Shostakovich Preludes and Fugues Op. 87, Part II (13-24)
Sonarrat
from Oberlin College to Oberlin Conservatory (it went well, I don't
know the results yet), I have some free time to write about
Shostakovich before going home for the holidays.
No. 13, F# major: The Prelude is one of the most appealing of the set,
warm and touching. The Fugue is the only one in five voices, based on
a very simple theme, and extraordinarily difficult to play due to an
unreasonably wide spacing between the voices. Nonetheless, it is
glorious.
No. 14, Eb minor: The Prelude makes an imperious statement with its
unrelenting octave tremolos, symphonic breadth and long lines, and its
intense, stabbing pain. There is nothing else like it. The Fugue is
ironic, the subject sounding like a bully's song of derision echoing
endlessly through the mind of a tormented, repressed child.
No. 15, Db major: The Prelude is a scherzo with a carnival atmosphere.
The Fugue is a real virtuoso piece, short, tumultuous and thrilling,
like a roller coaster ride. The theme from the Scherzo comes back
near the end. This could be a great encore.
No. 16, Bb minor: The Prelude is a lyrical theme and variations,
eloquent and gorgeous. The Fugue is long and ravishing, with a
complicated and unforgettable subject. It has no dynamic indications
other than 'pp' at the opening. It ends in Bb major.
No. 17, Ab major: The Prelude is warm-hearted and has some interesting
harmonies. The Fugue is prickly, playful and treacherous to play.
No. 18, F minor: The Prelude is one of the best-known, sincere and
touching. The Fugue has a quiet majesty, and the III-I cadence at the
end of both movements is a word of solace and encouragement.
No. 19, Eb major: The Prelude alternates between weird, stern
chorale-style chords and staccato playfulness. The Fugue has a
profoundly ugly theme, the most dissonant of the cycle, and yet I find
that I really love it. There is a Quasimodo-like quality to it.
No. 20, C minor: The Prelude is a portrait of ruins, solemn and
barren. The Fugue is linked thematically and carries much the same
weight. Both movements end with Picardy thirds.
No. 21, Bb major: The Prelude is a minute and a half of quarter-notes
in the left hand and sixteenth-notes in the right hand, lending it a
toccata-like quality. The Fugue is a funny little dance, the voices
seeming to physically tackle each other periodically. It is one of my
favorites.
No. 22, G minor: The Prelude is a frank confession, with an
unrelenting heartbeat making its presence felt throughout. The Fugue
is rather pained.
No. 23, F major: The Prelude is deeply beautiful, exuding peace and
love. If it were more easily available to the public, it could easily
replace the old hackneyed favorites like Traumerei and Fur Elise and
become a new popular favorite. The Fugue is no less charming, an
ideal companion.
No. 24, D minor: The Prelude is dramatic and stormy, with beautiful
moments, but is markedly subsurvient to the event to follow. The
Double Fugue starts slowly, with a theme introduced in the Prelude,
and develops it at length before subsiding and abandoning it in favor
of a new, faster theme which recalls the B minor Fugue from WTK Book
I. The power of the moment when the first subject re-enters, now in
the major mode, cannot be overstated; it is breathtaking. The cycle
ends in a glorious trumpeting of these two themes, accompanied by a
large squadron of bells.
-Sonarrat.
Larry Rinkel
news:21429691.02121...@posting.google.com...
I'm sorry no one has responded to your thread yet, as I find it (as well as
its predecessor) very well-written, and skillful in capturing the essence of
each piece in a few words. I don't agree with everything you say (e.g., is
the E major fugue really easier than many of the others?), and I think you
slight some of the pieces (like the G minor), but on the whole I find your
discussion very convincing, and convincing enough that I went back to my
Sherbakov set and then plunked through some of the pieces on my home piano.
Personally, I find this kind of discussion, where the primary attention is
focussed on the work itself, much more interesting than yet another debate
about which recorded performance one likes best and whether performers
should obey the metronome markings or not. Nicely done.
Please keep up informed about your progress at Oberlin.
Ray Hall
news:wYwL9.46147$a8.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
| "Sonarrat" <sona...@stormloader.com> wrote in message
| news:21429691.02121...@posting.google.com...
| I'm sorry no one has responded to your thread yet, as I find it (as well
as
| its predecessor) very well-written, and skillful in capturing the essence
of
| each piece in a few words. I don't agree with everything you say (e.g., is
| the E major fugue really easier than many of the others?), and I think you
| slight some of the pieces (like the G minor), but on the whole I find your
| discussion very convincing, and convincing enough that I went back to my
| Sherbakov set and then plunked through some of the pieces on my home
piano.
| Personally, I find this kind of discussion, where the primary attention is
| focussed on the work itself, much more interesting than yet another debate
| about which recorded performance one likes best and whether performers
| should obey the metronome markings or not. Nicely done.
|
| Please keep up informed about your progress at Oberlin.
