Surely this is one of the hardest LvB works to play and also one of the most profound (along with Op 111). There are a few recordings of this work that are considered as great and I have three that I think are better than anyone elses. I'm listening now to a performance that is completely new to me that has made me seriously reevaluate the other two that I really rate highly. So once again, please give your top choice but this time feel free to add others that you rate along with it.
Pollini. Perfect execution, with a somewhat cool take on the great slow movement that actually enhances it.
Quote from: Todd on July 01, 2008, 05:06:12 AM
Pollini. Perfect execution, with a somewhat cool take on the great slow movement that actually enhances it.
Yeah for me too. The other remarkable one I like is by the young Sokolov for the slow-starting, transparent fugue. This was only ever available on a Mobile Fidelity CD and usually sells for a ridiculous price when it appears up for sale.
How about the Schnabel Hammerklavier?
Quote from: ezodisy on July 01, 2008, 05:18:20 AMHow about the Schnabel Hammerklavier?
Too sloppy in the faster portions. The slow movement is superb, though.
Quote from: Todd on July 01, 2008, 05:32:39 AM
Too sloppy in the faster portions. The slow movement is superb, though.
Schnabel is known to miss notes for the music's sake. So are you talking "extra sloppy?"
Quote from: Mn Dave on July 01, 2008, 05:35:19 AMSo are you talking "extra sloppy?"
Yes, here "too" = "extra".
One can argue, that the Hammerklavier Sonata must be performed "muscular", but in the long run I tend to prefer more lyrical approaches like Kempff of course (mono preferably), but also O´Connor and Lortie.
It's time for me to do another review of the Hammerklavier now that my collection has expanded. Last time I listened, it must have been ten years ago...maybe more...and everything considered was on vinyl. It was also far enough back that I didn't then feel competent to make a true critical evaluation of the performances--I was simply trying to get familiar with the music itself and decide whose versions I personally liked. Frankly, I found the piece itself to be daunting, and I have no doubt that I still will today. I made myself listen to each version in its entirety, but I found myself able to appreciate only portions of each one. That said, my remembered impressions were as follows:
I listened to some biggies--Schnabel and Arrau--and did not care for either.
I listened to one that was critically acclaimed and that I expected to love--Solomon--but while I like portions of it a great deal, the appeal of the performance as a whole eluded me. Had a similar reaction to Kempff mono.
Two versions I listened to get little mention these days--Egon Petri and Webster Aitkin--and each offered some distinctive (weird, even) and interesting things, but again, as a whole they failed to captivate.
Pollini was the one I settled on at the time, and seeing it show up as a favorite of Todd and Tony now makes me smile: maybe my taste back then wasn't as unrefined as I think.
;D
A few years after that comparison, a good friend played for me a recording of the Hammerklavier from the BMG/Melodiya Emil Gilels Edition--and it impressed me most favorably. However, I've never put it up against the Pollini.
I now have plenty of others to review. I still have my LP contenders and maybe a few additional in that format (Backhaus and Nat, to name two). And my CD list informs me that I now have Annie Fischer, Gilels (x2), Gulda, Kempff stereo, Ernst Levy, Elly Ney (excerpts only), Richter (x2), Richter-Haaser, Schnabel, and Sokolov (live '75). Damn. When will I ever find the time?
???
And hey...I'm not even counting the ones that this thread will no doubt unearth!
For now, I'll stick with my early choice--Pollini--and see who else comes up.
Cheers,
Dirk
Pollini. I'll echo Todd on this one. Pollini (in this, and some equally challenging material) is very technically proficient and very, very good. There have been other recordings I have liked (see below), but none as much as this one.
A couple of others that I very much like, even if I don't rate them as high as Pollini, are Gould (from 1970) and Backhaus (1952 or 1956, take your pick). I almost like Mitsuko Uchida's recent performance of the work, but I haven't made the jump to liking it wholeheartedly.
On Youtube there's a fascinating masterclass given by Barenboim on the finale of this piece. Not sure if it's available on DVD.
My top pick is Pollini as well. 8)
Looks like we have a winner. I have wishlisted the Pollini.
Thanks, mateys.
Has Pollini rerecorded this yet or are we all talking about the DG Originals release?
Quote from: dirkronk on July 01, 2008, 10:21:44 AM
Sokolov (live '75)
Dirk give this one a try and let us know what you think of the 25 year old!
Pollini has also recorded a live version on Arkadia which I think I have seen someone here rave about (a long time ago). This one is rare, but there are some copies available.
http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Sonatas-Nos-adieux-Hammerklavier/dp/B000005O6A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1214942636&sr=1-1
(http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/97/b2/cbec224128a0ea799aacb010._AA240_.L.jpg)
man those Arkadia discs are usually exceedingly rare. The one I always looked for was the Weissenberg/Celibidache Prokofiev PC 3 but I could never find it. In fact I never had any confirmation it existed but someone once mentioned it and I just kept looking for it like an idiot. Someone here should buy the Pollini :)
I have the above Pollini Hammerklavier, but I don't have the DG one... And I have heard too few Hammerklaviers and Beethoven sonatas to give a qualified comment at this moment. I have been listening much more to the solo piano music of Chopin, Schumann and Schubert so far.
Quote from: ezodisy on July 01, 2008, 11:41:42 AM
Has Pollini rerecorded this yet or are we all talking about the DG Originals release?
Dirk give this one a try and let us know what you think of the 25 year old!
I'm with you on this one Tony and I believe that Dirk has a copy of that Sokolov performance as well. I was very taken with the whole structure of the work in Sokolov's hands and thought that both the slow moveent and the fugue would be very hard to beat by anyone (haven't heard the Pollini). The Schumann Op11 that goes with it is excellent as well.
Quote from: Todd on July 01, 2008, 05:06:12 AM
Pollini.
Seconded. While I may not love all of this pianists Beethoven, here he does incredibly well.
Quote from: Mn Dave on July 01, 2008, 11:32:36 AM
Looks like we have a winner. I have wishlisted the Pollini.
Thanks, mateys.
Nice move. (and now you have one more vote of approval)
>>>>move to cart. :D
Pollini is the most accessible version of all (pity the rest of his Beethoven isn't too exiting), but don't miss out on Gilels, and if you need a performance which truly brings out the contrapuntal refinery of this work, try Vladimir Feltsman.
From my part, i'm really hoping Krystian Zimermann does the whole set before he kicks the bucket. That might just become the crowning achievement of contemporary piano playing.
My favorite is Emil Gilels. Very pure, never massive (in special in the first movement) and with an extraordinary spirituality in the Adagio.
Brendel (VOX), simple, almost naif, is also very touching.
Friedrich Gulda is different, turned to himself, reaching a mystical level. But we only perceive this after two or three auditions.
Regarding the Fugue, I must mention Sviatoslav Richter and Claudio Arrau. For different reasons they are the best performers of this 4th movement, even better than Backhaus, Pollini or Serkin.
Quote from: val on July 02, 2008, 12:39:54 AM
Friedrich Gulda is different, turned to himself, reaching a mystical level. But we only perceive this after two or three auditions.
Absolutely, he's my #2 pick for this sonata. One of the few who (pretty much) plays it at the specified tempo as well.
Another vote for Pollini and Gilels here.
I've enjoyed these threads, Holden, partly for the sake of others' opinions--though more to learn what they value in the works/performances than to discover a "winner"--but mostly because they've been a spur to some limited comparative listening I'd otherwise be very unlikely to undertake but have enjoyed. This exercise reinforces the virtue of owning multiple recordings, especially when a piece is grand enough to embrace (or withstand!) significantly different interpretations
Since yesterday I've listened to Pollini, Kempff, Kovacevich, and Buchbinder so far. I like them all with no clear favorite. Buchbinder seems to embody most of the strengths of the other three--the clarity and precision of Pollini, the thoughtful charm of Kempff, the rollicking playfulness and flexibility of Kovacevich. I usually think of him as a restrained classicist, but at times in this Hammerklavier, Rudy rocks!
