Beethoven's Piano Sonatas

[Todd]

The price on the mono set isn't bad, so for those interested, I'd say it might be worth consideration.  I notice it is packaged using the London label rather than Decca, which makes me wonder if it's a reissue of an older issue and uses a different mastering than the UMG Italy set I bought nearly a decade ago now (!).

(I wonder if the below big box ever gets reissued, too.  That could be fun.)

[Trevor]

I sampled some of the earlier ones in the cycle (from the Appassionata onwards) and was not as impressed, but I might look into acquiring the last three for comparison—imagine his approach will be very different, probably more "avant-garde"*, than Kempff's (the other MI pianist I have for those).

First post here, yay. Anyway, I'd say the appassionata is the worst place to start with Gulda: i think he was willfully weird there — not a bad thing to do in such an oft-recorded sonata, of course. Also, his op 78 and  les Adieux are too quick. So, the middle stretch isn't Gulda at his best, but most of the rest of the cycle is really phenomenal. You might think from the sample that you've heard that Gulda isn't keen on showing any sensitivity, but that would be a wrong assumption. So, anyway start his cycle from the beginning; it's mostly fantastic.

[jlaurson]

The price on the mono set isn't bad, so for those interested, I'd say it might be worth consideration.  I notice it is packaged using the London label rather than Decca, which makes me wonder if it's a reissue of an older issue and uses a different mastering than the UMG Italy set I bought nearly a decade ago now (!).

I'll look into any mastering information, if I can find any. The booklet is all Japanese, FYI.

[Brian]

Quick reminder that there are a little over 24 hours remaining on the Waldstein blind listening game.

[Madiel]

Hammerklavier belated contribution...

Kovacevich: is 10:22 in the first movement too slow for you?

I mention Kovacevich because before that I had one of Brendel's performances, and Kovacevich transformed this sonata for me, particularly the finale which held together far better and made more sense.

The Adagio is a respectable 16:23.

[Todd]

Kovacevich: is 10:22 in the first movement too slow for you?

I think the goal is to get to an opening movement that is close to the metronome mark in the score, which very few pianists do, or can do (?), which is closer to nine minutes.  I don't worry about it too much when I listen.

[Bogey]

I think the goal is to get to an opening movement that is close to the metronome mark in the score, which very few pianists do, or can do (?), which is closer to nine minutes.  I don't worry about it too much when I listen.

  In fact, the slower the better in my book.  Always liked my LvB slow....even the symphonies and sq's.  Like cold maple syrup on a frigid day.  Who is generally considered slow in the sonata groupings?

[amw]

Hammerklavier belated contribution...

Kovacevich: is 10:22 in the first movement too slow for you?

Depends entirely on phrasing and articulation—so long as it doesn't have the feel of an "Allegro maestoso". 8-9 minutes is an ideal time range if Beethoven's markings are followed exactly (something the composer himself didn't favour), but if a pianist doesn't have the technique to play it that quickly (as many don't) by all means slow it down to 10 or 11 minutes—so long as it does not feel slow, which is what I dislike in Hammerklaviers. The first movement should be harsh, intense and joyous, not grand; somewhat wild. The scherzo should sound slightly faster than is actually possible, like a hyper-compressed version of the first movement (Gulda does this very well imo). The fugue does not need interpretation to be understood, just the notes at something close to their actual speed. Throughout the sonata the sustain pedal should be used very sparingly apart from Beethoven's original pedal markings (this is true of most of Beethoven's music, actually).

I don't know where I get these very particular preferences from, though on reflection, I'm similarly picky about pretty much all other music I know well.

[aquablob]

  In fact, the slower the better in my book.  Always liked my LvB slow....even the symphonies and sq's.  Like cold maple syrup on a frigid day.  Who is generally considered slow in the sonata groupings?

For the first movement of the Hammerklavier, Barenboim's recording from the '80s on DG is pretty slow (over 13 minutes).

[Todd]

  In fact, the slower the better in my book.  Always liked my LvB slow....even the symphonies and sq's.  Like cold maple syrup on a frigid day.  Who is generally considered slow in the sonata groupings?

