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

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

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.

Apologies accepted and offered in return.

[Nick Armstrong]

No, he doesn't: he plays Adagio molto semplice e cantabile ("Slowly very simply and songlike") as Beethoven tells him to do

In the language of Men's Final Day at the All England Club, that goes down as an 'ace' ferney!

My goodness, this thread has turned into rather an ill-tempered match though, hasn't it? (EDIT: I see fluttering above centre court while I was writing this )

I've only just read in, as I caught up with DON's survey this morning.

It's true that maybe it wasn't a BAL for the novice, in terms of some of the 'key' performances overlooked...

Pollini will surely win.

But what a TWONK, leaving out Pollini!!!

I think it was a little perverse not even to mention Pollini for instance, if only to say why the BAL choice will be elsewhere than that much-fêted reading.

But purely selfishly, it was an ideal BAL for me - not going over very familiar ground, and taking in corners of the recorded history of which I was unaware, both historical and more recent, underpinned by musical erudition - plus the Nozza sense of fun

I think it's the first time I've laughed out loud at a BAL, when he described Backhaus's 'connections' and said with such glee that it was like "meeting someone who had fought at Waterloo"

I found Backhaus's playing seductive and the old recording amazingly seemed to me clearer by some margin than the one immediately after, the Paul Lewis... and to that extent I was surprised to read just now this view (endorsed by another poster) that

Paul Lewis gets ideal sound.

- it seemed rather 'murky' to me.

What a pity Ohlsson ("Garrrrr-iiiiiiick Ohhhhhhhhhl-ssssssssohn", per Norris ) dragged his way through the second movement - his first movement was electrifying.

I've never got on with the 'HIPP' piano sound but this BAL spurs me to persevere with Brautigam (though one of the excerpts seems to me rather unsubtle and 'four square').

I was informed and entertained in a grown-up way by DON and he gets a big big from me!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Perhaps - but are we suggesting that this is the case with DO-N, ?

Not he. Others.

[amateur51]

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?

Cue Leslie Phillips "ooooh naaaasty"

[BWV 988]

I've only just started collecting recordings seriously over the past month or two. I currently have recordings of Angelich (Mirare), Barenboim (DG), Brendel (Decca), Gould (Sony) and François-Frédéric Guy (Zig-Zag). At the moment I'd dare say that the Guy recording is my favorite.

I'm debating which of the Gulda recordings to buy.

[Bryn]

BWV, I'd suggest the one now on Brilliant Classics (his last set). I got these in my youth, when they were even then re-issued on Philips LPs. In fact, I would suggest you consider investing in one of the 2007 Brilliant Classics Complete Beethoven boxes (the one with the additional 'historical' recordings is worth having), but it depend on the price difference, I guess. The 2011 version has the old Vox Brendel sonatas in place of the Gulda, I think. Both 2007 boxes have the Gulda survey. Worth looking out his Diabelli Variation on HM too.

There's a "Used: Very Good" 100 CD set for £109.00 plus £1.26 p&p on amazon.co.uk at the moment. First come, first served, I guess. It's listed under the 85 CD heading, but the seller makes it clear the it is the 100 disc set.

[BWV 988]

Thank you Bryn for the information I may just send them an email.

[Andrew Preview]

No, he doesn't: he plays Adagio molto semplice e cantabile ("Slowly very simply and songlike") as Beethoven tells him to do.

You might have me there! But, not being an expert, I was unsure as to whether molto applies to Adagio or to semplice. Moreover, and again acknowledging my inferior knowledge, it wasn't clear to me that semplice e cantabile was an indication of speed so much as of character. I know some pretty slow songs.

Well, "more importantly" to you, of course - but then I don't think it's part of the reviewers' remit to consult each of their listeners when making their choices.

Of course, and I wouldn't dare suggest that it was, but it would be tedious to state "in my opinion" every time I venture to suggest an opinion.

[Andrew Preview]

In the language of Men's Final Day at the All England Club, that goes down as an 'ace' ferney!

The crowd starts to clap rhythmically (but at an uncertain tempo) as it awaits Hawkeye's verdict!

[Nick Armstrong]

The crowd starts to clap rhythmically (but at an uncertain tempo) as it awaits Hawkeye's verdict!

