnt rise to meet the best. The
opening, while charming in its way, lacks either the outright humor
or detached circumspection to make it work. To Nats credit, though,
the second movement is strikingly poignant. But thats a rare moment
of valuable insight.
So as I spun the Les Adieux, it was with lowered expectations. To
my delight, Nat got back on my good side. His performance is
excellent. The opening has a nice melancholy tinge to it, the
second movement is expectant, and the finale resounds with, if not
quite unabashed triumph and glory, than at least a marked
improvement in mood. A few less than ideally secure passages, and a
few oddly accented phrases notwithstanding, Nat is back in (near)
top form. While it doesnt rise to challenge the best of the best,
it offers hope for the last half-dozen sonatas.
I dont want to leave the impression that these are bad performances
theyre not its just that Nat is relatively less impressive here,
and in this most august piano repertoire, that will not do. Or it
will at least be pointed out. Sound quality falls into the various
categories already described. Well, six more to go. Can Nat end on
a strong note, as it were?
--
Ill just get it out of the way early: Yves Nat is not great in late
Beethoven. I wish he were, but he aint. The problems present
themselves early.
The Op 90 is a bit odd. The opening movement isnt ideally coherent,
and if Nat can summon some impressive weight and a rich tone, it
doesnt really compensate for whats lost. Its difficult for me to
pinpoint. His playing is generally good, but his phrasing, his
emphases they all sound as though hes not in tune with the music.
The second movement fares better, but that only serves to
underscore the problems. Why was the first movement not of the same
caliber? How does this make for a satisfying whole? The answer is:
It dont.
The 101 is similarly uneven, and it introduces an issue to be heard
in the last three sonatas: Nat plays fast. Too fast. Now, that may
seem odd given that I was so taken by Guldas similarly fast take on
the works. But Nat is not Gulda. And Nats penchant for quickness
shows why: Hes not as technically well equipped as Gulda. There are
only a few audible slips of any consequence, but there is a sense
much of the time that Nat is playing right at the very edge of his
ability, and perhaps just beyond, and that his artistic conception
therefore outpaces his digital realization. The first and third
movements of this work suffer from this in a pretty clear fashion.
His playing shows a sharper, harder staccato than in some earlier
works, and while one can say that most of the notes are at least
reasonably cleanly articulated, some of the themes and figurations
sound congested or ever so slightly muddled. Im certain a pianist
could far more clearly describe what I heard, but thats the gist of
the problem. Compare him to someone with the skill of Pollini or
Gulda, and the problem becomes clear enough. While he does better
in the second and fourth movements, a sense of false profundity
creeps in. Yes, this is deep, thought-provoking music, but Nat
seems to not be probing deep enough. Not really.
Matters are more complicated in the Op 106. Nats conception is Big.
His ten fingers comprise an orchestra in the opening movement.
Alas, that orchestra is less the Berlin Philharmonic than some less
talented, less well-funded orchestra from eastern France. His
phrasing is bold. His sonorities, too. He plays fast and with some
impressive power. But what he wants is outside his grasp. The same
holds true for the second movement. The great Adagio fares better,
with Nat offering a fine degree of control. False profundity nags
at the listener, though. Nat liked probably loved this great music,
but he doesnt seem to be able to realize his ideas. The closing
movement is not much better. Nat just cannot match more technically
assured players for accuracy, or more devoted players for
intensity. So one is left with a good but hardly outstanding
interpretation. To his credit, Nat does offer some of the slower
portions in a manner that suggests, very strongly, that he would
have been a knock-out in Bach. But in this grand fugue, hes not
quite so accomplished. This is most certainly not a terrible
Hammerklavier, but its not especially competitive in a very
competitive field.
The last three sonatas all suffer from the too much speed and
superficial depth, if you will. The 109 really does nothing for me.
Nats playing is more assured here, the opening movement being
dashed off quickly, the second as well, and the final movement
variations do vary from too quick to way too quick to rather
unsatisfying. Op 110 is better, but only marginally. He opens the
piece beautifully, but he then returns to his quick and shallow
ways. When he builds up the repeated chords in the final movement,
the whole passage goes by too quickly, and while he gets
progressively louder as he should, he stagnates on a few repeated
chords. The 111 is the least successful of the bunch. First up, at
just a hair over 20 minutes, its just too fast. The opening
movement is rushed, the dark chords sounding more harried than
ominous. The second movement opens with a weak Arietta and then
proceeds to offer a rushed progression to the end. During a few
passages, Nat is very effective at conveying an ethereal, timeless
quality, but those moments zip by too quickly for one to savor. The
coda is decidedly uneventful, and uninformative to boot. Suffice it
to say, Nat does not rise to the level of the greats here.
