Cello Suite No.3 in C major, BWV 1009 - Switching to the relatively open
and heroic key of C major, the Prelude is quite a piece of music. It is
a virtual compendium of how to play the cello: scales, trills, all kinds
of articulation and bowing techniques, etc. It's a treasure trove of
technical variety. My view is that the emotional variety is abundant as
well; the last thing I want from this prelude is for the performance to
load me up with one mood type or style of playing.
Average timings for the Prelude are under 3 1/2 minutes. Maisky takes
about four minutes as he luxuriates in the music. Unfortunately, this slow
tempo plus all the romantic affectations Maisky exhibits makes his reading
a loud non-starter.
The part of the Prelude I enjoy most involves a very long drone-like
passage mid-way through the movement followed by an exciting build-up and
release of energy. For this section to have any impact, the drone passage
must not be greater in energy than what follows. Schiefen, Casals, and
Rostropovich totally reverse the sequence; the build-up becomes a let-down
and excitement never exists. These three versions are also non-starters.
Dieltiens is very fast and often uses bow strokes which I consider too
short; it tends to be a "chicken-scratch" performance with no time to savor
anything. Bylsma's tempo is close to Dieltien's, and his performance lacks
sufficient lyricism *and* strength. Wispelwey displays plenty of lyricism,
but he tends to under-project and I would have liked more emotion conveyed
although his conclusion has ample weight.
McCarty gives a good performance, but there's quite a romantic tone
to her reading which I find less than desireable. Kirshbaum does an
outstanding job with the drone passage and resulting build-up and release
of energy, but his reading sounds a little uninvolved up to that point.
Pergamenschikow provides a fine interpretation with some crisp playing;
although I like that, he is as fast as Bylsma and misses some emotional
involvement.
Both Ma versions are quite similar and quite good. In fact, they are both
excellent in the second half of the movement but not as incisive in the
first half. Sheppard is very good as well, just not as distinctive as the
best versions.
Now for the real good stuff. Most of the time, reducing the volume control
does not add to my musical enjoyment. Barbara Westphal's performance,
however, sounds best at a relatively low volume. It goes from being loud
to exhibiting a mysterious aura that totally draws me in. She plays her
notes sharply and with a high degree of angularity (especially compared to
McCarty), but she never loses her sights on musicality. Westphal's drone
passage and aftermath are close to perfect. But it's her conclusion which
I most appreciate - fantastic accenting, slurring, and dynamics.
Paolo Beschi's opening descent and quick ascension are perfectly executed;
it feels as if the bowels of the earth are churning upward. His sense of
urgency and danger is outstanding; his conclusion is very powerful. I do
want to caution that those who prefer modern cello might well detest
Beschi's version.
Fournier uses an irresistable legato approach through much of the Prelude;
it's very distinctive and effective. His drone passage/build-up is superb,
and you couldn't ask for a more aristrocratic reading.
Jaap ter Linden's the guy for a great mainstream performance at moderate
tempo. His lyricism is stunning, and he misses nothing provided by the
other versions. ter Linden's drone passage is a piece of perfection, and
the energy release is complete.
Saving the best for last brings us Peter Bruns who easily delivers the most
exciting performance of all. It's quick, suspenseful, urgent, stressful,
angular, swirling, and highly assertive. The reading is quite distinctive,
but I can't imagine anyone not responding well to it.
The C major Allemande is very agreeable and conversational music of a
ceremonial and playful nature where the second theme transposes the first
bar of the first theme. My favorite part of the Allemande is the ascending
passage of the first theme set off by the bass line.
Guido Schiefen's performance isn't bad at all. It has plenty of energy
and fine lyricism. I do find that his relatively long bow strokes combined
with a chunky tone reduce the playfulness of the music. Peter Bruns is
less enjoyable; he's surprisingly smooth and not very interesting.
Pablo Casals also has some long bow strokes but he doesn't allow them to
reduce playfulness. His reading has a thoroughly enchanting swagger and
fantastic first theme ascending passage as well as an attractive air of
aristocracy. Ma I makes greater use of short bow strokes as he provides
a highly varied account of great playfulness and ample strength. Ma II is
smoother than I but still very playful and full of life. Maisky's reading
is very similar to Ma I but not as lean in tone and with greater variety of
tempo. Although the performance takes well over 4 minutes, it never sounds
slow at all.
Anner Bylsma is quite slow and highly lyrical; it's a lovely and poignant
performance which can't be beat in providing a strong sense of conversation
at an intimate and elegant dinner. This reading doesn't quite fit in
with my basic conception of the music, but it's a great interpretation.
Kirshbaum is also slow but hardly intimate; it is a fine and lively reading
that's a little too smooth and romantic in tone. Pergamenschikow is very
slow and seems even slower; it's a performance that tends to drag while
Bylsma's slow reading sparkles. Another version which drags a little comes
from Dieltiens; unlike Blysma, Dieltiens does not sound intimate or
elegant. Instead there's a rustic aura to the music which is enjoyable
up to a point.
