My favorite Beethoven piano sonata cycles

[Robin L]

Furtwangler is interesting, you say he didn't put up a fight, but maybe he thought he could do more from the inside and had no idea of the magnitude of the problem heading his way. Hindsight is 20/20, after all.

I had an interview with Furtwängler's secretary, she said he was "spineless. An interesting description, especially if you've seen footage of him conducting.

 

[Digby]

I had an interview with Furtwängler's secretary, she said he was "spineless. An interesting description, especially if you've seen footage of him conducting.

I can well believe it, but maybe some bad blood with the secretary too?

 

[Robin L]

I can well believe it, but maybe some bad blood with the secretary too?

She was kinda weird anyway - didn't want me to tape the interview, insinuated she has an affair with the maestro. I don't think it was bad blood - I think it was accurate. Like I said, just look at the video footage of Furtwängler's conducting, one can easily note the lack of precision in his cues. He's well known for that feature/bug. It is doubtless a major part of how he developed his sound.

 

[Robin L]

Today - December 16 - is Beethoven's birthday. I don't think Yevgeny Kissin recorded a full cycle of Beethoven's piano sonatas, but he did make a wonderful recording of what might be considered the greatest of all the piano sonatas, the final, 32nd, sonata in C minor, op. 111:

 

[Robin L]

Listening to the second CD of the Warner Brothers transfers of Schnabel's recordings of Beethoven's Piano Sonatas. I'm close to my speakers (a desktop system with tower speakers, nice sounding with a very clear midrange from the Infinity Primus 250 speakers and firm bass from the Sonus Son of Sub) and the volume would be realistic, if I were hearing the pianist close enough to turn the pages of his sheet music. Listening to these transfers in this way reveals just how much tone color is to be heard in these most recent remasterings. Much wider dynamics than one would expect from 1930s recordings. CD 2 has the sonata #2 in A and the three opus 10 sonatas. With Beethoven's early piano sonatas the line drawn between Beethoven's early period and his middle period is blurred. With the 7th sonata in D the line blurs into the late period with the "Largo E Mesto" slow movement. The slow movement of the sonata #2 in A has more audible surface noise from the source, at least for the first half of the movement. I take this as a sign that these transfers are not over-filtered. Really a fine job of remastering and certainly worth the $25 I paid for the box.

I've ordered the Amadeo CD box of Freidrich Gulda's complete cycle of Beethoven sonatas. I've been sampling extracts on YouTube, putting up with the disruptive audio dropouts and commercials. Really an extraordinary technique coupled to excellent sound. The box set me back $21, I'm expecting it to arrive sometime next week.

 

[hvbias]

Listening to the second CD of the Warner Brothers transfers of Schnabel's recordings of Beethoven's Piano Sonatas. I'm close to my speakers (a desktop system with tower speakers, nice sounding with a very clear midrange from the Infinity Primus 250 speakers and firm bass from the Sonus Son of Sub) and the volume would be realistic, if I were hearing the pianist close enough to turn the pages of his sheet music. Listening to these transfers in this way reveals just how much tone color is to be heard in these most recent remasterings. Much wider dynamics than one would expect from 1930s recordings. CD 2 has the sonata #2 in A and the three opus 10 sonatas. With Beethoven's early piano sonatas the line drawn between Beethoven's early period and his middle period is blurred. With the 7th sonata in D the line blurs into the late period with the "Largo E Mesto" slow movement. The slow movement of the sonata #2 in A has more audible surface noise from the source, at least for the first half of the movement. I take this as a sign that these transfers are not over-filtered. Really a fine job of remastering and certainly worth the $25 I paid for the box.

View attachment 338051

I've ordered the Amadeo CD box of Freidrich Gulda's complete cycle of Beethoven sonatas. I've been sampling extracts on YouTube, putting up with the disruptive audio dropouts and commercials. Really an extraordinary technique coupled to excellent sound. The box set me back $21, I'm expecting it to arrive sometime next week.

View attachment 338050

Consider me extremely skeptical that the Warner transfers of Schnabel sound better than Naxos Mark Obert-Thorn transfers or Seth Winner's on Pearl. I like Gulda's Amadeo cycle up until op. 81a. After that I find his quite literal interpretations too grounded. Indeed incredible technique, if you want to hear an even more unyieldingly virtuosic Gulda his Orfeo cycle has him pulling out even more stops but in sound that is not as good as the Amadeo cycle.

