# Schubert: Piano Sonata #21 in B-flat, D. 960



## science

Schubert's Piano Sonata #21 in B-flat, D. 960, is currently on the sixth tier of the Talk Classical community's favorite and most highly recommended works -- and it is for the moment our highest rated piano sonata!

It does not get its own article on Wikipedia, but there is an article about it together with D. 958 (#19) and D. 959 (#20), including a little analysis that amounts to a little bit of a listening guide. The best source for recording recommendations is probably Trout's blog post on this work:



> Condensed Listing:
> 1.	Richter	(1972, Prague)
> 2.	Schnabel	(1939)
> 3.	Kempff	(1967)
> 4.	Brendel	(1971)
> 5.	Rubinstein	(1965)
> 6.	Curzon	(1973)
> 7.	Kovacevich	(1995)
> 8.	Lupu	(1991)
> 9.	Andsnes	(2004)
> 10.	Sofronitsky	(1960, live from Moscow)


I am personally surprised not to see Uchida there.

As usual, the main questions are: *Do you like this work? Do you love it? Why? What do you like about it? Do you have any reservations about it?*

And of course, what are your favorite recordings?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I’ve never heard the Richter, but the Schnabel is one of my all time favorite piano recordings. Also like Curzon and Kovacevich.


----------



## science

To me, the opening bars of the first movement are the most striking moment in the solo piano repertoire to that time in history. The whole first movement is a beautiful, intense balance of darkness and sentimentality. I'm not really comfortable with this being our most highly recommended / favorite piano sonata, but I am happy if it gets a little more recognition.


----------



## MarkW

An underappreciated performance, because he's not a household name, is that by Gabriel Chodos, chairman of the piano dept. at the New England Conservatory. He's made Schubert a personal specialty for decades and his performances are transcendent.

It's a special work and there's absolutely nothing in music like that low trill in the opening movement -- nor that step-wise modulation at the end of the finale.


----------



## KenOC

The "low trill in the opening movement" is likely inspired by Beethoven's cello shake in the Andante of his Op. 131 string quartet. It seems Beethoven threw this in just to keep us off balance. I know of no earlier example of this sort of thing.

When you hear it, you think, "What's this all about?" Schubert wrote his sonata a couple of years after Beethoven's work, which he admired greatly.

Listen here, in the music after 18:09. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA4_FnH49tA .


----------



## Highwayman

Although my traditional champion of Schubert is Kempff, I must admit that Curzon remains to be my favourite on this magnificent sonata. Also, I feel an inevitable urge to mention Tatiana Nikolayeva and Claudio Arrau who are not on the list.


----------



## MarkW

KenOC said:


> The "low trill in the opening movement" is likely inspired by Beethoven's cello shake in the Andante of his Op. 131 string quartet. It seems Beethoven threw this in just to keep us off balance. I know of no earlier example of this sort of thing.
> 
> When you hear it, you think, "What's this all about?" Schubert wrote his sonata a couple of years after Beethoven's work, which he admired greatly.
> 
> Listen here, in the music after 18:09. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA4_FnH49tA .


Good point. Hadn't thought of it, although the insistance of the cello in 131 remains, to me, one of those points of humor in that quartet that always brings a small smile to my face.


----------



## MarkW

Highwayman said:


> Although my traditional champion of Schubert is Kempff, I must admit that Curzon remains to be my favourite on this magnificent sonata. Also, I feel an inevitable urge to mention Tatiana Nikolayeva and Claudio Arrau who are not on the list.


Interesting. Back in '70s, when Chodos first recorded it on vinyl (for a minor label), one national reviewer (I forget which one) wrote that his and Curzon's were the two best out there.


----------



## Portamento

This is my favorite piano sonata. All I can say is that it's perfect.


----------



## joen_cph

Lots of important recordings not mentioned, including Yudina and the Horowitz ones.


----------



## DaveM

This is my favorite d960, the lesser known Vox Walter Klien version. The production is great -true piano sound. The Andante is wonderful and the well-known sequence that starts at about 2:40 is special. It just sings with happiness after the somber opening which is what Schubert, I believe, intended. I have never heard another pianist perform this part as well.


----------



## Mandryka

KenOC said:


> The "low trill in the opening movement" is likely inspired by Beethoven's cello shake in the Andante of his Op. 131 string quartet. It seems Beethoven threw this in just to keep us off balance. I know of no earlier example of this sort of thing.
> 
> When you hear it, you think, "What's this all about?" Schubert wrote his sonata a couple of years after Beethoven's work, which he admired greatly.
> 
> Listen here, in the music after 18:09. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA4_FnH49tA .


That low trill recurs frequently in the movement, followed by silence, the effect is unsettling, especially in the context of music which seems to move forward but timidly, in an uncertain way.


----------



## KenOC

Mandryka said:


> That low trill recurs frequently in the movement, followed by silence, the effect is unsettling, especially in the context of music which seems to move forward but timidly, in an uncertain way.


"Unsettling" is precisely the right word.


----------



## DeepR

Richter took the Andante to another level. It was used to great effect in the documentary about him.


----------



## Mandryka

Re recordings, what do we have on a proper Schubert piano, 

Staier
Khouri
Vermeulen
Bilson
Badura Skoda 

Anything else?


----------



## isorhythm

It's one of my top five piano sonatas. I like the Brendel, Kempff and Uchida recordings.

I see the trill as foreshadowing the modulation to G flat; when it first appears, it's unsettling because we don't know what means. Then some bars later the opening motive gets a little twist - Bb - A - Bb - C - D becomes Bb - Ab - Bb - Cb -Db - and we understand. A new world opens up.

The whole thing is otherworldly.


----------



## DavidA

Recordings I have

Kempff
Brendel
Lupu
Richter
Anda
A Fischer
L Fleisher
Van Cliburn
Pollini
Perahia
But my favourite is Stephen Kovacevich - simply mesmeric


----------



## Xisten267

*Do you like this work? Do you love it? Why? What do you like about it?*

Yes, it's one of my favorite piano sonatas, although not _the_ favorite. I think that it's profound and has very beautiful melodies, and I think that it's special because it's one of the last completed works of a genius composer, Schubert. It can move me a lot depending on my mood.

*Do you have any reservations about it?*

Yes, I don't like performances that in my opinion are too slow (Kempff) or lack emotion (Pollini). Because the exposition of the first movement is somewhat long, I also prefer that it's not repeated.

*And of course, what are your favorite recordings?*

Brendel's is my favorite. I love his performances of Schubert. The comments on this thread made me curious about Uchida though; I have her performances of all Schubert sonatas, but for some reason has never listened to them yet. Her Mozart is top notch in my opinion.


----------



## Phil loves classical

It is the only work where I like all the other movements way more than the first. I've never heard a theme as repeated / reinforced so many times with so little change as in the first movement. The most noticeable is 2/3's through, when the main theme is played loudly exactly the same way as much earlier in the movement, I feel like it didn't cover nearly as much ground along the way as I feel led to believe. The 2nd movement is very moody. Overall I feel the whole sonata could have contained more content for its length. Then again, he was no Beethoven.


----------



## Mandryka

Phil loves classical said:


> I've never heard a theme as repeated / reinforced so many times with so little change as in the first movement. The most noticeable is 2/3's through, when the main theme is played loudly exactly the same way as much earlier in the movement, I feel like it didn't cover nearly as much ground along the way as I feel led to believe. . . .


