Interpreters of Beethoven's late sonatas
Axel_Hsu
depict Beethoven's late sonatas (29-32)...
Brendel, Pollini, Kempff... what do you think?
Axel
--
Box 3131 Brown University
Providence, RI 02912-3131
(401)272-2945
Visit my always changing HOMEPAGE! http://bootp-82.tsq-a.brown.edu
James C Liu
>I have been always wanting to know which of the following pianists best
>depict Beethoven's late sonatas (29-32)...
>Brendel, Pollini, Kempff... what do you think?
None of the above.
I'd go with Solomon, though I haven't heard Charles Rosen yet.
--
/James C.S. Liu "Computers are useless.
jl...@world.std.com They can only give you answers."
Boston, Massachusetts -- Pablo Picasso
Leo Scanlon
: I have been always wanting to know which of the following pianists best
: Brendel, Pollini, Kempff... what do you think?
None of the above. For my money, it's Solomon on EMI Classics and Emil
Gilels on DG.
Leo
Mario Taboada
>I have been always wanting to know which of the following pianists best
>depict Beethoven's late sonatas (29-32)...
The late Horszowski, Charles Rosen, Yves Nat, Rudolf Serkin, Emil
Gilels, Wilhelm Kempff, Artur Schnabel, young Brendel, Claude Frank,
Bruno Gelber, Richter, Richard Goode, Peter Serin, all understand this music,
and a choice depends on each individual sonata and on your pianistic taste.
My current preferences are:
*Op. 101 - Serkin (old LP, not reissued yet), Nat, young Brendel
*Op. 106 - Gilels, Horszowski, R.Serkin, Peter Serkin
*Op. 109 - Schnabel, Horszowski, Frank, Nat
*Op. 110 - Horszowski,Schnabel,Kempff, Rosen
*Op. 111 - Horszowski, Schnabel, Kempff
For some reason, I tend to favor pianists of the older generations in these
works....
Regards,
--
Mario Taboada
"No building is too tall for a small dog to lift his leg on".
* Department of Mathematics * University of Southern California * Los Angeles
e-mail: tab...@mtha.usc.edu
Neil Tingley
writes
>I have been always wanting to know which of the following pianists best
>depict Beethoven's late sonatas (29-32)...
Solomon or Schnabel get you closest to the music.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Tingley Furtwaengler FAQ from r.m.c.r contributers at:
ne...@music.demon.co.uk http://www.netlink.co.uk/users/music/ & links to
London, UK Glenn Gould and others "more about me" menu.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cate Giustino
Alan Swindells
> Axel...@brown.edu (Axel_Hsu) writes:
>
> >I have been always wanting to know which of the following pianists best
> >depict Beethoven's late sonatas (29-32)...
>
> >Brendel, Pollini, Kempff... what do you think?
>
> None of the above.
>
> I'd go with Solomon, though I haven't heard Charles Rosen yet.
I would personally want all the above, that is all five, with the
possible exception (depends on how I feel at the time) of Pollini.
there is no *right* way in these sonatas, and those listed all have
something to say.
Regards: Alan
--
< 'Patriotism is the last > alan...@argonet.co.uk
< refuge of a scoundrel' >
< (from Boswell's Life of Johnson) >
Dan Koren
>I have been always wanting to know which of the following pianists best
>depict Beethoven's late sonatas (29-32)...
>
>Brendel, Pollini, Kempff... what do you think?
Certainly none of the above. Here are a few suggestions:
op. 101: Gilels, Argerich, Horowitz
op. 106: Gilels, Richter
op. 109: Richter, Schnabel, Ogdon
op. 110: Fischer, Richter
op. 111: Fischer, Michelangeli, Sofronitsky
Charles Rosen recorded the late sonatas for CBS sometime in the
early '70s to great critical acclaim, but somehow I never warmed
up to his style. That's probably the easiest set to find, and
they're not too expensive. If you want all 32 of them, get Nat.
dk
Dan Koren
>Axel...@brown.edu (Axel_Hsu) writes:
>
>>I have been always wanting to know which of the following pianists best
>>depict Beethoven's late sonatas (29-32)...
