Sokolov and Beethoven (Op. 10 No. 3 in D Major)

[roberth]

I just heard a fascinating recital by Grigory Sokolov here in Zurich last night. Among other works, he played Beethoven's Sonata No. 7 in D Major, Op. 10 No. 3.

Since I also know this piece intimately, my curiosity was aroused by the fact that he plays a G minor harmony in the 1st mvt. at bars 177-178 instead of G Major. The entire recital was note-perfect, so it didn't sound like a momentary lapse of concentration or anything like that.

I hunted around on YouTube and found one clip of him playing this same sonata in Madrid just last month, where he also plays G minor:

Madrid recital:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlpxj80M2iA (the spot is at 04:55 or thereabouts)

Then there is another clip from a live performance way back in 1968, shortly after he had won the Tchaikovsky Competition, and there he plays G Major (the "normal" harmony):

from 1968:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRPIXaW-stg (at approx. 04:20)

It seems pretty obvious to me that this was an intentional change at some point. An artist of Sokolov's stature who plays every single note with such commitment is not going to simply misread the notes!

Does anyone here know more about this? I'm pretty sure that I am not the first person to notice.

[roberth]

In the meantime, I looked at all of the scores of this piece which are downloadable on the IMSLP (Petrucci Library) website, including one of the first edition. Interestingly enough, the first edition writes an explicit natural sign in front of the B's in those bars, which is not carried over by most of the more recent editions. Henle has nothing here ... but since I only have the scores and not the "Critical Remarks" to the sonatas, I don't know if any mention is made of this superfluous natural sign. One of the scores edited by Casella, does show the natural.

Now I tend to think that some edition, or maybe Mr. Sokolov himself, must have assumed that a flat was intended here since there is no real necessity to write a natural sign, the harmony having modulated to A Major well before the place (although the development section does begin in B-Flat Major). The printing of the 1st edition is extremely clear, and easy to distinguish between naturals and flats. However, the ascending bass line doesn't really sound logical with the B-flat (A -> B-natural -> C# -> D at the beginning of the recapitulation).

It would be interesting to know Mr. Sokolov's thoughts on the matter.

[8_octaves]

Hi roberth,

that's an interesting find you made there!

Hm. But to evaluate it may be difficult. Because, on the Henle-Blog there's stated that there aren't existing any autographs for Beethoven-sonatas until and including op.22.

You said, that in Henle, there isn't any (natural) sign given.

I looked into my Könemann-Edition, vol. I, of the Sonatas: There isn't a (natural) sign given either. The Könemann-Edition has got a very small critical appendix, too, but nothing special to the sonata or bars 177 and 178 is said. (only a short comment on bar 17, which is irrelevant here.)

The Könemann-Edition does this: (I quote from the text):

The present edition is based on the autograph manuscript and / or first edition(s) of the works. Other early editions have also been consulted, whenever justified. The editorial additions reduced to a minimum appear in square brackets. The additions are restricted to notes and signs missing in the sources, deemed nevertheless absolutely necessary. The evident slips of the pen and printing errors have been tacitily corrected. Similarly, signs omitted due to the perfunctory manner of notation (staccato marks, slurs, dynamics etc.) are added without comment. The octave passages have been supplemented by adding lower and upper notes which Beethoven did not write due to the limited pitch of the contemporary keyboard. Staccato is indicated by a dot throughout.
No additions by analogy have been made. This explains why the expression marks not available in the sources but included in most modern editions are missing in this edition. In regard to the manner of performance, the execution of ornaments and fingering no suggestions have been made. The title and dedication of the works as well as the specification of the instruments are given according to the sources. The considerable inconsistencies of the sources are listed below: [...]

I looked at the Eder-first edition on IMSLP, too, and I checked at the digital archives of https://www.beethoven-haus-bonn.de/sixcms/detail.php?template=portal_en , whether research has advanced in the field of the sonata. But it hasn't. They only have the Eder-first edition, too, and, moreover, they are picky    , because to gain full access to the digitized material, one has to "order" it, I think.

