Beethoven's Piano Sonatas

[prémont]

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...?

Of course not, because this is essentially a question of taste, and not a question of sensivity. But concerning experience I probably have more experience with recordings of Beethoven sonatas than anyone in this forum except Todd.

[prémont]

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.   

But as to your favorite interpreter of Beethoven´s sonatas Paul Badura-Skoda - one I also appreciate very much -  do you really think he (the Astreé set) just plays the music as Beethoven wrote it. Surely his point of departure is the score, but I think he also interpretes quite a lot.

[Todd]

If Beethoven's music is played as Beethoven wrote it (and likely played it himself)

But how did Beethoven play them, at least the ones he wrote while still performing?  Would it be closer in style to the restrained approach of Goode, or more like the highly interventionist approach of, say, Ignaz Friedman, to name someone trained in the style of the 19th Century?  I'm certainly not a scholar, but from what I've read, Beethoven was far from restrained, and would improvise even when playing his own scores, provided they were even complete.  That would seem to imply that what we consider a "classical" style may not be a good representation of what Beethoven was about.  And it is worth noting that such an approach is still selective in what is observed.  I mean, if someone really wanted to play what Beethoven wrote, there would be no 10-12 minute openings to Op 106, but almost every pianist strays from what Beethoven wrote here.   

And then how to consider other traditions, and pupils, and pupils of pupils; eg, how did Liszt play them, and would his style seem too interventionist, or too reserved?  He wasn't too far removed from Beethoven chronologically, but descriptions of his playing are largely the opposite today's classical approach.  I think classical music has become far too conservative and restrained.  Why must a soloist always rely on a written cadenza in an LvB (or Mozart) concerto, for instance?  That basically runs counter to the entire idea of a cadenza.  What if they do stray here or there from the score in a given sonata?  Don't get me wrong, I enjoy some straight-ahead, classical style recordings, but it only makes sense, at least for me, to hear all manner of interpretations.  Ultimately, what I like, or what anyone else likes, is simply a matter of taste. 

[Gurn Blanston]

But as to your favorite interpreter of Beethoven´s sonatas Paul Badura-Skoda - one I also appreciate very much -  do you really think he (the Astreé set) just plays the music as Beethoven wrote it. Surely his point of departure is the score, but I think he also interpretes quite a lot.

In his case specifically, I think he plays far closer to the original style than most performers today, even those who also play on period instruments such as Brautigam (whom I also like a lot, despite being very different from B-S). I think it to be very likely indeed that any and every time that Beethoven played these works himself, they sounded different than from other times that he played them. Either Ries or Czerny said that if you heard B play The Pathetíque  you wouldn't have recognized it as the same music as what you had ever heard anyone else play. But despite all that, I believe that Beethoven (and Badura-Skoda too) play(ed) it with a minimal amount of Romantic style piano methods. B-S actually wrote a great book on playing Mozart's keyboard works in the most authentic possible 18th century method. I don't believe that he would throw out all that just because he moved ahead 20 years to playing Beethoven. Of course, he could have been totally wrong about the entire thing, but even if he was, then we get around to taste, as you say, and his playing is perfectly to my taste.   

[DavidRoss]

Somewhat OT but as I came across it while googling for historical descriptions of Beethoven's playing style, I thought y'all might find it of interest:

http://open.salon.com/blog/ronp01/2009/09/27/the_african_heritage_of_ludwig_van_beethoven

[AndyD.]

I do wonder exactly how close to the score Beethoven wished those pieces to be played. I mean, perhaps he was tyrannical when he was alive. But from what I've read, he was pretty free with interpreting others' works in performance, and would have been a fool to imagine there wouldn't be shots taken at a more personal approach in future interpretations. At least in regard to the cadenzas.

[prémont]

Basically I consider Beethoven a romantic composer, in contrast to f.x. Mozart. And I doubt that Beethovens playing style was that restrained after all. Recall his remark:  "Brechen muss das Klavier".
But certainly too much 1900 century romantic style would be inappropiate for his music.

[George]

If Beethoven's music is played as Beethoven wrote it (and likely played it himself)

Then, at least according to what I have read about the composer, Schnabel would be the one who came closest.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

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...

Yep, without question one of the finest sets around.

[Gurn Blanston]

Lots being said here, but by and large I think we are all on the same page.

Basically I consider Beethoven a romantic composer, in contrast to f.x. Mozart. And I doubt that Beethovens playing style was that restrained after all. Recall his remark:  "Brechen muss das Klavier".
But certainly too much 1900 century romantic style would be inappropiate for his music.

I don't agree with the first part of your statement, but totally agree with the second part. Beethoven was already 30 years old at the turn of the century. He learned to play the keyboard  (organ, clavichord (clavier), harpsichord (briefly) and finally fortepiano) all before he was 12 years old. The main difference in his playing from Mozart's, for example, is that he adopted a far more legato style. Mozart learned to play on the harpsichord, and his style was articulated and more staccato (Beethoven described it to Czerny as "choppy"). Beethoven was a master of the legato style which eventually swept through the 19th century.

