Beethoven's Piano Sonatas

[prémont]

A while back I posted about Igor Levit's final sonatas. I'm keen to hear what others think of this set.

It has got some of Pollini's qualities (exquisite transparency and peerless technique), but in some way I find it less sublime than Pollini's, lacking some of his magic and being generally less engaging. None-the-less I intend to acquire his integral.

I own a recording of LvB's piano concerto no.1 with Levit. As expected his style fits the concerto well.

[prémont]

I'll send it to you later.

Thanks, that would be great.

[Jo498]

I certainly agree that it often cannot hurt to try another interpretation or even two or three. But there is a law of diminishing returns and I find it highly unlikely that something will suddenly "click" with the 13th recording. And even if this seems to be the case I believe that this is often mainly caused by familiarity and finally getting/recognizing some structure or whatever happens when we think we "get" a piece of music.

op.106 and op.111 are mostly fairly "traditional" as far as the separate movements go but on a huge scale in some cases like both adagios and the outer movements of op.106. The fugue from op.106 is for me probably still the most difficult movement of all Beethoven (with the other candidate being op.133 although in the latter case I find the rough outline easier to follow). op.111 has a rather "classical" sonata movement (after the slow introduction) and the arietta with mostly "regular" variations + coda, only on a huge scale.

The other three seem all more "rhapsodic" or "quasi una fantasia". My favorite is op.109 but I also agree that op.110 is mostly immediately appealing. Again the first movement is a sonata form, the second a very terse scherzo, the rough outlines of both should be fairly clear with some listening experience. Then follows what is often seen as some Bach hommage or even "passion and resurrection". First the recitative then the arioso dolente (klagender Gesang). This is followed by the fugue, then another variant (different key and also figuration variants) of the arioso and then the fugue, this time with the inverso version of the main theme (and later also diminuition) leading to a more homophonous, triumphal statement of the fugue theme in the end.

Although very unusual, the first mvtm. of op.109 is technically also a sonata movement. The adagio sections are the "second subject" and at their first statements first and second subjects follow immediately upon each other. Development starts right after the first adagio with the return to vivace tempo and the recap is at the dynamical climax of the development and also quite recognizable. Again follows the adagio 2nd theme and afterwards a long (compared to how short the whole thing is) coda.
Second mvtmt. is a scherzo-type or maybe a gigue-inspired without a trio. Note that the bass of the first theme appears as a "melody" in the right hand later. The quiet chords before the recap are based on this as well.
Third mvmt. variations with frequent changes in mood and tempo, including a fugato section and both an "apotheosis" of the theme with lots of trills and frills as well as a simple dacapo of the original theme in the end.

[Mandryka]

I have never heard his 111 (it's quite recent I think), I'm comparing Houstoun more to the Denon era Afanassiev in Brahms, Schubert, Schumann etc.

Someday I will do some more detailed comparisons for the last 5 sonatas, these are some of the contenders that would place highly though:

Op.109:
Maria Tipo (studio) A+, (live) A
Schnabel A
François Frederic Guy I (harmonia mundi) A-
Steven Osborne B+
Mitsuko Uchida B+

Op.110:
Gabor Csalog A-
Michaël Lévinas A-
Anderszewski B+
Osborne B+
Takahiro Sonoda III (Evica) B+
Uchida B

Op.111:
Pi-Hsien Chen A-
Eschenbach A-
Uchida B+/A- boundary
Osborne B+
Schnabel B+
Korstick B

I've just booked a ticket to hear Leonskaja play all three sonatas together. She's getting some positive reviews with the programme so I have high expectations. It's in a couple of months.

Don't forget there are two Schnabel op 109/111

(Be sure to check Csalog's Schubert, there's something interesting going on there. Let me know if you find the booklet anywhere, if he's written for it.)

