Classical artists blind comparison thread #4 (Beethoven-"Tempest" Sonata)

Welcome to the forums, and thanks for posting!

 

gotta remember to do this tonight!!! I was just thinking about this thread and hoping I hadn't missed the bus. been busy but should have time tonight. whew!

 

Wow. Welcome!

 

Better late than never! I'll look forward to your remarks.

 

Thank you for the welcomes - and yes, that was pretty much my reaction too. I guess we must look for similar things. In this I prefer (expect?) a very flowing, smooth delivery, languid but not quite, with no awkward turns. The faster versions obliterate the poetry of the piece, to my ear anyway. Kind of curious to know who was who now. I was betting the ultimate speed demon was Schnabel, and 4 seemed Kempff-ish in tempo although dynamics not quite so much and the one with big pauses, forget the number now, Brendel -maybe . My interest is not piano per se, in fact I actively disliked it's sound for many years , so picking players by their idiosyncrasies is a bit beyond my reach.

Look forward to the next outing of the blindfold club.

 

Did you listen to the one that I posted? I am curious what you'd think of it.

You can download it here - http://www.mediafire.com/?t5qbjbqoj1jinvw

 

Lovely, George. Wins it for me; and I suspect, although fully ready to admit -mistaken (which is way more than likely) - tis Mr W Kempff.

 

I replied via PM.

 

By the way, in case you haven't stumbled onto it yet, George started an excellent classical discussion thread ages ago that has been running for some--what is it, George, 34,000 posts or so? Anyhow, well worth having a look. It's called "Classical Music Corner."

Here's a link to the current last page (we're about to turn over to a new iteration of the thread):

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=276253&page=49

 

Thanks for the pointer - I had tripped over it. I shall pay close attention as apparently my pianist spotting skills are not too hot

 

BZZZZZZZZZZZZT! TIME'S UP!

but...

Steve G. promised us a set of votes tonight, and since he's on the West coast he has a few hours on me over here on the Atlantic side. So I'm going to retire and will post the "reveal" after I return from taking my daughter to school in the morning, ca. 8:00 AM EDT. If anybody else wants to slip in a last-minute entry, here's your chance.

And so to bed.

 

well I could have saved you the trouble. apparently Steve G is an idiot who doesn't know what a flac is. I figured it would be intuitive. It isn't! I downloaded a 35 mb file and then my computer didn't recognize it. Tried iTunes. nothing. Probably something simple I had to do but I don't know what it is. Carry on, lads. Darn it this one sounded exciting too.

I swear I've converted a flac before on a different computer but it was a long time ago.

 

FLAC is "Free Lossless Audio Codec," a lossless format. If you run a Windows machine, I think Windows Media Player will handle it. Perhaps some of our Mac users can offer advice otherwise. Meanwhile, Windows "downloaded an important security update to your computer that required an automatic restart" and the machine with all the comments and explanations, including my own, is locking up on me instead of rebooting.

There will be a delay while I reassemble everything on this one or else figure out how to get the other one going. So, thanks to technical difficulties, you may still have some time to participate...

Sorry, folks!

 

I should add that I play FLAC files (and everything else) through Winamp. I don't remember at this point if I needed to download a plugin.

 

OK, I think I have this fool machine back on line ("never rains but it pours" dept.: also ran into an issue with its antivirus software). I've written Steve G. with a couple of suggestions for getting the files to play, and I'm assuming we'd all be willing to wait a little longer so that he can join the party? Assuming he can get it done today, that will delay things until noon and possibly until midnight Eastern, but I figure we're all in this for fun and the more the merrier; that conclusion, of course, is without any of what the Wikipedia crowd calls "consensus," so I'm certainly open to other views.

 

My computers have been acting up too. Damn Mercury Retrograde!

 

okay I'll see if I can make it work this morning. I am windowsless right now - only have a Mac working at home at this point. but there has to be SOMETHING!

-s

 

works in Audacity - much easier in the morning

 

I voted by PM

 

I don't think it's possible to play a .flac file in Windows Media Player without some kind of upgrade (haven't worked out what though). I had to download FreeFile Viewer and then Foobar2000 on my Windows laptop to play my FLACs.

Ah, I just noticed Steve uses a Mac, maybe Foobar2000 doesn't work on them?