I don't see that championing a particular technique makes you an habitué of that style. Historically, Beethoven was philosophically and musically connected far more to Haydn & Mozart than he was to his own contemporaries (such as Weber, for example) who were already following a very different musical path. Also, despite that he was truly a virtuoso, he (like Mozart) despised pianists who played empty music with a virtuoso flair. That makes him even more non-19th century-like.

But how did Beethoven play them, at least the ones he wrote while still performing?  Would it be closer in style to the restrained approach of Goode, or more like the highly interventionist approach of, say, Ignaz Friedman, to name someone trained in the style of the 19th Century?  I'm certainly not a scholar, but from what I've read, Beethoven was far from restrained, and would improvise even when playing his own scores, provided they were even complete.  That would seem to imply that what we consider a "classical" style may not be a good representation of what Beethoven was about.  And it is worth noting that such an approach is still selective in what is observed.  I mean, if someone really wanted to play what Beethoven wrote, there would be no 10-12 minute openings to Op 106, but almost every pianist strays from what Beethoven wrote here.

I'm not sure if one can be interventionist when playing ones own music. I am very sure that he DID add and change when he played his own music. What got written down was the culmination of many different playings of musical ideas, usually privately or at best with a few friends listening. The only descriptions that I am aware of him playing other people's music are either in little competitions that he regularly had with visiting virtuosos, where he freely embellished and 'improved upon' the other person's ideas in order to smack them around a little bit, or else he did things like write cadenzas for concertos, like Mozart's d minor concerto.  Phrases like 'classical style' are really damned near impossible to define to everyone's satisfaction. I'm not sure what a reasonable alternative is, but my personal definition involves things like virtuosity as a slave of the music and not the opposite. Ornamentation as a decorative embellishment and not to the extent that the music is lost in the embroidery. Tempo rubato used as an accentuated  ornamental effect without becoming the fallback of every bar. And velocity used as contrast rather than empty display.

And then how to consider other traditions, and pupils, and pupils of pupils; eg, how did Liszt play them, and would his style seem too interventionist, or too reserved?  He wasn't too far removed from Beethoven chronologically, but descriptions of his playing are largely the opposite today's classical approach.  I think classical music has become far too conservative and restrained.  Why must a soloist always rely on a written cadenza in an LvB (or Mozart) concerto, for instance?  That basically runs counter to the entire idea of a cadenza.  What if they do stray here or there from the score in a given sonata?  Don't get me wrong, I enjoy some straight-ahead, classical style recordings, but it only makes sense, at least for me, to hear all manner of interpretations.  Ultimately, what I like, or what anyone else likes, is simply a matter of taste. 

I think that Liszt was among the first to begin the practice of rewriting Beethoven to his own purposes. Certainly he wasn't the last, and others went beyond. Just because Liszt met Beethoven when he was a lad and Beethoven watched him play to general approval, for some reason he is given a bye when it comes to the tradition he established in playing Beethoven. However, I submit that Liszt was thoroughly and completely 19th century in every way that matters, and that this divorces him philosophically from Beethoven right from the start. Anyway, I'm only saying that what I have inferred from reading some history has influenced my taste (for better or worse), and I would be the last to deny it.

I really like Kempff. I really like Brendel's Vox interpretations. I really like O'Conor, Hungerford and Annie too. I am not without a taste for variety here, just like you. But that doesn't change my basic preference for Badura-Skoda and the pianoforte. As you say, what I like or anyone likes is simply a matter of taste.

[Wakefield]

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.   

Despite that I frequently agree with Gurn on a lot of thing... but this time: come on, Gurn! Are the performers merely meat puppets? You don't believe that, I'm sure. "Interpretation" (in music, literature, law, history and so) it's a thing quite more complicated than that. Anyway, I also dislike the cult of the performer, when it's considered as a sort of co-composer.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

....but I find Goode to be too mainstream and unimaginative. I can mention at least 40 sets I prefer to Goode´s.

I find nothing at all "mainstream" in Goode's playing. Two distinguishing features stand out to me about his interpretations: his golden tone and his heightened poetry. Not every pianist can climb these summits, especially the poetry part.

Armed with these qualities he relates to me a story. Not a story in the fast lane, but a contemplative, reflective one bent on giving me time to explore the scenery.

This approach may be the antithesis of force-fed Beethoven but the delights it brings is myriad.
   

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.

What is "individuality"?

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.

What is "individuality"?

[Gurn Blanston]

Despite that I frequently agree with Gurn on a lot of thing... but this time: come on, Gurn! Are the performers merely meat puppets? You don't believe that, I'm sure. "Interpretation" (in music, literature, law, history and so) it's a thing quite more complicated than that. Anyway, I also dislike the cult of the performer, when it's considered as a sort of co-composer.

Well, perhaps I'm allowed a bit of exaggeration?   

When the music becomes "X's sonatas" instead of "Beethoven's sonatas" then I am totally not on board. Certainly there is a place for an interpretive decision to be made. It must be within the latitude of the original direction (if it exists). One doesn't see this nearly as much with soloists as with conductors, this is true. It is still there though, as I believe that young lady brought up this summer. Even if it was a very good performance (which I have heard otherwise), it is over the top for me.

