Beethoven's Piano Sonatas

[Todd]

After completing the Pollini and Houstoun cycles, I cobbled together a rough list of how I would rank the various cycles I've heard.  I hasten to point out that almost every cycle has at least a few redeeming qualities and a few sonatas that really shine. 



Top Tier – The Holy Tetrarchy
Annie Fischer (Hungarton)
Friedrich Gulda (Amadeo)
Wilhelm Kempff (DG, mono)
Wilhelm Backhaus (mono)

[Rudolf Serkin; OK, he didn't complete a cycle, but this is where he belongs]



Top Tier – The Rest of the Top Ten (sort of in order)
Wilhelm Kempff (DG, stereo)
Eric Heidsieck
Russell Sherman
Andrea Lucchesini
Emil Gilels
Daniel-Ben Pienaar

[Sviatoslav Richter; OK, he didn't complete a cycle, but this is where he belongs]



Second Tier (in alphabetical order)
Artur Schnabel
Bernard Roberts
Claude Frank
Claudio Arrau (1960s)
Daniel Barenboim (EMI, 2005)
Francois Frederic Guy
Friedrich Gulda (Orfeo)
Maurizio Pollini
Michael Levinas
Paul Badura-Skoda (JVC/Astree)
Peter Takacs
Robert Silverman
Seymour Lipkin
Takahiro Sonoda (Denon)
Takahiro Sonoda (Evica)
Wilhelm Backhaus (stereo)
Yusuke Kikuchi

[Bruce Hungerford; OK, he didn't complete a cycle, but this is where he belongs]



Third Tier (in alphabetical order)
Abdel Rahman El Bacha (Mirare)
Akiyoshi Sako
Alfred Brendel (Philips, 1970s)
Alfred Brendel (Vox)
Alfredo Perl
Andras Schiff
Craig Sheppard
Daniel Barenboim (DG)
Daniel Barenboim (EMI, 1960s)
David Allen Wehr
Dieter Zechlin
Friedrich Gulda (Decca)
Gerard Willems
Gerhard Oppitz
Ichiro Nodaira (may be second tier stuff – Op 31 is so freakin' good . . .)
Irina Mejoueva
John O'Conor
Kun-Woo Paik
Louie Lortie
Michael Houstoun (Rattle)
Michael Korstick
Paul Badura-Skoda (Gramola)
Peter Rösel
Rudolf Buchbinder (Teldec)
Stephen Kovacevich
Stewart Goodyear
Wilhelm Kempff (1961, King International)
Yaeko Yamane
Yves Nat



Fourth Tier (in alphabetical order)
Abdel Rahman El Bacha (Forlane)
Aldo Ciccolini
Alfred Brendel (Philips, 1990s)
Andre De Groote
Anton Kuerti
Christian Leotta
Dino Ciani
Georges Pludermacher
Idil Biret
Ikuyo Nakamichi
Jean Bernard Pommier
Jean Muller
Jeno Jando
John Lill
Mari Kodama
Maria Grinburg
Melodie Zhao
Paul Lewis
Richard Goode
Ronald Brautigam
Rudolf Buchbinder (RCA)
Timothy Ehlen
Vladimir Ashkenazy
Walter Gieseking (Tahra)
Yukio Yokoyama



Bottom Tier (in sorta particular order)
[Glenn Gould; OK, he didn't complete a cycle, but this is where he belongs]
HJ Lim
Rita Bouboulidi
Tatiana Nikolayeva
Anne Oland

[aquablob]

You totally just pulled a Todd.

[Jo498]

I only have one twofer with recordings of famous sonatas from the STEREO set, but I never got what's so special about Backhaus. (Dito with Kempff, but here I have listened to even less material). Backhaus is dry as dust to my ears, Kempff not powerful enough in pieces that demand it and both seem kind of "shallow" in slow movements (compared to e.g. Gilels, Arrau, Schnabel etc.) If I want fast, energetic and emotionally somewhat neutral, I go for Gulda/Amadeo who is hard to beat in this department. If I want "deep" I go for Gilels or Arrau, maybe Serkin, some Richter and Edwin Fischer. With the two Wilhelms I seem to find neither and I am not quite sure what I am missing.

