What's so great about Wilhelm Kempff?

[aslanov]

I've been listening to the beethoven sonata's performed by...richter, gilels, gould, barenboim, ashkenazy...and yes, kempff.
Why is kempff considered to be so great? The way my naive mind sees it, is his interpretations are...bland, not original, what glenn gould referred to as the basic statements that have already been made about music.
Yes, he is technically and musically a great pianist, but thats true of all musicians of his calibre. For me, he doesnt stand out.

let me know what you think.

[drpiano]

I really like Kempff's Beethoven. I find it to be very lyrical, and straightforward in a good way. The playing has great subtlety, but also a slightly rough edge that is appealing. The dynamic range isn't enormous, but his accents are important, and the always solid but never restricted rhythm keeps the music moving forward. In the end, Kempff's playing may not be for you, which is fine of course, but for me, it 'works'.

That being said, it should be noted that Kempff is from an earlier era than all of the other pianists you mention. If you want to assess his 'originality', you should really only compare him to his contemporaries and older generations.

[aslanov]

thats fair. then i'd compare him to......rudolf serkin, rubinstein, horowitz.......serkin is the one out of them i'd prefer for beethoven's sonatas. Mainly for his clarity, and obligation to the composer's work, but also for not letting those important aspects be a straightjacket into his playing.

[ramseytheii]

For me Serkin is the one I don't understand... such an ugly sound, and often unpleasant to listen to.. charging ahead, uneven passages, mistakes everywhere.  Also I find his adherence to marks on the page to be a case of smoke and mirrors.  Listen for instance to his recording of Brahms op.24, so much of what Brahms notated has been simply left out... and has certainly not been replaced by charm!

Walter Ramsey

[aslanov]

well i havent heard his brahms, my opinion on his playing based on some of his beethoven sonata's, who's clarity i appreciate.

[stucoy]

I would say go to youtube and watch him play the third movement of the Moonlight sonata. Surely that isn't bland. For me, this is an example of perfect piano playing. The way he is totally absorbed in the music, without a trace of self-consciousness. Marvellous playing.

[rc]

Thinking back to my first listenings of Kempff what struck me was the attention and subtlety of the accompaniment and inner voices...  He's been criticized of being slower, and I suspect that's in order to better hear everything that's going on.

I sometimes wonder about the differences of age too, the recordings I have of Kempff were from his later years.  I wonder if there'd be a different attitude in youth...  The obvious example that comes to mind is Gould's two recordings of the Goldberg Variations.

[goldentone]

I bought a Wilhelm Kempff CD of Beethoven sonatas some years ago and didn't like his playing at all.  But recently I have begun to really enjoy his playing.  He's just a unique pianist.  Perhaps down the road how you feel about him will change as well.

[arensky]

My first reaction to his playing was that it was boring; in classical literature his fast movements seemed slow and the slow movements were never less than andante. My opinion of him changed when I heard his Schumann Symphonic Etudes. He plays them with a sense of breadth and expansion that many pianists miss while trying to beat the clock. Instead of a set of variation etudes I heard a narrative of immense drama and scope. I will listen to this recording again (haven't in awhile) and see if I still feel the same. Perhaps what makes him great is that he lets the music speak for itself, instead of trying to make himself heard through the music. He reminds me of Robert Casadesus, who like Kempff was also a composer. Perhaps this more creative work influenced their approach to the music of others.

[antichrist]

I bought a Wilhelm Kempff CD of Beethoven sonatas some years ago and didn't like his playing at all.  But recently I have begun to really enjoy his playing.  He's just a unique pianist.  Perhaps down the road how you feel about him will change as well.

I can't agree more , but Wilhelm Kempff was really  great in beethoven sonata

[cloches_de_geneve]

What is great about him? Pretty much everything.
I don't really understand the impression of Kempff being boring; it's hard to find a pianist with a more personal and distinct way of playing. I can immediately recognize his incredible sound, the plasticity of his articulation, the highly personal voicing of his chords. His timing is also amazing, free, and yet built on a very steady, ever flowing pulse. This rhythmic flow is perhaps what makes his interpretations sound so natural.