It's a bit like Waiting for Godot, or Happy Days.



Phil loves classical said:


> Then again, he was no Beethoven.


Aha


----------



## eugeneonagain

He wasn't even a Clementi or a Hummel.


----------



## jdec

Sarcasm mode = On
These are just some of the ordinary pianists that wasted their time on this ordinary work:

Sviatoslav Richter (four recordings), Vladimir Horowitz (two recordings), Rudolf Serkin (two recordings), Claudio Arrau, Arthur Rubinstein (two recordings), Alfred Brendel (several recordings), Richard Goode, Wilhelm Kempff, Clifford Curzon, Jörg Demus, Leon Fleisher (two recordings), Clara Haskil, Evgeny Kissin, Radu Lupu, Murray Perahia, S. Kovacevich, Maurizio Pollini, Maria João Pires, Menahem Pressler, Artur Schnabel, Vladimir Sofronitsky, Maria Yudina, Krystian Zimerman, András Schiff (two recordings).

Sarcasm mode = Off


----------



## Lisztian

I like the work quite a bit, but I do find it a bit repetitive. I wouldn't say it's one of my favourite piano sonatas.


----------



## DaveM

Phil loves classical said:


> It is the only work where I like all the other movements way more than the first. I've never heard a theme as repeated / reinforced so many times with so little change as in the first movement. The most noticeable is 2/3's through, when the main theme is played loudly exactly the same way as much earlier in the movement, I feel like it didn't cover nearly as much ground along the way as I feel led to believe. The 2nd movement is very moody. Overall I feel the whole sonata could have contained more content for its length. Then again, he was no Beethoven


It's not quite that simple. The main theme is repeated at least 3 times early on with some development between. Then there is a fairly long period of development followed by the recapitulation -the main theme is repeated twice towards the end if memory serves. It is a well fleshed out, highly original theme and Schubert knew what he was doing with it. Maybe he was no Beethoven, but then neither were 99+% of composers.


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> He wasn't even a Clementi or a Hummel.


Wh-a-a-a-a-a-t??


----------



## jdec

Phil loves classical said:


> It is the only work where I like all the other movements way more than the first. I've never heard a theme as repeated / reinforced so many times with so little change as in the first movement. The most noticeable is 2/3's through, when the main theme is played loudly exactly the same way as much earlier in the movement, I feel like it didn't cover nearly as much ground along the way as I feel led to believe. The 2nd movement is very moody. Overall I feel the whole sonata could have contained more content for its length. *Then again, he was no Beethoven.*


We can say Beethoven was no Schubert at age 31 either.


----------



## eugeneonagain

jdec said:


> We can say Beethoven was no Schubert at age 31 either.


Lucky devil that Beethoven.


----------



## jdec

eugeneonagain said:


> Lucky devil that Beethoven.


"Unlucky" he would say.

*"Truly in Schubert there dwells a divine spark." - Beethoven, 1827*


----------



## isorhythm

It's true that if you're against the concept of songs you might not like Schubert.


----------



## KenOC

If memory serves, that "divine spark" quote comes from Schindler. So a grain of salt may be handy.


----------



## jdec

KenOC said:


> If memory serves, that "divine spark" quote comes from Schindler. So a grain of salt may be handy.


Not only from Schindler but from Anselm Hüttenbrenner too, who also said that on one visit, when Schubert called with Hüttenbrenner, Beethoven remarked, "_You, Anselm have my mind, but Franz has my soul._"


----------



## eugeneonagain

jdec said:


> Not only from Schindler but from Anselm Hüttenbrenner too, who also said that on one visit, when Schubert called with Hüttenbrenner, Beethoven remarked, "_You, Anselm have my mind, but Franz has my soul._"


This is all the usual sort of complimentary talk between artists you hear about all through the art-world. Beethoven would surely say nice things about someone younger who isn't stealing his thunder.

It's irrelevant to the fact that Schubert was a keyboard hammerer who wrote works based around repeats and minimal development and which is swept under the carpet by people going on about his melodic genius.


----------



## DaveM

There was more to Schubert than just pure melody. It was what he did with it and that didn't always mean numerous repeats:


----------



## KenOC

jdec said:


> Not only from Schindler but from Anselm Hüttenbrenner too, who also said that on one visit, when Schubert called with Hüttenbrenner, Beethoven remarked, "_You, Anselm have my mind, but Franz has my soul._"


Hüttenbrenner, like Schindler, was not above myth-making. He was the one who reported that Beethoven expired after sitting upright on his death bed and shaking his fist at a sudden peal of thunder (sorry, no other witnesses). Yeah. Uh-huh. 

Wiki mentions that he wrote "an interesting but probably unreliable document in Schubertian biographical studies."

I would guess that Beethoven was only dimly aware of Schubert at all. That would likely be the case of someone who valued Cherubini above all contemporaries, and especially that composer's choral works.


----------



## ccar

DeepR said:


> Richter took the Andante to another level. It was used to great effect in the documentary about him.


Part of the pleasure of exploring classical music is to find how musicians have their own personal readings and how these help us to discover the richness of each composition. Usually, we tend to be partial to some interpreters and may compare their approaches or "styles" or even try to create lists of "best interpretations". Now that an immense number of recordings is more easily available it may be interesting to find that some personal characteristics may "define" them but many of the great interpreters also gave us different "versions" of the same piece and their own approach could change considerably over time. This evolution and variety may be very interesting to explore and help us to realize that music and particularly interpretations can never be carved in stone. As an example I looked again into Sviatoslav Richter's recordings of the Schubert D.960 sonata (probably there are 10 or 11 recordings but only 7 available in CD). Of course, tempo is a relative perception and is always a too simple way to describe any interpretation. However, just as an exploring exercise it is interesting to look at the time differences between the first (Moscow 1949) and one of his last recordings (Prague 1972). Curiously enough young Richter's was even "faster" than Kempff's "classic" 1967 version.

*Richter 1949* 1. 22:16 2. 9:31 3. 3:14 4. 6:55 *41:51*
*Richter 1972* 1. 25:44 2. 9:53 3. 3:34 4. 7:40 *46:51*
*Kempff 1967* 1. 21:09 2. 9:18 3. 4:48 4. 8:01 *42:71*

1. Molto moderato 2. Andante sostenuto 3. Scherzo Trio 4. Allegro ma non troppo


----------



## jdec

Well, a little too unconvincing to think that everything Schindler or Hüttenbrenner had to say related to Beethoven was "myth-making" .

