Mitsuko Uchida Plays Beethoven

Posted by: Todd A on 08 May 2006

Up until now I’ve not heard Ms Uchida in Beethoven. The Second Viennese School aside, I’m not a big fan of what I have heard from Ms Uchida. I find her Mozart a bit too fussy. Her Schubert, too. Besides, her playing doesn’t seem quite big enough for Beethoven. Whatever my reservations, I felt I surely must give her new disc of Elveebee’s last three sonatas a try.

Not bad. Not great, either. That’s the short version. The long version, well, there are some recurring themes. I’ll start with the positives: Ms Uchida’s playing is generally on the swift side, is always admirably clear, and is somewhat on the light side at all the right times. Some of the negatives: musical tension often goes missing, there’s a lack of that spiritual or searching or metaphysical (or other high-falutin’ adjective of your choice) playing, and the playing is somewhat on the light side at all the wrong times. The specifics, well . . .

The disc opens with the Op 109, of course, and all of Uchida’s strengths and weaknesses are on display. The Vivace, ma non troppo that opens the work is quick, clear, and relatively light, with fine dynamic control. Tonal variety is somewhat limited when compared to other pianists, though that’s hardly a major flaw. Uchida’s playing is also meticulously prepared. Absolutely every aspect of the music sounds as though Uchida went over the score for a very long period and decided to illuminate everything in it. Rarely have I heard such clear part playing, and that combines with a certain gracefulness that is quite appealing in its way. It is, in a word, meticulous, though, thankfully, it’s not fussy. It’s also not very involving. The Prestissimo is most certainly that: Uchida speeds up her already swift overall tempo and throws in some nice, perfectly controlled bass playing to boot. So far, so-so. The final movement is where the weaknesses really start to appear. The Andante theme, while beautifully played, sounds a bit rushed and simply didn’t sound engaging any of the four times I listened to it. It’s outward looking and concerned with what’s on the surface, not introspective and searching. The variations fare only moderately well, though the faster third and weightier fifth do sound quite good. Largely absent is that spiritual and/or transportive quality that I demand. It’s exquisitely played but uninvolving.

The same overall issue permeates the entire Op 110 sonata. The opening Moderato cantabile is quick and light and definitely beautiful, but to what end? It’s just sort of there. Perhaps because Uchida’s playing up to this point is the model of light, swift gracefulness, the slightly slower Allegro molto sounds a bit deliberate – almost fussy – by comparison. In the Adagio Uchida slows things way down and almost establishes that ultimately indefinable but always critical late-LvB soundworld. But it also sounds a trifle calculated. The first appearance of the fugue finds Ms Uchida playing with a clarity approaching that of Barenboim or Kuerti, but it still lacks that certain something. The second pass at the Arioso material finally succeeds in crossing the line to become involving, but it’s still not ideal. The repeated chord build up to the second pass at the contrapuntal material possesses some nicely terraced dynamics even though the notes sound curiously soft. The fugal material is largely like the first go-round, and the work comes to a solid conclusion. But again, to what end?

The disc ends with the best performance. The Maestoso opening is nicely paced, a bit darker, and sounds quasi-dramatic. It ain’t quite the real thing, though. The subsequent Allegro con brio ed appassionato is very strongly characterized (within the context of Uchida’s playing), dark, and strong. It’s just not very ominous. Still, there is an undeniable degree of excitement that is absent from the prior works. The second movement opens with a nicely paced, beautiful sounding, but ultimately unmoving Arietta, and then moves onto a slightly slow (for Uchida) set of variations. Again, the playing is clear and attractive but not engaging. The third variation, for instance, while faster and more vigorous than the first two, doesn’t have the rhythmic snap I crave. The long chains of trills later in the movement are somewhat flat – shouldn’t the music be more ethereal and questioning here? Anyway, the piece trails off nicely but left me wanting more.