Brendel says in his recent book that when Kempff was in shape, he played better than anybody else. That's probably true. But to fully appreciate Kempff's greatness, you need to listen to his Schumann, Liszt, and especially Brahms and Schubert. For Schubert (complete sonatas) he is unrivaled imo.

[aslanov]

I'd believe that when he was in shape, but I have only heard his most recent recordings, and his previously recorded beethoven sonatas, that i assume he recorded when in shape, but other than those i've heard nothing from him when he was in "shape"

[sharon_f]

But to fully appreciate Kempff's greatness, you need to listen to his Schumann, Liszt, and especially Brahms and Schubert. For Schubert (complete sonatas) he is unrivaled imo.

I love his Schubert. He makes everything seem so natural, so organic.

[birba]

For me Serkin is the one I don't understand... such an ugly sound, and often unpleasant to listen to.. charging ahead, uneven passages, mistakes everywhere.  Also I find his adherence to marks on the page to be a case of smoke and mirrors.  Listen for instance to his recording of Brahms op.24, so much of what Brahms notated has been simply left out... and has certainly not been replaced by charm!

Walter Ramsey

I agree completely with you there.  They were two pianists at opposite ends of the spectrum.  I enjoyed the times I heard Kempff live.  The beautiful tone, the absolute honest and extemporaneous interpretations. Nothins ever sounded planned or calculated.  I'll never forget one time I was sitting on the stage because the hall had been sold out and he was playing the Waldstein.  There were two people whispering behind me, and at the end of the development just before the contrary scale leading to the recapitulation, he turned, and without missing a beat, in the best Italian he could muster up, "Per favore! un pò di cortesia per gli altri!"  Now I found that impressive - I've never been able to talk and play at the same time!

[anne126]

His Beethoven... they're posterity recordings.


His Schubert...

"He makes everything seem so natural, so organic."

I agree with this. :)

The Schubert recordings are worth listening to if you're studying them. I've stolen a lot of his ideas before.

[ramseytheii]

I love especially his Brahms, which have an amazing sense of continuity that is not matched by most other pianists.  His playing always suggests something outside of the piano; he is not one of these pianists who is just playing with different touches and weights; it actually adds up to something.

This is my problem by the way with most pianists we hear today, and definitely the majority of those in competitions.  They have a scientific knowledge of how to apply different kinds of touch, but there is never an over-arching sense of story, of poetry, of magic.  I don't know how scientific Kempff was in his approach to the piano, but whatever he did obviously worked.

Walter Ramsey

[weissenberg2]

his piano playing...

[ramseytheii]

his piano playing...

Oh, is that all?

Walter Ramsey

[birba]

I remember the first time I ever heard him live. It was at Carnegie hall many many years ago and I even think it was his new york debut.  It was a big thing because he was already world famous, but for some reason had never played in New York.  I was very young, but I will never forget the Davidsbundler tanze.  It was the first time I had ever even heard OF them.  At any rate, the holier-than-thou Harold Schonberg of the Times, said something to the effect that any 10-year-old school girl had a better technique then him.  The newspaper was inundated with protest letters.  The fact was, he had a formidable techniqe (he was considered one of the finest Liszt interpreters of the time, when Liszt was considered a "minor" composer) but it was never a visual end in itself.  Always in function of the music he was "re-creating" at the moment.  That being said, my teacher always warned me against emulating him!  Something I still try doing!  Not WHAT he does, but HOW he does it, if you get my gist.

[weissenberg2]

Oh, is that all?

Walter Ramsey

what else.

[anne126]

Oh, is that all?

Walter Ramsey

what else.

That's really all. Horowitz, Kempff, Schnabel, Arrau, etc. etc.

They're all amazing pianists... but they're not very interesting.

[weissenberg2]

That's really all. Horowitz, Kempff, Schnabel, Arrau, etc. etc.

They're all amazing pianists... but they're not very interesting.

They are interesting. It is just that is he really known for anything except for his piano playing?

[anne126]

I don't mean their personal lives or any of that. What I mean...

