3 of the greatest works of music (or any art) ever...
And these have held long at the very top of my recommended recordings of each ... I've had them as the only 10s for "performance quality" of these works for years (which also means they've held the top spot above the competition which is very fierce in these works, having listened to many, many others ... Mahler's 9th and Mass in B are especially blessed with lots of top notch recordings ... Beethoven's 9th has a gazillion recordings and quite a few excellent ones too, but not as many that are very top tier because so many conductors overly flat-out ignore the tempo markings, losing intensity, tension, impact, climax, and too many ignore the forces required to muster enough impact/emotion, which Beethoven was clearly calling for no matter what was typical/available in his own time with period instruments and so forth -- just like pianos of his time would tend to break under the pressure of a proper Hammerklavier sonata; again, he is clearly calling for a stronger, more powerful instrument just as in Beethoven's 9th he is clearly calling for orchestration, instrumentation, beyond the normal capabilities/limits and, in the finale, beyond the typical voices of the time too)
Also, it's very easy to confuse my top selection in each of these with another recording by these conductors (with multiple recordings of these), so without further ado...
I do intend to update my Classical page in similar format as I've done with the Paintings, Sculpture, Architecture page; that is, instead of having the "Recordings" section on only 3 pages, which isn't all that user-friendly, I'm going to have an "artist page" for each composer featured where you can just click a link to that to find their selections alone on their own post. _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
Most recent ratings changes... (architecture mostly, couple paintings)
Alhambra - Muhammad I Ibn al-Ahmar; later additions overseen by Yusuf I and Muhammad V (initial structure: 1250; several alterations thereafter through the 1600s) / Granada, Spain [Architecture, including Mosaics, Stained Glass, Structural Sculpture and Landscape Architecture]8.8/10 to 8.9/10 Taj Mahal - Ustad Ahmad Lahauri (1631 - 1653) / Agra, Uttar Pradesh, India [Architecture, including Landscape Architecture]8.5/10 to 8.7/10 Registan Square - Ulugh Beg (1417 - 1420); Yalangtoสปsh Bahodir (1619 - 1636; 1646 - 1660) / Samarkand, Uzbekistan [Architecture]8.5/10 to 8.6/10 Guernica - Pablo Picasso (1937) / Museo Reina Sofรญa, Madrid, Spain [Painting]8.8/10 to 8.6/10 The Last Supper - Leonardo da Vinci (circa 1495 - 1498) / Santa Maria delle Grazie, Milan, Italy [Painting]8.8/10 to 8.6/10 Kailasa Temple - King Krishna I (circa 773) / Ellora Caves (Cave 16), Aurangabad district, Maharashtra, India [Architecture and Sculpture]8.6/10 to 8.5/10 Hagia Sophia - Directed by Byzantine Emperor Justinian I; Designed by Isidore of Miletus and Anthemius of Tralles (Current Main Structure: 532 - 537; various changes, additions thereafter) [Architecture and Mosaics]Not Rated to 7.9/10; 7.9/10 to 8.0/10; 8.0/10 to 8.2/10; 8.2/10 to 8.3/10; 8.3/10 to 8.4/10 Mont-Saint-Michel Abbey - William of Volpiano (1060; Romanesque Church of the Abbey, Transept); Abbot of Torigni (1100s; structural reinforcement, main facade of Church); various modifications, reinforcements, thereafter (especially 1215 - 1228; various additions through 1390s) / Manche, Normandy, France [Architecture, including Stained Glass and Structural Sculpture]7.9/10 to 8.0/10; 8.0/10 to 8.1/10; 8.1/10 to 8.3/10; 8.3/10 to 8.4/10 Sagrada Famรญlia - Antoni Gaudรญ (Gaudi: 1883 - 1926, unfinished; Still under construction) / Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain [Architecture, including Stained Glass and Structural Sculpture]8.2/10 to 8.4/10
All still under evaluation, not "final", which also means comparisons and re-comparing to others ratings and so forth, in my "ever-follied???" attempt for ratings accuracy! ๐ชฆ
Also, I have very recently added way more images for several works on the main page, section below the main text-only "Greatest" list, "images and links" section. For...
