Favorite Beethoven Sonata Interpreter?

[yo_da_wg]

The title says all, who's CD should I buy  ?

[nicco]

I recommend Emil Gilels or Anne Øland.

[steinwaymodeld]

Emil Gilels (almost complete set)
Richter
Yves Nat
Annie Fischer
sometimes Whilhelm Bachkaus

avoid Brendulls (all 3 set), Schiff

[steveie986]

I have Brendel's 10-CD set and I must say that while he is obviously a fine pianist with fantastic technique yadda yadda, I don't like his interpretation of the late sonatas. For instance, he plays the sublimely dense fugal passages of the Hammerklavier 4th movement too fast for my liking. Everything sounds quite Romantic.

I don't have this CD but I've heard Glenn Gould's Hammerklavier is rather interesting. His other Beethoven recordings are, needless to say, eccentric. He untangles the fugal passages with superb clarity but really makes little emotional connection with the slower, more Romantic movements.

[yo_da_wg]

Hmm... I can't decide between the Richter and Ashkenazy. Help anyone?

[allthumbs]

Hmm... I can't decide between the Richter and Ashkenazy. Help anyone?

Why choose, buy both of them!

[musicsdarkangel]

Ashkenazy over Richter!!!


Anyway, I prefer Garrick Ohlsson for the sonatas he's done,

BUT for the full set, Alfred Brendel wins no contest to me (although, I wish Ohlsson did a box set, i'd buy them in a second, he's my favorite)

For the Hammer Klavier, Ohlsson is just incredible, and Charles Rosen is great as well


I'm so surprised that there are some Brendel haters here. 

[steveie986]

I don't hate Brendel at all. I accept that pretty much all of his Beethoven interpretations are "correct" and possibly as near to perfect as can be, but personally I would be more attracted to a more eccentric and "incorrect" (i.e. Gouldian) interpretation of the late sonatas' fugal passages that would bring out the Bachian elements more.

[Mozartian]

Hmm... I can't decide between the Richter and Ashkenazy. Help anyone?

um um um

Well.. Richter.. but.. isn't there a better option? 

Gilels is supposed to be amazing, and everything I've heard of his definitely is. I'd suggest checking those out.

[pita bread]

Op. 111 - Gould
Op. 110 - Gould
Op. 109 - Gould
Op. 106 - Gilels
Op. 101 - Goode
Op. 90 - Goode
Op. 81a - Rubinstein

[musicsdarkangel]

I don't hate Brendel at all. I accept that pretty much all of his Beethoven interpretations are "correct" and possibly as near to perfect as can be, but personally I would be more attracted to a more eccentric and "incorrect" (i.e. Gouldian) interpretation of the late sonatas' fugal passages that would bring out the Bachian elements more.

I totally understand this opinion and actually used to share it myself.

[steveie986]

I totally understand this opinion and actually used to share it myself.

Do you no longer share this opinion? Perhaps your ears have adjusted to Brendel's sound? After listening to Gould's Art of the Fugue and GV non-stop for the past few months, I have the feeling that all fugal music should be played Gould-style. Romanticized and rushed fugal passages don't sound "right." I like Ohlsson's Hammerklavier 4th; are there any others who play it in a similar deliberate style?

[Waldszenen]

The big three for me are Brendel (Philips DDD set out of the three he's made is my favourite), Gilels and Schnabel.

[crazy for ivan moravec]

oh yes, i love brendel!!! next to artur schnabel of course... i wish i'd be able to have ivan moravec's beethoven recordings, i wonder how they'd sound.

[presto agitato]

Alfred Brendel by far

[rohansahai]

Gilels ..especially the random early recordings.

