One of the best Duet

Despite the obvious and undeniable charm of Rostropovich, I still think the real gem in this performance is Britten. Or, more precisely put, this is one of the nameable best duet ever in my music listening history, and Britten presented to me how piano accompaniment, which is basically a percussion instrument, can shine through the dense texture of cello, which is a string instrument. I have, so far, heard two renditions of Schubert's Sonata for Arpeggione and Piano, one is by the duo of Rostropovicn and Britten, and the other is by the duo of Maisky and Argerich. Hands down, the duo of Rostropovich and Britten wins out, at least to my ears.

This performance is worth the lable "legends". The first striking difference between these two recording is the sound quality, and Decca did a much much better job than Philips. Decca's recording renders a feeling of being wrapped IN/WITHIN/AMID the tender and flexible quilt loosely but vividly woven with tiny, delicate but breathable mesh of musical notes. However, the Philips recording (Maisky and Argerich), sound-quality-wie, is quite dry, thin, and juiciless.

Every musical piece has it's own life, it's own rhythm of breathing, and every pair of ears are tuned into a certain frequency when coincides with a certain piece in the river of time. It's true there are speed label such as 'Allegro moderato' (for the first movement in the Sonata) or 'Allegretto' (for the third movement in the Sonata), but when it comes to the individual piece and individual person, it's all chemistry. For instance, I found the first movement in the Sonata too fast by the Maisky and Argerich duo, but the rendition by Rostropovich and Britten simply makes me want to comfortably lie back with arms and legs sprawling infinitely into the space and
float with winds and clouds.

Time is fluid and continuous. However, it could also be discrete and fragmented, and when we divide the continuous time with speed or pace, we get fragments of various size linked together by the chain of melody. Each person may have a slightly different preference toward the size of an individual time fragment in the chain of rhythm. In other words, if I want to measure my time with music notes, I would rather opt for Rostropovich and Britten's yardstick.

I have a personal liking toward Schubert's Sonata for Arpeggione and Piano, and the piece is so lyrical that I sometimes hum it unconsciously. So I did a phrase-by-phrase comparison of these two reditions, marking the differences on the music scores. I adore how Rostropovich present the ebb and flow of the cello part also
different textures at different sound frequency. It's chewy when it gets deep and heart-melting when it gets mellow. Since Rostropovich's rendition is slower, there is more room for the sound maneuver. It's like the lingering taste on the tongue tip after a sip of wine. However the faster rendition by Maisky doesn't leave the room for the aftertaste. Phrasing, yes, phrasing makes a big difference too. Rostropovich's phrasing is natural and comfortable to my ears, while Maisky's a bit hastened and artificial. It's like listening to Lang Lang playing Chopin: his technique is without doubt, but he is too showy and artificial when he skips a natural phrasing stop with a lengthened note spilling over a beautiful blank silence. Music playing is like singing or poem recitation, and phrasing, namely how to insert silence into the stream of sound, determines the hue of the piece.

Britten, my fav part of this duo, does such an excellent job demonstrating how accompaniment can leave the fragrance in the air while not interfering the flares of the candle light. Piano and cello have different sound qualities, if cello is like the currents of river, piano is like the sparkling droplets splashed up in the air. However, there is a trick here. To be able to have both the waves fluctuating and droplets sparkling, the currents cannot be too torrent-like which could totally eat up the droplets, and the droplets cannot always sparkle because unremitting sparkling light is just light not "sparkling" light. In other words, the assumption of "sparkling" is the a stream of intermittent light and darkness. Rostropovich doesn't busy himself too much in weaving the quilt of cello sound without leaving the mesh for Britten to sparkle throught the soft wrapping of the soundstream. A perfect combo.

At this point, as I am listening to the piece again and again, I found words, my words, only my words, exclusively just mine, mine, colorless and in vain, music would reveal all.