This is from a Schindler's article published in the Theaterzeitung (May 3, 1831):

"_As the illness to which Beethoven finally succumbed after four months of suffering from the beginning made his ordinary mental activity impossible, a diversion had to be thought of which would fit his mind and inclinations. And so it came about that I placed before him a collection of Schubert's songs, about 60 in number, among them many which were then still in manuscript. This was done not only to provide him with a pleasant entertainment, but also to give him an opportunity to get acquainted with Schubert in his essence in order to get from him a favorable opinion of Schubert's talent, which had been impugned, as had that of others by some of the exalted ones. The great master, who before then had not known five songs of Schubert's, was amazed at their number and refused to believe that up to that time (February, 1827) he had already composed over 500 of them. But if he was astonished at the number he was filled with the highest admiration as soon as he discovered their contents. For several days he could not separate himself from them, and every day he spent hours with Iphigenia's monologue, 'Die Grenzen der Menschheit,' 'Die Allmacht,' 'Die junge Nonne,' 'Viola,' the 'Müllerlieder,' and others. With joyous enthusiasm he cried out repeatedly '*Truly, a divine spark dwells in Schubert*; if I had had this poem I would have set it to music'; this in the case of the majority of poems whose material contents and original treatment by Schubert he could not praise sufficiently. Nor could he understand how Schubert had time to 'take in hand such long poems, many of which contained ten others,' as he expressed it. . . . What would the master have said had be seen, for instance, the Ossianic songs, 'Die Bürgschaft,' 'Elysium,' 'Der Taucher' and other great ones which have only recently been published? In short, the respect which Beethoven acquired of Schubert's talent was so great that he now wanted so see his operas and pianoforte pieces; but his illness had now become so severe that he could no longer gratify this wish. But he often spoke of Schubert and predicted of him that he 'would make a great sensation in the world,' and often regretted that he had not learned to know him earlier_" (Thayer: 1043 - 1044).

Thayer then reports that, in his letter of February 21, 1858, to Ferdinand Luib, Anselm Hüttenbrenner had written:
"_Beethoven said of Schubert one day: "*That man has the divine spark*" (Thayer: 1044), and in a further letter to Luib: "But this I know positively, that about eight days before Beethoven's death Prof. Schindler, Schubert and I visited the sick man. Schindler announced us two and asked Beethoven whom he would see first. He said: 'Let Schubert come first!'_ (Thayer: 1044).


----------



## jdec

Antonin Dvorak's article on Schubert, for anyone interested:

FRANZ SCHUBERT

by Antonin Dvorak

(in collaboration with Henry T. Finck)

published in The Century Illustrated Monthly Magazine, New York, 1894

http://www.antonin-dvorak.cz/en/dvorak-on-schubert

"I should follow Rubenstein in including Schubert on the list of the very greatest composers, but I should not follow him in omitting Mozart."

...

"Schubert's chamber music, especially his string quartets and his trios for pianoforte, violin, and violoncello, must be ranked among the very best of their kind in all musical literature."

...

"Of Schubert's symphonies, too, I am such an enthusiastic admirer that I do not hesitate to place him next to Beethoven, far above Mendelssohn, as well as above Schumann."

...

"Were all his compositions to be destroyed but two, I should say, save the last two symphonies. Fortunately we are not confronted by any such necessity. The loss of Schubert's piano-forte pieces and songs would indeed be irreparable."


----------



## eugeneonagain

Just more opinions. We now know Dvorak put Schlubbert above Mendelssohn and Schumann and that Rubenstein had a generally lower opinion of Mozart. I'll store this information away in case it turns up in a quiz.

Maybe Dvorak felt Schlubbert had been unduly neglected. So like so many other composers he joined one of the rehabilitation campaigns for a past composer to lobby him into the pantheon of of not just good composers, but _great_ composers.


----------



## Jacck

eugeneonagain said:


> Just more opinions. We now know Dvorak put Schlubbert above Mendelssohn and Schumann and that Rubenstein had a generally lower opinion of Mozart. I'll store this information away in case it turns up in a quiz.
> 
> Maybe Dvorak felt Schlubbert had been unduly neglected. So like so many other composers he joined one of the rehabilitation campaigns for a past composer to lobby him into the pantheon of of not just good composers, but _great_ composers.


everyone has a blind spot. I would place Schubert very high of my list of best composers (in the top 10). He had an uparalleled melodic gift. No wonder that Dvořák felt related to him, because he had a great melodic gift too. This particular sonata - D. 960 - may be amongst his weaker ones, but it is still pretty good. His masterpiece is the Death and the Maiden quartet for me.


----------



## Enthusiast

One of the very great pieces by Schubert, I think. 

Well, Richter anyway was famous for only playing works he loved. That is why there are no complete sets of Richter's Beethoven or Schubert sonatas. And Richter also gave us extraordinary accounts of this work, quite unlike anyone else's. His was not the only way to do it - there are many fine accounts of this sonata - but it was unforgettable. As for your famous deafness to Schubert, what can I say? You look for Beethoven in his music but he was the very opposite in so many ways. Beethoven worked at his music, relying on elaborate and unbelievably imaginative development of his ideas to arrive at elevated and exalted music. That was not Schubert's way at all. Schubert's ideas were themselves sublime and he didn't need to work them much to arrive at music of extraordinary eloquence and depth.


----------



## Enthusiast

Mandryka said:


> Re recordings, what do we have on a proper Schubert piano,
> 
> Staier
> Khouri
> Vermeulen
> Bilson
> Badura Skoda
> 
> Anything else?


Andras Schiff?


----------



## Mandryka

Ah I wasn’t aware of that one. I listened to some of Badura Skoda last night, the colours of the different registers give it the feel of chamber music.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Enthusiast said:


> One of the very great pieces by Schubert, I think.
> 
> _Schubert's ideas were themselves sublime and he didn't need to work them much to arrive at music of extraordinary eloquence and depth._


You can all keep dreaming up new sentences of exalted praise, but it will not alter the hard facts, Namely: that he was a repeat merchant who when he got a good melody, he flogged it to within an inch of its life with no or barely any alteration. That his piano pieces suffer from terrible fits of vamping and hammering in the left hand, or endless arpeggios to pad-out the latest of his one-note sambas.
Boring symphonies which, yet again, start with solid melodies that are pile-driven into the ground by repetition

I used to quite like his C minor, D958, an homage to LvB, but then there's so much to choose from from LvB himself in that sphere. Like driving a Mazda when you have a Maserati in the garage.


----------



## jdec

Jacck said:


> everyone has a blind spot.


Not me, if we talk about appreciating the music of the 100 or so composers commonly regarded as the greatest.



Jacck said:


> This particular sonata - D. 960 - may be amongst his weaker ones, but it is still pretty good.


I don't know where you got that assumption from. On the contrary, this sonata is more than often regarded as his best one, not only by listeners but by good pianists too. Guest for instance what Schubert piano sonata was the only one the great Horowitz chose to perform (and record).


----------



## jdec

eugeneonagain said:


> You can all keep dreaming up new sentences of exalted praise, but it will not alter the hard facts, Namely: that he was a repeat merchant who when he got a good melody, he flogged it to within an inch of its life with no or barely any alteration. That his piano pieces suffer from terrible fits of vamping and hammering in the left hand, or endless arpeggios to pad-out the latest of his one-note sambas.
> Boring symphonies which, yet again, start with solid melodies that are pile-driven into the ground by repetition
> 
> I used to quite like his C minor, D958, an homage to LvB, but then there's so much to choose from from LvB himself in that sphere. Like driving a Mazda when you have a Maserati in the garage.


No friend, you fail to realize that you are in a very small minority on all this. But I'm not surprised since you have put down composers like Brahms, Wagner and Mahler too in other posts. I'd bet you regard Erik Satie higher than all of these .


----------



## joen_cph

Regarding Schubert, I was there once too. Now I regard him as one of the greatest ever.


----------



## DavidA

This is one of the greatest of all piano sonatas, a sublime utterance which makes one lament Schubert's early death. It has been appreciated and recorded by just about every great pianist, apart from the eccentric Glenn Gould. If people don't like it, then they have an ally in Gould. That, however, is their own sad loss.