[allthumbs]

OK, I have a box set by Robert Silverman. It's one of my favorites.


https://www.robert-silverman.com/cd/Beethoven32.html

[felagund]

Gilels!!! I think he's better than Richter... Richter's Op. 31 Nr. 2 is beautiful, but he plays some other pieces so slow that you nearly fall asleep (Op. 57). Anyway, I don't like the late Brendel (especially Op. 110)!!! He thinks that he has to play the late Beethoven Sonatas as classical pieces, but that's actually not what it is... Ashkenazy is also quite nice, but sometimes he's playing a bit like a "motor"  .

Personally, I would say: Gilels over Ashkenazy, Kempff and Richter! But they are all good...

[yo_da_wg]

Hmm... people seem to be mentioning Gilels alot, I've never heard of him, but then again I've never heard of anybody.

It looks like I'm getting the Gilels, what type of pianist is he? (ie. slow and beautiful, fast and passionate)

[sauergrandson]

SCHNABEL, SCHNABEL, SCHNABEL, SCHNABEL, ARRAU.

[crazy for ivan moravec]

Hmm... people seem to be mentioning Gilels alot, I've never heard of him, but then again I've never heard of anybody.

It looks like I'm getting the Gilels, what type of pianist is he? (ie. slow and beautiful, fast and passionate)

great tone. a piano titan. he can be very quiet and very loud without compromising good sound. etc2x.. he's my favorite Brahms 2nd piano concerto in Bb recording.

[superstition2]

It depends on the sonata, and it depends upon the recording/performance.

As for Ashkenazy, I bought one disc of his Beethoven sonatas and it was bad. I haven't spent much time collecting Beethoven's sonatas, so I don't have a huge number of recordings to choose from when making a suggestion. I can, though, say that one recording of the appassionata by Richter I had on cassette was really great, and I am pleased by the disc of Rubinstein's Beethoven I have.

[airasia]

someone above said richter plays op. 57 way too slow.  I'm sorry, but have you heard the 3rd movement by him?  I've never heard anything as fast and explosive as his interpretation

[felagund]

It was me, and yes, I have. But Ashkenazy and Kempff play the 3 Mvt both faster than Richter, I guess. With "slow", I meant primarily the 1 Mvt, and not the 3 Mvt. I think he plays the 1 Mvt to slow. But this does not mean that he doesn't play well! He's a great pianist, and I like his interpretation of the Appassionata more than those of Ashkenazy, but I think, still, he plays to slow for my flavour. But anyway, I think that Gilels has the best recording of the Appassionata  .

[airasia]

It was me, and yes, I have. But Ashkenazy and Kempff play the 3 Mvt both faster than Richter, I guess. With "slow", I meant primarily the 1 Mvt, and not the 3 Mvt. I think he plays the 1 Mvt to slow. But this does not mean that he doesn't play well! He's a great pianist, and I like his interpretation of the Appassionata more than those of Ashkenazy, but I think, still, he plays to slow for my flavour. But anyway, I think that Gilels has the best recording of the Appassionata  .

I don't understand how you can like Gilels' interpretation the best when his 1st and 3rd movements are both MUCH slower than Richter's.  Gilels 1st movement is a little over 11 minutes while Richter's is a little over 10.  Their 3rds are 8 and 7 minutes, respectively.  I have Ashkenazy's 3rd movement recording also and there is no way it's faster than Richter's; the time on it is 7:35 and Richter's like i said is 7:02, by far the fastest recording of it that I have.  Can you tell me how fast your recordings are and where you found them?   

[m]

I don't understand how you can like Gilels' interpretation the best when his 1st and 3rd movements are both MUCH slower than Richter's.  Gilels 1st movement is a little over 11 minutes while Richter's is a little over 10.  Their 3rds are 8 and 7 minutes, respectively.  I have Ashkenazy's 3rd movement recording also and there is no way it's faster than Richter's; the time on it is 7:35 and Richter's like i said is 7:02, by far the fastest recording of it that I have.  Can you tell me how fast your recordings are and where you found them?   

Oh my...

 

[franzliszt2]

I a big fan of Brendel

[superstition2]

There are multiple Richter recordings of a number of Beethoven sonatas, from what I've heard. So, it may be helpful to cite the recording when making a statement about "Richter's appassionata", for instance.

