Piano Recital Konstantin Scherbakov
“Mostly Mozart” — Mozart & Liszt

Aula der Universität, Zurich, 2024-05-17

5-star rating

2024-06-09 — Original posting


Konstantin Scherbakov beschließt die Konzertreihe “Musik an der ETH und UZH” — Zusammenfassung

In den letzten sieben Jahren hatte ich die Gelegenheit, Konstantin Scherbakov (*1963) ein Dutzend Mal in Solo-Rezitalen zu erleben. Das Repertoire dieser Auftritte reichte von Beethoven über Schumann, Liszt, Tschaikowsky, Ljadow, Debussy bis hin zu hochromantischen Werken von Rachmaninow und hochvirtuoser Tastenakrobatik von Ljapunow und Godowsky. In der Welt Johann Sebastian Bachs fühlte sich der Künstler nicht zu Hause, und auch vor Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756 – 1791) schreckte er zurück.

Nach Jahren des Zögerns hat er sich nun entschlossen, den Schritt zu Mozart zu wagen. Ganz auf Mozart beschränken wollte er sich dennoch nicht. So betitelte er sein Programm mit “Mostly Mozart” und ergänzte drei Werke dieses Komponisten mit hochvirtuosen Fantasien von Franz Liszt (1811 – 1886) über Themen aus Mozart-Opern.

Das Rezital-Programm

Am Beginn des Rezitals erklangen zwei gewichtige Werke in c-moll von Mozart: die Fantasie KV 475 und die Sonate Nr.14, KV 457. Auf diese vorwiegend ernsten Kompositionen folgte die Fantasie über Themen aus Mozarts “Le Nozze di Figaro“, S.697 von Franz Liszt in der Version von Ferruccio Busoni (1866 – 1924). Für das Publikum war dies eine “musikalische Erleichterung” mit Themen aus Mozarts Opera buffa. Pianistisch jedoch hat die Fantasie es in sich: hochvirtuos, technisch sehr anspruchsvoll, und brillant gespielt.

Auch der zweite Teil des Rezitals eröffnete mit Mozart, diesmal leicht und populär: die bekannte Sonate Nr.11 in A-dur, KV 331, “Alla turca”. Als Abschluss folgte wieder ein Werk von Franz Liszt: die Grande fantaisie “Réminiscences de Don Juan”, S.418, mit Themen aus Mozarts Oper “Don Giovanni”. Dies ist eines der technisch anspruchsvollsten Werke der gesamten Klavierliteratur. Es ist so herausfordernd dass sich angeblich Alexander Scriabin (1872 – 1915) beim exzessiven Üben die rechte Hand verletzte.

Konstantin Scherbakov verzichtete auf eine Zugabe, würdigte stattdessen die Verdienste seiner Frau, Nina Orotchko. Diese hat über 29 Jahre mit ihrer Agentur Musical Discovery die Konzertreihe “Musik an der ETH und UZH” organisiert. Dabei konnte sie auf die Unterstützung der beiden Zürcher Universitäten zählen, welche die Räumlichkeiten unentgeltlich zur Verfügung stellten. Nun sehen sich die Hochschulen gezwungen, den Organisatoren die Saalmiete in Rechnung zu stellen. Damit ist eine Weiterführung der Konzertreihe leider nicht mehr möglich. Schade, dass Kultur bei den Hochschulen keinen angemessenen Stellenwert mehr besitzt.


Table of Contents


Introduction

Venue, Date & TimeAula der Universität, Zurich, 2024-05-17 19:30h
Series / TitleMusik an der ETH und UZH
Piano Recital Konstantin Scherbakov: “Mostly Mozart
OrganizerMusical Discovery
Reviews from related eventsRecitals with Konstantin Scherbakov
Recitals in the Main Convention Hall at Zurich University
Concerts in the Series “Musik an der ETH und UZH

The End of a Precious Tradition?