 

OK, at long last, here we go. As some of these aren't perhaps exactly household names I'm including a bit about them as well:

1.Harris Goldsmith (born ca. 1936): If you have read many record reviews, you've probably encountered the name of Harris Goldsmith. In preparing these files I came across a late '60s record review in which he described B.H. Haggin as “the elder statesman of American Music criticism”; that phrase could well apply to Goldsmith himself today. Widely admired as a critic with a specialty in piano and historic orchestral performances, he has excellent professional pianistic credentials in his own right: he studied with Robert Goldsand at the Manhattan School of Music. Goldsmith made this record as part of a series of Beethoven performances he committed to LP. All have been reissued in a Brilliant CD set, but be forewarned that several suffer from a seriously out-of-tune piano. To keep things a bit more even with the other recordings here, instead of resorting to the CD I transferred this file from a direct metal mastered LP issued by the Musical Heritage Society, MHS 7484M.

2.Walter Gieseking (1895-1956): Gieseking's name probably needs no elaboration, but a few words are in order about the recording. It was made in England in ca. 1931, and my copy was issued on US Columbia as 78 RPM set X-39. During the 78 era, record buyers had but two choices if they wanted a performance of this work: this one on Columbia or Schnabel's in one of the Society issues. As the latter were available in the United States only as expensive imports in limited release, Gieseking's account was the only really practical choice for most collectors. Leaving aside questions of interpretation, it does have one flaw: to fit the final movement onto one record side, Gieseking cuts the repeat. Schnabel took the repeat at the cost of an extra record side, not such a big deal in a 7-record set containing three sonatas but economically infeasible for a single issue like Gieseking's (that extra disk, to accommodate only about a minute of music, would have raised the cost of the set by 50%, with a corresponding negative effect on potential sales).

3.Anthony Newman (born 1941): He is an American specialist in period keyboard instruments and has recorded on harpsichord, fortepiano, and organ. Among the first CDs that I bought after getting my first player were on Newport Classics featuring Newman in the Beethoven Concerti with a couple of period instrument pickup orchestras. (Upon close listening with headphones, one can hear the levels on the fpno. being pumped up every time it plays with the tutti.) I'm told that during the late '60s and '70s some referred to him as “the hippie harpsichorist.” Here, he plays a fortepiano by Robert E. Smith of Boston modeled on an instrument by Conrad Graf, ca. 1810. The recording is an LP, Sine Qua Non SA 2047. I know S.Q.N. principally as a purveyor of recordings licensed from other companies, so I suspect this one originated on a different label.

4.Ernst von Dohnanyi (1877-1960): Dohnanyi is frequently grouped with his two slightly younger near-contemporaries Bela Bartok and Zoltan Kodaly as “third of the three major Hungarian composers of the early 20th century.” Like Bartok, Dohnanyi was a much-admired pianist, but there the parallels end: Bartok and Kodaly were progressives, working to forge a modern idiom grounded in Hungarian folk music, whereas Dohnanyi represented the Brahmsian branch of traditional 19th century romanticism. He's also more or less dropped out of the standard repertory these days, although is “Variations on a Nursery Tune” for piano and orchestra used to make regular appearances in the concert hall. If Wikipedia is to be believed, Dohnanyi expended his resources protecting Jewish musicians in Hungary during World War II; after the war, he was forced to flee the Communists, making a new start in the United States. It was at this time, when he was in his seventies, that he made the present recording and several others for a small American record label, Remington, the granddaddy of all budget classical LP lines; the catalogue number was RLP-199-16. As with his compositions, this record reveals him to have been a throwback to the old romantic style of playing. Dohnanyi would shift to the Everest label and continue making recordings until the end of his life, completing his last just three weeks before his death from pneumonia.

5.Lorin Hollander (born 1944). A child prodigy, he made his Carnegie Hall debut at age 11 and recorded his first album, a collection of “student favorites” (a number of them being for awfully gifted “students”!) released by RCA Victor on the Camden label, at age 13. He made the present recording, released by RCA on the main RCA Victor label as LSC-2912, at the ripe old age of 22. Evidently Hollander at least was one of us; according to the notes of that Camden issue, “For relaxation, Lorin finds building hi-fi equipment and radios good sport.” Epilepsy, from which he suffered for 30 years before publicly acknowledging it in 1994, hindered but did not entirely preclude the development of his career as a pianist. Hollander has also been an outspoken advocate for the arts in education and has been an advisor to various major institutions active in the arts and education for the gifted.

