Beethoven's Piano Sonatas

[mc ukrneal]

I agree about Brendel - whom I find much better than his reputation when it is about Beethoven, but I find Goode to be too mainstream and unimaginative. I can mention at least 40 sets I prefer to Goode´s.

What's wrong with mainstream? And what exactly would mainstream Beethoven be?

[prémont]

So no I disagree -- you do need other people to perceive what you do. At least when the judgments are less subjective than just reports about the listener's states of mind (I like, I don't like)  There's no such thing as a private language.

You are right, and your comments have quite a number of times made me listen with new ears, Bernhard Roberts´ Beethoven being a nice example.

[AndyD.]

What's wrong with mainstream? And what exactly would mainstream Beethoven be?

I'm wondering if he means taking a more mainstream interpretative approach. And if so, I'm interested in what techniques he feels would make Beethoven interpretation mainstream, please.

[prémont]

What's wrong with mainstream? And what exactly would mainstream Beethoven be?

Well, mainstream is IMO much how Goode plays - listen to him -it is of course not wrong as such, but most often boring.  And I expect more individuality and imagination from a pianist, if he is supposed to engage me concerning his interpretation.

[mc ukrneal]

Well, mainstream is IMO much how Goode plays - listen to him -it is of course not wrong as such, but most often boring.  And I expect more individuality and imagination from a pianist, if he is supposed to engage me concerning his interpretation.

Still not clear what you mean. Maybe you could answer Andy's Question:

I'm wondering if he means taking a more mainstream interpretative approach. And if so, I'm interested in what techniques he feels would make Beethoven interpretation mainstream, please.

[Mandryka]

Let me give you an example of what I think is very imaginative playing -- Kempff's mono record of the second movement of Op 111 -- the post war one.

He plays it with such sweep, with such a sense of inevitable flow from one variation to the next, it's astonishing to hear it. I think it's imaginative to see that it could be played like that, and imaginative to find the means to execute the vision.

Contrast it with an unimaginative one -- Pletnev's at Carnegie Hall. There's no vision. Sure, he's making his own performance decisions, but they don't seem to come to much, nothing's being said with the music. He's got nothing to say.  It's just a pianist playing some variations.

[DavidRoss]

Take a concept that you hear in internet forums a lot -- fiery. I remember reading someone saying that Badura skoda in the Hammerklavier I "invested it with
more speed than fire " (someone on rmcr)

Presumably what's going on there is the application of the concept to a new instance -- and the point of the conversation is to check the perception with others.
After all fire is a pretty complicated evaluative idea. It would be easy to get it wrong. Or rather to apply it in a way that the community of users/speakers, including the tastesetters, can't agree with.

I've had a similar argument about whether Annie Fischer/Sawalich in Mozart PC 21 is tragic or not, and I remember one here about whether some cpt in Art of Fugue was played joyfully by Rubsam. Someone said no, and I went back and refined the application of the concept. All valuable stuff for developing acuity.

So no I disagree -- you do need other people to perceive what you do. At least when the judgments are less subjective than just reports about the listener's states of mind (I like, I don't like)  There's no such thing as a private language.

I agree about Brendel - whom I find much better than his reputation when it is about Beethoven, but I find Goode to be too mainstream and unimaginative. I can mention at least 40 sets I prefer to Goode´s.

And to me Brendel's Beethoven is pedestrian, boringly "mainstream" and plodding--unlike his Mozart, in which I find sparkling clarity.

This and Mandryka's comment remind me of a discussion re. meaning and emotional content of music on CMG a few years back.  I posted a telling series of excerpts from various critics' explanations of Mozart's great G minor symphony. They were all over the map.

And earlier on this thread several folks expressed opinions regarding HJ Lim's Beethoven.  One man's "wayward and deranged" is another man's "courageous rethinking that blows the cobwebs off centuries of calcified performance practice."

I definitely agree about the desirability of others "perceiving what you do." If your perception of the objective qualities of the music don't jive with reality (is the singer on pitch, did the violinist miss his entrance, is the tempo significantly faster or slower than marked by the composer), then you don't know WTF you're hearing and your subjective judgments about it ain't worth diddlysquat. On the other hand, just because you hear the same things others hear doesn't mean that you all must respond identically.

One thing I've enjoyed about reading the comments on Daniel's Mahler comparison thread is the substantial agreement among most participants regarding what they're hearing, even though some hate the same thing that others love. It's also nice to see such disagreements recognized as simply differences in taste and not indications that the other is a boor, a knave, a dope, or the anti-Christ!

[Mandryka]

What you say about the Jupiter isn't surprising because the emotional content isn't in the music, it's in the performance.  The music under-determines the emotional meaning -- it's added by the performer.   But we're talking about evaluating/describing  performances.  I guess some of the critics were confusing the Jupiter and performances of the Jupiter.

I'm thinking mostly of post baroque music when I say this.

By the way, Re Lim, "wayward and deranged" is consistent with "courageous rethinking that blows the cobwebs off centuries of calcified performance practice". Though clearly the choice of words suggests one enjoyed the experience more than the other.  Deranged = ( foolhardy)courage; wayward=rethinking.

[prémont]

I'm wondering if he means taking a more mainstream interpretative approach. And if so, I'm interested in what techniques he feels would make Beethoven interpretation mainstream, please.

Not a question of technique, but a question of interpretation. I realize that the word "mainstream" provokes the wrong associations. What I mean is straightforward, true to the score and not that individual or imaginative, in short; boring. This is how I would describe Goode´s Beethoven sonatas.

