Wilhelm Kempff

[Holden]

I've just spun this up - I'd forgotten how good it was.

and there is a 7th bagatelle - Fur Elise of course.

Todd, any progress on finding Op 33 or Op 119?

[Todd]

Todd, any progress on finding Op 33 or Op 119?

Nope.  I saw the old user LP of Kempff playing the Bagatelles and assumed, apparently incorrectly, that it was all the bagatelles.  It's the Op 126 and scattered ones, like on the CD.  I guess I was just too eager for all of them.  I will be getting the disc though.

[George]

Nope.  I saw the old user LP of Kempff playing the Bagatelles and assumed, apparently incorrectly, that it was all the bagatelles.  It's the Op 126 and scattered ones, like on the CD.  I guess I was just too eager for all of them.  I will be getting the disc though.

I was hoping that MDT would have that disc, as I already have an account with them, but no such luck.

[George]

Boy oh, boy have I got something for you Kempff fans!

[aquablob]

Um... wow.

[George]

Lilas Pastia and I are going to be listening to the Schumann and Liszt concertos from this box and posting our impressions here. From there we will do the same for the rest of the set. If anyone else here has this box and would like to join us, feel free. The more, the merrier.  

 

[Coopmv]

Lilas Pastia and I are going to be listening to the Schumann and Liszt concertos from this box and posting our impressions here. From there we will do the same for the rest of the set. If anyone else here has this box and would like to join us, feel free. The more, the merrier.  

 

George,  How is the following set?  Any idea?

[George]

George,  How is the following set?  Any idea?

I've heard all but the Beethoven from that set and can say that I expected to like it more, having read some good things about it and recently connecting with his Beethoven. I'd need to hear it again, but I'd say my first impression was lukewarm overall. 

[Todd]

It's been a few years since I listened to the concertos box, but the Schumann is so-so at best.  He's relatively more succesful in Liszt.  Kempff plays quickly but quietly, and while not fiery, he actually manages to do well.  Not even close to top choice, but good.

As to the other concertos, the Brahms is weak, the Mozart concertos quite good if decidedly of their time.  The LvB is the reason to buy the set.  Taken as a whole, I find it one of the best cycles available.  His later, stereo 4th is better (and possibly my favorite of all recordings), and his live 5th with Ozawa is better than in this set.  Still, a must-have for me.

I have a different take on the solo Schumann/Brahms/LvB box: I find it uniformly superb, and the Schumann better than Kempff's later takes.  The Brahms is brilliant.  

[George]

It's been a few years since I listened to the concertos box, but the Schumann is so-so at best.  He's relatively more succesful in Liszt.  Kempff plays quickly but quietly, and while not fiery, he actually manages to do well.  Not even close to top choice, but good.

Yes, I fully agree. I listened to the Schumann and Liszt PC 1 this morning. He isn't helped by the sound, which places the piano too far back in the mix for me, plus the piano image is blurry throughout. The Schumann was indeed so-so, with an unexciting finale that didn't leave me wanting to hear this again soon.

The Liszt PC 1, plagued with the same sound problems as the Schumann, did come off a lot better. Kempff surprised me here with his virtuosity. The Orchestra played very well too and with great authority.

[DavidRoss]

Kempff surprised me here with his virtuosity.

[Lilas Pastia]

My experience with these recordings is quite different from George's ! 

I listened to the same works (Schumann and Liszt 1) twice, and compared the Schumann with two diametrically opposite recordings: by Andreas Staier (fortepiano) and Herreweghe, and Eugene Istomin and Bruno Walter with the Columbia Symphony (studio recordings, both.).

The Schumann concerto started life as a one-movement phantasie, which he described as a middle ground between a symphony, concerto and 'grande sonate'. His publisher wanted something more saleable than the Phantasie. Schumann obliged by adding an intermezzo and finale 4 years later. IMO the first movement is the most interesting of the three. It strikingly resembles Franck's Variations symphoniques in its scope, shape, and rather unflashy piano part.

