Faure, 2nd Impromptu, Op. 31 in Fm

[rachfan]

A lot of charm in this piece.

Update: I deleted the CD cut (97 downloads) and replaced it with the original tape recording for better fidelity.

[dreamplaying]

Hi RachFan:

Thanks a lot for playing such beatiful piece. I heard it several times and like it very much. dinamic, phrases, etc., but I would recommend to play it in a faster tempo somthing more frisky.

Please find here a track of the Second Faure's Impromptu played by Samson François, probably the best version ever.

https://www.iclassics.com/productDetail?contentId=96

regards

[rachfan]

Hi dreamplaying,

I'm really glad you enjoyed listening to my rendition of this Impromptu.  It's a wonderful piece and definitely has that unmistakable French charm.  By the way, this is not a piece with which you would open a recital, simply stepping up to it.  You need a little time to work up to this one!  The tempo is indeed marked Allegro molto.  I probably played it more toward allegro, allegro di molto being still more animated.  I spent about 8 weeks learning the piece before recording it and moving on to other repertoire.  Had I "lived with the piece" longer, I'm sure I would would have picked up the tempo a bit more.  Thanks too for giving me that link to Francois' recording, I know I'll enjoy it. 

If you haven't already done so, you might want to listen to the Faure 6th Barcarolle and the 6th Nocturne I posted here, probably on page 2 or 3 by now--both of them are Faure at his best!  Thanks again.

RachFan

 

[eduard]

This is Impromptu  Op. 31 by Vladimir Valjarevic.  It is my favorite performed.

[franz_]

I only have a recording of that played by Pierre-Alain Volondat (the alian who won the Queen Elisabeth Competition) so I can't compare. But nice piece.

[eduard]

Yes, very nice and elegance piace, not so eassy to performing.

[mr. art]

This is Impromptu  Op. 31 by Vladimir Valjarevic.  It is my favorite performed.

It is better. Nice touche.

[rachfan]

As I had mentioned above, I didn't spend sufficient time with this impromptu to get it fully up to tempo (allegro molto), so my play time was about 4.5 minutes--too long.  The recording I have of this piece at home is by Vlado Perlemuter (on Nimbus), very nicely done despite his advanced age at the time of the recording in the early 1980s.  His rendition goes for 4 minutes.  The Valjarevic recording is fairly close to 3.5 minutes in duration.   And I agree, it's certainly a fine recording with a lot of flair.   

My theory on the tempo is that allegro molto must be quick and animated.  Like any Italian tempo marking, interpretations can be subjective though.  (Look at how fast Toscannini played some of Beethoven's symphonies!!)  Yet if Faure meant the tempo to be presto or prestissimo, he would certainly have indicated that instead--which he did not do.  So that leaves us with general performance practices--which vary, citing Perlemuter and Valjarevic as two examples at hand. 

The form of this piece is A-B-A-B.  The tempo marking certainly applies to the A sections.  As for the B sections, Faure gave no separate tempo marking of his own for those sections, but nearly all pianists intuitively relax the tempo there in order to bring out Faure's wonderful lyricism.  I think the danger is that if the A sections are played too fast, they take on a mechanistic character.  Then because the B sections must be somewhat relative to the tempo in A, it can cause the B sections to be a bit more rushed than they ought to be as well.  So there is a fine balance there.  My sense is that Valjarevic does push the envelope on the tempos.  I don't believe I'd want to play the piece that fast, but it's just my personal view on the matter.   

[eduard]

As I had mentioned above, I didn't spend sufficient time with this impromptu to get it fully up to tempo (allegro molto), so my play time was about 4.5 minutes--too long.  The recording I have of this piece at home is by Vlado Perlemuter (on Nimbus), very nicely done despite his advanced age at the time of the recording in the early 1980s.  His rendition goes for 4 minutes.  The Valjarevic recording is fairly close to 3.5 minutes in duration.   And I agree, it's certainly a fine recording with a lot of flair.   

My theory on the tempo is that allegro molto must be quick and animated.  Like any Italian tempo marking, interpretations can be subjective though.  (Look at how fast Toscannini played some of Beethoven's symphonies!!)  Yet if Faure meant the tempo to be presto or prestissimo, he would certainly have indicated that instead--which he did not do.  So that leaves us with general performance practices--which vary, citing Perlemuter and Valjarevic as two examples at hand. 

The form of this piece is A-B-A-B.  The tempo marking certainly applies to the A sections.  As for the B sections, Faure gave no separate tempo marking of his own for those sections, but nearly all pianistists intuitively relax the tempo there in order to bring out Faure's wonderful lyricism.  I think the danger is that if the A sections are played too fast, they take on a mechanistic character.  Then because the B sections must be somewhat relative to the tempo in A, it can cause the B sections to be a bit more rushed than they ought to be as well.  So there is a fine balance there.  My sense is that Valjarevic does push the envelope on the tempos.  I don't believel I'd want to play the piece that fast, but it's just my personal view on the matter.   

Yes, but tempo (somertime) is very important for character of piece. I think that Valjarevic does not push the envelope on the tempo. He has lyricism, elegance, brilliant pasagge...

[rachfan]

Hi Eduard,

Probably the single most debated aspect of music is tempo.  It happens frequently, for example, between the artists and conductors at rehersals of piano concertos.  Most attribute it to the imprecise meanings of the Italian markings, whereby one musician interprets the character of a work differently than another musician.  It's the same in the solo repertoire as well, as this impromtu so well illustrates.