Jed Distler's review of the Csalog Schubert

Knowing Gábor Csalog's expert prowess on behalf of new music and his special affinity for Gyorgy Kurtag's works, I assumed he'd bring similar sensitivity and imagination to Schubert. Never assume. Frankly, this disc offers some of the most dour, prosaic, dry, and colorless Schubert playing I've ever heard. I'd go so far as to subtitle Csalog's performances of the D. 780 cycle "Moments Unmusicaux". His picky detaché articulation reduces No. 1's subtle assymetrical phrases to static, disconnected notes. The rhythmic liberties he imposes throughout No. 2 are such that if you transcribed his playing into notation, the results would read differently from what Schubert originally wrote. Csalog bears down on No. 3 to the point where Horowitz's garish caricature sounds supple and direct by comparison. Nos. 4 and 5 are heavy-handed, under tempo, and hopelessly square. In this context, Csalog's flowing and flexible No. 6 comes as a surprise–a shock, in fact.

As for the D. 935 Impromptus, compounded instances of fussy detail (No. 1's overworried dotted rhythms, for example), slack sense of line (No. 2), uneven finger work (No. 3's unfolding variations), and lack of dynamism (No. 4) prevent the music from taking wing. At least the concluding A major Piano Piece D. 604 gets a relaxed, ruminative reading. But this really isn't repertoire that Gábor Csalog should be recording.

Can anyone find the booklet, see if Csalog's written anything.

[Florestan]

this really isn't repertoire that Gábor Csalog should be recording.

Just who the hell is Jed Distler (I know who he is, but still) to tell Csalog, or any pianist for that matter, what they should or should not be recording? I have never heard of Csalog, let alone any of his recordings, but I reckon they can't be worse than Distler's own. 

[amw]

In addition I want to note that quite a few of the cycles you own are known to be "eccentric." Not in a BAD way, but in a way that is to say that they're more for connoisseurs and Beethoven junkies and weirdos like me, rather than somebody who is just trying to "get" the pieces for the first time. These more oddball performers would include Gilels (very very romantic, often rather slow - I think they're totally wonderful), Heidsieck, Lewis (as described above), Nat (very "French"), Gulda (the exact opposite of Gilels), and honestly some of the stereo Backhaus too.

I don't really get the distinction here—I would consider performers like Nat, Lewis and Gulda to present the music very straightforwardly without any particular eccentricity or idiosyncrasy, unless straightforward and not over-interpreted performances can be considered themselves a form of eccentricity.

Like if I had to categorise the cycles I have as individualised vs self-effacing I'd probably make a list along the lines of -

Straightforward/non-interpreted/consistent
Paul Badura Skoda (naïve astrée)
Michaël Lévinas
Artur Schnabel
Kazune Shimizu (Sony Classical)
Paul Komen
Rudolf Serkin
Friedrich Gulda (Amadeo/Brilliant Classics)
Yusuke Kikuchi
Stewart Goodyear

I no longer have, but used to:
Alfred Brendel (Vox) - still have some of the LPs but others have disappeared
Wilhelm Kempff (Stereo studio cycle) - CDs lost a long time ago, my dad possibly has them

Have heard, but opted not to get:
Annie Fischer
Friedrich Gulda (Decca)
Yves Nat
Mélodie Zhao

Idiosyncratic/eccentric/mannered
Paavali Jumppanen
Stephen Kovacevich
Daniel-Ben Pienaar
András Schiff
Russell Sherman
Michael Korstick

Have heard, but opted not to get:
Eric Heidsieck
Maurizio Pollini
Emil Gilels
HJ Lim
Andrea Lucchesini
François-Frédéric Guy
Glenn Gould

Like, I obviously have particular tastes that are well developed at this point, but I would still probably recommend cycles from the first group ahead of cycles from the second group to a newcomer. I guess people do have to find their own individual tastes somehow though.

[amw]

Jed Distler's review of the Csalog Schubert

I only gave a cursory listen to the Csalog Schubert. I think it's very anti-romantic and de-sentimentalised Schubert but I disagree that the music needs romanticism or sentimentality to be comprehended. If it did we wouldn't have Sviatoslav Richter for example (although Csalog does not do much with tempo). I don't feel his style suits Schubert as well as Beethoven or Kurtág—have not heard his Chopin and not interested in that repertoire at the moment—but I would need to listen again to figure out why.

