Beethoven Piano Concerti Comparative Survey: May 2013
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Beethoven Piano Concerti Comparative Survey: May 2013 Overview Concerto No.1 (72 versions compared) Concerto No.2 (56 versions compared) Concerto No.3 (86 versions compared) Concerto No. 4 (94 versions compared) Concerto No. 5 (106 versions compared) Concerto in D, Opus 61a: Commentary Recommended Recordings © Graham Reid 2014. All Rights Reserved www.PianoEnthusiast.com Overview The piano concerti of Beethoven occupy a unique position in the standard repertoire. Before Beethoven, in the Early Classical period, we have offerings by both Mozart and Haydn, and after Beethoven in the Romantic era, we have countless choices to choose from, but in the height of the Late Classical period there is only Beethoven. I know, I can hear the musicologist out there clamoring about “transitional works” by Hummel or Weber or Moscheles, but please. How often have you heard a concert featuring a concerto by Hummel or Moscheles? Exactly. As I said: for concerti of the Late Classical period there is only Beethoven. During Beethoven’s period he dominated the scene as both a barnstorming virtuoso and as daring and mold-breaking composer. The only other composer of this time period whom we have posthumously ascribed comparable stature to Beethoven is Schubert. But Schubert didn’t have the disposition to write virtuoso showcases and instead focused his creative energies on Lieder and more intimate piano works. Beethoven’s concerti have remained popular with audiences since they were first premiered. The reason is easy to understand: they really are the only works which perfectly integrate the readily-grasped forms of the Classical period with the greater drama and expressive range that made Beethoven such a compelling and larger-than-life force in the music world. It is common practice in music history classes to divide Beethoven’s oeuvre into Early, Middle, and Late periods, and that’s as good as any method to understand the tremendous evolutionary range of this composer’s creative genius. But, there were certain works of his early and middle period which looked more forward than other opuses of the time, and there are actually plenty of instances where Beethoven looked backward and reverted to earlier styles. Was this due to some fond recollection or desire to return to simpler times, was it to quell the dissenting voices of conservative critics, were they “facile” works intended for use by students, was it expedience and financial need (to provide sustenance while greater creative works were only the back burner), did it require less creative energy to revert back to simpler, proven forms? None of the biographies or studies I’ve read on Beethoven’s life satisfactorily answer all of these questions. One thing is for certain: the concerti of Beethoven were more or less restricted to his early and middle creative periods because as his hearing deteriorated it became impossible for him to appear as a soloist in his own concerti. It is also quite apparent that none of the concerti even come close to some of the radical, form- breaking concepts of his late period. So within this span of his creative output, we have six concerti that fall within this early and middle period. I count the numbered concerti 1-5 and also include Beethoven’s own transcription of the Violin Concerto, Opus 61 as a valid and worthwhile entry into the cycle of piano concerti. www.PianoEnthusiast.com Now, it’s a seemingly odd anomaly that in conducting this massive comparative survey, I discerned a clear pattern of certain performers being better suited to the early period concerti, and others being better suited to the middle period concerti. Why should this be? I mean, performing musicians are exposed to all eras of the repertoire in music school, and are required to show adequate understanding of each style. I myself have performed Bach, Scarlatti, Chopin, Reger, Messiaen and others—a truly broad divergence of musical styles. It’s been a long while since I actually performed anything, but when I did, I certainly didn’t feel like I was giving short shrift to one style in preference for another. If you sense a digression into psychological dispositions, you have caught on to my way of thinking and working through apparent dichotomies. In the case of the Beethoven concerti, do we require in a performer the ability to shift perspectives and to actually retrace the evolutionary process of Beethoven’s creative style? Or do we profess a preference for one style over the other: the more structured and classical side of Beethoven, or the more free and expressive side that brought forth the dawn of the Romantic era? With so many choices of recordings available, one can easily find a performer who plays the entire cycle with a clean and classical style, or one can find a performer who plays with a more round and romantic tone with less rigid adherence to metric delineation. Myself, I want to hear the evolution of styles in Beethoven, and believe it or not, even with all the choices available out there, this makes it very difficult for me to settle on one integral cycle as a reference point. The concept of integral cycles, that is, complete bodies of works performed by a single interpreter, requires some discussion. I’ve never been one to buy a complete set of anything and then think I’ve done due diligence and am done with it. Even as a teenager, I was always one to find the best interpretations of each individual work. At one time I even made composite tapes of every favorite work, with the best performances selected for each etude, prelude, or movement. But I haven’t done that in twenty years because I find the changing of gears more disruptive than any advantage gained in selecting individual performers for each individual movement. Just the change in sound of various pianos and acoustic venues is enough to disrupt any really deep communicative bond with the music. But, I’m still reluctant to buy complete sets of anything. The advantages of a complete set are that we have one interpreter’s consistent vision of how the various works should be characterized. By changing it up, one conductor for this symphony, another for that, the casual listener is never sure how much of why they may prefer this symphony or another is due to innate musical characteristics, or the change in performer. A consistent interpretive viewpoint allows them to focus first and foremost on the music. www.PianoEnthusiast.com Most of the online forums and “lists” proffered on Amazon or YouTube, or discussion forums such as good-music-guide.com, concern which is the best overall set of Beethoven concerti to have. If I knew a person was willing to own two sets, I’d probably recommend Schiff and Arrau and be done with the discussion. Those two interpreters offer the most complete contrast of style, Schiff in the classical, chiseled style, and Arrau in the more rounded and romantic style, yet both are utterly compelling in their own manner. The difficulty comes in deciding which one set is “best” and that inevitably means that I must consider who has made the most salient and defensible compromises between the two extremes. And there is always the worry that by being neither hot, nor cold, one ends up with a lukewarm tepidity that never really engages or inspires. So to be up front, I don’t really whole-heartedly, and unequivocally recommend any single complete set of the Beethoven Concerti. But that’s because while I can enjoy Schiff in the earlier concerti, and Arrau in the later works, I find both of their forays at the other ends largely unsatisfying. And safe bet, middle-of-the road renderings such as Perahia, come close to satisfying on all accounts, but lack that last bit of sparkle or depth or whatever that keeps me going back to my favorite performances of each work. So let’s return to the idea of individual preferences, because that may be the easiest way to find performances that will satisfy. One thing that is certain: the liner notes and concert program notes one reads are nearly worthless. If I have to wade through another writer’s tiresome attempt (thesaurus in hand) at some new and fresh simile at exposition, development and coda I’m sure I’ll suffer an aneurism. That is not how people listen, and it is not how composers intended that they listen. So give it all a rest, please! If you’d really like to explore the issues of listener psychology refer to my 60-page essay on the topic, Listener Psychology: How We Perceive Music. Over the decades I’ve tried all kinds of methods to try and distill to my students as succinctly as possible the deeper levels of meaning in music. Now, for me, music is like a religion, but I don’t expect every student or reader to approach music with the same level of fervor. At the same time, I’m always seeking to bridge the gap between “casual” listening and deep artistic immersion. One of the first revelations I had about different levels of listening was back in the early 80’s when Pogorelic first won international acclaim. A younger piano enthusiast and player of some natural facility brought to me a review of Pogorelic’s Chopin Sonata. Since he knew I was an avid record collector, he wanted to hear what it meant when the reviewer said that the recording was “more Pogorelic than Chopin” and he was also intrigued by the “extreme and explosive dynamic range” the reviewer talked about.