John Field (1782–1837) composed for and performed on the piano at an important time in the instrument’s development and at a time when musical opportunities were expanding beyond the clutches of the aristocracy. The result was a vibrant and ever-changing musical landscape. During this time, the piano’s range was extended and the sustaining pedal was introduced, which inevitably had an impact on composition. Indeed, a consequence of these additions to the piano was the emergence of the nocturne genre. Although Field was not alone in writing in this genre, his name has become synonymous with the nocturne and he has posthumously secured a place in music history as the genre’s ‘inventor’. Yet, despite this, Field has primarily enjoyed life in the shadow of Chopin. Fortunately, this has not deterred numerous artists and various record labels from documenting the Field nocturnes and in the process situating them within the performing canon.

The most recent is Decca’s recording with Elizabeth Joy Roe, whose interpretation of the nocturnes is sensitive, elegant and polished; her touch can indeed be referred to as pearl-like, just as Field’s playing was described. Roe diligently follows the score, while adding her own inflections, usually a slightly slower tempo or preference for rubato. Roe plays with expression, adding colour to well-planned phrases that are in return controlled and balanced. She understands how to build and resolve momentum, while harmonies and melodies are carefully woven together. Roe exploits the piano’s capabilities, and her tone is full and warm. Her playing is precise, and all passages are executed neatly. It seems that each performance has been carefully planned, as every nocturne has something different to offer. For example, Nocturne 4 conjures images of a singer telling a story, while the opening of Nocturne 7 is punctuated with arpeggiated runs which, under Roe’s fingers, seem to be played on a harp. Nocturne 9 adopts a sombre mood, while Nocturnes 12 and 13 contrast in character in every manner, with Roe capturing coquettishness and dreaminess, respectively.

This recording is as valuable to the musicology community as it is to the performing one, if only because it acts as an updated version of Liszt’s endeavour: Decca boasts Roe’s performance as the first single album on which all of Field’s 18 nocturnes appear, a claim that echoes Liszt who wrote that he was the first to present nine of Field’s nocturnes in one edition (later producing, as was his intention, a single edition with all 18). Although the rationale behind Roe’s use of the ‘Liszt edition’, as well as the Peters edition, was the absence of an Urtext, it is difficult to believe that she did not intend to bring Liszt in line with a twenty-first-century practice of disseminating music: complete editions were gaining currency by the mid-nineteenth century, and consumers were every bit as eager to work through the entirety of a repertoire on their piano as they are today on their CD player. Yet, Roe need not have been concerned about which version of Field’s nocturnes to consider, as elsewhere Robin Langley, editor of John Feld: Nocturnes and Related Pieces (Musica Britannica, vol. 71), advises that ‘modern performers should feel at liberty as Field would have done by improvisation to choose differently between the given texts in each individual performance’.Footnote ¹

If there is a weakness in the product it is in the sleeve notes, written by Roe herself. The obstacles and questions that Roe appears to have encountered when considering the nocturnes permeate Field scholarship. For example, Roe refers to Field’s revisions as a result of ‘circumstance or personal whims’, but recent scholarship makes clear that Field’s revisions may be underpinned by issues of copyright. Roe bemoans the fact that there is no Urtext of Field’s nocturnes; but if she is aware of the aforementioned Langley edition – an invaluable source to any performer or researcher, with meticulous documentation of the various editions of Field’s nocturnes and a proposed chronology – she does not give evidence of this here. The subtitles in the Schirmer edition to which Roe refers are not coincidental: the Field nocturnes that we now know did not always start out life as nocturnes; in fact, Langley makes clear that Field only labelled 16 pieces as nocturnes. This may also in part explain why ‘a few deviate from the traditional definition of the term’, although pinning down a strict definition of the nocturne proves problematic in general. Following the numbering Liszt assigned to the nocturnes, and indeed the works he included as nocturnes, means omitting Nocturnes 9 and 10 from the Langley volume, and therefore two pieces that Field appears to have specifically labelled as such; Peters also does not include these nocturnes, while No. 17 in Peters does not appear in either Liszt or Langley. What passes as a Field nocturne is not always straightforward, although Liszt appears to have had his own agenda in the ones he chose. Roe also erroneously attributes fragments of Liszt’s essay on Field to Theodore Baker, who in fact translated the essay. Overall, Roe’s notes tend to reinforce the general perceptions of Field scholarship, in which the composer remains a sort of enigma. Her oversights are easily explained if one considers that the accessible literature on Field is primarily outdated and not widely circulated, notwithstanding that extant perceptions of Field have been perpetuated to the point that any other narrative of the composer would seem nonsensical. Yet due to the prominence of recordings over academic journals, sleeve notes are an opportunity and a medium through which, in this case, the image of Field and his position in nineteenth-century musical life may change and be more accurately portrayed. From this perspective, notes from a music scholar would have been preferable, and the overall product would have benefited from the latest musicological research.

But would a more accurate musicological reading of Field’s nocturnes necessarily have enhanced Roe’s performance? Or, as Roe puts it, does the score ultimately serve as a blueprint, ‘just as musical interpretation remains a highly subjective art’? In this case, I think Roe’s recording would have been just as committed. Her approach to the works cannot be faulted, and her recording is very beneficial even as a support to the nocturnes Liszt edited alone. Moreover, just as Liszt promoted having all the nocturnes in one book, it is equally welcome to have them all on one CD. Roe’s performance of the nocturnes is engaging, and her interpretation draws out nuances in the works that make the familiar seem new to even the seasoned listener of Field.