Customer Reviews

Shostakovich: 24 Preludes and Fugues, Op. 87

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Tatiana Nikolayeva is considered the foremost interpreter of these works, but these are probably not her best recordings of the Preludes and Fugues. She made earlier recordings on the Melodiya label that are generally said to be technically better and equipped with more spirit than these 1990 accounts on Hyperion. As I've been informed, you can find that set on a new issue from the Regis label. This one, however, is far from ideal. Many of these preludes and fugues sound labored and heavy, and above all slow. She takes fairly everything at much more restrained tempi than the composer indicated; sometimes with wonderful results but often the music suffers of it. The humor in the E flat major prelude gets totally lost, for example, and the tension in the E flat minor sounds fabricated instead of natural. There's no question that she can also be staggeringly beautiful, such as in the sunny A major fugue or the A flat major prelude, but in the end the set's unevenness is too large. Much of the spirit in Shostakovich' music has gone here, and many fugues are played so slowly that they made me quite impatient. Additionally, her dragging takes often result in a very pounding, labored and tiresome sound, like in the G major and D flat major fugues. The muddy studio sound of Hyperion doesn't help either. So, in spite of many fine moments, this set is too unbalanced to get a really good recommendation. I'd go for Ashkenazy, who plays much faster, more vivid and natural and without Nikolayeva's too affected touch. Or maybe Scherbakov or Nikolayeva's earlier set, though I don't know the two of those myself. And, finally: you can get both Ashkenazy and Scherbakov at a much lower price than this set alone.

(To a few other reviewers: yes, it's possible not to like this set as much as you do)

Tatiana Nikolayeva's recording is simply hypnotic. Anyone familiar with Shostakovitch will also know that he was a sensitive pianist, and Mrs Nikolayeva frames the composer's persona perfectly. She manages to identify and personify the romantic melancholy, the reticient joy and dramatic tension of Shostakovitch. Her playing evokes a kind of wordless poetry, transporting you to settings that are almost physical: a moody apartment on a gray day, a solitary contemplation on the riverbank, a stroll through an empty park, an afternoon in a sad cafe, the beautiful face of a stranger too shy to return your unspoken advances. Magical.

"A MUSIC FAN" below gets right to an important point. I purchased this set because I wanted to hear what this highly regarded (by other professionals) artist had to say about these pieces. Yes, they're slower than others, Knappertsbusch and Klemperer took slower tempos than most. Glenn Gould did unusual interpretations. Schnabel missed keys. So what--these people are not hacks or grammar school music teachers from Muncie, Indiana. I like knowing that she took slower tempos--I knew what to expect--but it's hardly grounds for condemning the interpretation. I totally agree with A MUSIC FAN about the attitude problem, it's part of what's killing classical music.

First let me acknowledge that I have NOT purchased this set. Caught between the pro and con volleys, I checked additional reviews on amazon.uk where this knowledgable reviewer swayed me against the purchase. I submit it without bias. Caveat emptor!

"This is Nikolayeva's third recording of the cycle, her best being her 1961 version for Melodiya, so far not issued on CD, though Melodiya have issued her 1987 recording. This 1990 version issued by Hyperion has much slower tempi than the 1961 version, and makes little attempt to differentiate the strands of the counterpoint (the amount of editing required to help Nikolayeva struggle through the recording sessions in London was apparently very large). Much of the performance is amateurish, swamped in pedal to cover her inarticulate fingerwork, though listeners are unlikely to realise the extent that the music has been misrepresented until they have had an opportunity to compare this recording with the Ashkenazy version on Decca, which is far more professional. Some passages are simplified by Nikolayeva so that she can cope (especially in fugue No. 17). It should also be pointed out that, despite what is frequently stated, these preludes and fugues were NOT dedicated to Nikolayeva; this was one of her many spurious claims about her association with Shostakovich which she made after the composer's death, at a time when she was seeking to further her career in the West. For more information about this, see the revised (2006) edition of Ian MacDonald's "The New Shostakovich" - J. Farris.

Several distinguished artists have recorded the complete Op. 87--among them Nikolayeva (3 times), Jarrett, and Ashkenazy. Richter has recorded about half of them and his readings are available on various CDs. Each of these artists has something important to say. It is easy to snipe and find fault. It is harder to listen attentively and accept each interpretation on its own terms. These pianists are the best the 20th century has produced. Who are we to sit in judgment of them? How many of us can play the piano? How many of us have studied--really studied--the scores? My suggestion is that we stop trying to show how smart we are and how many recordings we have heard and instead learn humility in the face of the many forms of greatness.

These preludes and fugures by Shostakovich are not the easiest in the world for interpretation. Think a Slavic Bach. It is unfair to call these works "modern" and it's not just because they are with the confines of a Medieval form. But sometimes the listener will catch something that is reminiscent of 20th centyury Soviet music.

These works are miniatures - a form totally at odds with the usual way we consider the composer. Tatiana Nikolayeva is simply brilliant in her interpretation - the clarity is startling. It may take a while but this is a recording that appreciates the more it is heard.

Nikolayeva's graceful, flowing performance is a welcome alternative to the rather rigid playing of Keith Jarrett. The recording, while dated, is quite satisfactory.

Tatiana is not so popular to American audience but she was a big name in Russia: A teacher, a pianist, and a composer in Moscow Conservatory. She died in 1994 in the US recital tour. Unluckily, there's not much her records. This set is one of her wellknowns and can be thought as the best (compare to others, like Schebakov or Ashkenaszy). This set was Gramophone winner, Prix Maurice Fleuret's top 100 best CDs all time. May say Tatiana lived and died with these preludes and fugues. She died while playing these in a performance in SanFrancisco, 1994. You also can listen to Tatiana's Goldberg Variations of Bach, that is a really nice one too. I strongly recommend this set. Other issue that you may try is Schebakov's.

Someone prefers to Keith Jarrett in Shostakovich's Preludes and Fugues. Jarrett's sound always like in the same level and not logical. It makes me feel like listening to his part 1 and 2 in Koln-1975. Do you think a jazzman can reach to the peak of classical? No. They're in the different worlds. Like a Classical pianist cannot play "Functional" like T. Monk.

Although Tatiana is considered the boss of this set, I have heard this recording, and must say I was dissapointed. For one thing, there is way, way too much reverb on this cd. Along with slow, muddy playing, sometimes overtouched with brooding, the set becomes more of a dirge. I prefer Ashkenazy's fresher interpretation. I admit, I am a Glenn Gould kind of guy, but I thought this CD was not totally flattering to the pieces.

I'm actually on my second copy. That's how good it is.