JudeoN4zi wrote:

> Schabel is good, Kempff really isn‘t bad in the third movement I heard (will have to listen to the rest), richter also seemed to be fine… and hmm flier was horrible (also too heavy, and the touch was very bad). I liked Gould as well.

What are your favs? Any recs?

So, after being prompted by Owen to listen to Gieseking and Janis in this work, and for a long time not really being able to appreciate it, I sort of found some liking for this work and since and went on to listen to a few other recordings. I also have to say that while I prefer gieseking over Janis, I’m not satisfied either.

The problem with Janis for me is certainly is sometimes too heavy touch and quite metronomical approach (he seems to be lacking some form of playfulness for this); while Gieseking‘s approach pushes too much at places I think…

Schabel is good, Kempff really isn‘t bad in the third movement I heard (will have to listen to the rest), richter also seemed to be fine… and hmm flier was horrible (also too heavy, and the touch was very bad). I liked Gould as well.

No HJ Lim gamsa

JudeoN4zi wrote:

> What are your favs? Any recs?

A few years ago I posted 12
takes on the Tempest, duly
anonymized so Herman doesn't
start barking at them:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFrDVUzF9_3NSlLkp2S_lZNk_lItXX0qd

Four of them appear to have
been removed by the copyright
police, even though they were
no more copyrighted than all
the others. Go figure.

Try them out and let us know
what you think.

Ciao!

On 3/6/2024 3:44 PM, JudeoN4zi wrote:
> JudeoN4zi wrote:
>
>> Schabel is good, Kempff really isn‘t bad in the third movement I heard
>> (will have to listen to the rest), richter also seemed to be fine… and
>> hmm flier was horrible (also too heavy, and the touch was very bad). I
>> liked Gould as well.
>
> What are your favs? Any recs?

Actually Backhaus 1963-69 is a top recommendation for the Op.31 as a
whole. Not a statement I am happy to replicate for most of his other
sonatas (stereo version), but the Op.31 is quite an exception to the
rule.

PPeso wrote:

> Actually Backhaus 1963-69 is a top
> recommendation for the Op.31 as a
> whole. Not a statement I am happy
> to replicate for most of his other
> sonatas (stereo version), but the
> Op.31 is quite an exception to the
> rule.

Boots on the keys! Not listenable.

Cannot hold a candle to Husseiyn
Sermet, HJ Lim, Argerich, Gulda,
or even to La Valentina.

Cheers

On 3/6/2024 8:20 PM, DeepBlue wrote:
> PPeso wrote:
>
>> Actually Backhaus 1963-69 is a top recommendation for the Op.31 as a
>> whole. Not a statement I am happy to replicate for most of his other
>> sonatas (stereo version), but the Op.31 is quite an exception to the
>> rule.
>
> Boots on the keys! Not listenable. Cannot hold a candle to Husseiyn
> Sermet, HJ Lim, Argerich, Gulda, or even to La Valentina. Cheers

Uhm, a rather heterogeneous group. I would pick Gulda over Backhaus most
of the times, but the Op.31 - the beginning of Beethoven's "new path" in
1802 - requires a special willingness to move into unexplored lands and
twilight soundscapes with uncomfortable mood swings, from darkness to
grotesqueness, suspenseful recitativos, elusive mystery. Not the bread
and butter of Gulda. Not even Richter in 1961 gets it quite right in his
Tempest. HJ gets close, possibly. Go to the recapitulation of the I mvt
of the Tempest, the largo "con espressione e semplice" for a good
example of what makes Backhaus' reading so congenial.

PPeso wrote:

> On 3/6/2024 8:20 PM, DeepBlue wrote:
>> PPeso wrote:
>>
>>> Actually Backhaus 1963-69 is a top recommendation for the Op.31 as a
>>> whole. Not a statement I am happy to replicate for most of his other
>>> sonatas (stereo version), but the Op.31 is quite an exception to the
>>> rule.
>>
>> Boots on the keys! Not listenable. Cannot hold a candle to Husseiyn
>> Sermet, HJ Lim, Argerich, Gulda, or even to La Valentina. Cheers

> Uhm, a rather heterogeneous group. I would pick Gulda over Backhaus most
> of the times, but the Op.31 - the beginning of Beethoven's "new path" in
> 1802 - requires a special willingness to move into unexplored lands and
> twilight soundscapes with uncomfortable mood swings, from darkness to
> grotesqueness, suspenseful recitativos, elusive mystery. Not the bread
> and butter of Gulda. Not even Richter in 1961 gets it quite right in his
> Tempest. HJ gets close, possibly. Go to the recapitulation of the I mvt
> of the Tempest, the largo "con espressione e semplice" for a good
> example of what makes Backhaus' reading so congenial.

