Shostakovich: 24 Preludes and Fugues
Ronald Stevenson: Passacaglia on DSCH
Igor Levit (piano) (Sony)
(scroll down for English review)
列維特最新錄音，蕭斯塔高維契《24首前奏及賦格》全集，150分鐘；史提芬遜《DSCH主題帕薩卡尼亞舞曲》（DSCH即是蕭氏姓名簡寫），80分鐘，近四小時的盒裝。為了聽這套錄音，早兩三個月從蘇格蘭訂購了《DSCH》的樂譜，簽署海關申報表的名字和作曲家遺孀相同，如真是她，都超過90歲人了。
最麻煩卻是蕭氏《24首前奏及賦格》，是我一直不得其門而入，所以避了很多年的作品，就連幾年前，藝術節的梅尼可夫全集演奏，掙扎後我都捨棄，改為飛去琉森聽阿巴度。但今次有心想克服，一個月前開始看着樂譜聽了六套全集錄音。聽了六次，都總算有把握可以評論幾句。不過我也坦白跟朋友說，這套作品啟發自巴哈《平均律》，假如你連《平均律》都聽不慣，都無謂在蕭氏《24》花時間。我意思並不是聽巴哈是先決條件，而是蕭氏倍加沉悶難頂，我聽了第七次，即是這個錄音，依舊不是真心喜愛。
之前聽的六個，有三個是尼古拉耶娃的錄音，蕭氏就是為她寫這套作品，尼古拉耶娃的演奏也被視為權威。然而她的彈法，每每和樂譜有異，一是速度她通常會較慢，二是音量她不會太跟從弱音的指示，三是她會加添不同的色彩及觸感去彈。總之我覺得尼古拉耶娃的詮釋，不一定最忠實，但非常奏效，雖然稍慢，但不是她這樣彈會更悶。
其餘三個是多諾浩、阿殊堅納西及梅尼可夫。我發覺歐西樂評人推崇的《24》新錄音，都是有意識地不跟從尼古拉耶娃，後兩者都是這樣，阿殊堅納西的是20年前，梅尼可夫則是十年前。阿殊堅納西那個，尤其感受到他有意令作品沒那麼沉重，在氣氛及聲音都是，梅尼可夫則是既想跟樂譜，但也用他的方法彈出尼古拉耶娃那種劇力。
我就想，許多人其實覺得尼高拉耶娃太悶，但不敢挑戰她的權威，才走去推崇不同她的錄音，哪管它們其實不是找出比她好的演奏方法。於是列維特這個錄音，我不用太多篇幅闡釋及評價，因為他就是「非尼古拉耶娃」派，所以我預期西人樂評一定大讚。他在弱音方面做得很足，在前奏曲傾向溫柔，賦格曲就採略快的速度，保持動感，不過整體感覺就是不誇張而悶，但我覺得比阿殊堅納西為佳。
於1962年完成的史提芬遜（軌49至69）《DSCH主題帕薩卡尼亞舞曲》不單是蕭斯塔高維契的延續，也是列維特最有名的錄音的延續。三大變奏曲：巴哈《哥德堡》、貝多芬《迪亞貝利》、熱夫斯基《不屈之民》。帕薩卡尼亞本來就是一種變奏曲式，《DSCH》分三部分，不過是無間斷，第三部分的大部分是一首三主題賦格，三個主題分別是DSCH、BACH及《震怒之日》，最後以變奏曲結束，於是既有變奏曲，也有賦格曲。
列維特應該是目前彈此曲的鋼琴家中最有名的一位，許多自以為品味高的聽眾還在沉迷《哥德堡》時，列維特已經在彈《不屈之民》及《DSCH》了，不過彈這些曲目很難會發達，列維特肯去學肯去彈，已經令我不好意思挑剔甚麼，在我心目中，列維特這套錄音，雖然還未去到空前絕後的水平，至少他不會假裝自己很高格調、很天才橫溢、很眾人皆醉我獨醒，他把乏人問津的鉅著推廣，已經功德無量。
I think it’s a superb decision to bundle Shostakovich’s 24 with Stevenson’s DSCH Passacaglia, written about a decade apart. Stevenson’s work was surely a continuation of Shostakovich, but for Levit, it was also the most logical follow-up to his variations recordings of Goldberg (Bach), Diabelli (Beethoven) and People United (Rzewski).
I guess recordings of Shostakovich’s 24 Preludes and Fugues are either Nikolayeva or non-Nikolayeva. Although Nikolayeva practically owned the work she wasn’t really faithful to the written score, mostly in her slower tempi and her non-adherence to many p or pp markings. She also injected more variety of colours and articulation not notated. Still, I think the Nikolayeva approach worked best. People who thought they’d do better by following the score to the dot usually came up with a more boring rendition, with the exception of Melnikov (Harmonia Mundi).
Simply put, Levit’s approach is non-Nikolayeva. He observed the soft volume markings but often played those passages with tenderness. The fugues were often taken at a high speed, and he kept them flowing. All in all, his interpretation was free from exaggeration but not compelling enough. I don’t think Levit beat Nikolayeva in her own game, not even Melnikov who was probably the only one to deliver a convincing non-Nikolayeva interpretation. But I’d prefer Levit to Ashkenazy which was too soft and fleeting.
As for Stevenson, Levit was probably the best-known pianist who tackled it in our times. If not for him, the work wouldn’t have made it on a major label, and I wouldn’t have ordered a score from the Stevenson Society. I sincerely thank him for championing this tough masterpiece but I don’t think his virtuosity is mighty enough to prevent any competition, but more famous or capable pianists would probably give this work a pass.