Remarkably stylish. When you think how pianists romanticize Scarlatti, it puts them to shame. Cherkassky maintains the even dynamics of a harpsichord, which is very difficult.
It's interesting. It functions as a recreation of the composition, as is often the case when pianists perform harpsichord pieces: they use their remarkable skill and variety of touch to interest the listener, as the harmonic variety is almost never altered it is imperative for a pianist to enjoy dynamics of sound that can also be decided arbitrarily. It works in the piano, because it is an instrument with great tonal possibilities. On the harpsichord this way of doing it would not work.
Whatever period of music Cherkassky chose to perform he was never less than compelling. Of course there will be always be issues of interpretation and style to debate, especially in music of the late baroque. Indeed I find Cherkasskys approach a little over lavish tonally with too much sustaining pedal, having said this his playing really does speak to the public. Would Rameau have approved had todays concert Steinway been available then?, who knows!
ghostreh Just listened Alexandre Tharaud's version. He is a specialist, but is using a lot of pedal too. I think the difference is more the romantic touch of playing by Cherkassky and his ability to bring out all voices.
pghagen I think - and this is indeed prejudiced - no interpretation can ever surpass Kolesnikov's but this is, of course, a question of taste. I like Tharaud's version even if same parts sound like "Oh, let's try somthing new, no matter what..." ;)
@@ghostreh I also like Marcelle Meyer's version, it seems to flow at just the right place. Then again there are so many fine interpretations it is hard to single just one out.