For 29 years, the ETH Zurich (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology), later joined by the University of Zurich, generously provided a home for the concert series Musik an der ETH und UZH. This arrangement allowed the organizer of the series, Musical Discovery, to present concerts in venues such as the Auditorium maximum or the venerable Semper Aula in the main building of the ETH, the equally historic Aula (main convention hall) of the University, or the beautifully renovated Aula of the Alte Kantonsschule (former high school, now part of the University).

The institutions waived the rental fees for the halls. In return, the students had free access to the concert. A large part of the typical audience, however, consisted of (paying) external visitors and, of course, faculty, up to professors and even Nobel laureates. The series was also supported by sponsors.

A few months ago, Musical Discovery was informed that the institutions were no longer able to provide the venues free of charge due to alleged financial constraints. This means that the continuation of the series is no longer financially viable. Therefore, the series Musik an der ETH und UZH has come to an end. This event was the last concert of the current season. It also marks the end of Musik an der ETH und UZH. At least until a new solution is found to make the series financially viable again. Unfortunately, this is a serious setback for culture at the University of Zurich and the ETH, and leaves us with the vague hope that this decision will one day be reversed.


The Artist: Konstantin Scherbakov

Over the past 7 years I have experienced the Russian-Swiss pianist Konstantin Scherbakov (*1963 in Barnaul, Siberia) in 12 solo recitals (see link above). I don’t need to introduce the artist here again. His presence in the Zurich area is, of course, manifested in recitals that I have attended and written about in this blog. Equally important is his impressive legacy in the form of students who have successfully completed their studies at the ZHdK (Zurich University of the Arts) and won prizes in major competitions. Several of them have embarked on international solo careers, are at least highly promising candidates for successful careers, and/or are engaged in teaching activities, thus carrying on Konstantin Scherbakov’s legacy.

Repertoire

In terms of composers (not works, of course), the 12 recitals I attended cover only a fraction, but still essential parts of the artist’s solo repertoire, namely (in chronological order):

Konstantin Scherbakov has performed and recorded the virtuoso highlights of the romantic and late romantic piano repertoire. The solo repertoire includes key works by Liszt (Transcendental Studies, transcriptions of Beethoven’s symphonies for piano 2 hands), Rachmaninoff, Tchaikovsky and many others. Godowsky, whose complete works for piano 2 hands the artist has recorded, has long been a mainstay in the repertoire. The same holds true for Lyapunov, whose completion of Liszt’s cycle of Transcendental Studies Konstantin Scherbakov has recorded twice. His solo repertoire naturally includes Beethoven: he has recorded all of Beethoven’s piano sonatas, the “Diabelli” and “Eroica” variations, and more, even the symphonies in the form of Liszt’s transcriptions.

Repertoire Omissions

There are some obvious “holes” in Konstantin Scherbakov’s repertoire. One prominent omission is the Baroque composers, especially Johann Sebastian Bach (1685 – 1750). I recall interviews in which Konstantin Scherbakov said something to the effect that he had “not entered the realm of Bach’s music”. In fact, the only way I have heard Konstantin Scherbakov play Bach (on CD or in concert) is through virtuoso transcriptions, such as by Leopold Godowsky (or presumably Franz Liszt). Given my reluctance to accept the modern concert grand as a suitable platform for Bach’s music, I don’t regret this.

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756 – 1791) is the other “weak spot” in Konstantin Scherbakov’s repertoire (so far), and he is not alone. A prominent example is Arthur Rubinstein (1887 – 1982), who avoided Mozart’s solo repertoire. When asked, Rubinstein pointed out that Mozart wrote for completely different instruments and that the modern piano is not suited for this music. However, there are also prominent artists who have stated that Mozart’s music may not be technically demanding, but it is still difficult to interpret.

So it was a surprise to learn that Konstantin Scherbakov had titled his recital “Mostly Mozart”. However, given my previous experience with this artist, I wasn’t skeptical about the outcome, but I was certainly curious. I spoke with the artist after the concert, and he told me that he had always shied away from playing Mozart. Only recently had he “made peace” with this composer and finally decided to perform Mozart in concert.