[Wakefield]

Well, perhaps I'm allowed a bit of exaggeration?   

When the music becomes "X's sonatas" instead of "Beethoven's sonatas" then I am totally not on board. Certainly there is a place for an interpretive decision to be made. It must be within the latitude of the original direction (if it exists). One doesn't see this nearly as much with soloists as with conductors, this is true. It is still there though, as I believe that young lady brought up this summer. Even if it was a very good performance (which I have heard otherwise), it is over the top for me.

All is in order again! 

[Todd]

I'm not sure if one can be interventionist when playing ones own music.

I have to disagree to the extent that composers can and sometimes do change their mind.  I'm reminded of Rudolf Firkusny's description of learning Janacek's music from Janacek himself, and using a score for On an Overgrown Path that the composer had changed himself, because he had changed his view on the piece.  Obviously, Janacek was a different composer, but somehow I don't think he was alone in making such changes.  While Beethoven certainly went through multiple versions of most works, painstakingly crafting them, it's hard to see how, given the description of just his overall playing style and temperament, he would ever favor locking at least himself into one way to play the music, though he may very well have been far less forgiving of others.

I also must say that I have always seen Beethoven as the first great romantic composer, and as acting as a bridge from what came  before.  The Eroica and the Ninth, Op 106 (well, everything after Op 28, really), the late quartets: all of these works go far beyond similar works from even Haydn or Mozart in terms of scale, scope, and expressive possibilty. 

Just because Liszt met Beethoven when he was a lad and Beethoven watched him play to general approval, for some reason he is given a bye when it comes to the tradition he established in playing Beethoven.

I think it has more to do with the fact that Liszt was, by many accounts, the greatest pianist of his age, and a genius in many respects. 

[Coopmv]

What I can't understand is why some folk seem to need others to enjoy their favorites. Why isn't enough that you love them?

I am not in that population.  LOL

[CriticalI]

I find nothing at all "mainstream" in Goode's playing. Two distinguishing features stand out to me about his interpretations: his golden tone and his heightened poetry. Not every pianist can climb these summits, especially the poetry part.

What is "poetry"?

[Dancing Divertimentian]

What is "poetry"?

Pretty much what I said right here:

Armed with these qualities he relates to me a story. Not a story in the fast lane, but a contemplative, reflective one bent on giving me time to explore the scenery.

[Gurn Blanston]

I have to disagree to the extent that composers can and sometimes do change their mind.  I'm reminded of Rudolf Firkusny's description of learning Janacek's music from Janacek himself, and using a score for On an Overgrown Path that the composer had changed himself, because he had changed his view on the piece.  Obviously, Janacek was a different composer, but somehow I don't think he was alone in making such changes.  While Beethoven certainly went through multiple versions of most works, painstakingly crafting them, it's hard to see how, given the description of just his overall playing style and temperament, he would ever favor locking at least himself into one way to play the music, though he may very well have been far less forgiving of others.

No, I wasn't disagreeing with you, I think Beethoven DID change up his music whenever he played it. I was being picky about the semantics of calling that interventionist since it is his own music. If it is someone else playing Beethoven's music, then yes, interventionist. If it is himself, then I look at it as a continuing act of composition that probably doesn't end until he dies.

I also must say that I have always seen Beethoven as the first great romantic composer, and as acting as a bridge from what came  before.  The Eroica and the Ninth, Op 106 (well, everything after Op 28, really), the late quartets: all of these works go far beyond similar works from even Haydn or Mozart in terms of scale, scope, and expressive possibility.

That I disagree with you on this point goes without saying. Since it has been belabored to little conclusion since 150 years ago or more, there is no point beyond us agreeing to disagree. Romanticism is a point of view, not a kind of music.

I think it has more to do with the fact that Liszt was, by many accounts, the greatest pianist of his age, and a genius in many respects. 

Nonetheless, he was not a contemporary of Beethoven in the sense of having drawn from the same pool of either style or culture. His music is not Beethoven-like, and his (wonderful) arrangements of Beethoven's symphonies into Grand Sonatas is Lisztian more than Beethovenian. The entire concept or arranging symphonies into solo piano sonatas is not something that a Classical composer, such as Beethoven was, would have even thought of or seriously considered. Not saying he couldn't, saying he wouldn't.

[The new erato]

I also must say that I have always seen Beethoven as the first great romantic composer, and as acting as a bridge from what came  before.  The Eroica and the Ninth, Op 106 (well, everything after Op 28, really), the late quartets: all of these works go far beyond similar works from even Haydn or Mozart in terms of scale, scope, and expressive possibilty. 

What you say about LvB in relation to the classical composers is of course right, yet I see him as neither a bridge or a romantic. His late music (in general) simply transcends all attempts at classification, he is just Beethoven and far removed from all stylistic considerations. That may simply be on account of him being deaf (though that is too simple an explanation); but it surely makes him the greatest of all composers in my view.

edit: LvB was "the first romantic" (perhaps debatable?) in his approach to the composers role -but I don't hear his music as very romantic, early on as more classic than romantic, later on as just Beethoven.