I e-mailed Sonarrat to thank him and ask for Part I. For those interested,
the Google link is :-
>Btw, thanks for your posting of Shosty's P&F's (13-24). I missed (1-12). Do
>you still have a copy?
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=L6yC9.5830%24kS3.
620082%40news20.bellglobal.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3D
ISO-8859-1%26q%3DShostakovich%2B1-12%26meta%3Dgroup%253Drec.music.classical.
recordings
Sure nuff, it is there. Good work by Sonarrat, and some interesting
thoughts, and I'll have them on hard copy for the next time I listen to
them. Fresh perspectives on music are always interesting.
Regards,
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
< NEW Doris Day TV series news >
VIVE LA KAREN, and "Never look at the brass - it only encourages them"
Ray, Taree, NSW
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.427 / Virus Database: 240 - Release Date: 6/12/02
Ray Hall
news:BHyL9.4690$jM5....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
| I e-mailed Sonarrat to thank him and ask for Part I. For those interested,
| the Google link is :-
|
| >Btw, thanks for your posting of Shosty's P&F's (13-24). I missed (1-12).
Do
| >you still have a copy?
|
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=L6yC9.5830%24kS3.
620082%40news20.bellglobal.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3D
ISO-8859-1%26q%3DShostakovich%2B1-12%26meta%3Dgroup%253Drec.music.classical.
recordings
Addendum : For those not acquainted with Google search, the *whole* of the
above four lines have to be entered as the URL address. Copy and paste
should be all is required.
Sonarrat
> I'm sorry no one has responded to your thread yet, as I find it (as well as
> its predecessor) very well-written, and skillful in capturing the essence
> of each piece in a few words. I don't agree with everything you say (e.g.,
> is the E major fugue really easier than many of the others?),
They're all difficult. The slow fugues are easier to play (except the
F# major), but harder to pull off musically. The E major is the
easiest of the fast fugues.
> and I think you
> slight some of the pieces (like the G minor),
I don't feel much of a connection with the G minor set, lovely as it
is. I can't really connect with the F minor either, except for that
cadence.
> but on the whole I find your
> discussion very convincing, and convincing enough that I went back to
> my Sherbakov set and then plunked through some of the pieces on my
> home piano.
I couldn't hope for any better.
> Personally, I find this kind of discussion, where the primary attention is
> focussed on the work itself, much more interesting than yet another
> debate about which recorded performance one likes best and whether
> performers should obey the metronome markings or not. Nicely done.
Thank you.
> Please keep up informed about your progress at Oberlin.
I will, in a very general sense.
-Sonarrat.
Mark K. Ehlert
> Addendum : For those not acquainted with Google search, the
> *whole* of the above four lines have to be entered as the URL
> address. Copy and paste should be all is required.
I'll do you one better, Ray:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?M56921DC2
That should make it a bit easier.
--
Mark K. Ehlert
To respond via e-mail, X = 3
Robert Laterveer
> Personally, I find this kind of discussion, where the primary attention is
> focussed on the work itself, much more interesting than yet another debate
> about which recorded performance one likes best
I thought "debates about which recorded performance one likes best"
was what this group is about...
(What's more, I think performances -and hence, comparison of
performances, and hence, any motivated preference for a given
recording- can reveal aspects of the work that are not uncovered by
abstract description/analysis of "the work itself")
Robert Laterveer.
Larry Rinkel
news:1b8cf633.02121...@posting.google.com...
> "Larry Rinkel" <LRi...@optonline.nete> wrote in message
news:<wYwL9.46147$a8.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
>
> > Personally, I find this kind of discussion, where the primary attention
is
> > focussed on the work itself, much more interesting than yet another
debate
> > about which recorded performance one likes best
>
> I thought "debates about which recorded performance one likes best"
> was what this group is about...
Perhaps so, but that doesn't preclude me from not always finding them
interesting....