I could also need some pointers re Lucchesini and Heidsieck both of which I acquired at some stage because of high praise but while good I didn't find them all that special (except that Heidsieck can be rather excentric, someone recently mentioned the absurdly slow scherzo from op.28 (or was it another one?)).

[Mandryka]

I only have one twofer with recordings of famous sonatas from the STEREO set, but I never got what's so special about Backhaus. (Dito with Kempff, but here I have listened to even less material). Backhaus is dry as dust to my ears, Kempff not powerful enough in pieces that demand it and both seem kind of "shallow" in slow movements (compared to e.g. Gilels, Arrau, Schnabel etc.) If I want fast, energetic and emotionally somewhat neutral, I go for Gulda/Amadeo who is hard to beat in this department. If I want "deep" I go for Gilels or Arrau, maybe Serkin, some Richter and Edwin Fischer. With the two Wilhelms I seem to find neither and I am not quite sure what I am missing.

I could also need some pointers re Lucchesini and Heidsieck both of which I acquired at some stage because of high praise but while good I didn't find them all that special (except that Heidsieck can be rather excentric, someone recently mentioned the absurdly slow scherzo from op.28 (or was it another one?)).

Do you think that Backhaus is slow in the slow movement of op 106? Or that Kempff is shallow in op 2/2? You've got to get down to specifics, you know. Wthether the style is distinctive enough, or there are enough successes, to justify the high praise is a difficult question, I tend to think that Todd's right to rate Backhaus and Kempff but wrong to rate Gulda.

Someone like Eric Heidsieck,-- well it's too personal. If you like the rubato, then well and good. But it's no more absurd ,as far as I can see, than Gilels's DG style. I know it's tempting to dismiss Heidieck as a buffoon but that's a bit unfair I think.  I imagine, from the little I've heard, it's similar for Russell Sherman. An example of absurd may be Ugorski in Op 111/ii.

[Jo498]

As I said, I have Backhaus only with STEREO "famous sonatas" like op.13, 27/2, 53, 57 etc. no op.106. I find him rather "dry", i.e. emotionally uninvolved, no big contrasts in sound, tempi (he is rather fast in slow movements), mood etc. in all of them, although I cannot be more specific right now.
Of Kempff's I had opp.31/2, 106, 111 (all stereo) many years ago, but I got rid of them due to "lack of power". Of the mono set I have one disc with op.27 and others, I do not remember enough, only that it seemed somewhat small-scale as well.

With Gilels I had problems when I first got the set almost 20 years ago and did not even know some of the earlier sonatas. I still think he is too slow and serious in some (especially early ones, the first movement of op.10/1 is absurdly slow), but he has tremendous power, clarity and brings out voice/rhythm details, some harmonic things and also the "long line" (despite some very slow tempi) extraordinarily well. Some of the live recordings available on Brilliant are even better than the DG studio (somewhat faster and more spontaneous). In any case, for Gilels (and also Arrau, although I only got his set last year and do not know it that well) I can understand the appeal, even in cases when I do not share all of the enthusiasm.

But in what I have heard with Kempff and Backhaus their qualities apparently are too subtle for me, but I will look out for a chance to hear more of their mono recordings; it is possible that I did not hear their best stuff.

[jlaurson]

As I said, I have Backhaus only with STEREO "famous sonatas" like op.13, 27/2, 53, 57 etc. no op.106. I find him rather "dry", i.e. emotionally uninvolved, no big contrasts in sound, tempi (he is rather fast in slow movements), mood etc. in all of them...

But in what I have heard with Kempff and Backhaus their qualities apparently are too subtle for me, but I will look out for a chance to hear more of their mono recordings; it is possible that I did not hear their best stuff.

With Backhaus, especially, but then again also Kempff, it's important to note that with the Stereo cycle you get OLD Backhaus, the artist... and with the Mono cycle you get the very nearly as OLD Backhaus, the artist. The early stuff of his career is fascinating, to the extent it survives, and the sound is horribly restrained so as to barely make it worthwhile listening to.

