Brendel's Beethoven sonatas

Oldnslow,
I'm afraid I always have difficulty answering questions like this. Some may be able to offer an opinion, if one is indeed better than the other. I have both versions of Brendel (as well as the early one) and I personally enjoy having all three. I guess, I enjoy each for its own merits and probably pull them all equally to give them a listen. I couldn't fault any of these and in the same way I couldn't find fault with any other Beethoven sets in my collection. They all have something to say and offer musically.

Of course, there are budgetary reasons to limit a choice but to put this in perspective, when I bought the analogue and digital sets it took me about two years to get these due to the price. I think the 2nd set was $175 and the digital set closer to $200. It's maddening to see these sets now at about 1/4 of the price now. My encouragement therefore, in this light, would be to suggest that over time you may wish to own both for a little over $100 total?

Both are Brendel through and through and maybe the differences between the two might be limited but you still can hear the evolution of his playing between the two. The same is true of others such as Kempff or Barenboim over different periods in there lives.

I'll keep thinking about this to offer more particular examples but for now, if you were planning on only owning one though I would probably lean toward the late digital version. To me, it is just a little more settled and focused. It is a reading of a man who has many years of experience behind him and I think he is closer to being resolved about his interpretations.

Regards,
Doug

Doug, that's a pretty good reflection of my own feelings. +1 for the digital cycle to start with.

EJ

The problem, of course, is that Brendel was never as good a pianist in Beethoven as, say, Pollini. But Pollini hasn't to date recorded a complete cycle of Beethoven's piano sonatas, and he's no longer the player that he was (though still better than Brendel ever managed).

Why not try Bishop-Kovacevich on EMI for a complete modern Beethoven cycle? Or Friedrich Gulda's 1968 set on Amadeo?

quote:

Originally posted by Oldnslow:
I know there are folks on this board who think highly of Brendel's Beethoven sonatas. I am considering the purchase of either his 1970s or 1990s Phillips (Decca) set, both available now at about the same price. Any recommendation as to which set and why?

Do you own other Beethoven piano sonata sets? If not, I do not think Brendel is the best one to start with (I think highly of Brendel, but not that much that I should want to live with one of his sets and nothing else). Graham suggests Gulda or Kovacevic instead. Gulda´s Amadeo set (rereleased by Brilliant Classics as well as by Decca) is a serviceable rather cheap all round set, but I have to confess, that I never warmed much to it. Much more interesting is Kovacevic´s EMI set, but I do not know if you will like his often uncompromising and aggressive style, which furthermore is stressed by very close miking. My favorites are Backhaus (Decca stereo) and Kempff (in the later years I have come to prefer his stereo set to his mono set). If I should choose between Brendel´s sets I would prefer his Vox set from the 1960es. It has also been rereleased by Brilliant Classics. Among the two Philips´ sets I would choose the first (1970es), as I consider the later (1990es) to be best suited for preestablished Brendel fans.

quote:

Kempff (in the later years I have come to prefer his stereo set to his mono set)

Hello pe-zulu. Could you say a few words about how the two sets differ? I have the mono box, and have contemplated buying the stereo box a few times. I like Kempff's style. The other set I own is the Kovacevich which is as you describe - I'm not sure I like it.

Without question the analog cycle from the 70s. It's less quirky than the last cycle, better played, has some of the drive of the Vox cycle, and is in generally excellent sound. There are some weak moments, but there are also some truly great performances in there (eg, Op 109). If I had to keep just one of Brendel's three cycles, I wouldn't hesitate to keep the 70s cycle.



--

Thanks. I may continue to pass on Mr. Brendel, though I did enjoy his farewell concert recording of Mozart, Schubert, and Beethoven. I have several coomplete sets of the Beethoven sonatas (Fischer probably is my favorite), but am not really familiar with much of Brendel's playing. By the way, I am about half way through the recent Lortie set, and find him to be a fine player--his set on Chandos so far has been a pleasant surprise.

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:

quote:

Kempff (in the later years I have come to prefer his stereo set to his mono set)

Hello pe-zulu. Could you say a few words about how the two sets differ? I have the mono box, and have contemplated buying the stereo box a few times. I like Kempff's style. The other set I own is the Kovacevich which is as you describe - I'm not sure I like it.

I grew up with the mono set, and this was for many years in my youth my point of reference. However I later got the stereo set. Kempff is Kempff of course, and a kind of acquired taste, but while the mono set IMO is more conventional in expression, the stereo set allows for a little more spontaneity and is generally more "philosophical" and beautiful; with the exception of some of the slow movements, which he plays a little tad faster in the stereo set. Ideally one should own both sets as well as so many of his prewar recordings as possible (since long OOP).

quote:

Originally posted by Oldnslow:
Thanks. I may continue to pass on Mr. Brendel, though I did enjoy his farewell concert recording of Mozart, Schubert, and Beethoven. I have several coomplete sets of the Beethoven sonatas (Fischer probably is my favorite), but am not really familiar with much of Brendel's playing. By the way, I am about half way through the recent Lortie set, and find him to be a fine player--his set on Chandos so far has been a pleasant surprise.