Program


Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart c. 1780
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

A Coincidence, Presumably…

In addition to what I mentioned above, this concert had another peculiarity for me: only three days before, I had been invited to a piano recital in Basel, Switzerland, featuring the Chinese pianist Yundi (Yundi Li, *1982). As if the two concerts had been coordinated, Yundi’s all-Mozart recital program included all of the genuine Mozart pieces in Konstantin Scherbakov’s concert (i.e., not Franz Liszt’s two Fantasies), plus one additional piano sonata, Sonata No.8 in A minor, K.310 (300d).

I mentioned this to Konstantin Scherbakov after the concert. He seemed well aware of Yundi’s Mozart program and recital tour, but of course the two programs had been conceived independently. We briefly discussed the differences between the two approaches to programming and interpreting the selected Mozart piano sonatas (and fantasia). I don’t refer to my discussion with the artist in the comments below. I consider the artist’s comments to be private. All I mentioned to Konstantin Scherbakov were some of the comparative aspects in the performance comments below. I did not intend to do a full side-by-side comparison. However, I could not resist pointing out some key differences. Moreover, if you compare this review with the one of Yundi’s performance on 2024-05-14, you should be able to draw your own conclusions.

Programming: Yundi vs. Konstantin Scherbakov

For his all-Mozart program, Yundi took the (seemingly) “easy” approach, beginning with the most popular piece, the Piano Sonata No.11 in A major, K.331, “Alla turca“, followed by the earliest of the selected pieces, the Sonata No.8 in A minor, K.310 (300d). This filled the first half of his recital. My impression at the time was that it sounded like a lot (too much) of “the same”. After a 20-minute intermission, Yundi played the Fantasia in C minor for Piano, K.475, followed immediately (attacca!) by the Piano Sonata No.14 in C minor, K.457. In the aftermath (i.e., after Konstantin Scherbakov’s recital), this tight combination turned out to be questionable. For details, see my earlier review.

Konstantin Scherbakov began with K.475, followed (separately, not attacca) by the Sonata K.457. This made the recital seem much more “significant” from the beginning. After the two Mozart compositions, the first of two Liszt Fantasies provided both a dramatic build-up and entertainment at the end of the first part. After the intermission, the “Alla turca” seemed more central and relevant than just a kind of introduction, as in Yundi’s recital. It is, after all, the longest of the Mozart pieces in this recital. The use of the second of Liszt’s fantasies as climax and conclusion needs no further comment.


Setting, etc.

Considering that this was the last concert in the series (at least for a good while), it wasn’t surprising that it was very well attended: I have seldom seen so many people attending Musik an der ETH und UZH. The instrument was a mid-sized grand piano—the university’s Steinway model B-211.


Concert & Review

spacer5

Mozart: Fantasia in C minor for Piano, K.475

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756 – 1791) composed his Fantasia for Piano in C minor, K.475 in 1785. He published it together with the piano sonata No.14 in C minor, K.457, that he had composed the year before. The joint publishing may just have served to avoid publishing a single sonata on its own, which at that time was rather unusual. The Fantasia features five segments, all played attacca:

  1. Adagio
  2. Allegro
  3. Andantino
  4. Più Allegro
  5. Tempo I

The Performance

Adagio

Almost immediately, my curiosity about Konstantin Scherbakov’s Mozart interpretation turned to fascination (which I should have anticipated). There it was again: the artist’s warm sonority and excellent control of dynamics. A well-considered approach: calm, with remarkable but discreet agogics. Even the very first phrase/motif was a little miracle under a gentle, dynamic arch, the initial note subtly extended. One could feel that the artist paid the same attention to the smallest motifs. A serious, pondering interpretation, heavy with thoughts, expressing despair, forlornness, the long pauses up to the semiquavers in the left hand seemed like little eternities.

Signs of hope appeared in bars 16 and 17 in major keys, where the slurred semiquavers began to hint at a melody. The grumbling demisemiquavers in the bass were not threatening. Rather, they initiated the transition to the brighter spheres of the second part of the Adagio. This section (legato) felt intimate, warm, singing: marvelous! Konstantin Scherbakov, of course, did both repeats. Only the last two bars showed signs of the drama of the Allegro, suddenly raising expectations.

