Annie fischer or Claudio arrauOne of the greatest beethoven pieces ever written.peace out
Seconded. Though I haven't heard Schnabel's yet, and I'd give a leg to be able to hear Zimerman's perfomance of it, which I'm sure would blow my mind.
Without any doubt-Egon Petri.
Mitsuko Uchida?!?!?!? Haven't heard the recording, but can't imagine her coming anywhere near the musical and extra-musical demands of that work of art.
I don't think it's been recorded, but I heard Krystian Zimerman play Op. 111 last April live in recital and it was stunning.
Nobody has ever played the Opp. 109/111 well.
Please explain
You have to explain how they have been, first.
Performers such as Daniel Barenboim, MIkhail Pletnev etc... give interpretations that are technically immulate, a beautiful tone throughout, maintain the architecture and artistically first-rate.Why do you think otherwise?
Why would you even think he has a point beyond getting attention? His statement is ignorant from the start since there's no way anyone could know all the performances of both pieces since they were created.
Ironically, I started a thread on Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Perhaps, since you claim to be of such, great understanding of propositions, your incredible expertise and intellect would be useful there. Surely you are familiar with the work; I mean, it's only the most important work on logic since Kant.
Actually, the implication of my post was regarding the musical depth in the Opp. 109/111, and how no, singular performance can possibly (literally) account for all of it.
What's the implication of your post? The reason for posting it. Your preferred outcome, the most likely, the most unlikely, and your most abhorred? What is its meaning; what did the act of posting it cause you to feel, did you expect that outcome, was it the outcome you were looking for, and was it the most likely? Why would you think they are the best/worst/most-likely, and how did thinking about that make you feel? Are you operating purely on logic or are you being self-aware in your analysis? If so, what are the psychological implications of those three separately and as a group? What did you expect my response to be, what would you have liked it to be and what would you have not liked it to be? How about Weissenberg's? What are the philosophical and psychological meanings of your post, in regard to your id, mine, his, and that of the anonymous audience, as macro and micro?Surely if you even briefly delve into these questions, assuming you have the faculty to do such, you'll realize you're a hypocrite (Self-awareness = ego, ego/"wanting attention" --> you are a hypocrite) What are the implications of you likely not having thought of these things and me having thought about them? (Not in your favor in this context, I can tell you that) Surely my responses here are on a higher, ethical ground (and vastly more intelligent) than yours; I wonder why you are suddenly hostile! I could delve into that, but I'll let you try to.
I never made such claim.
That could be true, and could actually be said about a vast number of pieces, but to say one performance can't account for the whole depth of the piece is very far from the statement that no one has ever played it well.
That is out off topic and completely irrelevant, the question is not who argues the best, who's right, or even which is the deepest performance of the piece, it's simply which is your favorite interpretation of it. My post was directed at Weissenberg, not at you, and any hostility you might have percieved was only in your mind. I used the word ignorant simply to state that you ignore all of the performances on the pieces, and if there was anyone who has any deffinitive answer on whether any performer captures the whole philosophical and emotional depth of the work, or if it even matters if all of that depth is expressed, would only be Beethoven himself.
This sounds almost like something out of Richter.
when i read mr linch's post, i started to post a reply asking him to explain himself. but i stopped because of an answer i received in the post on earl wild: i don't HAVE to explain anything. you're treading on a mine-field when you get him started. he's delved so far from the post on beethoven, it's clear he's an amateur philosopher who is using this site to expound his profound knowledge. Iroveashe is right. it's only a means of getting attention.
I agree 100%. The same holds true for Mahler (or maybe it's more visible to some in Mahler.). I have over 100 recordings of the 6th Symphony. Not one of them is good, and the best performance even in the mind cannot account for all its depth. (A better example, the 9th...the first movement is one of the greatest ever penned, and there are so many threads and layers that emphasizing one puts a shadow on others, and you need by nature to have many, many approaches to do it justice.)
Alright, I'll stop assuming and making claims. What aspects of Arrau's interpretation of Op. 111 make it bad enough to be compared with dog urine?
