Pyotr Il’yich Tchaikovsky (1840-1893)
Tchaikovsky’s Testament
18 Pieces, Op. 72
Evgenia Rubinova (piano)
rec. 2021, Reitstadet Neumarkt, Germany
Genuin GEN24880 [67]
I have selected the five pieces I find most impressive, in reverse order, with comparisons of other interpretations currently available. My fifth choice is No. 5, Méditation, in allure, like the Romeo and Juliet overture, an intense focus on the moment and feeling of attraction. A right-hand cantabile heroine piano melody to die for, a left-hand hero’s heartfelt assent (from tr. 5, 0:32), joining in duet (0:49) and both fervent at the ff accentuato climax (1:57) rising to fff (2:09). The hero maintains the melody and heroine flies into descant rapture, working a crescendo to a further ff più animato climax (3:05), searingly achieved by Evgenia Rubinova. Her calming-down is less effective because she follows Tchaikovsky’s markings strictly, not soft until 3:50, almost at the coda (4:02), unfortunately dominated by an over-prominent descant trill masking the heroine and hero’s last duet. The softer and more sensitive Valentina Lisitsa, published 2019 (Decca 4834417, download only) is here preferable. Lisitsa starts her softness at what is 3:40 in Rubinova. Lisitsa’s approach is more meditative, with a more relaxed opening and more nuance in dynamic contrasts, but I prefer Rubinova’s greater directness in the opening and passion in the climaxes.
My fourth choice is No. 1 Impromptu. Its opening section melody is a vivaciously darting dance with lots of dotted rhythms and left-hand always staccato. Rubinova is crisp and neat, but her discipline jettisons impishness. The central section, a little slower, brings the gorgeous relief of cantabile e dolce (tr. 1, 0:56). Rubinova radiates the happier perspective, but I feel should have given it more breathing space. Later, when the melody goes into stratospheric register the dynamic changes to pp (1:49), but Rubinova and the close recording, splendidly vivid, don’t fully convey this vision of cloud nine departing. Rubinova is excellent in the accelerando (2:53) leading to the impromptu’s climax and bravura flourishes. I compare this with Nuron Mukumi who recorded all Op. 72 in 2022 (Prospero Classical PROSP0056). He brings impish hurly-burly, a central section quieter and more luscious and still quieter in the stratosphere, but his climax, though explosive, isn’t as frenzied as Rubinova’s.
My third choice is No. 4, Dance caractéristique, very much the dance of a character. Does Allegro giusto, emphasising strict timing, suggest one highly disciplined, as Rubinova’s playing? The pace ensures liveliness, the thudding chords and quasi-glissando quintuplet demisemiquavers (tr. 4, 0: 35)mesmerize; but you might overlook the soft, jolly little theme (0:49) oft repeated, the generator of much activity and relief from the strongly accents around it. More relief comes in the slightly slower central section with constant descant register in the right hand. Rubinova could make it more spacious by pointing the wondering nature of the two descending notes (e.g. 1:19, 1:27) that introduce determinedly skipping phrases. Her brilliance is arguably too blistering. Mukumi times at 4:07 to Rubinova’s 3:10, a less strict Allegro, more deliberate, weighty, but bringing out the piece’s humour: a showy display of dance by one not a natural dancer. His jolly theme has a glint in the eye, his central section is satisfyingly spacious.
My second choice, No. 17, Passé lointain is, I suggest, the first of two masterpieces. ‘Long ago’ here means spaciousness in expansively developed melody, its beauty its simplicity. The first strain descends, the second ascends. The central section (tr. 17, 1:37) of stress and sorrow mixes rising and falling melody and climaxes with glissando-like flourishes of semiquavers in sextuplets. The recapitulation of the opening section sports denser inner parts in semiquavers, its centre now more passionate. The poignant coda (4:11) would have pleased Chopin. Rubinova’s impactful performance clarifies everything, though for me she overworks the arpeggiation in the opening section. I prefer Makumi’s gentler treatment of this, like a singer’s lute accompaniment. Rubinova is didactic, Makumi reflective. Timing at 5:02 to Rubinova’s 4:44, Makumi is more spacious and reveals more the marked softness of the opening. The second strain rising melody then becomes more consolingly a resolution of the first strain’s falling one. Makumi beautifully portrays the central section and recap as emotion recollected in tranquillity, but I prefer the greater passion Rubinova achieves in the inner parts of the recapitulation, e.g. the piu f from 3:05.
My first choice, No. 2, Berceuse is the other masterpiece, less structurally accomplished than Chopin’s lullaby’s fourteen variations, but emotively more vibrant and haunting. The cradle-rocking displayed by right-hand middle C and B natural prefaces the cantabile melody (tr. 2, 0:10), the mother’s feelings. The chromatic, bluesy feel of the rocking motif is enhanced by the elaborated close of the melody on its third appearance (0:54), the mother earnest and uneasy. Soon, she fashions a make-believe, fully contented descant version of the theme garnished with arpeggios (1:30) and echoes an octave higher (from 2:04). The motif extended to four notes (C, B natural, D, C) from 1:42 adds to this hope. The final extension of Tchaikovsky’s one organically developed melody (2:39), combines serious realism and longing, crescendos to a hopeful climax, then sinks into an introspective present. This maintains both pensive and hopeful elements, confirmed in the coda (4:19) with the close juxtaposition of major and minor phrasing. The ultimate feeling is of mellowness, the rocking motif at the top of the bass register replaced by the opening four notes of the theme. Rubinova attends to all the details, the outcome moving in its concentration. I’d prefer the melody, marked p, a little softer at first, but Rubinova’s later arpeggio garnishing is fittingly temperate. Timing at 6:41 to Rubinova’s 5:35, Makumi’s leisurely Andante mosso creates more sense of repose, his theme p and left-hand pp as marked. But then, seeking more contrast not marked, he makes the arpeggio garnishing gaudily luscious. His descant echo effects are more exquisite than Rubinova’s, but I prefer her greater clarity of focus. Makumi’s final extension of the melody has a sorrowfully wistful quality: I prefer Rubinova’s more magnanimously rounded appraisal. Fundamentally, I find Makumi indulgently slow; his coda might indeed put you to sleep.
Michael Greenhalgh
Buying this recording via a link below generates revenue for MWI, which helps the site remain free