[airasia]

There are multiple Richter recordings of a number of Beethoven sonatas, from what I've heard. So, it may be helpful to cite the recording when making a statement about "Richter's appassionata", for instance.

I have 3 different recordings by Richter, and the studio recording is the slowest at 7:02 while the live ones are both under 7 minutes, while every other recording I have of the 3rd movement isn't even close to these speeds.  I'm just asking someone, specifically the guy who said Richter is too slow, to give an example of a faster recording by anybody because I want to hear it. 

[mike_lang]

Ashkenazy over Richter!!!


Anyway, I prefer Garrick Ohlsson for the sonatas he's done,

BUT for the full set, Alfred Brendel wins no contest to me (although, I wish Ohlsson did a box set, i'd buy them in a second, he's my favorite)

For the Hammer Klavier, Ohlsson is just incredible, and Charles Rosen is great as well


I'm so surprised that there are some Brendel haters here. 

FYI for anyone in America, particularly the Midwest - Ohlsson will be playing quite a few of the Beethoven sonatas at the Ravinia Festival throughout the summer.

[chelsey]

Brendel and Schnabel

[instrumentaliszt]

I don't understand how you can like Gilels' interpretation the best when his 1st and 3rd movements are both MUCH slower than Richter's.  Gilels 1st movement is a little over 11 minutes while Richter's is a little over 10.  Their 3rds are 8 and 7 minutes, respectively.  I have Ashkenazy's 3rd movement recording also and there is no way it's faster than Richter's; the time on it is 7:35 and Richter's like i said is 7:02, by far the fastest recording of it that I have.  Can you tell me how fast your recordings are and where you found them?   

i think schumacher was fastest... but its because he had a better car.. alonso sometimes can be fast too, but the fastest ever was nigel mansell.

[mike_lang]

I have 3 different recordings by Richter, and the studio recording is the slowest at 7:02 while the live ones are both under 7 minutes, while every other recording I have of the 3rd movement isn't even close to these speeds.  I'm just asking someone, specifically the guy who said Richter is too slow, to give an example of a faster recording by anybody because I want to hear it. 

And we all take it for granted that the goal of the "Allegro ma non troppo" movement is to play it as fast as possible.

[felagund]

Richter: 1Mvt: 11:49 - 3Mvt: 8:39
Gilels: 1Mvt: 11:07 - 3Mvt: 7:53
Ashkenazy: 1Mvt: 9:42 - 3Mvt: 7:40
Kempff: 1Mvt: 9:52 - 3Mvt: 8:49
Arrau: 1Mvt: 11:20 - 3Mvt: 8:21

Believe it or not.

By the way, I didn't say that Richter's recording wouldn't be nice, just that it is too slow for my taste, that's all. So don't be huffy. And, still, I think that Gilel's recording is better than Richter's.

[airasia]

And we all take it for granted that the goal of the "Allegro ma non troppo" movement is to play it as fast as possible.

People need to read and understand the whole thread first before making wise comments.  Felagund first said "Richter plays it too slow for my tastes," which prompted me to ask how he thinks that since the three recordings i have by him are three of the fastest recordings i've ever heard.  He then said Gilels' recordings is his favorite.  Now I found this odd because the two recordings I have by Gilels are both considerably slower than Richters' and, as was stated earlier by Felagund, he dislikes slow speed of op. 57.  So now I thought he probably has different recordings so I asked what recordings he has so I can hear them.  This has nothing to do with MY preference.  I didn't give a single opinion criticizing anything or anyone.  So the people saying "oh my..." or whatever just need to understand what is going on first, and I wasn't trying to be"huffy" felagund, if i sounded that way.

[cloches_de_geneve]

I like Pletnev's Beethoven, even though he is usually far better live than in his recordings.
But in the end -- and all things considered: Wilhelm Kempff.