[Mandryka]

. I don't feel his style suits Schubert as well as Beethoven or Kurtag

I kind of agree with you about this. I wrote to him about this recording and the Chopin, he said that the piano, a Steinway, was very bad! And that he's proud of the sound engineering on the mazurkas recording.

[staxomega]

It has got some of Pollini's qualities (exquisite transparency and peerless technique), but in some way I find it less sublime than Pollini's, lacking some of his magic and being generally less engaging. None-the-less I intend to acquire his integral.

I own a recording of LvB's piano concerto no.1 with Levit. As expected his style fits the concerto well.

Yeah I can see that, in many ways Levit's are "literal" interpretations and I still think the Op. 110 is fairly run of the mill. I will be sampling his future set before purchasing. Pollini's tone never clicked with me for Beethoven.

Edit: I will listen to the earlier CD and see if that changes my mind, my DG Originals set might make the tonal qualities worse than it is.

[Jo498]

These more oddball performers would include Gilels (very very romantic, often rather slow - I think they're totally wonderful), Heidsieck, Gulda (the exact opposite of Gilels),

I think "oddball" fits only Heidsieck here. The DG studio Gilels is sometimes very slow but not in a way that seems excentric to me (unless the very fact of slowness could count as excentricism) and I would not call him romantic. He is too severe and serious for that and his clarity in rhythm and voices reminds me somewhat of Klemperer's conducting.
Interestingly, this is one of the few cases where I was somewhat turned off by interpretations as Gilels were my first recordings for a handful of earlyish sonatas. I found them boring as a relativ beginner. When I got Gulda's Amadeo set about 2 years later (all of this took place in the late 1990s, so no easy checking another five or 50 interpretations on youtube or spotify) it was relevatory in a number of pieces.
Later on I came to appreciate most of Gilels' a lot more and I think op.109/110 are among his best and very good. Gilels' op.106 is very slow and momumental, which is not the way I imagine the piece but it is highly regarded by many.

Similarly, for Gulda, his playing is far more straightforward than his excentric persona. Sure, he can be very fast and somewhat cool or underinflected but I would not call this excentric at all.

As for the late sonatas, Gulda is among my favorites for opp.106 and 111 but I find him a little too straight and "neutral" for the more "romantic" 110 and 109. (Although op.110 was a favorite piece of the pianist along with op.111, I heard him play both of them around 1994 a few years before his death.) But generally I find Gulda a very good baseline in almost all the sonatas because his playing is so straightforward and clear.

[Mandryka]

I agree pretty much 100% with George's post.

In addition I want to note that quite a few of the cycles you own are known to be "eccentric." Not in a BAD way, but in a way that is to say that they're more for connoisseurs and Beethoven junkies and weirdos like me, rather than somebody who is just trying to "get" the pieces for the first time. These more oddball performers would include Gilels (very very romantic, often rather slow - I think they're totally wonderful), Heidsieck, Lewis (as described above), Nat (very "French"), Gulda (the exact opposite of Gilels), and honestly some of the stereo Backhaus too.

Again - not to insult those performers. They all are capable of achieving big highs. But they're more individualized vs. somebody like Kempff who can guide a first-timer through without seeming to have a "bias". And they also occasionally simply miss - like I love Heidsieck in most of the sonatas, but his "Pastoral" really annoys me with its weirdness.

It's like you're saying that there's a form of life, a culture, that you're part of which deems that Kempff and Schnabel are the paradigm of orthodoxy, and deviations from this are seen as eccentricity.  And what's more these deviant interpretations are only for connoisseurs, maybe because if they listen to the deviants first they may become corrupted.

It's like how some Jews say you have to study Torah for 30 years before studying Kabbalah.

I just think it's total nonsense!

