Prelude in A flat major - Youthful and exhilarating music with a satirical
and humorous edge.  The prelude is made up of three sections with each
section having three parts.  Scherbakov is quite mellow; his youth must
have been very different from mine.  Scherbakov also drags in the middle
section.

Nikolayeva I and Jarrett are very good; youth and exuberance are well
projected in their readings.  Ashkenazy is even better; he has a wide-eyed
playful quality.  It's Nikolayeva II who really shines for me.  Her
performance has an other-worldly foundation in the first and last sections;
it takes me back to my youth convincingly.  Also, she increases the urgency
in the last section as well - a superior reading enhanced by a perfect
soundstage.

Fugue in A flat major - Youthful music continues, but this time the
diversity of emotions is greater than in its Prelude partner.  The Fugue
is more exuberant also and, at a fast speed, can be a whirlwind of bustling
activity.  That's just how I prefer it, and Jarrett provides that type of
reading; it's fast with a stunning vitality for life.  Further, I love the
way Jarrett closes out the Fugue with a comforting conclusion excellently
contrasted with the bustling actions that come before.  Ashkenazy, although
as quick as Jarrett, is more sedate.  Scherbakov's reading is one I find
too comfortable.  Both Nikolayeva issues are on the slow end, but
Nikolayeva II presents wonderful phrasing and accenting; she keeps my
interest throughout.  Overall, I prefer Jarrett, then Nikolayeva II with
Scherbakov at the bottom.

Prelude in F minor - With opening musical passages of great beauty and
depth, this is a prelude looking for a home; tonalities are falling with
ambiguity and remain that way through the conclusion.  Mood and tempo are
the foundations for my preferences.  Ashkenazy and Scherbakov clock in at
about 2 1/2 minutes, Jarrett in 2 minutes, and both Nikolayeva issues takes
over 3 minutes.  It's my experience that for faster or slower readings
than the norm to be effective, they have to bring to the table favorable
elements which do not exist in the average tempo performances.  This does
happen with the Nikolayeva versions; they present great detail and more
depth than the quicker versions.  It does not happen with Jarrett's reading
which is simply faster than the others - not more exciting, urgent,
uplifting, dark, etc.

But there are significant differences between the Nikolayeva performances.
Nikolayeva II has a wide emotional range with much darkness and angst, a
performance whose breadth and detail render it more enlightening than the
three faster versions.  Concerning Nikolayeva I, its liner notes describe
the F minor as "confident".  Reading these notes after listening to only
the four other versions gave me a feeling of confusion.  Those other
performances give off no feelings of confidence at all; tonalities are
ambiguous as well as the moods.  Nikolayeva II changes all that; the
performance's foundation *is* confidence and emotional comfort.  Possessing
less emotional diversity than Nikolayeva II and being quite slow, it would
be reasonable to question the ability of the reading to maintain high
interest.  However, Nikolayeva I keeps me glued to the speakers; I'm hooked
immediately and remain that way through the ending.  And this ending has
great impact.  With the other versions, the ambiguity of the conclusion is
expected and highly rewarding.  With Nikolayeva II, the conclusion comes as
quite a surprise; I just about rose from my chair upon first hearing it;
there is absolutely no telegraphing of its arrival.  Also, her phrasing of
the ending is exceptional.

Fugue in F minor - For me, it's always interesting to discover how others
deal with the ambiguities in the world.  Some go through life in a state of
utter confusion with the belief than nothing is for sure, while the other
extreme sees only 'black and white'.  How we react on a case by case basis
when ambiguity is staring at us is also interesting to observe.

Although the Fugue begins firmly in F minor, tonal ambiguity creeps into
this music and grows in intensity.  I started thinking about how each of
the five pianists deal with the ambiguity.  Scherbakov battles tonal
ambiguity, not by trying to evade it but by meeting in head-on; he's ready
to go to war to stamp it out.

Jarrett's is a great version.  From the start, Jarrett is being taken in
by the attractions of tonal ambiguity as the energies accumulated keep
intensifying.  Finally, he and ambiguity have become *one* and mock the
rest of us.  Jarrett's ending is a wonderful interpretive decision that you
won't find a trace of in the other versions.  Even if my little tale holds
no meaning for you, Jarrett is more uplifting than the others.

