backhaus

[david johnson]

backhaus/beethoven sonata box.
opinion please.

dj

[dirkronk]

David:

I presume you refer to his stereo cycle? I know that some of his mono performances were needed to augment these, since he didn't get to complete the later traversal. I'll be interested in other responses you get here.

Backhaus--from almost any era of his playing--is worth hearing, and IMO especially in Beethoven. He's simple, forthright, often almost gruff or raw, but full of power. While this description may seem to imply that you can forget about poetry in Backhaus's interps, that's not quite the case: occasionally he comes across with phrasing that's simply so natural, so fluent and so "right" that it almost takes you by surprise. The overall effect is one I personally find very appealing, at least taken a few sonatas at a time. This is certainly true in his concert performances, such as his early '50s Carnegie Hall recital (which was all LvB except for the encores), which I have and treasure on very early vinyl.

I've owned vinyl copies of his LvB stereo "name" sonatas (Appassionata et al) for some time, and I personally like them. In fact, with a couple of exceptions, I think Backhaus does a better job at presenting these particular "name" pieces than Schnabel, Annie Fischer and Kempff...at least I like them better, even though I'd rank Backhaus just a bit behind Richter and perhaps Moravec in these. We're talking very subjective opinion, though and thus YMMV, of course. Also, the "name" pieces are only part of the cycle, and it's been a long time since I've heard Backhaus do some of the less-publicized works in his stereo set. Luckily, I just found a complete London box set of LPs a few weeks ago. It's sitting in my "to play soon" pile at home. I will try to report as I make my way through this box.

Meanwhile, perhaps others who own the CD set will have specifics to offer about its sound and presentation, as well as their own opinions as to his playing. In fact, didn't Todd do a survey of this set, which I presume may still be archived at GMG?

Cheers,

Dirk

[david johnson]

i, too, have run across the london product.

dj

[Lance]

I had the London LP set for many years and enjoyed the late stages of Backhaus's playing so much that I opted to eventually get the CD. I believe he uses a Bösendofer Imperial concert grand piano for most of those sessions (and because he didn't complete them all in stereo, I think one or two of the sonatas were taken from previous mono-only sessions). The point is, Backhaus was one of the most highly revered pianists of the last century. Early on he played Liszt, made his own transcriptions of pieces (very virtuosic), Chopin, Haydn ... all composers that aren't necessarily connected with his name, especially after the age of 55. He preferred to play the music of Mozart, Schubert, Beethoven and Brahms.

During his hey day, and especially in Europe, Backhaus was considered among the best. He was not a man who had a dynamic personality (say in the style of Rubinstein or Horowitz) - but was most serious about performing music - music with no frills. But what a scholar! What beautiful tone the man possessed! I suppose Backhaus stayed more or less in the shadows and probably didn't think too much about whether he was or would be a pianistic idol. Those in the know - and there are many to this day - put Wilhelm Backhaus on a pedestal artistically. I put him there as well.

I'm awaiting some issues of his Haydn, Mozart and Bach on CD, discs that are apparently only now available from Japanese sources. I would add a Backhaus disc to my collection any time - any day. His Beethoven sonatas set would set right next to my Schnabel/Beethoven.

[val]

david johnson

backhaus/beethoven sonata box.
opinion please.

A perfect balance. Backhaus gives more importance to the global perspective, the structure of the work, than to the details. Everything is perfectly controlled. Sometimes perhaps too much.
He almost never does the reprise of the exposition in the first movements.

There are in my opinion great moments in this set: the Sonatas opus 26, 28, 31/2, 79, 110 and, above all an extraordinary version of the opus 57, powerful, compact.

I think it is a version that has not, in general, the inspiration of Schnabel or Gulda, but I would put it at the same level of those of Kempff 1951, Arrau, Annie Fischer, Brendel (VOX).

[CharmNewton]

Backhaus re-recorded all bu the Hammerklavier (No. 29) in stereo.

John

[Lance]

david johnson

backhaus/beethoven sonata box.
opinion please.

[snipped]

I think it is a version that has not, in general, the inspiration of Schnabel or Gulda, but I would put it at the same level of those of Kempff 1951, Arrau, Annie Fischer, Brendel (VOX).

Which of Gulda's versions are you referring to, the Amadeo set (now in a Brilliant boxed set, recorded in Austria in 1967) or the British Decca versions recently released in their budget-priced boxed set, or both?

[Jack Kelso]

I had the London LP set for many years and enjoyed the late stages of Backhaus's playing so much that I opted to eventually get the CD. I believe he uses a Bösendofer Imperial concert grand piano for most of those sessions (and because he didn't complete them all in stereo, I think one or two of the sonatas were taken from previous mono-only sessions). The point is, Backhaus was one of the most highly revered pianists of the last century. Early on he played Liszt, made his own transcriptions of pieces (very virtuosic), Chopin, Haydn ... all composers that aren't necessarily connected with his name, especially after the age of 55. He preferred to play the music of Mozart, Schubert, Beethoven and Brahms.