Angkor Wat
Alhambra
St. Peters
Taj Mahal
Registan
Kailasa Temple
Borobudur
Potala Palace
Hagia Sophia
Mont-Saint Michel Abbey
Sagrada Familia
Monreale Cathedral
Lalibela
Imam Mosque
Piazza dei Miracoli
Notre Dame de Paris
Florence Cathedral
Sydney Opera House
Golden Gate Bridge
Pantheon
The point being to give one a really good glance, a good estimate or sense of -- before even going into the artist page with links -- at the work's impression and impact.
Don't know yet if I'll be this comprehensive (on the main page) with ALL architecture, sculpture (definitely will on the artist pages) ... will probably keep it reserved for the higher ones mostly (like 7.8+ or something). Either way I am crossing fingers that the page doesn't start stalling out on me or you with so many images....
I also added a note at the top of the "Greatest" main page recommending you wait a short time (like a minute, more or less, depending on speed of your computer/device) before scrolling, to allow the images to load, so do that if you want to see all of these... and before any complaints that they aren't loading ๐ค
NOTE: In making evaluations, comparisons, it certainly helps to have a good grasp of space if you're not right then and there at the actual site. For instance, you should be able to look out into real space and have a good grasp of how big a very wide and 200 foot high structure looks in front of you or with some distance between even, WHILE looking over the pictures of Angkor Wat (the spatial sense of being able to place oneself "in" the pictures or tours or panoramas so to speak, and to also be able to visualize it into real space to greater or lesser degree). This is partly a visualization process, basically the ability to extract the space in the photo, virtual tour, video or what-have-you and get a sense of its impact in real space of one's own. So I even recommend, as a sort of practice or to remind oneself of the sense of it, to look at buildings or structures around one and visualize whichever architecture work one is thinking about into something of a similar size or space to help get a sense of its monumentality (or if its small, then get a sense of that). This is of course in addition to looking it over thoroughly and learning a lot about it -- this is just the physical part of being able to extract or get a good sense of its physical impact/impression. And is just a recommended type of practice when you're not immediately able to be right there in or at that work. Obviously the 360 panoramas, virtual tours, videos help the most with this, but as these are still only contained in the photographic size of ones device or computer, it is still important to get as realistic an idea as one can of its actual size and this is a good way to go about it short of being there. The more architecture one looks at and does this with the easier such "visualization" should become. Doesn't hurt with paintings or sculptures either. Can't tell you how many times I've reminded myself of the size of, for example, the Sistine Last Judgment, while looking at it on my phone or other device or just in thinking about it, I'll remind of its monumentality by looking at a comparable 50 foot (more or less) square-ish wall for example. Might sound odd at first, but this really does help. Not to replace the real thing of course, but just to refer one back to a sense of its physical impact after one has seen it in person or in the interim until one does or in case one never does.
Size is not always so important with these things. Many paintings in particular are made to be small, more "intimate". But it can be very important. So particularly where monumentality is being emphasized (as with so much architecture, and with many major paintings or sculptures) and is inherent to its impact, this sort of process can help so one doesn't make the mistake of comparing similarly sized photos to each other and forgetting this facet, which can show, say, The Starry Night, as the same "size" as any building taking up the "same space" within a similarly-sized photo.
Enjoy! Take them in! Better yet, learn about them, pour over them. At the very least, allow yourself to be in awe of such masterpieces! People actually created these things! (at least we assume that's the case ... ๐คฃ ) _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
My top recommended recording for Beethoven's 5th (again, going back years, has long held up over all the rest...) and the only one I give a 10 for "performance quality". It's legitimately difficult to imagine this ever being topped as it truly nails every element of the work, from actually following Beethoven's tempo, to astonishing articulation and emotional conveyance... Good luck (ever) finding a better rendition of this.