Paolo Beschi delivers a playful and swaggering account, but others do also
and with greater tonal beauty. Pierre Fournier uses much legato, but I
don't feel it works as well here as in the Prelude. Fournier also doesn't
get much out of the ascending passage in the first theme. Wispelwey's
performance is the slowest one being reviewed; it's very good but a little
low on exuberance. Although ter Linden is just a little quicker than
Wispelwey, he generally delivers more energy. Unfortunately, his ascending
passage is a mess and he drags some in the second theme. Susan Sheppard is
too laid-back without any corresponding advantages. Rostropovich plays it
straight and with little tonal beauty.
Patricia McCarty also gives a 'straight' and quick performance which is
too romantic in tone and has minimal variety and depth. Barbara Westphal
is no better but for different reasons; she's faster than McCarty and sounds
rushed. More significantly, the ceremonial aspect of the music is reduced.
Bylsma gives my favorite reading of the C major Allemande. He takes the
music to a unique world of conversation, elegance, beauty, and poignancy.
And this from the man who had one of the worst preludes.
The C major Courante is fast, mercurial, and possesses great forward
momentum and excitement. Kirshbaum delivers all this superbly; it's
a dynamic and highly musical reading. I can't say the same for
Pergamenschikow; he likes to halt after phrases, and I find that it damages
the music's flow significantly and eliminates any excitement. Although
Pergaqmenschikow's tempo is as fast as Kirshbaum's, he seems to drag some
while Kirshbaum speeds by. Ma II has the pacing on target, but his
performance has a heavy sound to it which I feel doesn't work well for
this courante; also, Ma has some cute moments in the second subject which
detract from my enjoyment.
Dieltiens take a three minute piece of music and extends it almost
four minutes. The speed is gone as well as the excitement. However,
it's a great interpretation. He replaces the missing elements with a
conversational flow and singing lyricism which are irresistable. Bylsma
and Ma I are "Gould" fast. Compare them to Kirshbaum and the greater
lyricism and excitement in Kirshbaum's reading is evident. However, Bylsma
does give me fine pleasure. I find that Sheppard chops up the music too
much; when she refrains, the performance is quite effective. Bruns is a
little better than Sheppard, although he is still too choppy. Wispelwey
gives a nice and agreeable performance a little short on excitement and
long on hesitations.
ter Linden gives one of the slower performances. It does remind me of
Dieltien's even slower reading, but without Dieltien's level of lyricism.
Beschi is fast with a good flow, but I find little tonal beauty in his
delivery. Fournier is very good with a reading similar to Kirshbaum's
except for a lower level of exuberance and perhaps too much legato. Maisky
starts off well but won't leave it at that; by the repeat of the first
theme, he gets cute, hesitates, softens, and slurs excessively, displaying
all the elements of mannerisms. That's too bad, because he was on his way
to a great interpretation.
Guido Schiefen's fat and unattractive tone combined with "rests" of
excessive lengths makes his slow version a non-starter. Another slow
version comes from Rostropovich; it either sounds relaxed or stodgy. What
I am sure of is that the tonal beauty is lacking as has often been the
case with Rostropovich up to this point. Casals provides a well paced and
classical reading which just does not have the lightness of Kirshbaum's.
Westphal's fast paced performance is also quite good with excellent
momentum and excitement. McCarty's viola version is slower and uses much
more legato than Westphal; I prefer Westphal's faster tempo.
Summming up on the C major Courante, Kirshbaum and Dieltiens are wonderful
alternatives which easily surpass the other versions. Kirshbaum strikes me
as giving an almost perfect performance of speed, lyricism, and excitement,
all in a mecurial cocoon. Dieltiens's slow and conversational reading of
ceremonial proportions gets my vote over Kirshbaum.
With the C major Sarabande, the mood changes greatly. This is the time for
regret, sadness, melancholy, and utter resignation; the spirit is sinking
slowly but irrevocably. Some of the performances are quite slow at close
to or above five minutes; that's fine with me since a sense of slow pacing
and deliberation seems natural to my conception of this sarabande. I also
prefer a low volume which better conveys the acceptance of the human
decline (my perception again).
The slower versions come from Kirshbaum, Fournier, Ma II, Rostropovich,
Maisky, and Schiefen. Kirshbaum, Rostropovich, and Maisky are highly
conversational, and that aspect heightens interest in their respective
readings - they have much to tell the listener. Ma II and Fournier,
although fine performances, don't reach that high conversational level
for me. Schiefen is not competitive as he emotes excessively and loudly.
Among the other modern instrument performances, Barbara Westphal and
Pablo Casals deliver highly conversational readings which are excellent.
McCarty, Ma I, and Pergamenschikow give rewarding interpretations; I did
think that McCarty could have displayed a greater variety of tone.