I don’t know if Ms Uchida plans on recording all of the sonatas or not, but if this disc is an indication of what is in store, it certainly won’t be among the elite cycles in my estimation. Just a couple days before I heard this I relistened to Robert Silverman’s Rouvain recordings of the same works, and he delivers much more of all the elements lacking here. His playing isn’t as refined as Uchida – and her playing is certainly that – but it is far more involving. Then when one considers the likes of Annie, or Kempff, or Schnabel, or another titan of this music, one realizes what is missing. Maybe she’ll be more at home in earlier works. In many ways this disc reminds me of the Takacs Quartet’s recording of the late quartets: the playing is technically accomplished, but the most important elements of the music are largely absent. That just won’t do. At least the sound of this disc is superb.
Posted on: 09 May 2006 by hungryhalibut
Well, I like it!!

Nigel
Posted on: 09 May 2006 by Tam
Dear Todd,

Thanks for these comments - interesting reading as always.

I suspect we are coming to these from different places (as I have loved Uchida's Mozart and I enjoyed much of her Schubert, though there are finer cycles and individual accounts) and I am still more than curious to hear them.

I also rather enjoyed the late quartets from the Takacs, though I do somewhat take your point about them.

regards, Tam
Posted on: 11 May 2006 by Earwicker
quote:
Originally posted by Todd Arola:
In many ways this disc reminds me of the Takacs Quartet’s recording of the late quartets: [...]the most important elements of the music are largely absent.

Do you think so? With all due respect to subjective preference, I can't imagine what you have in mind here!

W.r.t. Unchida - I largely agree. The only disc of hers I've really enjoyed has been the Schubert impromptus - which was a bit of a surprise since I couldn't get on with her view of the sonatas at all! (To my ears it was an object lesson in completely missing the point!)

Interesting reading as ever!

EW
Posted on: 11 May 2006 by Todd A
quote:
Originally posted by Earwicker:
Do you think so?



Of course, otherwise I wouldn't have written it. I posted a detailed review when the set came out explaining in more detail what the short-comings are. I must say that I hold a less favorable view of the set now than originally.

--
Posted on: 11 May 2006 by Earwicker
Ah well, each to his own. I think the Takacs Beethoven is probably the best on record, all things considered; certainly the best digital set. The Alban Bergs (my former favourite) sound lax and unimaginative by comparison. The Takacs performances are characterised by supreme insight, control and reflex - both musical and physical! I'd like to hear a better set...!

EW
Posted on: 11 May 2006 by Todd A
quote:
Originally posted by Earwicker:
I'd like to hear a better set...!



The Budapest Quartet's mono recordings are vastly superior to the Takacs - or any modern ensemble. Alas, Sony (now Sony BMG) has not reissued the complete mono cycle on CD. The Juilliard (1960s) and the Vegh (1970s) are also superior to the Takacs, especially in the late quartets. The Takacs are at their best in the earlier quartets. I certainly think that the Takacs' cycle far surpasses the very poor Alban Berg cycle, but, as far as modern sets go, I'll take the Cleveland Quartet any day.

The Takacs benefit from good press and short memories. They are a fine ensemble, but one needn't search too hard to find better.

--
Posted on: 11 May 2006 by u5227470736789439
No one mentions the Busch Quartete in this repertoire, so I will stick a recomendation in. The playing is actually seemingly divorced from daily considerations. It is transendental. Nothing counts except the message Beethoven was striving for...

Fredrik
Posted on: 12 May 2006 by Earwicker
Todd,

I wouldn't describe the Alban Berg's recording of ANYTHING as "very poor"; if you want very poor Beethoven, try the Lindsays.

Reading your preferences, I suspect you're a fan of grungy Beethoven; there's certainly a popular strand of opinion that mistakes refinement for superficiality - especially in Beethoven.

EW
Posted on: 12 May 2006 by Earwicker
.. sorry, equates refinement and superficiality, I suppose I should say.
Posted on: 12 May 2006 by u5227470736789439
Dear EW and Todd,

Considering rouhness and refinement in Beethoven:

Schnabel is capable of being a bit rough for example, and Solomon is always very refined (though not always absolutely note perfect), but I find both ways entirely compelling.

Do you both agree?

All the best from Fredrik
Posted on: 12 May 2006 by Earwicker
quote:
Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Do you both agree?

