Readers will probably be aware that in their original analogue format these performances were presented within recitals of mixed Chopin pieces. Recording dates range from 1977-85 and four locations were used. It is only predictable, then, that the recorded sound varies a certain amount from piece to piece: for instance, the First Scherzo is more sharply focused than the Fourth Ballade that precedes it, and in the Nocturnes it was the ones with the less plushy and reverberant tone that I enjoyed the most. But in a handful of the latter works I must take issue with the unsatisfactory state of the piano, especially the uneven voicing that one hears in the Nocturnes, Op. 32 No. 2 and Op. 65 No. 1. There is no excuse for this which is more noticeable on CD than it was on the LP.But Ashkenazy copes with the Herculean task of playing both Ballades and Scherzos like a hero of leonine confidence. It may be the dramatic power of Chopin that comes out most clearly, but the sense of discovery in his performance of the Fourth Ballade and the terrific rhythmic definition in the thrusting passagework of the First Scherzo both contribute to make a memorable impression. The Third Scherzo works much better than the Second, and though Ashkenazy is prone to the occasional inaccurate rhythm in the former, bars 494 ff build up to a stunning climax, where sheer energy is allowed to triumph over the minor tonality.
I have more reservations about the Nocturnes. Whilst it is true that Opp. 15 No. 3, 27 No. 1 and the C minor Op. posth. are al played in a relevatory and poetic mood, in others the effect is too often spoiled by over-emphatic peaks in phrasing and exaggerated crescendos. Mikuli, Chopin's pupil, said that his master hated an overloud forte: I wonder what he would have made of Ashkenazy's frequently forced and hard accentuations? So far as I am concerned, any effective interpreter of the Nocturnes must forget about using the fortissimo tone of the modern grand—it is better suited to Rachmaninov.'