Customer Reviews

Shostakovich: 24 Preludes & Fugues, Op. 87

5 star:		(15)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Since he turned his attention from piano playing to conducting, Ashkenazy has stayed away from the recording studio for some time, but in the last years he seems to be picking up his old career again. A good decision, as he never equalled his keyboard success with his baton. He finally set to recording the complete Shostakovich Preludes and Fugues, a huge undertaking, as he says himself in the liner notes: "You have to devote so much time and energy and concentration!" That he eventually took the effort is something that deserves only applauds, as this is an absolutely superior recording of this 20th century masterwork. Compared to Ashkenazy's earlier recordings (those of the Rachmaninov Preludes, for example) he hasn't lost anything of his old musical feeling and sensitivity. What is gone a little is the energy and risk-taking he used to expose. But then, this set of Preludes and Fugues doesn't ask for so much virtuosity as it does for musicality. Because of that, Ashkenazy's approach does full right to the work. Even more so than the famous Nikolayeva (that is, in her 1990 Hyperion recordings; I don't know her 1987 set), as the famous dedicatee of this work plays much too slowly and heavy for my taste.

If anything distincts Ashkenazy's recordings so much, it's the vitality and relaxedness he plays with. His approach is quite `clean': he doesn't impart much romanticism or overwrought feelings, and this is something I admire greatly: Ashkenazy makes everything sound very direct and intimate. And above all: everything is so `naturally good' (an ability he has always had). He focuses rather on the work's musical side than its emotionality, and does this very successfully. These preludes and fugues are mainly a great thematic and musical traversal, as another reviewer rightfully commented, after the example of Bach, and hearing Ashkenazy makes me wish he would record some Bach too (the WTC maybe?). Most of his preludes sing beautifully, while the voicing in the fugues is very clear and architectural. I've heard comments that he is just too clean at everything, or that he sounds bored; this is definitely not the case. I'd rather say that he often reaches some kind of a transcendence in which his own person doesn't count much anymore. Many fugues in particular have very meditative qualities and it's absolutely wonderful to hear how much Ashkenazy unifies his mind with the music at those places. I have to say that Richter does this even better in the few preludes and fugues that he recorded, but Ashkenazy is a very close second after all.

Most of the 48 works on these discs are simply immensely enjoyable to listen, just because of Ashkenazy's greatly clear and communicative approach. When comparing Ashkenazy and Nikolayeva, I noticed something interesting: the latter usually plays slower and less interesting, but even when Ashkenazy plays slower than Nikolayeva he sounds far more expressive. Additionally, he's often much more at ease. The truly wonderful B flat minor fugue is a good example: he takes more than seven minutes for this piece, but has you hanging to the speakers every single second. I've always thought he has some natural talent for playing anything beautifully and easily and that's surely the case here too. On the other hand: in the more lively pieces, like the A flat major, B major or G major fugues, he gives much fresher and more vital accounts than Nikolayeva who's just too heavy for the faster works. His light touch is generally wonderful, though on a few occasions I'd like some more dynamic differences: in the concluding D minor fugue the end is a bit too understated for me, for example. On the whole, Ashkenazy seems to fully get the clue of all of these pieces and performs them masterfully.

Overall, a great set that makes more obvious than ever how good this music really is. This is a set that just can't make me stop listening. Ashkenazy's lucidity and transcendence is really wonderful for almost every of these 48 pieces and sets the absolute standard for this work so far. Only Sviatoslav Richter surpassed it at times but unfortunately he didn't record all 24 Preludes and Fugues. This one is fully worth its place on my shelves aside Richter's Well-Tempered Clavier. I hope Shostakovich' Preludes and Fugues will get more attention among other pianists in the coming time, though they will have a very hard job in beating these interpretations.

Firstly, I don't understand how some reviewers can come to the conclusion that this set is worth one star. Like these pieces or not, this is not a performance on the low calibere of one star. Some might prefer Nikolayeva, which is great also, but it appears that some are with Nikolayeva (or rather against Ashkenazy) like this is a footballgame: everything other than your player sucks. I don't belive in that.

Ashkenazy's ability to bring the best out of the music is unquestionable. To me the sound is quite good and this recording is in most aspects on the highest standard. And for some people to review this one star because they find the music boring is redicilous. The reviews are about the performance, not the quality of the music as such. Therefore I'm not going to review all the Johann Strauss JR. recordings and rate them one star just because I hate that music.

Again, this is probably the best set on the market and I highly recommend anyone to buy it,(if one likes that kind of music after all).

There is clearly much heated debate about which recording of these wonderful pieces is the best. All I can say is that before I got Ashkenazy's recording, I was somewhat underwhelmed with the 24 Preludes and Fugues. The beauty of the music sustained me for the first CD of Nikolaeva's set (first 10 preludes), but I confess I never really could get into the rest. After having no trouble listening to Ashkenazy all the way through and seeing what beautiful music I had been missing, I went back to the Nikolaeva to see what the problem is. She's SLOW. Her tempos and general imprecision drag the music down significantly. Admittedly, Ashkenazy isn't very idiomatic, there's nothing special about his playing in particular. But he's clean and precise, and he lets the music breathe. I admit I'm biased, I never met an Ashkenazy recording I didn't like, but this beats Nikolaeva easy. Hell, it opened my eyes to one of the greatest piano works of all time. I can't comment on the other available recordings (like Jarrett) as I have not heard them.

First, a caveat. I have never heard Tatiana Nikolaeva (the original dedicatee) play these pieces, nor Keith Jarrett or anyone else. As with practically any piece of classical music, there is value (aesthetic, if not always economic) in having more than one interpretation of a piece.

