Beethoven's Piano Sonatas

[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.)

[Mandryka]

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.)

You know, I must have really bad taste because I think it's a waste of time trying to play the first movement so fast on a modern piano. Because of the speed you can't shade and nuance the music much, either dynamically or with touch and attack, and the sound of the piano is so pure and uniform that you end up with something which is without chiaroscuro or relief or colour.  In other words, something totally gauche. On a proper Beethoven piano like the one Peter Serkin uses for the other recording you've got so much more colour because each register has a different timbre, and there are so many more overtones floating around the harmonies become scrunchy. Beethoven knew what he was doing, he knew what he was writing for, and it sure wasn't a Steinway D.  Play it on a modern piano by all means but do it like Backhaus or Rzewski -- i.e ditch Beethoven's speed suggestions.

[Jo498]

My taste is apparently worse because I think most pianos from the period simply don't sound good. (They are more acceptable in Haydn and maybe even some Schubert, but (late) Beethoven is so far beyond them.)
But those built or restored for Brautigam sound decent whereas Serkin's Graf in the 1980s is, as I said, almost unlistenable to me, depending on my mood or the weather.

[Mandryka]

They [old pianos] are more acceptable in Haydn and maybe even some Schubert, but (late) Beethoven is so far beyond them.

I've heard this said before but no-one ever says why. Why?

[Jo498]

This is mainly/only personal opinion, of course. But I think the reason for me is the uses of extreme registers. The discant of the early 1800 piano sounds tinkly, the bass relatively weak. In addition, the music demands expressive cantabile sound in many of these high register passages  which is hard to impossible with the fast decay of sound. Maybe it's simply having listened to this music for around 2 decades before encountering fortepiano recordings.
Schubert does not seem to use to high register so extensively and it might simply be the particular recordings I have encountered that were more appealing to me than late Beethoven. (Again, I think the 1980s Serkin on the Graf are a somewhat special case because the thing does sound almost broken at times. I promise to listen to at least some of it later today to get a fresh impression).

PS/edit: I found some comments in the rec.music.classical.recordings archive that point towards the single modern Steinway op.106 with Serkin being far less remarkable than the one on the historic Graf, so I'll probably skip it.

[Mandryka]

This is mainly/only personal opinion, of course. But I think the reason for me is the uses of extreme registers. The discant of the early 1800 piano sounds tinkly, the bass relatively weak. In addition, the music demands expressive cantabile sound in many of these high register passages  which is hard to impossible with the fast decay of sound. Maybe it's simply having listened to this music for around 2 decades before encountering fortepiano recordings.
Schubert does not seem to use to high register so extensively and it might simply be the particular recordings I have encountered that were more appealing to me than late Beethoven. (Again, I think the 1980s Serkin on the Graf are a somewhat special case because the thing does sound almost broken at times. I promise to listen to at least some of it later today to get a fresh impression).

PS/edit: I found some comments in the rec.music.classical.recordings archive that point towards the single modern Steinway op.106 with Serkin being far less remarkable than the one on the historic Graf, so I'll probably skip it.

If you want, PM me and I'll send it to you -- I mean the Peter Serkin on Steinway. Some people love it, though it may be because it's very well played more than that it's poetic.

I once was in a conversation with Ian Pace when he was very excited because he'd just played op 111 on a Cristofori, he said it was a revelation for the trills!

By the way I've been listening to a concert recording of Aimard in op 106 -- modern piano, slow. I think it's rather good!

[JBS]

I've heard this said before but no-one ever says why. Why?

For some people (meaning not necessarily for Jo, who has already posted his explanation) it may trace back to the idea that LvB was, in the late sonatas, pushing his music not merely to the limit of the instruments available to him, but past them.  Of course, that may be totally false, even just a rationalization for not using fortepianos.

[Mandryka]

For some people (meaning not necessarily for Jo, who has already posted his explanation) it may trace back to the idea that LvB was, in the late sonatas, pushing his music not merely to the limit of the instruments available to him, but past them.  Of course, that may be totally false, even just a rationalization for not using fortepianos.

Again this is something I've heard said before but no one ever says in what way he was pushing the instruments. Louder, more uniform in the registers, purer in the timbres, equally tuned, more octaves  . . . it's hard to make sense of the idea if people don't elaborate.

[JBS]

Again this is something I've heard said before but no one ever says in what way he was pushing the instruments. Louder, more uniform in the registers, purer in the timbres, equally tuned, more octaves  . . . it's hard to make sense of the idea if people don't elaborate.

Agreed.  Which is why I suspect there is no evidence for the idea.

We do know that he was trying to increase the volume, but the reason there was his deafness.  He was trying to hear the music for himself.

[Jo498]

Now I re-listened to opp. 90, 109 and 106 in P. Serkin's fortepiano (Graf) recordings. The sound was not as bad as I remembered and it also seems to me that the problematic sound has not only to do with the instrument but also with the recording.

The booklet of this re-issue stresses that the original three discs had been recorded with different microphones/setups. So one can get used to the sound but it is still distracting at times. Some dynamics are strange, seem almost like artifacts of either the recording or the response of the instrument. The latter is also true of some accents or stresses, so it is not always clear if these are choices of the player of if Serkin is sometimes struggling with the instrument.
Anyway, "unlistenable" was certainly too strong, but I fail to hear these recordings as the revelation some apparently hear in them.

[Florestan]

Agreed.  Which is why I suspect there is no evidence for the idea.

We do know that he was trying to increase the volume, but the reason there was his deafness.  He was trying to hear the music for himself.

That is the crux of the matter, actually. Nobody --- and I mean, nobody --- could, can, or will ever be able to, have the slightest idea about what Beethoven was hearing in his own mind. Period. It is all conjecture, speculation and interpretation.

[Jo498]

Beethoven was pushing the range of the contemporary piano already when he was not deaf; e.g. the Coda of the Waldstein sonata extensively uses the high register and there are also some "late" (or even Chopinesque) figurations in the 4th piano concerto. Unlike with baroque organs we simply cannot know if Beethoven appreciated the different tone colors of the registers of the fortepiano or if he would have preferred a more evenly (and overall stronger) sounding instrument. It is all a matter of degree but it seems to me that the evolution of the piano in the 19th century mostly goes in the direction of the second alternative, so it is quite plausible that this is what composers and players overall tended to prefer. Of course there is anecdotal evidence in several directions, whatever piano Chopin or Liszt preferred at certain stages of their careers.
In any case the evolution of the piano in that time clearly seems to show that hardly anyone thought that the respective contemporary instruments were "perfect for their purposes", otherwise they would not have been such developments that were seen as improvements by most musicians.

A professional pianist once told me that he clearly prefers the modern instrument because it puts fewer restrictions on his freedom to weigh and shape the sounds as a historical one (tbh I am not sure if this person ever seriously tried historical pianos).

[Florestan]

Beethoven was pushing the range of the contemporary piano already when he was not deaf; e.g. the Coda of the Waldstein sonata extensively uses the high register and there are also some "late" (or even Chopinesque) figurations in the 4th piano concerto. Unlike with baroque organs we simply cannot know if Beethoven appreciated the different tone colors of the registers of the fortepiano or if he would have preferred a more evenly (and overall stronger) sounding instrument. It is all a matter of degree but it seems to me that the evolution of the piano in the 19th century mostly goes in the direction of the second alternative, so it is quite plausible that this is what composers and players overall tended to prefer. Of course there is anecdotal evidence in several directions, whatever piano Chopin or Liszt preferred at certain stages of their careers.
In any case the evolution of the piano in that time clearly seems to show that hardly anyone thought that the respective contemporary instruments were "perfect for their purposes", otherwise they would not have been such developments that were seen as improvements by most musicians.

A professional pianist once told me that he clearly prefers the modern instrument because it puts fewer restrictions on his freedom to weigh and shape the sounds as a historical one (tbh I am not sure if this person ever seriously tried historical pianos).

A most excellent post (as expected from our Jo). Beethoven is reported to having rebuked Schuppanzig in these terms: "What do I care for your puking little violin when it's the Muses themselves who confide their music in me?" Are we to believe that all the while he was content with the "puking little pianos" available to him at the very same time? 

[Jo498]

And fiddles were without a doubt "mature" instruments that had been perfected already in the late 17th century or so whereas the fortepiano had only been a serious contender for around 50 years.

I am not sure and I wonder if anyone can confirm this: CPE Bach wrote a famous concerto for fortepiano AND harpsichord. I have been told that it is very difficult to get the balances right there and the harpsichord is the stronger and louder instrument!!! This was the case as late as 1780. Nevertheless composers preferred the dynamic shadings available with the fortepiano, but it clearly was not perfect.

[Mandryka]

Beethoven was pushing the range of the contemporary piano already when he was not deaf; e.g. the Coda of the Waldstein sonata extensively uses the high register and there are also some "late" (or even Chopinesque) figurations in the 4th piano concerto. Unlike with baroque organs we simply cannot know if Beethoven appreciated the different tone colors of the registers of the fortepiano or if he would have preferred a more evenly (and overall stronger) sounding instrument. It is all a matter of degree but it seems to me that the evolution of the piano in the 19th century mostly goes in the direction of the second alternative, so it is quite plausible that this is what composers and players overall tended to prefer. Of course there is anecdotal evidence in several directions, whatever piano Chopin or Liszt preferred at certain stages of their careers.
In any case the evolution of the piano in that time clearly seems to show that hardly anyone thought that the respective contemporary instruments were "perfect for their purposes", otherwise they would not have been such developments that were seen as improvements by most musicians.

A professional pianist once told me that he clearly prefers the modern instrument because it puts fewer restrictions on his freedom to weigh and shape the sounds as a historical one (tbh I am not sure if this person ever seriously tried historical pianos).

He was exploring, you say, extremes of the high registers. If that music has as part of its narrative a dialogue, or a contrast or a tension even, between high music and low music, then I think a piano with markedly different timbres in the different registers would fit the music better. If all we have is passagework, then not necessarily. 

[Florestan]

And fiddles were without a doubt "mature" instruments that had been perfected already in the late 17th century or so whereas the fortepiano had only been a serious contender for around 50 years.

[George]

A most excellent post (as expected from our Jo). Beethoven is reported to having rebuked Schuppanzig in these terms: "What do I care for your puking little violin when it's the Muses themselves who confide their music in me?" Are we to believe that all the while he was content with the "puking little pianos" available to him at the very same time? 

As I recall the quote is "What do I care for your puny violin . . ."  - not puking violin.

[Florestan]

As I recall the quote is "What do I care for your puny violin . . ."  - not puking violin.

Puny, puking --- all the same! The idea is the same: HIP be damned! 

[George]

Puny, puking --- all the same! The idea is the same: HIP be damned! 

While I am no fan of HIP piano recordings, I find puny and puking to be entirely different things. We must have gone to different parties in high school. 

[Florestan]

While I am no fan of HIP piano recordings, I find puny and puking to be entirely different things. We must have gone to different parties in high school. 

Oh, sure! Absolutely different babes!