Comments here incline me toward Gulda, next...and then (if I haven't lost interest in the exercise) I'll probably give Goode a spin. Interesting that none of the folks who usually gush over Annie Fischer have mentioned her yet.
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 05, 2008, 05:59:32 AM
Comments here incline me toward Gulda, next...and then (if I haven't lost interest in the exercise) I'll probably give Goode a spin. Interesting that none of the folks who usually gush over Annie Fischer have mentioned her yet.
Fischer I haven't listened to yet, nor Gulda...but making one choice among those I have listened to so far (Gilels, Arrau, Pollini and Rosen)...well, I went for Gould ;D Seriously, this is an amazing peformance, idiosyncratic without destroying the music. Slow, yes, (11+ minutes in the opening movement...without the repeat!). I really do like it but then I tend to lean toward performances on the slow side when given the choice. Rosen I liked too...more than the big names. Arrau has the best sound, surprising maybe because it's the oldest performance of those I sampled.
Sarge
I've found the above very interesting as I am considering acquiring a recording of this sonata because actually playing it all the way through is something of a chore for me. My only stipulations are that repeats are honored and the slow movement should not last longer than 15 minutes. Can you help me on that?
For your amusement, I repeat the spoof letter that Mendelssohn sent to his sister Fanny for her twentieth birthday (1825).
Most respected young lady! News of the service you have done me has redounded as far as Vienna: a fat man with moustaches and a thin one with a Parisian accent, whose names I forget, told me you induced an audience of connoisseurs to listen in a seemly manner to my concertos in E-flat and G and my Trio in B-flat. Only a few people fled, and such success might almost offend me and make me vexed with my works, but the attractiveness of your own playing forms part of this triumph and puts everything into proper proportion. That people should appreciate my first trios, my first two symphonies, and certain of my youthful sonatas is not extraordinary: as long as one writes music like everyone else and is young, thus mediocre and trivial, people understand and buy it – but I'm tired of that, and I've made music as Herr van Beethoven, and that is why, at my age and in the solitude of my lonely room, ideas cross my mind that are not necessarily pleasing to everyone. When I encounter people who embrace this music of mine, and thus the utmost secrets of my soul; when such persons treat the solitary old man I am in a friendly manner, they render me a service for which I am most grateful. Such people are my true friends and I don't have no others (sic). On account of this friendship, I am taking the liberty of sending you my Sonata in b-flat major Opus 106, for your birthday, with my sincere congratulations. I did not create it to throw dust in people's eyes: play it only when you have sufficient time, for it needs time, it is not one of the shortest! – but I had much to say. If your friendship for me does not extend so far, ask my admirer, Marx, he will analyze it for you, and the adagio, especially, will give him ample opportunity. Moreover, it is a particular pleasure for me to offer a sonata written not for the pianoforte but for the Hammerklavier to a lady as German as you have been described to me.
In conclusion, I am including a bad portrait of myself with this letter, being certainly the equal of other great men in the world who make presents of their portraits: I do not think myself at all a wicked fellow. Therefore keep a pleasant memory of your very devoted Beethoven.
(quoted form F. Tillard's biography of F.M.)
Quote from: Ten thumbs on July 07, 2008, 08:34:12 AM
I've found the above very interesting as I am considering acquiring a recording of this sonata because actually playing it all the way through is something of a chore for me. My only stipulations are that repeats are honored and the slow movement should not last longer than 15 minutes. Can you help me on that?
Why is this? Two of the most compelling recordings of the Adagio are by Solomon (22:20) and by Sokolov (23:45). They are so good that they manage to maintain the atmosphere right throughout. Even the famous Richter performance in London comes in at 17 mintes plus. Probably the most famous Adagio is by Schnabel and he takes 18 minutes and 34 seconds. So why do you want it played at a faster speed than Beethoven asked for? Do you want all the repeats? The Pollini version seems to be the winner here but you'll have to settle for 17 minutes also.
Quote from: Holden on July 07, 2008, 04:28:03 PM
Why is this? Two of the most compelling recordings of the Adagio are by Solomon (22:20) and by Sokolov (23:45). They are so good that they manage to maintain the atmosphere right throughout. Even the famous Richter performance in London comes in at 17 mintes plus. Probably the most famous Adagio is by Schnabel and he takes 18 minutes and 34 seconds. So why do you want it played at a faster speed than Beethoven asked for? Do you want all the repeats? The Pollini version seems to be the winner here but you'll have to settle for 17 minutes also.
17 minutes might pass but 22 is ridiculous. How do you know what speed Beethoven asked for? Appassionato e con molto sentimento scarcely suggests a very slow pace and how does one achieve the pulsing urgency of the second subject? Peters edition gives quaver = 92, which works out at a little over 12 minutes. This I think is too fast. I timed my playing at 14.57. Pianists have developed an unmusical fashion for playing classical slow movements far too slowly. I notice this especially with Schubert. There is no merit in it whatsoever.
There is of course only one repeat in this sonata and it is essential not only because Beethoven writes first and second time bars but also to give balance. If the composer asked for it, why take it away?
Quote from: Ten thumbs on July 08, 2008, 01:18:56 AM
17 minutes might pass but 22 is ridiculous. How do you know what speed Beethoven asked for? Appassionato e con molto sentimento scarcely suggests a very slow pace and how does one achieve the pulsing urgency of the second subject? Peters edition gives quaver = 92, which works out at a little over 12 minutes. This I think is too fast. I timed my playing at 14.57. Pianists have developed an unmusical fashion for playing classical slow movements far too slowly. I notice this especially with Schubert. There is no merit in it whatsoever.
There is of course only one repeat in this sonata and it is essential not only because Beethoven writes first and second time bars but also to give balance. If the composer asked for it, why take it away?
"Appassionato e con molto sentimento" is hardly an indication of tempo and you can play very passionately and with a lot of feeling at any pace. The notation calls for adagio. The trick is having the ability to pull it off. Sokolov and Solomon certainly do that.
As for the Peters edition - that's just his opinion as is it yours to play it at the speed that you want to. What I want to know is do you just want to race through the movement to get to the intricacies of the fugue or are there other reasons for you to play it at this pace?
The average speed recommended for an Urtext edition of this piece is about 19 minutes. This would accommodate your less than 15 minutes but also applies to the latter. This has nothng to do with speed but with expression.
Quote from: Holden on July 08, 2008, 03:37:01 AM
"Appassionato e con molto sentimento" is hardly an indication of tempo and you can play very passionately and with a lot of feeling at any pace. The notation calls for adagio. The trick is having the ability to pull it off. Sokolov and Solomon certainly do that.
As for the Peters edition - that's just his opinion as is it yours to play it at the speed that you want to. What I want to know is do you just want to race through the movement to get to the intricacies of the fugue or are there other reasons for you to play it at this pace?
The average speed recommended for an Urtext edition of this piece is about 19 minutes. This would accommodate your less than 15 minutes but also applies to the latter. This has nothng to do with speed but with expression.
15 minutes is hardly racing through this movement. 19 minutes is merely someone's opinion and that opinion is hardly worth more than Peters. Did Beethoven give a metronome marking. If not there is no Urtext evidence available. It may be possible to 'pull off' a performance in five minutes flat but that hardly justifies the effort.
The first movement incidentally is marked allegro in 2/2 time. This means that the minims are to be played allegro and there should distinctly be only two beats to a bar. This points to a timing of around 14.45 with the repeat. Slowing it beyond this is bound to be ponderous.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on July 08, 2008, 04:29:00 AM15 minutes is hardly racing through this movement. 19 minutes is merely someone's opinion and that opinion is hardly worth more than Peters. Did Beethoven give a metronome marking. If not there is no Urtext evidence available.
