BaL 6.07.13 - Beethoven's Piano Sonata no. 32 in C minor Op. 111

[Stunsworth]

I can't say I warmed to the presenter's style at all. Too much vocal gurning. Initially I thought they'd booked Gyles Brandreth for the gig by mistake.

[amateur51]

He did mention some Fischer pupils without mentioning Brendel. AB was never a formal or regular pupil but attended Fischer masterclasses and regards EF as a major influence. He was actually very rude about the great man, thinking about it. I remain unshakeable in my devotion to Brendel's Beethoven, DON notwithstanding, which goes back to the first time I heard him in an all-Beethoven recital in the late 60s, and my first Brendel record, the Turnabout Diabelli.



Yes, I loved that reference to - was it a student essay - saying how fortunate it was that Beethoven completed his cycle of 32 sonatas before he died

Yes I noted that omission from the list of Edwin Fischer's pupils too RT. As recently as a public interview earlier this year, Brendel still gives much credit to Fischer as a mentor.

Brendel has always taken his devotion to the composer very seriously and has even written about the musician's obligations to the composer and to the text. Methinks that an axe was being ground - but his reference to 'an actorrrrr' did make me laugh.

[aeolium]

The other interesting idea I got from DON was that this is only Beethoven's last piano sonata in the sense that it is the last one he wrote before he died - Beethoven was taking the form on a journey and doubtless would have written differently again in sonata no. 33 but ... this is what we have, be respectful but don't be reverent.

But I'm not sure how convincing that argument is. Thayer has a report from a contemporary, Holz, about Beethoven's views of his last sonatas: "Holz further relates that Beethoven, in reference to his last sonatas, which he called his last but also the best that he had written for piano, said: 'It is and remains an inadequate instrument. In the future I shall write in the manner of my grand-master Handel annually only an oratorio or a concerto for some string or wind instrument, provided I have completed my tenth symphony (C minor) and my Requiem.'" It's not clear exactly when this remark was supposed to have been made, perhaps some years after the last sonata, and Beethoven did not forsake the piano completely after op 111, but if it is authentic then it's more unlikely that he would have returned to the piano sonata as a form.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Clearly a Charles Ives fan.

[amateur51]

But I'm not sure how convincing that argument is. Thayer has a report from a contemporary, Holz, about Beethoven's views of his last sonatas: "Holz further relates that Beethoven, in reference to his last sonatas, which he called his last but also the best that he had written for piano, said: 'It is and remains an inadequate instrument. In the future I shall write in the manner of my grand-master Handel annually only an oratorio or a concerto for some string or wind instrument, provided I have completed my tenth symphony (C minor) and my Requiem.'" It's not clear exactly when this remark was supposed to have been made, perhaps some years after the last sonata, and Beethoven did not forsake the piano completely after op 111, but if it is authentic then it's more unlikely that he would have returned to the piano sonata as a form.

Thanks aeolium - I didn't know that.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

But I'm not sure how convincing that argument is. Thayer has a report from a contemporary, Holz, about Beethoven's views of his last sonatas: "Holz further relates that Beethoven, in reference to his last sonatas, which he called his last but also the best that he had written for piano, said: 'It is and remains an inadequate instrument. In the future I shall write in the manner of my grand-master Handel annually only an oratorio or a concerto for some string or wind instrument, provided I have completed my tenth symphony (C minor) and my Requiem.'" It's not clear exactly when this remark was supposed to have been made, perhaps some years after the last sonata, and Beethoven did not forsake the piano completely after op 111, but if it is authentic then it's more unlikely that he would have returned to the piano sonata as a form.

Not exactly a conclusive argument, aeolie?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

The sustaining power of the older instruments does make a brisker performance of the Arietta preferable, but if you prefer it a bit slower, then the most modern, mighty and expensive instrument is surely the one for this most stunning of all Beethoven's works.

[waldo]

Surely the point is that D O-N was guiding the average listener, who might have overlooked the likes of Denk and Brautigam due to either the unfamiliar name or a distaste for the kind of instrument the composer wrote for, towards an understanding of what they had to offer that was closer to what Beethoven notated and intended?.

What Beethoven intended!

It is just this kind of thinking that I object to. We don't know what Beethoven "intended", or what he would intend if he had a Steinway at his disposal. Certainly, you can't settle the issue with a comments from Czerny or a scribble on a notepad or from a trip to a fortepiano museum.

There have always been competing views of musical performance, but what separates out the HIP school is the idea that they are somehow able to out-run the subjectivity which drags at the heels of every other interpretation by holding tightly to the concept of "historical truth." It is crap, frankly, and saturated with fallacies at every step. You can't get away from interpretation anymore than you can stay airborne by jumping off a wall. I am not opposed to HIP performances. I own hundreds and love many of them. I just don't like the smug assumption that they are somehow truer or closer to the composer's wishes.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

[aeolium]

Not exactly a conclusive argument, aeolie?

