# Backhaus and Pollini - a mystery



## antoniolopes

Expressive restraint? Yes, sometimes, it can be a good thing in musical performance. But always? What's the point in a performance that isn't much more than what one hears when just reading a score in one's head? Well, this is one of those "is it just me, or..." posts: I don't understand the fame of Backhaus or Pollini. What's the difference between their Brahms (for example) and cold, inexpressive playing (or, on occasion, just loud and fast)? Am I missing something? Almost surely yes, but... what?


----------



## joen_cph

I have the impression that early Backhaus was more expressive than the later one - and surprisingly, the opposite is the case (somewhat) with Pollini.

For example, Pollini´s early Chopin 1st Concerto/Kletzki (~1960, EMI) or Preludes were markedly restrained if compared to the main tradition at the time; whereas his later Beethoven is more subjective (~Sonata 23, 1998: 



)


----------



## antoniolopes

joen_cph said:


> I have the impression that early Backhaus was more expressive than the later one
> 
> Backhaus' first recording of the Brahms 1st concerto is icy as always, the slow movement is painful to my ears...


----------



## joen_cph

I´m thinking of the early Backhaus of the ´30s & 40s etc. Its been a while since I heard some, though.

EDIT: 1927: 



 (interesting, I think)


----------



## antoniolopes

Yes, some hint of agogic variation there.
The Brahms 1st I mentioned is from '32 (EMI)


----------



## joen_cph

antoniolopes said:


> Yes, some hint of agogic variation there.
> The Brahms 1st I mentioned is from 32 (EMI)


I don´t know that, apparently it´s not on you-tube, but in general I find his Brahms not very interesting .... Neither have I kept much Pollini. Even an early live Chopin Preludes wasn´t much to my taste either, simply dull (Joker LP label, I think). But I don´t know much about the later Pollini.


----------



## Steatopygous

I love Pollini. Yes, he may be austere, but he is utterly without affectation, and often extremely sensitive. He is very far from my first choice in the Chopin Nocturnes, or the Emperor concerto, but listen to his Beethoven sonatas, which cycle took 40 years to complete.


----------



## Chopiniana93

Steatopygous said:


> I love Pollini. Yes, he may be austere, but he is utterly without affectation, and often extremely sensitive. He is very far from my first choice in the Chopin Nocturnes, or the Emperor concerto, but listen to his Beethoven sonatas, which cycle took 40 years to complete.


Although I disagree with you about the Nocturnes (I think that he's very good with the interpretations of the Nocturnes, also because Chopin was the first composer he loved and began playing- he won the First Prize at the Chopin Piano Competition in Warsaw), I completely agree with your first sentence. He's often really sensitive. In one way he reminds me a bit of Sokolov...


----------



## antoniolopes

Chopiniana93 said:


> Although I disagree with you about the Nocturnes (I think that he's very good with the interpretations of the Nocturnes, also because Chopin was the first composer he loved and began playing- he won the First Prize at the Chopin Piano Competition in Warsaw), I completely agree with your first sentence. He's often really sensitive. In one way he reminds me a bit of Sokolov...


Sokolov??? Really? I'd say their almost total opposites!


----------



## Mandryka

joen_cph said:


> I have the impression that early Backhaus was more expressive than the later one - and surprisingly, the opposite is the case (somewhat) with Pollini.
> 
> For example, Pollini´s early Chopin 1st Concerto/Kletzki (~1960, EMI) or Preludes were markedly restrained if compared to the main tradition at the time; whereas his later Beethoven is more subjective (~Sonata 23, 1998:
> 
> 
> 
> )


There's a live recording by Backhaus released this year on a label called meloclassics. Concerts at Besançon and Ludwigsburg in the 1950s. You couldn't ask for better Beethoven playing in op 106 and op 10/3. So I don't think it's as simple as early = good, late = bad. He had good days and bad days, and maybe some composers who he just didn't suite (Mozart?)

As far as Brahms goes, he knew how to play the second concerto as well as anyone - there's a peerless recording with Schuricht. And he left an early op 118, from 1930 something, which is one of the most provocative late Brahms recordings ever made.

As far as Pollini goes, there are some outstanding Schumann and Debussy recordings, and Beethoven and Chopin and Schubert. But often (not always) they're not the DG studio recordings. Anyway, I think his Debussy Etudes, his Schoenberg, his Nono, his Schubert 958 and 3 Klavierstucke, his first chopin etudes on Testament, his Diabelli Variations, his op 111, his op 106, his live Davidsbundlertanze, his Mozart concerto 19 with Bohm, his . . . are all exceptional.