Allegro —

Despair, anguish in the bass, trembling figures in the right hand, interrupted by gaping pauses: no wild outburst, but urging and controlled, deep emotion. After another pause, rolling quavers in the left hand give way to a serene, almost playful central intermezzo (p). This was merely an episode leading into another dramatic segment (f), in which Konstantin Scherbakov broadened the pace over the quaver triplets, until Mozart further reduces the tempo by briefly returning to regular quavers. The music then accelerates again toward the fermata and a brief, virtuosic cadenza. A true fantasia by the book, with ruptures in the form, full of sudden mood swings between drama and serenity.

Konstantin Scherbakov did not try to tie the segments tightly together (attacca). Rather, he left short pauses between the “chapters”, which gave the impression of short movements. This did not break the links between the sections: the intersections were short, and the artist managed to maintain the tension at all times.

Andantino —

The Andantino builds on a motif from the Adagio. The first part could have been written by Beethoven! It demonstrated the artist’s ability to evoke wonderful sonorities while maintaining perfect internal balance and a warm, rounded sound without ever sacrificing clarity.

Più Allegro — Tempo I

The turbulent Più Allegro, a true fantasia in its own right, was the dramatic climax of the composition. Konstantin Scherbakov’s performance was virtuosic yet effortless, thrilling through the long demisemiquaver section to the gradual relaxation, first in semiquavers, then in staccato quavers. Everything was carefully articulated down to the smallest motif, full of rhetoric, yet all forming a big dramatic arch. Konstantin Scherbakov’s interpretation preserved the full clarity of the form.

The fermata pause at the intersection to the Tempo I was the longest in this Fantasia. I think this was done not only for formal clarity, but also because after the furious climax in the Più Allegro, the emotional transition back to the grievous, serious atmosphere, the reflected drama of the opening Adagio seemed enormous.

Despite all the ruptures and internal fragmentation and disparity: a true masterpiece, indeed!

The use of terms such as “furious”, “drama” / “dramatic” in my comments might suggest an extroverted “showman” interpretation. This couldn’t be further from the truth in Konstantin Scherbakov’s interpretation. Yes, the modern piano lends itself to showing off and exploiting big sonorities. On the surface, however, the artist’s attitude remained factual, objective. At the same time, the pianist was completely devoted to the music, to the richness of expression, focused on the expressive power, the multifaceted emotional depth of the Fantasia.

Programming “Choreography”

I could not help but compare this to Yundi’s performance a few days earlier, where the Sonata K.457 followed without interruption. This reduced the Fantasia to a mere introduction to the sonata. Yes, Mozart published the two works together. But I’m sure he did so only for practical reasons. Konstantin Scherbakov’s interpretation proved that the Fantasia is a significant masterpiece in its own right. And its placement at the beginning of the recital confirmed this impression. After this performance, to reduce it to an introduction to K.457 feels like an abuse, even a blasphemy.


Mozart: Piano Sonata No.14 in C minor, K.457

Mozart wrote his Piano Sonata No.14 in C minor, K.457 in 1784. It’s one of only six sonatas that he wrote during his years in Vienna. He published it together with the above Fantasia in the same tonality. The sonata features three movements:

  1. Allegro
  2. Adagio
  3. Molto Allegro

The Performance

As noted above, the Fantasy K.475 is not an “introduction” to the Sonata K.457, even though the two works share the same principal key. In fact, the character of the two compositions is not the same: the Sonata is serious and expressive, sometimes playful, but (at least in Konstantin Scherbakov’s interpretation) it lacks the tragedy, the drama of the Fantasy. And it is much less introverted, but open, outgoing. Consequently, the artist left room for a short applause before diving into the first movement of the sonata.

I. Allegro

The first bars (a repetition of the main theme) opened the sonata in a serious, measured tone. In bar 9, however, the character changed: over motoric left-hand octaves, the two voices in the right hand strived toward playful quaver triplet chains. The latter weren’t diastolic, but rather served to build momentum for the next phrase. The second theme then felt serene, playful, bright and joyful, almost harmless for a moment. But Mozart didn’t settle for one mood or the other, often changing the character, e.g., by inserting a lively quaver triplet chain/cadenza before the final phrase.