Also: If you don't like Backhaus Stereo, I would be quite surprised if you found Backhaus Mono a grand improvement. It's taken a while for me to finally get my hands on the latter set and I have certainly enjoyed it, because I think the world of Backhaus' Beethoven. But even as I have  not listened in depth or side-by-side, I find myself not responding notably different (and certainly not notably more positive, if that were possible) to it. (I do see a point for the Kempff mono cycle being appreciated more than the stereo-remake, but by and large I think it's part of a "one set is more rare and therefore really, actually better" syndrome that's widely found throughout classical music.) In any case, I think you're on the right track about the "subtle qualities". Backhaus for me never impresses with a moment, a note, even a movement. He does nothing that makes me go: Whahhhhuuuu!?! With Backhaus, I don't see the trees for all the forest. It's unfussy, unfazed understatement throughout and with me, it yields big-time. If I had to keep one set of LvB Sonatas, it would probably, perhaps be stereo-Backhaus.

Beethoven Piano Sonata Cycle Survey, Part 1

[Mandryka]

With Backhaus, especially, but then again also Kempff, it's important to note that with the Stereo cycle you get OLD Backhaus, the artist... and with the Mono cycle you get the very nearly as OLD Backhaus, the artist. The early stuff of his career is fascinating, to the extent it survives, and the sound is horribly restrained so as to barely make it worthwhile listening to.

Also: If you don't like Backhaus Stereo, I would be quite surprised if you found Backhaus Mono a grand improvement. It's taken a while for me to finally get my hands on the latter set and I have certainly enjoyed it, because I think the world of Backhaus' Beethoven. But even as I have  not listened in depth or side-by-side, I find myself not responding notably different (and certainly not notably more positive, if that were possible) to it. (I do see a point for the Kempff mono cycle being appreciated more than the stereo-remake, but by and large I think it's part of a "one set is more rare and therefore really, actually better" syndrome that's widely found throughout classical music.) In any case, I think you're on the right track about the "subtle qualities". Backhaus for me never impresses with a moment, a note, even a movement. He does nothing that makes me go: Whahhhhuuuu!?! With Backhaus, I don't see the trees for all the forest. It's unfussy, unfazed understatement throughout and with me, it yields big-time. If I had to keep one set of LvB Sonatas, it would probably, perhaps be stereo-Backhaus.

Beethoven Piano Sonata Cycle Survey, Part 1

First, Jens, he recorded the Mono Beethoven when he was 65 to 70 I think. I don't believe he went gaga or feeble. Is there a loss of technque?  I don't know, I don't much care about technique. What he has is good enough for me.

Second, I think there are plenty of moments where he makes me go "wow" - op 106/iii is one of them. But maybe more importantly, so is op 109 through op 111. The astonishing thing about the last three sonatas is that anyone would play them in such a meat and potatoes, offhand, apparently derisory way. I find them the most valuable thing about the set, because the vision is so unique. I don't feel confident enough to say that he was misconceived.

It would be interesting to get to the bottom of the differences between the two cycles - anyone fancy exploring it?

[Cato]

First, Jens, he recorded the Mono Beethoven when he was 65 to 70 I think. I don't believe he went gaga or feeble. Is there a loss of technque?  I don't know, I don't much care about technique. What he has is good enough for me.

Second, I think there are plenty of moments where he makes me go "wow" - op 106/iii is one of them. But maybe more importantly, so is op 109 through op 111. The astonishing thing about the last three sonatas is that anyone would play them in such a meat and potatoes, offhand, apparently derisory way. I find them the most valuable thing about the set, because the vision is so unique. I don't feel confident enough to say that he was misconceived.

I agree in general, but never sensed that last part at all.

I got the Backhaus recording of those sonatas when it was first issued, when I was an adolescent.  I thought then that those performances brought forth an otherworldly atmosphere, and I still think that.  The stereo technology is good, not the best, but still good enough that I can ignore tape hiss and listen to exquisite versions of these and all the sonatas.