----------



## Mandryka

eugeneonagain said:


> with no or barely any alteration.


Yet the music doesn't seem to me to be totally predictable, I'm not sure why, maybe the slight alteration is enough. I've never analysed the music or the performances enough to understand why.

This repetitiousness, by the way, is why I find him interesting - he's like a pre-echo of late Feldman. I find Beethoven's repetitiousness less interesting (in the waldstein for example)

There's something restless about the music the first movement of 960, shifting moods, nothing stays in the same key or mode for long, I think it's really special actually.


----------



## Jacck

eugeneonagain said:


> Boring symphonies which, yet again, start with solid melodies that are pile-driven into the ground by repetition


ah, the double standards. A couple of days ago, when I wrote about Mozart's 41. symphony, that it is just OK, you could not understand it. Yet the work - and most of Mozart for that matter - is repetitious as hell. In the first movement alone, there are like 2 original motives about 2 minutes long, stretched by repetition to 10 minutes.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Jacck said:


> ah, the double standards. A couple of days ago, when I wrote about Mozart's 41. symphony, that it is just OK, you could not understand it. Yet the work - and most of Mozart for that matter - is repetitious as hell. In the first movement alone, there are like 2 original motives about 2 minutes long, stretched by repetition to 10 minutes.


You can say that, but go to IMSLP and download the scores and compare them. The difference is there in black and white: the clear mastery of form; of melody simple and complex and the ingenious development of it; the dazzling counterpoint and fugal elements; the orchestration choices; the surprises.
Mozart repeats, as was the norm in classical era music which favoured classical balance, but look at how he twists and turns and manipulates his material when he repeats, constantly adding more and new elements and yet combining them all effortlessly.

Schubert does not do this. You can keep on saying that he does, but the scores tell the story.

Where do you ever see Mozart rapping out block chords on the keyboard just to fill another 8-16 bars?

The truth hurts, but it's still the truth.


----------



## eugeneonagain

jdec said:


> So you don't regard Satie higher than Mahler, Wagner or Brahms either?


Not really. Obviously I favour his music because I like French music of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He has what might be seen as 'failings' if one cares to compare, but his strengths, particularly as an innovator, outweigh them greatly.

That aside I also take a composer like Wagner on his own terms, not really in comparison to a composer who is very different. I don't much like opera so Wagner's entire oeuvre is not on my playlist, but I know perfectly well his value and his astonishing skill as an artist and innovator. Same for Mahler, whose music isn't always to my taste, though some is.

Schubert is a curious case. His technical failings are glaringly obvious and yet people go on about his music as though he is the J.S. Bach of the early 19th century. It annoys me.


----------



## jegreenwood

Phil loves classical said:


> It is the only work where I like all the other movements way more than the first. I've never heard a theme as repeated / reinforced so many times with so little change as in the first movement. The most noticeable is 2/3's through, when the main theme is played loudly exactly the same way as much earlier in the movement, I feel like it didn't cover nearly as much ground along the way as I feel led to believe. The 2nd movement is very moody. Overall I feel the whole sonata could have contained more content for its length. Then again, he was no Beethoven.





Mandryka said:


> It's a bit like Waiting for Godot, or Happy Days.
> 
> Aha


Alwx Ross in The New Yorker

In this week's issue of the magazine, I write about Katie Mitchell's theater piece "One Evening," an intermingling of Schubert's song-cycle "Winterreise" and texts by Samuel Beckett. When I cite Beckett on the topic of Schubert's "rigid economy of application," I am quoting from the first volume of "The Letters of Samuel Beckett," which contains many lively musical observations. In 1931, Beckett heard the Unity String Quartet play Schubert's String Quintet and Beethoven's Quartet Opus 127. The Schubert he loved, but Beethoven, surprisingly, moved him not. "I feel that Beethoven's Quartets are a waste of time," he wrote. "His pigheaded refusal to make the most of a rather pettyfogging convention annoys me. He needed a piano or an orchestra."


----------



## Jacck

eugeneonagain said:


> You can say that, but go to IMSLP and download the scores and compare them. The difference is there is black and white: the clear mastery of form; of melody simple and complex and the ingenious development of it; the dazzling counterpoint and fugal elements; the orchestration choices; the surprises.
> Mozart repeats, as was the norm in classical era music which favoured classical balance, but look at how he twists and turns and manipulates his material when he repeats, constantly adding more and new elements and yet combining them all effortlessly.
> 
> Schubert does not do this. You can keep on saying that he does, but the scores tell the story.
> 
> Where do you ever see Mozart rapping out block chords on the keyboard just a fill another 8-16 bars?
> 
> The truth hurts, but it's still the truth.


I can't read notes and scores. I learned it at school - we had some mandatory musical education - but forgot all of it a long time ago. I believe you that Mozart is more complex. There is only one important question for me: do I enjoy listening to the music or not? I enjoy listening to Schubert, and I learned to enjoy listening to Mozart (did not like him much at first). The 41. symphony has grown on me over time. I disliked it at first just like most of Mozart, but I appreciate it more and more and can say now that it is great.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

eugeneonagain said:


> Not really. Obviously I favour his music because I like French music of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He has what might be seen as 'failings' if one cares to compare, but his strengths, particularly as an innovator, outweigh them greatly.
> 
> That aside I also take a composer like Wagner on his own terms, not really in comparison to a composer who is very different. I don't much like opera so Wagner's entire oeuvre is not on my playlist, but I know perfectly well his value and his astonishing skill as an artist and innovator. Same for Mahler, whose music isn't always to my taste, though some is.
> 
> Schubert is a curious case. His technical failings are glaringly obvious and yet people go on about his music as though he is the J.S. Bach of the early 19th century. It annoys me.


Genuinely curious; can you point out places or elements in the score (or in any other of Schubert's great works) that you think represent "technical failings"? Right now it seems like you're endlessly repeating yourself more than you think Schubert does!


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Regarding this sonata: it's brilliant, perfect really, but Beethoven needs to have the highest spot(s) in the Recommended List for piano sonatas. There are many Beethoven sonatas that should be ranked above it: anything from 28-32, 23, 21, 26, etc. However, I can understand putting the Schubert (and the Liszt) higher than some of these to add variety to the list.


----------



## jdec




----------



## EdwardBast

Mandryka said:


> That low trill recurs frequently in the movement, followed by silence, the effect is unsettling, especially in the context of music which seems to move forward but timidly, in an uncertain way.


Someone long ago suggested the trill is like distant thunder heard when one is setting out for a long walk.

I find Eugene's annihilating hatred of this work entertaining, and the wild adulation of those who think it is the greatest piano sonata bewildering. There are some lovely things in the work - the subtle harmonic coloring and some very nice thematic variations. But the lackluster piano writing, the lack of counterpoint, the repetition and the anticlimactic overall profile are hard to overlook. There are easily 15 or 20 sonatas by Beethoven that are better - and more than a few by Schubert I prefer to this one.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

No, it makes total sense. Please read the following paragraph in full before jumping to conclusions.

