Performing fast paced music much faster or slower than a so-called "norm"
does involve risk.  At the faster speed, there's the danger of losing much
poetry and sounding as if the main priority of the performer is just speed.
At a very slow pace, the danger is losing momentum and flow.  There are,
of course, great benefits of these extremes and the opportunity to be
distinctive.  I'm bringing up this subject because the versions of the 20th
variation which I felt were sub-standard were either very fast or slow.
Gould I and Lifschitz go like gangbusters; it's very impressive but leaves
me simply impressed with the speed.  All the nuances and emotions are sold
off to the fastest bidder.  Tureck II presents the problems of playing
slowly.  Much of the momentum is eliminated and not replaced with anything
else which might be of interest or enjoyment.  The other 9 versions were of
moderate or fast speed and each was enjoyable.  To be thruthful, I find
this variation not at Bach's highest level, and none of the versions
attempted to raise it.

I can't say the same for the 21st variation.  This is fantastic music
of drama, urgency, tension, poetry, and aching tenderness.  The music is
so good and provides so many opportunities to artists to deliver a great
performance that nothing less than outstanding is acceptable.  I suppose
someone has to be at the bottom, and it might as well be Schepkin who's
already there.  He starts out with all the elements of a superb rendition,
but once the first repeat comes around, Schepkin uses a cute staccato and
gets caught up with those trills of his.  With the first repeat ended,
Schepkin gets back on the right track but falls off later again in the
piece.  In those poorly interpreted sections, he takes away from the music
its seriousness of purpose - not acceptable.  One step up from Schepkin is
Schiff's version which brings to mind another facet of variation 21.  The
music's urgency and tension is greatly enhanced through frequent/short
shifts in tempo and dynamics.  However, there's the danger of shifts which
are too extreme and can rob the music of its flow and continuity.  My
feeling is that Schiff carries to extremes his shifts in tempo.  His
reading is still very good, but it does lose continuity in a few spots.
Yudina and Hewitt are at Schiff's level.  Yudina doesn't need to concern
herself with extreme shifts in tempo or dynamics since she provides little
variance of either, giving a straight-forward and fast performance.  It
sounds very good but rather limited.  Hewitt is consistently soft-toned,
giving the music a reflective quality.  I can see many listeners liking
this approach, but I find it limiting as well.

That leaves eight great versions of the 21st variation.  The next level up
has Tureck I and Serkin.  Both are slow readings which are very beautiful,
but each is a little too soft-toned.  Lifschitz shows that slow and strong
pays many benefits; although the slowest interpretation, his sense of
urgency is close to the top.  The same applies to Tureck II which uses a
moderate pace.  I find Tipo, Koroliov, and both Goulds transcendent.  Tipo
is the most overtly dramatic and urgent but also finds great poetry in the
music.  Koroliov provides the most tension in a very rich performance and
acoustic.  The Gould versions are fairly similar.  Neither is fast, and
both are highly poetic and powerful.  Their differences stem mainly from
recorded sound and Gould I having no repeats.

The 22nd variation is an infectiously joyous one, and the primary
differences among the versions is how each pianist takes us to that
point.  Six of the versions use the "let's get happy" approach; they
view the music as vibrant and straight-forward; Hewitt and both Goulds are
excellent.  I thought Serkin's rendition suffered without the first repeat
(Gould I did not).  Schepkin was a little sloppy and employed detrimental
trills.  Yudina wasn't idiomatic nor did she vary the music at all in the
repeats.  Lifschitz, Koroliov, and Schiff use reflection to reach a joyous
state, and each is great.  Both Turecks give excellent readings of a
stately and heroic nature as if achievement and its recognition lead to
joy.  The major loser in this varation is Tipo who never reaches joy.
Actually she sounds "pissed-off" as she uses her left hand as a
sledgehammer on the keys.  I can only imagine what she was thinking
about when she recorded this variation.

Variation 23 continues with happy thoughts as the music takes me on
a rollercoaster ride; it needs momentum and continuity in a seamless
environment.  The music is also technically demanding.  Unfortunately,
I had the sense that most of the artists were struggling at times with
problems of rushed speeds, excessive choppiness, chords not in unison,
and insufficient joy.  Yudina was particularly unagreeable with her tempo
changes, stern attitude, and poor sound.  But Schiff, Koroliov, and Gould
II get it right; they meet every technical challenge and provide
seamless/joyous music.

Serkin is not wearing very well with time.  His intepretations are the most
predictable up to now.  He prefers slow speeds and stresses the beauty of
the music.  But he often misses other important components.  Although he
enjoys a rich sound stage, it doesn't possess the clarity or depth of
Koroliov's.  And I feel the loss of repeats much more with Serkin than with
Gould who is substantially better at making a shortened variation seem
complete.

The 24th variation is lovely music in a bitter-sweet atmosphere.  The
pacing of the 12 versions is quite different, ranging from about 2 minutes
to over 4 minutes.  Schepkin, Gould I, and Lifschitz are on the lower rung.
Gould I and Schepkin are quick and sound rushed.  Lifschitz gives an
unidiomatic run-through.  Schiff and Yudina could have been at the top, but
some squirrely passage work keeps them down.  The same applies to Tureck II
who displays some weak right hand applications.  Six versions are excellent
and provide a wide range of speeds.  Tureck I is extremely slow and
stunning.  Tipo and Serkin are slow but nowhere close to Tureck I; Tipo's
performance is tender and dreamy in an acoustic to match, and Serkin's is
the most beautiful.  Hewitt and Koroliov have moderate pacing with
everything perfectly in place.  Gould II is quick but never sounds rushed,
just insightful with a sense of urgency that can't be resisted.

The next posting will start with the "Black Pearl" variation and go through
the completion of the Goldbergs.  I have received a few e-mails from list
members who are looking forward to whatever I have to say about the "Black
Pearl".  I just hope I don't find it as depressing as the 15th variation;
if it really is the "black hole" of music, I might never be able to climb
out.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]