[Jo498]

The problem is that only the stereo Backhaus is available (only complete and not cheap) and the only separately available stuff is the twofer I already have which has no late sonatas but the 7 most famous "named" ones (opp. 13,27/2,28, 31/2, 53,57,81a) and it seems that Decca/Universal re-issued that very same twofer three or more times since the 90s or late 80s with different covers).
So while I would be interested in hearing the late Beethoven with Backhaus, I am not prepared to pay big money or order from Japan. I am also quite content with what I have (and haven't even really listened properly to some of Arrau or Heidsieck and some other stuff in my shelves). But I'll re-check Backhaus in the stereo "name" sonatas if my impressions above hold up.

[Mandryka]

The problem is that only the stereo Backhaus is available (only complete and not cheap) and the only separately available stuff is the twofer I already have which has no late sonatas but the 7 most famous "named" ones (opp. 13,27/2,28, 31/2, 53,57,81a) and it seems that Decca/Universal re-issued that very same twofer three or more times since the 90s or late 80s with different covers).
So while I would be interested in hearing the late Beethoven with Backhaus, I am not prepared to pay big money or order from Japan. I am also quite content with what I have (and haven't even really listened properly to some of Arrau or Heidsieck and some other stuff in my shelves). But I'll re-check Backhaus in the stereo "name" sonatas if my impressions above hold up.

If it's really OOP I'll put the mono set on symphonyshare. Surely the late sonatas are on youtube?

[Brian]

I could also need some pointers re Lucchesini and Heidsieck both of which I acquired at some stage because of high praise but while good I didn't find them all that special (except that Heidsieck can be rather excentric, someone recently mentioned the absurdly slow scherzo from op.28 (or was it another one?)).

Yes, that was me and that was the absurdly slow scherzo we talked about. Most of the Heidsieck I've heard so far (admittedly only possessing the set for 1-2 weeks) has been consistent, smart, and just "done right", but with occasional strange twists.

[George]

The problem is that only the stereo Backhaus is available (only complete and not cheap) and the only separately available stuff is the twofer I already have which has no late sonatas but the 7 most famous "named" ones (opp. 13,27/2,28, 31/2, 53,57,81a) and it seems that Decca/Universal re-issued that very same twofer three or more times since the 90s or late 80s with different covers).
So while I would be interested in hearing the late Beethoven with Backhaus, I am not prepared to pay big money or order from Japan. I am also quite content with what I have (and haven't even really listened properly to some of Arrau or Heidsieck and some other stuff in my shelves). But I'll re-check Backhaus in the stereo "name" sonatas if my impressions above hold up.

I feel compelled to share a few things. First, the stereo twofer did not win me over, either. It was only after listening through the entire stereo set a few times that I began to appreciate Backhaus's unique way with these works. I feel that Backhaus is one of those artists where you have to come to him. Second, the stereo sound on the Original Masters set is incredible, some of the best recorded piano performances in my collection. Third, the cost of the stereo set is a fraction of the price of the mono set. It can be had for only $36 from amazon third party sellers. Finally while the mono performances are a bit better, the interpretations are very much the same.

[jlaurson]

First, Jens, he recorded the Mono Beethoven when he was 65 to 70 I think. I don't believe he went gaga or feeble. Is there a loss of technque?  I don't know, I don't much care about technique. What he has is good enough for me.

If it's really OOP I'll put the mono set on symphonyshare. Surely the late sonatas are on youtube?

We might misunderstand each other here. My point was none of the above except: Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that we get an appreciable difference in vision from Backhaus mono vs. stereo... it's both 'autumnal Backhaus', recorded once when he was old and once when he was yet a bit older. It's not like the two visions of a young artist vs. seasoned veteran.

In fact, I made the remark only to underpin my subsequent point of not rating the very hard to get (but not out of print, to answer your other question) as something infinitely superior to the "later" stereo set. They were recorded at practically the same stage of his career. And no, no loss of technique that I can detect at all, from mono to stereo.

The problem is that only the stereo Backhaus is available (only complete and not cheap)

Well, cheap is a subjective matter, but the stereo cycle can be had for less than $40,-... which doesn't strike me as a bad deal at all. Depending on where you are, you can look into the earlier edition or the Italian edition (clunky jewel cases) and see if it's cheaper there. All the relevant links on the Beethoven Survey site, FYI. It can also be had for about 37 Euros in Germany, via Amazon.co.uk. 29 Euros for the earlier, jewel-disc edition from German Amazon (used).

