SECOND RECITAL

Press, Volume LXXXV, Issue 25933, 13 October 1949, Page 3

SECOND RECITAL

—< — ALEKSANDR KELMANN

Mr Aleksandr Heimann opened his second solo recital last evening at the Civic Theatre with a startling variation on the National Anthem which had been brought thoroughly up-to-date with the requisite Thunder from the Left. One is well aware that the lion can still roar, but there appears little necessity for reminding one at a piano recital of the zoo at feeding time. A less theatrical rendering of God Save the King would be rather more in keeping with British sentiment.

The programme for the evening had been advertised as a popular one, a euphemism, it appeared, for a medley of “old favourites.” It was a pity that a pianist of Mr Heimann’s undoubted powers should have trotted out once again music which, although good in itself, has become too familiar by its constant inclusion in programmes of lesser artists. If Mr Heimann had invested the hackneyed works he presented with a new and unsuspected meaning, if he had played them with a greater virtuosity than one has yet heard in them, then he would have been justified in his . choice of programme. But there was ; neither any revealing departure in interpretation nor any outstanding exhibition of technique. In short, the greater part of the evening was dull. There was little likelihood that under Mr Heimann’s definition of a “popular programme” any other than the “Moonlight” of Beethoven’s many sonatas would be heard, and the “Moonlight” it was. Despite the good discussion of the content of this sonata in the programme notes available at the recital, it was still the old “Moonlight” if one accepts Mr Heimann's quite legitimate view that the sforzandos in the trio of the allegretto should have a cross-accent. The excessive rubato in the third movement, however, made the presto agitato appear rather more psychopathic than is called for and merely led to confusion in phrasing. With the exception of this last movement, the sonata was given a competent performance, and the same must be said of the Schubert Jmromptu in B flat, Op. 142, No. 3. A very pleasant work in which Schubert makes the happiest use oi variation form, this composition does not quite approach the high level which Schubert himself had set in the impromptus of Op. 90. As the B flat impromptu is, however, better known than the four of the earlier set, its inclusion in the programme must have appeared necessary. And after the pleasant interlude of the Schubert work the inevitable had to happen with a performance of Schumann’s Carnaval. It. is well-known, it is long, it is included in the repertoire of practically every visiting pianist and of every local one, and therefore it had to be played yet once more at last evening’s recital. It would be interesting to know who is selling the idea to ! visiting pianists that “Carnaval” is

de rigueur for Christchurch audiences? Is there in existence some mastercatalogue of all programmes ever played in Christchurch which visiting pianists consult and from which they gain the impression that a Christchurch audiepce positively demands to hear “Carnaval”? Some day, perhaps, an enterprising and courageous

artist will break the tradition and give the over-worked phantoms in “Carnaval” a well-deserved rest from their endless dance. Alas, Mr Heimann was not that artist, and the tradition was maintained. As in the earlier works of the evening, Mr Hel- i mann gave “Carnaval” a competent performance, no more, no less, and too I many other exactly equal performances have been written about too often for Mr Heimann's to bear Writing : about once again. The second half of the programme was a distinct improvement on the 1 first by the inclusion of Lord Berners’ 1 “Three Little Funeral Marches.” The Debussy pieces which preceded it be- ■ longed to the too-well-known group. ■ but in mitigation it must be stated' that Mr Heimann gave them a wholly ! satisfying performance. His delicacy i of touch was well demonstrated in ' that group, and although nothing new in content became apparent, Mr Heimann's playing of Debussy has set a standard on which all the other visiting pianists who have already played the self-same compositions, and the many yet to come who will play them, may be judged. The Funeral Marches by Lord Berners startled equally by the context in which they found tnemselves, and by their content. A compound of pure wit and trenchant irony, enclosed in an interesting harmonic medium, these three epitaphs for a statesman, a canary, and a rich aunt deserved the longest applause of the evening, which was given them by the audience. This single departure in the programme from the misconception that “popular” is synonymous with “well-known” was so well received that it must have given Mr Heimann some cause to revise his ideas on Christchurch audiences. A group of Chopin works concluded the programme. There is no doubt that Mr Heimann is supremely qualified to play and interpret Chopin. More is the pity that he should have spoiled the good impression made towards the end of the evening by including among his encores his arrangement of an arrangement of Paganini’s “La Campanella.” Mr Heimann’s final recital of an allChopin programme will be given next Saturday. H.S.K K.