This is perhaps my most personal and subjective review about the series although I had had the opportunity to write about nearly all of the performances in it last year. For many, Bogányi?s piano recital might have been a proper closing performance of this period but for many it might not have been so. It is strange to say this slightly more than two weeks after Fasil Say?s concert but Bogányi?s piano recital was perhaps the most contradictory in the past one year, even though he has come forward with the most consistent concept. What struck me during the concert ? once again ? was that very diverse forms of performance (can) exist and that I should learn to accept approaches even if for some reason they considerably differ from mine. It?s easy to guess from the above that I interpret for instance Beethoven?s sonatas very differently and would like to hear them played accordingly, but this is of course the result of some form of ?pre-interpretation? or ?pre-listening? which only applies to those listeners who do the preliminary research and try to approach the music from many different directions.
Some of Beethoven?s best known sonatas were in the spotlight at the concert, including 'Pathétique', 'Mondschein' and 'Appassionata'. Between the sonatas, Für Elise and the A major variations without opus numbers were inserted. (Interestingly, the programme originally indicated ?Hammerklavier? instead of the aforementioned two sonatas.) I will refrain from writing in detail about the sonatas but I can clearly say that it became clear to me that the concert on April 26 was indeed contradictory. The first movement of 'Pathétique' lacked the energy that makes this piece so different from Beethoven?s earlier sonatas and in the case of 'Mondschein', perhaps not without intention, the first Adagio sostenuto movement was much more accomplished than the other two that followed. During 'Appassionata' once again the slow, Andante con moto, movement was the more involving which clearly demonstrates that the slow and finer, ?transitory? movements were perhaps the more decisive. If that?s true, then it is also somewhat surprising, taking into consideration that in the case of Beethoven perhaps such movements are not the most dominant and the real Beethoven-like characteristics that determine his music were not adequately emphasised. However, I was introduced to a completely new aspect of Bogányi?s playing which was not primarily the result of a revelation but a contradiction that I had referred to earlier. To me Bogányi is not a Beethoven pianist.
This thought or perhaps impression was already formulating while listening to the sonatas (and other Beethoven compositions) but it only became clear when we reached the encores.
The first one was Liszt?s Transcendental Étude No. 10 in F minor and it was followed by Debussy?s Arabesque. A feeling crystallised during and after these pieces which somehow offered consolation. It smoothed and evened out the entire evening and cast a veil over details that I had not clearly understood: the fact that I was not moved by the music the way I should have been. It?s not that Bogányi failed to play the sonatas well, he played them excellently, but rather that he remained true to himself, being much closer to Liszt and Debussy. Bogányi gave a fantastic concert, especially if one considers that hearing these three sonatas in one evening is a unique experience in itself. On top of that, if I remind myself that the Liszt Year is hardly over and before that Europe had been celebrating Chopin, and that Bogányi made very active and meaningful contributions to these anniversaries, then I am once again overcome by a unique feeling.
Critic: Mátyás Szöllősi / Photo: MUPA