Ahhh the 3rd, THE symphonic turning point into a new era. Another of Beethoven's masterpieces (and what quite a few feel is his best and even the greatest classical work ever). Besides his 9th, I agree with it being his best symphony often enough to not argue the point (I tend to give his 5th the slightest nod over it a little more often though). Again, this specific rendition from Honeck is the ONLY recording I give a 10 for "performance quality" -- yes, I've heard all the classic, best recordings going back decades. This one is incredible and stands out among all others, I swear by it. 10s are not given lightly (just one recording, if any, per work) and usually only after hearing dozens or more of others especially the most recommended ones.
The following is the only performance of this I give a 10 for performance quality as while it may not be quite (by only a very small margin) as technically nimble or "perfect" as Richter's or Pollini's finest versions, it is nevertheless more articulate, meaningful, tension-filled, poetic, illuminating (and so on), and note-for-note (probably) can not be beat. I've listened to dozens, probably over a hundred different recordings of this work over 2-decades-plus, the pinnacle of solo piano and probably the pinnacle of any composition for solo instrument (any instrument) in all of music history, and I've never found a greater rendition that takes it to such extraordinary and evocative heights (a truly transcendent, spiritual experience; as Arrau once remarked "the fall upward").
When going through such a process one wonders why so many recordings of the last 20-30-odd years don't hold up. What so many pianists lose with Beethoven today is that they are "over practiced" to the point of playing so "perfectly" that the display of effort, of struggle, of volatility is largely forgone, most of the individual spirit, that there is something there being discovered in real-time during the performance, is gone. Arrau is/was the all time master of never losing this facet no matter how practiced and how great his technical acumen (he played with the idiom of the composer well in mind, in the spirit of that inspiration, not just to show how flawlessly he could play it, even if he was very great in this regard too). So not only is Arrau technically amazing (especially impressive while in the high-wire act of maintaining such suspense and tension) but each note/chord comes with a sense of discovery, a hanging suspense, something being created, illuminated in the here and now (live, in the act of the performance) and not so practiced (even though it has been with him) that it becomes a mere technical show. Arrau's chords and notes sit on the precipice between awe-inspiring technical accuracy, but also deeply felt and stirred epiphany within himself that he is sharing with us right then and now, on the edge of tension as if the note and idea is forming and coming to the pianist just as he is making it. This has been widely lost in present day Beethoven and is the primary reason why probably none of our current Beethoven interpreters of his piano sonatas will be all that remembered like previous generations: they have practiced it so much, worried so much and honed so pain-stakingly about being "perfect" that they are merely playing the notes and no longer expressing the deeper feelings and struggle of them, that they've forgotten to leave some suspense in their playing, a greater search and sense of discovery.
This is it with video footage (unfortunately it is broken up into parts so it doesn't get taken down ... a rather hard to find performance as it is...):
NOTE that Arrau recorded this many many times, and his others (while several are very great and there are others that approach this tier, just a step or two below) none quite reached this absolutely unreachable pinnacle, the highest summit of the idiom of Beethoven as this one does (as if actually occupying Beethoven's thoughts and emotions, each and every note, every erupting and staggered and frantic chord, every elongated and transformative variation and trill, illuminated, overtaken and transcendent and unfolding, tension-filled, thought-provoked, emotive and substantive, subliminal, poetry). Yes, I really have heard all of them and the other classic recordings across the great pianists and compared over a long period of time and return listens. In other words, I've chosen this one very carefully, and again, don't give out 10s for performance quality lightly. Enjoy.
___________
CLAUDIO ARRAU ON BEETHOVEN, 1970:
What is it that is so great about Beethoven? What is it that makes him so much a part of us, the deepest, most searching, most defiant part of us? What is it that makes us say of Beethoven that he was a Titan? We donโt say it of Bach nor even of Brahms or Wagner or Mahler, titanic as some of their creative outpourings are. But we do say it of Beethoven. Why?