I'm curious: which major pianists play the slow movement in 15 minutes? I can't remember any without looking at timings of all of the recordings I own. Some come in at 16 or 17 minutes, but most hover between 18 and 22 minutes. If extended times were so amusical or incorrect, why have so many pianists over the last, what, six or seven decades of recordings of this piece opted for slow timings? Surely at least a few of them knew (and know) what they are doing, or do you actually claim to be more of an expert than Gilels, Pollini, Sherman, Nat, Backhaus, Kempff, Fischer, et al? If you are, I'd really like to hear a recording of you in this piece. Can you help out here?
Quote from: Ten thumbs on July 08, 2008, 04:29:00 AM
The first movement incidentally is marked allegro in 2/2 time. This means that the minims are to be played allegro and there should distinctly be only two beats to a bar. This points to a timing of around 14.45 with the repeat. Slowing it beyond this is bound to be ponderous.
I have seen the first movement as marked, in 2/2 time, half note = 138. Is that Beethoven's own marking or someone put it there ? Incidentally if you play the Adagio at 15 minutes or so you better be ready to play the first movement at some vicinity of 138 just for sufficient contrast.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on July 08, 2008, 05:41:09 AM
I have seen the first movement as marked, in 2/2 time, half note = 138. Is that Beethoven's own marking or someone put it there ?
It is Beethoven's own -- and op. 106 is the only case where he left mm for his pianoforte sonatas. I use the reference of Sandra Rosenblum's article on metronome marks in LvB sonatas in
Early Music. Vol.16 No. 1 (1988). On pages 68-69, there is a table showing the mm's for all Beethoven's sonatas in early editions.
Allegro minim (half note)=138
Scherzo Assai vivace minim=80
Presto minim=152 (only found in Czerny's Piano-Schule 1846)
Adagio sostenuto quaver (eighth note)=92
Largo quaver=76 (only found in Haslinger's edition 1842)
Allegro risoluto crotchet (quarter note)=144
Gulda recorded this sonata pretty close to the metronome markings in his Amadeo/Brilliant set. What is his timing for the slow movement?
Quote from: George on July 08, 2008, 06:42:39 AM
Gulda recorded this sonata pretty close to the metronome markings in his Amadeo/Brilliant set. What is his timing for the slow movement?
13:44
Quote from: traverso on July 08, 2008, 06:52:36 AM
13:44
Thank you. 187 bars times 6 quavers at 92 comes out at 12:12 but allowing for pauses and one ritardando, why not?
15 minutes is very much Adagio sostenuto and as I want a recording for repeated listening I would prefer one somewhere close. Incredibly slow performances may work as circus acts and I wouldn't object to it if heard once in recital. This is not the only instance of bad habits developing in musical circles. Perhaps I am too addicted to the con grand'espressione where others are addicted to the pedal.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on July 08, 2008, 04:29:00 AM
This points to a timing of around 14.45 with the repeat. Slowing it beyond this is bound to be ponderous.
So by that logic, the tempo you want would be ponderous at 15:00. :-\
I don't see why Gulda's wouldn't be good for repeated listenings. His interpretation is second only to Pollini IMO.
Quote from: Todd on July 08, 2008, 05:23:49 AM
If you are, I'd really like to hear a recording of you in this piece. Can you help out here?
Did you notice his username Todd?
QuoteIncredibly slow performances may work as circus acts and I wouldn't object to it if heard once in recital.
Don't you think that this comment of yours is a little pretentious? Let's keep in mind that you are commenting on pianists who have given a lifetime of study to this work, and I'm sure they're more than capable of handling your basic calculations above. As you play yourself and appear to disagree with most pianists, wouldn't it be better to sit down and go at it instead of looking around outside?
Quote from: ezodisy on July 08, 2008, 10:26:43 AM
Did you notice his username Todd?
What? Ten Thumbs? What is the significance of that?
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on July 08, 2008, 05:41:09 AM
I have seen the first movement as marked, in 2/2 time, half note = 138. Is that Beethoven's own marking or someone put it there ? Incidentally if you play the Adagio at 15 minutes or so you better be ready to play the first movement at some vicinity of 138 just for sufficient contrast.
Yes, I sometimes feel I have ten thumbs and can't achieve anything like minim = 138. Nevertheless, my timing is 14.45 with the repeat as I said, which may be around minim = 96. However, the beat for the Adagio at my 15 min pace is approx quaver = 75 or a beat of 25 to the minute ( the Adagio is in 6/8, two beats to a bar). I find 25:96 more than enough contrast but yes it could be improved if only I have more skill.
Quote from: ezodisy on July 08, 2008, 10:26:43 AM
Don't you think that this comment of yours is a little pretentious? Let's keep in mind that you are commenting on pianists who have given a lifetime of study to this work, and I'm sure they're more than capable of handling your basic calculations above. As you play yourself and appear to disagree with most pianists, wouldn't it be better to sit down and go at it instead of looking around outside?
.
No, because I'm looking for a recording that I would like. If only I could have Beethoven himself who seems to prefer under 14 minutes (allowing for the error in his metronome). There seems to be a fallacy that music is somehow improved if is slowed down. Some classical movements seem to have arrived at half tempo and I don't think this is good practice, no matter how many eminent pianists copy it. Doing so does the composer no favours. Do modern pianist really know better? I think it is just a fad.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on July 08, 2008, 11:45:16 AMDo modern pianist really know better? I think it is just a fad.
A fad that has lasted over 70 years? That doesn't qualify as a fad. Even Schnabel clocks in at over 17' if I remember properly, and he's generally well respected in matters concerning Beethoven. Well, for most people I suppose.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on July 08, 2008, 10:33:33 AM
What? Ten Thumbs? What is the significance of that?
not the most fashionable of jokes apparently
http://www.goenglish.com/AllThumbs.asp
Kempff clocks Adagio at around 15 minutes in his mono recording.
Michael Korstick (Ars Musici 2003) uses 28:42 for the Adagio sostenuto. :o :o :o
Quote from: premont on July 08, 2008, 01:37:41 PM
Michael Korstick (Ars Musici 2003) uses 28:42 for the Adagio sostenuto. :o :o :o
Is it any good?
Quote from: Ten thumbs on July 08, 2008, 11:45:16 AM
If only I could have Beethoven himself who seems to prefer under 14 minutes (allowing for the error in his metronome).
It's unlikely that Beethoven's metronome marks are in error here, as Czerny, who claimed to have learned the sonatas from Beethoven himself, and other early editors (e.g. Haslinger) apparently saw no need to change or suppress them.
In attempting to pinpoint a single favorite recording of this piece, one runs into difficulty. The four movements simply require totally different feels and styles. Unsurprisingly, I have different favorites for different movements.
For the first movement, Gulda undoubtedly wins -- he plays at tempo and cleanly. Arrau and Gilels play beautifully here, but too slowly! Gieseking plays up to speed, but too sloppy! Pollini of course plays very cleanly, and though his tempo is slightly slower than Gulda's, he plays with so much vigor (and even violence at times) that he's definitely my second choice for this movement.
Second movement is not easy to play, but is the easiest to pull off of the four movements. I'm not as picky here, and many pianists have much to offer. Kempff, Gilels, Arrau, Gulda, Pollini, Solomon, Richter... all worth hearing, but I'll take Pollini.
Third movement -- Solomon!
Finale -- Pollini, Gulda, Richter
Overall, my favorite has to be Gulda or Pollini. If I must pick one, I'll go with Gulda because his total command over the first movement is one of the most astounding pianistic/musical accomplishments that I know.
Quote from: aquariuswb on July 08, 2008, 08:24:58 PM
In attempting to pinpoint a single favorite recording of this piece, one runs into difficulty. The four movements simply require totally different feels and styles. Unsurprisingly, I have different favorites for different movements.