The piece completely fulfills the musical expression that it "attempts" to attain. Thus, it is "perfect". The Beethoven sonatas I mentioned above are also "perfect". I cannot differentiate between the two in this regard. Similarly, many Chopin mazurkas, Bach preludes / fugues, etc, etc, are "perfect", but it is less common that I would characterize a piece of this (the Schubert or Beethoven sonatas') magnitude, duration, and scope with that description. However, this does not necessarily equate to my "favorites", what I would "recommend" the most, or even the "greatest". Here I will allow slight, albeit relatively unimportant and admittedly presumptuous, differentiation between the Beethoven and Schubert sonatas, for the sake of creating a list that recommends classical music to others and demonstrates the subjective preferences of people on the site. This does not mean that I think less of the Schubert, though. I suppose, in economic terms, you could say I have a "weak preference" for the Beethoven sonatas (although this analogy, unlike the pieces, is obviously not perfect).

Of course, this is all rather subjective, but still it's important to point out a distinction between the criteria.


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> There are easily 15 or 20 sonatas by Beethoven that are better...


Not to many here apparently. Only Hammerklavier got a couple of votes more than D960 in both polls so far:

Greatest piano sonatas?

Greatest Piano Sonata of All Time?


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

jdec said:


> Not to many here apparently. Only Hammerklavier got a couple of votes more than D960 in both polls so far:
> 
> Greatest piano sonatas?
> 
> Greatest Piano Sonata of All Time?


To be fair, though, Beethoven's opp. 101, 106, 109, 110, and 111 probably took a lot of votes from each other. If he had penned only op. 111 out of all of those, it would get the most votes. Having multiple choices sort of helps to mitigate this effect, but not entirely (in fact it may also boost, as some people would be inclined to vote for, say, their one favorite late Beethoven and the Schubert even if they prefer multiple Beethovens to the Schubert). Anyway, these comparisons are a bit silly, though I still am interested to hear Eugene's (specific) criticisms of Schubert's technical proficiency as a composer.


----------



## jdec

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> To be fair, though, Beethoven's op. 109, 110, and 111 probably took votes from each other. *If he had penned only op. 111 out of all of those, it probably would get the most votes*. Having multiple choices sort of helps to mitigate this effect, but not entirely. Anyway, these comparisons are a bit silly.


Under your logic, then why Hammerklavier is getting more votes than Op.111?

Anyway, Op. 109 and Op.111 are my very favorite Beethoven sonatas and in my personal top 4 along with Schubert's D960 and Liszt's in B minor. (A long time ago, there were no greater sonatas for me than the Hammerklavier, Waldstein and Appassionata. But we change.)


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

jdec said:


> Under your logic, then why Hammerklavier is getting more votes than Op.111?
> 
> Anyway, Op. 109 and Op.111 are my very favorite Beethoven sonatas and in my personal top 4 along with Schubert's D960 and Liszt's in B minor. (A long time ago, there were no greater sonatas for me than the Hammerklavier, Waldstein and Appassionata. But we evolve).


Sorry, I edited the post to include op. 101, 106, 109, 110, 111. You could use the Hammerklavier instead, or probably any of them save MAYBE op. 101 to demonstrate the same effect (but I used 111 to demonstrate the point since the Hammerklavier already received the most votes.

Those are all great, 4 of my favorite as well! The Hammerklavier, Waldstein, and Appassionata are also great! All some of my favorites (as is the majority of the Beethoven cycle)


----------



## KenOC

1 - Beethoven: Piano Sonata Op. 111, #32 in C minor
2 - Schubert: Piano Sonata #21 in B-flat major, D. 960
3 - Beethoven: Piano Sonata Op. 109, #30 in E major
4 - Beethoven: Piano Sonata Op. 110, #31 in A-flat major
5 - Beethoven: Piano Sonata Op. 106, #29 in B-flat major 'Hammerklavier'
6 - Beethoven: Piano Sonata Op. 57, #23 in F minor 'Appassionata'
7 - Beethoven: Piano Sonata Op. 13, #8 in C minor 'Pathétique'
8 - Prokofiev: Piano Sonata #6 in A major, Op. 82
9 - Liszt: Piano Sonata in B minor
10 - Beethoven: Piano Sonata Op. 81a, #26 in E-flat major 'Das Lebewohl'


----------



## DavidA

Just listening to this most wondrous work with my wife. Great thing for an evening together. Pollini is playing for us tonight.


----------



## DavidA

jdec said:


> Under your logic, then why Hammerklavier is getting more votes than Op.111?
> 
> Anyway, Op. 109 and Op.111 are my very favorite Beethoven sonatas and in my personal top 4 along with Schubert's D960 and Liszt's in B minor. (A long time ago, there were no greater sonatas for me than the Hammerklavier, Waldstein and Appassionata. But we change.)


I can't see why we have this competition between great works. Just enjoy them all!


----------



## jdec

KenOC said:


> 1 - Beethoven: Piano Sonata Op. 111, #32 in C minor
> 2 - Schubert: Piano Sonata #21 in B-flat major, D. 960
> 3 - Beethoven: Piano Sonata Op. 109, #30 in E major
> 4 - Beethoven: Piano Sonata Op. 110, #31 in A-flat major
> 5 - Beethoven: Piano Sonata Op. 106, #29 in B-flat major 'Hammerklavier'
> 6 - Beethoven: Piano Sonata Op. 57, #23 in F minor 'Appassionata'
> 7 - Beethoven: Piano Sonata Op. 13, #8 in C minor 'Pathétique'
> 8 - Prokofiev: Piano Sonata #6 in A major, Op. 82
> 9 - Liszt: Piano Sonata in B minor
> 10 - Beethoven: Piano Sonata Op. 81a, #26 in E-flat major 'Das Lebewohl'


Pretty reasonable list (I would put the Liszt above at least the Pathétique though). Whose ranking is this?


----------



## jdec

DavidA said:


> I can't see why we have this competition between great works. Just enjoy them all!


I enjoy them all! and many more. Nothing wrong with declaring our faves though.


----------



## DavidA

jdec said:


> I enjoy them all! and many more. Nothing wrong with declaring our faves though.


Our favourites yes. No problem. But as to 'the greatest'? Impossible.


----------



## jdec

DavidA said:


> Our favourites yes. No problem. But as to 'the greatest'? Impossible.


And that's what you read on what you quoted me (#82), right? personal favorites.


----------



## EdwardBast

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Sorry, I edited the post to include op. 101, 106, 109, 110, 111. You could use the Hammerklavier instead, or probably any of them save MAYBE op. 101 to demonstrate the same effect (but I used 111 to demonstrate the point since the Hammerklavier already received the most votes.
> 
> Those are all great, 4 of my favorite as well! The Hammerklavier, Waldstein, and Appassionata are also great! All some of my favorites (as is the majority of the Beethoven cycle)


I think Op. 101 is the best of them all. 



jdec said:


> Under your logic, then why Hammerklavier is getting more votes than Op.111?


Because it has an impressive sounding nickname, vacuous hype, and because a lot of people don't know all of Beethoven's sonatas.


----------



## KenOC

jdec said:


> Pretty reasonable list (I would put the Liszt above at least the Pathétique though). Whose ranking is this?