Perhaps Im too hard on the recordings. Keep in mind, these are not
bad recordings. Ive heard worse. But these simply are not great
recordings. If I am critical and nit-picky, its because this is
late Beethoven. Only the very best will do. Good, exceptional,
outstanding these arent good enough. Greatness is the only
acceptable level of achievement. Nat does not achieve greatness. To
an extent, his cycle reminds me of fellow countryman Jean-Bernard
Pommier (though Pommiers technique is superior). Both pianists do
exceptionally well indeed, theyre both great or near great in a few
early sonatas and a good number of middle period sonatas. But when
asked to scale the heights of the late works, theyre styles dont
really deliver. Some nice things can be heard, and I will spin Nats
cycle again, but others have much more to offer. Compared to
Friedrich Guldas Amadeo cycle, the short-comings of the Nat cycle
prevent me from saying this is a great cycle. The strengths of the
cycle the Pathetique, the Op 14 works, Op 22, the two Sonatas quasi
una fantasia, the Op 31 sonatas, Les Adieux are strong enough for
me to say that if you hanker for an alternative approach and can
stand some variability in both playing and sound, then this set may
very well be worth the outlay. As it is, Im glad to have it, and it
was well worth the price I paid. Hell, I could even see paying
mid-price for it. But it is not a great cycle.
Stereophile Forums: Beethoven's Piano Sonatas; Or: A whole lotta cycles!
in
http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4414&page=0&fpart=all&vc=1
by Todd #4544 - 02/12/06 01:41 PM (67.2.53.185)
Yves Nat
About the same time that I preordered the Decca Original Masters
set containing Friedrich Guldas first complete Beethoven piano
sonata cycle, I also ordered Yves Nats complete cycle. I originally
planned to do an A/B comparison of each cycle. But Im impatient,
particularly when it comes to new Beethoven recordings, so I
promptly started listening to the Nat cycle since it arrived first.
So I figured I might as well offer a few, brief observations.
I would have been hard pressed to find a pianist who offers a more
worthwhile contrast to Friedrich Guldas approach. Whereas Gulda is
about speed, agility, and lean, non-vulgar virtuosity leading to
Beethovenian truths, Nat is all about a richer sonorities, slower
(but not slow) tempi, controlled emoting and a lower-register-heavy
approach leading to weightier Beethovenian truths. The one thing
both pianists have in common is seriousness. While Ive only made my
way through the first seven sonatas (all tonight), my impressions
of Nats approach is as I described. I cant imagine things
lightening up or changing much from this point forward.
So I might as well cover the openers. The Op 2 as presented by Nat
are weighty, powerful, and if they were written by a youthful Lou,
they are not really presented as youthful music. Nat obviously put
much time into formulating his approach; while Nat plays more
emotionally than Gulda, his is not a hyper-romantic or even
markedly romantic approach. In the early sonatas, thats fine, but
these are not jovial. Right from the start, Nats rich, rounded tone
and occasionally thundering lower octaves banishes many thoughts of
playfulness. He produces a big sound, one that reminds me more of
Annie Fischer than anyone else, and when he comes to the closing
movement of the first sonata, it is moderately quick (though not
quite prestissimo) and meaty, though the last note is peculiarly
unaccented. For those who like a lighter take, listen elsewhere.
The next two sonatas are pretty much the same. A few times, Nat
shows his age and technical limitations, particularly in Op 2/3,
where he becomes muddled and a bit disjointed in the last two
movements, seeming to skip over a few notes and seriously underplay
a few others. Tis no matter: this is some heavy-duty early
Beethoven, and I like it! Okay, I like Gulda even more, but surely
both approaches have their merits.
The Op 7 fares relatively better here than with Gulda. Nat takes
the opening relatively quickly, and once again his fallible
technique can be heard, but a few minor reservations apart, he
proceeds to deliver a nicely lyrical and rich reading. The second
movement sounds Largo, with each note and chord properly placed and
played, and the concluding movement offers just the right blend of
lyricism and heft.
