"A summary for the busy excutive", as Steven Schwarz always writes
Cello Suites BWV 1007-1012
Ralph Kirshbaum (vc)
Virgin, VCD 5 45086 2, 1994
Peter Wispelway (vc)
Channel Classics, ccs 12298,1998
In my collection I have these two interpretations and they tell two
different tales. The Kirshbaum set (now deleted, but will probably pop
up in mid-price sooner or later?) is played on a modern cello,Domenico
Montagnana, Venice 1729, whereas Wispelway in his second version of the
suites plays a baroque cello, Barak Norman 1710, in the first five suites
and a violoncello piccolo of unknown make in the sixth. Kirshbaum's
playing is eloquent, fluent with a light articulation. His cello sounds
beautiful and the recording is very good. His Bach is fairly romantic and
sometimes I find that he uses too much vibrato, especially in the double
stops. He is at his best in the lighter more dance-like parts i.e. the
menuets, bourees, gavottes and the gigues, where he gets a nice flow in the
music. The more inward pieces especially the sarabandes and the allemande
in the sixth suite does not come across very well. He does not find the
depth and poetry in these inward pieces. And I find that this lack of
depth is what is missing in his interpretation. This is a good, rather
straightforward modern interpretation that, I feel, does not reach to the
heart of this marvellous music. Wispelway is another matter. He is
bolder, takes more risks. He gets a very warm, dark and intensive sound
from his baroque cello. He excels were Kirshbaum fails i.e. in the
sarabandes. I can hardly imagine them more beautifully played! He find so
much that is marvellous in them, they are like a black diamonds (if there
is such thing!), dark and glistening. What makes Wispelway's set so
excellent is how well he is attuned to the different modes in the suites.
When they, for example, call for exuberance in the gigue he plays it with
a lovely robustness. I always find myself stamping with my foot when I
listen to them! In the sixth suite the differences between the sets is
even bigger. Wispelway plays a violoncello piccolo that has a lean sound,
whereas Kirshbaum uses the cello. Wispelway comes across as much subtler.
Even though the timing is fairly similar I often feel that Kirshbaum is
faster. He is more direct in his approach. Wispelway is feels slower
but he finds so many beautiful things on the way. He is totally inside
the music and wants to communicate with me. When I listen to Kirshbaum I
hear beautiful music well played, but with Wispelway I get very emotionally
involved. The only drawback with theWispelway set is the rather airless
recording. To sum up: Kirshbaum can be recommended to those who prefer
Bach on a modern cello and wants an eloquent and well played set.
Wispelway on the other hand is self-recommending to those who want a
HIP-set of the suites. A cd to treasure. There are of course a lot of
interpretations available that has been highly praised. Two sets by Anner
Byslma, Jaap ter Linden, Roel Dieltens, Pierre Fournier, Maurice Gendron
springs to mind. I haven't heard these, but will probably investigate some
of them in the future.
I end with a qoute fom Wispelway's notes (stolen from
www.inkpot.com/classical)
WORD OF THANKS by Pieter Wispelwey (trans. Ian Gaukroger) Let us imagine
once again how this domain was entered when the great Bach humbly began
to write down our notes one by one. Let us also remember that it was a
ca.35-year-old Bach who concentrated his powers to channel his unbridled
creativity and energy - a man whose brain functioned hundreds of times more
quickly than his quill could write (although that must have been impressive
too). His was a fantasy which covered an enormous spectrum, just as the
suites encompass the entire spectrum of simplicity to sublimity (among
others). It is the stratifications that makes the Suites so hypnotic,
the endless evocativeness while using only a single cello. A fascinating
paradox, this alchemy in dance form. It is not unfathomably profound music
by a deeply religious composer advanced in years, nor it it biblical in
the thoroughly serious sense. That would not be moving. Above all it is
magical music and possibly biblical in the sense that it narrates stories
in a comprehensible language, from the archaic to the refined, about the
immeasurable dimensions and variations of the human experiment. For that
reason we are grateful: grateful that these pieces exist, that they seem
to be about everything, that we are moved without being able to grasp them
or even know whether we are meant to grasp them, that we enjoy them quia
absurdum est.
Patrik Enander
Goteborg, Sweden
[log in to unmask]
|