# Wilhelm Kempff's Beethoven sonata cycles



## flamencosketches

I am a big fan of the late German pianist Wilhelm Kempff. He is most known for his performances of core Germanic repertoire, especially Beethoven. I am in the market for a Beethoven piano sonatas cycle, or rather, I'm going to ask my girlfriend to get me one for a Christmas gift.  I am torn between Arrau (if I can find it ), Alfred Brendel, and Wilhelm Kempff. The latter is an issue because he has recorded two cycles. I used to listen to the stereo cycle a lot on Apple Music when I was still doing the streaming thing, and I thought it was amazing. He has such a great touch, and is a master of voicing, and balance. But then I've heard it said that the earlier mono cycle was even better.

To those of you out there who own both the stereo and the earlier mono Beethoven sonata cycles of Wilhelm Kempff, which do you prefer? How would you describe the one and the other? I can't seem to find much of the mono cycle online to sample. How bad is the '50s mono sound. Bad sound ain't a dealbreaker to me, but the stereo cycle sounds good that it's almost hard to pass up on. 

Is anyone else in the market for a new Beethoven sonatas cycle, in light of the composer's 249th birthday coming up this month, perhaps?


----------



## Bigbang

I'll say this..look him up playing (black and white 60's) Beethoven's Tempest. I have never heard a better third movement. I have watched it many times and used to have well over a million hits but was take down and put back up. In the third movement I see him dart his eyes briefly to his right...the only time I think he allows his mind to wander...anyway the absolutely best tempo I prefer and would love to have a cd of this. This performance is on youtube.


----------



## CnC Bartok

As far as I am aware, there is no digital Kempff cycle. His second DGG set was mid to late 60s? A bit early for digital! All I have ever heard is there is a special something extra in the old mono set, but I am happy with the later ones.

I prefer Arrau.....


----------



## starthrower

flamencosketches said:


> To those of you out there who own both the digital and the earlier mono Beethoven sonata cycles of Wilhelm Kempff, which do you prefer? How would you describe the one and the other? I can't seem to find much of the mono cycle online to sample. How bad is the '50s mono sound. Bad sound ain't a dealbreaker to me, but the digital cycle sounds good that it's almost hard to pass up on.
> 
> Is anyone else in the market for a new Beethoven sonatas cycle, in light of the composer's 249th birthday coming up this month, perhaps?


You can sample both cycles at Presto. There's even a bargain edition of the mono set you can buy for 13 dollars on the Regis label.
https://www.prestomusic.com/classic...h?search_query=beethoven+piano+sonatas+kempff

I'm with Bartok in that I prefer Arrau. I'll be in the market if his 60s cycle gets re-issued or if I find an affordable used set.


----------



## premont

flamencosketches said:


> To those of you out there who own both the digital and the earlier mono Beethoven sonata cycles of Wilhelm Kempff, which do you prefer? How would you describe the one and the other? I can't seem to find much of the mono cycle online to sample. How bad is the '50s mono sound. Bad sound ain't a dealbreaker to me, but the digital cycle sounds good that it's almost hard to pass up on.


Difficult question, because these two cycles don't differ radically. Sometimes I prefer the mono, sometimes the stereo. The mono sound is good for its age.

Ultimately I think I would prefer the mono.

(I have not heard the Regis release but heard that it is sonically rather inferior to the DG release).

Arrau is a strong contender, but Brendel is no match for Kempff, even if I would put Brendel among my top ten.


----------



## flamencosketches

Don't know why I said digital! I definitely am talking about his stereo analog cycle from the '70s (or '60s?) for DG. 

I think I may prefer Arrau overall too, but I think Kempff brings something special to the table with Beethoven's music. I have a suspicion his cycle may be a little more consistent than Arrau's. Arrau is always extremely serious in his interpretations. I think Beethoven sometimes demands a little more levity, and this is where Kempff prevails (and this is also a reason why I like Brendel's Beethoven).


----------



## flamencosketches

starthrower said:


> You can sample both cycles at Presto. There's even a bargain edition of the mono set you can buy for 13 dollars on the Regis label.
> https://www.prestomusic.com/classic...h?search_query=beethoven+piano+sonatas+kempff
> 
> I'm with Bartok in that I prefer Arrau. I'll be in the market if his 60s cycle gets re-issued or if I find an affordable used set.


Thanks for letting me know! I'm sampling the mono set now. So far I'm very impressed. I'll do some more comparative sampling of these two sets, I think I'm between these and then one of Brendel's sets. (This is all in lieu of an affordable copy of the Arrau set, of course... some day...)


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

I have heard both. The stereo cycle is a free download on Internet Archives. If I had to choose between just those two I would say the stereo cycle.


----------



## david johnson

My set is the mono version.


