# The pianist's potential in the enigmatic Brahms opus 10 Ballades



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I made a thread about these pieces some time ago, and thought I'd revisit it again with you all. Like many others, I used to not get Brahms on the whole. I felt that in most instances, he was a composer who had a high quality musical mind and yet smothered his end products with strange self restrictions.

That's not exactly a great way to begin this thread, but these notions and a desire to see beyond them led me far and wide across his output, particularly in the piano department. I searched for Sonatas and was a little vexed by the 3 he wrote, but noted them for listening at a later date(which proved fruitful, especially with the 3rd), and then I found these opus 10 Ballades. They were not remotely reminiscent of Chopin's, or Liszt's less famous but still excellent ballades. The first recording for me was Michelangeli's of op 10 no. 2. 





I was underwhelmed by this from a pianist I admired in Debussy, Ravel, and a few Beethoven sonatas, but I learned to appreciate the overall shape of the piece in my then very much uninformed way, kind of sucking up my annoyance with the more small scale aspects of it. Reading the youtube comments never helps, as one person writes in the next interpretation that I will share, "was Brahms drunk or something when he wrote this?" For a then teenager who was seeking to better understand and was not confident at all with my opinions, things like this unfortunately delayed my progress considerably(though it might have been necessary to learn to that I can have my opinion and they theirs, over time). ANYWAYS, LIKE I WAS GOING ON TO FINALLY SAY, the Gilels interpretation of this piece did wonders for helping me to understand this piece, and not only that, but the power/responsibility a pianist has in performing. You think late Brahms requires a musically wizened pianist...(and both pianists here were much more than that)





I have since gone back to the Michelangeli and appreciate his take on it as well. I am starting to wonder if it is time to try to play one of these myself. Here is the third one in B minor, Giles again:





What would happen if the four of them, D minor, D major, B minor, B major, were considered as the movements of a larger work? It might actually work, and I suspect it was to a degree intended...

The B minor one highlights what I perceive as the core feature in these piece: sparseness of well organized but adventurously placed notes, allowing for expanded depth in piano timbre possibilities and silence possibilities. You might say they are pieces that will cause one to sense how important the silence around the notes is, or maybe it's a pianists's job to really know that and try to make it less apparent to the listener? Timing is crucial, held notes are crucial, personal connection is extremely crucial. They are like late Beethoven in that regard, but I believe them to be more deliberately crafted, neither benefitting nor suffering from the volcanic stream of musical thought frequently stirred up in the late sonatas.

In summary, I think they are very valuable works, and nobody else could have written them. But many might not consider them worth playing or even listening to. They might just be mistaken. I could try to say more, but I would love to hear other's perspectives on what these pieces are about, and how you like them(or can stand to hear them) performed.

Here are the other two:
Michelangeli on no. 4 




Gilels on no. 1


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I greatly admire Sokolov as well, and there is an upload on youtube of all four op 10 performed by him. I will listen.





I hope I didn't ramble too much in the OP to at least encourage some interest in exploring/reevaluating these pieces. I figured some pianists here might take an interest too.

And you might like them immediately. You never know.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I think you just sparked my interest. I'm generally interested in anything Michelangeli played, and I haven't listened to these works in a while. Thanks for the links, I will give them a listen.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I had largely forgotten about these works, thanks for bringing them to my attention, very enjoyable pieces. 

I like the interpretations of the No.2 in D major by both Michelangeli and Gilels. The Sokolov is maybe alright too, but the lower sound quality on the youtube video made it difficult for me to enjoy as much.

Over all I think Michelangeli's performance was stronger, but there are certain things Gilels does very well, at times Gilels manages to phrase things in a very intimate and organic way, that somehow gives the music a more personal and warm feel, however I didn't feel the way the different sections contrasted each other quite as convincing. 

Over all I slightly prefer the Michelangeli. Michelangeli's one small flaw perhaps being slightly mechanical sounding arpeggios here and there. 

These strike me as difficult pieces to perform just right.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

Clavi, thanks for this post and drawing my attention to these oft-overlooked pieces.

Gilels brings a lot of poetry to his interpretation. I much prefer it to the only version I have, by Katchen, which clocks in under 5 minutes.

It is interesting that such an early work already bears the hallmarks of much of Brahms's mature output: the prevalence of offbeats, the fascination with the lowest register of the keyboard, the wide, wide chord spans. I also note a fair bit of Schumann's influence, most notably in the _molto staccato e leggiero_ section of No. 2 where the playful grace notes reflect the pixieish humor of the _Kreisleriana_.

I have played the Op. 79 Rhapsodies and several of the late pieces, but have never spent time on Op. 10. You have inspired me to open my music and learn No.2 (at least).


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

tdc said:


> These strike me as difficult pieces to perform just right.


Thanks so much for your thoughts. I tend to agree with them. And I quoted the last part because yes, I believe these pieces are riddles. And yet maybe they just aren't taken seriously enough.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Balthazar said:


> Clavi, thanks for this post and drawing my attention to these oft-overlooked pieces.
> 
> Gilels brings a lot of poetry to his interpretation. I much prefer it to the only version I have, by Katchen, which clocks in under 5 minutes.
> 
> ...


I have hands on the bigger side, but they chanced to develop in a way that my thumb and pointer finger do not spread out beyond a right angle. But after a few years of playing slightly harder things and becoming more and more comfortable at the keys and on the bench, I'm starting to get a flexibility that makes the 10ths thinkable!

I'm glad that you guys are intrigued by the highly deliberate and yet adventurous nature of these pieces. Thanks for the specific Schumann observations, as I don't have the intimate knowledge to catch that.

No. 2 was the first to draw me in as well, but I also found the really odd nature of no. 3 getting stuck in my head. No. 1 initially off put me, but after 'getting 3' the odd staccato chords that crescendo the phrase seemed less static and like they were moving somewhere. I now have arrived at a sense that 4 is the masterpiece of the lot, a subtler piece that could practically coexist amongst the op 116-119 pieces.

I think you couldn't help but have your own interpretation of these pieces once you really got behind them.


----------