[waldo]

ferneyh/bryn re "intentions"/HIP performance

I don't doubt that it is possible, through research, to get closer to the kind of performance Beethoven himself would have expected and, indeed, wanted. We recreate the instruments, look up his instructions etc - and we end up with something like an "authentic performance".

What I object to is that this represents Beethoven's "intentions". Or, to put it a better way, what I object to is the idea that this particular conception of "intention" is all that useful when we are trying to judge between different performance styles. Or, better still, that the concept of "authenticity" packs as big a punch as its advocates like to think. This might sound a bit opaque........but hopefully I can make it a bit clearer:

Let's say we are dealing with a piano sonata and we ask ourselves: How did Beethoven intend that we play this? First of all, he probably intended that it would be played on the kind of instruments that were then available. Certainly, he would have expected this. Next, we ask: how should it be played? Well, we look at his notations and find out what he said about the piece in conversation etc - then we try and follow these instructions. He says crotchet = 72. Alright, that's what he wants. He says speed up here, okay: let's speed up. We look, also, at the characteristic possibilities of the instrument and find out just what it can and cannot do. Maybe there's no sustain; maybe the middle register has its own tonal qualities. So we take these into account, too and come up with a performance that Beethoven himself would might have enjoyed.

But does that mean that we have got closer to Beethoven's intentions? In one sense - an obvious sense - it does. But at the same time, I believe it leaves the main questions untouched.

Beethoven, for example, was well aware that the piano had changed in his lifetime. He knew, presumably, that it would go on changing. Does that mean that he would disapprove if he knew that his works would one day be played on instruments he himself had no knowledge of? It seems unlikely. He himself played Bach on an instrument that Bach had never heard about: the fortepiano. Did Beethoven, then, intend than his music should be restricted to the then-current instruments? I don't think so. Furthermore, he would have known that the instruments of the future would have different qualities and he would surely think it would be reasonable to make use of these when playing the music of the past. Now, we don't really know the answer to these questions one way or another, but that is the point. We only know his "intentions" in the very narrow sense of: this is how I, living in 1821, expect it to be played on instruments I know about right now. We don't know how we would have felt about performances on different instruments and in radically different styles and I think it is presumptuous to believe that one style of performance is somehow truer to what he would have wanted, or hoped for, than another.

To clarify, I accept that we can perform a piece in the style of 1821. And, within certain limits, that we can find out how Beethoven would have liked a certain piece to be performed at that time. What we don't know is what really matters: how he would have felt about performances on modern instruments which make full use of that instrument's possibilities - even when these seem to go against his express instructions. We know, for instance, that he often changed his mind when he heard a piece performed. He changed the tempo markings on Opus 127 after watching a first performance. The players disregarded his instructions and did what they felt was right. At the end, Beethoven went to the desks and crossed out his own markings, saying, "Let it be so." It seems possible to me that he would do the same with regard to many of his instructions and notations, if he knew what could be done on a modern piano.

This is, of course, highly speculative, but I don't think anyone can get away from the speculation. If you put your weight behind a HIP performance and say, "This is closer to Beethoven's intentions", you have just answered the broader question in a different way: you must have formed a view about his likely attitude to performance on a modern instrument. Either way, you can't get away from the things you don't know.

I hope that makes some kind of sense. It is a complicated issue and ideally needs a much longer treatment.........

[Roehre]

.... Did Beethoven, then, intend than his music should be restricted to the then-current instruments? I don't think so.

I don't either, as it is well documented that he had the newest instruments in mind when composing, of which one particular example speaks volumes. For both the 2nd and 4th piano concertos B composed (or at least: sketched extensively) cadenzas in 1808 and 1809.
The 2nd concerto was after extensive recomposing more or less in its definitive shape not later than 1795. The instrument B had in mind for the original version only encompassed 5 1/2 octaves. The piano part fits well within these physical boundaries.
However, the instrument for which B composed his cadenzas was a 6 1/2 (or even an 7 [built by Streicher]) octave piano.