Since your mind is not readable, we cannot figure out
the meaning of "just right". Luckily, YT allows time
marks in URLs. Please provide links to passages that
illustrate your points.

Thx

PPeso wrote:

> On 3/6/2024 8:20 PM, DeepBlue wrote:
>> PPeso wrote:
>>
>>> Actually Backhaus 1963-69 is a top recommendation for the Op.31 as a
>>> whole. Not a statement I am happy to replicate for most of his other
>>> sonatas (stereo version), but the Op.31 is quite an exception to the
>>> rule.
>>
>> Boots on the keys! Not listenable. Cannot hold a candle to Husseiyn
>> Sermet, HJ Lim, Argerich, Gulda, or even to La Valentina. Cheers

> Uhm, a rather heterogeneous group. I would pick Gulda over Backhaus most
> of the times, but the Op.31 - the beginning of Beethoven's "new path" in
> 1802 - requires a special willingness to move into unexplored lands and
> twilight soundscapes with uncomfortable mood swings, from darkness to
> grotesqueness, suspenseful recitativos, elusive mystery. Not the bread
> and butter of Gulda. Not even Richter in 1961 gets it quite right in his
> Tempest. HJ gets close, possibly. Go to the recapitulation of the I mvt
> of the Tempest, the largo "con espressione e semplice" for a good
> example of what makes Backhaus' reading so congenial.

The list I provided is "heterogenous" because I did not seek to promote
or recommend any speficic approach. Those are all "good" performances
worth hearing -- in the conventional sense of "good".

I stated many times in this forum and others that my favorite reading
is HJ Lim's, followed by Husseiyn Sermet.

Ciao!

Ashkenazy, Deca ,1976:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEgOK3VO4TQ

PPeso wrote:

> On 3/6/2024 8:20 PM, DeepBlue wrote:
>> PPeso wrote:
>>
>>> Actually Backhaus 1963-69 is a top recommendation for the Op.31 as a
>>> whole. Not a statement I am happy to replicate for most of his other
>>> sonatas (stereo version), but the Op.31 is quite an exception to the
>>> rule.
>>
>> Boots on the keys! Not listenable. Cannot hold a candle to Husseiyn
>> Sermet, HJ Lim, Argerich, Gulda, or even to La Valentina. Cheers

> Uhm, a rather heterogeneous group. I would pick Gulda over Backhaus most
> of the times, but the Op.31 - the beginning of Beethoven's "new path" in
> 1802 - requires a special willingness to move into unexplored lands and
> twilight soundscapes with uncomfortable mood swings, from darkness to
> grotesqueness, suspenseful recitativos, elusive mystery. Not the bread
> and butter of Gulda. Not even Richter in 1961 gets it quite right in his
> Tempest. HJ gets close, possibly. Go to the recapitulation of the I mvt
> of the Tempest, the largo "con espressione e semplice" for a good
> example of what makes Backhaus' reading so congenial.

Thank you for your thoughts and further insight into this piece, haven't read up on the background yet.

Hmmmm... I just listened to Backhaus playing the first movement and payed special attention to that section... hmmm... problem for me is already the entrance here, in - if I might say so - typical German manner ;D he over-pronounces the entrance of the recapitulation (crescendo; da-da-da-DAM-pause...), this is too dramatic for me... it makes it sound like a joke to me, I can't take it seriously (similar to Furtwängler's Beethoven maybe)... then he misses the playfulness and is generally too grim for my taste. His touch also really sucks... especially compared to Richter's... Richter's approach also seems to be more "modern" imo (I was quite surprised tbh, thought Richter would be more wild) - analytical and held back.

JudeoN4zi wrote:
> he over-pronounces the entrance of the recapitulation

*entrance to

Bloomfield wrote:

> Ashkenazy, Deca ,1976:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEgOK3VO4TQ

Thanks, I like it very much. For now I seem to like this and Richter's the most - still need to listen some more though.

Bloomfield wrote:

> Ashkenazy, Deca ,1976:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEgOK3VO4TQ

Thanks, I like it very much. For now I seem to like this and Richter's the most. Still need to listen some more though.