By the time he started work on it, his right hand had been crippled and he didn't put a lot of virtuosic traits in the work. Indeed, the pianistic writing is biased toward the left hand in terms of rythmic accentuation and in its contribution to the overall sonority. Quite often the right hand is consigned to delicate filigrees in the treble acting almost as a continuo to the orchestra's instrumental dialogue.

I think this points to the problem of how to approach the concerto: some pianists will want a true 'symphonic concerto' approach (à la Beethoven 4 and 5 for example), and will favour a strong impulse and big-boned sonority. I wouldn't be surprised if dynamics were cheated to give more heft and flash to the right hand figurations. That's how it comes across in the Istomin and Barenboim recordings (the latter with Celibidache - not listened to recently, but very identifiably of the Big Concerto school of thought). I don't mind that if it's well done. The Istomin-Walter is quite superb in that regard.

Another approach is to take the work as it is written: a composite work where the first movement has its own internal structure and an individual approach to the concertante elements. It will emphasize the 'fantasy'. This is what I hear in the Kempff recording (he remade it in his eighties with Kubelik, adding a couple minutes' time to its duration). There are many places where I perked up my ears and listened to intently because Kempff makes you hear things that are just not there - or are not designed to stand out - with others. Instances in point are the exposition that immediately follows the turbulent introductory bars, or the first movement cadenza. In both cases he made me listen much more intently than the other pianists I heard.

There is a wealth of poetry here that come from myriad little phrasing touches - accentuation of notes, micro-hesitations in the shaping of individual phrases - and there is also a singular differentiation between the bell-like, bronzen bass notes and the ethereal filigrees he achieves in the treble. Add to that pedalling that transforms the piano sound from a mass of sonorous ivory tickling (Barenboim) to something where you almost hear two instruments at once. Kempff's attention to legato is also a feature that is essential to his overall conception. Compare that to Andreas Staier, whose instrument (or his handling of it) lets you hear every single note as an equal entity with barely a connecting tissue (sound swell and decay) between them. Staier is ok if you like that kind of ultra clear, no-nonsense, dry-eyed approach. He is very delicate when needs be, and he doesn't slight those big bass notes in the left hand (suprising power from his instrument).

In the end, Kempff's approach tends to emphasize the incidental beauties, but it makes the last two movements less interesting. I suspect he is right. They are just as beautiful, but less interesting. The best interpretations I've heard that make the work 'whole' and get away with it with flying colours are Serkin's - in particular the sizzling Szell Cleveland. I guess it depends what one is looking for in the Schumann concerto, or even how one feels at a particular time.

I found the sound quite good, the only unpleasant item being steely massed violins. It was recorded in 1953 in Kingsway Hall (a great recording venue) under Decca engineers.

The same team (Krips-LSO-Decca)  recorded the Liszt concertos one year later, again in Kingsway Hall. Here I found the sound less good. The orchestra comes out brighter - a good thing - but the piano is more recessed and sounds muffled - a very bad thing, as it probably mutes Kempff's palette of sonorities. I didn't find it very interesting overall. That, too, is a work where structure is quite peculiar. I don't think it's a great work, but it's a most enjoyable display of pianistic fireworks and orchestral burps and farts. I'll listen to the Magaloff-Fistoulari I have on hand as a comparison, but if memory serves, he storms through the work with infinitely more panache than I heard with Kempff. Favourites are Rubinstein (inimitable sonority and flair) and François (with Silvestri - fantastic chic and dazzle).

[Lilas Pastia]

Mozart concertos 9 and 15 from the DG boxed set.

These are also from the Decca vaults, recorded in Geneva's famed Victoria Hall with members from the Suisse Romande Orchestra (led by Munchinger, not Ansermet). The 9th (Jrunrhommr, K.. 271) is the prize here. It helps that it's one of Mozart's very finest works, a gem that never outstays its welcome. Kempff explores its beauties patiently, but with no attempt to either prettify or pump up its size with unwanted weight. I really liked this interpretation, one of the best I've heard of that perennial favourite.

