Gieseking's Beethoven
snowy
recorded 1949-1950 for German radio.
What follows are first impressions only (based on a weekend of
listening, without any side-by-side comparison), so please get your
saltboxes ready...
In the booklet, the buyer is warned for the variability of sound
reproduction; indeed, in some sonatas sound is far more distorted than
in others, and here and there tape has been so severely damaged that the
piano sound all but disappears for a second or so (still, the sound
quality shouldn't inconvenience any "seasoned listener", and
at its best -as in the late sonatas- is remarkably good).
To this booklet warning, I would add that the same thing (variability
*and* isolated blemishes) holds for the interpretations.
Starting with the worst: many sonatas sound as if played through by a
(very dexterous !) sight-reader. The dexterity is attested to by
phenomenal (often exhilirating)
breakneck speeds and "dangerous" accelerations. As for "sight-reading":
it's not so much the lack of polish, the occasional mised note, an
inchoate messiness (not unlike Schnabel's) in places - I feel it's
rather everything that's *not* there that causes this impression.
For one thing, what's dearly missing is the (Schnabelian) habit of
treating a group of notes as the basic unit, so that -some messiness
notwithstanding- a clear sense of orientation and direction emerges.
What's also conspiciously absent here is rest (in the most litteral
sense of pauses, but also the quality of rest and restraint *inside*
turbulent passages that stems from a certain orderliness and clarity and
that, say, Schnabel or Richter often manage to create in these pages).
Much of Gieseking's playing has a breathlessness that makes
it particularly exhausting to listen to - like listening to a person
talking on and on without interruption. His frequently stunning
fastissimo too often sounds rushed and impatient more than anything else
(denoting a hectic tumultuousness that is merely that: a hectic
tumultuousness), and many of the accelerations have a strong
heat-of-the-moment quality (they sometimes even remind me of the problem
some amateur pianists are afflicted with, who accelerate at places of
difficulty and tension).
The main component of my "sight-reading" impression seems to be a
certain lack of emotion: many of his interpretations don't suggest much
of the scala of emotions I want to be suggested in these works - indeed,
frequantly they don't suggest much at all except for speed (haste) and
impetuous virtuosity. In the op. 14, the op. 31 sonatas, the playing
seems to be hurriedly skimming over the music's surface like one of
these noisy water scooters.
This ("lack of emotion") is not to say that his playing is
undercontrasted, colourless or vapid (it doesn't resemble Kempff, nor is
it close to Gieseking's own inhibited and rather less interesting EMI
LvB sonatas). In fact there are contrasts a plenty: one of the most
salient features of this set (along with the incredible
speed) is the way dynamic contrasts are firmly (sometimes exaggeratedly
?) set out with big, bold, brutal gestures - as in op. 31 2 and 3, where
p or pp is interrupted by formidable crashing bass chords that have the
loud immediacy of a fist banging the table (this kind of primal
brutality, and an absence of more subtle differentiations, is also what
makes the whole thing so tiring to listen to !).
[The booklet praises Gieseking's tone colour and describes this set as
"Beethoven seen through the prism of French Impressionism", but I don't
think I hear this: the main aspect of sonority that I perceive are these
huge crashing chords, which is not what I would
associate with Impressionism...]
So while the playing is perhaps somewhat short in lightness and grace,
there's abundant door-slamming going on (to the point of it coming
unhinged !) - which is exciting, but still the whole thing somehow seems
emotionally shallow.
Now the good things (since I promised variability !): the above applies
to many, but not all sonatas. There are some (Pathetique, Waldstein,
Appassionata, op. 110 and 111, perhaps a few more...) where I hear far
more of a fully-formed interpretation.
The difference is quite striking: here are agogic pauses that clarify
the discourse, a clear sense of phrasing, a careful building up
preparing resolution, a consistency making the music appear to react to
and reflect on what has happened previously - all those things
that were absent from the "sight-reading" mode.
The result of this greater articulateness is that the musical structure
seems to solidify, becoming a receptacle containing those elements
(the heat-of-the-moment quality, fire, giant doses of adrenalin,
tumult...) that elsewhere seemed lost and pointless, but that in this
vessel interact in a fascinating chemistry.