[Dog urine certainly doesn't have Arrau's pretensions; I wouldn't want to insult dog urine like that.] What I'd say if I was interested in keeping the tone you apparently are.Arrau's is one of my least favorite of the so-called "good ones", so to speak. In the first movement he has no patience, in that he does not allow any one idea, phrase or motif to breathe in between the others. Rush rush rush to the next idea. There's also, and this may be due to the recording technology of the time, although I doubt it, a great lack in variety in color and dynamic. His trills are sloppy in places, the octaves rhythmically sporadic in places. There is ridiculous rubato in the staccato bridges. To me his performance just means nothing; it doesn't say anything. It's a technically qualified (usually; he does lose his place later in the movement a bit) pianist sitting at a piano and playing the notes. That is all. It's not exciting, nor moving, nor spiritual in any way. It's a performance of the piece, and the last thing that piece needs is more pianists "just playing it", which is what Arrau did in my ears. The second movement is too slow for my liking, to start, as well as suffering from the lack of color and dynamic variety. Various dissonances come out in his voicing that don't belong, and the few that do are often ignored under his hands. He gets hung up several times trying to force more legato into the piece than he seems technically capable of, as well, which ruins the rhythmic structure; he does so doubly by injecting rubato which obviously has no place where he puts it, making the whole thing intellectually idle and aimless. His second movement is just so pretentious; as if it's so incredible because it's not incredible in any way. Well, to me, that just means it's not incredible.
Whilst you're thinking about your next salvo here, I might add (albeit with great sadness) that I attended what I believe was the first performance that Michelangeli gave following the severe stroke that he suffered on or around his 70th birthday; it was in the far from pleasant acoustic of London's Barbican Hall and was an all Beethoven and Chopin programme which I almost wish he'd declined to give, since he was clearly not in the best condition to do it. Following Op.22, the first half ended with a performance of Op.111 that was one of the most tense, uncomfortable and mannered that I have ever heard of that work and, especially since my expectations had been so high, the disappointment that his bizarre account offered was more than enough to make one weep. The place was so chock full of pianists to the point at which I almost felt like an interloper (I saw Cherkassky, Ashkenazy and Brendel as well as a good many other well known names from the piano world there). What perhaps made the entire occasion even more sickening was that, having made an even worse impression with some Chopin playing in the second half, he ended with what started as a lacklustre and tired performance of the Andante Spianato and Grande Polonaise of which one felt that the best thing that could happen was for it to be over as soon as possible, only for him suddenly to rediscover (as it were) his old magic from out of nowhere as the polonaise progressed and, ultimately, we ended up in thrall to vintage ABM at his very best. Of course, it brought the house down. It brought me down, too - albeit in a rather different sense.Best,Alistair
OK - so whether or to what extent I might agree with you about Arrau in this work at any given time, let's have more of this, because at least your are telling us in detail about what you think about what you have listened to.Whilst you're thinking about your next salvo here, I might add (albeit with great sadness) that I attended what I believe was the first performance that Michelangeli gave following the severe stroke that he suffered on or around his 70th birthday; it was in the far from pleasant acoustic of London's Barbican Hall and was an all Beethoven and Chopin programme which I almost wish he'd declined to give, since he was clearly not in the best condition to do it. Following Op.22, the first half ended with a performance of Op.111 that was one of the most tense, uncomfortable and mannered that I have ever heard of that work and, especially since my expectations had been so high, the disappointment that his bizarre account offered was more than enough to make one weep. The place was so chock full of pianists to the point at which I almost felt like an interloper (I saw Cherkassky, Ashkenazy and Brendel as well as a good many other well known names from the piano world there). What perhaps made the entire occasion even more sickening was that, having made an even worse impression with some Chopin playing in the second half, he ended with what started as a lacklustre and tired performance of the Andante Spianato and Grande Polonaise of which one felt that the best thing that could happen was for it to be over as soon as possible, only for him suddenly to rediscover (as it were) his old magic from out of nowhere as the polonaise progressed and, ultimately, we ended up in thrall to vintage ABM at his very best. Of course, it brought the house down. It brought me down, too - albeit in a rather different sense.Best,Alistair
Alistair,When you wrote "Op.22" somehow I actually connected it with Andante Spianato etc., so it was quite confusing to read into the actual Chopin piece, so it took a few moments to realize the Op.22 actually was Beethoven
Topic: Favourite interpretation of Beethoven's Sonata 32 Op 111 