On 3/7/2024 10:44 AM, JudeoN4zi wrote:
> PPeso wrote:
>
>> On 3/6/2024 8:20 PM, DeepBlue wrote:
>>> PPeso wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually Backhaus 1963-69 is a top recommendation for the Op.31 as a
>>>> whole. Not a statement I am happy to replicate for most of his other
>>>> sonatas (stereo version), but the Op.31 is quite an exception to the
>>>> rule.
>>>
>>> Boots on the keys! Not listenable. Cannot hold a candle to Husseiyn
>>> Sermet, HJ Lim, Argerich, Gulda, or even to La Valentina. Cheers
>
>> Uhm, a rather heterogeneous group. I would pick Gulda over Backhaus
>> most of the times, but the Op.31 - the beginning of Beethoven's "new
>> path" in 1802 - requires a special willingness to move into unexplored
>> lands and twilight soundscapes with uncomfortable mood swings, from
>> darkness to grotesqueness, suspenseful recitativos, elusive mystery.
>> Not the bread and butter of Gulda. Not even Richter in 1961 gets it
>> quite right in his Tempest. HJ gets close, possibly. Go to the
>> recapitulation of the I mvt of the Tempest, the largo "con espressione
>> e semplice" for a good example of what makes Backhaus' reading so
>> congenial.
>
> Thank you for your thoughts and further insight into this piece, haven't
> read up on the background yet.
>
> Hmmmm... I just listened to Backhaus playing the first movement and
> payed special attention to that section... hmmm... problem for me is
> already the entrance here, in - if I might say so - typical German
> manner ;D he over-pronounces the entrance of the recapitulation
> (crescendo; da-da-da-DAM-pause...), this is too dramatic for me... it
> makes it sound like a joke to me, I can't take it seriously (similar to
> Furtwängler's Beethoven maybe)... then he misses the playfulness and is
> generally too grim for my taste. His touch also really sucks...
> especially compared to Richter's... Richter's approach also seems to be
> more "modern" imo (I was quite surprised tbh, thought Richter would be
> more wild) - analytical and held back.

All very reasonable. Backhaus' approach *is* teutonic, old-fashioned and
awkward, and he has no interest in timbral nuances. But somehow this is
precisely what works well in the creepy, outlandish, Grimm-brother-ish,
Sturm-und-Drang-redux world of the Tempest and its companions (and does
not work in the Waldstein or the Appassionata, for example). The
comparison with Furtwängler's too-dramatic-for-comfort approach is spot
on, talking about Wahlverwandtschaften between the two...

JudeoN4zi wrote:

> Bloomfield wrote:

>> Ashkenazy, Deca ,1976:

>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEgOK3VO4TQ

> Thanks, I like it very much. For now I seem to like this and Richter's the most. Still need to listen some more though.

Okay... revision: Richter and Gulda I like much more than Ashkenazy -- generally Ashkenazy feels a bit too heavy (especially in certain passages).

Ashkenazy does create an interesting sound-world throughout.

PPeso wrote:

> All very reasonable. Backhaus' approach *is* teutonic, old-fashioned and
> awkward, and he has no interest in timbral nuances. But somehow this is
> precisely what works well in the creepy, outlandish, Grimm-brother-ish,
> Sturm-und-Drang-redux world of the Tempest and its companions (and does
> not work in the Waldstein or the Appassionata, for example). The
> comparison with Furtwängler's too-dramatic-for-comfort approach is spot
> on, talking about Wahlverwandtschaften between the two...

Happy to hear I got sth right at last ;D

The companions though (from what I remember and just relistened to) seem rather cheerful and playful - not creepy or outlandish at all... No 2 also seems quite distinct in its character when compared to the other two (the other two being more alike to each other than to No 2; there is more "mystery" about no 2), so I can't really understand why you would group them together in their characterization.

I agree this sonata would allow for a "darker" approach than say Waldstein (and No 1 and No 3 btw).

Interesting you used the word "awkward"... wonder if Backhaus would have used it as well (he was probably just very serious, in contrast to you who is aware about it); it's also sth people seem to associate Beethoven to be, and I think Bernstein also said this about Beethoven's music... not sure I agree... well apart from the _fact_ that compared to Mozart everything sounds kind of wrong...

Isn't sth which is awkward (such as the "entrance" to the recapitulation) aesthetically unappealing, at least when it comes to this piece (also keeping in mind the classical period)? Surely a woman who is awkward can be sexy ;)

Bloomfield wrote:

> Ashkenazy does create an interesting sound-world throughout.

Yes he sure does... and I actually prefer him over Gulda for this reason after relistening (Gulda is also too fast for me)... still some moments are a bit too heavy for my taste, but he and Richter are my favourites.

