Bach's Italian Concerto in F major (BWV 971) was published in Leipzig
in 1735 as part of the Klavierbung Two which also includes the French
Overture.  Bach was obviously a man for all seasons.  The Italian Concerto
transposes to the solo keyboard the style of a Vivaldi solo concerto
with outer movements built on the ritornello principle which is just the
alternation/opposition between the solo instrument and the orchestral
tutti.  The second movement is in the fashion of an accompanied aria.

I have read that Bach obviously thought very highly of Vivaldi since he
wrote works based on the Vivaldi style.  Yes, he borrowed the Vivaldi style
but made it entirely his own.  What impresses me greatly is that Bach takes
a style based on solo instruments against an orchestra, and composes a solo
keyboard composition for a 2-manual harpsichord.  The result is outstanding
music.

I have ten versions to compare with Koroliov's: Gould, Tureck, Hewitt,
Woolley, Gilbert, Serkin, Cole, Aldwinkle, Schiff, and Banowetz.  The only
recording not yet used in my Koroliov reviews is the Gould on CBS Odyssey
(MBK 42527).

The first movement is often identified as "Allegro", but Bach did not
leave us with a tempo indication.  I had an expectation that the tempo
variations among the versions would be significant, and I was looking
forward to it.  Alas, the range of tempos is small; even Tureck doesn't
take the opportunity to apply the brakes, and Gould stays away from the
fast lane.  These folks are unpredicatable.

In addition to the poetry and lyricism of the first movement, there are
crucial elements of strength, urgency, and momentum.  I was surprised
at the number of versions which essentially missed those elements.  Six
versions did not make the first cut: Hewitt and Koroliov are too "soft"
and they both tended to play softer when I wanted it louder, Serkin is soft
and fussy, Aldwinkle displays little urgency or strength, Banowetz is much
too weak and has trouble keeping his hands in unison (bass notes a
particular problem), and Woolley is short on poetry.

maggie Cole's performance is relatively quick and straight-forward.
Her poetry and lyricism are admirable; strength and urgency is ample, and
she never loses momentum.  Gilbert is slower with superb accenting, but I
would have liked a little faster tempo and there are a few awkward moments.
Schiff also has some awkward passages, but there's also great momentum and
urgency in his reading.  Gould delivers his usual high degree of clarity;
the interplay between the voices is outstanding.  He basically gives me
everything I could want from the music including ample poetry and lyricism.
Tureck is also at this high level with a tempo similar to Gould.  Although
the problem of projection of the softer passages is still problematic, her
outstanding interpretation overcomes it.  So, it's Gould and Tureck,
followed by Cole, Gilbert, and Schiff.  The other versions of the first
movement are forgettable.

The second movement is an outstanding Andante.  I wrote the following
adjectives as I was listening to the piece: pristine, pure, tense, urgent,
tender, nostalgic, beautiful, delicate, and conversational.  Lionel Salter
wrote the liner notes for the Woolley recording and gave his description
of the movement:

   "Over a constant figure of four notes, usually in thirds, followed
   by two quasi-pizzicato bass notes, there floats a highly ornate and
   rhapsodic coloratura melody of poignant beauty akin th the elaborate
   lines Bach often gives in the cantatas to a solo oboe."

I had a significant problem with Tureck's version beyond the "soft sound"
matter.  She indulges in some high drama in the middle section which I
found jarring and not well integrated into the fabric of the piece.  So,
I surprisingly am saying that every other version is better than her's.
Actually, the level of performance of most of the recordings is great.  I
love seven of them: Woolley, Koroliov, Gould, Banowetz, Hewitt, Aldwinkle,
and Schiff.  Woolley and Aldwinkle have superb pacing, Koroliov and Gould
provide similarly outstanding and very slow interpretations, Hewitt gives
an excellent mainstream performance, Schiff entirely eschews his frequent
mannerisms and reveals how good he can be, and Banowetz apparently feels
much more at home with a slow movement as he delivers great emotional
impact and a fantastic conversational atmosphere.  Three versions (Cole,
Gilbert,Serkin) did well without particularly stirring my soul.

The third movement, Presto, is highly energetic, joyful, and extrovert;
forward momentum is a crucial factor.  Although technically challenging,
I consider the Presto much less of an interpretive challenge than the first
two movements.  Banowetz and Woolley are my favorite versions.  Each scores
highly with the four aspects I mentioned above and provide consistently
exciting and interesting performances.  The remaining versions are all
enjoyable but a little lacking in momentum and /or excitement.

I don't think that any of the versions offer a throughly excellent Italian
Concerto, but three are excellent in two movements: Banowetz, Woolley, and
Gould.  Koroliov does fairly well overall because of his splendid Andante,
but his outer movements are not distinguished.  The one version that has
mimimal traces of excellence is Serkin's.

The remaining work from the Koroliov disc is the Fantasia and Fugue in
C minor, BWV 906.  This work has many manuscript sources, and it has been
difficult to clarify the relationship among them.  It does appear that the
Fantasia was written about nine years before the Fugue.  Both pieces are
highly chromatic and might help explain how they became joined.  Koroliov
performs both sections as does Igor Kipnis on Arabesque.  Hewitt (on
Hyperion, not DG) and Banowetz just provide the Fantasia.  I found it
interesting that the Hewitt liner notes make not mention of the Fugue at
all, and the Banowetz notes call it the "Fantasia and Fugue" but give no
reason for leaving out the Fugue.  And people get paid for writing this
stuff?

Both the Fantasia and the Fugue are wonderful and complicated music.
Each gives me an eerie sensation, the Fantasia in a powerful fashion
and the Fugue in a subdued manner.  Although Koroliov and Hewitt do well
with the Fantasia, I prefer Kipnis and Banowetz.  Kipnis provides a lot
of abandon and tenderness, and Banowetz gets every ounce of beauty out of
the music.  In the Fugue, Kipnis takes twice as long as Koroliov because,
instead of ending the piece in its unfinished state, he repeats the A
section and adds a few passages of his own.  I like that much better; it
makes the music "complete" and Kipnis does it superbly.  Although Kipnis
gets my top recommendation, I would not want to be without Koroliov or
Banowetz.  I feel that Hewitt is superfluous in this company.

With the comparisons done, I can confidently recommend Kroliov's new
recording.  I think that any serious record collector of Bach on the piano
would want this fine set of performances.  Koroliov is always musical and
interesting; he often is not in the mainstream, and his decisions are
usually good ones.  His recorded sound is outstanding, a feature which I'm
noticing frequently with Hanssler keyboard recordings.  But, this disc does
not lift Koroliov to the top of the Bach performing ladder.  He was not
outstanding overall in any of the five works.  I would categorize his
performances on the disc and others of his I have listened to as "highly
competitive".

Don's Conclusion: A fine recording that provides much pleasure and
insight.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]