----------



## antoniolopes

Mandryka said:


> As far as Pollini goes, there are some outstanding Schumann and Debussy recordings, and Beethoven and Chopin and Schubert. But often (not always) they're not the DG studio recordings. Anyway, I think his Debussy Etudes, his Schoenberg, his Nono, his Schubert 959 and 3 Klavierstucke, his first chopin etudes on Testament, his Diabelli Variations, his op 111, his op 106, his live Davidsbundlertanze, his Mozart concerto 19 with Bohm, his . . . are all exceptional.


This is biginning to sound like a cult. How exactly is Pollini's Nono to be evaluated as an interpretation? Is he much better than whom, and why?


----------



## Chopiniana93

antoniolopes said:


> Sokolov??? Really? I'd say their almost total opposites!


In fact, I wrote "a bit". Both are sensitive and austere in different ways. They have, of course, different characters too.


----------



## Mandryka

antoniolopes said:


> This is biginning to sound like a cult. How exactly is Pollini's Nono to be evaluated as an interpretation? Is he much better than whom, and why?


One reason Pollini's playing is so special is that it's so introspective in " . . . Sofferte onde serena", I've never heard a better performance of the big cantata.

But I'm not sure if you're coming from a general point of view, or whether you have specific points to make about Pollini's Nono - if the latter I'd be very interested to hear. I'm a great fan of Nono, especially the late music.


----------



## Mandryka

Just a note to say that there was a mistake in my post, it's Pollini's 958 which is outstanding - I had put 959.


----------



## Steatopygous

Chopiniana93 said:


> Although I disagree with you about the Nocturnes (I think that he's very good with the interpretations of the Nocturnes, also because Chopin was the first composer he loved and began playing- he won the First Prize at the Chopin Piano Competition in Warsaw), I completely agree with your first sentence. He's often really sensitive. In one way he reminds me a bit of Sokolov...


I can see that his Chopin Nocturnes would win many people. There are times when I turn to them too. But it is also true that in this particular repertoire I put others ahead of him, especially Rubinstein. The thing about Pollini is that even when he is far from my first choice, as here, I have enormous respect for his vision and integrity. In this he reminds me a lot of Richter.


----------



## Mahlerian

antoniolopes said:


> This is biginning to sound like a cult. How exactly is Pollini's Nono to be evaluated as an interpretation? Is he much better than whom, and why?


There are other recordings of "...Sofferte" out there. I've heard a few of them.


----------



## Chopiniana93

Steatopygous said:


> The thing about Pollini is that even when he is far from my first choice, as here, I have enormous respect for his vision and integrity. In this he reminds me a lot of Richter.


Totally agreed.


----------



## Bulldog

antoniolopes said:


> This is biginning to sound like a cult.


Not at all. A cult generally refers to a small following of devotees. Since Pollini is one of the most revered and famous pianists around, he's way beyond cult status.


----------



## antoniolopes

Mahlerian said:


> There are other recordings of "...Sofferte" out there. I've heard a few of them.


Sorry, but that doesn't really address the question.


----------



## antoniolopes

Bulldog said:


> Not at all. A cult generally refers to a small following of devotees. Since Pollini is one of the most revered and famous pianists around, he's way beyond cult status.


I meant that in the sense in which your idol can do no wrong, even believing he is right when there really is no way to assess right or wrong (like in the Nono case). Of course, I may be wrong (that's part of the reason I'm not in any cult).


----------



## GreenMamba

antoniolopes said:


> I meant that in the sense in which your idol can do no wrong, even believing he is right when there really is no way to assess right or wrong (like in the Nono case). Of course, I may be wrong (that's part of the reason I'm not in any cult).


Who ever said Backhaus or Pollini could do no wrong?


----------



## Mahlerian

antoniolopes said:


> I meant that in the sense in which your idol can do no wrong, even believing he is right when there really is no way to assess right or wrong (like in the Nono case). Of course, I may be wrong (that's part of the reason I'm not in any cult).


How is there no way to assess right or wrong in the case of Nono? His music, like any other, requires interpretation.


----------



## Mandryka

What is most interesting to me about this thread is the way Backhaus and Pollini are bracketed together, while my impression is that they are have really different conceptions of (eg) op 106 , the Diabelli Variations and op 2 (Beethoven), or the Schumann fantasie. Maybe the OP could talk a bit more about what he thinks they have in common.


----------



## KenOC

I can't see much relationship between Backhaus and Pollini. Backhaus is solid and seldom does anything controversial -- or adventurous. Unlike (say) Serkin, he doesn't seem to bring very much of himself to the music. Pollini seems cool, detailed, almost aristocratic -- but that's not necessarily what I look for in most music, especially Beethoven, Chopin, and Schubert.

