Filed under: Reviews | Tags: Bach, Etude, Friends of Chamber Music, Mazurka, Murray Perahia, Scenes From Childhood
Any concert pianist who maintains the grueling schedule that Murray Perahia maintains gets tired. It truly is exhausting work. When Mr. Perahia walked out on stage Thursday night, October 8, at the Friends of Chamber Music concert, he did not seem his usual affable self. He was, of course, totally concentrating at that point, but throughout most of the concert he was also unsmiling. In many ways that doesn’t matter at all, but it did add to the impression that he was exhausted.
He began the program with J. S. Bach’s Partita Nr. 6 in E minor. The opening Toccata was very authoritative and full of majesty, and every voice of the three-part fugue could be clearly heard. Certainly, that is no surprise, as Perahia excels in Bach. It was, however, apparent that the microphone under the piano was for amplification purposes. The resulting sound was very disconcerting, and I have no idea who it was that decided the microphone was necessary to amplify the sound of a 9 foot Steinway, especially considering who was playing it. Gates Hall is not an enormous auditorium by any stretch. I have heard Rubenstein, Horowitz, Gilels, Richter, and many other great pianists of Murray Perahia’s ilk, in the main auditorium at Indiana University which seats 3,700 people. Never was the piano amplified, because to do so distorts the sound even slightly. Perahia is such a gifted artist, and so carefully controls the sound that comes out of the piano, and is capable of great volume and the softest pianissimo, that it is almost an insult to “mic” the piano. And while we’re on the subject of the piano, this piano needed to be voiced. It was mellow in some areas, and too bright in others. I don’t know if this piano was brought in to the auditorium especially for Perahia, or if it was a piano that DU owns. But it is the responsibility of the Friends of Chamber Music to provide the best possible instrument and have it prepared in the best possible way.
The phrasing in the Allemande which follows the opening Toccata was absolutely beautiful. In the Corrente and Air, however, even though they were both done with great beauty and authority, there were a few passages which were not as articulate and precise as one would hope. I truly think that this was because Perahia was tired. As I mentioned above, he has a grueling schedule. I would hope that the slight blurring of the notes was due to exhaustion and not the recurring problem with his right hand. The rest of the Bach was absolutely beautiful. The Gigue which ends this Partita was so masterfully done that the inversion of the fugue subject that begins the second half was readily heard.
The second work on the program was Beethoven’s magnificent piano Sonata in E major, Opus 109. The opening movement is not of great technical difficulty, but the first thing to note is that Beethoven only provides eight measures in which to establish the vivace tempo that heads the movement. After that opening of eight measures, Beethoven has marked adagio espressivo. The remainder of the movement makes use of both of these slow and fast tempi. Pianists who have launched a genuinely perspicacious inquiry into this movement have seen, number one, that there is an aliquot ratio between the two tempi and, number two, that there is absolutely nothing like this in Beethoven’s entire output. Beethoven’s genius is thus spread out before us, the audience, and the performer, and in so many ways has proven himself, not only because of his deafness, but by force of his creativity, an iconoclast. Perahia’s approach was to make this first movement ethereal and it was wonderful. The second movement which begins with out a pause was equally sensational. The last movement, a theme and variations, was begun by Perahia with such a marvelously singing tone that one wondered how he could maintain it throughout the movement, but of course, he did. But again, either his exhaustion or his right hand thumb caused slight problems in Variation Three where the notes of the octaves did not come down together. I am sure that people in the audience who were not musicians, but also not pianists, would never have noticed this. And you must understand that when I make a criticism such as this, I am criticizing at the very high level. The last variation of this final movement is, in some ways, similar to the final movement of Beethoven’s last piano sonata, the Opus 111, because it also almost dissolves away into trills. In preface to these trills, Beethoven gradually adds more notes to every beat (as he does in Opus 111) just before the trills so that the connection is seamless. Perahia’s performance of this piece was magnificent.
After the intermission, Mr. Perahia performed Robert Schumann’s Scenes From Childhood, Opus 15. It was masterfully done even though I personally thought the very first “scene” was done a little fast. Throughout, Perahia showed his love for Schumann in such a way that it was as if he was imagining his own childhood. Particularly effective was A Child Falling to Sleep, which almost brought tears to one’s eyes. Perahia is a master of dynamics and tone production, and in Schumann’s composition of 1838, he demonstrated his artistry to the extreme.