What I read additionally on the German Henle-blog, was something about the op. 14,2 G-major-sonata, of which only ONE "source" exists, which gives "d flat" in the right hand of bar 87, e.g., and on the German Henle-Blog it's stated that many later editions don't have this d flat, but that Perahia sometimes plays it. And that there may be 3 reasons for NOT giving d flat, but only d, but also 3 reasons for NOT deviating from the d flat... .

If you want(?), I would try to approximately translate the passus containing those reasons from German to English, from that Henle-Blog.

https://www.henle.de/blog/de/2012/06/25/daneben-geschlagen-ein-vermeintlich-falscher-ton-in-beethovens-sonate-op-14-nr-2/

But it will last a little time, then.(?)

But as my personal opinion to the D-major-sonata op. 10,3 , I wouldn't be surprised if a humorous word of Egon Petri also was valid for FIRST EDITIONS, too:

"All editors are additors!"

  Cordially, 8_octaves!

 

[roberth]

Thanks for the feedback, 8_octaves ... are you a Bösendorfer fan, by any chance? ... because I believe the Imperial does have the full 8 octaves?

I've been living in Switzerland for over 30 years now (and four years in Hamburg before that), so I can read the Henle blog with no problem. Very interesting material! I would vote for the version with D-flat AND B-flat in the op. 14 nr. 2 sonata. When I look at these early editions, I get the impression that they were done with a lot more care than many modern editions today (Henle being the main exception, of course).

The question remaining in my mind is, why did they (1st edition) put any accidental in op. 10 Nr. 3 at all? If it were not there, nobody in his right mind would play B-flat, IMHO. Did Beethoven write that in his manuscript? I suppose we'll never know.

[8_octaves]

Thanks for the feedback, 8_octaves ... are you a Bösendorfer fan, by any chance? ... because I believe the Imperial does have the full 8 octaves?

I've been living in Switzerland for over 30 years now (and four years in Hamburg before that), so I can read the Henle blog with no problem. Very interesting material! I would vote for the version with D-flat AND B-flat in the op. 14 nr. 2 sonata. When I look at these early editions, I get the impression that they were done with a lot more care than many modern editions today (Henle being the main exception, of course).

The question remaining in my mind is, why did they (1st edition) put any accidental in op. 10 Nr. 3 at all? If it were not there, nobody in his right mind would play B-flat, IMHO. Did Beethoven write that in his manuscript? I suppose we'll never know.

Hi Roberth!

No, I haven't ever played on a Bösendorfer, so I cannot say anything about them.   My username is slightly connected to a pseudonyme of my favourite composer! One only needs to subtract one from the eight!  

...ok: hmm. To the sonata, and to your last sentence:

Yes, we perhaps won't ever know. Now, let's imagine: He DID. And let's imagine, that the first edition was exact.

Why the natural signs, then?

Hm. I looked at the complete section from bar 133 to 176, and counted the Bs: B-flats and B -sharps, and explicit B naturals appearing. As follows:

There are

143 B-flats to be played, ( onehundredfortythree !!! )
2 B-sharps ( bars 167 and 171 )
4 explicit B-naturals ( bar 146: 3 of them, and bar 162 one. )

So, nearly the whole section "circles" around the B-flat, as a note which is very important.
Now, if both Beethoven and the first edition HAD written the natural sign (the first editors must have had access to some manuscript, copy, or autograph-manuscript, but as we know, these sources are unavailable to us), then I could imagine, that they didn't do that only to indicate that it's natural, now, (because that won't have been necessary), but to indicate that it's REALLY (!!!) natural now, because in the brains of players, there are, until bar 177 begins, 143 B-flats and 2 B-sharps a piano player has played on the relative small room of 43 bars. "It's REALLY natural now", they perhaps wanted to make clear: A strong WARNING aspect being inherent in this natural sign.

( But that's only a vague idea I had, "pro" this sign. The "contra" side which I could imagine, I had mentioned above: Editors may be additors, which would mean that Beethoven would have postulated: "All piano players => good! They won't play a flat here, in spite of the 143 they have played before!", so he, if this was the case, didn't write the sign. - But the first editors may have thought a little different. )

But that, too, is only a vague idea I have.

More I don't know. Via analyzing what Beethoven did in other, similar, cases, could perhaps be interesting. But I don't know whether harmonic analyzing ( g major ? g minor ? how, what, chords, functions, etc. ) would be able to answer all questions here.