In short, much as I respect both, I don't listen much to their recordings. Totally a statement of taste; others may well feel quite differently.


----------



## Mandryka

One problem around all of this is that Pollini in the early 1960s is more uncompromisingly unromantic than Pollini 25 years after. And it just may be the case that Pollini's Chopin Etudes and Backhaus's show the same sort of bluff muscular no-nonsense meat and potatoes quality. That's from memory - I could be very wrong! 

Pollini changed. And then changed again, to produce the sort of agressive and hard Beethoven he's come up with over the past 10 years. Backhaus was never angry sounding in Beethoven like the latter Pollini, as far as I recall. That's why I singled out the op 2s in some post above by the way. 

Another aspect is that Backhaus is hard to nail with a simple catch all description. I said there's a meat and potatoes quality to his Beethoven, but in op 106, well it's quite the most transcendental hammerklavier I have ever heard.

Added: I just listened to some op 10 etudes by the two of them and the differences are more striking than the similarities. Pollini is cleaner in terms of harmonies, while Backhaus creates all sorts of inner harmonies.


----------



## DavidA

The Pollini recording of the late Beethoven sonatas is remarkable for technique and interpretation although there are other ways of doing it. Interesting that Backhaus used to play Brahms faster and with less sentiment than others. As he knew Brahms this may be an indicator of how Brahms wanted his music played - less lingering!


----------



## realdealblues

I like a few things from both Pollini and Backhaus but neither does much for me.

I agree that Pollini's late Beethoven sonatas are wonderfully played, but most of the rest of his cycle is just devoid of color, humor, wit, expressiveness and impulse. I remember hearing his Sonatas 5-8, and 22-24, 27 when those two discs came out and they were just a huge let down. His Chopin nocturnes weren't bad but his Ballades make me cringe, rush and bang loud seem to be his motto. His late Schubert sonatas are terrific, but there just isn't much else I've enjoyed from Pollini.

Backhaus I enjoy his Brahms Concerto No. 2 with Karl Bohm, but a lot of other things I've heard have just not been up my alley. He ignored a lot of Beethoven's dynamics and articulation in his Piano Sonatas. Slow movements are played often way too loud and too fast. It's just not what I prefer.

I'd much rather hear Gulda, Arrau, Kempff, Buchbinder, Serkin, Gould, Richter, Fischer, etc.

Bother are/were obviously talented pianists but neither really resonates with me personally.


----------



## antoniolopes

realdealblues said:


> I like a few things from both Pollini and Backhaus but neither does much for me.
> 
> I agree that Pollini's late Beethoven sonatas are wonderfully played, but most of the rest of his cycle is just devoid of color, humor, wit, expressiveness and impulse. I remember hearing his Sonatas 5-8, and 22-24, 27 when those two discs came out and they were just a huge let down. His Chopin nocturnes weren't bad but his Ballades make me cringe, rush and bang loud seem to be his motto. His late Schubert sonatas are terrific, but there just isn't much else I've enjoyed from Pollini.
> 
> Backhaus I enjoy his Brahms Concerto No. 2 with Karl Bohm, but a lot of other things I've heard have just not been up my alley. He ignored a lot of Beethoven's dynamics and articulation in his Piano Sonatas. Slow movements are played often way too loud and too fast. It's just not what I prefer.
> 
> I'd much rather hear Gulda, Arrau, Kempff, Buchbinder, Serkin, Gould, Richter, Fischer, etc.
> 
> Bother are/were obviously talented pianists but neither really resonates with me personally.


I agree with everything except I can't even enjoy Backhaus Brahms 2 (neither of his 2 studio recordings with Bohm, the 2nd one from the '60s is the most well known), because I don't hear almost any expression, just notes.


----------



## antoniolopes

DavidA said:


> The Pollini recording of the late Beethoven sonatas is remarkable for technique and interpretation although there are other ways of doing it. Interesting that Backhaus used to play Brahms faster and with less sentiment than others. As he knew Brahms this may be an indicator of how Brahms wanted his music played - less lingering!


No, Brahms himself played, as everyone before XX century literalism, with great agogic freedom. He even said (regarding conducting his 4th Symphony) "I cannot get enough of pushing and pulling it". Backhaus was perhaps the first epygon of literalism.


----------



## antoniolopes

Literalism, coldness, lack of imagination, etc.