 

[Keith_W]

Listening to the second CD of the Warner Brothers transfers of Schnabel's recordings of Beethoven's Piano Sonatas. I'm close to my speakers (a desktop system with tower speakers, nice sounding with a very clear midrange from the Infinity Primus 250 speakers and firm bass from the Sonus Son of Sub) and the volume would be realistic, if I were hearing the pianist close enough to turn the pages of his sheet music. Listening to these transfers in this way reveals just how much tone color is to be heard in these most recent remasterings. Much wider dynamics than one would expect from 1930s recordings. CD 2 has the sonata #2 in A and the three opus 10 sonatas. With Beethoven's early piano sonatas the line drawn between Beethoven's early period and his middle period is blurred. With the 7th sonata in D the line blurs into the late period with the "Largo E Mesto" slow movement. The slow movement of the sonata #2 in A has more audible surface noise from the source, at least for the first half of the movement. I take this as a sign that these transfers are not over-filtered. Really a fine job of remastering and certainly worth the $25 I paid for the box.

View attachment 338051

When I saw your post, I became excited and looked for it on Idagio. Sure enough, it was there. I played it back to back against my very old copy of Schnabel / Beethoven on EMI on my main system:

Opinion: still mono (I mention this because there are plugins that can create stereo recordings from mono). Vinyl surface noise and scratches still present, but less prominent in the Warner. Top end seems rolled off compared to the EMI, probably an artefact from noise reduction. MAYBE the dynamic range in the Warner is better, but if it's present it's not much. It most definitely does not sound like a modern recording. I only listened to a few sonatas, I did not listen to all of them.

I know that studios have a lot of digital tools that can do all sorts of magic. I have tried some of these plugins, e.g. dynamic range expanders, and frequency "extenders". These work by adding harmonic distortion to the signal, and you can do it in selective bands. For e.g. if you chose to add a lot of harmonic distortion only to freqs > 3khz, you could create the illusion that the recording has captured up to 10kHz or more. See below for the spectro of the EMI recording, it maxes out at 5kHz. With my fairly rudimentary tools I can create harmonics up to 12kHz or maybe more, and it certainly gives the recording more "air", but it also increases surface noise.

FWIW this is Piano Sonata No. 1, 1st movement, EMI recording, in Audacity:

Certainly no digital clipping, and I can't really see any analog clipping.

The spectrogram shows nothing above 5kHz.

I have no ability to run the Warner remaster through Audacity since I am streaming it, and I do not own a FLAC. Would you like to do it?

 

[Robin L]

Consider me extremely skeptical that the Warner transfers of Schnabel sound better than Naxos Mark Obert-Thorn transfers or Seth Winner's on Pearl. I like Gulda's Amadeo cycle up until op. 81a. After that I find his quite literal interpretations too grounded. Indeed incredible technique, if you want to hear an even more unyieldingly virtuosic Gulda his Orfeo cycle has him pulling out even more stops but in sound that is not as good as the Amadeo cycle.

Like I've said, I've owned the Pearl transfers, found excessive surface noise and no discernable improvement in sound quality. Still have the Naxos transfers, save the difference in surface noise the two sets of transfers are very close.

When I saw your post, I became excited and looked for it on Idagio. Sure enough, it was there. I played it back to back against my very old copy of Schnabel / Beethoven on EMI on my main system:

Opinion: still mono (I mention this because there are plugins that can create stereo recordings from mono). Vinyl surface noise and scratches still present, but less prominent in the Warner. Top end seems rolled off compared to the EMI, probably an artefact from noise reduction. MAYBE the dynamic range in the Warner is better, but if it's present it's not much. It most definitely does not sound like a modern recording. I only listened to a few sonatas, I did not listen to all of them.

I know that studios have a lot of digital tools that can do all sorts of magic. I have tried some of these plugins, e.g. dynamic range expanders, and frequency "extenders". These work by adding harmonic distortion to the signal, and you can do it in selective bands. For e.g. if you chose to add a lot of harmonic distortion only to freqs > 3khz, you could create the illusion that the recording has captured up to 10kHz or more. See below for the spectro of the EMI recording, it maxes out at 5kHz. With my fairly rudimentary tools I can create harmonics up to 12kHz or maybe more, and it certainly gives the recording more "air", but it also increases surface noise.

FWIW this is Piano Sonata No. 1, 1st movement, EMI recording, in Audacity:

View attachment 338128

Certainly no digital clipping, and I can't really see any analog clipping.

View attachment 338129

The spectrogram shows nothing above 5kHz.

I have no ability to run the Warner remaster through Audacity since I am streaming it, and I do not own a FLAC. Would you like to do it?