My opinion is that... as pianists they are not very interesting. They are all praised for their talent &c (with good reason, they are all amazing pianists), but their interpretations are nothing extraordinary or remarkable (besides Horowitz's Op. 101 maybe, but)... Which is why I remarked that "they're posterity recordings". In the words of Gould (certainly the most interesting pianist, as he had more to say about music and his work than any other musician), "all the basic statements have been made for posterity". A personal example, I never listen to many of the Beethoven sonatas anymore because I've heard the same Moonlight sonata, Op. 90, etc. interpretations too many times already, and they no longer interest me. Of course the phrasing is nice and the touch of the pianissimo is just right, and whatever else... But how many times can one listen to such a piece and be interested simply in the sound the pianist produces?

None of the pianists I mentioned had anything very remarkable to say about music either.

[ramseytheii]

I don't mean their personal lives or any of that. What I mean...

My opinion is that... as pianists they are not very interesting. They are all praised for their talent &c (with good reason, they are all amazing pianists), but their interpretations are nothing extraordinary or remarkable (besides Horowitz's Op. 101 maybe, but)... Which is why I remarked that "they're posterity recordings". In the words of Gould (certainly the most interesting pianist, as he had more to say about music and his work than any other musician), "all the basic statements have been made for posterity". A personal example, I never listen to many of the Beethoven sonatas anymore because I've heard the same Moonlight sonata, Op. 90, etc. interpretations too many times already, and they no longer interest me. Of course the phrasing is nice and the touch of the pianissimo is just right, and whatever else... But how many times can one listen to such a piece and be interested simply in the sound the pianist produces?

None of the pianists I mentioned had anything very remarkable to say about music either.

Hmm - it seems you have never seen Schnabel's Beethoven editions, or Arrau's interviews on music, or listened to a single Horowitz record besides op.101.

Based on your comments, I would say the problem lies with you, not the pianists.  Who says you have to listen to a piece to hear the touch and the pianissimo?

When I listen to Kempff, for instance, I am totally engaged by the narrative continuity.  He is able to make the Brahms late pieces come alive in a way I have heard almost no other pianist do, with the exception perhaps of Radu Lupu.  It is not even about his touch or his sound, it's about the whole experience.  His performances seem to suggest stories, running deep with characters and feelings and atmospheres, that go beyond any kind of physical approach.

The same with Horowitz.  His playing is characterized by an impetuous electricity.  You never know what to expect, but it always communicates so strongly this huge variety of images, like fire lighting up a horizon, or sparkling stars, or evil horned demons.  I don't even think, "what kind of touch is he using on the left hand vs the right hand?"  I see pictures when I hear him play.

Schnabel of course is able to convey the structure of music in a practically visual way.  I can follow the pieces when he performs, as if they are going past me in a panorama.  There are few pianists that play in that way; I would say another is Richter.  Although Schnabel and Richter sound nothing alike, I believe they share this quality, of making the inner world of music visible.  Not only that, but Schnabel was a cultural historian, which you can hear from his recordings and see from his notes on the Beethoven sonatas.  He understood above all what was to be taken literally, and what was a keyboard effect composed into the music by Beethoven.  Today, almost everything is taken literally. 

For instance, compare Schnabels recording of op.10 no.1 in c minor with any modern pianist.  You cannot have heard his performance, and said that he has nothing to say about music like this.  His perception is totally different, on a fundamental level, from the mindless literalism that pervades piano-playing today.  His kind of interpretation wouldn't get past any competition's recording round, and thank god; it just reveals how ridiculous they are.

Sorry you have such a dry opinion of these great artists!

Walter Ramsey

[aslanov]

I don't mean their personal lives or any of that. What I mean...

My opinion is that... as pianists they are not very interesting. They are all praised for their talent &c (with good reason, they are all amazing pianists), but their interpretations are nothing extraordinary or remarkable (besides Horowitz's Op. 101 maybe, but)... Which is why I remarked that "they're posterity recordings". In the words of Gould (certainly the most interesting pianist, as he had more to say about music and his work than any other musician), "all the basic statements have been made for posterity". A personal example, I never listen to many of the Beethoven sonatas anymore because I've heard the same Moonlight sonata, Op. 90, etc. interpretations too many times already, and they no longer interest me. Of course the phrasing is nice and the touch of the pianissimo is just right, and whatever else... But how many times can one listen to such a piece and be interested simply in the sound the pianist produces?