.
I have attempted to explain it many times in the course of my performance of the 32 piano sonatas. For the International Beethoven Festival in Bonn in 1970, I was asked to send in a paragraph or two on Beethoven and his music in relation to our times today. I wrote the following:
โFor me, Beethoven has always stood for the spirit of man victorious. His message of endless struggle, concluding in the victory of renewal and spiritual rebirth, speaks to us and to young people today with a force that is particularly relevant to our times.
In the sense that his life was an existential fight for survival, Beethoven is our contemporary. In the sense that he mastered both his life and his art to reach the ultimate heights of creation and transfiguration, he will last as long as manโs spirit to prevail lasts on earthโ.
This is what we mean when we say that Beethoven is titanic. He is titanic because he is one of the great cultural heroes of Western civilization.
.
Like all cultural heroes, Beethoven exemplifies in his creative output all the spiritual and psychic battles of the mythic hero โ the hero who is given superhuman tasks to overcome and who, after untold struggles (truly bloodied but undaunted), emerges the victor and, as in the case of the greatest creative giants (Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Goethe), finally attains the highest scale of self-realisation and illumination. This is especially true of Beethoven, who struggled creatively, possibly on a more titanic scale than even Michelangelo โ in the sense that he wrought his works into shape with an inexhaustible inner sense and vision of perfection and completion. In the end, he reached a mystical union with the godhead, as it were, and on a higher plane of transcendence than almost anyone else in the history of Western art.
.
Nowhere throughout his work is this struggle and final transcendence seen more clearly than in the body of the complete 32 piano sonatas, where Beethovenโs creative development may be perceived in one unbroken line of continuous evolution from the forthright first sonatas of Op.2 to the other-world metaphysical language of Op.111.
.
Much as one has to, I have become reluctant to divide Beethovenโs works into the three periods of life, the beginning, the middle, and the end. In art things are not quite so distinctly divided. Thus, at the very beginning of Beethovenโs musical evolution, the slow movement of the third sonata already points to the passionately searching depths of the slow movements to come. You might even say from these very strong-minded first sonatas that the heroic Beethoven of the middle years, the Beethoven of the โWaldsteinโ, the โAppassionataโ, the Fifth Symphony, is already partly in view. But where in these opening and middle works can one really foretell the Beethoven of the last works โ the five last sonatas, the Ninth Symphony, the Missa Solemnis, the five last Quartets?
.
Where did all that come from? Where did the ability come for Beethoven to overcome even the titanic in himself and enter spheres of such transcendent meaning as were never encountered in music before or, in all truth, since?
.
Who could really foretell such a span of evolution which sees him create at the end what can only be called a metaphysical language of music โ a musical language where trills become a trembling of the soul and arpeggios reach out into the infinite altogether, as in the Adagio espressivo section of the opening movement of Op.109.
.
In Op.111, the variations which follow the statement of the sublime Arietta are not even called variations, and rightly so, because they are not variations in the usual sense, but transformations and transfigurations of the theme. Here Beethoven reaches cosmic spaces which open up into infinitude, into a state of mystical rapture which Goethe called โder Fall nach obenโ โ the fall upward, and on which Thomas Mann expounded so beautifully in โDr. Faustusโ.
.
As Hans Mersmann, the noted German musicologist, has written:
โThe chain of transformations questions more and more the character of the variation. It is a great process of dissolving into which we are drawn, one of dematerialization which dissolves all outlines. The solid turns into the flowing, the existence in time into the timeless eternalโ.
Is it then any wonder that we hold Beethoven in awe? But the wondrous thing about Beethoven is that this metaphysical language which reaches such heights and depths of human longing and transcendence and transfiguration is always expressed through purely musical means. Beethoven seems to be breaking up the conventional sonata mould, as he does in the last five sonatas, but he finds new means with which to contain his message in a way no less definite than before. Suddenly the fugue is used not just as a musical form but as something which becomes, as in Op.106, a blinding rage of wild titanic fury, or as in Op.110, a human act of faith. And what of that great battle โ the Grosse Fuge โ where mighty forces seem to be locked into a gigantic struggle of wills?