The Op 10 works offer greater riches yet. Again, swiftness is not
really Nats forte; playing forte is his forte. The first sonata
opens in loud, strong, and powerful fashion, showing that a swift
opening is not the only viable way to go. Nat allows every thing to
sound out as appropriate, and he maintains a high level of musical
tension and meaty playing. The second sonata in the group is the
quickest of the lot, and if that implies that it is prosaic, its
not; no, its exciting, filled with jaunty, humorous bits all
delivered with earnestness and seriousness of purpose that
simultaneously delights and stimulates. Nat should have included
the third movement repeat, because it ends too quickly! I wanted
more. The final sonata in the set is likewise superb, and if a
couple noticeable slips can be heard in the final movement, they
are ultimately inconsequential.
So, the cycle is off to a strong start. I cant quite abide by the
hagiographic liner notes in assessing Nats artistry; so far, I can
think of pianists I prefer in every sonata. But his level of
achievement is high, his insights unique and ultimately invaluable,
and if the rest of the cycle is at least as good as what Ive heard
thus far, it will make a more than welcome addition to my
collection. Thus far, Id say think of him as a Gallicized Annie
Fischer: hes passionate, powerful, intense, and serious, just with
a bit of restraint and intellectual rigor holding everything back,
though never harmfully so. The 1955 recordings all sound
surprisingly robust, with a strong low end and more than acceptable
clarity and warmth off-set only slightly by a bit of dimness, a few
patches of distortion and other spurious noise, and some obvious
edits. I should probably listen to a few more sonatas here pretty
soon.
--
Another night, another lucky seven sonatas. Tonight started much
more promisingly. Indeed, Nats reading of the nights opener the Op
13 is a great recording, plain and simple. Here he brings all of
his strengths together in a passionate yet controlled reading to
excite. This work can be played any number of ways, including an
appropriately pathetic way, but Nats is more about fiery intensity
and urgency. While neither dizzyingly fast nor overwhelmingly
powerful, Nat brings enough of each of those traits to render a
near-edge-of-the-seat performance. I hung on every note, and even
when playing slowly, he captivates. His technical lapses are once
again noticeable, but utterly irrelevant. More troublesome is the
worst sound in the fourteen sonatas Ive listened to. Much spurious
noise can be heard, and it sounds as though at least part of the
transfer was made from a less than pristine condition LP. Wouldnt
you know it the best performance has the worst sound.
But dont take that to mean that the Op 14 sonatas arent
spectacular. They are! These 1953 recordings (along with the Op 22)
are the best sounding of the cycle thus far, and they find Nat in
better technical form. There are a few minor slips, but nothing
detracts from the supreme music making. In both of these works he
plays relatively briskly. Not as briskly as Gulda, but definitely
briskly for Nat. And his strong left hand is on display again, but
only and always to serve up nothing more than a delicious
underpinning for the even tastier melodies that Beethoven spins
out. The runs and figurations sound nearly effortless, and if Nat
maintains a sober, serious sound overall, a few instances of
relative levity make themselves known. I was expecting something
more akin to the Op 10 works, but what I got was some truly
top-notch playing that compares to the best around. Okay, I still
prefer Gieseking and Richter, but Nat joins the short list after
those two.
Three remarkable performances in a row give way to merely
outstanding one. Nats Op 22 again demonstrates his traits serious,
slower, heavier, richer playing that never or at least almost never
veers into ponderousness to extraordinary effect. He opens a little
on the slow side but quickly picks up the pace, winding his way
through the first movement with, well, brio, and introducing an
eminently tasteful and well-nigh flawless rubato deployed in just
the right measure at just the right times. Hell bring out an
interesting point here and a serious one there, and, just when you
think his variety cant be bettered, hell sock it to you with a
witty little phrase punched out right after some serious note
spinning. His lower register playing is pronounced but not as
relatively pronounced as elsewhere; he keeps thunder in abeyance so
as to never muddy anything further up the ivories. Perhaps French
pianists have a special affinity with this piece, but whatever,
this is a superb reading and if it just barely misses out on top
honors, it assumes a place of honor after Pommier and Gulda.
As if to show that no one can keep a streak alive for too long, the
Op 26 is not quite so successful. Oh, sure, the opening is strong,
with some of the variations taken at an exhilarating pace, and the
funeral march is suitably funereal, and the ending satisfies. But
it still misses that extra little something. Part of the problem
may be the slips, particularly in the funeral march. Nat is not
bad, mind you, but some of the slips seem to be too much. (Perhaps
hes telegraphing really telegraphing a desynchronization of the
hands, but mostly it sounds like less than exemplary pianism.) Nat
again deploys his tasteful rubato to good effect, but it cannot
prevent me from saying that this work is a relative let-down. Its
still good, but its bettered by the surrounding works.
