Beethoven's Piano Sonatas

[AndyD.]

I have to disagree to the extent that composers can and sometimes do change their mind.

That's easy to agree with; Bruckner represents the extreme end of that.

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.

I agree, the late Beethoven is often just "Beethoven". When Stravinsky said that thing about the Grand Fugue being eternally relevant, he might as well have been talking about the great majority of the late era chamber music. It is so personal...I always looked at those works as being the most exhaustive autobiography in the history of art.

Just my opinion.

[Madiel]

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.

Happened to read an article recently about this very point: that because there's so many interpretations of the mainstream of classical music out there, and because it's possible to play them again and again, and because some afficionados now have heard myriads of versions and know them backwards, what they want from a new pianist is surprises.

It isn't good enough to be a fine musician who can play the music really well.  Now, there's a requirement to do something "interesting" or the in-depth listener will be bored because it sounds too much like bits and pieces of the previous 20 versions they already know.

EDIT: Ah. Reading on, I should have kept my original '50' rather than replacing it with '20' because I thought no, that's too high. An exaggeration of what anyone has.  Turns out it's possible to have 60 versions.

Yeah. I'm sorry, but it doesn't matter if you're dealing with the greatest music ever written. After sixty versions, you're no longer listening to the music as a whole when you hear a new one.  You're listening to the tiniest micro-details, waiting for something "special" to pop up that is capable of suprising your brain out of the incredibly well-worn track you've made for it.

It's fairly fundamental neuroscience: our brains are designed to notice changes, to bring to our attention differences in our environment that might represent threats or opportunities.  Anything that is the same as what we already know is labelled as uninteresting.

[xochitl]

yeah.  it's amazing to me how unbelievably good any half decent recording of anything sounds after i havent heard the piece in months or longer


when im doing comparative listening and pull out 20+ versions to decide what the best one is, i can imagine the composer going: "for god's sake, go find something else to hear...i didn't want you to do this with it" :eyeroll:

[George]

It isn't good enough to be a fine musician who can play the music really well.  Now, there's a requirement to do something "interesting"

Back in the day, playing the music really well included doing something interesting. 

[Madiel]

Back in the day, playing the music really well included doing something interesting.

The music isn't interesting enough in itself?

The whole reason that the great composers sound great is because they avoid doing square, plodding predictable music. 4-bar phrases, cadences in all the right places, etc etc.  That's the difference between the greats and the competent also-rans we no longer listen to much.

[xochitl]

Back in the day, playing the music really well included doing something interesting.

i wrote a piano sonata in school and had someone play it at a recital.

she played it really well and did something interesting...unfortunately what came out was not what i'd written, even tho all the notes were there

notation will give you a pretty accurate idea of what the piece should be, at least if you're talking about a solo/small group of instruments.  when performers manage to stay within the bounds of what is on the page while still bringing their personal insights is when individuality really matters imho.  i dont wanna hear some pianist modifying the composer just for the sake of novelty or because of some tradition

[Gurn Blanston]

The music isn't interesting enough in itself?

The whole reason that the great composers sound great is because they avoid doing square, plodding predictable music. 4-bar phrases, cadences in all the right places, etc etc.  That's the difference between the greats and the competent also-rans we no longer listen to much.

Of course, I am hugely unimaginative by nature, but the music itself is interesting enough for me (if it is written by a great composer. Anyone want to argue that Beethoven wasn't a great composer?).   

[AndyD.]

i wrote a piano sonata in school and had someone play it at a recital.

she played it really well and did something interesting...unfortunately what came out was not what i'd written, even tho all the notes were there

notation will give you a pretty accurate idea of what the piece should be, at least if you're talking about a solo/small group of instruments.  when performers manage to stay within the bounds of what is on the page while still bringing their personal insights is when individuality really matters imho.  i dont wanna hear some pianist modifying the composer just for the sake of novelty or because of some tradition

I usually send my singers and instrumentalists exhaustive sketches of what I want them to record. However, I expect them to add their own stylistic quirks into the performance. It's what I pay them for. If I absolutely don't like something they do, I'll resolutely nix it. But the former is a general rule when recording and performing any of my music, including to a degree ensemble stuff.

