Some brief thoughts on recordings of the Diabellis
Posted by: Todd A on 19 April 2008
When it comes to the Diabellis, I often prefer a more interventionist approach. I can’t quite explain why, but when a pianist obviously tinkers around with the tempi (especially) and dynamics (less so), I often enjoy the results, though not always. Perhaps that’s why unlike Holden I find Piotr Anderszewski very enjoyable. Olli Mustonen is at least as interventionist, though he tends toward fast tempi and some repeat omissions, and I like him even more! Geza Anda strips out every repeat, and brings the work in at under 40 minutes, but he infuses it with such energy and effective dynamic contrasts, that it’s hard not to appreciate it on its own terms. Even Anton Kuerti, whose sonata cycle I’m not too wild about, delivers a superb, highly individual (ie, idiosyncratic) take.
But of course a more “straight-forward” approach can yield enormous dividends. Exhibit A here is Rudolf Serkin, whose recording is still probably my favorite. Sure, the sound is dated and a pesky cricket plays along in the background, but Serkin’s unwavering drive and energy and total command of the work hits the spot. I can easily see how some would find his take too austere or hard, but I love it. Sviatoslav Richter’s 1986 Amsterdam recording manages to mix both individuality and directness in equal measure. Should the at times lumbering tempi and playing work as well as they do? No – but they do. Similarly, Stephen Kovacevich’s lauded recording delivers the goods in a similar approach (more similar to Serkin, that is).
Other fine performances include Brendel’s digital studio recording of the work (I haven’t heard the other two), Mieczyslaw Horszowski’s take, and Robert Silverman’s hard-hitting, unsentimental take.
Were I to group them into categories, the top tier would include Serkin, Mustonen, and Richter. The next rung down would include Kuerti, Anderszewski, Kovacevich, Anda, and Brendel. After that some good ones would be Arrau, Horszowski, and Silverman.
Less compelling recordings for me (for various reasons) include Schnabel, Ashkenazy, Heisser, Perl, Pludermacher, Pollini (good, but somehow disappointing), and Yokoyama (not up to snuff). I’ve never quite got into the Diabellis as much as the sonatas, but I’m slowly trying to rectify that.
What other faves and preferences are out there?
--
But of course a more “straight-forward” approach can yield enormous dividends. Exhibit A here is Rudolf Serkin, whose recording is still probably my favorite. Sure, the sound is dated and a pesky cricket plays along in the background, but Serkin’s unwavering drive and energy and total command of the work hits the spot. I can easily see how some would find his take too austere or hard, but I love it. Sviatoslav Richter’s 1986 Amsterdam recording manages to mix both individuality and directness in equal measure. Should the at times lumbering tempi and playing work as well as they do? No – but they do. Similarly, Stephen Kovacevich’s lauded recording delivers the goods in a similar approach (more similar to Serkin, that is).
Other fine performances include Brendel’s digital studio recording of the work (I haven’t heard the other two), Mieczyslaw Horszowski’s take, and Robert Silverman’s hard-hitting, unsentimental take.
Were I to group them into categories, the top tier would include Serkin, Mustonen, and Richter. The next rung down would include Kuerti, Anderszewski, Kovacevich, Anda, and Brendel. After that some good ones would be Arrau, Horszowski, and Silverman.
Less compelling recordings for me (for various reasons) include Schnabel, Ashkenazy, Heisser, Perl, Pludermacher, Pollini (good, but somehow disappointing), and Yokoyama (not up to snuff). I’ve never quite got into the Diabellis as much as the sonatas, but I’m slowly trying to rectify that.
What other faves and preferences are out there?
--