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]