# Shostakovich - Preludes & Fugues



## nightscape

Okay, I need some help. In your opinion, what is the best of these recordings? Try to lists the merits of the recording and why you believe it's the best. You can even rank them if you wish. I want to make a purchase and have been listening to sound clips for about an hour and cannot commit.

Jarrett









Nikolayeva (1987 recording)









Lin









Scherbakov









Ashkenazy


----------



## nightscape

Also,

Melnikov


----------



## KenOC

I have six versions and listen mostly to Melnikov. Why? I like it the best... 

Jarrett, in particular, I find wanting.


----------



## ahammel

KenOC said:


> I have six versions and listen mostly to Melnikov. Why? I like it the best...
> 
> Jarrett, in particular, I find wanting.


He's mostly a jazz guy, isn't he?


----------



## Vaneyes

I have Scherbakov which I've greatly enjoyed since it's release. If I needed another, it'd be Melnikov.:tiphat:


----------



## ptr

KenOC said:


> Jarrett, in particular, I find wanting.


You're to kind, I find it lacking in everything, his classical is the absolute opposite of his imaginative and inventive jazz!

I third the Melnikov as the first to get! (the most interesting is Nikolayeva's 1960's account out on DoReMi, but it's marred by poor sound quality), it is a pity the Sviatoslav Richter only recorded a handful of them, cuz the one's that he put on disc show his would have been the definitive choice!

/ptr


----------



## Heliogabo

I only have the Ashkenazy and I love his playing there. Jarrett certainly is terrible.


----------



## Triplets

I prefer Nikoleyva.


----------



## PetrB

ahammel said:


> He's mostly a jazz guy, isn't he?


LOL. In music school, there is always one student with that particular chip on their shoulder about those great musicians who didn't need to know how to notate music, who did not have formal training, yada, yada, not realizing the irony as they sit there, signed up, paid for and committed to exactly that kind of training.

It was "That Guy" who piped up in one class that Keith had gotten kicked out of Juilliard, the staff saying he wasn't going to be a classical pianist. (Obviously, young Mr. Chiponshoulder thought Mr. Jarrett _was_ a concert pianist.)

The prof, without a nano-second of a beat after the student spoke, said, "Well, he isn't, is he?"

Fine improvisatory pianist in a rather tame middle area of jazz: dabbles in the occasional 'classical' recording, a performance of Stravinsky's _Capriccio_ I wouldn't bother with, other occasional forays into earlier rep I wouldn't want to own. (While these 'demonstrate' that Kieth has 'the chops,' they also again affirm, really, that he is not a 'classical concert pianist'). There is one more alternate choice of rep he has recorded which I'm thankful he did:
Lou Harrison ~ Suite for violin, piano and small Orchestra


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I have the Scherbakov, good enough for me :tiphat:


----------



## Il_Penseroso

Tatiana Nikolayeva made 3 studio recordings of the entire work: 1961-62 and 1987, for the soviet label Mezhdunarodnaya Kniga (Melodiya), and 1990 for Hyperion. Her earliest is considered to be the best, though i wonder if it has been reissued on CD.


----------



## ptr

Il_Penseroso said:


> Tatiana Nikolayeva made 3 studio recordings of the entire work: 1961-62 and 1987, for the soviet label Mezhdunarodnaya Kniga (Melodiya), and 1990 for Hyperion. Her earliest is considered to be the best, though i wonder if it has been reissued on CD.


Is the one I reference in my post above!












> CD 1 & CD 2
> SHOSTAKOVICH
> 24 Preludes & Fugues Op. 87
> Recorded January 1962
> 
> DVD
> TCHAIKOVSKY: Concerto for Piano and Orchestra No.1 in Bb minor, Op.23
> Gewandhaus Orchestra, Kurt Masur, conducting, Leipzig 1990
> 
> Of the several recorded versions of Shostakovich's Preludes and Fugues made by Nikolayeva, the first one of 1962 - presented in this set - is considered to be unique as Shostakovich himself was present at the recording sessions and affirmed it as the one he approved and recommended.


(Quote from label site)

/ptr


----------



## Bulldog

For me, Nikolayeva's versions are the best. Given the poor sound of her first set, I'd go with the Melodiya or Hyperion. Just a caution that the sound on the Melodiya is quite dry and clinical; I love it but realize that a wetter sound seems to appeal to most folks. Anyways, Nikolayeva often gives incisive and even brutal interpretations.

Concerning other complete sets, I like them all (even the sometimes sub-par Jarrett interpretations). If I had to come up with a second choice, it would likely be Melnikov; Ashkenazy would be close to the bottom.


----------



## JACE

I have heard Nikolayeva (second traversal) and Ashkenazy. I definitely prefer Ashkenazy. His set seems much more varied and musical. To my ears, Nikolayeva seems consistently leaden in comparison. Plus, I love the clarity that Ashkenazy brings to the music.

At some point, I'd like to get Melnikov's set too -- just because everything that I've heard from him has been wonderful.