6.Cor de Groot (1914-1993). This Dutch pianist was also a noted composer and music administrator. His career seems to have been confined to Europe; I've seen no indication that he performed in the United States, although Philips released recordings of him here. Like several other virtuosos active in the '50s, he developed an impairment to his right hand and retreated into left hand music, although eventually he resumed two-handed playing. Aside from performing, he continued to compose and served as musical director of the Dutch Broadcasting Foundation. He was a member of the 1956 Queen Elisabeth Competition jury, which awarded first prize to Vladimir Ashkenazy and second to John Browning. I do not have a copy of the Philips LP on which the instant performance would have appeared originally; instead, I drew it from a Doremi CD reissue.

 

Here's what everyone said--hope I didn't miss anyone! If I did, let me know and I'll fix it when I resurface around midnight Eastern:

Scott Wheeler:

Boy have I flip flopped over and over again on this one.
My ranking
#6 [de Groot]
#2 [Gieseking]
#4 [Dohnanyi]
#5 [Hollander]
#3 [Newman]
#1 [Goldsmith]

#1 [Goldsmith] This one was easy. Did not like the phrasing at all. It went straight to last place and stayed there throughout. Ironically I think it is well played. I just don’t like the choices made by that artist.
#2 [Gieseking] There is a lot to like about this one. Feels very passionate, mostly well played technically with a couple little spots that are dodgy. Felt a little rushed though. Great dynamic shadings to shape the melody lines and help express the emotional content.
#3 [Newman] I was impressed at first but the relentless pace wore on me. I thought maybe Glenn Gould but after a few listens it became clear that this one not only suffers from a relentless pace and drive but it is played with heavy fingers. For me it makes Beethoven sound like Phillip Glass.
#4 [Dohnanyi] I did not like this one at all at first. Found it sloppy. But I did warm up to it. It may be a bit loose but it does have feeling. But IMO it is to rough to rate any higher. Kempff?
#5 [Hollander] I really liked this one at first then I didn’t like it as much then I did and so and so on. It’s pretty version on it’s face but eventually felt more and more mechanical the more I listened to it. Some of the phrasing eventually started to sound just plain arbitrary after a number of listens. In the end I didn’t like this one very much. It had all the qualities and “problems” I often associate with Andras Schiff and sometimes even Gilels.
#6 [de Groot] This was my favorite for most of the multiple listens but eventually some of the phrasing started to bother me. But dang this one is so melodic in parts and really draws me in. So while I have a few little issues with certain phrasings this one it ends up at the top of my list.
__________________
Analog Scott

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

George P.:

I liked #4 [Dohnanyi] the best. It's weird, a bit crazy in spots, but I like it.
Second place goes to #1 [Goldsmith], I didn't like the weird stopping (pausing or accenting) used by the pianist, but found the interpretation to be otherwise elegant and expressive.
Third place goes to #5 [Hollander]. Nice tone and beauty, though a bit awkward in spots.
Fourth place goes to #6 [de Groot], the first of the three speed demons.
Fifth place goes to #3 [Newman], which sounds too rushed for me.
Sixth (last) place goes to #2 [Gieseking], which I found rushed and lacking nuance.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tangledupinblue:

Here's my observations of the performances, followed by my rankings - this was the toughest of the blind comparison series, enjoyed the challenge though!

(1) [Goldsmith] Didn't enjoy this one much; not enough legato, quavers in main melody clipped, under-pedalled, dry and harsh tone, sounding more akin to Prokofiev than Beethoven (exception being the episode from bars 319-350, a passage of rare beauty and respite). Also contrast between (s)f and p in middle section was overdone. Overall performance was rather mechanical, more like an exercise. I feel this movement should be mainly lyrical always with an undercurrent of menace sometimes bubbling over and the performance downplayed the former too much in favour of the latter.

(2) [Gieseking] Enjoyed this a lot more; much better legato and pedalling. An exciting performance played at breakneck speed but full of passion and freedom with the music played across the barlines but without the wild fluctuations in tempo that really marred #4. Let down slightly by a few scuffed notes and the odd rushing (bars 383-84 being the worst offenders in both these respects).