.
This transformation and illumination that is achieved at the end of his life is truly so unique that one searches almost in vain for its counterpart in music, literature, or painting.
.
I should now like to go into a number of details regarding the performance and interpretation of the piano sonatas.
.
First and foremost is the question of textual fidelity. I have said so often that textual fidelity is one of the cardinal points of any interpretation. But I have also said as often that textual fidelity is only the base of an interpretation. It is the springboard from which an interpreter can take off. The firmer the base the greater can be the flights of true musical imagination.
.
We all know that musical notation is not an exact science; that every composer worth his salt has elements in his music which go beyond the written notes. This is especially true in Beethoven, where even the rests must be made to speak. And speaking of rests, my advice, contrary to Schnabelโs, is not to count rests, but to let the tension of the performance give you the right waiting time.
.
Once, when trying to explain what was so great about Furtwรคngler as an interpreter, I said that he had the power of divination. That is precisely what it takes to realize Beethoven in all his depths and grandeur.
.
Speaking of textual fidelity, we come to the matter of rearranging passages to make it easier for the performer. For me, that is like the red cape to the bull. I do not say this out of pedantry, but because when you play a passage written for one hand with two hands it sounds different. If Beethoven wanted a passage to sound as if played with alternating hands he would have written it that way. To simplify is, in another sense, also a very fundamental mistake, because the difficulty written in has an expressive purpose. Beethoven meant it that way. He wants things at certain points to sound difficult. Otherwise there is no point of conflict and contention, a major psychological point in Beethoven interpretation.
.
Another important question is the matter of metronome indications. We know from all actual accounts of Beethovenโs own playing, accounts by first-hand witnesses such as Czerny and Schindler, that Beethoven was one of the freest, most expressive interpreters of his own works. Even if we did not have the music itself to make this as clear as day, we know from everything that Beethoven wrote and said that his sonatas were essentially dramatic works. They say something at every point and, therefore, they have to be performed as if the performer were experiencing the drama himself. The metronome markings consequently are to be taken only as an indication of the general tempo and character of a movement, but not of its entire inner life.
.
Beethoven himself agreed to use the metronome only when he realised that his works might be better off with marking than without. But we know that he showed great impatience with the new contraption and his own metronome indications; those which we have, need not always be taken literally. In any case, there they are and I give them the most complete attention. In my edition of the 32 sonatas for Peters in Frankfurt, I have listed the few original Beethoven metronome markings that we have, all of Czernyโs (but from his first edition, not the second), as well as my own. But the most important thing about metronome indications is to remember never to perform metronomically. Metronomic playing means atrophy and death. Nothing that lives can be done metronomically.
.
As for fast and inexpressive playing, that was a problem in the past (as we know from Mozartโs letters) and it was a problem in Beethovenโs time, as it is in ours.
.
Then, I am often asked about the question of repeats. When does one play or not play repeats in Beethoven? The answer is simple: one always plays repeats in Beethoven. From the very first sonata Beethoven was so eigenwillig, so self-willed, that he would not have put a repeat sign just to conform to the conventions of the time. He uses repeats always to strengthen and enhance the structure of a work. With Beethoven, the sonata form, with its built-in dramatic structure, became the most total means of deepest personal expression. Therefore, every repeat has its own meaning and importance.
.
When it comes to dynamics, here too Beethoven used them to the full power of their dramatic effect. Sforzati are always to be played relative to the prevailing dynamics of the passage. Where the passage is loud, the sforzati often have to be overwhelming. Where soft, the sforzati may come in like simple accents or be coloured to suit the prevailing character of the music.
.
When it comes to ornamentation, we already know that in the late sonatas Beethoven begins to use trills as an expressive means. In the same sense must be considered the cantabile character of his turns and grace notes. The evolution of ornamentation from sheer decoration into lines of the most poignant expression, which began with Mozart, is seen at its highest development in Beethoven and continues into Chopin and Liszt.