Perahia ended the program with five works by Chopin. He began these selections with the Étude Opus 25, Nr. 1, in A Flat Major. This particular étude is not overly difficult, but once again there was a slight mis-articulation in one spot. The following three mazurkas were superbly done, and they are difficult. Many performers make the mazurkas sound like waltzes which they certainly are not, even though they share the same 3/4 time signature. Perahia then performed the Scherzo in E Major, Opus 54. Unfortunately, it was in this work, which was wonderfully performed, where Perahia sounded truly exhausted. I say this with all sympathy, and with the knowledge that he is one of the great pianists of our time. He closed the program with three encores, beginning with the Brahms Intermezzo, Opus 119, Nr. 3. This intermezzo is genuinely difficult because the melody is in the right hand thumb and second finger, while the third and fifth fingers played a chordal accompaniment. Perahia did it beautifully. He followed this with a Chopin nocturne, and then finished with the Chopin étude, known as the Winter Wind. It was absolutely flawless, and there was no indication of being tired.
I am quite sure that everyone in the hall felt privileged to have heard Murray Perahia perform. I certainly did, and there is always something to learn, let alone appreciate, in a performance of this caliber.
2 Comments so far
Leave a comment
There are some significant inaccuracies in this very thoughtful review. I am a board member of Friends of Chamber Music Denver and am the production manager for the concerts. The piano absolutely was not amplified. We do not use amplification at our concerts, with the rare exception of some contemporary ensembles. The microphone under the piano was for the system in the hall for the hearing impaired. (They usually take their feed from our recording engineer, but this concert was not recorded.)
Mr. Perahia was not exhausted and does not necessarily have a grueling schedule. His previous concert was four days before and he had ample time to rest and practice. I spent much time with him and he was relaxed and rested.
As to the issues raised about the piano itself, this piano is one of two pianos he chose from at the hall, plus he tried three additional Steinway concert grands at the dealer. The best tuner in Denver spent a great deal of time on the piano and worked closely with Mr. Perahia. There were no issues of voicing–the piano, carefully chosen from five, was prepared well to Mr. Perahia’s specifications.
FCM Denver presented Mr. Perahia, at great expense, as a gesture to our loyal community of music lovers. We appreciate the time that Mr. McNeil has spent sharing his thoughtful comments about the concert.
Comment by Richard Replin October 21, 2009 @ 2:04 pmDear Mr. Replin,
If the piano was not amplified, then I stand corrected and apologize. However, I must say that placing a microphone directly under the piano for any purpose is the worst possible place, because it will then pick up all the pedal noise, and one can always hear the sound of the hammer actually hitting the string, which aside from producing a recognizable pitch, will produce a thunking sound. It will also pick up vibrations and noises from the floor. I speak from experience of having my own concerts recorded or microphones placed for the same reason as did the Friends of Chamber Music.
However, that raises the issue about the piano itself. As a pianist, I assure you that the piano that Mr. Perahia performed on needed to be voiced, which accounts for the sound distortion that I heard. I grant you that many people in the audience probably did not hear this, but I have been blessed (or cursed, depending on your point of view) with perfect pitch and a very good ear. I have also had many experiences with pianos for sixty-six years. The fact that Mr. Perahia had the choice of two pianos on stage and three pianos at the Steinway dealer does not necessarily mean that the piano he performed on was in excellent shape. It simply means that he chose the best out of the five. In fact, by the end of the concert it was going out of tune.
As far as the voicing is concerned, I assure you that the piano needed to be voiced. The upper register was too brittle, and the unevenness of the voicing was noticeable across the keyboard. There is another venue in Denver where I have also criticized their piano. As I told them, no concert artist is going to come to town and tell them that their piano is bad. They take it stoically in their stride because they like to be asked back. I have no doubt whatsoever that he chose the best of the five pianos, but I am confident that he has performed on much better instruments. Judging from my own experience, many boards think that if one pushes the key down and it makes a sound, then the piano is a good one.
You state that you spent much time with Mr. Perahia and that he was relaxed and rested. That may well be, but only he can answer that. But I assure you that if I were giving a performance, I would like to have a great deal of “alone time” so that I could concentrate on the coming performance and practice every note in my head.
I sincerely appreciate the fact that the Friends of Chamber Music spent a great deal of money inviting Mr. Perahia to perform. I assure you that he was worth every single penny, and I compliment you on your choice of artist.
Robin McNeil
Comment by Robin McNeil October 21, 2009 @ 8:13 pm