To repeat the exposition, Mozart needed to return to the serious, measured tone of the beginning. The composer achieved this in a single p measure. In Konstantin Scherbakov’s interpretation, this was a stunning moment of surprise. A quarter rest was enough to make the transition to the slower opening tempo feel natural. The development section didn’t spend more than two bars on the opening motif, then combined the two themes, ending after just 24 bars with a surprising pp fermata. Interestingly, Mozart (and the artist) managed to make the recapitulation feel like a second development: expressive, but not too dramatic. There are repeat markings around the development/recapitulation. Given the brevity of the former, it made sense to include this repeat as well.

With his expressive playing, the detailed dynamics (and of course the sonority of the instrument), Konstantin Scherbakov placed this sonata (movement) in the vicinity of the 1798 Piano Sonata No.8 in C minor, op.13 (“Sonate pathétique“) by Ludwig van Beethoven (1770 – 1827), which is in the same key. An interesting connection!

II. Adagio

Beautiful, serene, cozy, expressive through distinct agogics and detailed dynamics. A lovingly crafted song, a narrative full of warmth and affection. The middle section with the repeated semiquavers in the bass seemed to add a note of intimacy, even secrecy. “Talking” little hesitations, careful articulation down to the smallest detail, light and effortless in the filigree, cadenza-like scales, the last one receding to ppp. And Konstantin Scherbakov’s use of the sustain pedal was so discreet that it went unnoticed.

III. Molto Allegro

I can understand why Mozart published the two C minor works together: he considered both to be masterpieces in their own right. The last movement opened lightly, playfully (again almost harmlessly!), just to build up commitment and expression. The most remarkable things about the Rondo theme are the two exclamations (ascending chord sequences with diminuendo) and the gaping fermatas / pauses. Konstantin Scherbakov seemed to prolong these very slightly, enough for the listener to feel the drama of these moments.

Before the last instance of the Rondo theme, the artist used the a piacere with its four fermatas and pauses as an opportunity for a “moment of reflection” (retrospection?). And again: especially in the episodes, the movement seemed to come from an early Beethoven sonata.


Franz Liszt, 1858
Franz Liszt

Liszt: Fantasy on Themes from Mozart’s “Le Nozze di Figaro”, S.697

Franz Liszt (1811 – 1886) wrote countless transcriptions of works by baroque, classical, and romantic composers, from Lied to symphonies, opera overtures, and the like. With these, he allowed experiencing the transcribed works to wider audiences which otherwise might not have the opportunity to hear these works in concert. However, Liszt also was a prominent piano virtuoso in need of a repertoire that enabled him to display / demonstrate his abilities in his own recitals. For the same purpose he also wrote genuine compositions, as well as pieces more generally inspired by other composers’ works. One of the latter kind is his Fantasy on Themes from Mozart’s “Le Nozze di Figaro“, S.697. The original title of this work is “Fantasy on Themes from Mozart’s Figaro and Don Giovanni“, combining themes from two of Mozart’s operas: “Le Nozze di Figaro” (The Marriage of Figaro), K.492, and Don Giovanni, K.527.

Liszt composed the Fantasy S.697 in 1842/1843—he performed it in concert in January 1843, when Mozart would have turned 87. However, the work was not published in Liszt’s lifetime. Rather, the composer just left it as an unfinished manuscript. Two attempts were made to render this into a performable work: 1912, the Italian composer and eminent piano virtuoso Ferruccio Busoni (1866 – 1924) published a shortened version, in which he left out the material from Don Giovanni. The result consequently is named Fantasy on Themes from Mozart’s “Le Nozze di Figaro“, S.697—performed in this recital. Much later, 1993, the Australian pianist, musicologist and composer Leslie Howard (*1948) created a completed version that used all of Liszt’s material. Howard published this in 1997. Busoni’s version features the following, main tempo annotations:

  • Introduzione: Moderato a capriccio
  • Allegro
  • Tempo I —
  • Andante — Un poco meno —
  • Allegro —
  • Con brio —
  • Un poco ritenuto, alla Marcia
  • Giocoso

The Performance

Excellent programming! Mozart’s two pieces, K.475 and K.457, are both very substantial, if not expressive “heavyweights” that should not be compounded with more drama and effect. Franz Liszt’s Fantasy proved to be an ideal complement to Mozart’s C minor works. It is based on an opera buffa (a commedia per musica), and its themes, the underlying arias offer lightness, joy, wit, pure entertainment. Liszt’s adaptation (a fantasy, definitely not a transcription) is a brilliant and highly virtuosic showpiece that develops into a fascinating musical firework. It’s both impressive and highly entertaining:

Introduzione: Moderato a capriccioAllegroTempo I —

Konstantin Scherbakov’s capricious opening bars offered both lightness (the descending, punctuated figures) and anticipation (the dark notes in the bass). After only a few bars, the composition bursts into virtuosic passages/excursions in which the artist maintained clarity while effortlessly, even playfully, mastering the blazing flashes, fast runs, intricate textures of the introduction and the embedded first Allegro.

Andante — Un poco meno —

The Andante uses the melody from the peaceful aria “Voi che sapete che cosa è amor“, embedded in a complex chordal accompaniment. Konstantin Scherbakov retained all the warmth and expression in the melody, while keeping the complex accompaniment as such, effortless, light, even filigree. Gradually, emotion, drama and virtuosity of the score build up. The aria returns, now enshrouded in even more complex textures and passagework.

Allegro — Con brio — Un poco ritenuto, alla Marcia — Giocoso

The second Allegro is a highly expressive recitative that leads to a dramatic, even tumultuous scene. One could almost visualize the action on stage. The Con brio is a first virtuosic cadenza. After this, the bass aria “Non più andrai” breaks out as a highly acrobatic, full-fingered ff feast, leading into chromatic third cascades. Liszt unleashes all his technical imagination and power, constantly increasing the virtuosity. In the end, the aria mutates into a march over a motoric semiquaver and quaver ostinato that seems inspired by opera overtures by Gioachino Rossini (1792 – 1868). The Giocoso, finally, is the final pyrotechnic display that transcends all technical and expressive boundaries.

Besides all the virtuosity, the technical mastery, it was amazing to see how Konstantin Scherbakov kept the sonority under control. He never exceeded the capacity of the instrument, even in the strongest ff / con tutta forza outbursts. And yet it was not a mere display of virtuosity, but a combination of pianistic power and the captivating effect of an opera transcription. Amazing.


Mozart: Piano Sonata No.11 in A major, K.331, “Alla turca”

Mozart’s Piano Sonata No.11 in A major, K.331 (300i), “Alla Turca, does not need to be introduced. It is likely the most well-known sonata by this composer. Mozart probably wrote it around 1783, either in Salzburg or in Vienna. It features a set of variations as first movement, and the famous “Alla turca” as last movement:

  1. Andante grazioso (6/8) — Var. I-IVVar. V: AdagioVar. VI: Allegro (4/4)
  2. Menuetto (3/4) — Trio (3/4) — Menuetto da capo
  3. Alla turca: Allegretto (2/4)

The last movement is an expression of the popularity of Turkish themes in Austria, ever since Prince Eugene of Savoy won over the Turks in the Austro-Turkish War 1716 – 1718.

The Performance

In the second part of the recital, the musical roles were reversed. Spectacle and drama unfolded in the last piece, Liszt’s Réminiscences, while joy, serenity and happiness dominated Mozart’s “Alla turca” Sonata.

I. Andante graziosoVar. I-IVVar. V: AdagioVar. VI: Allegro

The punctuated opening motif already indicated attention and forward momentum through rhythmic tension. A stark contrast to Yundi’s “washed out” articulation at the beginning of his recital three days earlier. Tension and momentum, however, were not at odds with the serenity and atmosphere of the variation theme. Rather, they were part of Konstantin Scherbakov’s distinct agogics, with small ritenuti and a pronounced tenuto in the last bar. Needless to say, the artist respected all repeat markings throughout the movement (the only exception: the second repeat in the Adagio variation). I will only point out highlights in each of the variations. On the whole, however, these comments apply to the entire movement.