> (What's more, I think performances -and hence, comparison of
> performances, and hence, any motivated preference for a given
> recording- can reveal aspects of the work that are not uncovered by
> abstract description/analysis of "the work itself")
In this case, however, Jeff's mini-program notes, though not excluding some
mention of recordings, revealed more to me about Shostakovich than I have
gotten from other threads on this work. They were musically literate (which
was not always the case in some of Jeff's pre-college days), they showed an
engaging aptitude for metaphor, and they were at once personal and attentive
to the nuances of each set of pieces. The proof of the pudding in this case
is the eating.
>
> Robert Laterveer.
Robert Laterveer
> "Robert Laterveer" <sn...@operamail.com> wrote in message
> news:1b8cf633.02121...@posting.google.com...
> > "Larry Rinkel" <LRi...@optonline.nete> wrote in message
> news:<wYwL9.46147$a8.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> >
> > > Personally, I find this kind of discussion, where the primary attention
> is
> > > focussed on the work itself, much more interesting than yet another
> debate
> > > about which recorded performance one likes best
> >
> > I thought "debates about which recorded performance one likes best"
> > was what this group is about...
>
> Perhaps so, but that doesn't preclude me from not always finding them
> interesting....
Sure. I just thought it a bit odd to state one's lack of interest in X
(and state it again...), in a group devoted to X.
>
> > (What's more, I think performances -and hence, comparison of
> > performances, and hence, any motivated preference for a given
> > recording- can reveal aspects of the work that are not uncovered by
> > abstract description/analysis of "the work itself")
>
> In this case, however, Jeff's mini-program notes, though not excluding some
> mention of recordings,
??
I don't find any mention of recordings in the first post of this
thread...
revealed more to me about Shostakovich than I have
> gotten from other threads on this work. They were musically literate (which
> was not always the case in some of Jeff's pre-college days), they showed an
> engaging aptitude for metaphor, and they were at once personal and attentive
> to the nuances of each set of pieces. The proof of the pudding in this case
> is the eating.
>
Well, I don't know about that. But you made a generalizing statement
(about
"yet another debate"), to which I reacted in a general way - trying to
defend what you disparage (viz. such debates as you not always find
interesting).
Robert Laterveer.
Larry Rinkel
"Robert Laterveer" <sn...@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:1b8cf633.02121...@posting.google.com...
> "Larry Rinkel" <LRi...@optonline.nete> wrote in message
news:<KOSL9.65141$a8.3...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> > "Robert Laterveer" <sn...@operamail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1b8cf633.02121...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Larry Rinkel" <LRi...@optonline.nete> wrote in message
> > news:<wYwL9.46147$a8.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> > >
> > > > Personally, I find this kind of discussion, where the primary
attention
> > is
> > > > focussed on the work itself, much more interesting than yet another
> > debate
> > > > about which recorded performance one likes best
> > >
> > > I thought "debates about which recorded performance one likes best"
> > > was what this group is about...
> >
> > Perhaps so, but that doesn't preclude me from not always finding them
> > interesting....
>
>
> Sure. I just thought it a bit odd to state one's lack of interest in X
> (and state it again...), in a group devoted to X.
One might as well ask Jeff why he posted to this group in the first place,
as his primary focus was not comparative performance. If I find some of the
"debates about which recorded performance one likes best" unilluminating,
it's when they come down to expressions of personal taste, without telling
me much about the specific qualities that distinguish one performance from
another.
>
> >
> > > (What's more, I think performances -and hence, comparison of
> > > performances, and hence, any motivated preference for a given
> > > recording- can reveal aspects of the work that are not uncovered by
> > > abstract description/analysis of "the work itself")
> >
> > In this case, however, Jeff's mini-program notes, though not excluding
some
> > mention of recordings,
>
> ??
> I don't find any mention of recordings in the first post of this
> thread...
Part I of his discussion, linked to by Ray Hall above, provided this.
Robert Laterveer
> >
> > Sure. I just thought it a bit odd to state one's lack of interest in X
> > (and state it again...), in a group devoted to X.
>
Larry Rinkel:
> One might as well ask Jeff why he posted to this group in the first place,
> as his primary focus was not comparative performance.
No, I don't feel the need to react to everything that is non-X here; I
reacted to something I perceived as anti-X.
If I find some of the
> "debates about which recorded performance one likes best" unilluminating,
> it's when they come down to expressions of personal taste, without telling
> me much about the specific qualities that distinguish one performance from
> another.
>
This I understand, and sympathize with; bare "I like..."s are hardly
interesting...
(But this is not how I took your original remark - but never mind...)
Anyway, my main point was that *motivated and descriptive* comparisons
of performances can (and frequently do) tell something about the work,
hence
can be of interest also to someone who wants to focus primarily on the
work itself.
Robert Laterveer.