It's an old Amazon poll. Favorite non-Beethoven sonatas were also identified:

1 - Schubert: Piano Sonata #21 in Bb major, D. 960
2 - Schubert: Piano Sonata #20 in A Major, D. 959
3 - Prokofiev: Piano Sonata #6 in A major, Op. 82
4 - Liszt: Piano Sonata in B minor
5 - Haydn: Piano Sonata in C major, Hob. XVI/50, L. 60
6 - Haydn: Piano Sonata in Eb major, Hob. XVI/52, L. 62
7 - Chopin: Piano Sonata #3 in B minor, Op. 58
8 - Prokofiev: Piano Sonata #7, Op. 83 ' Stalingrad' (1942)
9 - Haydn: Piano Sonata in E minor, Hob. XVI/34, L. 53
10 - Schubert: Piano Sonata #19 in C Minor, D. 958


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Anyone else feel that the poor old Moonlight sonata gets downgraded for being too well-known? The first movement is justly famous but I have always especially loved the finale. I learned it by memory in high school even though I could barely get the notes right.


----------



## jdec

KenOC said:


> 1 - Beethoven: Piano Sonata Op. 111, #32 in C minor
> *2 - Schubert: Piano Sonata #21 in B-flat major, D. 960*
> 3 - Beethoven: Piano Sonata Op. 109, #30 in E major
> 4 - Beethoven: Piano Sonata Op. 110, #31 in A-flat major
> 5 - Beethoven: Piano Sonata Op. 106, #29 in B-flat major 'Hammerklavier'
> 6 - Beethoven: Piano Sonata Op. 57, #23 in F minor 'Appassionata'
> 7 - Beethoven: Piano Sonata Op. 13, #8 in C minor 'Pathétique'
> 8 - Prokofiev: Piano Sonata #6 in A major, Op. 82
> 9 - Liszt: Piano Sonata in B minor
> 10 - Beethoven: Piano Sonata Op. 81a, #26 in E-flat major 'Das Lebewohl'





KenOC said:


> It's an old Amazon poll. Favorite non-Beethoven sonatas were also identified:
> 
> *1 - Schubert: Piano Sonata #21 in Bb major, D. 960*
> 2 - Schubert: Piano Sonata #20 in A Major, D. 959
> 3 - Prokofiev: Piano Sonata #6 in A major, Op. 82
> 4 - Liszt: Piano Sonata in B minor
> 5 - Haydn: Piano Sonata in C major, Hob. XVI/50, L. 60
> 6 - Haydn: Piano Sonata in Eb major, Hob. XVI/52, L. 62
> 7 - Chopin: Piano Sonata #3 in B minor, Op. 58
> 8 - Prokofiev: Piano Sonata #7, Op. 83 ' Stalingrad' (1942)
> 9 - Haydn: Piano Sonata in E minor, Hob. XVI/34, L. 53
> 10 - Schubert: Piano Sonata #19 in C Minor, D. 958


Hope Eugene doesn't think the same people here also voted on those amazon polls.


----------



## KenOC

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Anyone else feel that the poor old Moonlight sonata gets downgraded for being too well-known? The first movement is justly famous but I have always especially loved the finale. I learned it by memory in high school even though I could barely get the notes right.


The Moonlight (not yet so named) was a great hit right from the time it was written. Here's an1802 review from the AMZ:

"This fantasy is a solid whole from beginning to end, arising at once out of an entire, profound, and deeply moved spirit and then virtually formed from a single piece of marble. Anyone to whom nature has granted an inner feeling for music must be moved and gradually uplifted by the initial _Adagio_, which the author has very aptly accompanied with the description_ Si deve suonare tutto questo pezzo delicatissimamente e senza sordino_, and then moved profoundly by the _Presto agitato_, lifted up as high as one can be by piano music. These two main movements are written in the eerie c-sharp minor key.

"The author has also, as far can be expressed by conventional symbols, left indications as to performance as well as the handling of the piano. In this regard, according to the indications and made still more visible by the entire layout and presentation of his ideas, B. understands the piano like hardly any other composer for the instrument, and understands how to handle the actual piano as well as Ph. Em. Bach did. However, one has to own a really excellent instrument to be at all satisfied with one's own performance of some of his movements-for example, of the entire first movement of Op. 27 No. 2."


----------



## jdec

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Anyone else feel that the poor old Moonlight sonata gets downgraded for being too well-known? The first movement is justly famous but I have always especially loved the finale. I learned it by memory in high school even though I could barely get the notes right.


The 3rd movement is a highlight for me. A great movement. A great sonata for sure. Although I don't think it gets downgraded just for being too well-known. I really prefer op. 53, 57, 81a, 106, 109-111.


----------



## flamencosketches

Enthusiast said:


> Andras Schiff?
> 
> View attachment 112284


This whole album is great. Never would have thought until I heard it that Schubert sounds amazing on a fortepiano. Definitely the greatest album of fortepiano playing that I have personally heard (not that I have heard many).

I like this sonata, but feel that it's a little overlong and that he has written much better. My favorite piano music of his is probably the Fantasy in F minor for four hands. Schubert is one of my favorite composers. As some in this thread have pointed out, his music is "flawed"; it doesn't have the feeling of almost inhuman perfection that you sometimes get in Bach and Mozart. But that doesn't take away from the beauty of his music at all to me.


----------



## MarkW

To assign “fault” to a matter of personal taste is to paint with too broad a brush. If a significant percentage of people find the B-flat sonata a masterwork, is that Schubert’s “fault” also? I don’t like 95% of Bruckner, but many people whose opinions I respect find something in his works that I don’t. Is there fault to be assigned – mine? Theirs? Bruckner’s? That there’s something about the way Schubert composed that doesn’t agree with you is fine. That “way” is an objective reality. But your reaction to it is yours, and neither really has anything to do with intrinsic quality, which is sort of undefineable -- if not downright ineffable.


----------



## joen_cph

I once had an early impression of Schubert being probably a rather self-complacent petit-bourgeois, based on superficial, musical experiences. Ernst Krenek thought so too: "..._ admitting that he had at first "shared the wide-spread opinion that Schubert was a lucky inventor of pleasing tunes ... lacking the dramatic power and searching intelligence which distinguished such 'real' masters as J. S. Bach or Beethoven". Krenek wrote that he reached a completely different assessment after close study of Schubert's pieces at the urging of his friend and fellow composer Eduard Erdmann. Krenek pointed to the piano sonatas as giving "ample evidence that [Schubert] was much more than an easy-going tune-smith who did not know, and did not care, about the craft of composition." Each sonata then in print, according to Krenek, exhibited "a great wealth of technical finesse" and revealed Schubert as "far from satisfied with pouring his charming ideas into conventional moulds; on the contrary he was a thinking artist with a keen appetite for experimentation._" 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Schubert).

It might also be of value with a short repetition of some of Schubert's non-conformist and rebellious traits:
https://www.chambermusicsociety.org/about/news/schubert-and-his-social-circle/

There is of course more, such as his literary taste. Here's a take on a rebellious, political dimension in his songs, including those with texts by Mayrhofer, also in light of the censorship in those days:
https://orca.cf.ac.uk/54468/1/U584569.pdf

and here's an interesting take on his early eye for the young Heine, where the interest faded out, however:
http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/23746/excerpt/9780521823746_excerpt.pdf


----------



## eugeneonagain

MarkW said:


> To assign "fault" to a matter of personal taste is to paint with too broad a brush. If a significant percentage of people find the B-flat sonata a masterwork, is that Schubert's "fault" also? I don't like 95% of Bruckner, but many people whose opinions I respect find something in his works that I don't. Is there fault to be assigned - mine? Theirs? Bruckner's? That there's something about the way Schubert composed that doesn't agree with you is fine. That "way" is an objective reality. But your reaction to it is yours, and neither really has anything to do with intrinsic quality, which is sort of undefineable -- if not downright ineffable.