This strikes me as utterly absurd. The four movements of a sonata are an integrated whole and require a consistent style and feel. It seems that all you have accomplished here is to delude yourself into thinking that you can't be satisfied to enjoy a performance of this piece by one of the world's great pianists. Maybe next you will decide that different phrases require different styles, and that a different pianist should be chosen to perform each phrase!
Quote from: traverso on July 08, 2008, 04:36:22 PM
It's unlikely that Beethoven's metronome marks are in error here, as Czerny, who claimed to have learned the sonatas from Beethoven himself, and other early editors (e.g. Haslinger) apparently saw no need to change or suppress them.
I trust Beethoven's marks completely. It is his metronome instrument that I understand was a little inaccurate. However, I can hardly believe that this was by more than, say, 10%. Therefore his timing for the Adagio is clearly under 14 minutes. As we now have reached 28 minutes, above, you can see what I mean when I say that some tempos have been halved. If this has been going on for 70 years, I don't see that is anything to be proud of. However, to be fair, there do seem to be listeners who like to wallow in this movement. For myself, I have always been something of a purist. 15 minutes is how I feel it and I may have to settle for the Pollini version, but I'd like to hear it first.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on July 09, 2008, 03:59:09 AM
I trust Beethoven's marks completely. It is his metronome instrument that I understand was a little inaccurate. However, I can hardly believe that this was by more than, say, 10%. Therefore his timing for the Adagio is clearly under 14 minutes. As we now have reached 28 minutes, above, you can see what I mean when I say that some tempos have been halved. If this has been going on for 70 years, I don't see that is anything to be proud of. However, to be fair, there do seem to be listeners who like to wallow in this movement. For myself, I have always been something of a purist. 15 minutes is how I feel it and I may have to settle for the Pollini version, but I'd like to hear it first.
In the last analysis, Beethoven's metronome marks for his music deserve some respect. But starting some point in nineteenth-century, they have been slowly forgotten, ignored, or in some recent editions, even compromised. By paying close attention to the composer's instructions, one may hope to bring the music closer to its original time scale, proportion and sense of movement within each of the sections.
Quote from: Holden on July 01, 2008, 02:59:29 AM
Surely this is one of the hardest LvB works to play and also one of the most profound (along with Op 111). There are a few recordings of this work that are considered as great and I have three that I think are better than anyone elses. I'm listening now to a performance that is completely new to me that has made me seriously reevaluate the other two that I really rate highly. So once again, please give your top choice but this time feel free to add others that you rate along with it.
Serkin's recording playing an original Graf piano from the 1820s will be something of a revelation to many.
Quote from: scarpia on July 08, 2008, 10:00:59 PMThis strikes me as utterly absurd. The four movements of a sonata are an integrated whole and require a consistent style and feel. It seems that all you have accomplished here is to delude yourself into thinking that you can't be satisfied to enjoy a performance of this piece by one of the world's great pianists. Maybe next you will decide that different phrases require different styles, and that a different pianist should be chosen to perform each phrase!
I remember reading that a particular concert had a different pianist playing each of the variations in the Goldbergs. I'd pay to see that one. As far as the issue raised in the quote, I agree with the thoughts.
Quote from: Don on July 09, 2008, 02:03:45 PM
I remember reading that a particular concert had a different pianist playing each of the variations in the Goldbergs. I'd pay to see that one. As far as the issue raised in the quote, I agree with the thoughts.
Which quote are you agreeing with?
Quote from: Ten thumbs on July 09, 2008, 03:59:09 AM
I trust Beethoven's marks completely. It is his metronome instrument that I understand was a little inaccurate. However, I can hardly believe that this was by more than, say, 10%. Therefore his timing for the Adagio is clearly under 14 minutes. As we now have reached 28 minutes, above, you can see what I mean when I say that some tempos have been halved. If this has been going on for 70 years, I don't see that is anything to be proud of. However, to be fair, there do seem to be listeners who like to wallow in this movement. For myself, I have always been something of a purist. 15 minutes is how I feel it and I may have to settle for the Pollini version, but I'd like to hear it first.
But the Pollini adagio comes in at 17:13. You can sample it here (http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Die-Sp%C3%A4ten-Klaviersonaten/dp/B000001GXB/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1215642577&sr=1-1)
I've looked hard and can't find an Op 106 with an adagio of less than 17 minutes. Has anyone else found one?
Quote from: Holden on July 09, 2008, 02:43:20 PM
But the Pollini adagio comes in at 17:13. You can sample it here (http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Die-Sp%C3%A4ten-Klaviersonaten/dp/B000001GXB/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1215642577&sr=1-1)
I've looked hard and can't find an Op 106 with an adagio of less than 17 minutes. Has anyone else found one?
Gulda. We posted him earlier. He's 13:42.
Quote from: Don on July 09, 2008, 02:03:45 PM
I remember reading that a particular concert had a different pianist playing each of the variations in the Goldbergs. I'd pay to see that one.
And I read about a concert in which Schumann's Carnaval was played that way. I think 2 or 3 movements of that concert can be found on youtube.
Quote from: Holden on July 09, 2008, 02:43:20 PMI've looked hard and can't find an Op 106 with an adagio of less than 17 minutes. Has anyone else found one?
There are a good number of recordings coming in under 17'. I went back through all of my versions I currently hve (I've ditched some), and came up with the following timings:
Under 15'Gulda - 1967: 13.44
O'Conor - 1992: 14.44
Gieseking - 1949: 14.53
Under 17'Kempff - 1951: 15.21
Gulda - 1951: 15.44
Nat - 1954: 16.13
Serkin - '70s: 16.16
Kovacevich - '90s/'00s: 16.23
Kempff - 1964: 16.27
Backhaus - 1952: 16.32
Sheppard - 2004: 16.33
El Bacha - 1993: 16.35
Wehr - 2002: 16.35
Lipkin - '90s: 16.42
Pommier - '90s: 16.45
Brendel - '60s: 16.47
Badura-Skoda - 1970: 16.55
Considering I have over 50 versions, it seems most pianists favor longer timings. At least most recorded pianists.
Quote from: George on July 09, 2008, 03:04:17 PM
Gulda. We posted him earlier. He's 13:42.
Holden, on a hunch, goes to his CD collection, finds Gulda and sheepishly realises that he has this recording of the 'Hammerklavier' and yes the adagio is 13:43. Listening now! Someone sent me this (along with 17 and the Waldstein) as an example of Gulda's way with Op 53. I have probably only heard the Op 106 only once before.
This may be the version that is best for Ten Thumbs.
Quote from: Holden on July 09, 2008, 09:36:17 PM
Holden, on a hunch, goes to his CD collection, finds Gulda and sheepishly realises that he has this recording of the 'Hammerklavier' and yes the adagio is 13:43. Listening now! Someone sent me this (along with 17 and the Waldstein) as an example of Gulda's way with Op 53. I have probably only heard the Op 106 only once before.
This may be the version that is best for Ten Thumbs.
Thank you. I will look out for it. I believe the extended times are due to peer pressure more than anything else. I can't believe its because these pianists want to put fewer works in their programmes. If they had done the sums they would know that Beethoven didn't want it like that.
Quote from: Holden on July 09, 2008, 02:43:20 PM
But the Pollini adagio comes in at 17:13. You can sample it here (http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Die-Sp%C3%A4ten-Klaviersonaten/dp/B000001GXB/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1215642577&sr=1-1)
I've looked hard and can't find an Op 106 with an adagio of less than 17 minutes. Has anyone else found one?
Thanks again but gosh! I'm surprised at how slow it sounds! I think the first movement great though.
Quote from: Don on July 09, 2008, 02:03:45 PM
I remember reading that a particular concert had a different pianist playing each of the variations in the Goldbergs. I'd pay to see that one.
How did they work that out? Every 2-3 minutes someone slid off the bench and another person slid on?
Quote from: Sforzando on July 10, 2008, 04:06:15 AM
How did they work that out? Every 2-3 minutes someone slid off the bench and another person slid on?
