[Mandryka]

I'm surprised no one possibly mentions Claudio Arrau's recording at Philips label. Recently I've bought his complete recording released from Decca. But the Waldstein Sonata was rather disappointing. Was he so sensitive? Philips edition was performed at his older age.

I have explored his Waldstein recordings a lot, the one I like the most is on a DVD from his 80th birthday concert at Carnegie Hall. I think it's a very great and original performance of a sonata which is not easy to get off the page IMO.

 

[Mandryka]

millionrainbows, thank you for this thread and your comparison. It's a wonderful idea, I apologize I took so long! Thanks to Balthazar, too. I really enjoyed your analysis and comparison.

I'll be going with Maurizio Pollini and Wilhelm Kempff.

A little bit of back story. Beethoven wrote Op. 53 with the inspirations of his brand new French Érard piano with four pedals and extended range, its sound was all around bigger and the action heavier. This was a much "fuller" than the Viennese were used to. Beethoven, as always, was looking to exploit the capabilities of new advances in instruments. He did the same for the cello and this case would be no different. Beethoven told an acquaintance, that he was "so enchanted with it that he regards all the pianos made here [in Vienna] as rubbish" (Jan Swafford)

1st Movement - Jan Swafford describes this sonatas as possessing a "restless energy". I hear the rapid fluttering of notes with intermittent pianissimo and piano passages as confirming Swafford's analysis. The first movement is full of energy, but it seems to be searching, unable to find a climax, hence the "restlessness". The energy is steady throughout, as Swafford puts it, "it never dissipates and never climaxes". We will have to wait for the Finale for that! Kempff, unfortunately, doesn't rise high enough to match the Waldstein's unstable energy, the slow passages are wonderfully lyrical as one would expect from Kempff, but there isn't enough contrast between the forte and the piano. I feel that Pollini exceeds in this, it's amazing how he can makes energetic parts seem almost unbridled while still on a steady and inevitable path. Because Pollini's dynamic playing matches the inherent dynamism in the first movement, he's the easy winner here.

2nd Movement - The short, transitional movement in F major that replaced (justly, for reasons of proportion and momentum, both of which are this sonata's strong points) the Andante Favori. Both Pollini and Kempff handle the slow movement excellently. Surprisingly, it's Pollini who exploits the romantic slow tone and mood for all it's worth, not something I come to expect with Pollini. Pollini's time is 3:54 and Kempff at 3:06. I understand why Pollini would play it so slowly, to offset the energy of the first movement and the finale. The middle movement is more of a fleeting moment of repose, to catch your breath, rather than a proper slow movement. This is why I love Pollini as a pianist, there is never a "apply-all" style to his interpretations, he tackles each movement appropriately.

3rd Movement - If the that restless energy couldn't find its way in the first movement, it's ready in the Finale. Whereas in the first movement, there are no climaxes, in the finale there are multiple. Pollini ratchets up the energy in his playing, as does Kempff, but with Pollini the energy sounds truly sounds unstable and wild while Kempff still manages to simultaneously sound lyrical. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. I hear life-affirming, "effervescent", and lyrical melodies in the Finale. I'm still going to go with Pollini for a more dynamic and energetic interpretation.

Thanks for posting this, I have often wondered why Alexei Lubimov chose to use an Erard for it, now I know.

 

[Mandryka]

I've forgotten how many recordings I have or I've listened to. Were there two recordings by Pollini? I've never listened to the other three. From Backhaus through Arrau and Gulda, I can't count all of them. But now I will choose Arrau. Trying to find the Philips' recording, I couldn't find the way to his later recording. Sorry. But the Decca version was not so good, I admit.

Arrau, of course, doesn't see the first movement as a study in repetition and motoric energetic battering ram.

 

[Mandryka]

Here's another one for the mix: Anthony Newman's fortepiano version.

He's using an 1804 English Clementi instrument, like the one Beethoven used. It has good bass and a ringing treble. Newman did a research of Beethoven's metronome markings, and used those in his tempos, which, for me, are too fast. Faster than Gulda. The effect and clarity of the scale runs suffer on the fortepiano; they smear. The later "lyrical" part of the sonata comes through much better.

If this was what Beethoven was supposed to have sounded like, I'm disappointed. I prefer a slightly slower approach, with the clarity of the modern piano.

I haven't heard Newman. I was interested in the idea that modern pianos are clearer in fast music than this Clementi piano, which I've also not heard. Aren't modern pianos more resonant?