>
>Gilels, Wilhelm Kempff, Artur Schnabel, young Brendel, Claude Frank,
>Bruno Gelber, Richter, Richard Goode, Peter Serin, all understand this music,
>and a choice depends on each individual sonata and on your pianistic taste.
>
>My current preferences are:
>
>*Op. 101 - Serkin (old LP, not reissued yet), Nat, young Brendel
Ridiculous. Argerich, Gilels, Horowitz.
>*Op. 106 - Gilels, Horszowski, R.Serkin, Peter Serkin
Doubly ridiculous, except for Gilels. Richter is still top choice.
>*Op. 109 - Schnabel, Horszowski, Frank, Nat
>*Op. 110 - Horszowski, Schnabel, Kempff, Rosen
Except for Rosen, none of these could play the fugue.
You should hear Richter and Edwin Fischer above all.
>*Op. 111 - Horszowski, Schnabel, Kempff
Michelangeli, Sofronitsky, Edwin Fischer.
>For some reason, I tend to favor pianists of the older generations in these
>works....
And for some reason you also tend to favor pianists whose fingers cannot
play the music. To recommend Serkin, Nat or Brendel in op. 101 ahead of
Gilels, Argerich or Horowitz is plainly ridiculous. To recommend Kempff,
Horszowski, or Schnabel in op. 111 ahead of Fischer, Michelangeli or
Sofronitsky is simply unbelievable. And to recommend the Serkiners in
op. 106 ahead of Richter ?!?
Mario, are you telling us that Fischer and Michelangeli did not
understand op. 111 at least as well as Kempff did?!?
And are you telling us that Kempff's 110 is superior to Fischer's or
Richter's? You know, in 1970 I heard both Kempff and Richter play op.
110 in the same hall on the same instrument only 3 weeks apart. Kempff's
was such a joke that there was barely any applause at the end of his
concert.
dk
francesco giovannoni
particular reasons, michelangeli and sofronitsky are good
recommendations , i don't agree with argerich and horowitz and i would
add to the list backhaus and pollini but i wanted to argue more about
yves nat.
i've noticed that his recordings are rarely mentioned in this newsgroup
and when they are, reviews are not favorable at all. i believe this is
unfair for various reasons and here i'll argue about his beethoven
sonatas set. the reader is advised that the following is very long......
the first thing to consider, in my opinion, is that nat comes from a
culture that expressed the most widely acclaimed beethoven interpreter
of the generation before schnabel: edouard risler. risler was highly
considered by such figures as arthur rubinstein, poulenc, lalo and most
importantly, was an extremely important figure in the development of
alfred cortot. in fact, it was risler who was responsible for
introducing cortot to wagner's music and we might guess that cortot's
playing, which is not characteristic of the french piano school, (as
esemplified by casadeus, for instance)was probably influenced by
risler's playing which was apparently of the same type.
i used the word apparently because risler's discography is almost
nonexistent and does not reflect his repertoire which included all of
beethoven piano sonatas and chopin's complete works. in any case, in
france, risler enjoyed for a long time a reputation comparable to
cortot's. the only recording i have has been released as a companion to
an issue of the italian magazine "piano time".
this long introduction has the purpose of introducing nat into the
picture: nat studied with diemer as cortot and casadeus did and was
surely influenced by risler's lesson which, according to all accounts,
was much different from schnabel. my personal conjecture is that through
nat we hear an echo of what risler's style was, because nat's beethoven
set is obviously built on radically different premises than schnabel's
(whereby kempff, backhaus, arrau, brendel and pollini to name a few, do
take schnabel as a reference point from which they depart to different
extents).
this alone should justify the historical importance of nat's set:
unfortunatly this is just a conjecture since apparently the only
remaining beethoven recording of risler is that of op. 26's last
movement.
even if my conjecture is false, though, there still remains a lot to be
said in favor of this set which also has its flaws.
