|
Artist
|
Work/Movement
|
Positives
|
Not so much
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CA
|
Partita No. 2 in D Minor, BWV 1004 (27’ 49”)
|
|
|
|
|
Allemanda
|
Crystal clear articulation;
Both repeats (but nothing added).
|
Lack of true triplet definition; lack of overall focus.
|
|
|
|
Too often the dotted rhythms felt more like triples than duples—where’s the balance?
|
|
|
Sarabanda
|
Very impassioned, feeling.
|
Breathe more;
What’s the hurry?
|
|
|
Giga
|
No technical worries.
|
Ignoring both repeats adds to the short-term drama, but does not really set a balanced stage for the mighty Ciaccona to follow.
|
|
|
Ciaccona
|
Epic journey of 257 bars of marvellous invention. Well voiced, strong statements, powerful finish. No worries with “arpeggio” and all of the stops.
|
Too much affectation in the opening 16ths and some of the passage work for my taste. Some of the three-note slurs morphed into unwanted triplets. A tad more breath (especially after octave/unison), would allow listeners to better digest the musical bounty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MK
|
Partita No. 2 in D Minor. BWV 1004 (33’ 00”)
|
|
|
|
|
Allemanda
|
Very intimate, deeply personal approach; on both repeats an increase in the notion of never saying anything exactly the same way.
|
The initial “hesitato” seemed somewhat overdone for my taste.
|
|
|
Corrente
|
Consistently playful and at times coyly impish; a real sense of arrival on the high D in the second section.
|
|
|
|
Sarabanda
|
The structure was marvellously underscored and several points (notably the long G string) beautifully understated.
|
The super deliberate tempo would have been a marvel if just a metronome notch or 2 higher.
|
|
|
Giga
|
A buffet of textures, tones and styles; a feeling of “ready, set, go” with the 8th notes that lead off both parts; the overall feeling of meaningful lightheartedness ideally paves the way for the Ciaccona.
|
|
|
|
Ciaccona
|
Coming in nearly two minutes longer than AC, this rendition is a revelation in artistry and understanding. Attacca is most welcome. From 8ths that are definitely two voices, to the felt pain of minor ninths, through repeated notes with direction, there is much to admire. The breath after switching to D major is palpable ushering in a sequence that is nothing short of magical. The arpeggio, replete with dotted rhythms is another creative highlight alongside the upper pedal A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MK
|
Sonata No. 3 in C Major. BWV 1005 (22’ 33”)
|
|
|
|
|
Adagio
|
A deliberately paced, brooding, at times melancholic reading, interspersed with wonderfully delicate phrasing.
|
|
|
|
Fuga
|
The highlights in this extended movement are most certainly the well-developed episodes including insistent D/G pedals.
|
The statements could be more straightforward in order to balance the developments.
|
|
|
Largo
|
|
Curiously tentative and lacking overall direction.
|
|
Allegro assai
|
Infused with energy to burn and impressive bow techniques. Completely agree with the decision to drop the second repeat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CA
|
Sonata No. 3 in C Major. BWV 1005 (22’ 33”)
|
|
|
|
|
Adagio
|
Well-defined 16ths;
Overall, a convincingly aggressive approach
|
The duples not as even
|
|
|
Fuga
|
Well delineated lines and a good balance between legato/shorter strokes.
Delight in the A-flat major surprise; bold riverso at the start was most welcome.
|
|
|
|
Largo
|
Sequences had engaging ebb and flow.
|
Difficult to feel the initial pulse; more direction would aid the repeated notes.
|
|
|
Allegro assai
|
Moved steadily forward; well-rendered terraced dynamics.
|
No repeats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CA
|
Partita No. 3 in E Major. BWV 1006 (19’ 25”)
|
|
|
|
|
Preludio
|
Confident, forward-looking approach; E pedal very strong; satisfactory dynamic contrast.
|
Just a bit frantic at times rather than secure.
|
|
|
Loure
|
Both repeats taken.
|
Never really felt comfortable in its rhythmic, pulsating skin.
|
|
|
Gavotte en Rondeaux
|
|
Principal subject too stilted and affected. No Invitation to the Dance here.
|
|
|
Menuet I
Menuet II
|
Menuet II, more palatable but likely to drive dancers and choreographers mad!
|
Menuet I - more of the same.
|
|
|
Bourrée
|
The best of the bunch: vibrant, energized and elegant.
Can’t ask for more!
|
|
|
|
Gigue
|
|
Why not just play as written and let Bach speak for himself?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MK
|
Partita No. 3 in E Major. BWV 1006 (19’ 25”)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preludio
|
Masterful: scurrying lines full of drive and verve; effective contrasts; nary a dull second!
|
|
|
|
Loure
|
Beautifully understated; overall direction never in doubt; tasteful ornaments in the repeats the magical icing on this marvellous cake.
|
|
|
|
Gavotte en Rondeaux
|
Only three seconds different than Arzewski’s but worlds apart. Coy at first, then settling down, the retrospective last statement will linger in memory for a long time to come.
|
|
|
|
Menuet I
Menuet II
|
II – Features a much more natural thoughtful flow: switching up octave E and E seul to finish is a most welcome subtle addition.
|
I – Much too affected; lacks sense of purpose and direction.
|
|
|
Bourrée
|
A lively chase in and of itself. The unflappable violinist jumps all of Bach’s hurdles: all ends well.
|
|
|
|
Gigue
|
A deceivingly matter-of-fact artistry belies the incredible skills on offer, before a final, reluctant adieu whets the appetite for more.
|
|