Beethoven's Piano Sonatas

[Jo498]

I could have predicted that you might not like it from your comment in #3445... Gulda is very straightforward, "classical" with most tempi on the fast side; especially in some "slow" movements, e.g. in op.22 and op.106.

Some of the more "romantic" sonatas lack poetry (e.g. opp. 109+110) but I find his energetic, no-nonsense unmannered approach very compelling in many of the works. There is a very natural "flow" to them, I think. They were recorded within two months or so in summer 1967 and apparently without many cuts and edits, although I have no first-hand source for that. In any case, they were already very popular on LP and have been considered a "classic" for decades.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

You aren't alone.

Sarge

Ditto. For me his "energy" simply does not open enough doors/windows/lids into these works.

[SonicMan46]

Ditto. For me his "energy" simply does not open enough doors/windows/lids into these works.

BOY - I bought the Gulda set on Decca (same recordings as on the Brilliant set) last March (2015) based on the many comments in the forum and also on other reviews read (loved by the Amazonians for what's that is worth) - but from all of the comments quoted above & below, seems NOT to be one in the top tier?   

Well, I've not given the box a listen for a year but thought that I enjoyed - will need to add to my 'coming up next for a listen' list -   Dave

I've finished listening to the Brilliant Gulda cycle and am somewhat underwhelmed. I started with Op2/1 and went on from there. Initial impressions were good but as I moved through the cycle I became a bit bored with the relentless sameness of approach. No 'Sturm und Drang' here I'm thinking. There was the odd sonata or two where Gulda did take time to smell the roses but this was only occasionally. One fact that does stand out is that there is not a single sonata where I can't find a superior version by another pianist. Yes, technically the playing is excellent but it lacks, for want of a better word, 'soul'

To many who have touted the cycle as one of the greats this sounds like heresy but unless a second listen changes my mind I will sell the set.

You aren't alone.  Sarge

Seems reasonable. It's certainly not what one might suspect, given his flamboyant personality. But it's also the reason the cycle is well liked... just as some (myself included) love and adore Backhaus for making you see the forest rather than showing you all the trees.

I could have predicted that you might not like it from your comment in #3445... Gulda is very straightforward, "classical" with most tempi on the fast side; especially in some "slow" movements, e.g. in op.22 and op.106.

Some of the more "romantic" sonatas lack poetry (e.g. opp. 109+110) but I find his energetic, no-nonsense unmannered approach very compelling in many of the works. There is a very natural "flow" to them, I think. They were recorded within two months or so in summer 1967 and apparently without many cuts and edits, although I have no first-hand source for that. In any case, they were already very popular on LP and have been considered a "classic" for decades.

[Brian]

BOY - I bought the Gulda set on Decca (same recordings as on the Brilliant set) last March (2015) based on the many comments in the forum and also on other reviews read (loved by the Amazonians for what's that is worth) - but from all of the comments quoted above & below, seems NOT to be one in the top tier?   

Well, I've not given the box a listen for a year but thought that I enjoyed - will need to add to my 'coming up next for a listen' list -   Dave

Dave, you know you're just as entitled to your own opinion as any of us are to ours! The heck with what we think!

(I've never heard Gulda's set.)

[jlaurson]

BOY - I bought the Gulda set on Decca (same recordings as on the Brilliant set) last March (2015) based on the many comments in the forum and also on other reviews read (loved by the Amazonians for what's that is worth) - but from all of the comments quoted above & below, seems NOT to be one in the top tier?   

I think absolutely top tier! Just depends on what you want in your LvB, though.

[amw]

For the straightforward, just-the-text-and-nothing-but-the-text approach I think I might actually prefer Goodyear to Gulda. I'm not sure why—probably minor things like phrasings and dynamic shading that add up. (Not that Goodyear is much better in terms of touch—the Beethoven pianist who comes closest to a virtuoso of touch is probably Annie Fischer—but he seems to bring out contrasts a bit more? idk) It's a shame it was recorded in someone's bathtub.

It's only particularly in the late sonatas that I ever wish I was listening to another pianist, and then it's also usually another instrument (therefore Komen, Peter Serkin, or Badura-Skoda) because Beethoven's "orchestration" for the piano from about Op. 90 onwards is one of the most remarkable aspects of his late work. Interpretively, no lack of poetry but sometimes a bit metronomic.

[SonicMan46]

Dave, you know you're just as entitled to your own opinion as any of us are to ours! The heck with what we think!

(I've never heard Gulda's set.)

I think absolutely top tier! Just depends on what you want in your LvB, though.

Thanks Brian and Jens - my faith has been restored!    I'm the visual guy in the family (as a retired radiologist), Susan is the musician who can guess keys and sight read music, so maybe I've been demoralized in the nearly 46 years we've been married?

But, I'll give that Gulda set another listen, and remember enjoying - plus, love his Wolfie Piano Concertos - thanks.  Dave

[Jo498]

As I said, the Gulda/Amadeo set was considered a "classic" since a few years after its appearance. Of course there were fewer recordings available almost 50 years ago and some people will always prefer others in music that is available in dozens or hundreds of recordings. (I do not much care for Brendel, Backhaus or Kempff, find Arrau a mixed bag and all of those are (probably justifiedly) considered "classics" as well.)