During his hey day, and especially in Europe, Backhaus was considered among the best. He was not a man who had a dynamic personality (say in the style of Rubinstein or Horowitz) - but was most serious about performing music - music with no frills. But what a scholar! What beautiful tone the man possessed! I suppose Backhaus stayed more or less in the shadows and probably didn't think too much about whether he was or would be a pianistic idol. Those in the know - and there are many to this day - put Wilhelm Backhaus on a pedestal artistically. I put him there as well.

I'm awaiting some issues of his Haydn, Mozart and Bach on CD, discs that are apparently only now available from Japanese sources. I would add a Backhaus disc to my collection any time - any day. His Beethoven sonatas set would set right next to my Schnabel/Beethoven.

As usual, Schumann should be mentioned here, too. Although not connected with Schumann as much as Richter, Arrau, Kempff, Rubinstein, Novaes and some others, Backhaus is remembered for some notable recordings of the Piano Concerto, "Waldszenen", Fantasie in C", etc. I believe he realized his limitations in this music, in which he often comes across to many ears as heavy-handed.

Nonetheless, I always enjoyed a Backhaus-Schumann performance. I will admit, however, that in the Beethoven sonatas his temperament reached its highest fulfillment.

Jack

[val]

Lance


Which of Gulda's versions are you referring to, the Amadeo set (now in a Brilliant boxed set, recorded in Austria in 1967) or the British Decca versions recently released in their budget-priced boxed set, or both?

The original Amadeo set, now in BRILLIANT CLASSICS. ONly one weak point: the opus 53.

The opus 111 is perhaps the greatest moment of this set. No one, not even Schnabel or Solomon, reached this level of fantasy, dynamic, in the Arietta.

[Lance]

Lance


Which of Gulda's versions are you referring to, the Amadeo set (now in a Brilliant boxed set, recorded in Austria in 1967) or the British Decca versions recently released in their budget-priced boxed set, or both?

The original Amadeo set, now in BRILLIANT CLASSICS. ONly one weak point: the opus 53.

The opus 111 is perhaps the greatest moment of this set. No one, not even Schnabel or Solomon, reached this level of fantasy, dynamic, in the Arietta.

Wondering what you thought of the Gulda/Decca Beethoven sonata set in comparison to the Amadeo/Brilliant. It's probably the most distinctively different set of anybody's I've ever heard, applicable to nearly all the sonatas. I, too, enjoyed the Amadeo/Brilliant set. But in the end, Gulda's does not leave a lasting impression on me, much as I admire and respect his profound and highly individual musicality.

I don't wholeheartedly concur with your thoughts regarding the Op. 111. After studying every major pianist's recording—and hearing it in concert on many occasions—I've always felt Solomon still brought the ultimate in interpretation to the Op. 111 (both movements), followed by Michelangeli (in his now deleted Decca/London CD). (Solomon, too, recorded this via 78-rpm discs but was such an introspective and scholarly pianist that he could cope well with this kind of encumberance.) I was pleasantly surprised how much like Solomon's was Michelangeli's overall interpretation. It's the very opening of this sonata that sets the pace for the rest of it. For me, Solomon walks away with the prize. But each to his own ... that's the beauty of collecting and studying recordings. We all are embraced by the special qualities of the interpreter. I also feel strongly about the Schnabel's recording too, but the poor man had to stop every four minutes for the platters to be changed, and when someone is concentrating, musically, this could break the train of thought. Still, the Mighty Mr. Schnabel leaves a distinct impression as well (on the Op. 111).

[Sergeant Rock]

Lance


Which of Gulda's versions are you referring to, the Amadeo set (now in a Brilliant boxed set, recorded in Austria in 1967) or the British Decca versions recently released in their budget-priced boxed set, or both?

The original Amadeo set, now in BRILLIANT CLASSICS. ONly one weak point: the opus 53.

This is confusing. There is a budget-priced Decca box set, too, which has the Amadeo sonata recordings, plus the 1971/73 Decca piano concertos. I just bought it last Saturday:



Sarge

[CharmNewton]

Lance


Which of Gulda's versions are you referring to, the Amadeo set (now in a Brilliant boxed set, recorded in Austria in 1967) or the British Decca versions recently released in their budget-priced boxed set, or both?

The original Amadeo set, now in BRILLIANT CLASSICS. ONly one weak point: the opus 53.

This is confusing. There is a budget-priced Decca box set, too, which has the Amadeo sonata recordings, plus the 1971/73 Decca piano concertos. I just bought it last Saturday:



Sarge

Decca recorded a Beethoven cycle with Gulda in the early 1950s. That has been re-issued in Decca's Original Masters series.

Apparently Universal owns the rights to the Amadeo recordings as well now as the later recordings have been re-issued by Decca and DG.

John

[Sergeant Rock]

Decca recorded a Beethoven cycle with Gulda in the early 1950s. That has been re-issued in Decca's Original Masters series.

Apparently Universal owns the rights to the Amadeo recordings as well now as the later recordings have been re-issued by Decca and DG.

John

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification.

Sarge