----------



## DavidA

I have the stereo set which is good but I have also some of the mono set which is well recorded and even better played. Kempff had more virtuosity left for the mono set and it shows.


----------



## premont

DavidA said:


> I have the stereo set which is good but I have also some of the mono set which is well recorded and even better played. Kempff had more virtuosity left for the mono set and it shows.


Even better played are these, but the set is not complete, and some (not I) may have a problem with the moderately dated sound:

https://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/die-klaviersonaten/hnum/7795563

https://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/beethoven-the-late-sonatas/hnum/8556805


----------



## Barbebleu

Oldhoosierdude said:


> I have heard both. The stereo cycle is a free download on Internet Archives. If I had to choose between just those two I would say the stereo cycle.


OHD - would it be possible for you to post a direct link to the download? I can't seem to find it.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

I posted it last week on two other threads. One about ridiculous bargains and one about Beethoven Sonatas.


----------



## hoodjem

starthrower said:


> You can sample both cycles at Presto. There's even a bargain edition of the mono set you can buy for 13 dollars on the Regis label.
> https://www.prestomusic.com/classic...h?search_query=beethoven+piano+sonatas+kempff
> 
> I'm with Bartok in that I prefer Arrau. I'll be in the market if his 60s cycle gets re-issued or if I find an affordable used set.


I have Kempff (stereo) and Arrau. I much prefer Arrau.


----------



## flamencosketches

Do we see Arrau and Kempff as similar pianists? I am trying to figure that one out myself. Arrau is a very serious, very thoughtful interpreter. If he recorded a work three times over a couple decades, each recording would have absolutely nothing to do with one another. From what I can tell, he was always rethinking and reevaluating his interpretive decisions, down to minute details in a Beethoven score. Both he and Kempff were deeply poetic artists. The difference being that I believe Kempff may have been somewhat more intuitive, more like an Artur Rubinstein, maybe. I don't know that he was spending as much time practicing and thinking critically and borderline philosophically about the music as Arrau was. (Perhaps I am wrong). As a result, Arrau's recordings are a bit more refined, while Kempff's might be a bit more spontaneous. 

Am I off the mark on this? I would love to read other opinions. I don't think the two are complete opposites by any means, I both place them on the spectrum of the "poets of the piano" more so than the fiery, passionate virtuosi (like a Vladimir Horowitz or an Evgeny Kissin) or the skillful, clean technicians who let the score speak for itself, completely unclouded by interpretive liberty (like an Alfred Brendel or a Murray Perahia). 

Point being, perhaps there is value, to me, in owning a cycle of more than one of these two pianists. This is a massive body of work we're talking about here. No one artist could possibly cover all the ground there is to cover.


----------



## starthrower

Both names get mentioned as favorites by the same listeners in the Beethoven sonata threads. After buying a couple of complete sets by other fine pianists I'll repeat the same sentiments as others. I don't like the way one pianist plays them all. And like most I'll supplement those sonatas with individual discs that sound better to my ears. To my ears Arrau has a bit of a darker, warmer sound compared to Kempff. But I haven't listened to either pianist extensively.

If I buy another set it's going to be by one of the great old pianists. Arrau, Kempff, or Gilels.
Right now I have two good sets by Kovacevich, and Louis Lortie. The Lortie has great sound throughout. The other set is not as consistent.


----------



## howlingfantods

I find Arrau a little disappointing in the late sonatas--I don't think he has a good feel for them, but he's excellent and has lots of personality on the standard popular sonatas like the Appassionata, Moonlight, Waldstein, etc. It's grand Romantic piano playing, which definitely works for those pieces. 

I like Kempff's late sonatas better than Arrau's but overall find him a little dull. There's sort of an oddly dry pedantic quality to his playing that has never really worked for me. I don't really like Brendel at all--Brendel's Beethoven is very pretty in a miniaturist sort of way, which is not how I prefer my Beethoven.

Which sets works best for you might depend on what repertoire you care about the most--the early/middle/late, the big famous named pieces or the less-performed. If you don't care that much about the late sonatas, I think the Arrau is a great choice. I wouldn't really endorse Kempff or Brendel but obviously there are many who swear by both.