And the works on the aft side are remarkable. Nat nails both of the
Sonatas quasi una fantasia. The first, much my favorite of the two,
is dashed off with charm, wit, humor, power, richness, speed, a tad
more power, and a sense of fun. Nat adopts a brisk, choppy
approach, and if perhaps the final movement doesnt exactly sound as
lyrical as I like (and thus, for me, not quite as fantastic as my
ideal), he nonetheless knocks this one out of the park. Open to
close, hes on and hes on fire. The Mondschein fares quite well,
too. The opening is somber and dark, just like I like it, the
second movement offers a rest of sorts, and the conclusion is fast,
driven, and pungent. Nats tone takes on a clangy, sharp sound in
the closing movement, but the swift, unstoppable rolling notes
build enough momentum to carry it to the end without a real
complaint. Yep, I like these. So, while Nat shows signs of minor
inconsistency, the overall level of achievement seems to me even
higher than last night. I cant wait to dig into some of the big
works coming up.
--
Night three saw a slight diminution in the number of sonatas
ingested I cut back to a half dozen. But as we all know, quality is
more important than quantity. And four of the six morsels, well,
theyre musical meals unto themselves! The Pastorale! The Op 31
Triumvirate! Oh my!
Alas, this evening did not get off to the start I had hoped for.
The problems with Op 28 sonata are apparent from the get-go. Nat
opens slowly, heavily, and, truthfully, somewhat ponderously. I
suppose I can live with the slowness, but the deliberate,
overemphasized left hand chords distract, and the rubato detracts.
I dont mean to make it sound as though Nat kills the piece he
doesnt its just that when I think of the other fine versions on
offer, this one is lacking. The inner movements both sound
appreciably better, and more in line with the nature of the piece,
or at least how I like it. Nat is tauter than ideal at times, and
he still brings some force to bear on them keys, but tis all good.
Alas, the closing movement is not. It suffers from the opposite
fate of the first movement its too fast, though it, too, has some
hefty left hand playing. I want more grace and lyricism. Indeed,
thats what I want for the whole piece. Well, as has been my
experience with every LvB sonata cycle, no pianist can play them
all equally well.
Fortunately, things pick up in the mighty trio. Nat does a superb
job of making each work sound unique and remarkable in its own
right, while still making them sound as though they are temporal
brethren. For the first sonata, Nat eases up a bit, by which I mean
he discards his generally serious tone for a lighter, brighter,
and, hell, funner (yes, funner; Im just gonna use that word) sound.
He plays most everything for fun, and brings out all those little
figurations with a hint o delight, and when he plays that long
trill, well, its peachy. Other approaches to this work are just as
valid, and a decidedly weightier approach can pay dividends, but
this one is fine by me.
The second of the triplets is suitably darker. Nat relishes the
minor key piece, and he thrives on the stark contrasts and mood
swings within the work. Tempestuous this! His bold left hand comes
in handy many times, and his rubato, definitely from a world gone
by, aids in the effort too. If perhaps his technique shows a few
signs of faltering, that matters not one bit in the face of his
stormy, dynamic reading. Gulda rather handily trumps him, but Nat
is no slouch. Not at all.
So that leads to the concluding sonata. Is there a more
quintessentially Beethovenian work? Think about it. Heres a work
that is obviously brilliantly crafted, but at times it sounds as
though Beethoven thought most of it up on the spot. The piece will
sort of amble along for a moment or two, then, all of the sudden
and without reason or warning, Beethoven erupts into boisterous
laughter on the keyboard, then contemplates his good humor, moves
on to something seemingly more serious or perhaps truly serious,
just to burst out in (rightfully) self-approving laughter a few
moments later. His youthful prankishness and his middle period
heroics collide happily. Only his late philosophical style goes
missing. Nat is at home here, playing each part to near perfection,
and seeming to enjoy the outbursts when they come.
This trio of sonatas is one of the critical components I use to
assess the overall quality of a pianist in Beethoven. If a pianist
botches this set, said pianist just aint no great Beethovenian. Nat
succeeds in this set. Im not ready to declare him a great
Beethovenian just yet after all, another dozen sonatas remain but
he does a splendid job. Of course, Gulda does a mind-blowingly
great job, as does Annie Fischer, and a few others, but I did enjoy
my time with these works.
