# Beethoven sonatas: Arrau vs Gilels



## RogerWaters

How would you describe the different playing styles of the above, in the least subjective terms possible?


----------



## flamencosketches

I haven't heard terribly much of either. What I've noticed is that Arrau has a heavier touch, generally takes the tempi a bit slower, and uses more rubato. Gilels plays Beethoven with his signature light touch and buttery tone and is pretty steady with tempi. I think he's more successful in the concertos than in the sonatas, but overall I'm not crazy about his Beethoven (though I'm a huge fan of his in other repertoire). Arrau I think is a little more successful, even though I put him on the other end of the spectrum from my preferred Beethoven Pianists (Schnabel, Kempff, Brendel).


----------



## RogerWaters

flamencosketches said:


> Arrau I think is a little more successful, even though I put him on the other end of the spectrum from my preferred Beethoven Pianists (Schnabel, Kempff, Brendel).


Can you say a bit about the differences there as well? I'm familiar with most of those names, just lacking the language to describe/discuss pianistic technique... how do they differ from arrau (and how, if you please, from gilels) :tiphat:


----------



## flamencosketches

First off, I was wrong to include Schnabel in a category with Kempff and Brendel. He is in a league of his own. Schnabel is a true poet of Beethoven interpreters. He plays with fiery technique and intense emotionality, often at the expense of technical precision. In fact, there is no precision whatsoever to be found in his recordings. They are riddled with mistakes, and in awful sound to boot. Despite these shortcomings they are still the benchmark, just because interpretively, no one comes close. He makes each sonata sound like its own world. I realize I'm speaking in subjective language but that's because Schnabel was a subjective pianist. Listen to a recording of his and then another recording of any other pianist in the same sonata and the differences will immediately come to light. For these reasons, some do not like him, but for me it doesn't get any better.

As I mentioned in another thread, we can not always experience this much power in music, but there is another side to these works, and that is better captured by masters of subtlety like Kempff and Brendel. The latter is a new discovery of mine, but Kempff has long been a favorite. This could well be because he was my introduction to these works, but he is exceptional in Beethoven for a few reasons. One is voicing. He is a master of distinguishing the multiple lines of a Beethoven piano work, which works exceptionally well in the highly contrapuntal sonatas like the Hammerklavier. For a really obvious example check out his recording of the 15th piano sonata and listen to how he takes apart the different lines. He has a light touch compared to Schnabel and plays in a more "classical" manner. 

Brendel is similar, but even more precise (Kempff will still make mistakes here and there it seems). I like him best in the early sonatas. He recorded the complete cycle 3 times, once in the 1960s for Vox, then in the 1970s for Philips (analog) and another cycle for Philips in the 1990s in digital sound. The latter is what I've been enjoying but I'm sure each is great, such is his mastery. 

Speaking in concrete terms about these works and these players is difficult for me. I am often guided through life by my intuition. This sometimes puts me at odds with folks who are more analytical in nature. So I hope I've succeeded in getting my point across a little bit. 

In any case, I'm not very far along my Beethoven sonatas quest either, and you will be better off listening to someone with more experience! But these are my thoughts to this point.


----------



## RogerWaters

Thank you for your responses


----------



## flamencosketches

Thanks for reading :tiphat:


----------



## joen_cph

There's a big difference between Gilels' studio recordings (such as those on DG) and his live recordings (say on Brilliant Classics). He takes more liberties in the last ones, and they tend to appear more spontaneous, plus tempi can be more extreme.

Here's _Appassionata_, in two different versions by him

DG 




Brilliant Classics, 1961 




Likewise, there's a big difference between the earliest Arrau, the middle one, and the late one. As far as I remember, not much Beethoven from his earliest days, however.

Here's a quite early _Moonlight _(1950)





here's a somewhat later


----------



## Larkenfield

One man's opinion. Arrau is full-bodied, rich, perhaps more serious and weighty, psychologically deep and probing. If one gets his cycle, I recommend the Philips recordings over the Decca because of their superior sound quality. Gilels has a beautiful touch, gorgeous tone, more smiling, perhaps lighter in texture, less intense, more relaxed, more polite, perhaps slightly faster tempos. Two excellent cycles. I go with Arrau because I prefer the Sonatas deep and probing.


----------



## Mandryka

RogerWaters said:


> How would you describe the different playing styles of the above, in the least subjective terms possible?


When Arrau talks about Beethoven, it's clear he thinks the music is the expression of something mystical. He says, for example, that the third variation of op 111/ii is a"a joyful assertion of life on earth" and that the fourth variation is "the breathing of nature" and the fifth variation is an ascent to mystical ecstasy, an "upward fall"

Whether this comes out in the performances I couldn't say.


----------



## philoctetes

Lark puts it pretty well... Arrau romanticizes Beethoven, probing deep and his tone is dark... spiritual with layers of clouds... I find Gilels more classical and a bit rigid... my preferred set is Rudolf Serkin's but it's not complete...