Very cordially, 8_octaves!

[roberth]

Hm. I looked at the complete section from bar 133 to 176, and counted the Bs: B-flats and B -sharps, and explicit B naturals appearing. As follows:

There are

143 B-flats to be played, ( onehundredfortythree !!! )
2 B-sharps ( bars 167 and 171 )
4 explicit B-naturals ( bar 146: 3 of them, and bar 162 one. )

So, nearly the whole section "circles" around the B-flat, as a note which is very important.
Now, if both Beethoven and the first edition HAD written the natural sign (the first editors must have had access to some manuscript, copy, or autograph-manuscript, but as we know, these sources are unavailable to us), then I could imagine, that they didn't do that only to indicate that it's natural, now, (because that won't have been necessary), but to indicate that it's REALLY (!!!) natural now, because in the brains of players, there are, until bar 177 begins, 143 B-flats and 2 B-sharps a piano player has played on the relative small room of 43 bars. "It's REALLY natural now", they perhaps wanted to make clear: A strong WARNING aspect being inherent in this natural sign.

( But that's only a vague idea I had, "pro" this sign. The "contra" side which I could imagine, I had mentioned above: Editors may be additors, which would mean that Beethoven would have postulated: "All piano players => good! They won't play a flat here, in spite of the 143 they have played before!", so he, if this was the case, didn't write the sign. - But the first editors may have thought a little different. )

Wow ... 143 B-flats?  

I don't know if any performers would actually count notes like this, although we know that J. S. Bach used a lot of such techniques connected with his theories of "Zahlensymbolik" (number symbolism). Beethoven never used number symbolism, AFAIK. But I think it helps explain WHY the editors of the first edition (or Beethoven) thought that it might be a good idea to write the natural. Thanks for the counting work!

Far more important to a musician is the harmonic analysis, and G minor doesn't fit very well in this particular progression ... at least not to my ears. The fact that there are so many of them is certainly due to the fact that most of the development section is in B-Flat Major with excursions into G minor (the parallel minor key). But somehow he has to get back to D Major to go on to the recap, and a B-Flat is not very helpful anymore at this particular place.

It's something which he might have done in his later works ... the B-flat gives the passage something of a modal quality. The 3rd movement of the A minor string quartet, op. 132 comes to mind ("Heiliger Dankgesang eines Genesenen an die Gottheit, in der lydischen Tonart"). But not in op. 10.

[8_octaves]

Wow ... 143 B-flats?  

I don't know if any performers would actually count notes like this, although we know that J. S. Bach used a lot of such techniques connected with his theories of "Zahlensymbolik" (number symbolism). Beethoven never used number symbolism, AFAIK. But I think it helps explain WHY the editors of the first edition (or Beethoven) thought that it might be a good idea to write the natural. Thanks for the counting work!

Far more important to a musician is the harmonic analysis, and G minor doesn't fit very well in this particular progression ... at least not to my ears. The fact that there are so many of them is certainly due to the fact that most of the development section is in B-Flat Major with excursions into G minor (the parallel minor key). But somehow he has to get back to D Major to go on to the recap, and a B-Flat is not very helpful anymore at this particular place.

It's something which he might have done in his later works ... the B-flat gives the passage something of a modal quality. The 3rd movement of the A minor string quartet, op. 132 comes to mind ("Heiliger Dankgesang eines Genesenen an die Gottheit, in der lydischen Tonart"). But not in op. 10.

Rehi Roberth!

Of course your answer (thxx very much!!  ) seems convincing in every point. And I don't think Beethoven has used "number symbolics" too often, either.

(But let's not forget about "fate knocking on the door" exactly 4 times, and then will repeat it! ( in 5th symphony, or in Appassionata! ))   

Thus, that wasn't the reason why I counted the B flats. But the reason was, that in this special case, the frequency seems peculiar IN CONNECTION to the written (by Beethoven) or not-written (by Beethoven) natural sign.