I don't believe that a significant number of people _do_ find the B-flat sonata to be a masterwork.

Please note though that some of the things I have written in this thread are for literary effect, even though I hold solidly to the opinion I have expressed. As I wrote elsewhere, The curse Schubert suffered was living at a time when large-scale works were expected and the production of only smaller-scale works was thought too trifling for a 'serious composer'. So, you've written no symphonies? Well...you may as well be in Tin-Pan alley. So he wrote symphonies to be taken 'seriously'. Yet his symphonies just aren't that good as symphonies.

He was probably a good pianist, but not one of the great composers for the instrument. Considering the amount of work he wrote in a short time it's almost statistically impossible that they could _all_ be terrible, but even the best have terrible bits and that is hardly a good thing. Again they are overlong for the material.

I am irked by the fantastical, disproportional praise given to highly-flawed works that likely wouldn't pass muster or enjoy any comment at all if they came from some lesser-known composer's pen.

Hating 95% of Bruckner though... how does one even do that? He wrote essentially the same sort of symphony at least 7-8 times. The only different un-Brucknerish ones are the early ones before symphony #3. So do you dislike all the good ones and like the 5% of his excercises in the Beethoven model? Just a query.


----------



## Enthusiast

^^^ You sound very certain but somehow I suspect that you know you are wrong and that the case is no more than that you don't like Schubert as much as most experienced listeners.


----------



## DavidA

eugeneonagain said:


> I don't believe that a significant number of people _do_ find the B-flat sonata to be a masterwork.
> 
> .


Just a few master pianists who consider this to be a masterwork enough to play it and record it:

Brendel
Curzon
Schnabel
A Fischer
L Fleisher
Perahia
Pollini
Lupu
Anda
Serkin
Richter
Horowitz
Kovacevich
Kempff
Uchihida
Peres
Nocoleyeva
Ashkenazy
Pollini
Buchbinder
Leonskaja
Katsaris
Zacharias
Arrau

Sure they will all be dreadfully disappointed to realise they were wrong!


----------



## joen_cph

And some further, pianistic thinkers include
- Yudina
- Sokolov
- Kuerti
- Zimerman
- L. Berman
- Badura-Skoda
- Moravec (live only)


----------



## MarkW

eugeneonagain said:


> Hating 95% of Bruckner though... how does one even do that? He wrote essentially the same sort of symphony at least 7-8 times. The only different un-Brucknerish ones are the early ones before symphony #3. So do you dislike all the good ones and like the 5% of his excercises in the Beethoven model? Just a query.


Acrually, thr one I like is the Ninth. (And I don't think I said "hate," which is word I seldom use.  )


----------



## Mandryka

joen_cph said:


> And some further, pianistic thinkers include
> 
> - Moravec (live only)


And unrecorded?

Noone has mentioned two of my favourites, the first Kempff (not DG, the other one) and Sofronitsky.


----------



## Mandryka

I wonder how much of Eugene's problem -- the Feldmanesque repetitiousness, the vamping etc -- come because he's listening to the first movement with its repeat taken.


----------



## joen_cph

Mandryka said:


> And unrecorded?
> 
> Noone has mentioned two of my favourites, the first Kempff (not DG, the other one) and Sofronitsky.


Moravec live is available on the web at least. Haven't heard it. I was a bit hesitant to call Sofronitsky a pianistic thinker, don't know enough about his intellectual life or whether he was a more improvising character. I think he has been mentioned though.

BTW, there's Erdmann too, and no doubt more.


----------



## jdec

Mandryka said:


> Noone has mentioned two of my favourites, the first Kempff (not DG, the other one) and Sofronitsky.


I mentioned Kempff and Sofronitsky in post #26.


----------



## Mandryka

joen_cph said:


> Moravec live is available on the web at least. Haven't heard it. I was a bit hesitant to call Sofronitsky a pianistic thinker, don't know enough about his intellectual life or whether he was a more improvising character. I think he has been mentioned though.
> 
> BTW, there's Erdmann too, and no doubt more.


I think he was a pianistic drinker more than a pianistic thinker. A link to the Moravec would be appreciated.


----------



## GSHAPIROY

My favorite recordings are probably my dad and Brendel.


----------



## joen_cph

My thoughts too as regards Sofronitsky, but chances certainly are that this means generalizing too much . His style can be, er, visionary though.
Just google Moravec d960 and one source turns up, but it's a library service with limited admission; I'll try to find out more.


----------



## hammeredklavier

https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/schubert.pdf
_"Let me quote one example. Take the A flat Impromptu, the second of the set known as D935. He writes a tune of about eight bars then repeats it an octave higher. Then he repeats the theme and the octave higher version and so we have the tune four times in succession all in the same key. Then he has about 13 bars of chords which go nowhere and what does he then do? Repeat the tune and then again the same tune an octave higher. He repeats the bars of chords and the tune another twice. So the main tune comes eight times in three minutes. It is all the same and tedious and the tune is not varied rhythmically nor is there a change of key or any development.

There follows a trio section of 12 bars of nothing but broken chords. What does he do next? Repeat the 12 bars of broken chords. Another 34 bars of boring broken chords continues the piece. What follows that? Those 34 bars of broken chords again followed by eight bars of....broken chords. The tune in A flat returns and is immediately repeated an octave higher. There follows those bars of purposeless chords and the tune again and yet again that slight tune an octave higher. The tune is still in the same key and rhythmically the same. The music is so tame; it shows no invention, skill or development. There are no interesting harmonies or development. It is all so bland as well as being painfully boring and monotonous, and it is so juvenile and undeniably amateur! And do you really want to hear 90 odd bars of broken chords?

There are so many other examples which will prove the point! Schubert may have written some pretty tunes but nothing else, said Hans Keller.

Study his songs and notice that most of the time the piano part is merely vamping, merely common chords repeated. Vamp, vamp, vamp. In one extended passage in the Piano Trio in E flat the left hand of the piano part has only three notes which appear and appear and appear. Some of his songs are really dreadful. Look at the piano part of Death and the Maiden for example. It is so sterile, unimaginative and, frankly, very poor."_


----------



## jdec

^^David c f Wright, the "eminent" pianist/composer who absolutely consumed with jealousy over the achievements of Chopin also said:

"_Chopin is not a great composer because he is a very limited composer. he was an extreme dandy, a narcissist, a man with an outrageous temper, psychological problems, personality disorders and an overwhelming hatred of Jews._"


----------



## Mandryka

hammeredklavier said:


> https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/schubert.pdf
> _"Let me quote one example. Take the A flat Impromptu, the second of the set known as D935. He writes a tune of about eight bars then repeats it an octave higher. Then he repeats the theme and the octave higher version and so we have the tune four times in succession all in the same key. Then he has about 13 bars of chords which go nowhere and what does he then do? Repeat the tune and then again the same tune an octave higher. He repeats the bars of chords and the tune another twice. So the main tune comes eight times in three minutes. It is all the same and tedious and the tune is not varied rhythmically nor is there a change of key or any development.
> 
> There follows a trio section of 12 bars of nothing but broken chords. What does he do next? Repeat the 12 bars of broken chords. Another 34 bars of boring broken chords continues the piece. What follows that? Those 34 bars of broken chords again followed by eight bars of....broken chords. The tune in A flat returns and is immediately repeated an octave higher. There follows those bars of purposeless chords and the tune again and yet again that slight tune an octave higher. The tune is still in the same key and rhythmically the same. The music is so tame; it shows no invention, skill or development. There are no interesting harmonies or development. It is all so bland as well as being painfully boring and monotonous, and it is so juvenile and undeniably amateur! And do you really want to hear 90 odd bars of broken chords?
> 
> ]_


_

I wonder why Schubert decided to repeat the theme so frequently._


----------



## jdec

“I was the first to perform Schubert sonatas. Professors from the older generation said to me: “Schubert? How tedious! Schumann fares better.” Many said: “Is he crazy or what?”. I don’t play for an audience, but for myself. If I enjoy myself, the audience will also enjoy it. I just want to play good music.”