----------



## Gallus

I wouldn't swap anything in the world for Gilels' recording of 31






Arrau is one of my favourite pianists in Chopin, Debussy...but I find him a bit too over-serious in Beethoven.


----------



## Guest

Arrau is my favorite in the "serious" school of Beethoven. Gilels seems too leaden to me (at least in the selections I have listened to in his DG incomplete cycle). For the late sonatas for the no substitute for Pollini (IMO) and for the early ones I really like Pommier's cycle.


----------



## flamencosketches

Baron Scarpia said:


> Arrau is my favorite in the "serious" school of Beethoven. Gilels seems too leaden to me (at least in the selections I have listened to in his DG incomplete cycle). For the late sonatas for the no substitute for Pollini (IMO) and for the early ones I really like Pommier's cycle.


Very interesting. I like Pollini, but I can never quite put my finger on his style. I can't predict whether I'm going to like something of his until I hear it. Anyway, Beethoven is not something I would expect him to excel in, but your short post is endorsement enough to pique my curiosity. I'll give his Hammerklavier a try.

Never heard of Pommier.


----------



## KenOC

Baron Scarpia said:


> Arrau is my favorite in the "serious" school of Beethoven. Gilels seems too leaden to me (at least in the selections I have listened to in his DG incomplete cycle). For the late sonatas for the no substitute for Pollini (IMO) and for the early ones I really like Pommier's cycle.


Yes, tastes vary! Gilels, for me, does wonderful Beethoven and generally gets it just right. Pollini lacks the warmth and humanity for late Beethoven, and I can't understand why his album of those works is popular. He tends to a more patrician and elegant approach and does better (quite well in fact) in the early sonatas.

Pommier? A capital fellow I'm sure, but I've never heard of him. Or her?


----------



## Mandryka

Looks as though Gilels and Arrau got on just fine


----------



## Rubens

Arrau: round, warm, voices blended together, with momentum-impeding rubato.

Gilels: contrapuntal, metronomic, trebly, roomy


----------



## RogerWaters

Thanks all, as i can post no less than 15 words, I will write just that.


----------



## flamencosketches

Seems Arrau's Beethoven sonatas recordings can't be had for cheap these days, $60-70 minimum, used. Too bad, I would love to explore them further.


----------



## Josquin13

I've only ever heard three pianists in my life that appropriately entered very softly--that is, in a state of dream-like reflection or repose on the piano--in the Adagio movement of Beethoven's Piano Concerto no. 5: They are Claudio Arrau, Emil Gilels, and to a slightly lesser extent, Edwin Fischer. Everyone else I've heard enters a bit too loudly, and it doesn't work as effectively, in my view.

Arrau: 









Gilels: 









Granted, that says something not about the differences between Arrau & Gilels in Beethoven, but about how thoughtfully they each considered Beethoven's scores. For example, I recall that Arrau once told Joseph Horowitz in the book, "Conversations with Arrau" that there was a time in his life when he felt he hadn't truly understood a certain passage in a Beethoven sonata, and it nagged at him for years, until one day, he found himself standing in front of a Matthias Grünewald painting of "The Crucifixion" in a German art museum, and the Beethoven passage suddenly made sense to him, and he finally understood it for the first time. That story tells us a lot about Arrau's approach to music, not only to Beethoven, but also his intellectual persistence with scores, as he was known to take greater pains studying and thinking about scores than most other pianists. So, when Arrau interprets a phrase slightly differently from other pianists, it's good to take notice & reflect, as you may be hearing a deeper insight into the score than you've heard before.

Another thing that the two pianists had in common was that they were both better live in recital, IMO, & especially Gilels (as has already been pointed out by Joen_cph). There was often (though not always) a difference between how Gilels played Beethoven in concert, and how he performed the same work in the studio. In the studio he could be more deliberately circumspect, immaculate, & more classically restrained and contained in Beethoven (much like Michelangeli). While in concert he took greater risks, and became more spontaneously caught up in the moment, and more deeply emotional. That becomes apparent, for example, if you compare Gilels' Beethoven Hammerklavier Sonata on DG to his final live performance of the sonata at the Moscow Conservatory in 1984 (& especially in the long slow movement):

DG, studio: 



Moscow, live: 




Or, with Gilels' live Beethoven 'Eroica' Variations on Hänssler, versus his DG studio account:

Hanssler, live, 1980: 




Similarly, if you've ever listened to Arrau's 1968 live concert from Chile on the Music and Arts label, where he 'lets loose' in and keeps you on the edge of your seat throughout the Liszt B minor Sonata, the same is true for Arrau. His Schumann Fantasia in C was likewise less circumspect in the concert hall than on his later Philips studio recording: 



. Although, admittedly, I've never sat down and directly compared Arrau's live Beethoven sonatas to his studio recordings, I'd expect the same is true, at least earlier in his career, when Arrau was in his prime.