Two pianos would solve that.
Quote from: George on July 02, 2008, 02:50:12 AM
Absolutely, he's my #2 pick for this sonata. One of the few who (pretty much) plays it at the specified tempo as well.
Consider, though - and this is addressed to the Beethoven Metronome Marking crowd as well - that Gulda takes 2:10 (130 seconds) to get through the 124 bars of exposition 1 in the opening Allegro. That obviously means his average speed is just under half note = 120. Would you want it any faster, really?
I have no patience with the Let's Drag This Out to Eternity to Show How Profound We Are crowd, and I certainly agree that B's metronome points must be respected. But regardless of the accuracy or not of his metronome, hearing music in one's own mind is inevitably faster than having to produce it in sound on an instrument. (Try it sometime: take any piece and come up with a metronome marking based on what it sounds like in your head. Then set your metronome to that speed and play the piece. Don't be surprised if your metronome mark feels too fast.)
The problem with the metronome marks is that they can't be considered in isolation from the performer's ability to articulate, his natural musical temperament, the characteristics of his instrument, and the acoustics of the room in which he is playing. And a very well-articulated performance such as Gulda's, on what sounds to me like a rather bright, shallow instrument in a not very reverberant environment, may in fact
sound faster than a sloppier performance at the same speed.
Quote from: scarpia on July 08, 2008, 10:00:59 PM
This strikes me as utterly absurd. The four movements of a sonata are an integrated whole and require a consistent style and feel. It seems that all you have accomplished here is to delude yourself into thinking that you can't be satisfied to enjoy a performance of this piece by one of the world's great pianists. Maybe next you will decide that different phrases require different styles, and that a different pianist should be chosen to perform each phrase!
The only "deluded" one here is you -- when did I ever say that I "can't be satisfied to enjoy a performance of this piece by one of the world's great pianists"? I didn't even imply it. And I certainly never suggested that a different pianist "should be chosen to perform" each movement. What does that even mean?
Of the four movements in Op. 106, three are gargantuan in totally different ways. How can you possibly tell me that the fugal requirements of the final movement necessitate a "consistent style and feel" with the epic Adagio that precedes it? Or that either of those requires the same pianistic or musical approach as the gigantic 1st-movement sonata-allegro, with its leaps and bounds? Sure, there are contrapuntal instances in the first movement that vaguely foreshadow the finale, but the two beasts are of different natures altogether. Anyone who's played through this piece or studied even the basic structure of it -- which I am guessing you have not, judging by your totally inane and childish response -- can tell you this.
To have favorites in particular movements in no way precludes one's ability to enjoy any number of excellent interpretations of the whole work. That you would suggest otherwise in a provocative and condescending tone is not only laughable, but (let me dumb it down for you) outright stupid.
Quote from: aquariuswb on July 10, 2008, 07:32:08 AM
The only "deluded" one here is you -- when did I ever say that I "can't be satisfied to enjoy a performance of this piece by one of the world's great pianists"? I didn't even imply it. And I certainly never suggested that a different pianist "should be chosen to perform" each movement. What does that even mean?
Of the four movements in Op. 106, three are gargantuan in totally different ways. How can you possibly tell me that the fugal requirements of the final movement necessitate a "consistent style and feel" with the epic Adagio that precedes it? Or that either of those requires the same pianistic or musical approach as the gigantic 1st-movement sonata-allegro, with its leaps and bounds? Sure, there are contrapuntal instances in the first movement that vaguely foreshadow the finale, but the two beasts are of different natures altogether. Anyone who's played through this piece or studied even the basic structure of it -- which I am guessing you have not, judging by your totally inane and childish response -- can tell you this.
To have favorites in particular movements in no way precludes one's ability to enjoy any number of excellent interpretations of the whole work. That you would suggest otherwise in a provocative and condescending tone is not only laughable, but (let me dumb it down for you) outright stupid.
My, a bit peckish, aren't we. I am certainly aware that the four movements of a sonata sound different, but a sonata is not a collection of separate pieces. How the performer handles the contrasts between the different movements is a significant part of the interpretation.
Quote from: scarpia on July 10, 2008, 07:47:11 AM
My, a bit peckish, aren't we. I am certainly aware that the four movements of a sonata sound different, but a sonata is not a collection of separate pieces. How the performer handles the contrasts between the different movements is a significant part of the interpretation.
And when did I ever write otherwise? In fact, it is you who has written otherwise:
"The four movements of a sonata are an integrated whole
and require a consistent style and feel"
is a far cry from
"How the performer handles the contrasts between the different movements is a significant part of the interpretation."
And for the record, it is not at all becoming to attack the words you've put in another's mouth.
Quote from: aquariuswb on July 10, 2008, 08:03:48 AM
And when did I ever write otherwise? In fact, it is you who has written otherwise:
"The four movements of a sonata are an integrated whole and require a consistent style and feel"
is a far cry from
"How the performer handles the contrasts between the different movements is a significant part of the interpretation."
And for the record, it is not at all becoming to attack the words you've put in another's mouth.
I see no contradiction in the two statements. You seem to be confusing the word "consistent" with the word "identical."
Quote from: scarpia on July 10, 2008, 09:04:30 AM
I see no contradiction in the two statements. You seem to be confusing the word "consistent" with the word "identical."
Fair enough, though I'm not convinced that "style and feel" (the words I initially used to describe the differential nature of the Hammerklavier's movements -- you need look no further than the score) require consistency between movements. I would certainly agree that an interpretation of the sonata should reflect a structural understanding of the work as a whole, and that such a conception typically would cohere in various ways; but I did not imply otherwise when stating the obvious: the movements of Op. 106 are vastly different creatures, particularly when one considers the monumentality of three of them.
What is "delusional" or "absurd" about preferring certain performances of individual movements over others? How do such preferences necessitate an inability to enjoy complete performances of the piece?
Quote from: Sforzando on July 10, 2008, 05:27:18 AM
Consider, though - and this is addressed to the Beethoven Metronome Marking crowd as well - that Gulda takes 2:10 (130 seconds) to get through the 124 bars of exposition 1 in the opening Allegro. That obviously means his average speed is just under half note = 120. Would you want it any faster, really?
I have no patience with the Let's Drag This Out to Eternity to Show How Profound We Are crowd, and I certainly agree that B's metronome points must be respected. But regardless of the accuracy or not of his metronome, hearing music in one's own mind is inevitably faster than having to produce it in sound on an instrument. (Try it sometime: take any piece and come up with a metronome marking based on what it sounds like in your head. Then set your metronome to that speed and play the piece. Don't be surprised if your metronome mark feels too fast.)
The problem with the metronome marks is that they can't be considered in isolation from the performer's ability to articulate, his natural musical temperament, the characteristics of his instrument, and the acoustics of the room in which he is playing. And a very well-articulated performance such as Gulda's, on what sounds to me like a rather bright, shallow instrument in a not very reverberant environment, may in fact sound faster than a sloppier performance at the same speed.
I certainly agree here.
The instrument has a bearing.
Reading through in one's mind is faster.
When an amateur like myself plays, I can be slower but imagine a faster tempo.
I also wonder whether one's heart rate has a bearing. Mine is normally at 68.
It is noticeable in Mozart that a light touch sounds faster than a heavy one.
Well I've heard the first and last movements played at B's metronome pace and they sounded most satisfactory, more so on the pianos of the day. I'd like to hear the adagio performed this way for once. Does anyone know of anyone who has tried this on record?
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 11, 2008, 02:25:23 AM
Well I've hear the first and last movements played at B's metronome pace and they sounded most satisfactory, more so on the pianos of the day. I'd like to hear the adagio performed this way for once. Does anyone know of anyone who has tried this on record?