In Variation I, the interpretation showed remarkably thoughtful, careful articulation and detailed dynamics. Each group of slurred semiquavers was treated with care and attention. Yet the performance did not sound academic. Variation II: depth in dynamics and phrasing; Variation III (minore): very expressive, rich in agogics, yet unpretentious. Variation IV was serene and absolutely beautiful, touching. Konstantin Scherbakov refrained from adding extra ornamentation in the repeats. Instead, he used subtle expressive differentiation.

At first glance, Variation V, Adagio, seemed to be in a tempo close to that of the previous variations. However, these (all in 6/8 time) had two beats per 6/8 measure, whereas here, the listener felt quaver beats (6 beats per 6/8 measure). Again, carefully articulated. I noted instances of independent agogics between the two hands. The final Variation VI, Allegro, anticipated “Turkish” elements of the Finale, with its distinctive arpeggiated bass chords that felt like drum and cymbal beats.

II. Menuetto — Trio — Menuetto da capo

Just briefly, from my notes: nothing in Konstantin Scherbakov’s interpretation is “just casual”, let alone superficial. It is palpable how every phrase, every motif, every detail in articulation, agogics and dynamics is the result of careful reflection (though probably subconscious, with such an artist). And yet the performance never feels demonstrative or didactic. Just one small example: after the ascending, arpeggiated octaves in bar 19, and after the slurred f quaver pairs in bar 23, the p in the next bar follows with a very slight delay. Softer, but emphasized by the extra attention given to this small hesitation. There are other such hesitations, and the movement is certainly anything but a simple, innocent minuet.

The gentle Trio reminded me strongly of some of Beethoven’s bagatelles. Instrument and performer certainly contributed to this impression, but so did the narrative in the cantilena, which was reminiscent of a Scottish folk song.

III. Alla turca: Allegretto

At this point, let me talk about the (my) “elephant in the room”. There is no doubt in my mind that for Mozart (and other classical composers) the fortepiano is a more appropriate choice than any modern concert grand. In this movement in particular, the rich color palette of a fortepiano comes to full bearing. Since the modern piano lacks the vibrant, bright colors (and the noise of the action) of the fortepiano, pianists must resort to other means to evoke the sound of an early military band with drums, cymbals, and the like. So how did Konstantin Scherbakov do?

Imitating the sound of a fortepiano by adjusting the touch is hardly an option, and may even sound like a caricature. Rather, Konstantin Scherbakov used agogics, articulation and dynamics to approach the “Turkish sound”. He did not push the tempo, but used subtle *local” accelerations, and in accents, he sometimes held back the volume rather than reinforcing notes. And he used “snapping” staccato on end notes. Subtle tempo variations (such as the change to a slightly faster tempo in bar 33), and agogics (e.g., the ritenuto and sudden pp on the first quavers in bar 44) added a humorous note, as did of course the frequent, rapidly arpeggiated “drum beats” in the bass.

The interpretation certainly did not feel like a caricature: it was primarily the instrument, not the artist, that moderated and limited the effect of Mozart’s “fun portrayal” of a Turkish marching band.


Liszt: Grande fantaisie “Réminiscences de Don Juan”, S.418

Around 1841, two years before he composed his “Fantasy on Themes from Mozart’s Figaro and Don Giovanni“, S.697, Franz Liszt (1811 – 1886) created his Grande fantaisie “Réminiscences de Don Juan”, S.418. The latter is one of the technical pinnacles of piano literature. It is so challenging that Alexander Scriabin (1872 – 1915) injured his right hand by (over-)practicing this piece and Islamey by Mily Balakirev (1837 – 1910). The Wikipedia article mentions the Russian Piano legend Heinrich Neuhaus (1888 – 1964) allegedly stating that with the exception of Grigory Ginzburg (1904 – 1961) and a pianola (player piano) nobody can play this without “smudges”. Let me list the main annotations here:

  • Grave
  • Andantino
  • Duetto: Andantino
  • AllegrettoVariation IAdagio — CadenzaPrestissimo
  • Variation II: Tempo giusto — Grave
  • Quasi Presto: Tempo deciso — Presto — Prestissimo — Andante

I don’t want to repeat myself here: for the technical performance aspects of Konstantin Scherbakov’s interpretation please see my remarks on Liszt’s Fantasy on Themes from Mozart’s “Le Nozze di Figaro”, S.697 above. Let me just mention in broader / more general terms what my notes from the performance alluded to. First, a note: I tried to follow the performance with a score, which proved difficult. As far as I could see, Konstantin Scherbakov played Liszt’s original version, not Ferruccio Busoni’s adaptation. My score combines Liszt’s original (above) and Busoni’s modified version (below) in parallel. The sheer number of notes in the combined score made it really hard to follow (I didn’t prepare for the concert by training myself to read this score). This may explain why I hardly had a chance to write down any useful remarks. So bear with me:

The Performance

The first part made a big impression: big not only because of the huge sonorities that Konstantin Scherbakov was able to produce from the Steinway B-211, but also because it immediately and vividly evoked the opera scene with the scary, dark and ominous warning of the Komtur (i.e. his statue). The next major section is a set of variations on the beautiful duet “Là ci darem la mano“. Already the presentation of the theme showed that Konstantin Scherbakov’s primary interest was not only to present beautiful cantilenas and virtuosic mastery. Here, too, he evoked the action on stage, brought the characters to life and touched the listener’s heart. Inevitably, this led to a first, glittering, sparkling cadenza.

The first variation is a display of extreme, breathtaking virtuosity, topped of course by the second variation. This part does not lead to a “normal” cadenza, but to a dramatic climax that unfolds on an imaginary stage. The dark Grave anticipates the end of the opera. After that, the virtuosically transformed “Champagne Aria” (Fin ch’han dal vino, calda la testa) seemed like a grotesque caricature mixed into a tumultuous drama (Quasi Presto: Tempo deciso). Only then, in the Presto, does Liszt bring the “Champagne Aria” back into “proper form”, of course, building it up to a fulminant conclusion.

Konstantin Scherbakov’s performance was simply breathtaking. I don’t want to add any more comments about his splendid performance, except to say that it was definitely more than just sheer virtuosity.

One word about the composition, though: being familiar with the opera, I found Liszt’s reversal of the action at the end (first Don Giovanni’s dramatic fall, followed by the “Champagne Aria” for a positive ending) unconvincing, inconsequential.


Conclusion

Naturally, there was a strong and lasting applause from the large audience. It seemed to be an open question what kind of encore the artist would choose. And Konstantin Scherbakov decided not to play at all. Instead, he addressed the audience with a short speech. He pointed out that this was not only the last concert of the season, but also the end of 29 years of concerts under the auspices of “Musik an der ETH und UZH“. And of course he paid tribute to his wife Nina Orotchko, the organizer and “driving force” behind the series, head of Musical Discovery.

Nina Orotchko (Musical Discovery) & Konstantin Scherbakov @ Zurich University, 2024-05-17 (photo © Rolf Kyburz, all rights reserved)
Nina Orotchko (Musical Discovery) & Konstantin Scherbakov @ Zurich University, 2024-05-17 (photo © Rolf Kyburz, all rights reserved)

So the concert ended on a sad, melancholic note. Thank you, Nina, for your tireless efforts, your perseverance, for all the work and your considerable efforts to maintain this series over the past 29 years!


Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank the organizer, Nina Orotchko / Musical Discovery, for the free admission, not only to this concert but to all events over the years. All concert photos are © Rolf Kyburz, all rights reserved.



AboutImpressum, LegalSite Policy | TestimonialsAcknowledgementsBlog Timeline
Typography, ConventionsWordPress Setup | Resources, ToolsTech/Methods/Pics/Photography

Feel free to comment — feedback is welcome!