No, not conclusive by any means, though I'm not sure what the evidence is for the case that he would have written more piano sonatas. He certainly had time to write another one before his last illness, and had been writing them pretty continually throughout his composing career up to op 111.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

What Beethoven intended!

It is just this kind of thinking that I object to. We don't know what Beethoven "intended", or what he would intend if he had a Steinway at his disposal.

He hadn't.

Certainly, you can't settle the issue with a comments from Czerny or a scribble on a notepad or from a trip to a fortepiano museum.

No; but "you" get a better idea than if you ignore such evidence as there is.

There have always been competing views of musical performance, but what separates out the HIP school is the idea that they are somehow able to out-run the subjectivity which drags at the heels of every other interpretation by holding tightly to the concept of "historical truth." It is crap, frankly, and saturated with fallacies at every step. You can't get away from interpretation anymore than you can stay airborne by jumping off a wall.

In the thirty-odd years that I have been listening to them, no HIP practitioner has taken such an attitude. They are all "interpreters" who read the Musical and Historical evidence then imagine how this must work in their own performances.

I am not opposed to HIP performances. I own hundreds and love many of them. I just don't like the smug assumption that they are somehow truer or closer to the composer's wishes.

Which is fair enough - but others have an equal dislike of the smug assumptions that make some listeners "long for the good old days when "historically informed" performances were lucky to get a dismissive parenthesis". And, other than the assumption that composers who wrote Music before the development of the Steinway grand were all incompetent, how can paying attention to the composers' texts, the instruments they used, the assumptions that they shared with their contemporaries not get us closer to their intentions than using instruments that they never heard, playing tempi that they couldn't have expected?

[Bryn]

What Beethoven intended!

It is just this kind of thinking that I object to. We don't know what Beethoven "intended", or what he would intend if he had a Steinway at his disposal. Certainly, you can't settle the issue with a comments from Czerny or a scribble on a notepad or from a trip to a fortepiano museum.

There have always been competing views of musical performance, but what separates out the HIP school is the idea that they are somehow able to out-run the subjectivity which drags at the heels of every other interpretation by holding tightly to the concept of "historical truth." It is crap, frankly, and saturated with fallacies at every step. You can't get away from interpretation anymore than you can stay airborne by jumping off a wall. I am not opposed to HIP performances. I own hundreds and love many of them. I just don't like the smug assumption that they are somehow truer or closer to the composer's wishes.

What the composer intended is largely indicated in the way he notated it (not that the notation will ever give the full story). One of the salient points D O-N was making was that many pianist do not pay attention to what Beethoven wrote. Backhaus for instance, departed widely from Beethoven's notation, in places. As to what Beethoven would have intended if he had had a Steinway, or better, a Bösendorfer Imperial, to hand, there can be no doubt that he would have written differently, taking into consideration the very different properties of such an instrument. What he wrote was for instruments he found inadequate, certainly, but he was well aware of their limitations, and while he stretched them to and beyond their limit, he also knew well that the character of their different registers varied greatly. Something which does not apply to anything like the same extent on the modern even-timbred instrument, for instance.

I would suggest that the 'smugness' attributed to HIPP performers is something largely dreamt up by those who find it difficult to adjust to such practice. It is more a reflection of their own outlook.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I would suggest that the 'smugness' attributed to HIPP performers is something largely dreamt up by those who find it difficult to adjust to such practice. It is more a reflection of their own outlook.

I don't think "smugness" is an attribute of all HIPP performers, but some critics (including some BaL reviewers) do sound ultra-smug as they assume the moral high ground in claiming the unassailable superiority of playing on period instruments.

[waldo]

Quite, EA. I have encountered in countless interviews and discussions. There is no doubt that some of them believe that their music is more "valid" because it is rooted in historical fact.

Bryn/Ferneyh: I will get round to a proper response later (have some things to do now and will probably watch a bit of tennis). Judging from the somewhat prickly tone of your answer, Fernyh, I can see I must have sounded more aggressive/rude/militant than I intended. I am not interested in that kind of exchange, under any circumstances. Apologies if I got things started on the wrong footing. I will soften my tone and hopefully we can have a friendly discussion.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I don't think "smugness" is an attribute of all HIPP performers, but some critics (including some BaL reviewers) do sound ultra-smug as they assume the moral high ground in claiming the unassailable superiority of playing on period instruments.

Perhaps - but are we suggesting that this is the case with DO-N, a man who was as cheeky about the very first HIPP recording as he was about Brendel; who said such good things about Schnabel and Fischer; who chose a modern piano version alongside the Braughtigan (something that has often been demanded on the BaL Thread); who made sly digs about the "best of both worlds" aspect of playing on modern reproductions of contemporary pianos; who himself most frequently performs on a modern Piano; and whose CV includes the premiere of "Elgar's" Piano Concerto? "Ultra-smug" and "assum[ing] the moral high ground"? A wee harsh?