That leaves the Op 49 works as something of an afterthought. Nat
does well enough here, though perhaps hes just a tad too heavy in
the first sonata. The second sonata is plagued by ubiquitous,
intrusive distortion, but the playing still sounds fine.
Another batch down, and Nats overall quality is coming into sharper
focus. How good is he? Well, lets just say that I must listen to
more. Soon.
--
Night four heard another six sonatas, and once again proved a tad
uneven. The opening work this evening was the Waldstein, and this
sonata more or less set the pace. On the positive side, Nat opens
the work briskly and more or less keeps it that way. I generally
prefer this work on the swift-ish side (though there are
exceptions), and Nats fingerwork is plenty spiffy for me. Perhaps
he sounds just a tad taxed at times, but such concerns are
fleeting. The generally buoyant mood of the opening movement and
the appropriately held back second movement, delivered in superb
overall fashion, give way to a somewhat overwrought third movement.
Nat again plays relatively swiftly, but as he pounds out some of
the passages with some notable heft, the effect becomes slightly
tiresome. He resorts to the same tricks time and again, offering
less development and change that is ideal. All told, the sonata is
very good, but its not a contender.
The same applies to Op 54. Nat again adopts a faster-is-better
approach, and while such an approach can work Richter makes it work
wonderfully the pianist must possess the technique to make it come
off without a hitch and must be able to hold the musical line. Nat
sounds too choppy at times. As he introduces a more robust,
full-bodied sound akin to what Annie Fischer brings, hes not up to
snuff in that regard either. His passion is forced. Again, while
hardly terrible, this aint no top tier recording.
The Appassionata fares no better. Again, it seems best to consider
Nat as something of a blend of Richter and Ms Fischer in approach,
lacking the control, speed, and precision of Richter, and the
punishing (in a good way!) intensity of Saint Annie. The furies of
the outer movements are rousing, but ultimately not satisfying
enough. The slow movement is moving and searching, just not moving
and searching enough. In this sonata, I admit to being extremely
biased: Annie Fischer blows all comers into the weeds as far as Im
concerned. Only Richter has mounted a suitable challenge to her
sovereignty (and twice, at that!), but even he cannot unseat the
regal musical deity. Nat more or less blends in with the crowd.
Lets just move on.
The two little ditties otherwise know as Op 78 and 79 suffer the
same fate as the Op 54: they are overwrought. Though short, they
aint dainty, but even so, they can be overplayed. Nats penchant for
a powerful bass underpinning continues unabated here, and as one
progresses through the works, such a standardized approach becomes
limiting and stifling. A bit more nuance is needed, or at least an
altered deployment of technical means. Op 78 is the less successful
of the two, but even Op 79 doesnt rise to meet the best. The
opening, while charming in its way, lacks either the outright humor
or detached circumspection to make it work. To Nats credit, though,
the second movement is strikingly poignant. But thats a rare moment
of valuable insight.
So as I spun the Les Adieux, it was with lowered expectations. To
my delight, Nat got back on my good side. His performance is
excellent. The opening has a nice melancholy tinge to it, the
second movement is expectant, and the finale resounds with, if not
quite unabashed triumph and glory, than at least a marked
improvement in mood. A few less than ideally secure passages, and a
few oddly accented phrases notwithstanding, Nat is back in (near)
top form. While it doesnt rise to challenge the best of the best,
it offers hope for the last half-dozen sonatas.
I dont want to leave the impression that these are bad performances
theyre not its just that Nat is relatively less impressive here,
and in this most august piano repertoire, that will not do. Or it
will at least be pointed out. Sound quality falls into the various
categories already described. Well, six more to go. Can Nat end on
a strong note, as it were?
--
Ill just get it out of the way early: Yves Nat is not great in late
Beethoven. I wish he were, but he aint. The problems present
themselves early.
The Op 90 is a bit odd. The opening movement isnt ideally coherent,
and if Nat can summon some impressive weight and a rich tone, it
doesnt really compensate for whats lost. Its difficult for me to
pinpoint. His playing is generally good, but his phrasing, his
emphases they all sound as though hes not in tune with the music.
The second movement fares better, but that only serves to
underscore the problems. Why was the first movement not of the same
caliber? How does this make for a satisfying whole? The answer is:
It dont.