Thanks for the rec, really good.

On 3/8/2024 2:12 PM, JudeoN4zi wrote:
> PPeso wrote:
>
>> All very reasonable. Backhaus' approach *is* teutonic, old-fashioned
>> and awkward, and he has no interest in timbral nuances. But somehow
>> this is precisely what works well in the creepy, outlandish,
>> Grimm-brother-ish, Sturm-und-Drang-redux world of the Tempest and its
>> companions (and does not work in the Waldstein or the Appassionata,
>> for example). The comparison with Furtwängler's
>> too-dramatic-for-comfort approach is spot on, talking about
>> Wahlverwandtschaften between the two...
>
> Happy to hear I got sth right at last ;D
>
> The companions though (from what I remember and just relistened to) seem
> rather cheerful and playful - not creepy or outlandish at all...

Not sure about "cheerful and playful". Maybe you mean paradoxical and
bizarre. Brendel (always more interesting to read than to listen to...)
talks about "compulsive but scatterbrained determination" in the G
major, and I fully agree. And No.3 starts with tension and asymmetry and
ends with a maniacal tarantella...

No 2
> also seems quite distinct in its character when compared to the other
> two (the other two being more alike to each other than to No 2; there is
> more "mystery" about no 2), so I can't really understand why you would
> group them together in their characterization. > I agree this sonata would allow for a "darker" approach than say
> Waldstein (and No 1 and No 3 btw).

With Backhaus - more than his peers - No.1 and No.3 sound like
introduction and epilogue in a triptych, admittedly a slightly disjoined
one. Hence it makes some sense to group them together, besides the
vagaries of 1802 publication policies by Beethoven's publishers.

>
> Interesting you used the word "awkward"... wonder if Backhaus would have
> used it as well

Maybe he would have agreed on unangenehm.

JudeoN4zi wrote:

> Schnabel is good, Kempff really isn‘t bad in the third movement I heard

Kempff is horrible… not sure what I heard…

Ya, Ashkenazy and Richter seem to be the best… i also like Gould, but not as much it seems… Schnabel is horrible as well (I think I’m growing critical of him again; as well as of E. Fischer and C. Hansen… think I’m going to sort em out… ya…)

PPeso wrote:

> On 3/8/2024 2:12 PM, JudeoN4zi wrote:
>> PPeso wrote:
>>
>>> All very reasonable. Backhaus' approach *is* teutonic, old-fashioned
>>> and awkward, and he has no interest in timbral nuances. But somehow
>>> this is precisely what works well in the creepy, outlandish,
>>> Grimm-brother-ish, Sturm-und-Drang-redux world of the Tempest and its
>>> companions (and does not work in the Waldstein or the Appassionata,
>>> for example). The comparison with Furtwängler's
>>> too-dramatic-for-comfort approach is spot on, talking about
>>> Wahlverwandtschaften between the two...
>>
>> Happy to hear I got sth right at last ;D
>>
>> The companions though (from what I remember and just relistened to) seem
>> rather cheerful and playful - not creepy or outlandish at all...

> Not sure about "cheerful and playful". Maybe you mean paradoxical and
> bizarre. Brendel (always more interesting to read than to listen to...)
> talks about "compulsive but scatterbrained determination" in the G
> major, and I fully agree. And No.3 starts with tension and asymmetry and
> ends with a maniacal tarantella...

Sorry for replying so late - didn’t have too much time on my hands, and I wanted to relisten to these pieces in their entirety before coming back on this. Didn’t find the time yet, sorry.

This kind of input really helps my listening experience - so thanks - and I will try to hear the things you described and maybe even check out what Brendel had say about it (if it’s accessible online).

> No 2
>> also seems quite distinct in its character when compared to the other
>> two (the other two being more alike to each other than to No 2; there is
>> more "mystery" about no 2), so I can't really understand why you would
>> group them together in their characterization. > I agree this sonata would allow for a "darker" approach than say
>> Waldstein (and No 1 and No 3 btw).

> With Backhaus - more than his peers - No.1 and No.3 sound like
> introduction and epilogue in a triptych, admittedly a slightly disjoined
> one. Hence it makes some sense to group them together, besides the
> vagaries of 1802 publication policies by Beethoven's publishers.

>>
>> Interesting you used the word "awkward"... wonder if Backhaus would have
>> used it as well

> Maybe he would have agreed on unangenehm.

Haha - likely.