Oldnslow,
I guess this is what makes this hobby so interesting; we all see it from different angles yet I think we all see or strive for the same profoundness and beauty from music. On the Lortie, I agree with you very much. I especially enjoy the earlier recordings from the 90's in this set.

On the Annie Fischer, I have to keep listening with an open mind. This is a set I saved up for with great anticipation. After about a year of reading all the hype and praise being heaped on it, I was finally able to take the plunge. Now that the dust has settled about a year later, I have to wonder really why it is that I have such trouble with it? It does have its charms but I find it very hard to listen to. Well, maybe in time and a few more listens I'll come around....

Regards,
Doug

quote:

Originally posted by Florestan:
On the Annie Fischer, I have to keep listening with an open mind. This is a set I saved up for with great anticipation. After about a year of reading all the hype and praise being heaped on it, I was finally able to take the plunge. Now that the dust has settled about a year later, I have to wonder really why it is that I have such trouble with it? It does have its charms but I find it very hard to listen to. Well, maybe in time and a few more listens I'll come around....

Regards,
Doug

Doug,

Her fire & brimstone approach to the sonatas is exciting, but it all sounds rather rough-hewn at times. The process how this recording came to be is well documented, but it does not help that many of the sonatas have a hacked-together feel. Sound and tape hiss levels often vary significantly within movements.

Kovacevich and Pollini who are even fiercer than Fischer and have been criticised for their singular views, are aging much better IMO.

Cheers,
EJ

quote:

Originally posted by EJS:

The process how this recording came to be is well documented, but it does not help that many of the sonatas have a hacked-together feel. Sound and tape hiss levels often vary significantly within movements.

Cheers,
EJ

Hi EJ,
What is the story behind how the recordings came to be?

As far as playing styles, I can handle the broad spectrum of interpretations and styles and for sure I have no issue with the more aggresive takes such as Kovacevich. In fact, I prefer a performer who takes chances and believes so strongly in their convictions that it is convincing. This makes it interesting and compelling as we then have something to think about or discuss.

With Annie Fischer, she does have intent and a certain style. This is OK. The issues of the sound quality I cannot hold against her as it isn't her fault. To my ears though, I somehow get the sense that she struggles from time to time technically. These sonatas are technically and physically very hard to play. I know this first hand. Although Haydn Sonatas or Mozart Sonatas are difficult too and have their particular challenges none really surpass the demands of what is required to physically play the majority of Beethoven Sonatas well. This becomes truer as you are in the middle and certainly the late Sonatas. Late Schubert gets a little closer and is somewhere in between the Mozart/Haydn and Beethoven, IMHO.

I was going to say that maybe older recordings are more honest as many of the big names from the past have recordings that expose many technical weaknesses - Edwin Fischer, Schnabel, Cortot etc. Modern recording processes likely give us the false impression that the recording artists of the last 50 years are technically superior as most weaknesses/mistakes can be or will be edited out. But I'll wait to hear about the Annie Fischer as it sounds like some real issues behind the scenes?

Best Regards,
Doug

Doug,

Annie Fischer did not like to record music in the studio, and her way to cope was to record small segments of music at any time. The bulk of the Beethoven recordings were made in the seventies, but patch-up sessions were continuing into the 90s. After her death, the editors were still working on the project. The result is a unique but flawed document of one of the most outstanding pianists ever, IMO.

Personally, I'd still rather have the Fischer than any of Kempff's cycles. From the ones I've heard, my favorites are Kovacevich, Brendel (on balance, III), Barenboim I and most recently I'm listening a lot to Lewis. If Pollini ever manages to complete his cycle, that might go straight to the top. And I love individual discs or sonatas by Uchida, Steven Osborne, Gilels, Haskil and others.

All the best,
EJ

The Fischer set will always remain controversial, but it remains the most engrossing complete set for me. I also have come to very much enjoy the sound quality of the recording, which is very different from any other set--the combination of the Bosendorfer, with a very clear sound (and rather shallow bass response) gives the impression of a rather early grand piano. As to the editing, who cares? It is the finished product that counts, at least for a studio recording. Yes, probably Fischer did a lot more editing than others for technical reasons. Annie Fischer was one of the very greatest 20th century pianists and these recordings, however they came about, always thrill me.

The Annie Fischer set seems to have been deleted, or only available at huge cost.