Yeah there's more than one way to skin a rabbit, as they say! On the average, I wouldn't say the Takacs had an overly refined sound - certainly compared with other products of the modern Hungarian school of quartet playing (eg the New Budapest and the ubiquitous Koday) - possibly because their leader is English and their new viola player an American bird. Thinking back to your technique thread, it's often the case these days that some critics are apt to lambast scrupulous, accurate and highly accompished playing as superficial, and praise rough, hamfisted performances as profound. It's certainly true that some technically wiz performances have all the musical interest of a dead slug, but you'd have to say that technical perfection was still a goal all musicians should at least aspire to. I would hold the Takacs quartet's Beethoven (and their possibly unsurpassable Bartok cycle) as one of the best examles of technique and musicianship going hand in hand to achieve the ultimate goals in expression - certainly in string playing anyway. Other groups are painting with a broad brush by comparison, all too often missing the point as they grope in the dark for Beethoven's arcane musical agenda!

EW
Posted on: 12 May 2006 by Todd A
quote:
Originally posted by Earwicker:
Reading your preferences, I suspect you're a fan of grungy Beethoven; there's certainly a popular strand of opinion that mistakes refinement for superficiality - especially in Beethoven.




Then you’ve misread what I wrote. Refinement is certainly acceptable; uncompelling playing is not. Take Andrea Lucchesini – his playing is most certainly refined, and his cycle is one of the best modern cycles. Also, “grungy” is an extremely poor word to describe the playing of, say, Wilhelm Kempff or the Cleveland Quartet (are you familiar with them?), let alone the Budapest Quartet. Pray tell, which Budapest Quartet recordings are “grungy”?

No, what Uchida lacks is depth. Her playing is surface playing, and that applies to a number of others, including the Takacs and the Alban Berg. The latter’s EMI cycle is the only one I would not sit through in its entirety. I do agree that “very poor” is a bit off, but only because I was being polite. It is as much a mistake to confuse refinement with depth as it is to confuse it with superficiality.


--
Posted on: 13 May 2006 by Earwicker
quote:
Originally posted by Todd Arola:
Wilhelm Kempff or the Cleveland Quartet (are you familiar with them?), let alone the Budapest Quartet.

Kempff yes very, the Cleveland not particularly no. Kempff I think was often on shaky ground with Beethoven - his much-vaunted other-wordliness perhaps moving him a little off target in the middle-period sonatas for eg. He was a master of transcendency, and I can't imagine anyone remotely inclined towards such repertoire would want to be without his recordings of Schubert and of course his masterly Legends of St Francis (Liszt).

I was listening to some Uchida recordings last night to verify my earlier observations. As I say, I tend to agree with you. I don't know that she's particularly superficial, "all surface", just that she misses the point. Her Schubert is full of odd rubato effects and strangely exaggerted dynamic contrasts - perhaps overdoing it at times rather than being superficial. She certainly finds a lot in the music and sounds committed... just to the wrong things, perhaps!

Budapest Quartet - grungy would be unfair, but I don't think any of their recordings have aged well; they sound dated more often than not. It's a feature of great modern ensembles like the Takacs that they are better informed on matters of style, and with their technique, they are able to make a strong case for Beethoven at his most extreme - eg in the Grosse Fuge. For what it's worth, I can't say I've heard a better account of the fugue or the dankgesang than theirs - despite their technical accomplishments!

EW
Posted on: 13 May 2006 by Tam
quote:
Originally posted by Earwicker:
Kempff I think was often on shaky ground with Beethoven


It's a good thing I don't have my coffee in my hand otherwise I'd be choking on it!

Kempff's Beethoven, to my ears, is second to none, and I have yet to hear a cycle that rivals his 50s mono sonatas and ditto the 4th concerto (though in others, particularly the emperor, Solomon is a better bet).

regards, Tam
Posted on: 13 May 2006 by Earwicker
SOME of Kempff's Beethoven is second to very few, for sure. But there's no shortage of better recordings of the Waldstein and Appassionata sonats for eg, not to mention the concetos. There is copious competition, and it is stiff. (See Brendel's latest thoughts re the sonatas and the concertos with VPO/attle.) His recording of Schubert's B flat, D960 - better suited to him - might never be surpassed.

EW
Posted on: 13 May 2006 by Earwicker
Rattle, sorry! Having a bit of a typo day!!
Posted on: 13 May 2006 by Tam
EW,

I do totally agree re the D960, that is one of my favourite recordings.

regards, Tam