I would not run the Warner remaster through Audacity. Don't know how to, don't care to find out. I've owned the EMI CD transfers and they sounded the most muffled of all the transfers I've owned. I'm not surprised that there's nothing over 5khz, that would reflect the limits of microphones of that era. Wouldn't want artificially created stereo or extended frequency range for these recordings, mono is just fine for piano. In any case, these are not modern recordings, therefore they shouldn't sound like modern recordings. Face it - there's only one Schnabel. I'm sure some genius could cook up some app to erase all of Artur Schnabel's finger flubs if they really wanted to, but what would be the point? You would end up with yet another note perfect recording and take the soul out of it.

 

[Keith_W]

Face it - there's only one Schnabel. I'm sure some genius could cook up some app to erase all of Artur Schnabel's finger flubs if they really wanted to, but what would be the point? You would end up with yet another note perfect recording and take the soul out of it.

Many years ago, Zenph developed some software that could analyse digitized music, take note of its attack, how hard a note was hit, how it was released, etc. It would then feed this information into a piano with robotic keys, so what you hear is exactly the same performance, but on a modern piano. It was called Zenph re-performance. They released two classical CD's - one of Glenn Gould's 1955 Bach Goldberg Variations, and the other of Rachmaninov playing Rachmaninov. I have both of these SACD's (they were only released on SACD I believe?) along with the originals to compare. I can tell you that the sound quality is top notch, it sounds exactly like Gould (minus the humming), only on a modern piano. I don't mind the 1955 recording too much though. But the real star is the Rachmaninov recording. The originals were recorded between the 1920's - 1941, and it definitely sounds it - mono, old, scratchy, lacking frequency extension. The "re-performance" sounds like a modern recording, except for the strangely anaemic piano they were using. To me it was a vast improvement over the original.

I was really hoping that Zenph would "re-perform" Schnabel's Beethoven Sonata Cycle, but alas they did not. They only released 2 recordings, and that was it. I haven't heard anything from them since 2010. My dream is that someone else will pick this up and "re-perform" Schnabel. The technology is certainly there! But I do sometimes wonder whether the awful recording is part of the charm?

 

[Robin L]

Many years ago, Zenph developed some software that could analyse digitized music, take note of its attack, how hard a note was hit, how it was released, etc. It would then feed this information into a piano with robotic keys, so what you hear is exactly the same performance, but on a modern piano. It was called Zenph re-performance. They released two classical CD's - one of Glenn Gould's 1955 Bach Goldberg Variations, and the other of Rachmaninov playing Rachmaninov. I have both of these SACD's (they were only released on SACD I believe?) along with the originals to compare. I can tell you that the sound quality is top notch, it sounds exactly like Gould (minus the humming), only on a modern piano. I don't mind the 1955 recording too much though. But the real star is the Rachmaninov recording. The originals were recorded between the 1920's - 1941, and it definitely sounds it - mono, old, scratchy, lacking frequency extension. The "re-performance" sounds like a modern recording, except for the strangely anaemic piano they were using. To me it was a vast improvement over the original.

I was really hoping that Zenph would "re-perform" Schnabel's Beethoven Sonata Cycle, but alas they did not. They only released 2 recordings, and that was it. I haven't heard anything from them since 2010. My dream is that someone else will pick this up and "re-perform" Schnabel. The technology is certainly there! But I do sometimes wonder whether the awful recording is part of the charm?

I remember the "Gouldbergs", with the only Glenn Gould hum filter that worked. It did seem like some of Gould's rhythmic attack was removed in the process and that the piano in the Zenph recreation sounded different than the instrument used in the original Columbia recording. Come to think of it, later Columbia issues thinned out the piano sound so that it was more like the recordings Glenn Gould was making at the time. I was lucky enough to find a promo copy of the first issue of that first Glenn Gould recording of the Goldberg Variations, the piano sound of Gould's later recordings swiftly changed with a much closer perspective - the perspective of the performer at the piano bench. I noticed that the Zenph recordings stopped soon after the Gould and Rachmaninoff, though there was a Zenph reissue of Art Tatum.

There's a Glenn Gould recording of the keyboard music of William Byrd and Orlando Gibbons. That was music that Gould claimed was his favorite. Note that there's no audible humming on that recording.

Have to say that the sound quality of the Schnabel recordings doesn't bother me. I find the Warner Brothers transfers more than good enough. Though there might be less treble in the Warner Brothers transfers than the earlier EMI transfers, to these ears the sound of the Warner Brothers transfers opens up as the dynamics ascend.