the flaws first: nat was not at all a great technician and i have a
feeling this is the main reason dk does not like the perfomances. the
recording of the beethoven set was made 20 years after nat had retired
from the concert scene and apparently, most of the recording job was
done when nat was reharsing in the studio because he was extremely
nervous and played much worse during the actual takes.
a second flaw is to be found in taht he dindn't seem to respect the
written music as much as schnabel did and resorted often to changes in
the music, a tradition that belonged more to the 19th century than to
the 20th century (the recordings were made in the fifties).
my answer to the first flaw is that if pianists were considered only on
their technique, paderewsky, cortot, fischer and schnabel himself ( to
name a few) would have no place in the history of the piano, and there
is no answer to the second flaw except that horowitz butchered
mussorgsky's "pictures at an exhibition" and nobody seems to mind on
this newsgroup....."quod licet jovi".
now the good stuff: as argued before this reading of beethoven i very
innovative; the sound is very crisp, almost metallic and most of the
time nat uses a technical device that i've seen largely used only
recently by pollini. nat actually plays the "legato" in the music almost
"staccato" and uses sometimes the pedal to regain the complete "legato"
effect, sometimes he doesn't use the pedal at all. thus, the pedal, when
used, is not used for a dynamic purpose but it is actually used to
achieve a particular sound.
this choice of sound is actually very important in nat's interpretation
because he seems to put the accent on what most of the times ahs been
called beethoven's first style. in short nat highlights the mozartian
aspect of beethoven's music (we are talking about the "don juan", the
k466 and k491 mozart). as said before, the " staccato", the relatively
fast tempi in the slow movements (especially the first sonatas) and, in
many of the late sonatas such violence (with great use of the staccato)
that to my mind shows what has never been argued better before:
beethoven as the recipient of some of the most "disturbing" aspects of
mozart's music. modern musicology has argued at lenght against the
vision of mozart's music as "happy", non-problematic, nat has given us
the proof through beethoven, seen as the recipient of these aspects of
mozart's music.
obviously, i have just written about the impressions have when i hear
nat and somebody else may see it very differently. one thing is for
sure: recommending nat's beethoven is not ridiculous.
last note: why nobody ever recommends schnabel's op. 106? true, he's not
up to the task completely from a technical point of view, but perhaps
those seeking recommendations about beethoven' sonatas should now that
he is the only widely known pianist to follow beethoven metronome
indications is this piece (which should be played much faster in the
first movement if these indications are followed)
francesco
Alan Swindells
[LONG SNIP]
>
> >*Op. 106 - Gilels, Horszowski, R.Serkin, Peter Serkin
>
> Doubly ridiculous, except for Gilels. Richter is still top choice.
[ANOTHER LONG SNIP]
>
> dk
In the interests of clarity and completeness I should point out that the
above comment comes from someone who wrote on the 8th April, in a thread
entitled 'Beethoven Pn Son Complete Set?':
'The Hammerklavier is an ugly sonata which was canonised by the scholars
because of that abominable fugue - and now everybody is supposed to like
it - never mind it doesn't even sound like music.'
Now you may or may not agree with that statement, but I leave it up to
you as to whether, on that basis, you feel able to accept Dan's
recommendation.
(Actually, I quite like Richter's Hammerklavier, but that's neither here
nor there. It wouldn't be my top choice, though.)
Farhan Malik
[...]
>but i wanted to argue more about yves nat.
>i've noticed that his recordings are rarely mentioned in this newsgroup
>and when they are, reviews are not favorable at all.
Actually, his Beethoven Sonatas are almost always praised in
this group. I seem to be one of the few who prefers Schnabel by a
wide margin although in general I am a huge Yves Nat fan. For
Schumann I find him unsurpassed. I don't find his Beethoven as
exciting, dramatic, or passionate as Schnabel's and that is why I
prefer Schnabel.