And the slightly "modal", sad / melancholic quality you mentioned, if people play B flat, surely exists. No doubt. My thoughts, though, went in the direction, that editions are made to be SOLD. To people, who like to play the sonatas. Beethoven, as a MUSICIAN (you mentioned, how important for a musician harmonic structures are), may have perhaps taken a "natural-sign-as-being-not-necessary" for completely normal! But editions (if we assume this case), may have wanted to make it clear for EVERY customer.

All in all, and no matter how we approach the "sign-or-not-sign" : there's the interesting question unsolved:

Why does Sokolov play B flat in some recordings.

a ) He was in 2 cases when he did that influenced by the 143 other B-flats, and not too concentrated.

b ) He was fully conscious, but wanted to give another idea of the section.

c ) He knows about sources which are unknown to us.

d ) He has analyzed that B-flat sounds nice, and that B natural sounds nice, too.

"Multiple choice", to be expanded by further options by everyone who likes!   

Very cordially, 8_octaves!

 

[cbreemer]

Seems to me that the B-flat implied by playing G minor instead of G major doesn't make sense here. The sforzando LH notes here lead up from A major to D major, which would go A B C# D.
B flat is simply out of place here. I can't think Sokolov does that on purpose just because he
believes it is better that way. He did not do so in his live recording of 1968
(

=4m23s ) or here

=4m23s.
I guess it must have been a momentary lapse... even a Sokolov is bound to make a tiny slip or judgement error every now and then.

[roberth]

Seems to me that the B-flat implied by playing G minor instead of G major doesn't make sense here. The sforzando LH notes here lead up from A major to D major, which would go A B C# D.
B flat is simply out of place here. I can't think Sokolov does that on purpose just because he
believes it is better that way. He did not do so in his live recording of 1968
(

=4m23s ) or here

=4m23s.
I guess it must have been a momentary lapse... even a Sokolov is bound to make a tiny slip or judgement error every now and then.

Thanks for the link to yet another version of Sokolov in this sonata.

As I mentioned in the first post (with a link to his Madrid performance), he did play the B-flat in another concert just 1 month ago (these YouTube scoundrels...but we would never know if it weren't for them). Therefore, it seems like an intentional, and more recent development for him to play G minor instead of major. Unfortunately, the second link you posted does not include details about when the recording was made. Judging from the tempo of the 1st movement and comparing it to his more recent performances, I think it must be a very early one (maybe even another copy of the 1968 sonata?)

[8_octaves]

Has anybody this / these CDs?

Ludwig Van Beethoven, Alexander Sciabin, Boris Arapov
Beethoven Scriabin
Release Date: 07/08/2014
Label:  Melodiya   Catalog #: 2240   Spars Code: ADD
Composer:  Ludwig van Beethoven,  Alexander Scriabin,  Boris Arapov
Performer:  Grigory Sokolov,  Mikhail Waiman,  Nikolay Moskalenko
Conductor:  Alexander Dmitriev
Number of Discs: 2
Recorded in: Stereo
Length: 2 Hours 10 Mins.

which contain, amongst other works:

1.
Sonata for Piano no 7 in D major, Op. 10 no 3 by Ludwig van Beethoven
Performer:  Grigory Sokolov (Piano)
Period: Classical
Written: 1797-1798; Vienna, Austria
Date of Recording: 1974
Length: 26 Minutes 1 Secs.

cordially, 8_octaves!

[roberth]

I'm pretty sure that I am not the first person to notice.

Look at the comments.

[roberth]

Another concert in Warsaw from last November, also playing G minor:

=26m04s

Certainly no concentration lapse, it is intentional.

Curiously enough, he always seems to play this spot a little "dirty", though ... maybe the change is so new that he isn't comfortable with it yet? Or is he not 100% convinced that it should be a B-flat?

[cbreemer]

Unfortunately, the second link you posted does not include details about when the recording was made. Judging from the tempo of the 1st movement and comparing it to his more recent performances, I think it must be a very early one (maybe even another copy of the 1968 sonata?)

I did not really compare them. The one without date seems to sound not as harsh as the 1968 version.

Seems like Sokolov has grown fond of that B-flat then, even if it IMHO makes no sense. Not even
with that natural sign which has no business there either except to confuse people. Ah well, let
him have his fun in old age, and let's be glad he does not throw in triple forte double octaves