The 15th OTOH is a rare miscalculation from Kempff. Why choose this, probably Mozart's least interesting post-Jeunehomme piano concerto. I found it wan and faceless. And yet, if memory serves, Ashkenazy and esp. Perahia are quite enjoyable. I'd have to check, but am not inclined to right now. In any case, Kempff's reticence doesn't pay any dividends here. He just makes a dull work sound even less intereting.

Kempff recorded other Mozart concertos (8, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 27 are currently available, some as recent as 1982) and no doubt played them throughout his carreer. I'd certainly welcome a boxed set of everything that appeared on DG (8, 9, 15, 21-24 and 27).

[George]

I'll need to get to those soon, Lilias.

I also recently got the DG CD of him playing some Mozart solo works.

[George]

Have any of you compared Kempff's mono and stereo sets of the Beethoven Piano Sonatas?

If so, what were you're findings?

I have yet to listen to my stereo set, but I plan to do so soon and compare to the mono along the way.

[Verena]

Have any of you compared Kempff's mono and stereo sets of the Beethoven Piano Sonatas?

If so, what were you're findings?

I have yet to listen to my stereo set, but I plan to do so soon and compare to the mono along the way.

Hi George,

There was a time when I was a Kempff fanatic  But even at that time I did not really like most of his stereo cycle - excepting the last three sonatas. Conversely, I tended to prefer his mono cycle in almost all cases, except for the last sonatas (I don't like the Hammerklavier in either cycle).
Today, in fact, I do not like the mono cycle that much any more. I feel that Kempff's Beethoven playing lacks "smoothness" (don't really know how to describe it) and power, both due to a somewhat less than perfect technique.
However, I absolutely adore Kempff's mono Beethoven Concerto Cycle with Kempen, more specifically, the 5th concerto from this cycle - the slow movement in particular I find very poetically played. (I do not like his stereo Concerto Cycle with Leitner at all).

[George]

Thanks Verena. I know the consensus is that the mono is better, but for the handful of sonatas I have compared (a few early and a few late works) I have preferred the stereo.

Like you, I prefer many other pianists's Beethoven to Kempff's, but since he is held in such high regard, I have tried to make a special effort to get to know his interpretations.

One thing you can say about Kempff's Beethoven is that they are original interpretations. I don't think anyone plays the sonatas like he does. 

[Verena]

One thing you can say about Kempff's Beethoven is that they are original interpretations. I don't think anyone plays the sonatas like he does. 

Agree. I think he would have been a really wonderful Beethoven player if he had been just a little bit more virtuosic. I find him much better in Schubert - in fact, he is one of my absolute favorites in Schubert -  but even here there are moments (or whole sonata movements in fact), where he is just not manually equipped to tackle more demanding passages with the kind of sweep you find in many other pianists.

[George]

Agree. I think he would have been a really wonderful Beethoven player if he had been just a little bit more virtuosic.

True, but that's one of the things that makes his interpretations important.

I find him much better in Schubert - in fact, he is one of my absolute favorites in Schubert -  but even here there are moments (or whole sonata movements in fact), where he is just not manually equipped to tackle more demanding passages with the kind of sweep you find in many other pianists.

In some Schubert works, he's great. But in the darker, heavier works I much prefer Richter.

[Verena]

In some Schubert works, he's great. But in the darker, heavier works I much prefer Richter.

Interesting that you call some of his works "dark/heavy". I had never seen them in this light before. Now, come to think of it, D 958 is really dark and heavy, and D 959 is very dark indeed - though there is no interpretation of this work by Richter, I think. And in both cases, I actually don't like Kempff's interpretations (as a whole).
As for the IMO greatest sonata, D960, I'd spontaneously characterise it as infinitely sad (most of the time), but not dark or heavy. In the hands of Richter, however, it is indeed dark and heavy. In the hands of Kempff, it is not; it is rather infinitely sad, but sadness transcended by beauty of melody. For me, that's kind of the essence of Schubert, and that's probably why I find his music comforting; on the other hand, I know people who find it difficult to listen to because they get depressed.
I find both Kempff and Richter great in D960, although they are completely different. I guess that's part of the greatness of that work that it lends itself to so many different interpretations.