This is the only sonata where Beethoven put in his own metronome marks and this in itself is significant but much more significant is the research done by Peter Stadlen on how well Beethoven actually understood the mathematics of the metronome. I've reprinted it here and it may make the 'purists' have a bit of a rethink
Despite this, Beethoven's metronome markings have not been generally accepted. In part this can be ascribed to his alleged comment to Schindler: 'No more metronome! Anyone who can feel the music right does not need it; and for anyone who can't, nothing is of any use; he runs away with the whole orchestra anyway.' (Schindler, 1966, ppg. 425-6). This remark should not be taken too seriously, since it may have been another of Schindler's inventions. The main objection is that the markings are generally believed to be too fast. But Beethoven is not alone in this; indeed, according to Willy Hess, music proceeds much quicker in the imagination than in reality, and the composer sitting at his desk is likely to ascribe quicker metronome markings to his music than he would adopt in performance (Hess, 1988, pg. 17). This same point was acknowledged by Peter Stadlen when he investigated seemingly problematic metronome markings (1982, pg. 54). The vast majority were on the fast side, but after he had taken numerous factors into account he concluded that most were 'within the realm of plausibility'. They become still more acceptable when tempered with flexibility. Newman defined this as follows: 'Like tempo itself, flexibility reflects the prevailing rhythmic character, though at a more local level. And, it similarly responds to changes in the harmonic rhythm, texture, articulation, ornamentation, and rhythmic progress.' (Newman, 1988, pg. 110). There is plenty of evidence both in Beethoven's music and from contemporary reports to suggest that Beethoven favored an underlying strict tempo into which a certain amount of flexibility could be introduced. These points must call into question the literalism which has been applied to some modern 'authentic' performances.(2)
Much detailed work has been done on this complex, and in the last resort unrewarding subject, most notably and recently by Peter Stadlen, the first part of whose findings are embodied in an article 'Beethoven and the Metronome' published in Music and Letters (October 1967, vol. 48, no. 4). The whole position with regard to Beethoven's metronome markings has been bedeviled by the composer himself, the shortcomings of whose mathematics made it hard for him in the first place to express his wishes with regard to tempo in the mechanical-numerical formulae devised by Maelzel. As Stadlen shows, at the session on 27 September, 1826, when uncle and nephew were trying to establish correct metronome markings in the presentation copy of the Ninth Symphony for the King of Prussia, there was considerable confusion over the units in question. Such passages, in Karl's handwriting, as 'twice 80 would make', and then '80=0', later corrected to '(halfnote) = 80; or 132' is the same tempo. Only in half notes (in two beats) which would be better' reveals a state of affairs which has been perpetuated with almost incredible wantonness by copyists and printers. In the Eulenburg scores alone, for example, Stadlen has no difficulty in finding two crass instances from op.74 (half note=100) instead of (whole note=100) for the 'Piu presto quasi prestissimo' and (quarternote=72) instead of (eightnote=72) for the Adagio and the story of stems cavalierly added to semibreves, blocked-in minims, tails added to crotchets and dots sprinkled apparently ad libitum continues almost to our own day. Beethoven himself seems to have passed, in good health, the markings (halfnote=144 instead of quarternote=144) in the proofs of the finale of op. 106, and Schindler's 'so I am to mark the second movement of the A major symphony halfnote=80' (instead of quarternote=80) in a conversation book of 1823 passes unremarked, not only by Beethoven himself but even by the twentieth-century editor of the notebooks (cf. George Schunemann, Beethoven's Konversationshefte, iii, p12) (3)
A further source of error originating in the composer himself is suggested by another of Karl's entries in the conversation book of 27 September, 1826. 'You are taking it faster than 126. 132. 'This is how we had it this morning.' Like any other composer and perhaps more than most others, Beethoven plainly felt the 'right' tempo for his music slightly differently at different times. In his case particularly we cannot ignore the part played by the physical-psychological element in his determination of tempi. A man of his temperament and in his physical condition might very well feel in a mood of physical exhaustion and depression that the tempi which he had decided upon in good health and high spirits were too fast, and vice versa. Schindler's acid comment on the conversation-book concerned - 'this proves the unreliability of Beethoven's own metronome markings' - is not wholly unjustified; but it does not absolve us from trying to determine, first the markings that Beethoven himself intended, and second the correct interpretation of those markings.
"indeed, according to Willy Hess, music proceeds much quicker in the imagination than in reality, and the composer sitting at his desk is likely to ascribe quicker metronome markings to his music than he would adopt in performance"
Exactly my point above.
Would you, btw, mind editing your post to put it in normal font? The italics are rather hard to read on screen. Thanks.
Quote from: Sforzando on July 11, 2008, 03:24:56 AM
"indeed, according to Willy Hess, music proceeds much quicker in the imagination than in reality, and the composer sitting at his desk is likely to ascribe quicker metronome markings to his music than he would adopt in performance"
Exactly my point above.
This is flatly contradicted by the performances I've heard whereby they have been observed. How much quicker is Hess thinking of here?? Perhaps his thinking is much quicker than the reality of Beethoven's thinking??
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 11, 2008, 06:29:22 AM
This is flatly contradicted by the performances I've heard whereby they have been observed. How much quicker is Hess thinking of here?? Perhaps his thinking is much quicker than the reality of Beethoven's thinking??
Which performances have observed B's metronome marks? And may I ask how you determined this? did your bring your metronome and start it ticking during the performance, or did you just use your watch? And if a performance is within 10-15% of the metronome mark, does it really make all that much difference?
NB - we have George above claiming that Gulda observes B's metronome settings for the first movement, and yet he actually plays at minim -120, not 138.
Quote from: Sforzando on July 11, 2008, 07:06:49 AM
Which performances have observed B's metronome marks? And may I ask how you determined this? did your bring your metronome and start it ticking during the performance, or did you just use your watch? And if a performance is within 10-15% of the metronome mark, does it really make all that much difference?
NB - we have George above claiming that Gulda observes B's metronome settings for the first movement, and yet he actually plays at minim -120, not 138.
I have a metronome!! The first movement by Schnabel is
way faster than anything I have ever heard, even by the HIP guys. The finale by Serkin using a Graf piano from 1820s, much faster than usual also.
This is all I have to say on the matter really, either you believe Beethoven knew what he was doing and take the figures seriously, or you believe you know better and ignore them. Life is really that simple. ;D
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 11, 2008, 07:19:23 AM
I have a metronome!!
My congratulations.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 11, 2008, 07:19:23 AM
The first movement by Schnabel is way faster than anything I have ever heard, even by the HIP guys.
And notoriously sloppy.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 11, 2008, 07:19:23 AM
This is all I have to say on the matter really.
Somehow I doubt that.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 11, 2008, 07:19:23 AM
Life is really that simple. ;D
To the simple in mind, all is simple.
I agree Schnabel isn't note-perfect but there is a sense of adventure that you have to respect. It's almost like he was saying: if I make a mistake so what?
Personally I really like Claude Frank, he takes the movement at a tad over 120 and is probably as technically sound as you are going to get.
Quote from: aquariuswb on July 10, 2008, 10:39:35 AM
Fair enough, though I'm not convinced that "style and feel" (the words I initially used to describe the differential nature of the Hammerklavier's movements -- you need look no further than the score) require consistency between movements. I would certainly agree that an interpretation of the sonata should reflect a structural understanding of the work as a whole, and that such a conception typically would cohere in various ways; but I did not imply otherwise when stating the obvious: the movements of Op. 106 are vastly different creatures, particularly when one considers the monumentality of three of them.
What is "delusional" or "absurd" about preferring certain performances of individual movements over others? How do such preferences necessitate an inability to enjoy complete performances of the piece?
One might also prefer one performance of a section of a movement over another, in which case, for the Adagio sostenuto, we could have performer A for the first subject and performer B for the contrasting second, perhaps call in C to play the short development section, then bring back A and B for the recapitulation and finally have all three jumping on and off the buffet for the various episodes of the coda. This would certainly bring out the structure but the effect would be a complete hotch-potch! Anyway, would they ever agree on a tempo?
Quote from: Ten thumbs on July 11, 2008, 11:33:20 AM
One might also prefer one performance of a section of a movement over another, in which case, for the Adagio sostenuto, we could have performer A for the first subject and performer B for the contrasting second, perhaps call in C to play the short development section, then bring back A and B for the recapitulation and finally have all three jumping on and off the buffet for the various episodes of the coda. This would certainly bring out the structure but the effect would be a complete hotch-potch! Anyway, would they ever agree on a tempo?
:D Great mental image!
I'm sure I don't have to point out the leap in logic from having favorite performances of individual movements to advocating that the work be played by different pianists at different points in some impossible Platonic ideal interpretation (which, as you suggest, would not be ideal after all).
Furthermore, though a work like a symphony or sonata is a whole constructed of parts, it is no sin to listen to an individual movement and appreciate it on its own terms. The degree to which certain parts (not necessarily movements -- take "Ode to Joy" for example) of the whole can exist independently will vary from piece to piece, and the degree to which certain parts of the whole can be
appreciated independently will vary from piece to piece; both will also vary from listener to listener.
What if a listener enjoys one movement of a piece and not the others? In such a case, wouldn't the listener better appreciate the music by listening only to the preferred movement?
A fuller understanding (and often but not always appreciation) typically requires an acquaintance with the entire work and the parts' places therein.
Op. 106 is a tremendous piece, of which there have been made a number of enjoyable recordings. I own quite a few, and listen sometimes to the whole work and sometimes to parts of it -- and I'm willing to bet that most of you out there in GMG Land do not always listen to works in their entireties! :o If we can listen to and appreciate individual movements without sacrificing our enjoyment and appreciation of the whole, surely we can favor certain performers' handling of individual sections without sacrificing the ability to enjoy complete interpretations (or promoting a multi-pianist-tag-team-tour-de-force hodge-podge performance, as amusing as that might be!).
Quote from: aquariuswb on July 11, 2008, 06:58:51 PM
:D Great mental image!
What if a listener enjoys one movement of a piece and not the others? In such a case, wouldn't the listener better appreciate the music by listening only to the preferred movement?
A fuller understanding (and often but not always appreciation) typically requires an acquaintance with the entire work and the parts' places therein.
Op. 106 is a tremendous piece, of which there have been made a number of enjoyable recordings. I own quite a few, and listen sometimes to the whole work and sometimes to parts of it -- and I'm willing to bet that most of you out there in GMG Land do not always listen to works in their entireties! :o If we can listen to and appreciate individual movements without sacrificing our enjoyment and appreciation of the whole, surely we can favor certain performers' handling of individual sections without sacrificing the ability to enjoy complete interpretations (or promoting a multi-pianist-tag-team-tour-de-force hodge-podge performance, as amusing as that might be!).
I certainly agree here. I often play individual movements. However, it is best to know the whole work so that one knows how the movement fits into the whole. This is particularly the case with finales, which are often a culmination of what has gone before. The previous movements add significance to the music and that should not be lost. I think that applies here in Op106. The finale seems a very strange beast if played on its own.
OK, I'm bringing this topic back up, not because I've listened to all of my versions of the Hammerklavier yet, but because I finally located and listened to one that I have to call very special:
Sokolov--marked "live Munich 1975" though there is no applause at its end. My copy was privately made and sent to me by a friend, so I don't know the label or where you can obtain it, but it is surely worth hunting down.
Sokolov is beautifully alert and "present" in every moment. He shapes phrases in a remarkably astute way, his power is evident but segues to more delicate passages are artfully done, his speeds are beautifully chosen, and his presentation is fresh enough to perk my ears up and keep my attention pretty much all the way through. I'm relistening as I type this. The slow movement may be too slow for Ten Thumbs, but to my ears Sokolov is very convincing, with the early melancholy being conveyed in an achingly beautiful way, then transforming into a more profound statement...and the almost seamless way he then moves on to the sweetness of the next movement! Wow. I'm impressed. And after all this, we then get a final movement that brings back the power, along with beautifully articulated interplay between hands. If I were to pick any nits, I might wish for slightly more dramatic speed coming into the finale, but Sokolov's presentation seems perfectly logical for his overall shaping of the huge piece.
Whew!
I am now inspired to gather all my vinyl and CD copies together and have a serious play-off. Yeah, I know I've threatened this before, but after this emotionally engaging experience, I now want to re-listen and discover anew how other fine pianists treat the range of challenges offered by this amazing piece of music.
Cheers,
Dirk
Dirk - I have this as well and it has become my favourite Hammerklavier recording. I'm assuming that this was the only version he recorded. His discography seem to suggest so. I couldn't express your description of the playing any better than you have and after listening to Solomon in the Adagio, surely Sokolov is just as convincing.
This is listed in Sokolov's discography as Mobile Fidelity MFCD 922 which appears to be the only CD incarnation. Some may be able to that. I suspect that I got my copy from the same friend.
What is "delusional" or "absurd" about preferring certain performances of individual movements over others? How do such preferences necessitate an inability to enjoy complete performances of the piece?
Right on. Why do many people buys cartloads of records or cds by this artist, this orchestra, whatever, for the same piece of music. Because they like to hear different interpretations. Put them altogether and you just might come up with your favorite.
Some people here were praising Sokolov. I just listened to a 1993 recording of him playing Opus 106. The first movement was almost twelve minutes long. Schnabel's was 8:45. Sokolov's Adagio was 19 minutes long. Gulda's complete Opus 106 came in at 37 minutes, Schnabel at 40' 45" and the Sokolov at 52 minutes. The Adagio was so agonizingly long that I lost track of the notes and thought I had missed something along the way. Didn't dig it at all.
http://www.youtube.com/v/JM11DUppl1A
(http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/3412/baduraskodavol8.jpg)
How the player struggles with his instrument...beautifully in this case. :)
For comparison with Badura-Skoda's interpretation above - small difference in timings.
http://www.youtube.com/v/Eu5biyTCWNw
[asin]B002FAHFXI[/asin]
I like Nikolai Demidenko's on the AGPL label. It's very muscular in the outer movements, beautifully poetic in the slow movement.
Peter Serkin has it sound faster in the final fugue but the actual timing is close.
http://www.youtube.com/v/g4KKeCihIe0
[asin]B000U1ZJPU[/asin]
Quote from: Toccata&Fugue on March 02, 2011, 08:31:45 PM
I like Nikolai Demidenko's on the AGPL label. It's very muscular in the outer movements, beautifully poetic in the slow movement.
I'm tempted to buy that -- how is the 10/2? I'm actually rather more interested in the Op 10s than the later sonatas at the moment.
;D
Quote from: Mandryka on March 03, 2011, 07:12:10 AM
I'm tempted to buy that -- how is the 10/2? I'm actually rather more interested in the Op 10s than the later sonatas at the moment.
I'm not a big fan of the earlier pieces, so I listened only once. I didn't hear anything amiss! ;)
Has anyone heard Lazar Berman play this piece? Does a recording (pirate or commercial) exist?
