Chopin: Polonaise-Fantaisie Op.61 in Ab Major (Yoshihiro Kondo, Kate Liu, Leonskaja)

The Op.61 is the closest Chopin ever came to the austerity (and strange, liminal warmth) of late Beethoven. In any case, there’s little doubt that it’s one of the worst-titled works in the repertoire. “Polonaise-Fantasy” suggests a brillante romp – instead you get this thing that opens with a harmonic meditation, but from then on presents as craggy, even unfinished: full of failed, fragmentary melodies, unstable progressions needlessly prolonged, vertiginous modulations, all arranged inside a disemboweled ABA (/very lopsided sonata) form. It’s very easy to listen to this work with the expectation that some big lyrical melody will come clean, and to be disappointed when this never quite happens. (The main theme does come to a climax, but it’s an odd one. Where Chopin typically puts a pattern of ascending/descending chords in the LH – see the Ballades and the Barcarolle – here the LH gets bare contrapuntal octaves: part celebration, part nervous breakdown.)

The Op.61’s apparent instability actually belies a surprisingly tight-knit structure. The work’s in ABA form, except that B section is punctured – after its appearance, it continuously leaks material into the rest of the work. The transitions between the sections are very substantial, involving two new themes (3 and 5) that at first seem very different – one’s a pleasant nocturne, the other a doleful polonaise – but are in fact closely related (same rhythmic outline).

This work is also a rare instance of Chopin using large scale motivic unification in his writing. Rather spectacularly, that modest little turn in m.4 (0:39) ends up generating the extended transition passage at m.50 (2:59), the lovely LH counterpoint at m.152 (6:56), the RH melodic contour at mm.216-217 (10:26), and the frantic material at m.225 (10:57).

Why then this work come across as so subjective and dissociative?

A couple of things. The most important is Chopin’s insistence in lingering on or broadening interstitial (/unstable) space – a tendency already at work in some of the slow passages in the Barcarolle and the Op.52 Ballade. Transitory aches are leaned into rather than resolved: quite apart from Themes 3 and 5, you have stuff like the agonizing passage in thirds beginning at m.52 or the massive transition beginning from m.128 (5:45). The latter is quite something: you start with a passage which a younger Chopin would almost have certainly written as a sort of cadenza or fioritura, but here is a stark passage in measured semiquavers, flat and aggressively inexpressive. This intensifies into a chromatic two-voice descent in the RH, and finally reduces into a single line that winds listlessly for six bars before arriving at the dominant of B major (though not without landing on one striking augmented 6th dissonance first).

The other big factor is the nature of the material itself: the themes have an open-ended, subjective quality. The main polonaise theme – to take one example – begins with two standard four-bar phrases, but then overspills into a massive, modulating 12-bar phrase that gradually sheds all hint of polonaise-ness. When Chopin repeats the theme (m.45), it’s even more unstable – not only is there a jarring Eb pedal in the bass, the second phrase isn’t even allowed time to finish. The only theme that really has a stable structure is the B section’s touching trio/nocturne, and it’s pretty significant that it’s this which Chopin uses to end the piece.

Given all the above, it’s unsurprisingly very hard to find effective performances of the Op.61. The three here find different solutions to the Op.61’s interpretive problems.

00:00 – Yoshihiro Kondo. A “keep it together” approach. Steady pulse throughout – Kondo allows himself only the slightest rhythmic liberties. Emphasis on contrapuntal clarity (see the entrance of T2 at 6:35, and dense passages like 4:44) and tone production (see the beautifully controlled climax at 11:40).

13:20 – Kate Liu. Rather the opposite of Kondo – leans into the sprawl, emphasizes the distinct characters of each theme and the enigmatic aspects of the work. Lots of intoxicating detail: at 15:34 (m.24), the interaction between the RH melody and the LH polonaise rhythm is underscored; the suspended Ab at 17:29 (m.73) is given unusual prominence; the return of T5 (24:40) is barely audible, a pale shadow.Very expressive phrasing throughout.

27:38 – Leonskaja. All about rhythm; my favourite recording most days of the week. Opens deceptively, with a very slow introduction, but the contrast at 30:11 when T1 enters with march-like staccato (and sharp textural contrast between both hands) is lovely. At m.254 (40:27) the RH triplet and LH semiquaver rhythm is kept distinct, imparting huge momentum to the finale. This continues into the final run at 40:52, where the last note of each triplet is effectively overdotted. Also the handling of the finale and the lead-up to it is wonderful - real biting intensity.