[prémont]

And to me Brendel's Beethoven is pedestrian, boringly "mainstream" and plodding--unlike his Mozart, in which I find sparkling clarity.

Interesting how we listen differently. I find Brendel´s Vox set rather straightforward, but not his two Philips sets, the digital set being the least straightforward. IMO they are very individual, often focusing upon details, at times almost idiosyncratic - actually the opposite of mainstream.   

[prémont]

For me, this is far from boring, but what I primarily look for in a performance, especially of Beethoven sonatas.

So we look for different things in a Beethoven performance. I look for individuality, and that the artist tells his own story with the music. After all this is romantic and emotionally loaded music.

[prémont]

I prefer Beethoven played more as a Classical composer and the less a performer emphasizes, or indulges in, the "romantic and emotionally loaded" (your words) aspects the better the performance is for me.

So I did some years ago. But having collected and listened to about sixty sonata sets I have learned to appreciate the individual differences between the performers, and that Beethoven´s music -  from the first sonata - harbours a great romantic potential.

[kishnevi]

Yay!

He's not too popular on this forum, however. Beats me why. Too much critical AND popular approval? (We do so want our tastes to be distinguished by exclusivity indicating that we are among the very select few with the critical faculties and judgment to appreciate the understated brilliance of Jerry Lee Lewis's Hammerklavier, available only as a bootlegged private recording if you know Guido personally and have the password.)

Even Kovacevich (another of my faves) gets an occasional grudging nod of approval from our resident tastemakers, but Goode?  Never!

Goode hardly ever gets a mention, much less a nod of approval.  I don't have his sonatas but I do have his set of the piano concertos (with Fischer)--but I've never played it enough times to have a real opinion on it.

[trung224]

I prefer Beethoven played more as a Classical composer and the less a performer emphasizes, or indulges in, the "romantic and emotionally loaded" (your words) aspects the better the performance is for me.

I don't think mainstream or straight forward when playing Beethoven  means treating Beethoven as Classical composer. Kempff, Brendel do not romanticize Beethoven, but compare with Goode, they are much more imaginative. The problem is that Goode only plays notes with the same tempo (easily cause listener boring), but don't vary dynamics  in the local chords like Kempff mono or highlight minor details which usually ignore like Brendel.

[Leo K.]

My favourite interpretation of Beethoven's Piano Sonatas is Richard Goode's box from Nonesuch Records (1993). The power of Goode's playing,  the beauty, the subtlety of control, the amazingly wide tonality, the great dynamic range, the freshness, the precission, the sureness, the imagination and the empathy are overwhelming. Don't feel free to pick the winner until you listen to Goode. He is simply too good...




P.S. Alfred Brendel should be tried too (Decca 2011).

Aye, I love Goode as well, especially his account of the Hammerklavier, probably the most memorable Hammerklavier for my taste.

[DavidRoss]

Not a question of technique, but a question of interpretation. I realize that the word "mainstream" provokes the wrong associations. What I mean is straightforward, true to the score and not that individual or imaginative, in short; boring. This is how I would describe Goode´s Beethoven sonatas.

So you're saying that Beethoven is boring.

To me, Beethoven is fascinating, and a musician like Goode, who is "true to the score," without personal embellishment, but with effortless technique in service of consummate artistry, is anything but boring. I must admit surprise, however, that you could regard Goode as boring but think Brendel's terrific. And you're probably equally surprised that my take is exactly the opposite.

Ain't life grand?!

[DavidRoss]

So I did some years ago. But having collected and listened to about sixty sonata sets I have learned to appreciate the individual differences between the performers, and that Beethoven´s music -  from the first sonata - harbours a great romantic potential.

Surely you don't mean to suggest that those who prefer a more classical than romantic approach to Beethoven are necessarily less sensitive and experienced than you, incapable of appreciating individual differences among performers, and unaware of the potential to romanticize Beethoven's sonatas...?

[DavidRoss]

Goode hardly ever gets a mention, much less a nod of approval.  I don't have his sonatas but I do have his set of the piano concertos (with Fischer)--but I've never played it enough times to have a real opinion on it.

I was disappointed by that--perhaps because I expected lightning to strike.

[Gurn Blanston]

So you're saying that Beethoven is boring.

To me, Beethoven is fascinating, and a musician like Goode, who is "true to the score," without personal embellishment, but with effortless technique in service of consummate artistry, is anything but boring. I must admit surprise, however, that you could regard Goode as boring but think Brendel's terrific. And you're probably equally surprised that my take is exactly the opposite.

Ain't life grand?!

Despite that I frequently agree with Premont on a lot of things, in this case my stance and his are 180° apart and likely to remain so. I suppose that this is the root of my inability to subscribe to what I call 'The Cult of the Performer'. If Beethoven's music is played as Beethoven wrote it (and likely played it himself), then I am more than satisfied with it no matter who plays it. They are merely meat puppets (or should be), IMO.   

[prémont]

So you're saying that Beethoven is boring.

Of course not, but he may be played in a boring way. All music can be played in a boring way.

To me, Beethoven is fascinating, and a musician like Goode, who is "true to the score," without personal embellishment, but with effortless technique in service of consummate artistry, is anything but boring. I must admit surprise, however, that you could regard Goode as boring but think Brendel's terrific. And you're probably equally surprised that my take is exactly the opposite.

Ain't life grand?!

I never called Brendel terrific. I wrote, that I find him better than his reputation. I would only put him in my top twenty.