Barenboim, Gilels, Kempff, Leotta, Kuerti, and Nakamichi all use broad, or at least broad-ish tempi.  (I'm considering the entire cycle.)

[DavidW]

I think the goal is to get to an opening movement that is close to the metronome mark in the score, which very few pianists do, or can do (?), which is closer to nine minutes.  I don't worry about it too much when I listen.

Even Kovacevich is too slow!  That is impressive, he always sounded a bit too fast to me.  Shows what I know!

[Madiel]

Depends entirely on phrasing and articulation—so long as it doesn't have the feel of an "Allegro maestoso". 8-9 minutes is an ideal time range if Beethoven's markings are followed exactly (something the composer himself didn't favour), but if a pianist doesn't have the technique to play it that quickly (as many don't) by all means slow it down to 10 or 11 minutes—so long as it does not feel slow, which is what I dislike in Hammerklaviers. The first movement should be harsh, intense and joyous, not grand; somewhat wild. The scherzo should sound slightly faster than is actually possible, like a hyper-compressed version of the first movement (Gulda does this very well imo). The fugue does not need interpretation to be understood, just the notes at something close to their actual speed. Throughout the sonata the sustain pedal should be used very sparingly apart from Beethoven's original pedal markings (this is true of most of Beethoven's music, actually).

I don't know where I get these very particular preferences from, though on reflection, I'm similarly picky about pretty much all other music I know well.

Well, I suspect that you might quite like both the opening and closing movements, but you would probably have a problem with the scherzo, which is rather measured. It doesn't bother me that much because it's such a short movement, but for me it's definitely the least impressive part of Kovacevich's performance.

[Fred]

This is a quite fascinating comparison of tempos in the first movement of 106.  It seems that Schnabel wins by a short head over Korstick, Geiseking and Leslie (who I think is excellent).  Barenboim and Gould get the wooden spoon.

http://www.sim.spk-berlin.de/en/5_autograph_tempo_in_beethoven%92s_%93hammerklavier_sonata%94_1321.html

I know I'll be howled down, but I really don't like Gilels first movement at all.  Talking about ponderous. He's like a plane taxiing around the run-way but never tries to take off.   Rosen expresses what should happen in the first movement very well (from the above article).

Charles Rosen argues against the maestoso character of the first movement in his influential study on the Classical style from 1971, and makes a plea for the "harshness" of the piece as well as for its rhythmic vitality. It is solely on these grounds that he sees its "reputation for greatness" justifiable. Any difficulties in understanding on the part of the listener he doesn't see as being particularly problematic.

"(...) there is no excuse, textual or musical, for making it sound majestic, like Allegro maestoso, and such an effect is a betrayal of the music. It is often done, because it mitigates the harshness of the work, but this harshness is clearly essential to it. A majestic tempo also saps the rhythmic vitality on which the movement depends. As we have seen, the actual material of the work is neither rich nor particularly expressive; it only lives up to its reputation for greatness if its rhythmic power is concentrated. And it is meant to be difficult to listen to." ( 49)

[aquablob]

This is a quite fascinating comparison of tempos in the first movement of 106.  It seems that Schnabel wins by a short head over Korstick, Geiseking and Leslie (who I think is excellent).  Barenboim and Gould get the wooden spoon.

http://www.sim.spk-berlin.de/en/5_autograph_tempo_in_beethoven%92s_%93hammerklavier_sonata%94_1321.html

I know I'll be howled down, but I really don't like Gilels first movement at all.  Talking about ponderous. He's like a plane taxiing around the run-way but never tries to take off.   Rosen expresses what should happen in the first movement very well (from the above article).

Charles Rosen argues against the maestoso character of the first movement in his influential study on the Classical style from 1971, and makes a plea for the "harshness" of the piece as well as for its rhythmic vitality. It is solely on these grounds that he sees its "reputation for greatness" justifiable. Any difficulties in understanding on the part of the listener he doesn't see as being particularly problematic.