I usually don't believe in a "best" recording because no single one can bring out everything. Gulda is very consistent (fast, unmannered, close to the text, sometimes a little "neutral" but for me very "natural" in phrasing and everything) and while I have not heard newer ones that might be similar (such as Goodyear) I prefer his interpretations to what I have heard of Backhaus' (who is similar in the neutral, straightforward way, I have not heard (enough of) Buchbinder and Badura-Skoda who are probably also similar) and find it a very strong cycle overall.

I do not think I have heard an op.106 I prefer (it is the best I know with a fastish first movement that does not fall apart or suffers from other problems elsewhere) and I find almost all sonatas up to (including) op.31 very good. I also like the Waldstein and Appassionata although they might be too relentlessly fast and "slick" for some.
While not a big favorite per se, his op.31/1 is probably also my favorite because hardly anyone else brings out the parody of the 2nd movement so well.
I also noticed that I now find some movements/pieces too relentlessly fast while I used to find them exhilarating with Gulda when I was younger... (e.g. op.10/1,i)

[Drasko]

Thanks, Draško. Everything I have read about that one has been positive.

Yes, I don't think it is exactly the same. I have it, but haven't played it for 2 or 3 years (Haydn frowns on my Beethoven time). It certainly has Moonlight, but I think the others are Waldstein and Appassionata. One difference right away, it is on a genuine Erard, an 1805 IIRC, rather than a reproduction, and in the more impassioned sections, there is doubtless some clanging. I have always reserved my recommendations of it for people who I know can look beyond that, because it would drive some people crazy!!   

Pulled out the Erato CD: the third sonata is the Pathetique rather than Appassionata and the fortepiano is original Broadwood 1806.

You can use as a preview Moonlight and Waldstein on youtube, which should be from the Alpha release, unless there is some third recording:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-giRPAdSF68
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-giRPAdSF68

[Gurn Blanston]

Pulled out the Erato CD: the third sonata is the Pathetique rather than Appassionata and the fortepiano is original Broadwood 1806.

You can use as a preview Moonlight and Waldstein on youtube, which should be from the Alpha release, unless there is some third recording:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-giRPAdSF68
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-giRPAdSF68

Ah, so much easier with the CD in your hand!   

Thanks much for the links! I never think of Youtube when I'm wanting a sample. I guess I should, I'm the only one who doesn't, apparently

[Holden]

BOY - I bought the Gulda set on Decca (same recordings as on the Brilliant set) last March (2015) based on the many comments in the forum and also on other reviews read (loved by the Amazonians for what's that is worth) - but from all of the comments quoted above & below, seems NOT to be one in the top tier?   

Well, I've not given the box a listen for a year but thought that I enjoyed - will need to add to my 'coming up next for a listen' list -   Dave

I thought that the Gulda Decca set was recorded in the 50s (mono?) and the Brilliant is a remastering of the set he recorded for Amadeo in the 60s. The few Decca recordings I've heard are more to my taste.

I didn't hate the set but would not be likely to get it out on a regular basis. The pluses of the set are, as already mentioned, his unfussy approach and the times where he exhibits a wide dynamic range which he could do at speed and with apparent ease. The earlier sonatas are more like this and I prefer his readings of these over the middle and later period ones. But to go back to a remark made earlier about Backhaus, (which I haven't heard) a view of the whole forest instead of each individual tree is my preferred approach to LvB and is why I value Richter et al so highly in the PS. Richter was also capable of playing the sonatas quite fast and with amazing technical skill but you listened to a work grow under his fingers and come to an inevitable conclusion. I don't feel this with Gulda.

This may be unfair to Gulda but I'll use the Waldstein as an example and list two pianists who play the first movement very fast. Rudolf Serkin (1950s) and Dubravka Tomsic are very fleet and there is an impetus to the movement that, while slowing in the appropriate places, drives relentlessly forward. If you use a train as an analogy you know the train is going flat out but that the engineer is still in control. He/she knows exactly how fast they can take each bend without threat of derailment. In Gulda's case, you sense that the train is out of control and headed for a train wreck.

[Todd]

I thought that the Gulda Decca set was recorded in the 50s (mono?) and the Brilliant is a remastering of the set he recorded for Amadeo in the 60s.

That's correct, though the Decca proper set is mono and stereo.  Decca has reissued the Amadeo cycle a few times as well, which is why it is sometimes called a Decca cycle.

I think it is fair to state that the Amadeo cycle is a pretty straight-forward set, and close to a just the facts approach.  I think of the cycle as being purposely constrained from an interpretive standpoint - no romantic rubato, no droopy slow movements, and the like - and then Gulda pushes that approach to its limit.  I can fully understand why some other people don't think it is one of the greats, or why they might dislike it, but it remains one of my favorite sets, part of my Holy Tetrarchy. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

That's correct, though the Decca proper set is mono and stereo.  Decca has reissued the Amadeo cycle a few times as well, which is why it is sometimes called a Decca cycle.