However, based on this recording alone, I have to say that Ashkenazy's interpretation feels absolutely right. The musical flow on these recordings feels entirely organic, with the various preludes and fugues (which Shostakovich wanted played seriatim, rather than piecemeal) leading the listener through an expert re-evaluation of the value of the "well tempered clavier" in the 20th century.

Never showy, forced or exaggerated, Ashkenazy plays this music as naturally as breathing. This music simply feels timeless.

I have the 24 Preludes and Fugues by Nikolayeva, Jarrett, and Ashkenazy. I have worked with this music before and am currently setting the Prelude and Fugue #12 on our dance company, BelCobraDance, with the prelude danced as a solo and the fugue danced by 3 or 4 dancers (at least!)

It always fascinates me how different pianists can have such a great variation in tempo for the same solo piano works. Perhaps this is especially true of romantic and neo-romantic works? The prelude certainly has the A-B-A structure, and the beautiful flow, typical of great romantic solo piano pieces.

Of the three, for this particular prelude, the Jarrett version is about 3 minutes, the Ashkenazy one about 4 minutes, and the Nikolayeva version close to 5 minutes. Like Goldilocks, I find the one in the middle (Ashkenazy's) just right. However, if I only had a three minute performance slot I could use Jarett's, though it would seem rushed for this beautiful and majestic passacaglia. Dancing the prelude #12 to Nikolayeva on the other hand would seem almost glacial, but I might try it sometime just for fun.

Interestingly enough the fugue of #12 varies relatively little in length between these 3 pianists, perhaps because it is a much more "modernist" piece, without the rubato of the prelude. They are wonderful together, however, and are a real voyage of discovery for this choreographer.

Ashkenazy's reading here makes you appreciate in ever profounder terms Tatiana Nikolaeva's reading, which is more intimate, mysterious,and straightforward,even though she allows the sustain pedal to blur the polyphony. Ashkenazy in contrast goes for the big mammoth sound,almost impersonal at times emphasizing the fact of this sets affinity for the orchestral,a creative problem in any of the piano solo music of Shostakovich. In the Ashkenazy reading the G-major prelude searches for the heavens,with its Russian liturgical melos. I thought this sound is much too big and overbearing beyond the content of the music, like Ashkenazy is painting wall-size murals with miniscule brushes. The profoundness and importance of these 'preludes and fugues'is that Shostakovich was touched by Johann Sebastian Bach's seemingly overwhelming emotive scope, from darkness,multiplicity,anxiety,pathos,nostalgia and power. And perhaps Shostakovich finds his voice here within the context of the extreme darkness that was part of Russia after the war 1950-51 when he wrote these pieces.The key relations are sometimes maintained as Bach's lightness in the G-major is reflected in Shostakovich, bright,almost toccata-like six-eighth meter in his G-major. The more severe readings are reserved for F-minor,D-minor and E-flat minor. #15 is my favorite and exhibits a fugal subject revealing the modernist affinity for excursions into pure texture,even though the fugal subject guides the clarity,still you feel an emotive abandonment of the subject almost passive, where the irrationalist side is forever present throughout the Shostakovich.

Considering the quality of these pieces (they're not Bach, of course, but what is?) it's amazing that we have only three recordings of the full set. Nikolaeva is adequate, but a bit dry and dispassionate. Jarrett is clear and superficial. Askenazy is emotionally and technically in command of the music. And yet, as so often with his playing, I feel that something is missing. Just what that something is becomes clear in listening to the several Shostokovich preludes and fugues performed by Sviatoslav Richter (Phillips). Shostokovich has depths of darkness and desperation that are difficult to fathom; Richter gives the feeling that the performance is a matter of life or death. Askenazy is much in the vein of Richter in his tempi and dynamic range, but he doesn't take the same risks with contrast and color. Still, Askenazy plays at a very high level and gives us a good idea of this complex and wonderful music.

This is a wonderful set of pieces that deserve a wider audience. I suspect people are put off by Shostakovich's reputation as a difficult modern composer. Supposedly inspired by Bach's keyboard work, these works certainly reveal kinship with Bach's Preludes and Fugues but with a distinct 20th century slant. Shostakovich's own tonal voice is clear throughout. There is a great deal of lovely, sometimes powerful, and sometimes even playful music. Hearing the whole set played at this high technical level and with a consistent approach to interpretation is an excellent listening experience
As you can see from prior reviews, there is one of those typical music fan disagreements about performance quality. I find Ashkenazy's playing to be excellent. It is precise and not showy, letting the music speak for itself with clear intonation and regular tempi. Ashkenazy can certainly play more "expressively" as shown by his performance of the Romantic piano literature. Here, Ashkenazy uses a somewhat restrained approach but assuming Shostakovich was really aiming to emulate Bach, a legitimate and powerful one.

This is an excellent CD, very well put together. Ashkenazy's playing fits the pieces beautifully, and having heard Tatiana's version, I can say this one communicated much more to me than that alternative. The nature of these pieces makes them easy to get lost in, but Ashkenazy plays them with a clarity and poise that brings them to life far more that Tatiana. Different parts are much more distinct, and interesting vertical and horizontal factors are highlighted, unlike the other recording which become kind of a plodding muddy blob of notes. This recording contains a superior clearness and freshness that will make you enjoy these pieces more than any other recording. Ashkenazy's poise and personality reminds me of Gould playing Bach, which is a hefty compliment. Check it out!

This is a terrific recording! I have the Nikolaeva performance burned into my brain, and I love that recording, but frankly, I heard lots of new things from Ashkenazy: lines buried in the middle voices came out and sang. This guy has chops and musicality to spare. I also have the Jarrett set, and by comparison, it's, well, fast. Shostakovich was no stranger to raucous, athletic humor at the keyboard, but 10 minutes into the Ashknazy set and I thought, ah, this is the real deal. I think Tatiana would have liked this one, too.