Beethoven's Piano Sonatas

[Leon]

I bought the set mainly to get my hands on Gould's complete JS Bach recordings.  I have never equated Gould to much of a pianist for Beethoven Piano Sonatas ...

I didn't buy the set, it was a gift from my son - but his Beethoven is not bad, in fact some are quite good.  It is his Mozart which is un-listenable (for me).  His Haydn is okay, but I think he does Brahms surprisingly well, and his 20th century performances are very fine.  So, there more there than the Bach - but you are right, that is the main event.

[George]

I didn't buy the set, it was a gift from my son - but his Beethoven is not bad, in fact some are quite good.  It is his Mozart which is un-listenable (for me).  His Haydn is okay, but I think he does Brahms surprisingly well, and his 20th century performances are very fine.  So, there more there than the Bach - but you are right, that is the main event.

As much as I love his Bach, I love his solo Brahms even more.

[Mandryka]

Make that fifty five and a half to catch up to Todd.   Just ordered some sets through Amazon Marketplace that included



The Gould set, btw, does not include all the sonatas he recorded, but at the moment it's the most economical way to get his performances of the concertos.


Meanwhile, the Takacs set is now being offered by Amazon for preorder at $76.

Gould's Op2s are interesting -- you're missing something important if you don't hear them. The Hammerklavier is very enjoyable and is well worth having.

Of the sets you bought, you'll get a lot of pleasure from the Gulda and Gould -- who share some basic ideas about how to play Beethoven.  The Kempff is in my view pretty worthless.

By the way, avoid Takacs Beethoven whatever the price.

[jlaurson]

By the way, avoid [Peter] Takacs['] Beethoven whatever the price.

Really? What's so awful about it? You've heard it or him live?

[Brian]

The Kempff is in my view pretty worthless.

I lived with the Kempff for a year or so. He never does anything actually wrong, but it's all so... 'normal,' so very plain. He's nigh Jandovian, albeit with slightly more spontaneity and speed and slightly inferior sound.

At any rate, once I picked up Emil Gilels' DG set I learned the difference between solid Beethoven and unforgettable.  0:)

[Mandryka]

Really? What's so awful about it? You've heard it or him live?

I'm sorry -- it was a knee jerk, thoughtless reeaction on my part. I was forgetting that this was a discussion about piano music and I was thinking of the Takacs quartet!

[jlaurson]

I'm sorry -- it was a knee jerk, thoughtless reeaction on my part. I was forgetting that this was a discussion about piano music and I was thinking of the Takacs quartet!

I was more ready to accept Peter Takacs's performances -- unheard -- as trash than I am to agree with you about the merit of the Takacs String Quartet's Beethoven recordings. 

[Mandryka]

I thought they were very  brash  -- especially in the Rasumowskies but I wasn't very favourable about the late ones either. In a field, where there is a plethora of interesting interpretations on record. The Takac are ofen disappointing on record -- in the Beethoven and in Haydn.

I've seen them live playing Bartok and Mozart and Schubert  -- a handful of times. They were OK.

[Mandryka]

I lived with the Kempff for a year or so. He never does anything actually wrong, but it's all so... 'normal,' so very plain. He's nigh Jandovian, albeit with slightly more spontaneity and speed and slightly inferior sound.

At any rate, once I picked up Emil Gilels' DG set I learned the difference between solid Beethoven and unforgettable.  0:)

I think Kempff does do something wrong. Because he so often has nothing whatsoever to say, all we are left with is his glittering piano and his virtuosity. That's close to narcissism.

[mc ukrneal]

I think Kempff does do something wrong. Because he so often has nothing whatsoever to say, all we are left with is his glittering piano and his virtuosity. That's close to narcissism.

I really don't understand this comment. It is clear (at least to me) that he has a tremendous amount to say. I find his versions searching, transparent, and compelling. I don't figure out why you don;t think the same. Don't misunderstand, I am not saying he says everything or that he does them better than others. I am just saying that I think it is clear he has Beethoven under his skin. I can provide examples, but it doesn't sound like it will help. Perhaps a better example is Barenboim - I really don't like his Beethoven at all. But I will be the first to say he clearly is a master of the material. He certainly has something to say.

