The chamber music was not the strongest suit amongst nineteenth century
Russian composers. In general they preferred to express themselves in
symphonic and vocal music. This could be due to their aim to make their
music more nationalistic. After all, chamber music tends to be more abstract
in nature. Still they tried, and often the results were good.
Tchaikovsky’s Piano Trio, one of the greatest in
the genre, is a monumental masterpiece. It is dedicated to the memory of the
composer’s friend, Nikolai Rubinstein, who had died in 1881. The work is very
emotional and has a generally mournful mood. The performance by the Moscow
Trio is expressive in the best Russian tradition, with singing strings and a
playful piano. Typically “Russian” breadth and expansiveness is there but
not at the expense of good drive. This is not a work where passions should
be restrained, yet the Moscow musicians never push too hard, so the feeling
remains sincere and not overblown. The complex, non-standard structure of
the Trio holds together well and does not fall apart into separate
'pictures'. The Variations are played with unhurried elegance
in a reading that is touching and sincere. The grand final variation is
bright and heroic, and the tragic Coda seems to cut it short in its joyous
ascent until we reach that desolate ending. The acoustics of the recording
are “closed” and a little dull with the cello seeming to be placed rather
far back.
Glinka’s Trio pathétique is probably the oldest
of the eminent Russian chamber works. Originally written for piano, clarinet
and bassoon, it may have more appeal when performed in its original form:
that combination is more rare and also sounds more operatic, which is
appropriate, considering Glinka’s
bel canto roots. This Trio was
written before the composer firmly turned to establish the foundations of
Russian national music. The music shows an unmistakable influence of
Schubert, and the
Forellenquintett is never too far away. There are
expressive and memorable melodies aplenty and they are inventively developed.
In this case the music receives a full-blooded enthusiastic performance,
tempestuous and extravert. It serves well dramatically but this is a piece
that would have benefited from a more relaxed stance. This interpretation
pushes things a little too hard and makes the music seem unrefined. The
Scherzo is quicksilver and its Trio eloquently operatic, however in the
subsequent Largo the piano sound is not the most beautiful and sometimes
becomes quite “wooden”. This tends to strip the slow movement of its
nobility. The short and effective finale reminds us of the
Pathétique title.
Arensky’s First Trio is his masterpiece and one
of the gems of the piano trio literature
(see
Piano Trio Survey).
Young composers often seem to pack as much good stuff as possible into their
works: finally they
can do it and so they try to squeeze everything
in. This is one such work. The first movement is a good match for the highly
Romantic allegros of Brahms and Fauré. It is turbulent, intensely emotional
and full of memorable melodies. The performers do not overdo the drama. They
are enthusiastic and provide good weight and drive, letting the music
breathe and evolve naturally. The quicksilver Scherzo could have been
written by Fauré or Saint-Saëns. The musicians express well the playful
swing of the outer parts, as well as the leisure-walking stride of the Trio
section. The
Élégie is a beautiful sad song with mournful outer
parts and a nostalgically sweet middle episode. The Moscovites play with
expression and care. Naturally there's a most Brahmsian finale,
tempestuously heroic — Romanticism at its steamiest. The performance is
solid and very persuasive. Regrettably, the acoustics are not ideal, with
the piano often sounding as if it is underwater.
On the heels of the emotional Arensky, the Trio by his contemporary
Sergey Taneyev may come as dry and cerebral. The first
movement seems constantly to inhibit its own development. This music is
closer to the ever-shifting thought-flow of Richard Strauss than to the
melodic development of Tchaikovsky. The performers create the richly woven
sound-fabric with light fingers. The music has grace and momentum but its
flames do not burn high. The Scherzo has the dark demonic quirkiness of
Rachmaninoff’s
Symphonic Dances and the eerie pace of some of
Bruckner’s scherzos. The music is balletic, and actually is quite modern for
its time, some moments sounding like precursors of Prokofiev. The performers
do not release the listener’s attention for a second. This is a taut and
involved reading that energizes and enthralls. The elegiac slow movement is
meditative and melancholic. The Moscow musicians express its autumnal beauty
with calmness and dignity. This “objective” presentation of human emotions
paints a more realistic picture of what we actually feel, as opposed
to the artful over-dramatization of the high Romantics like Tchaikovsky or
Arensky. On the other hand, has our perception changed over centuries and is
Taneyev just more attuned to our times? That may be the case, but in the
same way that prose is more truthful than poetry, it is also less
interesting. The energetic and affirmative finale is Beethovenian in spirit.
Taneyev seems to be always one or two steps away from that “yes!” moment,
yet never reaches it, as if on purpose. Maybe a clearer recording would
produce a stronger effect. The music gives a lot to an attentive listener:
every minute brings in many interesting events, colours, textures, but it
all seems very buttoned-up even though the ending is very positive. Overall,
this is a trio that should be better known, although the analytical first
movement may not appeal to everyone.
Rimsky-Korsakov and Borodin were recorded two years later in the same
venue. The acoustics are better with sound that is clear and present. When
Rimsky-Korsakov wrote his Trio, he was already an
established master of orchestration, and one can sense this. All textures
are crafted with skill, although the solutions are often quite standard. You
would never guess the composer in a blind test. The first movement is
reminiscent of the piano trios by Mendelssohn, with boiling spirits,
dramatic turbulence and bittersweet
schmerz. At 15:25 it sounds too
long for its contents. This is followed by a fussy Scherzo, crisp and
repetitive. The slow movement is an operatic duet, a sweet and mellow
dialogue of two lovers, full of tenderness and warmth. It calls to mind
places in Rimsky’s operas, and also the slow romances in the chamber works
of Mendelssohn and Schumann. The energetic and theatrical finale displays
skilful treatment of motifs in a sequence of characteristic scenes –
agitated, lyrical, capricious, dramatic and jubilant in turn. The
performance is fresh and to the point, with both energy and attention to
detail. This is an interesting side of Rimsky-Korsakov, one that is scarcely
known. The music is well crafted but very
safe, nothing stands out
of the line and as a result nothing is really memorable.
The unfinished Trio by young
Borodin is in contrast to
that by Rimsky-Korsakov, less skilled and polished but more audacious.
Borodin was always an experimenter. The opening movement is full of youthful
energy; the performance has drive and buoyancy, and does not relax its grip
for a moment. The slow movement is a subtle song without words. The
Intermezzo is an energetic Mazurka, with much juicy bravura — and
maybe with just too much stomp and bang. This movement does not really work
as an ending; I feel a want of something fast and light to come after it.
This is surely the lamentable reality of a work that is unfinished and not
the performers’ fault: they are attentive and enthusiastic throughout.
Overall, this box set seems to start with the best and then gradually
decreases in interest and value of the works. Tchaikovsky’s Trio is
certainly the most commonly encountered but everyone should hear the
wonderful Arensky; Taneyev can surprise you by being so advanced; and it is
interesting to make the acquaintance of chamber works by Rimsky-Korsakov and
Borodin. One can afford all of this at Brilliant Classics’ low prices. There
is much beauty here although the acoustics on the first two discs are not
ideal. That said, the quality of the performances is more than adequate. The
recordings are from the early nineties. The booklet provides an excellent
musical analysis of the works.
Oleg Ledeniov