Now the interesting fact. Among the sketches the cadenza for the 2nd concerto are the earlier ones, and that cadenza uses nearly 7 octaves. Then follow sketches for the 4th concerto, for a similar range. At that point Beethoven most have realized that the 2nd concerto's original piano part was not "on par" with the newly sketched cadenza. Other sketches follow, and then not only in his sketch book, but also in a printed piano part of the 2nd concerto: its range is expanded (and there is definitely a stylistic rupture audible too, btw).
This version (of concerto op.19 as well as that extended cadenza) was only edited and published in 1993 IIRC (with Barry Cooper as main editor). AFAIK only one recording of the concerto opus 19 with these amendments included, and using this cadenza, has been made: Mikhail Kazakevich with Mackerras conducting the ECO, Conifer CDCF 237, 1994. (Unfortunately not the best of Mackerras performances, I'm afraid; Beethoven's cadenza for opus 58 is included in the edition of the concerto as piano quintet, and as such recorded by i.a. DGG)

Therefore there exists a strong argument to assume Beethoven would have used the latest instruments and adapted/amended his music accordingly. The instruments which were in his possession or otherwise used at the time of his death were all from the late 1810s and 1820s (Streicher 1816; Broadwood 1817 ; Graf 1826), and even the possibillities of these were sometimes too restricted for the composer's ideas, as e.g. the Broadwood from 1817 which is too small for the Hammerklavier-sonata, see bar 313 of 1st mvt: C"", E-flat"" anf F"" !

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Waldo,
Thank you for #176, which I found more interesting than your earlier "it's crap, frankly". But I disagree with the thinking behind it no less. Key to my disagreement is your phrase

What we don't know is what really matters: how he would have felt about performances on modern instruments which make full use of that instrument's possibilities - even when these seem to go against his express instructions.

First of all, I don't think that this is at all "what really matters" - what really matters from my point of view is the text: how can it best be communicated? And, in the case of these last Piano Sonatas, which demonstrate such understanding of the instrument for which it was written (the different timbres; the subtleties of the different pedals; the weight of the lower registers; the responses of the keyboard action) that these sounds (and this understanding) are an essential part of the Music. Far from being "presumptuous", it seems to me to be a matter of respecting Beethoven's mastery of these sounds, (his expertise at his craft) and a realization that these sounds communicate Beethoven's ideas (as he experienced them during composition) better than instruments developed at least sixty years after he died and with timbres which he could not possibly have imagined.

It might pass a lazy afternoon to speculate what Beethoven might have thought of the Synthesizer, or the Steel Band, or the Prepared Piano, or the modern Steinway Grand - or, indeed, what his Serial works would have sounded like. He might have decided to add a Third movement to Op 111; he might have replaced either of the existing Movements. He might have heard a modern Steinway and asked "Why are you ruining my Music with this typewriter?!" (Why is it that it's assumed Beethoven - or Bach - would've liked the Piano of the mid-20th Century?) But, because, as you say, we don't know this, it remains idle speculation - the real business is the Music; the score - what there is,; what we do know.

Which is not (as I never tire of emphasizing) to "rubbish" the great legacy of modern piano recordings and performances. Nor to claim that all recordings and performances using a Graf are automatically better than these. But, because this Music is so fascinating, so astonishing, so vital an aspect of my life, I want to get as close as I can to what Beethoven had in mind when he wrote it. That is what I think is "what really matters".

You're right - it does need a much longer treatment!

[ardcarp]

I rather regret using the hackneyed phrase (back in post #143):

what I think he was trying to do was to strip away the accretions of a Romantic performance style

because it let rip the HIPP thing. And I sympathise with:

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.

I do not in any way want to disparage the great piano-playing traditions developing from mid-19th to mid-20th centuries. At age 7 (or thereabouts) the discovery of a stack of Solomon's shellac records was a big influence...and I only broke a few.

I've mentioned before the excellent book by Ken Hamilton, After the Golden Age in which he discusses 'Romantic Pianism and Modern Performance'. In it he refers to performances of Beethoven's piano works by, inter alia,
von Bulow, Busoni, Godowsky, Liszt, Richter and Paderewski. What would we make of those today? But they were all giants of their time... a time much nearer to Ludwig than we are.

[richardfinegold]

Waldo--in your last post you reference a story about B attending the premiere of the debut of Op.127, and then changing his mind about his own tempo markings based on his reaction to the performance.
I had not encountered this story before in any of the biographies that I have read of B. I am also curious as to why we he would have changed his markings based upon the premiere, because he was stone deaf at that point. Why would merely watching the players cause him to make changes? Earlier in his compositional career he is reported to have told the leader of the Quartet "Do you think that I care about the limitations of your stupid fiddle?"