One interesting chemical reaction takes place when I listen to
Gieseking's Appassionata: while the impassioned impatience, the wild
virtuosity it is seething with don't fail to captivate me, above all
(and simultaneously) this version makes me laugh and lifts my mood with
its mad speed.
The Pathetique's fist movement is characterized by particularly bold,
larger-than-life dynamic gestures (cataclysmal chord-banging), while in
ii the right-hand has a wonderfully effective singing quality with long,
beautifully sustained notes (perhaps even too theatrically magnified,
too much lacking in nuance and innuendo when compared to others ?)
- the same (with the question-marked reservation) applies to the
slow-movement-that-is-not-a-slow-movement of the Waldstein.
In op. 111, I find myself rather liking the boisterous, raw, raging
quality of i, the "primordial surge of energy" character of it
(suggested mainly by wild speed and trepidation, and by ominous bass
chords) making the house shake on its foundations
- but at least, as opposed to the sight-reading mode, there *are*
foundations to be shaken !
It also has the wildest "jazz" variation I have heard.
Still, even in those sonatas where I like him best, Gieseking would not
necessarily be my first choice - but at least I find him, well,
interesting.
Not a priority recommendation then, but perhaps worth considering if
(like me) you're into buying your n-th set of Beethoven piano sonatas.
--
Robert Laterveer.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
snowy
create so successfully in these pages). Much of Gieseking's playing has
differentiations, is also what makes it sometimes so tiring to listen to
The Pathetique's first movement is characterized by particularly bold,
Robert Laterveer.
Frank Lekens
>What follows are first impressions only (based on a weekend of
>listening, without any side-by-side comparison), so please get your
>
>In the booklet, the buyer is warned for the variability of sound
>reproduction; indeed, in some sonatas sound is far more distorted than
>in others, and here and there tape has been so severely damaged that
> the
>piano sound all but disappears for a second or so (still, the sound
>quality shouldn't inconvenience any "seasoned listener", and
>at its best -as in the late sonatas- is remarkably good).
>To this booklet warning, I would add that the same thing (variability
>*and* isolated blemishes) holds for the interpretations.
>
>Starting with the worst: many sonatas sound as if played through by a
>(very dexterous !) sight-reader. The dexterity is attested to by
>breakneck speeds and "dangerous" accelerations. As for "sight-reading":
>inchoate messiness (not unlike Schnabel's) in places - I feel it's
>rather everything that's *not* there that causes this impression.
>
>For one thing, what's dearly missing is the (Schnabelian) habit of
>treating a group of notes as the basic unit, so that -some messiness
>notwithstanding- a clear sense of orientation and direction emerges.
>
>sense of pauses, but also the quality of rest and restraint *inside*
>turbulent passages that stems from a certain orderliness and clarity
and
>Much of Gieseking's playing has a breathlessness that makes
>it particularly exhausting to listen to - like listening to a person
>talking on and on without interruption. His frequently stunning
>fastissimo too often sounds rushed and impatient more than anything
else
>(denoting a hectic tumultuousness that is merely that: a hectic
>tumultuousness), and many of the accelerations have a strong
>heat-of-the-moment quality (they sometimes even remind me of the
problem
>some amateur pianists are afflicted with, who accelerate at places of
>difficulty and tension).
>
>The main component of my "sight-reading" impression seems to be a
>certain lack of emotion: many of his interpretations don't suggest much
>of the scala of emotions I want to be suggested in these works -
indeed,
>impetuous virtuosity. In the op. 14, the op. 31 sonatas, the playing
>seems to be hurriedly skimming over the music's surface like one of
>these noisy water scooters.