----------



## RogerWaters

flamencosketches said:


> I haven't heard terribly much of either. What I've noticed is that Arrau has a heavier touch, generally takes the tempi a bit slower, and uses more rubato. Gilels plays Beethoven with his signature light touch and buttery tone and is pretty steady with tempi. I think he's more successful in the concertos than in the sonatas, but overall I'm not crazy about his Beethoven (though I'm a huge fan of his in other repertoire). Arrau I think is a little more successful, even though I put him on the other end of the spectrum from my preferred Beethoven Pianists (Schnabel, Kempff, Brendel).


To back up a little, if I may, where do you (and others) place Gilels on the Arrau-kempff/brendel spectrum and why? I would think, from your descriptions, loser to the right hand side of that spectrum. Or is he sui generis?


----------



## RogerWaters

> The latter is a new discovery of mine, but Kempff has long been a favorite. This could well be because he was my introduction to these works, but he is exceptional in Beethoven for a few reasons. One is voicing. He is a master of distinguishing the multiple lines of a Beethoven piano work, which works exceptionally well in the highly contrapuntal sonatas like the Hammerklavier.


Yes, I certainly hear his clear voicing in the Hammerklavier.


----------



## flamencosketches

RogerWaters said:


> To back up a little, if I may, where do you (and others) place Gilels on the Arrau-kempff/brendel spectrum and why? I would think, from your descriptions, loser to the right hand side of that spectrum. Or is he sui generis?


Closer to Kempff/Brendel I'd say. Maybe even more aloof than those two. I haven't heard terribly many of his Beethoven sonatas recordings, and I think on his live recordings he might veer closer to the "passionate/poetic" school of Arrau, etc. I LOVE Gilels in other material but haven't quite come to terms with his Beethoven yet. Tell you what, I'll listen to the Beethoven sonatas CD of his that I have (Waldstein, Les Adieux, and Appassionata) later on today and write back what I think.


----------



## Guest

Pommier has also made some fine recordings for Virgin, including some very good Poulenc.

Pollini's thing isn't 'warmth,' it is clarity of line, even in the densest of textures.


----------



## vtpoet

flamencosketches said:


> ...He plays with fiery technique and intense emotionality, often at the expense of technical precision. In fact, there is no precision whatsoever to be found in his recordings. They are riddled with mistakes....


For what it's worth, I've read that Schnabel could play with great precision, playing live, but that the recording equipment spooked him. He didn't like playing to be recorded and apparently never felt at ease. In regards to everything else you've said, I couldn't agree more. I love Schnabel's Beethoven Sonatas. Have them on Naxos.


----------



## flamencosketches

vtpoet said:


> For what it's worth, I've read that Schnabel could play with great precision, playing live, but that the recording equipment spooked him. He didn't like playing to be recorded and apparently never felt at ease. In regards to everything else you've said, I couldn't agree more. I love Schnabel's Beethoven Sonatas. Have them on Naxos.


Yeah, I've heard that! Very interesting, and makes me wish I was around to see him when he was actively touring the world, wowing audiences everywhere.

I purchased the complete* Schnabel Beethoven sonatas on Amazon MP3 for $1. I have often wondered if the Naxos, for example, or the EMI/Warner CD box sets feature better transfers of these recordings than what I have. Might make the switch in the future.

*Not quite complete, with the egregious and inexplicable omission of the 31st sonata. I have the Naxos CD with 30, 31, and 32 to supplement.


----------



## wkasimer

flamencosketches said:


> I purchased the complete* Schnabel Beethoven sonatas on Amazon MP3 for $1. I have often wondered if the Naxos, for example, or the EMI/Warner CD box sets feature better transfers of these recordings than what I have. Might make the switch in the future.


The Warner transfers were very disappointing. Obert-Thorn's transfers for Naxos are much better, but best of all are Seth Winner's, that were issued on Pearl. Unfortunately, they're OOP, but if you can find them at a reasonable price, don't hesitate.


----------



## Mandryka

flamencosketches said:


> Yeah, I've heard that! Very interesting, and makes me wish I was around to see him when he was actively touring the world, wowing audiences everywhere.
> 
> I purchased the complete* Schnabel Beethoven sonatas on Amazon MP3 for $1. I have often wondered if the Naxos, for example, or the EMI/Warner CD box sets feature better transfers of these recordings than what I have. Might make the switch in the future.
> 
> *Not quite complete, with the egregious and inexplicable omission of the 31st sonata. I have the Naxos CD with 30, 31, and 32 to supplement.


You know that Schnabel re-recorded op 109 and op 111 in 1942? Worth trying to find I think.


----------



## flamencosketches

Hmm no I didn't know that. That does sound worthwhile, let me see if I can track it down on CD

Edit:









I believe it is included on this disc alongside concertos 4 and 5.


----------