[cut]
>i used the word apparently because risler's discography is almost
>nonexistent and does not reflect his repertoire which included all of
>beethoven piano sonatas and chopin's complete works. in any case, in
>france, risler enjoyed for a long time a reputation comparable to
>cortot's. the only recording i have has been released as a companion to
>an issue of the italian magazine "piano time".
The LP Symposium 1020 contains 13 recordings by Risler. The
rest of the LP is devoted to Diemer. Symposium seems to be pretty
good about transferring things to CD so possibly this important
document will be available again soon.
BTW how does one get the magazine "piano time" in the U.S.A?
I have heard of it and would like to subscribe. Please post some info
on how to subscribe if possible.
>this alone should justify the historical importance of nat's set:
>unfortunatly this is just a conjecture since apparently the only
>remaining beethoven recording of risler is that of op. 26's last
>movement.
On the Symposium LP there is the Scherzo from Op. 31 #3 and
the slow mvmt of the 4th concerto in a solo arrangement.
>even if my conjecture is false, though, there still remains a lot to be
>said in favor of this set which also has its flaws.
>the flaws first: nat was not at all a great technician and i have a
>feeling this is the main reason dk does not like the perfomances.
As far as I know dk does like these performances and has often
recommended the set. The technical deficiencies don't bother me much
although there are a few spots which I wish he had rerecorded. I just
find the playing flat when compared to Schnabel.
>my answer to the first flaw is that if pianists were considered only on
>their technique, paderewsky, cortot, fischer and schnabel himself ( to
>name a few) would have no place in the history of the piano, and there
I think you are mixing up technique with note perfect playing.
I'll take Nat's playing with wrong notes any day over the sterile note
perfect Beethoven I recently heard from Pollini.
>is no answer to the second flaw except that horowitz butchered
>mussorgsky's "pictures at an exhibition" and nobody seems to mind on
>this newsgroup....."quod licet jovi".
I wouldn't exactly call it butchered although the arrangement
is not my favorite. Mussorgsky is not Beethoven or Mozart and his
writing for piano had room for improvement. Horowitz's rewrite of the
great gate strikes me as a great improvement and much more effective.
Farhan
James C Liu
>Axel_Hsu (Axel...@brown.edu) wrote:
>: I have been always wanting to know which of the following pianists best
>: depict Beethoven's late sonatas (29-32)...
>: Brendel, Pollini, Kempff... what do you think?
>None of the above. For my money, it's Solomon on EMI Classics and Emil
>Gilels on DG.
Gilels is peerless in Op. 101, wonderful in Opp. 109 and 110. Alas,
I know of no Op. 111. And I'm not swayed by his slow tempi in Op. 106.
So I'd definitely recommend the DG disc of Opp. 109 and 110 (skimpy as it
is; that's all that's on it!), but Op. 101 isn't on CD in the US.
And no survey of Op. 111 is complete without Michelangeli, of course.
--
/James C.S. Liu "Nine times out of ten, in the arts as in life,
jl...@world.std.com there is actually no truth to be discovered;
Boston, Massachusetts there is only error to be exposed."
-- H.L. Mencken, _Prejudices, Third Series_
Allan Burns
>
> Gilels is peerless in Op. 101, wonderful in Opp. 109 and 110. Alas,
>I know of no Op. 111. And I'm not swayed by his slow tempi in Op. 106.
>So I'd definitely recommend the DG disc of Opp. 109 and 110 (skimpy as it
>is; that's all that's on it!)
Presumably, had he lived a few more months the disc would also
include op. 111. It's really a shame he didn't get to record
it. But the disc is worth more than every penny, anyway.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Allan Burns
Jeremy Marcus
< And no survey of Op. 111 is complete without Michelangeli, of course.
Which Michelangeli Op. 111 is your favorite?
Jeremy
James C Liu
The one I have is a studio recording made somewhere in Italy and issued
at one point on a London budget CD. (I got mine at a cutout sale, so I
doubt it's out now.) There are one or two live ones which I don't know.
