Sergey RACHMANINOV (1873-1943)
Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini op.43 [25:44] (1)
Sergey PROKOFIEV (1891-1953)
Piano Sonata no.7 in B flat major op.83 [19:31] (2)
Igor STRAVINSKY (1882-1971)
Three Scenes from Petrushka [17:45] (3)
Sergey RACHMANINOV
Polka de W.R. [4:05] (4)
Jean-Philippe RAMEAU (1683-1764) arr. Leopold GODOWSKY (1870-1938)
Tambourin [2:57] (5)
Emmanuel CHABRIER (1841-1894)
Bourrée fantasque [5:34] (6)
Shura Cherkassky (piano) (1-6)
Cologne Radio Symphony Orchestra/Zdenek Mácal (1)
rec. Saal 1, Funkhaus, Cologne (1-3), Villa Berg, Stuttgart (4-5), Munich
(6), 17 April 1970 (1), 21 January 1951 (2-3), 3 March 1953 (4-5), 1951 (6)
ICA CLASSICS ICAC 5020 [76:28] 
One of my most treasured memories is of a performance in Edinburgh of Rachmaninov’s
Third Concerto by Shura Cherkassky with the Scottish National Orchestra under
David Atherton. This would have been around 1974. Though his tone was not
exactly “big” it had a vibrant, ringing quality which was never hard yet soared
effortlessly over the orchestra in the final pages. Mention of this caused
another musician to recall a similarly enthralling performance at around the
same time in Holland, perhaps the greatest performance of the concerto he
had ever heard.
The early 1970s, then seemed a great time for Cherkassky in Rachmaninov. They
also witnessed some concerto recordings – Tchaikovsky, Grieg and Schumann
– with the unlikely partnership of Sir Adrian Boult. These had a mixed reception.
All the same, the discovery of this previously unissued Paganini Rhapsody
seemed exciting. Especially since, as the informative notes by Alan Thorpe
Albeson tell us, Cherkassky recorded the piece officially only once, in 1953
with the Philharmonia under Herbert Menges. This disc has never been issued
on CD and I haven’t heard it.
Maybe you have to hear Cherkassky live to get his full flavour. In the end
this didn’t turn out to be the revelation I had hoped. Of course there are
fine things, but he is less mercurial than I expected and he pulls the music
around excessively. Variation VI, for example, marked to be played at the
same tempo as the previous one, suddenly goes slow. How naturally Benno Moiseiwitsch
handles this, with a rallentando where it is marked but only there. I have
his later version with Hugo Rignold, by the way. Cherkassky makes a succulent
meal of the famous Variation XVIII, subjecting it to a dynamic scheme of his
own. Again, one returns gratefully to Moiseiwitsch, not to speak of Rachmaninov
himself. And what is the point of the sudden drop to piano in the middle of
the first enunciation of the “Dies Irae” theme? I suppose you just shouldn’t
follow a Cherkassky performance with the score, yet why should he have some
special dispensation not granted to others? Following Moiseiwitsch with the
score won’t cause anyone’s hackles to rise. At times Cherkassky is so systematic
in his reversal of what is written that one even wonders if he actually believed
that “forte” means “soft”, “piano” means “loud”, “crescendo” means “getting
softer” and “diminuendo” means “getting louder”. But no, occasionally he does
them right, so I suppose the answer is that he was just out to do his own
thing. Possibly all this worked in a way if you were actually there. Equally
possibly, his Rachmaninov Paganini wasn’t the equal of his Rachmaninov
3. Macal follows him well, so unsympathetic conducting doesn’t seem to have
been the problem.
Given that the other recordings are much older, let me assure listeners that
they sound extremely well for their age. Indeed, they don’t sound twenty years
older than the Rachmaninov.
Albeson tells us that Cherkassky did not make an official recording of the
Prokofiev, though it was in his repertoire. I must say, if I had been an A&R
manager listening to the broadcast here I wouldn’t exactly have dashed hotfoot
to sign up the performance. When we listen to Ignaz Friedman applying highly
subjective rubato to Rubinstein’s Romance in E flat we accept this because
it is part of the style of the music. To hear Cherkassky treating the slow
movement of Prokofiev 7 like a salon trinket is bizarre to say the least.
The first movement, too, falls apart as it alternates between headlong charge
and shapeless drooling. Nowhere do we find that steely control, expressed
in orchestral-style rhythms and hinting at deep emotion beneath, that can
be heard when the likes of Richter play this composer. The one success is
the finale, taken steadily but without eccentricities and with mounting excitement.
Cherkassky studied the Stravinsky with the composer. Maybe this explains why
he observes the markings in the score more closely in this case. Here, at
last, we have the Cherkassky of legend, with some truly magical textures and
impish characterization. It is all so ear-inducing that one hardly notices
the fact that it is often much slower than most orchestral performances one
has heard. For all Cherkassky’s sleight of hand it plods here and there. Still,
this is a performance that piano connoisseurs must hear. A later version of
this work, from a live recital in London, was issued “officially”.
Cherkassky-watchers knew that, even when he was at rock-bottom worst, it was
worth gritting your teeth and bearing it for the sake of the encores. And
so it is here. The teasing rubato of the Rachmaninov Polka is the stuff of
legends. Of the Rameau-Godowsky I can only say that, if you want to hear such
an aberration, it couldn’t be better done. I just wish Cherkassky had lavished
his colouristic gifts on Rameau’s charming original. The Chabrier is a scintillating
display, and another piece that he apparently didn’t set down otherwise. Certain
jabbing sforzatos come out with a hard metallic tone. However, in the light
of my opening memories of Cherkassky’s ringing but never hard tone, I’m inclined
to think he was applying too much pressure on the microphones rather than
on the piano itself.
Maybe this disc should never have been reviewed. For Cherkassky-ites it will
be enough to know that it exists. They will want to decide for themselves
how much of the best Cherkassky is here. The only useful thing I can tell
them is that the recordings themselves are good. If you’re looking for the
best version available of any of the pieces here, in the case of the last
three brief tracks this could well be it. Over to you.
Christopher Howell
The Rachmaninov Polka is the stuff of legends. But the rest?