[Jo498]

Thanks for your comments. I am in Germany, the regular amazon.de price is EUR 50 (which is 20 more than the mono Kempff), there are used/marketplace offers around 30 which is o.k. I guess. My reluctance is not mainly because of the price, but because I didn't much care for the sonatas I heard so far on above-mentioned twofer.

From Todd's list I have Gulda/Amadeo, Schnabel, Gilels/DG (+ a bunch live on Brilliant), Heidsieck, Lucchesini, Arrau (60s), most of Serkin's, some of Richter's, 2 discs of Annie Fischer's hungaroton and all of her older EMI Introuvables, 5 of Gelber's on Denon, 5 of Brautigam's, all of Gould's, all the Kovacevich on Philips and 2-3 of his EMI, 2-3 with Edwin Fischer, and the late sonatas with Pollini, Rosen, Levit, Peter Serkin. And a bunch more of single discs with Schiff, Korstick, Kocsis, a few more in pianist's boxes (like the few played by Rubinstein, Cziffra) etc.

I don't really feel like needing more. But with Kempff and especially Backhaus being perennial recommendations I sometimes wonder if I am missing something.

[aquablob]

Thanks for your comments. I am in Germany, the regular amazon.de price is EUR 50 (which is 20 more than the mono Kempff), there are used/marketplace offers around 30 which is o.k. I guess. My reluctance is not mainly because of the price, but because I didn't much care for the sonatas I heard so far on above-mentioned twofer.

From Todd's list I have Gulda/Amadeo, Schnabel, Gilels/DG (+ a bunch live on Brilliant), Heidsieck, Lucchesini, Arrau (60s), most of Serkin's, some of Richter's, 2 discs of Annie Fischer's hungaroton and all of her older EMI Introuvables, 5 of Gelber's on Denon, 5 of Brautigam's, all of Gould's, all the Kovacevich on Philips and 2-3 of his EMI, 2-3 with Edwin Fischer, and the late sonatas with Pollini, Rosen, Levit, Peter Serkin. And a bunch more of single discs with Schiff, Korstick, Kocsis, a few more in pianist's boxes (like the few played by Rubinstein, Cziffra) etc.

I don't really feel like needing more. But with Kempff and especially Backhaus being perennial recommendations I sometimes wonder if I am missing something.

You definitely don't need more...

[Wanderer]

Someone like Eric Heidsieck,-- well it's too personal. If you like the rubato, then well and good. But it's no more absurd ,as far as I can see, than Gilels's DG style. I know it's tempting to dismiss Heidieck as a buffoon but that's a bit unfair I think.

Is Heidsieck's Beethoven laden with distracting rubato? Is it, mutatis mutandis, Chopinesque? I was considering investigating it at some point but if he's earned a buffoon reputation because of it then it's certainly not for me.

[Sergeant Rock]

You definitely don't need more...

What does need have to do with record collecting 

Sarge

[George]

Need is a four letter word.

[Mandryka]

Is Heidsieck's Beethoven laden with distracting rubato? Is it, mutatis mutandis, Chopinesque? I was considering investigating it at some point but if he's earned a buffoon reputation because of it then it's certainly not for me.

I don't know if he's earned a buffoon reputation, I doubt it, I don't think he has a reputation very much, I chose that word because the word "absurd" was being bandied around. But there is distinctive rubato, whether it's organic, insightful, disturbing, affected, pointless, absurd  . . . well we'd have to look on a case by case basis I suppose.

I don't know about chopinesque.

[Todd]

I was considering investigating it at some point but if he's earned a buffoon reputation because of it then it's certainly not for me.

Heidsieck's playing does contain of lot of personal rubato, but he is in no way a buffoon.  I believe Artur Rubinstein once commented to the effect that Eric Heidsieck made him reassess rich kid pianists, which he usually dismissed, because Heidsieck's playing was so good.  I also would not characterize Heidsieck's Beethoven as Chopinesque.