 

[cavedriver]

So am I seeing this right that the Hungaraton physical reissue of the Fischer cycle has gone the way of so many great recordings these days- out of print again and perhaps never to return? For someone that likes hard copies of music it feels like a race against time to expand my classical collection.

And to be clear, listening to her right now she's "wow" good, I think I'm going to prefer her over the Schnabel (Warner), Gilels, and Pollini that I have.

 

[cavedriver]

Did anyone here see this movie, Immortal Beloved? It's very very good.

_____

Am I the only one on the planet that thinks this is the stupidest, most offensive movie about a classical artist? (aside from the recent Tár, which seemed to go out of it's way to insult an actual living great conductor in the form of Marin Alsop) For contrast, Amadeus signals at the opening that this is going to be fiction, while the writer/director of IB had the gall to claim he researched it himself and was presenting the "real truth".

 

[Robin L]

Am I the only one on the planet that thinks this is the stupidest, most offensive movie about a classical artist? (aside from the recent Tár, which seemed to go out of it's way to insult an actual living great conductor in the form of Marin Alsop) For contrast, Amadeus signals at the opening that this is going to be fiction, while the writer/director of IB had the gall to claim he researched it himself and was presenting the "real truth".

I'll confess that I've never seen Immortal Beloved and find the whole concept of Beethoven being torn apart by a single, identifiable woman highly unlikely. Beethoven was the world's most ineligible bachelor, with personality and hygiene issues that would repel any of the upper crust women he sought to marry. He was, by all accounts, highly irritable and his behavior around his brother's wife was reprehensible. I picture the Harvey Keitel of "The Piano" as Beethoven, pounding away on a beached piano, wearing nothing, oblivious of others.

I was lucky enough to find a copy online of Annie Fischer's Beethoven Piano Sonata cycle online about ten years ago for a low price. When I look at the asking price for used copies, I'm grateful I backed it up to ALAC. I intend to get more Beethoven Piano Sonata cycles while the prices are still low, like Brendel's two Philips accounts and Wilhelm Kempff's remastered 1960s recordings for DGG. I used to have the budget German LP pressings of Kempff's mono cycle, and I can recommend it to those who still have turntables. It seems like the CDs of that cycle aren't as cheap as they once were, while one can find the remastered stereo cycle for about $25. Right now, I have Schnabel on both Naxos and Warner Brothers, Brendel's Brilliant Classics Vox recordings in the 85 CD box of everything Beethoven, Arrau's analog Philips cycle in a Decca box that include an older, mono recording of the Diabelli Variations and three other sets of variations. The Friedrich Gulda Amadeo set is on its way.

 

[Robin L]

The Friedrich Gulda Amadeo set of the complete Beethoven Piano Sonatas arrived last night around 6:00 pm. It came from Green Street Books & Green Street Works in San Jose Ca., badly packaged but intact. The cardboard box holding the nine CDs suffered some damage, I assume some time ago - the set was sold as "good" and the only issue was the condition of that box. Inside the cardboard box was taped the note "Rasputin's Berkeley, 1987", a time I was living in that town and shopping at that store. Otherwise, the nine individual CDs were pristine. At $16 + shipping and tax, I'm not complaining.

Jed Distler considers the set a first choice:

Beethoven: Sonatas/Gulda - Classics Today

www.classicstoday.com

. . . while Harris Goldsmith, some 40 years ago before, is not so impressed:

https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-High-Fidelity/70s/High-Fidelity-1970-10.pdf

Jed Distler points out that the Brilliant Classics reissue (which he reviews) has the advantage of having individual tracks for each movement, while the earlier Amadeo issue has a single track for each sonata. True enough, but he also makes the claim that there's additional reverb on the Amadeo set, which I don't hear. I suspect, knowing Brilliant Classics' way of doing things, that their set has the individual CDs in cardboard sleeves, making for a more compact package than the Amadeo box with each CD in its own jewel case. No liner notes, but then again, the liner notes in the Schnabel box are near useless and the Brendel/Vox recordings in the big Brilliant Classics box have the notes on a ROM CD, not the easiest way to read them.

The sound on these recordings is great and the level of virtuosity about as good as I've heard from anyone so far. It can get a bit relentless at times, though gulping down 5 cd's worth of these performances might be a bit much for a single sitting. Arrau and Kempff are more subtle, Schnabel has enough variation in his playing as to be more dramatic, and Annie Fischer is more like Schnabel than any other modern performer. But when it comes to pedal to the metal virtuosity, Gulda gets top honors.

 

[Nitreb]

A very personal and poetic interpretation. For example, the first movement of Op. 101: