BaL 16.12.17 - Schubert: Piano Sonata no. 21 in B flat D960

[waldo]

An excellent point.

Hmmm. That strikes me as a little Draconian. Plenty of great pianists (like Kempff) omit repeats in Schubert and plenty of educated listeners are sometimes willing to give them a miss. I'm not sure they should be told to stay away from Schubert. We are talking about two kinds of "repeat", obviously: one sense applies to characteristic motifs and rhythms in the work itself; the other applies to whole sections. If I don't want to hear the exposition twice, that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the repeated rhythmic units within that section. It just means I don't want the repeats repeated. Conflating the two doesn't really get us anywhere.

Anyway, D960 is a different case because we are talking about those connecting bars. Here, missing the exposition repeat has entirely different ramifications. Kempff, again, omits such repeats for all the other sonatas, but leaves it in for D960 - and this seems right to me, in view of those bars.

[vinteuil]

Hmmm. That strikes me as a little Draconian. .

... surely better to be draconian than procrustean here.

.

[Richard Tarleton]

Well, yes; and one I'm in sympathy with - particularly the "maybe" - but it's clear that Brendel's (and other similarly-inclined interpreters) give great pleasure and solace to many listeners, amongst whom, no doubt, are decent people who'd rush into a burning building to rescue a litter of kittens, and who are entitled to their pleasures and solaces.

If there's one thing I hate, ferney, it's being patronised Seriously, I've learnt a lot from this thread but found some of the characterisations of Brendel and his playing here go beyond caricature, and have been startled by the quite visceral reactions to him.... And equally seriously, can you point me towards some recordings, by others, that are riddled with syphillis? Or, perhaps, to works which are? I do understand what you and Richard and others say about the repeat (there, now I'm being patronising)....

I too would class myself as a mere punter, albeit one with a fairly representative selection of Schubert on disc - song, instrumental, chamber, orchestral, by all sorts of people, and am well acquainted with his tragic side. Plenty of terrors in the songs. And I heard Brendel live many times across nearly 40 years (not just treasure his recordings ) - playing all sorts of things besides Schubert. But hey, what do I know

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

If there's one thing I hate, ferney, it's being patronised

This ... THIS ... from the same man who claimed that I was "going over the heads" of Forumistas by blinding them with such esoteric technical jargon as "Alberti accompaniments"!!!

Seriously, I've learnt a lot from this thread but found some of the characterisations of Brendel and his playing here go beyond caricature, and have been startled by the quite visceral reactions to him....

From my own perspective, no "caricature" was intended, nor were any comments meant to be "patronising" ... whether or not that stops them from actually being such is beyond my abilities. I cannot find any other words that more accurately or successfully communicate my wish to see the "opposing" (?"alternative"?) point of view - I don't think that Brendel or his followers are stupid, or evil ... but I feel with every viscera still under my control that they are profoundly wrong in this matter.

And equally seriously, can you point me towards some recordings, by others, that are riddled with syphillis? Or, perhaps, to works which are?

'Twas another figure of speech, but most of Schubert's last large-scale works are shot through with passages of grave disquiet that disrupt the short- and long-term progress of the works. Put another way - how would you feel about a performance of the C major String Quintet that left out the penultimate Db, and just ended on the repeated Cs? That's how I feel about performances of the Bb Sonata that omit the first-time bars and the Exposition repeat (if you'll excuse the "over the readers' head" vocabulary). Recordings? I'm hoping to hear some on Saturday. Those I already own don't really engage with the issue - last year I started a Thread requesting recordings of the String Quartets because of the same problem I felt with the recordings of those that I own.

I too would class myself as a mere punter, albeit one with a fairly representative selection of Schubert on disc - song, instrumental, chamber, orchestral, by all sorts of people, and am well acquainted with his tragic side. Plenty of terrors in the songs. And I heard Brendel live many times across nearly 40 years (not just treasure his recordings ) - playing all sorts of things besides Schubert. But hey, what do I know

Well - you make a good case of showing that you know what you want from performances. And I hope that I've made frequent appreciative-ish comments throughout my replies to demonstrate that I'm not "anti-Brendel" per se. But I am more (a lot more) pro-Schubert, and where the former disagrees with the latter, my loyalties are completely with the former.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

The written word is often shallow, and meanings can be misinterpreted. Perhaps we should all meet in a grand Forum Conference, and speak nicely to one another.

[vinteuil]

... I feel with every viscera still under my control...

[ a pedant writes - viscera being plural, perhaps 'with all the viscera...', or (less likely) 'with every viscus... ' ]


.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The written word is often shallow, and meanings can be misinterpreted. Perhaps we should all meet in a grand Forum Conference, and speak nicely to one another.

What a lovely idea. We could call it "Forum Expo, '18". And then argue about whether it should be repeated?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

[ a pedant writes - viscera being plural, perhaps 'with all the viscera...', or (less likely) 'with every viscus... ' ]

[Richard Tarleton]

This ... THIS ... from the same man who claimed that I was "going over the heads" of Forumistas by blinding them with such esoteric technical jargon as "Alberti accompaniments"!!!

Thank you for all this ferney . The next thing I'm going to do is listen to the string quintet....now, which recording.....

[silvestrione]

It's the idea that somehow deviations from the texts of such works as D960 can somehow "improve" them - and the elaborate, epicyclical theories dreamt up to support this idea - that I find repulsive.

Oh dear, is that me again? That's the first time I've been called epicyclical!

[vinteuil]

The written word is often shallow, and meanings can be misinterpreted. Perhaps we should all meet in a grand Forum Conference, and speak nicely to one another.

... yes : with a sub-committee to explore why it is inappropriate to perform piano music composed before the invention of the double-escapement on instruments equipped with double-escapement. I promise to behave myself.

.

[gurnemanz]

I keep thinking I've said my last on this but I was so struck by the comment above: "if you don't like repeats maybe you shouldn't be playing Schubert at all" that I'm coming back in having done a bit of research. On a German classical music forum, I found a discussion about D960. With, I assume, accurate Teutonic thoroughness, a contributor has listed recordings (up to 2008) with movement timings and noted down which do not observe the first movement exposition repeat. Of 73 recordings listed 34 are marked oW (= ohne Wiederholung, ie without repeat) - some artists appear more than once, Kempff with and without repeat. The repeat abstainers include quite a few well known names (most recently, Imogen Cooper) who should "maybe" be discouraged from performing the work. forum link. Whatever else one might say (and I am pro-repeat - undogmatically so), there is certainly nothing near unanimity on the matter.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Oh dear, is that me again? That's the first time I've been called epicyclical!

Oh no, no, no - I had Brendel in mind there: the way that he tries (and in his own concept "succeeds") to make the Music fit in to his conception of how it works struck me as having parallels with how some 15th/16th Century astronomers tried to make the observed movements of planets fit into the Ptolomaic model of how the Universe worked.

I try to avoid insulting fellow Forumistas (the Forum and its harmonious survival is very important to me), and attempt to address comments to those with whom I disagree directly and unambiguously. I should have made this clearer with my comment, and hope that the ambiguity wasn't unduly disgruntling! (I repeat - if not even )

[Richard Barrett]

hope that the ambiguity wasn't unduly disgruntling!

What a beautiful turn of phrase, if I may say so.

[silvestrione]

I keep thinking I've said my last on this but I was so struck by the comment above: "if you don't like repeats maybe you shouldn't be playing Schubert at all" that I'm coming back in having done a bit of research. On a German classical music forum, I found a discussion about D960. With, I assume, accurate Teutonic thoroughness, a contributor has listed recordings (up to 2008) with movement timings and noted down which do not observe the first movement exposition repeat. Of 73 recordings listed 34 are marked oW (= ohne Wiederholung, ie without repeat) - some artists appear more than once, Kempff with and without repeat. The repeat abstainers include quite a few well known names (most recently, Imogen Cooper) who should "maybe" be discouraged from performing the work. forum link. Whatever else one might say (and I am pro-repeat - undogmatically so), there is certainly nothing near unanimity on the matter.

Good work! Thanks for that.

Yes, I am pro-repeat, too, on the whole, undogmatically so. I felt impelled to try to inhabit Brendel's viewpoint, when it was being so dogmatically dismissed on this thread. He is a great re-creative artist, in my book, whose views should at least make us pause and think.