None of the pianists I mentioned had anything very remarkable to say about music either.

Whoa whoa whoa! toooo far lady.
I've heard some of Schnabel and Arrau. Arrau, without a doubt is fantastic; both in interpretation and technical skill.  Schnabel, i'd say is quite interesting to listen to.

[anne126]

Hmm - it seems you have never seen Schnabel's Beethoven editions, or Arrau's interviews on music, or listened to a single Horowitz record besides op.101.

? Not true. I've heard them all.

Sorry you have such a dry opinion of these great artists!

How rude. o_O

[birba]

Could age have anything to do with this?  I'm not about to reveal my venerable years, though you can probably guess it from my posts, but the older I get the more I DO appreciate the subtle, not shouted out loud, interpretations.  Something doesn't have to be contrived and contorted to "turn out" a "new" and "revealing" interpretation.  I really think you need a particular kind of sensitivity to appreciate the playing of pianists like Kempff. 

[theodore]

When I was in the US army in 1958, I attended a piano recital in Stuttgart Germany by Wilhelm Kempf. He played sonatas by Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert. The audience was filled with many musicians from the Stuttgart Philharmonic as well as dozens of pianists. It seems that he was an event which was not to be missed.

The pianists I spoke with told me that the recital was one where they hoped to learn about the fine subtilties of musical interpretation and not the physical aspects of piano playing. 

Kempf was of the school of musicians who interested themselves in all of the aspects of music: orchestral, chamber music, opera, etc. Beethoven also in his quest to read Shakespeare, and in his lifelong friendship with the poet Goethe was also interested in the many varieties of music, poetry, drama, etc.  Beethoven seemed not to care for the literal interpretation of even his own music. His entire purpose seemed to be the overall emotional musical effect.

For example, in the first performance of his violin-piano sonata  opus 47 (later called the Kreutzer) Beethoven employed the talents of violinist George Bridgetower. The premier performance of his new violin sonata began before a distinguished Vienna audience.  However, in bar 35 of the first movement, at the fermata, Beethoven improvised a huge run just for piano and spanning several octaves. It comes in the middle of a passage marked   'to be repeated'.  But, in the repeat, after Beethoven executed the run a second time , Bridgetower imitated Beethoven and did a spectacular, cadenza like rendition of it on the violin. Beethoven looked up from the piano in astonishment, he then stopped playing, ran across the stage, embraced Bridgetower, ran back to the piano and the performance continued.

[ramseytheii]

? Not true. I've heard them all.

How rude. o_O

How eloquent!

Walter Ramsey

[anne126]

How eloquent!

"My opinion is that..."

I suppose you missed that

"(they are all amazing pianists)"

and that because you became wound up in your tempest of extraordinary adjectives? How eloquent you are sir! One can fling about as many adjectives as they wish! But, unfortunately, sir, you've said near nothing. And hardly anything interesting! You've only shown yourself to be a very presumptuous intolerable person. Sir, if you wish to continue merely quibbling then I suggest you send me a private message, so that we do not interrupt the topic here.

Thank you for that post theodore, I enjoyed it. :)

[ramseytheii]

"My opinion is that..."

I suppose you missed that

"(they are all amazing pianists)"

and that because you became wound up in your tempest of extraordinary adjectives? How eloquent you are sir! One can fling about as many adjectives as they wish! But, unfortunately, sir, you've said near nothing. And hardly anything interesting! You've only shown yourself to be a very presumptuous intolerable person. Sir, if you wish to continue merely quibbling then I suggest you send me a private message, so that we do not interrupt the topic here.

If I am going to continue to get such wonderfully phrased rebukes worthy of Jane Austen, I will most definitely keep this conversation public.

You say they are amazing pianists, but that they have nothing to say about the music.  I know many pianists like that, but the ones you listed are not in that category.  I offered those long paragraphs above, to show exactly what it is they do say about the music.