----------



## JACE

Bulldog said:


> For me, Nikolayeva's versions are the best. Given the poor sound of her first set, I'd go with the Melodiya or Hyperion. Just a caution that the sound on the Melodiya is quite dry and clinical; I love it but realize that a wetter sound seems to appeal to most folks. *Anyways, Nikolayeva often gives incisive and even brutal interpretations.*
> 
> Concerning other complete sets, I like them all (even the sometimes sub-par Jarrett interpretations). If I had to come up with a second choice, it would likely be Melnikov; *Ashkenazy would be close to the bottom.*


Funny. We obviously hear these works differently.


----------



## Bulldog

JACE said:


> Funny. We obviously hear these works differently.


Perhaps not. I think that the qualities you recognize in each set aren't much different from my impressions; it's our reactions that are entirely different. I agree that Ashkenazy is more varied; I don't like that at all, because I sense he's dancing around the focus of the pieces. Nikolayeva hits each piece with a laser and hammer; that's what I like.


----------



## Guest

I have Scherbakov's, Nikolayeva's Hyperion, and Boris Petrushansky's versions. I like them equally but for different reasons. If I could only have one, it would probably be Petrushanky's--powerful playing and excellent sound.


----------



## Ukko

I have already revealed the winner in this competition, in a previous thread on the subject. He hasn't been mentioned in this thread, not being a Big Name outside Australia. He plays the music 'to the piano' (Bosendorfer), I think, but it works.

The above probably reads like I'm trying to be cute - but I've forgotten the guy's name.


----------



## joen_cph

We also had this thread 
http://www.talkclassical.com/34903-shostakovichs-preludes-fugues.html

(but no _Ukko_ entries in that one.)


----------



## Ukko

joen_cph said:


> We also had this thread
> http://www.talkclassical.com/34903-shostakovichs-preludes-fugues.html
> 
> (but no _Ukko_ entries in that one.)


There must have been an earlier thread. Anyway, Roger Woodward's name got mentioned, and he is The Guy.

[I had squeezed the 'Roger' out of whatever cul de sac in my brain it was stored, but the 'Woodward' didn't make the trip.]


----------



## ptr

Quite reassuring that my replies are about the same in both the Op 87 threads!

/ptr


----------



## Mandryka

Bulldog said:


> Perhaps not. I think that the qualities you recognize in each set aren't much different from my impressions; it's our reactions that are entirely different. I agree that Ashkenazy is more varied; I don't like that at all, because I sense he's dancing around the focus of the pieces. Nikolayeva hits each piece with a laser and hammer; that's what I like.


Have you heard Roger Woodward's Bulldog, I just know you liked his Bach, and I've been enjoying his Barraqué. I'm not that interested in the Shostakovich, or at least I haven't been by what I've heard up to now. But Woodward's the sort of musician who may make me change my mind.


----------



## Bulldog

Mandryka said:


> Have you heard Roger Woodward's Bulldog, I just know you liked his Bach, and I've been enjoying his Barraqué. I'm not that interested in the Shostakovich, or at least I haven't been by what I've heard up to now. But Woodward's the sort of musician who may make me change my mind.


Finding Woodward's Bach recordings so rewarding, I had very high expectations for his Shostakovich Preludes & Fugues. Perhaps too high. I just don't find his Shostakovich at the same high level. Right from the start of the 1st prelude, I feel that Woodward trivializes the music through his rhythmic pattern, and he does this now and then throughout the set. It's a good set, but not outstanding IMO.


----------



## Bulldog

Mandryka said:


> Have you heard Roger Woodward's Bulldog, I just know you liked his Bach, and I've been enjoying his Barraqué. I'm not that interested in the Shostakovich, or at least I haven't been by what I've heard up to now. But Woodward's the sort of musician who may make me change my mind.


Finding Woodward's Bach recordings so rewarding, I had very high expectations for his Shostakovich Preludes & Fugues. Perhaps too high. I just don't find his Shostakovich at the same high level. Right from the start of the 1st prelude, I feel that Woodward trivializes the music through his rhythmic pattern, and he does this now and then throughout the set. It's a good set, but not outstanding IMO.


----------



## Guest

Bulldog said:


> Finding Woodward's Bach recordings so rewarding, I had very high expectations for his Shostakovich Preludes & Fugues. Perhaps too high. I just don't find his Shostakovich at the same high level. Right from the start of the 1st prelude, I feel that Woodward trivializes the music through his rhythmic pattern, and he does this now and then throughout the set. It's a good set, but not outstanding IMO.


I agree. It's far too clinical and lacks Russian "soul." Very glassy piano tone, too. (I actually don't care that much for his Bach, either!)


----------



## Il_Penseroso

ptr said:


> Is the one I reference in my post above!
> /ptr


Very good! Thanks!


----------



## Bulldog

Kontrapunctus said:


> I agree. It's far too clinical and lacks Russian "soul." Very glassy piano tone, too. (I actually don't care that much for his Bach, either!)


Then Woodward is a man for you to avoid.


----------



## Ukko

Kontrapunctus said:


> I agree. It's far too clinical and lacks Russian "soul." Very glassy piano tone, too. (I actually don't care that much for his Bach, either!)