>This ("lack of emotion") is not to say that his playing is
>undercontrasted, colourless or vapid (it doesn't resemble Kempff, nor
is
>it close to Gieseking's own inhibited and rather less interesting EMI
>LvB sonatas). In fact there are contrasts a plenty: one of the most
>salient features of this set (along with the incredible
>speed) is the way dynamic contrasts are firmly (sometimes exaggeratedly
>?) set out with big, bold, brutal gestures - as in op. 31 2 and 3,
where
>p or pp is interrupted by formidable crashing bass chords that have the
>loud immediacy of a fist banging the table (this kind of primal
>brutality, and an absence of more subtle differentiations, is also what
>larger-than-life dynamic gestures (cataclysmal chord-banging), while in
>ii the right-hand has a wonderfully effective singing quality with
long,
>beautifully sustained notes (perhaps even too theatrically magnified,
>too much lacking in nuance and innuendo when compared to others ?)
>- the same (with the question-marked reservation) applies to the
>slow-movement-that-is-not-a-slow-movement of the Waldstein.
>
>In op. 111, I find myself rather liking the boisterous, raw, raging
>quality of i, the "primordial surge of energy" character of it
>(suggested mainly by wild speed and trepidation, and by ominous bass
>chords) making the house shake on its foundations
>- but at least, as opposed to the sight-reading mode, there *are*
>foundations to be shaken !
>It also has the wildest "jazz" variation I have heard.
>
>Still, even in those sonatas where I like him best, Gieseking would not
>necessarily be my first choice - but at least I find him, well,
>interesting.
>Not a priority recommendation then, but perhaps worth considering if
>(like me) you're into buying your n-th set of Beethoven piano sonatas.
>
>
What can I add to this? Except to ask: What did you think of his
Hammerklavier.
--
Frank Lekens
operamail.com is where it's really @
(Note: this is basically a repost (disguised as reply :-) performed for
a friend because certain articles posted through Deja don't seem to
arrive at the regular news servers.
I don't mean to annoy group members by reposts of material they've
already received. If the original article *was* visible for most
members, let me know. That probably means it's time for me to have a
word with my ISP about *their* newsfeed.)
Simon Roberts
[snip]
: (Note: this is basically a repost (disguised as reply :-) performed for
: a friend because certain articles posted through Deja don't seem to
: arrive at the regular news servers.
: I don't mean to annoy group members by reposts of material they've
: already received. If the original article *was* visible for most
: members, let me know. That probably means it's time for me to have a
: word with my ISP about *their* newsfeed.)
I don't remember seeing this post, so thanks for reposting it - no-one
describes recordings better than Robert does. I'm curious, though: what's
the set being described? I assume some collection of pre-1950
performances - based on the few such that I've heard, I agree completely
with his descriptions/evaluations.
Simon
Henk van Tuijl
"Frank Lekens" <kraz...@operamail.invalid> schreef in bericht
news:MPG.148e13766...@newszilla.xs4all.nl...
> Yesterday Robert Laterveer wrote:
> >One interesting chemical reaction takes place when I listen to
> >Gieseking's Appassionata: while the impassioned impatience, the wild
> >virtuosity it is seething with don't fail to captivate me, above all
> >(and simultaneously) this version makes me laugh and lifts my mood with
> >its mad speed.
I fully agree!
Henk
Frank Lekens
si...@dept.english.upenn.edu says...
> I don't remember seeing this post, so thanks for reposting it - no-one
> describes recordings better than Robert does.
Exactly why I reposted it.
> I'm curious, though: what's
> the set being described? I assume some collection of pre-1950
> performances -
I think so. I don't have exact details, but it's a box with a not quite
complete collection of the sonatas. He said that if you look at the
recording dates, they often indicated an incredibly high number of
sonatas having been recorded on a single day (as opposed to, say,
Horowitz' recordings, often featuring a single sonata recorded on an
incredible number of days).
Probably it's the reissue on Harmonia Mundi that I now see advertised on
Alapage: Beethoven par Gieseking (Intégale des sonates pour piano (sauf
N°4, N°5, N°7, N°20 et N°22) (Coffret de 7 CDs)
Maybe the servers will work again tomorrow and he'll tell you himself.
lord_e...@my-deja.com
kraz...@xs4all.nl wrote:
> Yesterday Robert Laterveer wrote:
[...excellent Gieseking post snipped...]
Thanks to Robert. Have to digest this post, but it looks great.
Btw, this post didn't show up on my usual news server either...
It's deja-visible, though (I can see it if I look at the deja news
threads).