If you go to the website link below and scroll down you will access a performance of this Sonata by a pianist who, as far as I can tell, has not been mentioned yet. This is a performance restored from 78s. By way of an "innocent ear" experience his name is not revealed. I am interested in the responses of those who know this work a great deal more than I do and I choose therefore not to air my modest opinions yet. There is certainly a dichotomy between those who see piano scores in general as a "template" for an individual pianists personality and those who expect the pianist to subdue his personality to the demands of the text, a conduit to the composer rather than a re-interpretation. Perhaps the best performances lie in between these facets of inspiration and technique. Did LvB take liberties with his own compositions? Maybe he did but did he approve of others doing so??
http://www.cliveheathmusic.co.uk/transcriptions_07.php
Quote from: early grey on April 28, 2011, 04:55:17 AM
If you go to the website link below and scroll down you will access a performance of this Sonata by a pianist who, as far as I can tell, has not been mentioned yet. This is a performance restored from 78s. By way of an "innocent ear" experience his name is not revealed. I am interested in the responses of those who know this work a great deal more than I do and I choose therefore not to air my modest opinions yet. There is certainly a dichotomy between those who see piano scores in general as a "template" for an individual pianists personality and those who expect the pianist to subdue his personality to the demands of the text, a conduit to the composer rather than a re-interpretation. Perhaps the best performances lie in between these facets of inspiration and technique. Did LvB take liberties with his own compositions? Maybe he did but did he approve of others doing so??
http://www.cliveheathmusic.co.uk/transcriptions_07.php
So who is it? He/she certainly takes many liberties with the tempo yet it is not annoying to listen to and the Adagio is really excellent. You don't realise how slowly it's being played because the pianist changes tempo between sections and it works by giving it a differnt rhythmic sense compared to what we are used to.
I hope I can be indulged to the extent of not yet revealing the artist. I feel that this performance is an example of the McLuhan differentiation between Hot and Cool in that it is one where the listener is not a passive recipient of a dramatic "Hot" rendering but one where the performer invites you in to his conception and it is up to you to be drawn in or not; "Cool" .That is not to say that the performance lacks dynamism, lyricism and so on.
www.cliveheathmusic.co.uk
Quote from: early grey on April 28, 2011, 04:55:17 AM
If you go to the website link below and scroll down you will access a performance of this Sonata by a pianist who, as far as I can tell, has not been mentioned yet. This is a performance restored from 78s. By way of an "innocent ear" experience his name is not revealed. I am interested in the responses of those who know this work a great deal more than I do and I choose therefore not to air my modest opinions yet. There is certainly a dichotomy between those who see piano scores in general as a "template" for an individual pianists personality and those who expect the pianist to subdue his personality to the demands of the text, a conduit to the composer rather than a re-interpretation. Perhaps the best performances lie in between these facets of inspiration and technique. Did LvB take liberties with his own compositions? Maybe he did but did he approve of others doing so??
http://www.cliveheathmusic.co.uk/transcriptions_07.php
Thank you for your interesting post. Also for your very good site and transfers.
And what a wonderful Hammerklavier. The strong rythmic phrasing, the dynamic effects, the emphatic silences, the piano colors - are all amazing. It remembers me of Louis Kentner.
ccar is spot on! Louis Kentner it is. I want to add to this a recording he made of Liszt's Dante Sonata with orchestra arranged by Constant Lambert but at the moment am plagued by problems with an off-centre disc.
www.cliveheathmusic.co.uk
Yudina´s far from perfect, but touching and rare recording is currently on you-tube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mTQ5j-uH8Q
Some other interesting names who have recorded the work are Anton Kuerti and Beveridge Webster, but I haven´t heard them for a while. Don´t know Gould´s, but it is said to be diappointing. I generally like Kovacevich/emi and the adagio with Kempff/stereo especially, plus Yudina´s recording. Webster Aitken is unusually fast and sometimes very eccentric (in the slow movement for instance), but his technique seems to undermine his project a lot. Also have Petri, Schnabel, Solomon, Gulda/amadeo, Gilels/melodiya, Brendel/vox, Kempff/mono.
It is most likely a work I´ll continue to collect more versions of, especially rare LPs.
(https://img.discogs.com/98JM0rO8kQEFQHTisH4TgPvXB-k=/fit-in/267x270/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-2548631-1289926831.jpeg.jpg)
Annie Fischer op 106/i. I don't think it's all that good because there isn't enough contrast between the emotional content of the themes, there isn't a sense of tough contrasting with tender. The result is too one dimensional, too expressively simplistic.
I've kind of given up the search for a Hammerklavier at the moment. Most of the ones I have are good in various ways, but all of them have issues; and new recordings that are to my taste are extremely rare. Genuinely cannot understand why in the year of our lord 2019 pianists are still releasing recordings with first movements lasting 11 minutes and so on.
(https://i.imgur.com/kTC2Lv2.png)
(Most of the time I end up listening to the Badura-Skoda or one of the Serkins.)
Side note: the last time I played thru the Hammerklavier I prioritised tempo in the outer movements, rather than trying to play accurately and, w many missed notes, got timings of 8:53 / 2:19 / 14:36 / 2:20 / 11:16. The fugue obviously is difficult enough that even trying to sight-read it at tempo is probably impossible, & to get a feel for the "correct" tempo I'd probably have had to leave out one of the three voices; Czerny's comments are iirc that one should practice and learn all of Bach's 48 fugues plus all of Beethoven's other efforts in the genre (e.g. from the Diabellis, Eroicas, Op.110 etc) before attempting the Hammerklavier.
Quote from: amw on March 17, 2019, 03:40:40 AM
Genuinely cannot understand why in the year of our lord 2019 pianists are still releasing recordings with first movements lasting 11 minutes and so on.
What makes you say this? You make it sound as the the elapsed time of the first movement matters a lot, but why?
I feel like there is a) enough repertoire out there and b) enough recordings of the Hammerklavier specifically that if you can't play what Beethoven wrote you might as well just play something else, and there should be no shame in that....
Quote from: amw on March 17, 2019, 03:58:16 AM
I feel like there is enough recordings of the Hammerklavier
But you see, before you said this
Quote from: amw on March 17, 2019, 03:40:40 AM
Most of the ones I have are good in various ways, but all of them have issues;
which shows how difficult it is to pull off this music, whatever the length of the first movement. That's one of the reasons I'm looking for contrasts and nuances above all.
I guess that's fair. I think it's much more rare for a Hammerklavier to actually work in any way if the tempi are too far off from what was intended, which I guess is why I ended up with almost all of the recordings with first movements <10 minutes and just a handful of the ones with first movements >11 minutes. (And same w the adagios <14 minutes vs >15 minutes, the fugues <9 minutes vs >10 minutes etc.)
I am pretty sure that someone like Gilels would have been able to play the first movement considerably faster than the 12+ min he took for it. And Pollini who played some of the most fiendishly difficult contemporary music regularly could probably have played it in 8:50 instead of 10:50 (or whatever his recording is). Apparently they thought that it would sound better at a more moderate pace, or whatever. In any case I am pretty sure that it is not merely digital capability that is responsible for some of the tempo choices.
I mean that's also quite suspect to me because it shows a deep level misunderstanding & misinterpretation of the actual music. It's not just slow tempi and "majestic" interpretations that do that though, you also have e.g. Michael Korstick ignoring Beethoven's pedal and articulation instructions at the very beginning of the sonata, etc. Red flags.
Quote from: Jo498 on March 17, 2019, 04:54:27 AM
I am pretty sure that someone like Gilels would have been able to play the first movement considerably faster than the 12+ min he took for it.
That comment prompted me to play the live recording, it's very poetic. There are clearly lots of slips and so I wonder whether at the time he came to perform it, he really could have played it faster in the first movement. But no matter, I'm glad he took it slowly.
I've had a lot of pleasure going back to Gilels this past few weeks -- this Hammerklavier and also a wonderful recording of Schumann's Nachtstucke.
https://www.youtube.com/v/mjwph_NG89E
Two more, really focusing on the first movement, looking for something more interesting to me that 10 minutes of speed and muscularity -- some sort of mood contrasts.
The first is Arrau's first recording, which I prefer to the second, in the box called, for no good reason as far as I can see, The Liszt Legacy.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61hNcEzKAmL._SY355_.jpg)
And the second is a real find, by Nikolai Demidenko, a BBC concert recording from the late 1990s. Better I think than his commercial CD.
Quote from: amw on March 17, 2019, 05:05:51 AM
Michael Korstick ignoring Beethoven's pedal and articulation instructions at the very beginning of the sonata, etc.
I wonder why he did that, there must have been a reason, and I suspect with a musician of his stature, an interesting reason.