(3) [Newman] Was this played on a fortepiano or on the old Viennese action piano? Given my inherent distaste for the sound of most period instruments, this was a surprisingly enjoyable performance; dance-like, elegant, nice singing tone, really bringing out the left hand, with an understated but everpresent drama. Good feel for harmonic colour too. Very different performance from #2 despite similar speed but equally compelling.

(4) [Dohnanyi] Along with #5, the slowest main melody of the set, played with a nice lyrical and reflective expression before going off into all sorts of wild stuff. Overall played with a lot of passion, but tempo changes were way OTT and the numerous scuffed notes were inexcusable. I was initially going to make it my bottom choice, but despite its glaring imperfections it still has a certain je ne sais quoi about it, and it at least engaged me throughout, whereas with #1 and #5 I was impatiently waiting for the piece to end (with a piece like the Tempest, you know that's a problem!).

(5) [Hollander] Yawn. Too slow, forte too loud in second group with the RH non legato quavers too brusque/hammered out. Sounds a bit like a student doing slow practice, concentrating more on getting the notes right than expression.

(6) [de Groot] Good speed, smooth legato, nicely pedalled. Finely poised balance between lyricism and drama, and grace and aggression. The best all round-performance for me.

Rankings
#6 [de Groot]
#3 [Newman]
#2 [Gieseking]
#4 [Dohnanyi]
#1 [Goldsmith]
#5 [Hollander]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nathan Dale:

My preferences in order:

5 [Hollander]
2 [Gieseking]
4 [Dohnanyi]
3 [Newman]
6 [de Groot]
1 [Goldsmith]

I would like to hear the complete older recordings. The sound of the individual pianos may still be clouding my judgment.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

canzld:

First post - nice forum here. My 2 cent contribution for the day

4,1,5,6,3,2

[i.e., Dohnanyi, Goldsmith, Hollander, de Groot, Newman, Goldsmith]

Needless to say I got a bit of a surprise when I checked George P's spoiler . Pretty much spot on with the comments too.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Adam9:

This was pretty hard work!

I certainly improved my sight reading, not to the point of playing the damn thing mind you, but at least to follow the performances, so very educational as well.

I listened to the pieces without the score, with the score, and finally just to excerpts.

Quite a lot of differences in interpretation.

Here are my frequently revised rankings with notes taken over the week:

#6 [de Groot] - A bravura, dynamic performance. Emphatic LH at beginning.

#2 [Gieseking] - virtuoso quick playing. The repeat was not observed, but I guess that was probably to fit it on a 78 rpm record.

#3 [Newman] - excited playing. I thought it was too rushed at first but I imagine it grew on me.

#5 [Hollander] - slow and dream-sounding, maybe too polite for Beethoven.

#4 [Dohnanyi] - deliberate rhythm, light touch, but for some reason I didn't rank it as high as the ones above

#1 [Goldsmith] - good articulation and dynamics, but I found the the first beat in the galloping rhythm that opens the piece a little too emphasized.

All of the performances have something unique to recommend them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

John deAngelis:

My favorite was #1 [Goldsmith]: good tempo & good feel. I like the way he/she played the opening right hand notes with a more stacatto feel than some of the other pianists. The performance/sound had a magical quality. Second favorite was #4 [Dohnanyi]. Slower but with feeling. Third was # 6 [de Groot]. I thought #2 [Gieseking] and #3 [Newman] were too fast (parts of #3's playing seemed liked the strings were muted) and #5 [Hollander] seemed to be playing too evenly.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Steve G.:

on this one the comments are easier than the ranking so I'll give comments first

1. [Goldsmith] I liked it overall by the end. I did think the beginning and the loud section at the end were too loud and the tone was too cracked, and I thought some of the phrasing at the beginning was neurotic but in general it won me over.

2. [Gieseking] I really liked it at twice the speed, and I really like the pedaling for a dramatic rippling effect. More flowing and less dynamic - blistering technique.

3. [Newman] Kind of a Glenn Gould thing that doesn't work as well on Beethoven. Impressive technique but static and gets boring.

4. [Dohnanyi] I like the tempo on this but it's too self-conscious.