Lena
> --
> Frank Lekens
> operamail.com is where it's really @
>
> (Note: this is basically a repost (disguised as reply :-) performed
for
> a friend because certain articles posted through Deja don't seem to
> arrive at the regular news servers.
>
> I don't mean to annoy group members by reposts of material they've
> already received.
Thanks, Frank. Actually, I don't think seeing Robert's post twice would
be very annoying... :)
> If the original article *was* visible for most
> members, let me know. That probably means it's time for me to have a
> word with my ISP about *their* newsfeed.)
Nicolas Hodges
>In article <900u2n$iqu$3...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
>si...@dept.english.upenn.edu says...
>> I don't remember seeing this post, so thanks for reposting it - no-one
>> describes recordings better than Robert does.
>
>Exactly why I reposted it.
>
>> I'm curious, though: what's
>> the set being described? I assume some collection of pre-1950
>> performances -
>
>I think so. I don't have exact details, but it's a box with a not quite
>complete collection of the sonatas. He said that if you look at the
>recording dates, they often indicated an incredibly high number of
>sonatas having been recorded on a single day (as opposed to, say,
>Horowitz' recordings, often featuring a single sonata recorded on an
>incredible number of days).
>
>Probably it's the reissue on Harmonia Mundi that I now see advertised on
>Alapage: Beethoven par Gieseking (Intégale des sonates pour piano (sauf
>N°4, N°5, N°7, N°20 et N°22) (Coffret de 7 CDs)
Unless it's the new Tahra set. (Could the Harmonia Mundi set be Tahra
distr. HM? I don't know of an HM set.)
--
Nic
David7Gable
>treating a group
>of notes as the basic unit,
Is this something you attribute uniquely to Schnabel? And what is the
alternative? Treating the single note as the unit? A pianist couldn't do
that if he wanted to.
-david gable
snowy
>
I'm curious, though: what's
> the set being described? I assume some collection of pre-1950
> with his descriptions/evaluations.
>
Frank cut off the top of my original post, which explained this:
it is (indeed) a Tahra set (distributed by Harmonia Mundi) of 7 cd's,
containing all but 5 of the piano sonatas, recorded in 1949-1950
for German radio.
Robert.
snowy
>
> >For one thing, what's dearly missing is the (Schnabelian) habit of
> >treating a group
> >of notes as the basic unit,
>
> Is this something you attribute uniquely to Schnabel?
Not at all ! It's part of every (good) interpretation, I think. I merely
mentioned Schnabel because -to me- his Beethoven interpretations
are the locus classicus for this.
> And what is the
> alternative? Treating the single note as the unit? A pianist couldn't do
> that if he wanted to.
>
I don't see this as a black-and-white, yes-or-no thing; the way I see
it it's a question of degree:
what can make a good interpretation (e.g. Schnabel's) so agreeable
to listen to, is the extent to which notes seem to merge together
to form little indecomposable clouds or waves of sound (in which
"auxiliary" notes frequently -all but- disappear), that stand apart
and interact with their surroundings.
The alternative is a more literal, note-by-note (or chord-by-chord)
reading, in which there is less of dividing the music in groups
of notes (phrases or motifs) - *less of*, which of course is not to
say phrasing is non-existent ! This alternative is what I tried to
describe as (part of) the "sight-reading" impression I had while
listening to parts of Gieseking.
Robert.
samir golescu
Listen to Pletnev...
half-joking,
SG
(who got your point, but believes that you and Ed simply used the terms
differently--Ed is right too)
snowy
>
> On 29 Nov 2000, David7Gable wrote:
>
>
> half-joking,
> SG
> (who got your point, but believes that you and Ed simply used the terms
> differently--Ed is right too)
Hey, I like Schnabel but I'm not Ed !
Robert.
samir golescu
> > Listen to Pletnev...
> >
> > half-joking,
> > SG
> > (who got your point, but believes that you and Ed simply used the terms
> > differently--Ed is right too)
>
>
> Hey, I like Schnabel but I'm not Ed !
Oops, I made a confusion... Ed J wrote something (at least remotely)
similar on Schnabel recently, and I rather liked it.