I only want my music to be set in stone in the actual score, but when performed I want it to be the individual players getting together, finding (making if absolutely necessary) a harmony betwixt.

[Todd]

After sixty versions, you're no longer listening to the music as a whole when you hear a new one.  You're listening to the tiniest micro-details, waiting for something "special" to pop up that is capable of suprising your brain out of the incredibly well-worn track you've made for it.

Nonsense.  What you mean is that might be what you would be listening for.  For instance, I'm approaching 70 cycles, yet when I listened to Bernard Roberts (at 50-ish cycles) and Peter Takacs (at 60-ish cycles), the thing that struck me about both cycles was how right they sounded overall.  HJ Lim, on the contrary, is all about so-called micro-details, and she's not at all my cup of tea.  How to explain that using your framework?

[Madiel]

Nonsense.  What you mean is that might be what you would be listening for.  For instance, I'm approaching 70 cycles, yet when I listened to Bernard Roberts (at 50-ish cycles) and Peter Takacs (at 60-ish cycles), the thing that struck me about both cycles was how right they sounded overall.  HJ Lim, on the contrary, is all about so-called micro-details, and she's not at all my cup of tea.  How to explain that using your framework?

First of all it's not my framework.  I'm referring to material written by a professional music critic.

Secondly, it has no relevance to me because the most copies I own of any work is 2.

[DavidRoss]

yeah.  it's amazing to me how unbelievably good any half decent recording of anything sounds after i havent heard the piece in months or longer


when im doing comparative listening and pull out 20+ versions to decide what the best one is, i can imagine the composer going: "for god's sake, go find something else to hear...i didn't want you to do this with it" :eyeroll:

I've found that comparative listening of that sort isn't very useful for me. Oh, maybe for checking sound quality (though most recordings made in the past 50 years sound good enough to be convincing) or how different performers handle a particular passage, but these days I'm inclined to listen mostly for the sake of enjoying the music, not for comparing details.  And when I am trying to compare, as when doing the Mahler 1st comparisons Daniel's put together, I'm happiest when a sample grabs me enough that I get caught up in listening to the music and forget to make judgments about the playing!

These days I think that my best judgment about a recording's merits are formed after living with it and hearing it many times. Hearing the same work over and over again is too bloody fatiguing for me--although occasionally hearing the same work, say, back to back by two or three different performers can be enjoyable and often helps me to appreciate whatever special something each performer "has to say about it."

[Todd]

I'm referring to material written by a professional music critic.

Fine, it's a music critic's material.  Since you presented his/her stance as something substantive, please explain how it works in the context of my listening experience. 

[DavidRoss]

i wrote a piano sonata in school and had someone play it at a recital.

she played it really well and did something interesting...unfortunately what came out was not what i'd written, even tho all the notes were there

notation will give you a pretty accurate idea of what the piece should be, at least if you're talking about a solo/small group of instruments.  when performers manage to stay within the bounds of what is on the page while still bringing their personal insights is when individuality really matters imho.  i dont wanna hear some pianist modifying the composer just for the sake of novelty or because of some tradition

Perhaps what some folks are trying to discuss in this context is what we often refer to as "musicality." It's that intangible something that a performer who is sensitive to the music and who has music inherent in his soul expresses when he plays a piece that he's fully engaged with. It's what people who are technically proficient but who just play the notes don't have. It's what Debussy referred to as "the space between the notes."

Just because a performer expresses her individuality with rubatos and tempo variations and dynamic extremes doesn't necessarily make her musical--she might just be quirky and deranged, her "individuality" demonstrating her astonishing lack of musicality and insensitivity to the music itself, in spite of years of training to develop her playing technique.