A good place for you to start would be to listen to Schnabel's recording of Beethoven's op.10 no.1.  You will find that his interpretation doesn't follow literally the printed page.  Comparing it to performances of modern pianists, you will notice that it is more saturated with nuance and character, with a freedom that only comes from intense connection.  How can you therefore say, that he has nothing to say about it?  Your eloquence unfortunately comes in everything except words of explanation.

You may want to also listen to Horowitz's recording of the Chopin Polonaise-Fantasie, op.61.  You will find an epic performance, which brings to life this complex score in a completely unique way - saying something individual and new about the music.

Perhaps you have never heard Kempff's recording of Brahms' rather simple intermezzo op.117 no.1; using the barest pianistic means (not showing off what an amazing pianist he is), Kempff allows the music to breathe and tell a story.  The murky middle section becomes a different world of emotion, opening up to the return of the theme.  He is communicating to us the message.

I wonder if you choose to ignore those things, because you think those pianists are canonical, or because you think it is humiliating to praise that which has already been praised, and does not need any more.  Or perhaps you truly cannot hear the wonders they impart - wonders that go beyond "amazing" pianisim, into the realm of literature, spirituality, and emotion.  But I doubt the last case.  I doubt it.

Onward and upward with the arts!

Walter Ramsey

[maxy]

I'll keep it very simple:
What's so great about Wilhelm Kempff?

His humanity

Structure, structure, structure and structure. How about a nice place where to live? That is what Kempff offers us in his Beethoven.

[cloches_de_geneve]

Based on your comments, I would say the problem lies with you, not the pianists. 

I tend to echo your thoughts on this.

[giannalinda]

I tend to echo your thoughts on this.

I agree with both of u

[anne126]

Sorry, I forgot about this thread. :)

"You say they are amazing pianists, but that they have nothing to say about the music."

You've misunderstood... Say as "speak" or "talk". They've nothing to say.

"I wonder if you choose to ignore those things, because you think those pianists are canonical, or because you think it is humiliating to praise that which has already been praised, and does not need any more.  Or perhaps you truly cannot hear the wonders they impart - wonders that go beyond "amazing" pianisim, into the realm of literature, spirituality, and emotion."

So you agree with me that they are amazing pianists?

Actually I'm quite lost now as to what we're, apparently, arguing about. Could you please be more clear, or return to my original post you countered so voraciously and explain what you find wrong with what I said?

(I just noticed the two posts above... Now we know that two people agree with you. How exciting all of this is!)

[ramseytheii]

Sorry, I forgot about this thread.

"You say they are amazing pianists, but that they have nothing to say about the music."

You've misunderstood... Say as "speak" or "talk". They've nothing to say.

I didn't misunderstand you at first... I directed you to places where they "said" a lot about the music.  For instance, you can read the notes to Schnabel's Beethoven sonatas, or you can read his autobiography, "My Life in Music."

Horowitz was interviewed several times by David Dubal; you can read "Evenings with Horowitz," or purchase the book of essays written by colleagues on Horowitz's death, which includes a CD of Horowitz talking about.... music!

Also, there is the interesting book, "Arrau on Music and Performance," interviews between J. Horowitz and Claudio Arrau.  He has a particularly interesting analysis of the Liszt sonata.

I guess I must not understand you - you say they have nothing to say.  But you've said nothing about all the books and editions they've published; nothing about the interviews they gave; nothing about their students; and nothing about their recordings, where they say much more than they can in mere words.  What are you talking about then?

Walter Ramsey

[cloches_de_geneve]

I guess I must not understand you - you say they have nothing to say.  But you've said nothing about all the books and editions they've published; nothing about the interviews they gave; nothing about their students; and nothing about their recordings, where they say much more than they can in mere words.  What are you talking about then?

Walter Ramsey

Seconded. I don't know about Horowitz, but Schnabel and Arrau were obvious "intellectual" artists who thought as much about the music as they played it. This thinking is amply documented, as mentioned, and I find it no less striking or profound than what Gould had to say. But perhaps I do not understand your point either.