The 101 is similarly uneven, and it introduces an issue to be heard
in the last three sonatas: Nat plays fast. Too fast. Now, that may
seem odd given that I was so taken by Guldas similarly fast take on
the works. But Nat is not Gulda. And Nats penchant for quickness
shows why: Hes not as technically well equipped as Gulda. There are
only a few audible slips of any consequence, but there is a sense
much of the time that Nat is playing right at the very edge of his
ability, and perhaps just beyond, and that his artistic conception
therefore outpaces his digital realization. The first and third
movements of this work suffer from this in a pretty clear fashion.
His playing shows a sharper, harder staccato than in some earlier
works, and while one can say that most of the notes are at least
reasonably cleanly articulated, some of the themes and figurations
sound congested or ever so slightly muddled. Im certain a pianist
could far more clearly describe what I heard, but thats the gist of
the problem. Compare him to someone with the skill of Pollini or
Gulda, and the problem becomes clear enough. While he does better
in the second and fourth movements, a sense of false profundity
creeps in. Yes, this is deep, thought-provoking music, but Nat
seems to not be probing deep enough. Not really.
Matters are more complicated in the Op 106. Nats conception is Big.
His ten fingers comprise an orchestra in the opening movement.
Alas, that orchestra is less the Berlin Philharmonic than some less
talented, less well-funded orchestra from eastern France. His
phrasing is bold. His sonorities, too. He plays fast and with some
impressive power. But what he wants is outside his grasp. The same
holds true for the second movement. The great Adagio fares better,
with Nat offering a fine degree of control. False profundity nags
at the listener, though. Nat liked probably loved this great music,
but he doesnt seem to be able to realize his ideas. The closing
movement is not much better. Nat just cannot match more technically
assured players for accuracy, or more devoted players for
intensity. So one is left with a good but hardly outstanding
interpretation. To his credit, Nat does offer some of the slower
portions in a manner that suggests, very strongly, that he would
have been a knock-out in Bach. But in this grand fugue, hes not
quite so accomplished. This is most certainly not a terrible
Hammerklavier, but its not especially competitive in a very
competitive field.
The last three sonatas all suffer from the too much speed and
superficial depth, if you will. The 109 really does nothing for me.
Nats playing is more assured here, the opening movement being
dashed off quickly, the second as well, and the final movement
variations do vary from too quick to way too quick to rather
unsatisfying. Op 110 is better, but only marginally. He opens the
piece beautifully, but he then returns to his quick and shallow
ways. When he builds up the repeated chords in the final movement,
the whole passage goes by too quickly, and while he gets
progressively louder as he should, he stagnates on a few repeated
chords. The 111 is the least successful of the bunch. First up, at
just a hair over 20 minutes, its just too fast. The opening
movement is rushed, the dark chords sounding more harried than
ominous. The second movement opens with a weak Arietta and then
proceeds to offer a rushed progression to the end. During a few
passages, Nat is very effective at conveying an ethereal, timeless
quality, but those moments zip by too quickly for one to savor. The
coda is decidedly uneventful, and uninformative to boot. Suffice it
to say, Nat does not rise to the level of the greats here.
Perhaps Im too hard on the recordings. Keep in mind, these are not
bad recordings. Ive heard worse. But these simply are not great
recordings. If I am critical and nit-picky, its because this is
late Beethoven. Only the very best will do. Good, exceptional,
outstanding these arent good enough. Greatness is the only
acceptable level of achievement. Nat does not achieve greatness. To
an extent, his cycle reminds me of fellow countryman Jean-Bernard
Pommier (though Pommiers technique is superior). Both pianists do
exceptionally well indeed, theyre both great or near great in a few
early sonatas and a good number of middle period sonatas. But when
asked to scale the heights of the late works, theyre styles dont
really deliver. Some nice things can be heard, and I will spin Nats
cycle again, but others have much more to offer. Compared to
Friedrich Guldas Amadeo cycle, the short-comings of the Nat cycle
prevent me from saying this is a great cycle. The strengths of the
cycle the Pathetique, the Op 14 works, Op 22, the two Sonatas quasi
una fantasia, the Op 31 sonatas, Les Adieux are strong enough for
me to say that if you hanker for an alternative approach and can
stand some variability in both playing and sound, then this set may
very well be worth the outlay. As it is, Im glad to have it, and it
was well worth the price I paid. Hell, I could even see paying
mid-price for it. But it is not a great cycle.