----------



## Josquin13

flamencosketches said:


> Do we see Arrau and Kempff as similar pianists? I am trying to figure that one out myself. Arrau is a very serious, very thoughtful interpreter. If he recorded a work three times over a couple decades, each recording would have absolutely nothing to do with one another. From what I can tell, he was always rethinking and reevaluating his interpretive decisions, down to minute details in a Beethoven score. Both he and Kempff were deeply poetic artists. The difference being that I believe Kempff may have been somewhat more intuitive, more like an Artur Rubinstein, maybe. I don't know that he was spending as much time practicing and thinking critically and borderline philosophically about the music as Arrau was. (Perhaps I am wrong). As a result, Arrau's recordings are a bit more refined, while Kempff's might be a bit more spontaneous.
> 
> Am I off the mark on this? I would love to read other opinions. I don't think the two are complete opposites by any means, I both place them on the spectrum of the "poets of the piano" more so than the fiery, passionate virtuosi (like a Vladimir Horowitz or an Evgeny Kissin) or the skillful, clean technicians who let the score speak for itself, completely unclouded by interpretive liberty (like an Alfred Brendel or a Murray Perahia).
> 
> Point being, perhaps there is value, to me, in owning a cycle of more than one of these two pianists. This is a massive body of work we're talking about here. No one artist could possibly cover all the ground there is to cover.


Flamencosketches,

Your thoughts on Claudio Arrau are spot on I think. I've been told that Arrau took greater pains with scores than most pianists. For example, there is a story that Arrau tells in his interviews with Joseph Horowitz ("Conversations with Arrau"), where he talks about how he felt that he'd never understood a specific passage in a Beethoven sonata, until one day he found himself standing in front of a painting of the Crucifixion by Matthias Grünewald, and for the first time, the passage suddenly made sense to him. The story shows how Arrau was continually & restlessly on a quest to understand the music that he played more deeply.

https://www.amazon.com/Arrau-Music-...ations+horowitz&qid=1576346055&s=books&sr=1-1
https://www.amazon.com/Conversation...ations+horowitz&qid=1576346055&s=books&sr=1-2

One big difference between Arrau & Kempff, as pianists, is that Arrau had a strong preference for slower tempi, while Kempff rarely (if ever) slows down to the same degree. Some say that this tendency came late in Arrau's career, but it was always there, even though it may have become more pronounced in his later years (& some would say "ponderous", but I don't agree). Arrau also had a more distinctive, richer piano tone, one that was immediately recognizable. Had Kempff played Debussy, for example, I don't think he would have produced as beautiful a sound world on the piano as Arrau did for Philips (& for this, you have to hear the Heritage label remasters, which capture Arrau's distinctive piano timbre most accurately, as they sound closer to my old Philips LPs than the Philips CDs: https://www.amazon.com/Debussy-Work...+heritage&qid=1576274945&s=music&sr=1-1-fkmr2 .

I also agree with others that Kempff's playing on his early pre-war Beethoven recordings, issued by APR, is superior to that on his later stereo recordings for DG, both technically and artistically. The differences are especially noticeable in Beethoven's more challenging passages. He can also sound more energized and mercurial on these recordings: which are both necessary attributes to possess in Beethoven's music.

Kempff's pre-war late Beethoven sonatas, on APR: 




Kempff's stereo DG recordings of the same: 




Generally speaking, the earlier you go with Kempff, the better his playing becomes I think. I'm also a fan of Kempff's mono Beethoven Piano Sonatas 1-32 set on DG, and his mono Piano Concerto 1-5 DG set, as well, with the Berlin Philharmonic, & conductor Paul van Kempen--who was a very underrated Beethoven conductor, IMO. By the way, both sets have first class mono sound (& particularly the PC cycle).

Kempff, Beethoven Piano Concerto no. 5, with van Kempen: 



& their Piano Concerto no. 4: 




(Beethoven Symphony no. 3 "Eroica", recorded by Paul van Kempen & the Berlin Philharmonic in 1953: 



, and their Symphony no. 7: 



, for anyone that doesn't know van Kempen & is curious to hear a great Beethoven conductor, in my opinion.)

But then, I also think very highly of Arrau's three sets of Beethoven Piano Concerto 1-5 recordings, too, with Galliera, Haitink, and Davis (while making some allowances for Arrau's age in his final set with Davis). Personally, I'd be content with Kempff's mono PC set, and Arrau's 1st Philips set with Haitink, on my desert island, which are probably the two most remarkable cycles I've heard (though I'd also want to take Annie Fischer/Fricsay & Artur Schnabel in the Piano Concerto no. 3 with me, too, as well as Michelangeli/Giulini, Brendel/Haitink, and Pollini/Jochum in the PC #1, and Gilels/Ludwig in the PC #4).

Like Howlingfantods, I'm less keen on Arrau's recordings of the late Beethoven sonatas for Philips, preferring him in other sonatas & most especially in the five PCs. I also think that Kempff's later stereo DG recordings of the Sonatas 28-32 are more classically orientated & tend to stay more on the surface of the music (though it's a very beautiful surface), when compared to the profound depth that other great pianists find in this music, such as Rudolf Serkin, Sviatoslav Richter, Annie Fischer, Emil Gilels (esp. live), Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli, Ivo Pogorelich, Youra Guller, and Solomon.


----------