----------



## antoniolopes

Mandryka said:


> One problem around all of this is that Pollini in the early 1960s is more uncompromisingly unromantic than Pollini 25 years after. And it just may be the case that Pollini's Chopin Etudes and Backhaus's show the same sort of bluff muscular no-nonsense meat and potatoes quality. That's from memory - I could be very wrong!
> 
> Pollini changed. And then changed again, to produce the sort of agressive and hard Beethoven he's come up with over the past 10 years. Backhaus was never angry sounding in Beethoven like the latter Pollini, as far as I recall. That's why I singled out the op 2s in some post above by the way.
> 
> Another aspect is that Backhaus is hard to nail with a simple catch all description. I said there's a meat and potatoes quality to his Beethoven, but in op 106, well it's quite the most transcendental hammerklavier I have ever heard.
> 
> Added: I just listened to some op 10 etudes by the two of them and the differences are more striking than the similarities. Pollini is cleaner in terms of harmonies, while Backhaus creates all sorts of inner harmonies.


Sed contra: compare his two recordings of the Brahms concerti, more than 20 years apart, the earlier, studio, the later, live: same thing over again, extraordinary (for my taste, unhappily so).


----------



## antoniolopes

Mandryka said:


> What is most interesting to me about this thread is the way Backhaus and Pollini are bracketed together, while my impression is that they are have really different conceptions of (eg) op 106 , the Diabelli Variations and op 2 (Beethoven), or the Schumann fantasie. Maybe the OP could talk a bit more about what he thinks they have in common.


Literalism, coldness, lack of imagination and so on. What two other pianists could be more alike in personifying detachment and avoidance of expression? (For fans, read "aristocracy" or whatever sweetens the pill...)


----------



## antoniolopes

Mahlerian said:


> How is there no way to assess right or wrong in the case of Nono? His music, like any other, requires interpretation.


Which one evaluates by doing exactely... what? Have you never noticed how critics always avoid talking about interpretation in avant-garde music, preferring to spend the review talking about the piece, even when it is a well-known one?


----------



## Mahlerian

antoniolopes said:


> Which one evaluates by doing exactely... what? Have you never noticed how critics always avoid talking about interpretation in avant-garde music, preferring to spend the review talking about the piece, even when it is a well-known one?


How are you defining "avant-garde" here?

Nono's music is defined by the relations between the notes used, as in all traditional music, and a performer may bring out the relationships well or not as in any other work.

If others talk about the music more than the interpretation, that is because the music itself is probably unfamiliar.

I ask again, do you think that in music such as Nono's "...sofferte" there is no such thing as a better or worse interpretation?


----------



## Mandryka

antoniolopes said:


> Sed contra: compare his two recordings of the Brahms concerti, more than 20 years apart, the earlier, studio, the later, live: same thing over again, extraordinary (for my taste, unhappily so).


You talking here about Pollini or Backhaus?

In truth I've completely lost interest in the Brahms concertos -- but I'll remember your point if I ever get the taste for them again


----------



## antoniolopes

Mandryka said:


> You talking here about Pollini or Backhaus?
> 
> In truth I've completely lost interest in the Brahms concertos -- but I'll remember your point if I ever get the taste for them again


Pollini.
I hope you regain interest soon about those two absolute masterpieces .


----------



## Vaneyes

Some good topics or subtopics in this thread. Cults in CM, I find, are emphasized largely with pianists (GG, ABM, Argerich, etc.). In second spot, and far behind, conductors (Celi, Giulini, Wand, Furt, Arturo, etc.).

Devotees, of course, is the nature of cults. Some, obsessively so. The quantity of cultists can range from small to large. But, both are relatively small in CM, right? The medium is in the message.

Re Brahms PCs, my first serious look at them was with the universally-recommended Gilels/Jochum (DG). That result was a yawner for me, and I soon culled it.

I journeyed through many others, including the primary subjects of this thread. None connected until Douglas/Skrowaczewski for PC1 (RCA), and Kovacevich/Davis for PC2 (Philips). Each to his own. Sometimes it's the recording, and sometimes, the work just doesn't relate.

Re interpretation, it's true that usually not much is mentioned regarding atonal performances. One likely explanation is that there are relatively few performances or recs of the pieces. And in that light, the living composer is often involved.

This changes with composers dying and new performances occurring. Re Nono, I certainly have my preference for La Lontananza Nostalgica Utopica Futura, but I'm pleased anyway at almost any furthering of 20/21. Cheers. :tiphat:


----------



## Mandryka

Vaneyes said:


> Some good topics or subtopics in this thread. Cults in CM, I find, are emphasized largely with pianists (GG, ABM, Argerich, etc.).
> Re interpretation, it's true that usually not much is mentioned regarding atonal performances. One likely explanation is that there are relatively few performances or recs of the pieces. And in that light, the living composer is often involved.


I don't believe this is right. Quite recently I've been in conversations about different ways of playing Schoenberg, Maderna, Cage and Stockhausen.

In fact I rarely see much discussion about interpretations of 19th and 18th century music - just people saying "I like/don't like X"


----------