.
When it comes to rhythm, we know that Beethoven could be inexorable in his rhythmic drive (by means of rhythmic patterns of simple but tremendous impact), as he is so overwhelmingly in the last movements of the Fifth Symphony, the โWaldsteinโ, the โAppassionataโ, and the โMoonlightโ. But Beethoven also has irregular rhythmic patterns, against the grain as it were, and those must be played accordingly, as if โin spite ofโ.
.
According to Schindler, Beethoven approved of the use of images to help explain the meaning of his music. I believe in doing the same, but based strictly on the character of the music involved. In the great D minor Sonata, Op.31 No.2, for example, Schindler tells us that in the third movement Beethoven was inspired by the sound of galloping horses on the cobblestones outside. To me, it sounds like one of those simplistic answers that Beethoven sometimes gave Schindler when he was annoyed with some of his very commonplace questions. For the last movement of the sonata to remain in character with the preceding movements, the rocking motion that Beethoven writes doesnโt sound to me like galloping horses at all, but like a spectral motion of ghostly shadows receding and advancing out of the dark of Hades.
.
When Beethoven said โI write notes out of necessityโ, he made it quite clear from what depths his music arose. It therefore takes great power of empathy to understand his music. Beethoven interpretation, it is of the utmost importance to open oneโs self up to the intuitive forces of oneโs own being, to the unconscious as much as to the conscious, to relinquish the fear of committing oneself emotionally, to accept the agony of feeling which is in Beethoven โ in order to be able to reveal the essence of Beethoven.
Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata has been recorded (at least) hundreds (more like thousands?) of times. This may be the sonata of his with the stiffest competition with many great recordings from just about all of the greatest pianists. Nevertheless, there is ONE absolute and astounding "10 for performance quality" that I've found, standing above even those, having listened to all the most recommended and classic renditions across the decades...
Tons of others are well worth checking out and you still should but... you're welcome for potentially saving you countless hours of searching for this singular Holy Grail ๐
RE-RATED:
Piano Sonata No. 32 in C Minor - Ludwig van Beethoven (1822) 8.7/10 to 8.9/10
Symphony No. 7 in A Major - Ludwig van Beethoven (1812) ...rating undecided, but will be upgraded...
Piano Sonata No. 31 in A-flat Major - Ludwig van Beethoven (1821) 7.6/10 to 7.7/10; 7.7/10 to 7.8/10
Piano Sonata No. 8 in C Minor "Pathetique" - Ludwig van Beethoven (1798) 7.6/10 to 7.7/10
Piano Sonata No. 14 in C-sharp Minor "Quasi una fantasia" (aka, "Moonlight") - Ludwig van Beethoven (1801) 7.5/10 to 7.6/10
NO CHANGE (probably): 9.7/10: Symphony No. 9 in D Minor "Choral" - Ludwig van Beethoven (1824) ...potentially 9.8/10, under renewed consideration... 8.9/10: Symphony No. 5 in C Minor - Ludwig van Beethoven (1808) ...may be 8.8 instead, even though it did not lower in quality for me (just may make an adjustment relative to others) 8.8/10: Symphony No. 3 in E-flat Major "Eroica" - Ludwig van Beethoven (1804) _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
Tons of others are well worth checking out and you still should but... you're welcome for potentially saving you countless hours of searching for this singular Holy Grail ๐
Thanks for posting the video, enjoyed it very much. Probably inconsequential, but I wonder how much difference the sound of the actual instrument makes when comparing some of these performances. Going to your next to last post, are modern pianists to an extent performing to convention? Perhaps on modern classical pieces, they might be allowed more freedom.
The Waldstein, another one that's been recorded a million times. This has long been my only 10 for performance quality of this work, a very special recording.