 

[Mandryka]

I found this live performance clip of Claudio arrau. I like it! It's restrained in the intro, not too loud or too fast. He exhibits a great sense of musicality, of "owning" the music very comfortably, which also puts me at ease. He's not showing off. I trust him. The fast passages come through with clarity and complete comprehensibility. He seems interested in the music's ideas, rather than any performance or virtuosic concerns.

Another good one is Radu Lupu's.

 

[Mandryka]

I found when and where C. Arrau had recorded my fovorite one, in Switzerland in 1984. The number sold in Japan as Philips DDD 416 145-2. As to which I knew through his complete discography in the website http://arrauhouse.org/content/disc_beethoven_solo2.htm
The most impressive moment visits you at the end of the 2nd movement or just at the beginning of the last movement. Lending his(Arrau's) words, "it floats right into the Allegretto of the rondo."

Some of those late Beethoven studio recordings are very good, like full of old man's wisdom.

By the way, if you can see it easily one which is interesting from the point of view of the transitions, the segues, is Elly Ney's.

Re the points made above about fortepianos, I don't agree generally, but I would say that the first movement, with that moftif full of repeated chords, can sound just right on a very percussive instrument. There's a recording by Paul Komen which is particularly good in that respect.

 

[Mandryka]

millionrainbows, thank you for this thread and your comparison. It's a wonderful idea, I apologize I took so long! Thanks to Balthazar, too. I really enjoyed your analysis and comparison.

I'll be going with Maurizio Pollini and Wilhelm Kempff.

A little bit of back story. Beethoven wrote Op. 53 with the inspirations of his brand new French Érard piano with four pedals and extended range, its sound was all around bigger and the action heavier. This was a much "fuller" than the Viennese were used to. Beethoven, as always, was looking to exploit the capabilities of new advances in instruments. He did the same for the cello and this case would be no different. Beethoven told an acquaintance, that he was "so enchanted with it that he regards all the pianos made here [in Vienna] as rubbish" (Jan Swafford)

1st Movement - Jan Swafford describes this sonatas as possessing a "restless energy". I hear the rapid fluttering of notes with intermittent pianissimo and piano passages as confirming Swafford's analysis. The first movement is full of energy, but it seems to be searching, unable to find a climax, hence the "restlessness". The energy is steady throughout, as Swafford puts it, "it never dissipates and never climaxes". We will have to wait for the Finale for that! Kempff, unfortunately, doesn't rise high enough to match the Waldstein's unstable energy, the slow passages are wonderfully lyrical as one would expect from Kempff, but there isn't enough contrast between the forte and the piano. I feel that Pollini exceeds in this, it's amazing how he can makes energetic parts seem almost unbridled while still on a steady and inevitable path. Because Pollini's dynamic playing matches the inherent dynamism in the first movement, he's the easy winner here.

2nd Movement - The short, transitional movement in F major that replaced (justly, for reasons of proportion and momentum, both of which are this sonata's strong points) the Andante Favori. Both Pollini and Kempff handle the slow movement excellently. Surprisingly, it's Pollini who exploits the romantic slow tone and mood for all it's worth, not something I come to expect with Pollini. Pollini's time is 3:54 and Kempff at 3:06. I understand why Pollini would play it so slowly, to offset the energy of the first movement and the finale. The middle movement is more of a fleeting moment of repose, to catch your breath, rather than a proper slow movement. This is why I love Pollini as a pianist, there is never a "apply-all" style to his interpretations, he tackles each movement appropriately.

3rd Movement - If the that restless energy couldn't find its way in the first movement, it's ready in the Finale. Whereas in the first movement, there are no climaxes, in the finale there are multiple. Pollini ratchets up the energy in his playing, as does Kempff, but with Pollini the energy sounds truly sounds unstable and wild while Kempff still manages to simultaneously sound lyrical. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. I hear life-affirming, "effervescent", and lyrical melodies in the Finale. I'm still going to go with Pollini for a more dynamic and energetic interpretation.

So is it just the Waldstein that was somehow inspired by the Erard? (I must say the repeated chords which recur all too often in the first movement seem really compromised by the sound of a modern piano. The most special I've heard is in Paul Komen's recording, I can't remember what piano he uses.)

 

[Mandryka]

I have accepted Czifra's recording (the one I have anyway) as my muy simpatico interpretation. No others need apply.

Do you have the live or the studio? I enjoyed the studio tremendously, even though I prefer Arrau, Lupu, Pletnev.