The studio effort is dimly recorded, but totally hypnotic; Michelangeli's
total control of his piano tone helps to conjure up a spooky, otherworldly
feel in this sonata, particularly in the final variations, when he seems
to ascend with his piano into the heavens. Spine-tingling stuff, if you
can find it.
James C Liu
>>
>> Gilels is peerless in Op. 101, wonderful in Opp. 109 and 110. Alas,
>>I know of no Op. 111. And I'm not swayed by his slow tempi in Op. 106.
>>So I'd definitely recommend the DG disc of Opp. 109 and 110 (skimpy as it
>>is; that's all that's on it!)
Allan Burns <AD...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>Presumably, had he lived a few more months the disc would also
>include op. 111. It's really a shame he didn't get to record
>it. But the disc is worth more than every penny, anyway.
Gilels did take his time in the Opp. 109 and 110 recordings, and the
DG discs that exist are very skimpy in terms of amount of music per disc.
I don't have timings, but suspect that the last three sonatas would not
have fit on a single disc in Gilels's hands. This is purely based on
speculation, though.
Has anyone heard Gilels play Op. 111 live that might be willing to
share the experience with us? ;-)
Farhan Malik
> Has anyone heard Gilels play Op. 111 live that might be willing to
>share the experience with us? ;-)
Unfortunately Op. 111 was not in Gilels' repertoire. There
will never be a complete cycle from Gilels with the addition of live
recordings for those missing studio recordings because the five
sonatas he didn't record are the five he did not play. Had he lived
longer this probably would not be the case.
Farhan
ede...@pearl.tufts.edu
>
> The one I have is a studio recording made somewhere in Italy and issued
> at one point on a London budget CD. (I got mine at a cutout sale, so I
> doubt it's out now.) There are one or two live ones which I don't know.
> The studio effort is dimly recorded, but totally hypnotic; Michelangeli's
> total control of his piano tone helps to conjure up a spooky, otherworldly
> feel in this sonata, particularly in the final variations, when he seems
> to ascend with his piano into the heavens. Spine-tingling stuff, if you
> can find it.
> --
> /James C.S. Liu
If this is the disc of oddly assembled pieces (Galuppi and Scarlatti as well),
then I have to second this recommendation. The only thing that slightly mars
the listening experience is the way the first movement's end is virtually butted
up against the beginning of the second movement. One really needs a pause, a
good breath here to prepare after the heavenly first movement for the new plane
that Beethoven is about to take us to.
But the performance is otherwise remarkable. I've had the vinyl version for
many years. When I saw that it was available on CD, I bought it immediately.
Ed Dente
"Canaries in the morning, orchestras
In the afternoon, balloons at night.
..." -Wallace Stevens
Jolly Roger
the Schnabel, Richter, and Serkin performances I've heard. But for me
Rosen's set of the late sonatas is the richest of all.
E.H.R. Tavinor
you know in those heavily publicised 2cd sets i think philips
are doing, there's a recording of favourite beethoven piano
sonatas (or something) by brendel
well, it completely put me off him, as i had just listened to
gould's recoding of the pastoral and brendel was farcical in
comparison.
i also happen to quite like gould's performance of the last
sonata. i think he does actually get the mood in the last
movement.
also worth a listen (with the music at times) is his
recording of the moonlight. unusual, but very intelligent
ed
Dan Koren
>
> And no survey of Op. 111 is complete without Michelangeli, of course.
Michelangeli is a complete survey of op. 111.
:-)
dk
Mario Martinoli
Alan Swindells
> In article <DpMF6...@world.std.com> jl...@world.std.com (James C Liu) writes:
> >
> > And no survey of Op. 111 is complete without Michelangeli, of course.
>
> Michelangeli is a complete survey of op. 111.
> :-)
I suppose he does play all the notes. :-)
~~~~
Oleg Limeshko
Michelangeli's Op.111.
Dan:
No wonder you hold LvB music in such low esteem, if you judge
it on Michelangeli's playing. Didn't you know that he sacrificed
art to technique? :-)