The thing I’m asking myself though is, that Beethoven’s music today - as we are more experienced listeners (harmonies etc) - generally just doesn’t sound as „radical“ anymore, people are not shocked anymore… so in a way I feel Backhaus‘s playing is dating Beethoven back to the romantic time, which just doesn’t work anymore today and which is why it sounds awkward - it’s not „unangenehm“ as Schoenberg‘s harmonies feel, I feel „awkward“ was spot on. To play Beethoven today one must be informed by newer music… and not take the romantic perspective on Beethoven.

JudeoN4zi wrote:

> The thing I’m asking myself though is, that Beethoven’s music today - as we are more experienced listeners (harmonies etc) - generally just doesn’t sound as „radical“ anymore

Have to correct myself here: he does if the music is played in a more modern manner; in a manner in which you can appreciate the harmonies and structure of his music (even if you go against some of his suggestions ofc).

The problem with Backhaus-style is this existentialist approach… lol… sorry… existentialism belongs in to the past….

On Thu, 7 Mar 2024, DeepBlue wrote:

> PPeso wrote:
>
>> On 3/6/2024 8:20 PM, DeepBlue wrote:
>>> PPeso wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually Backhaus 1963-69 is a top recommendation for the Op.31 as a
>>>> whole. Not a statement I am happy to replicate for most of his other
>>>> sonatas (stereo version), but the Op.31 is quite an exception to the
>>>> rule.
>>>
>>> Boots on the keys! Not listenable. Cannot hold a candle to Husseiyn
>>> Sermet, HJ Lim, Argerich, Gulda, or even to La Valentina. Cheers
>
>> Uhm, a rather heterogeneous group. I would pick Gulda over Backhaus most of
>> the times, but the Op.31 - the beginning of Beethoven's "new path" in 1802
>> - requires a special willingness to move into unexplored lands and twilight
>> soundscapes with uncomfortable mood swings, from darkness to grotesqueness,
>> suspenseful recitativos, elusive mystery. Not the bread and butter of
>> Gulda. Not even Richter in 1961 gets it quite right in his Tempest. HJ gets
>> close, possibly. Go to the recapitulation of the I mvt of the Tempest, the
>> largo "con espressione e semplice" for a good example of what makes
>> Backhaus' reading so congenial.
>
> Since your mind is not readable, we cannot figure out the meaning of "just
> right". Luckily, YT allows time marks in URLs. Please provide links to
> passages that illustrate your points. Thx

PPeso's thoughtful post, whether one agrees or not, is a throwback to
a time when serious discussions could be carried on in rmcr. He has
already provided far more (and more useful) information than in the sum
total of your hundreds of recent youtube-link posts. It is really
unbecoming of you to badger him about it without adding anything useful
of your own.
--
Al Eisner

Al Eisner wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Mar 2024, DeepBlue wrote:

>> PPeso wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/6/2024 8:20 PM, DeepBlue wrote:
>>>> PPeso wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Actually Backhaus 1963-69 is a top recommendation for the Op.31 as a
>>>>> whole. Not a statement I am happy to replicate for most of his other
>>>>> sonatas (stereo version), but the Op.31 is quite an exception to the
>>>>> rule.
>>>>
>>>> Boots on the keys! Not listenable. Cannot hold a candle to Husseiyn
>>>> Sermet, HJ Lim, Argerich, Gulda, or even to La Valentina. Cheers
>>
>>> Uhm, a rather heterogeneous group. I would pick Gulda over Backhaus most of
>>> the times, but the Op.31 - the beginning of Beethoven's "new path" in 1802
>>> - requires a special willingness to move into unexplored lands and twilight
>>> soundscapes with uncomfortable mood swings, from darkness to grotesqueness,
>>> suspenseful recitativos, elusive mystery. Not the bread and butter of
>>> Gulda. Not even Richter in 1961 gets it quite right in his Tempest. HJ gets
>>> close, possibly. Go to the recapitulation of the I mvt of the Tempest, the
>>> largo "con espressione e semplice" for a good example of what makes
>>> Backhaus' reading so congenial.
>>
>> Since your mind is not readable, we cannot figure out the meaning of "just
>> right". Luckily, YT allows time marks in URLs. Please provide links to
>> passages that illustrate your points. Thx

> PPeso's thoughtful post, whether one agrees or not, is a throwback to
> a time when serious discussions could be carried on in rmcr. He has
> already provided far more (and more useful) information than in the sum
> total of your hundreds of recent youtube-link posts. It is really
> unbecoming of you to badger him about it without adding anything useful
> of your own.

Really? What did you add that is "useful"?

Cheers