I find sadness the basic emotion of the Nikolayeva/Melodiya performance;
she is very effective in conveying this theme and brings out all the
lyricism in the F minor.  In her Hyperion performance, Nikolayeva displays
much vitality but is less lyrical than for Melodiya.  Ashkenazy is much
slower than the other versions and responds to tonal ambiguity by making
it as pretty and palatable as possible; he does this very well.

Depending on how you like this fugue performed, any one of the five
versions delivers its message effectively.  I have to go with Jarrett; his
high energy level and optimism carry the day.  I least enjoy Scherbakov who
indulges in some key banging on his way to war.

Prelude in E flat major - The Prelude has two sections which alternate
with one another:  an heroic chorale and a satirical caprice.  Toward
the conclusion, the two sections essentially meld into one.  I find each
version very rewarding with Jarrett and Ashkenazy taking the relatively
quick tempos.  If pressed to choose, I would go with Nikolayeva I who
invests the caprice with an exquisite 'music box' sound.

Fugue in E flat major - Chromatic inflections pervade the Fugue which
is loaded with tension and mystery which are always bursting at the seams
and trying to take over the music.  It gives me the vision of a person
attempting to climb out of a hole but always losing ground.  Nikolayeva II
is superb as she fully conveys the intricate nature of the chromatism and
the stern and urgent nature of the music; hers is a riveting performance.
Nikolayeva is equally riveting in her Melodiya reading which is slower and
even more stern than the Hyperion issue.  Jarrett joins the Nikolayeva
versions with a 'motor-driven" performance which never lets up; even the
softer passages have momentum.

The Ashkenazy and Scherbakov interpretations are hardly flabby, but they
can't approach the austerity and determination of the Nikolayeva or Jarrett
versions.  I do prefer Ashkenazy to Scherbakov; Ashkenazy's fast speed does
bring a type of excitement that Scherbakov's average tempo can not.

Prelude in C minor - Austerity and bleakness pervade this Prelude which
comes in two alternating sections:  the first is from the lower register
and exudes austerity and anger, the second is more of a quiet resignation
and misery.  Since I keep switching my allegience between Nikolayeva I and
Scherbakov, I might as well place them together at the top.  Nikolayeva is
like steel in the first section, while Scherbakov, although softer than
Nikolayeva, is no less pessimistic.  His phrasing is so supple and loaded
with impact.  Speaking of pessimism, there isn't very much of it in
Jarrett's reading.  Particularly in the first section, he just seems
to be going through the motions in a mechanical fashion.  Also, his
interpretation is about as Russian as Philadelphia's Liberty Bell.
Nikolayeva II and Ashkenazy are fine but could have been a little more
expressive; to a degree, Nikolayeva replaces her usual high expressiveness
with some loud volume.  In her earlier recording, she has a much better
grasp on the premise than this particular prelude has no need of strong
volume to fully convey its messages.

Fugue in C minor - The work starts off with the same four notes as its
C minor partner and is also similar in projecting a mood of quiet misery.
However, the Fugue does have rays of light which are sublime and remind me
of Bach's subtlety of expression.  A little more than half-way through the
Fugue, quiet resignation is replaced by bitter anger; the emotional
pendulum then swings back to the primary mode.

The music impacts the listener greatly, and I feel that the slower versions
have more time to savor every phrase.  Those slower versions are both from
Nikolayeva.  Her Melodiya performance is exceptional and distinct from the
others in the nobility she provides and the strength and resolve of the
angry passages; Nikolayeva II is almost as fine with a bleakness which
pervades the reading.  There's nothing wrong with Ashkenazy or Scherbakov;
the competition is just too good.  Jarrett is something else - speedy and
superficial.  His is the type of performance I would expect to hear at the
Golden Nugget Hotel in Las Vegas while eating the buffet lunch.  Jarrett
strikes out big-time in the C minor series.

Update:  The five versions are in the same position as at the end of Part
4, although Nikolayeva I has made some inroads toward her more recent set.
Both versions have been enlightening experiences.  Jarrett was continuing
to improve until the key of C minor destroyed him.  Since Jarrett has had
a few superb performances where he clearly is in touch with the
Shostakovich idiom, it just astounds me that he would listen to his C minor
'takes' and give his approval.  Jarrett's starting to irk me, because he is
not using his full potential.  Well, most of us don't so I'll stop my
griping.  See you again in Part 6 which will conclude the review of one of
Shostakovich's greatest body of works.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]