5. [Hollander] Very good statement of the melody and some nice parts. Overall I liked it but there were some parts with too neurotic phrasing as well. Now THIS one does have an Ursula vibe a little.

6. [de Groot] I don't like it when he rushes the tempo at the beginning at the ends of phrases but I do like this version. Overall one of my favorites, in fact. I think it's more about the music than the playing.

so if I have to pick I think I'll throw y'all a curve ball and go 2, 6, 1, 5, 3, 4

[Gieseking, de Groot, Goldsmith, Hollander, Newman, Dohnanyi]

 

My own comments:

Artur Schnabel famously once remarked that he performed only music that was better than it could be played.* One mark of such music is that it admits of many interpretations shedding light on different aspects of the score, and so, I think, it is with this sonata.* When I started assembling these versions, I expected that my choice for first would be a shoo-in, with several others as filler.* In the event, it proved to be nothing of the sort: I like every one of these accounts, and I think each has helped me appreciate more just what depth there is to Beethoven’s artistry.* That said, I do have a pecking order of preference, if only in the sense of A++ down to A:
*
1. No. 2, Walter Gieseking. I had expected this recording to be my clear favorite, as it’s the one that first kindled my love for this sonata better than 30 years ago. Cor de Groot’s recording, however, very nearly edged it out, offering as it does a similar amalgam of fire and poetry while observing the last mvt. repeat. In the end, I decided that Gieseking manifested the interpretive qualities I love to a very slightly greater degree, but I’m willing to entertain the accusation that I was acting on sentiment for my “imprint version.”

2. No. 6, Cor de Groot. Not much to add to the foregoing except that I wish de Groot were better known in this country.

3. No. 3, Anthony Newman. I have generally found “fortepiano” recordings of Beethoven best at transmitting the composer's volcanic outbursts and unsuccessful in evoking the instrument's capacity for cantabile. This one is an exception. Newman actually coaxes his period piano into singing sweetly and makes a real impression musically. I just wish he hadn’t chopped off the final chord so abruptly.

4. No. 4, Ernst von Dohnanyi. Here is a man preceding the others by at least a generation (when Dohnanyi made his Berlin debut, Gieseking was two years old and Hollander wouldn’t be born for another half century), firmly rooted in 19th century performance practice but captured with (indifferently applied) mid-20th-century technology, and what a wild ride he gives us. His 70-odd-year-old fingers aren’t entirely reliable, but then, pianists of his generation, brought up in the days before recordings, didn’t fixate on note perfection the way we do today, and Remington was a cheap operation that didn’t believe in retakes.* He still manages to give us that warm, golden piano tone that was the glory and obsession of the romantic pianist.* He distends the tempos, affects all manner of romantic mannerisms, and somehow pulls it off in a way decidedly alien to ears brought up on the relative asceticism of modern performers. If you ever wondered what the Schnabels and Serkins of this world were reacting against, and what we gained and what we lost as a result, here you have Exhibit A.

5. No. 5, Lorin Hollander. This account is the slowest by a goodly margin, and I’m not usually that taken with overbroad tempos. Here, however, the artist makes up for it with a sense of concentration and really beautiful piano tone.* I think the account is pretty remarkable for a guy barely beyond college age.

6. No. 1, Harris Goldsmith. This one is more or less the antithesis of Dohnanyi.* Goldsmith, an avowed admirer of Toscanini, gives us by far the “straightest” account, in the process letting the music speak for itself directly and forcibly.* If my heart goes out more to the others, my head has nothing but respect for the integrity and effectiveness of the result.

 

I leave it to George, of course, to identify his mysterious No. 7!

 

Fascinating, as you said like his composing, his playing was very much rooted in the freer, more flamboyant romantic style of playing which TBH isn't very much my thing, and it seems even in the late 1940s/50s it didn't really change.

I didn't mind the omission of the repeat, as that seems pretty common in older recordings - also saved me a couple of minutes of my time!

Very interesting as always to see the results revealed; at least for me there was no major embarrassment like with Alicia de Larrocha. It's also interesting that several of the votes have followed a pattern; some like the three faster performances best, others vice versa. Also interesting to see my votes very similar to yours, with just the top and bottom two inverted, even if I was somewhat harsher towards the weaker performances than you were.