Among the baroque cello versions, Dieltiens, Sheppard, Wispelwey, Bruns,
Beschi, and ter Linden could all be more expressive, interesting, and
conversational. The exception is Bylsma whose variety of articulation
adds to the conversational nature of his reading.
Of the six excellent versions noted above, I have the most affection
for Kirshbaum, Westphal, and Maisky. Each allows me to enter a world of
intimate conversation and confession. In addition, each version is always
well projected and expertly executed.
Next is the Bourree series I/II. Bourree I is happy and angular music
with a fine swagger to it; Bourree II is smoother and reflective of a wider
range of emotions. Both Ma versions are relatively soft-toned without much
of a swagger, but their Bourree II's are very fine. Bruns, ter Linden,
Westphal, Dieltiens, Schiefen, and Sheppard have plenty of swagger but
provide little excitement in Bourree I. Beschi is low on excitement and
swagger; his Bourree II is very limited in expression. Bylsma's version is
the fastest by a wide margin and one-dimensional.
Kirshbaum is very fast in Bourree I; surprisingly, the speed doesn't
enhance the excitement; his Bourree II does not venture far from the
emotions in Bourree I except when he ventures into the romanticized zone.
I do not like Kirshbaum's Bourree II at all. Rostropovich gives us a
very slow Bourree I, but it has an elegant swagger that's irresistable.
Unfortunately, his Bourree II is much too soft, goes nowhere, and loses
my attention well before its conclusion. Fournier's Bourree I is also
slow and wonderful, and his Bourree II leaves Rostropovich in the dust.
I can do without Maisky's slurring, hesitations, and other affectations
in Bouree I; his Bourree II isn't much better. Pergamenschikow is also
non-competitive with no swagger at all and a staid Bourree II. Wispelwey's
Bourree II is very expressive, but his Bourree I has little swagger.
The outstanding versions have much in common. They have the swagger
down pat, they are exciting (or convey an equally desireable feature),
and they understand the need for 'contrast' between the two bourrees. I
am surprised at the number of performances where the mood is essentially
the same between the two bourrees. The upper echelon has Pablo Casals,
Pierre Fournier, and Patricia McCarty. Casals' Bourree I is very exciting
and aristocratic, the Bourree II is reflective. McCarty's performance has
a very nice rustic tone to it; the Bourree I has excitement in abundance
and II is a reading of fine urgency. My favorite version comes from
Fournier whose swagger, excitement, and projection is second to none in
Bourree I even though he's quite slow; Bourree II is the best of the
group with its highly conversational features.
The C major Suite closes with the Gigue, music which is cheerful, playful,
and robust. This one has many octave leaps and drone-like passages with
the first subject being more robust and angular than the second. Dieltiens
does not seem to give much priority to forward motion or strong projection;
I feel that this tendency disturbs the music's flow and restricts the
robust nature of the music. The best feature of Dieltien's reading is its
highly rustic atmosphere. Ma I is quick and conveys the basic elements,
but I find his cello tone much too astringent. Beschi is on the slow side
with little momentum; his seamless legato in the first subject is not
appreciated. Kirshbaum is fine in that he's playful, robust, and cheerful.
My problem with him is his romantic cello tone which comes to center stage
too often; this is rustic music, not Viennese schmaltz. McCarty suffers
even more than Kirshbaum from the romantic bug; these two performances are
difficult for me to listen to.
Very good and on target performances come from Rostropovich, Bruns,
Wispelwey, Bylsma, Sheppard, Maisky, Casals, Pergamenschikow, Ma II, and
even Guido Schiefen. Each of them possesses fine forward momentum among
other virtues.
Westphal is outstanding; she delivers the most exciting reading of the
group and is a role-model for playfulness combined with strength. Quite a
few of the versions present a "kinder and gentler" C major gigue, and ter
Linden is the best of them. He's highly conversational, relaxed but never
dull, and strong when needed.
Fournier's gigue takes top honors. This is a majestic reading of strength,
momentum, and rhythm. I could say that Fournier is relentless, but he
never sounds that way. His heroic swagger is not to be missed, and I feel
that his C major Suite is the best overall version.
Comments - As I'm looking over my notes, there's two items that catch
my attention. With little exception, my perception is that the romantic
excessess come from the modern cello versions. At the same time, I don't
currently have any baroque cello versions close to the top level; they tend
to be bunched together in the middle. The main reason is a general lack of
consistency, but I do want to emphasize that the upside is a predilection
to take risk. Magical Performances always involve taking the less
travelled road.
I haven't said much about the famous Casals set. At least on the EMI set,
he has some fierce sound to contend with - a fierce sounding cello starts
off with a big disadvantage. Usually, Casals overcomes the sound quality.
The highlight so far of his set is the G major Sarabande, a magical
performance of great depth. I don't consider his interpretations to be
romantic; actually, given the time period, they are classical in nature.
Don Satz
[log in to unmask]
|