[Brian]

It's like you're saying that there's a form of life, a culture, that you're part of which deems that Kempff and Schnabel are the paradigm of orthodoxy, and deviations from this are seen as eccentricity.  And what's more these deviant interpretations are only for connoisseurs, maybe because if they listen to the deviants first they may become corrupted.

It's like how some Jews say you have to study Torah for 30 years before studying Kabbalah.

I just think it's total nonsense!

Well, it would help if you didn't twist my words so much. I didn't say anything about being part of a culture or special society; didn't say anything about orthodoxy or heterodoxy; didn't assign any moral values to sticking to any such orthodoxy or decry as immoral any "deviations"; and didn't say anything about corruption.

So yes, it is total nonsense. Also, you made it up.

What I meant was that some performers are self-effacing and attempt to "stick to Beethoven" and others have stronger personalities which interact with the music and transform it to some degree. And that those performers have different insights and, uh, "uses," to put it clinically. And that I really enjoy a lot of both.

[Mandryka]

When you say

. somebody like Kempff who can guide a first-timer through without seeming to have a "bias".

Do you mean that you and people like you find Kempff's interpretations agreeable? Or are you saying something else? 

Here's an example of Kempff at work

https://www.youtube.com/v/pA_bXCz40zU

[Jo498]

In any case, Schnabel and Kempff are certainly sufficiently different that it's hard to see how they together should establish some standard or mean against which deviations would be measured.

[Madiel]

Oh Lordy. It shouldn't be hard to understand that some performances are closer to what is generally done and some performances are not typical of what is generally done.

That's not artistic value judgement, it's simply a basic understanding that if you're the kind of person who listens to 100 different Beethoven performances you'll discover that on any given point there aren't 100 different ways of doing it and some of them will clump!

[Mandryka]

Oh Lordy. It shouldn't be hard to understand that some performances are closer to what is generally done and some performances are not typical of what is generally done.

That's not artistic value judgement, it's simply a basic understanding that if you're the kind of person who listens to 100 different Beethoven performances you'll discover that on any given point there aren't 100 different ways of doing it and some of them will clump!

This sounds all very plausible.

In any case, Schnabel and Kempff are certainly sufficiently different that it's hard to see how they together should establish some standard or mean against which deviations would be measured.

This sounds all very plausible.

[Mandryka]

https://youtube.com/v/tGyX5W9a_IE

Clearly there's an improvisational component here, but put that aside. I think the combination of angularity, dynamic variation and elegance and lightness in the first movement is a great lesson even for those pianists who want to play the sonata straight.

It made me think that Jumppanen, who experimented with ornamentation in the early sonatas, should have done the same in later music too. After all, I think it was entirely predictable that his way would produce results which are not particularly enlightening in any way at all.

[staxomega]

Other than the above mentioned I have a faint spot among others for Badura-Skoda, Lucchesini and Solomon.

Which of Paul Badura-Skoda recordings do you suggest? I did revisit Pollini and these were excellent and had that transcendental quality Levit was lacking. I still like some of the clarity in the voices he brings to the second movement of 111. The version I heard of Pollini's sounded much better than what I recall of The Originals remaster and I'm happy to have these in my late sonata rotation.

I've also been revisiting Ernst Levy after all the discussion of the final sonatas on these last few pages, and instantly reminded of how this is some of the very best late Beethoven I've heard.

[prémont]

Which of Paul Badura-Skoda recordings do you suggest?

I like both (Astrëe and Gramola) but prefer the Astrée because of the period instruments.

[Jo498]

AFAIS Peter Serkin recorded the 6 last sonatas on a historic instruments. This is regarded highly in some quarters but close to unlistenable to me because the instrument sounds horrible. (I will try again but the last experience was not pleasant).
There is another recording of op.106 on  a modern piano that also seems to employ a fastish tempo for the first movement (and also for the fugue). Has anyone here heard this one (and probably the one on the old instrument as well) and can comment?

(There is another P Serkin disc with famous "name" sonatas but I am not interested in any more recordings of opp.13, 57 and other usual suspects for such recitals.)