Individuality that is inherent, expressed subtly from within the music, seems to me a good thing and virtually impossible to be without. Individuality that is self-conscious and imposed on the music by a personality seeing the music as a vehicle for expressing himself (rather than seeing himself as a vehicle for expressing the music), seems rather crass and of a lower order, more fitting to the personality cults common in pop music.

[Madiel]

Just because a performer expresses her individuality with rubatos and tempo variations and dynamic extremes doesn't necessarily make her musical--she might just be quirky and deranged, her "individuality" demonstrating her astonishing lack of musicality and insensitivity to the music itself, in spite of years of training to develop her playing technique.

Individuality that is inherent, expressed subtly from within the music, seems to me a good thing and virtually impossible to be without. Individuality that is self-conscious and imposed on the music by a personality seeing the music as a vehicle for expressing himself (rather than seeing himself as a vehicle for expressing the music), seems rather crass and of a lower order, more fitting to the personality cults common in pop music.

This, most definitely.  Except for the bit about pop music to some extent.

The caveat is because much of what I consider is best in 'pop' music is from singer-songwriters: people who are writing material for their own performance, in exactly the same way that Mozart or Beethoven or Liszt did. In which case their personality is part and parcel of the music.

[Madiel]

Fine, it's a music critic's material.  Since you presented his/her stance as something substantive, please explain how it works in the context of my listening experience.

Well, if you're able to buck everything I ever learnt about neuroscience, hats off to you Sir!

(Oh yeah. The last bit about neuroscience? THAT was mine.)

[DavidRoss]

Of course, I am hugely unimaginative by nature, but the music itself is interesting enough for me (if it is written by a great composer. Anyone want to argue that Beethoven wasn't a great composer?).   

Not I. To me he was the greatest. A Shakespeare.

But if he really meant what he said, the fellow who said that Beethoven's sonatas, when played "straightforward, true to the score and not that individual or imaginative [are] boring" would probably agree. (Of course we know he didn't really mean that.)

Back in the day, playing the music really well included doing something interesting. 

This is what jazz is about.

Not that there isn't room for this sort of thing in classical music as well. Traditionally, cadenzas are opportunities for soloists to show their chops.

But to me, playing the music really well, with technique devoted to serving the music, is something interesting...and the better it's done, the more interesting it is.

[DavidRoss]

It's fairly fundamental neuroscience: our brains are designed to notice changes, to bring to our attention differences in our environment that might represent threats or opportunities.  Anything that is the same as what we already know is labelled as uninteresting.

Oooh...very interesting perspective to bring to bear on this topic. Hunter's brains. Masculine brains. Perhaps helping explain why this obsessive comparison of recordings (or sound quality for audiophiles) is primarily a male pursuit.

[Todd]

Well, if you're able to buck everything I ever learnt about neuroscience, hats off to you Sir!

Is this why you are not answering the question?

And perhaps you can elaborate on how a few posts on a forum constitutes good science.

[DavidRoss]

Nonsense.  What you mean is that might be what you would be listening for.  For instance, I'm approaching 70 cycles, yet when I listened to Bernard Roberts (at 50-ish cycles) and Peter Takacs (at 60-ish cycles), the thing that struck me about both cycles was how right they sounded overall.  HJ Lim, on the contrary, is all about so-called micro-details, and she's not at all my cup of tea.  How to explain that using your framework?

I ain't orfeo, but to me the explanation seems simple:

Roberts and Takacs are both good. Thus they sound right. (Different, but both in the same ballpark.)

Lim is bloody awful, with no more sensitivity to the music than a freight train has to a soufflé. (Different, and not in the ballpark at all but in Times Square with platform shoes, a push-up bra, and enough glitter to make Liberace blush!)

[Todd]

Roberts and Takacs are both good...Lim is bloody awful

Clearly, I agree.  What I found interesting about orfeo's post is how it substitutes some type of theory of listening for actual listening, and makes a variety of assumptions, some apparently rooted in neuroscience.