First time I've seen anything played by Woodward described as 'too clinical'. Am willing to agree that if you don't like the piano sound you should avoid the recording; Woodward is playing the piano as much as the music.


----------



## joen_cph

Woodward´s Takemitsu album and his Brahms´1st with Masur are top-notch, IMO. But I haven´t heard his Shosty.

Of course, Shosty´s own recording of some of the Preludes & Fugue pieces are interesting too.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

This is good, but of course incomplete:

Shostakovich - Preludes & Fugues for Piano, Op. 87
No. 4 in E min, 
No. 12 in G# minor
No. 14 in E flat
No. 15 in D flat
No. 17 in A flat
No. 23 in F 
Sviatoslav Richter on Philips, recorded 1963; Reissued on Philips Sequenza 6527 224 [LP, 1976]

I don't know if it was ever re-issued again on CD


----------



## harryz

Woodward and Sherbakov are the ones for me. I have the Nikoleyeva on Hyperion and find it a bit wanting and don't much care for the sound. Would love to hear Sokolov or Koroliov tackle this music

Harry Z


----------



## ptr

I would love to hear Mikhail Pletnev in these 48!

/ptr


----------



## TxllxT

For all the lovers of Shostakovich' Preludes & Fugues this is a must:










Michiel Ras on organ. Gorgeous! A pity, the collection is not complete...


----------



## Ukko

harryz said:


> Woodward and Sherbakov are the ones for me. I have the Nikoleyeva on Hyperion and find it a bit wanting and don't much care for the sound. Would love to hear Sokolov or Koroliov tackle this music
> 
> Harry Z


Sokolov! What a great notion! Could he do for Shostakovitch what he did for Haydn's sonatas?

Koroliov. An interesting notion. Would he somehow "Bach-ize" them? If so, in what ways?

Nikoleyeva. Seems like most or all all of her Hyperion recordings suffer form one ailment or another (hers usually). I consider the 1st recording to be the most interesting to think on, the 2nd the most effective while listening-without-thinking.

Thanks, Harry; you finished the coffee's wake-up chore.


----------



## harryz

Well, the Sherbakov will have to do for now. And it really is a very fine set for me... And wouldn't Hamelin be great?


----------



## Ukko

harryz said:


> Well, the Sherbakov will have to do for now. And it really is a very fine set for me... And wouldn't Hamelin be great?


Hamelin? We'd never know until hearing him play his 'matured' interpretation. All of his Alkan is great stuff; last word from him I've seen, he still didn't know why his Iberia doesn't quite nail it.


----------



## harryz

*We're on the same page again*



Ukko said:


> Hamelin? We'd never know until hearing him play his 'matured' interpretation. All of his Alkan is great stuff; last word from him I've seen, he still didn't know why his Iberia doesn't quite nail it.


Hamelin's Albeniz is disappointing to me as well. I hardly play my copy since I have De Larrocha and Ciccolini, who is marvelous in these works.

Harry


----------



## shadowdancer

Digging an old thread but, as I admirer of Shotakovich's preludes an fugues myself, I couldn't have missed it.
Maybe we will have finally a great sound remaster of Tatiana's version:
http://www.amazon.com/Shostakovich-...=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1432069195&sr=1-1


----------



## EDaddy

ptr said:


> You're to kind, I find it lacking in everything, his classical is the absolute opposite of his imaginative and inventive jazz!
> 
> I third the Melnikov as the first to get! (the most interesting is Nikolayeva's 1960's account out on DoReMi, but it's marred by poor sound quality), it is a pity the Sviatoslav Richter only recorded a handful of them, cuz the one's that he put on disc show his would have been the definitive choice!
> 
> /ptr


I wholeheartedly agree. The guy needs to stick to Jazz, where he shines like a lighthouse.


----------



## Gadflyonthewall

ptr said:


> You're to kind, I find it lacking in everything, his classical is the absolute opposite of his imaginative and inventive jazz!/ptr


Kind of late getting to this conversation but here's my two cents:

Thelonious remains the Gold Standard for imaginative jazz piano!

I actually really like Jarrett's Bach recordings on a harpsichord newly made by a Japanese instrument maker.

As for the Preludes and Fugues, I've never been tempted to stray beyond Nikolayeva!


----------



## mparta

I'd recommend thinking about both Melnikov and the more recent Levit, the latter because it comes with the bonus of the Stevenson DSCH piece.


----------



## mollig

Picked up the recent Levit recording. Very different to the Nikolayaeva recording I'm used to. Levit's tempi are generally faster, technical proficiency is generally higher, as would be expected, and the voicing in the fugues is very nuanced. Impressive overall, but for me Nikolayeva plays with more soul, just compare the b minor fugue...
Also, weirdly, just like with his Beethoven recordings, there's a slightly muffled sound off the Levit CDs, must be to do with location where the recordings were made, but you wouldn't think they were several decades younger than the Nikolayeva ones.


----------



## golfer72

I have the Jarret and like it. Havent heard the others though. I should check them out on Youtube


----------