I think it is fair to state that the Amadeo cycle is a pretty straight-forward set, and close to a just the facts approach.  I think of the cycle as being purposely constrained from an interpretive standpoint - no romantic rubato, no droopy slow movements, and the like - and then Gulda pushes that approach to its limit.  I can fully understand why some other people don't think it is one of the greats, or why they might dislike it, but it remains one of my favorite sets, part of my Holy Tetrarchy.

So I don't have to comb through 3700 posts, who are the other three members of the HT? (And yes, I have Gulda/Amadeo and no, I don't much like it.)

[Todd]

So I don't have to comb through 3700 posts, who are the other three members of the HT? (And yes, I have Gulda/Amadeo and no, I don't much like it.)

Annie Fischer, Wilhelm Kempff mono, Wilhelm Backhaus mono.

[Holden]

Annie Fischer, Wilhelm Kempff mono, Wilhelm Backhaus mono.

I have two of your tetrarchy Todd, Annie and Wilhelm K and rate both very highly. Fischer rates as my favourite complete set despite the fact that only three of her sonatas rate as my #1 choice. She is consistently good and I can't think of a weak performance.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I have two of your tetrarchy Todd, Annie and Wilhelm K and rate both very highly. Fischer rates as my favourite complete set despite the fact that only three of her sonatas rate as my #1 choice. She is consistently good and I can't think of a weak performance.

I have two myself, Gulda and Annie. I much prefer her expansive phrasing to Gulda's stiff, unyielding metronomic approach. The only two other complete sets in my collection are Heidsieck, who is too eccentric for my liking, and Yves Nat, who is generally satisfying. (I had Bernard Roberts once but sold it to George.) Add to that numerous separate sonatas from the likes of Rosen, Goode, Schnabel, Guy, Badura-Skoda, Crawford, Graffman, and Lucchesini. And then there is my own piano, which I use to play most of the sonatas at varying degrees of incompetence, but which provide many of my most satisfying experiences.

[kishnevi]

I have the (mostly) stereo Kempff and Backhaus sets, not the  mono ones.

I have Annie Fischer, and agree that she is excellent throughout,but somehow the sum of the parts just does not add up.  I like Gulda (I have his Amadeo cycle)more....but I don't think I have come across any set I would call clearly superior to all the others.

Off the top of my head, I have, besides those four

Schiff
Lewis
Brendel III
Buchbinder
Lortie
Heisdeck
Pollini
Barenboim's most recent cycle
Guy
Plus the partial cycle by Gould, various individual releases, selections from Brendel II, Kovacevich, Ashkenazy,  what Bavouzet has released so far. Gilels sits in my Listening Pile.  And on PI, I have Brautigam and Binns.
In fact, at the moment I am listening to the next to last CD of Binns (Op. 101 and 106)

[Jo498]

Gulda was not my first cycle, I had the incomplete Gilels before and before that all the better known and probably together about 2/3 of them in recordings by diverse pianists. But I got it early enough to become somewhat imprinted by it and the interpretations opened up some pieces I had found rather tedious with e.g. Gilels. So because of this listening history I will always retain a fondness. Also, as someone who so far was most of his life stuck in some provincial town and lacked funds, resolve and opportunity to travel to concerts, Gulda is one of the few well known pianists I saw live in recital (ca. 1994 or 95 in Berlin, actually before I got the Beethoven set in 98 or 99) which might also explain my fondness.
Now with another 16 years of listening to the music behind me I can see why some don't much care for that cycle and I do not turn towards it as frequently as I used to (and then mainly for the earlier pieces).

Right now I am slowly going through Arrau's and Lucchesini's, both of which I have had for several years but never completely listened to them. Later I might do the same for Heidsieck's. I can see what some people like about Arrau's, and I like some sonatas myself but overall I find he is often rather heavy-handed (not necessarily slow, but sometimes also quite slow) and humorless in the earlier works.

In any case, even conceding that it is somewhat one-sided, I am not sure I have heard a cycle I clearly prefer to Gulda's and I think that it still merits its reputation as one of the standardly recommended Beethoven sonata cycles (along with Schnabel, Backhaus, Kempff, Arrau, Brendel, maybe Fischer and Pollini or what have you).

[Mandryka]

I've heard a couple of recordings of Gulda playing 110 live - one from a concert in Montpellier and the other on Hansler. He seems to have made a bit of a speciality of this sonata. Anyway the thing I want to say is that his style is less glib than in the studio recordings. I'm not sure why, you would hardly believe it's the same guy playing.

[Jo498]

The Gulda recital I attended had opp. 13, 110 and 111. As encores he played among other things one of the A flat major P&F (I hardly knew that music back then, so I cannot say whether WTC I or II), maybe another Bach P&F, the finale of Mozart's last piano sonata (which was almost the best thing on that evening) and then started improvising about vaguely viennese stuff (because as he announced he should be on the plane/train to Vienna already). He already appeared somewhat frail for someone in his mid-sixties but really cool (yes he wore that prayer cap thingie).