Liebeck/Apekisheva - Messiaen, Prokofiev, Fauré, and Stravinsky, 17 May 2015

Wigmore Hall

Messiaen – Thème et Variations

Prokofiev – Violin Sonata no.1 in F minor, op.80

Fauré – Violin Sonata no.1 in A major, op.13

Stravinsky – Divertimento

Jack Liebeck (violin)

Katya Apekisheva (piano)

 

There was much to enjoy in this violin and piano recital, although Jack Liebeck took a while properly to get into his stride, his intonation and depth of tone proving somewhat variable earlier on, especially during Messiaen’s early Thème et Variations. The Theme suffered most in that respect, although there was nothing to fault in Katya Apekisheva’s despatch of the piano part. In the first variation, she offered a splendidly ‘hammerless’, post-Debussyan account, bells verily tolling and resounding. Later spikiness seemed to presage aspects of the Prokofiev sonata that would follow. The fourth variation seemed to point to Messiaen’s often overlooked Franckian inheritance in a properly full-blooded performance from both players. Indeed, the piano part seemed closer than usual to Messiaen’s organ writing. The final variation offered a taste of quintessentially Messiaenic ecstasy, notwithstanding an unfortunate slip by Liebeck.

Prokofiev’s First Violin Sonata proved more consistent. The first movement revealed what we might think of as the ‘emerging chaconne’ quality of the opening theme and its consequences. This was a dark, rich-toned, yet variegated performance, the piano part astutely layered. The ghostly closing material disconcerted: the piano rock-solid, the violin casting proper doubt upon alleged certainty. Liebeck’s intonation again wavered during the second movement, but not really to the detriment of its character. Apekisheva’s performance was splendidly big-boned. Her opening una corda flurries in the third movement seemed to look back again to Debussy, as if the snow really were dancing. The violin melody that emerged above was nobly and sweetly sung. There was a winning sense of contrapuntal battle and of fun between the instruments in the final movement, before the sombre close paralleled that to the first movement. Darkness of mood and quality of musical invention worked in tandem.

Fauré’s First Violin Sonata opened the second half. From the opening of the first movement onwards, it sounded like what it is: a freer, subtler, far less obvious, precursor to the better-known Violin Sonata of César Franck (a wildly overrated work). For me, this early work is one of Fauré’s most attractive, but then I have yet to ‘get’ several of his later works, which many people whose judgement I greatly respect consider his finest. Liebeck and Apekisheva achieved an excellent balance between ‘Romantic’ ardour and hints of something cooler, subtler to come. Lightness of touch did not deny emotional weight. Motivic unity was clear without any need for (Franckian) underlining. The scherzo was especially pleasing, a light-footed impression of Gallic homage to Mendelssohn. Various tendencies were united in the finale, which yet remained true to its particular character.

Stravinsky’s Divertimento completed the programme, again in an excellent performance. The strangeness of the composer’s writing for violin registered, albeit without undue exaggeration. Here, of course, it is mixed with the strangeness of his response to Tchaikovsky. Rhythmic and melodic ghosts of The Soldier’s Tale danced in the Danses suisses, Stravinsky’s changes of mood and character very well handled. The ‘Russianness’ of the Scherzo seemed to evoke Petrushka’s Shrovetide Fair’; indeed, ballet was, quite rightly, the order of the day thereafter. Liebeck and Apekisheva showed themselves quite at home with the composer’s technical and musical demands alike.

 

Mozart Unwrapped (8): Mozart for Four Hands - Owen/Apekisheva, 17 September 2011

Hall One, Kings Place

Adagio and Allegro in F minor, KV 594
Sonata in F major, KV 497
Adagio and Fugue in C minor, KV 426
Sonata in D major, KV 448/375a

Charles Owen (piano)
Katya Apekisheva (piano)


This latest ‘Mozart Unwrapped’ concert – Kings Place has chosen Brahms to be ‘unwrapped’ next year – featured piano music for four hands, the first half involving one piano, the second half two pianos. Charles Owen and Katya Apekisheva offered generally cultivated readings, though I sometimes found myself wishing for less politeness: this Mozart sometimes veered too close to Dresden china.

The F minor Adagio and Allegro, KV 594, written for mechanical organ, opened with admirable clarity, Mozart’s neo-Baroque chromaticism permitted to tell. The Allegro exhibited a good sense not only of Mozart’s orchestral imitation, not only of typical four-hand texture, but also of his organ writing, strong Handelian influence registering clearly and with purpose. There was lightness of touch but that did not imply superficiality. When the Adagio tempo returned, material sounded properly transformed by what had passed before. As in an opera shortly to come, La clemenza di Tito, even relatively ‘impersonal’ Mozart remains utterly personal.

Hints of Schubert in the textures of the opening movement of the four-hand F major sonata, KV 497, were welcome, though they might have been brought out more strongly. There was, moreover, more than an occasional sense of tentativeness to be heard, from Apekisheva in particular, in certain passages from the Adagio introduction. The performance improved once the main Allegro fell properly into its swing, particularly illuminating attention being paid to Mozart’s inner parts, where much of the joy of his writing for four hands is to be discovered. It was a relief to hear an Andante taken as an Andante, given time to breathe, especially with such a wealth of inner material. However, the slow movement as a whole sounded a little too tasteful, albeit better that than having irrelevant ‘personality’ stamped upon the music in exhibitionistic fashion. Contrapuntal intricacies were well handled, whilst the operatic style harked back (knowingly) to the two-hand F major piano sonata, KV 332/300k. The sense of a concerto finale was there in the third movement, but might have been stronger, more rollicking even. Still, there was much to savour in the complex, almost Schoenbergian working out of inner counterpoint.

The Adagio and Fugue in C minor received a delicate reading, but is delicate what it really needs? (I think especially of a 1947 performance from Karajan and the Vienna Philharmonic.) Owen and Apekisheva produced some exquisitely veiled playing, though, especially in the fugue, I could not help but wish they had gone for the jugular. The fugue, oddly, sounded as if it too had been written for mechanical organ, the sense of a Bachian – or Bergian – labyrinth lacking. One could hear a commendable degree of detail, but what did it mean?

The D major sonata for two pianos opened in less tentative fashion, but retained that sense of (neo-classical?) automation. Though the tempo for the first movement was to my mind a couple of notches two fast, the problem was at least as much that it never yielded. The players were technically secure throughout, but, even in a piece that is sunny but hardly full of hidden depths, the music felt somewhat skated over. Much the same could be said of the Andante, taken on the fast side and unyielding. I missed any sense of what was going on beneath the surface: where was the yearning in those operatic phrases? Though marked Molto allegro, the finale sounded more of a Presto – and, more to the point, on occasion a garbled Presto. Such human music must never sound as if engaged in a mere race to the finish; it must always be allowed to breathe. Even when a ritardando was applied, it sounded calculated, adding to the feeling of music by metronome.