Again, too many pianists focus too rigidly on maintaining exact precision and perfectly balanced tempo and exact impression of each note (over and over, in perfectly formed repetition), a bit too careful, at some expense of suspense, tension, at some expense of the drama and volatility that is supposed to unfold more naturally (in the moment), even though we know this (drama, struggle, tension, less rigid) is more how Beethoven wanted it to be played per his own comments, notes, direction (and did so himself, even going off onto unwritten improvisational tangents by all reported accounts of his performances).
This does not mean I think the pianist should not follow the notes and tempos very closely (Beethoven wrote these too!), to be informed and guided by them, but it does mean they should play just loosely enough so as to create a struggle, tension, drama within these parameters (and slightly pushing against them perhaps, particularly at passages of volatility), and to progress through the notes in dramatic fashion just over the need to be "too perfectly" played, even a drama that constantly threatens to derail it (alludes to, nudges at, but never actually does).
Perhaps that's the secret...
Fischer and Arrau were perhaps the greatest ever at this with Beethoven, while remaining great strength of hand upon the chords/notes so that the impression of the notes is superior, more resonant, impacting also above others, combined with the greatest lyricism of the softer more luminous notes (Arrau, more often than not is even above Fischer and really all others -- even across history -- in this regard). Arrau is probably the greatest across the whole body of sonatas while Fischer more or less matches him across the best ones and has some very special gems in certain others. Richter, also with them as the greatest interpreter of these sonatas, was the most superior pure talent and managed to combine the utmost virtuosity without losing these facets re: drama, tension, etc (or only the loss is sometimes minor, but only in relation to the absolute peak renditions of Arrau, Fischer and occasionally others). Richard Goode deserves mention as, with Arrau, approaching him across the whole body of sonatas though not as often as transcendent (but maybe comes the closest to him in consistency of interpretation, almost as reliable, and always very very good -- possibly the second best overall set).
Tons of others are well worth checking out and you still should but... you're welcome for potentially saving you countless hours of searching for this singular Holy Grail ๐
Thanks for posting the video, enjoyed it very much. Probably inconsequential, but I wonder how much difference the sound of the actual instrument makes when comparing some of these performances. Going to your next to last post, are modern pianists to an extent performing to convention? Perhaps on modern classical pieces, they might be allowed more freedom.
Thanks AM, the instrument can certainly matter and does. The pianist is definitely more important though. Arrau uses a Steinway as does virtually every top tier Beethoven interpreter and he still comes out above them in his best interpretations. As does Richter. A nice Hammerklavier (#29) can be played on fortepianos similar to Beethoven's time but it's probably impossible to perform a "10" on those (Beethoven was clearly frustrated and even asking for a stronger instrument and this sense of exasperation, ferocity, violent struggle against not being able to hear, against his predicament in life, is inherent in the very best performances). Beethoven broke, destroyed, many fortepianos and would ask for a stronger instrument in the process of composition, practice, etc. Surprisingly (and almost or seemingly contradictory to that assertion) Fischer uses an instrument roughly in between the more deeply resonant and powerful modern steinway and a forte-piano, somewhat less resonant sound, but her hand strength and impression of note was so superior to most that it isn't a detraction and could also be argued to be the most accurate for Beethoven's thinking of the time (forward thinking but not too modern). And her Hammerklavier is the greatest of all, the classical bursting forward into the romantic, busting at the seams, seething, desperate for release, tension galore.
Yes, most pianists sound too conventional, losing a singular identity; simply playing the notes very very well but not producing enough drama and sense of tension, struggle with them. There is too often too little individuality to their performances. Igor Levit, among modern interpreters, is pretty exceptional at Beethoven, but this is rare in the extreme these days. I wouldn't put him at the level of Arrau, Fischer, Richter's very best but he is close to a very consistent, exceptional interpreter, like Richard Goode where he is extremely reliable across all or many of the sonatas but perhaps never quite as special as the very best of history (his Hammerklavier is probably close, and some others I'm forgetting at the moment, I'd have to revisit his to remind myself, double check, again) _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