[Mandryka]

I really don't understand this comment. It is clear (at least to me) that he has a tremendous amount to say. I find his versions searching, transparent, and compelling. I don't figure out why you don;t think the same. Don't misunderstand, I am not saying he says everything or that he does them better than others. I am just saying that I think it is clear he has Beethoven under his skin. I can provide examples, but it doesn't sound like it will help. Perhaps a better example is Barenboim - I really don't like his Beethoven at all. But I will be the first to say he clearly is a master of the material. He certainly has something to say.

This is one of the problems with the web -- we can't just listen to a recording together and you can point out what it is that you see. I'm quite open to the idea that there's something I've missed. And in one or two sonatas I quite like what he does (I think Op 79 was one place)

Look -- find one, preferably on youtube -- that you think works. Or I'll find one which I think really represents  his emptiness -- how about Op 2/2.

Re DFD I think there was always a group of people who were less than admirers, though I think everyone interested in singing acknowledges the value of his work. I suspect that there are even more people with strong reservations about Kempff's stereo Beethoven -- I don't think there can be any question of backlash.

Of course, I'm sure many people like Kempff (and DFD) just because he has lots of penguins. Or just because they haven't heard the alternatives and so their taste and imagination aren't so well developed.

[George]

This is one of the problems with the web -- we can't just listen to a recording together and you can point out what it is that you see. I'm quite open to the idea that there's something I've missed. And in one or two sonatas I quite like what he does (I think Op 79 was one place)

Look -- find one, preferably on youtube -- that you think works. Or I'll find one which I think really represents  his emptiness -- how about Op 2/2.

His Op. 110 in the stereo set is wonderful.

[mc ukrneal]

This is one of the problems with the web -- we can't just listen to a recording together and you can point out what it is that you see. I'm quite open to the idea that there's something I've missed. And in one or two sonatas I quite like what he does (I think Op 79 was one place)

Look -- find one, preferably on youtube -- that you think works. Or I'll find one which I think really represents  his emptiness -- how about Op 2/2.

Re DFD I think there was always a group of people who were less than admirers, though I think everyone interested in singing acknowledges the value of his work. I suspect that there are even more people with strong reservations about Kempff's stereo Beethoven -- I don't think there can be any question of backlash.

Of course, I'm sure many people like Kempff (and DFD) just because he has lots of penguins. Or just because they haven't heard the alternatives and so their taste and imagination aren't so well developed.

Happy to do so, though not sure if I will be able to tell which version on youtube is from that set. Does it matter? I would choose 109 even if it is not the best choice for him (which it is not in the mono set). It is the piece I know best. But 110 as suggested by George is fine with me too.

My reaction is particularly against 'has nothing whatsoever to say.' Even pianists that aren't as good as Kempff and are less interesting (let's say we could even agree on this for argument's sake) have something to say. Maybe I should ask what you mean by this? Perhaps we understand it differently.

[Mandryka]

Happy to do so, though not sure if I will be able to tell which version on youtube is from that set. Does it matter? I would choose 109 even if it is not the best choice for him (which it is not in the mono set). It is the piece I know best. But 110 as suggested by George is fine with me too.

My reaction is particularly against 'has nothing whatsoever to say.' Even pianists that aren't as good as Kempff and are less interesting (let's say we could even agree on this for argument's sake) have something to say. Maybe I should ask what you mean by this? Perhaps we understand it differently.

Really what I meant was "has nothing to say beyond playing skilfully". You can hear it very clearly in Op 2/1. Gould for instance does have something to say -- along the lines of "this is very witty and amusing" It's interesting to press me to respond there --it's a question of vision: what the pianists think the music means.

Great interpretations find meaning n music, no? -- There was once where premont talked here about the meaning of Art of Fugue which was very inspiring. But in a way I think he was misleading -- the meaning is not in the music -- it's in the performance of the music.  The pianist creates the meaning out of his response to the score. Not so great pianists fail to do that.

Give me a bit of time to listen to Kempff's stereo Op 110. I'll be back, as The Terminator said.

[Clever Hans]

I think Premont's point is compelling:
"Kempff plays a Steinway grand, but Beethovens sonatas were not written for this instrument and its great dynamic powers, and this is why I find Kempff´s subdued approach relevant. And he displays some distinctive features in Beethovens music, which are (not surprising) the beauty and poetry."

On the other hand, I just don't think Kempff really gets the late sonatas. I can accept admiration for him everywhere else.
But in the late sonatas, he's just too soft in expression, and I find his written notes on the Hammerklavier unconvincing to put it lightly.
Good taste is not good enough.
In my opinion, Rosen (who understands the Hammerklavier better than most anyone), Schnabel, Serkin, Solomon, among others convey the late sonatas with greater fascination and style.

Throw in Gilels for a different sort of view, ditto Pollini and Richter.

[jlaurson]

Give me a bit of time to listen to Kempff's stereo Op 110. I'll be back, as The Terminator said.

Incidentally it's not the late Beethoven which I find great with Kempff, but the earlier and especially the 'way-side' sonatas.
I think the 'lack of interpretation' is precisely why he was and continues to be admired... he doesn't "interpret" every last note, he plays them. With complete understanding of Beethoven, mind you (not just the notes), but without forcing himself on the music.

And his performances are still more 'interpreted' than Backhaus, who steps entirely out of the interpretation game and just leaves bare Beethoven at the end of it... and his Beethoven I find even greater. That said, I can see how one might find Kempff (stereo) just a little on the bland side... Kempff (mono) is a little more playful and especially the op.2 sonatas are exemplary of it. Might upload an excerpt or two if I find the time.

[Mandryka]

And his performances are still more 'interpreted' than Backhaus, who steps entirely out of the interpretation game and just leaves bare Beethoven at the end of it...

But that's logically impossible . . the score under-determines the performance.

[Mandryka]

I think Premont's point is compelling:
"Kempff plays a Steinway grand, but Beethovens sonatas were not written for this instrument and its great dynamic powers, and this is why I find Kempff´s subdued approach relevant. And he displays some distinctive features in Beethovens music, which are (not surprising) the beauty and poetry."

Well for the moment let's grant premont his point about the instruments LvB wrote for.

I think there's a confusion between  subdued and dynamically limited. That's to say you can have an interpretation which is energetic, and which is full of dynamic and emotional contrasts, even though it's rarely very loud or very quiet. Gieseking at his best -- say the EMI Op 110 which Todd put me on to and which I love to bits -- is rather like that I think (from memory -- but I'm pretty sure) And so is Paul Komen's late sonatas and diabellies and bagatelles  (again from memory)

And you have to be careful about relevant. Relevant from the point of view of historical reconstruction, maybe. But nothing follows about reflecting  the author's intentions. And nothing follows about relevance for interpretation -- which is, effectively, to make Beethoven our contemporary. Falling into the genetic fallacy (it was like that so it should be like that now) and the intentionalist fallacy ( the author's intentions are overriding) are dangers here

The point about beauty and poetry is of course very debatable.

[Mandryka]

His Op. 110 in the stereo set is wonderful.

I thought the first movement had some moments of artfulness -- particularly in the voice handling -- which robbed the work of its poetry.  The second movement was slightly more vigorous than I had remembered, nonetheless too leaden, elephantine,  and emotionally flat. Emotionally empty actually.

In the last fugue the tempo gradation is not as smooth as it could be.  I could hear precious little intensity in the arioso dolente, and very little grace in the second arioso.

[prémont]

Great interpretations find meaning n music, no? -- There was once where premont talked here about the meaning of Art of Fugue which was very inspiring. But in a way I think he was misleading -- the meaning is not in the music -- it's in the performance of the music.  The pianist creates the meaning out of his response to the score. Not so great pianists fail to do that.

Note, that I talked about Bach´s music - not Beethoven´s.  Bach´s  music is so to say universal, permeated by musical symbolism and describing common human affects, and I think it it adequate to say, that the meaning is in the music, and that the performers task is to find and express that meaning, Bach´s music is timeless in a way, which makes the question of making the composer our temporary pointless.

Beethovens music rather expresses some personal experience, consider his music a kind of emotional diary, and this is the reason why his music must be "actualized" in a much more individual way by the performer in order to make it sound relevant to the listener of to day.

Probably I should not have used the word "subdued" about Kempff´s playing, since you seem to have got it wrong. I meant that his playing is set in a generally lower dynamic level, according to the ability of the instruments of his time. This is why his interpretation of the late sonatas seems relative restricted compared to his playing of the early sonatas , since the late sonatas imply instruments posessing more dynamic power and variation than the instruments of the early sonatas.