"(...) there is no excuse, textual or musical, for making it sound majestic, like Allegro maestoso, and such an effect is a betrayal of the music. It is often done, because it mitigates the harshness of the work, but this harshness is clearly essential to it. A majestic tempo also saps the rhythmic vitality on which the movement depends. As we have seen, the actual material of the work is neither rich nor particularly expressive; it only lives up to its reputation for greatness if its rhythmic power is concentrated. And it is meant to be difficult to listen to." ( 49)

Thanks for the link!

I likewise prefer a faster tempo for the first movement, but I can enjoy slower interpretations, too, and I'm quite fond of the Gilels.

[Todd]

I likewise prefer a faster tempo for the first movement, but I can enjoy slower interpretations, too, and I'm quite fond of the Gilels.

I agree with every word.  As it pertains to Gilels, he was a bad ass, and in the few instances I've heard where he truly let loose (some of his Tchaikovsky in the EMI Gilels set), he was certainly unsurpassed and probably unmatched in his ivory-tickling ability.

[Mandryka]

This is a quite fascinating comparison of tempos in the first movement of 106.  It seems that Schnabel wins by a short head over Korstick, Geiseking and Leslie (who I think is excellent).  Barenboim and Gould get the wooden spoon.

http://www.sim.spk-berlin.de/en/5_autograph_tempo_in_beethoven%92s_%93hammerklavier_sonata%94_1321.html

I know I'll be howled down, but I really don't like Gilels first movement at all.  Talking about ponderous. He's like a plane taxiing around the run-way but never tries to take off.   Rosen expresses what should happen in the first movement very well (from the above article).

Charles Rosen argues against the maestoso character of the first movement in his influential study on the Classical style from 1971, and makes a plea for the "harshness" of the piece as well as for its rhythmic vitality. It is solely on these grounds that he sees its "reputation for greatness" justifiable. Any difficulties in understanding on the part of the listener he doesn't see as being particularly problematic.

"(...) there is no excuse, textual or musical, for making it sound majestic, like Allegro maestoso, and such an effect is a betrayal of the music. It is often done, because it mitigates the harshness of the work, but this harshness is clearly essential to it. A majestic tempo also saps the rhythmic vitality on which the movement depends. As we have seen, the actual material of the work is neither rich nor particularly expressive; it only lives up to its reputation for greatness if its rhythmic power is concentrated. And it is meant to be difficult to listen to." ( 49)

I think that's a pretty powerful argument from Rosen. And yet, I've never heard a convincing op 106/i which is played fast. The fast performances always end up losing the dynamic nuances. And the fast performances end up breathless, not enough silences. The best op 106/i I know is Yudina's,  or Gilels live or Richter-Haaser. Even Rosen himself takes it at over 10 minutes.

[Fred]

Rosen's first 106 clocks in at 10.41, but his second at 9.47.  It's a complete rethinking on his part (as if he decided to practice what he preaches).
Say what you like about Korstick, but he sounds very fast and very much in control.  He's some finger-athlete.  Ditto Goodyear.

[Mandryka]

That's interesting, where is the second one? I've only heard the one at 10.47

[springrite]

Rosen's first 106 clocks in at 10.41, but his second at 9.47.  It's a complete rethinking on his part (as if he decided to practice what he preaches).
Say what you like about Korstick, but he sounds very fast and very much in control.  He's some finger-athlete.  Ditto Goodyear.

I am still in the process of digesting Korstick and having much difficulty doing so. But I am very encouraged by parts that are so convincing and others that are not at the present but nevertheless I am curious that I may change my mind given time...

[Bogey]

Barenboim, Gilels, Kempff, Leotta, Kuerti, and Nakamichi all use broad, or at least broad-ish tempi.  (I'm considering the entire cycle.)

For the first movement of the Hammerklavier, Barenboim's recording from the '80s on DG is pretty slow (over 13 minutes).

Thanks!  I am guessing that the Kempff stereo cycle I have is slower, overall, than the mono set?

Oh, and out of the ones you mentioned Todd, who differs greater in their approach to Kempff?