- Sviatoslav Richter


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/schubert.pdf
> _"Let me quote one example. Take the A flat Impromptu, the second of the set known as D935. He writes a tune of about eight bars then repeats it an octave higher. Then he repeats the theme and the octave higher version and so we have the tune four times in succession all in the same key. Then he has about 13 bars of chords which go nowhere and what does he then do? Repeat the tune and then again the same tune an octave higher. He repeats the bars of chords and the tune another twice. So the main tune comes eight times in three minutes. It is all the same and tedious and the tune is not varied rhythmically nor is there a change of key or any development.
> 
> There follows a trio section of 12 bars of nothing but broken chords. What does he do next? Repeat the 12 bars of broken chords. Another 34 bars of boring broken chords continues the piece. What follows that? Those 34 bars of broken chords again followed by eight bars of....broken chords. The tune in A flat returns and is immediately repeated an octave higher. There follows those bars of purposeless chords and the tune again and yet again that slight tune an octave higher. The tune is still in the same key and rhythmically the same. The music is so tame; it shows no invention, skill or development. There are no interesting harmonies or development. It is all so bland as well as being painfully boring and monotonous, and it is so juvenile and undeniably amateur! And do you really want to hear 90 odd bars of broken chords?
> _


_

What a bunch of silliness. D935 #2 was not composed as some profound work. It probably was composed in a short period of time. It is only about 5 1/2 minutes long. The theme includes the repeating of the 'tune' an octave higher. The theme is repeated twice and then there is a development section that occupies half of the work. It concludes as it opened with the theme repeated twice. Listen to it. It's a delightful work and a damned sight better than some of the modern stuff a poster or two above promotes.





_


----------



## MarkW

Just curious, Eugene: In your opinion, is the G major sonata any better?


----------



## eugeneonagain

MarkW said:


> Just curious, Eugene: In your opinion, is the G major sonata any better?


It's almost a perfect example of the things I've said are worst about Schubert. The opening movement is appalling; like something out of a music hall (that's _vaudeville_ for those who might not know).

Now the menuetto is something I know quite well because I had to learn it for an exam many years ago. The opening of it is good, but the trio is annoying with all the repetitive twiddles and the feeling that it wants to be a waltz. Here is what my mother said after I played a certain bit over and over trying to get it right:



> It sounds like silent film music..!


Now, my dear mother, not being famous or a great pianist, is probably not a convincing counterweight of opinion against the illustrious cavalcade of names that have been brought forth to testify to Schubert's greatness. However, hers was an uncoloured opinion; she had nothing to lose or gain.

And what happens at the end of said minuet? It just drops off! As if someone rang his doorbell and he forgot to finish it properly.

Schubert can be pleasant to play, this is true. He wrote a lot of Ländler and other dances and they can be fun to play. They are trifles. This is what Schubert's sonatas sound like to me: someone who wrote good dances, better than average, stringing them together and calling them 'sonatas'.


----------



## MarkW

Okay.  (I absolutely love the voicing between the two hands in sections of the finale -- but I've never been a pianist, so I don't know how easy or diificult those passages are.)

cheers --


----------



## Mandryka

I listened to a couple of piano things by Schubert since this thread started, Simone Pedroni playing 960/i and Radu Lupu playing 894/i. What strikes me most is how different they are, Pedroni’s 960 so restless, “Ohne Ruh' und suche Ruh'” and Lupu’s 894 so static, like a study in architecture. No doubt this is a question of interpretation, though I have to say that I think that Simone Pedroni’s CD is outstanding. I remember that Erdmann makes 894 into something more edgy. Personally I’m not so keen on Lupu’s vision here, though it’s obvious that it’s skilful piano playing, and well recorded, there’s plenty to enjoy at that level even for me.


----------



## Taggart

Repeated negative posts about any sort of music can be considered as trolling.

A number of posts have been withdrawn for moderator consideration.


----------



## science

This is a thread about one particular work; criticism of Schubert in general belongs, if anywhere, in the thread about his work as a whole. I don't know if the mods are up for it, but I'd personally be very happy to move quite a few posts from this thread to there.


----------



## Josquin13

Mandryka said:


> Re recordings, what do we have on a proper Schubert piano,
> 
> Staier
> Khouri
> Vermeulen
> Bilson
> Badura Skoda
> 
> Anything else?


Yes, Andras Schiff played an 1820 Brodmann fortepiano on his 2015 ECM recording: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00X4Y79KS/ref=dm_ws_sp_ps_dp. There's also Nikolaus Lahusen, who played a 1835 Conrad Graf for his Celestial Harmonies label recording (which I've not heard): https://www.amazon.com/Schubert-Son...157&sr=1-3&keywords=Nikolaus+Lahusen+schubert

(Here's a YT link to Lahusen's other Schubert CD, if you have an interest in hearing his Graf, which sounds very good to my ears: 



)


----------



## Guest

D960 has a lot of structural depth, warmth and emotional impact; it is better than most of lvb's sonatas but not as good as lvb's top ones; as i cannot bear the sound of nearly all the old records proposed by my colleagues and also believe there has been a positive evolution over time re the understanding and appreciation of schubert's music i choose kovacevich, lupu, a.schiff, perahia and hamelin's versions.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

eugeneonagain said:


> I spoke about the G major sonata making relevant points, even complimenting Schubert, but the moderators decided to remove that. I've also made plenty other relevant points; that you don't agree or care for them is entirely different than them not being relevant.
> If anything is vacuous it is the praise and counterargument predicated upon 'how it makes my ears feel all fuzzy'.
> 
> Burden of proof? This is a casual discussion forum not the musicological department of the local conservertoire! You learnt a bit just for fun, I learned a movement for examination purposes, but we still have opposed opinions. The thrust of moderation here says: only say nice things about a composer or his/her work otherwise it's trolling. Hardly 'discussion', more like an appreciation society.


Wow it really IS late if I'm forgetting about the word learnt.

That's cool; I'll play all of it one day when I have the time. Though I would caution against approaching music with the idea of learning it "for examination purposes", but you do you I suppose.


----------



## eugeneonagain

It is possible to both know works generally AND use them for learning purposes.


----------



## hammeredklavier

eugeneonagain actually has some valid points. I have to say my faith is restored upon seeing there's actually someone with courage to speak against TC's overhype for Schubert.
For example, TC actually believes Schubert wrote the greatest piano sonata (D960)
and the greatest string quintet ever (D956) so overwhelmingly great that it puts all others to shame.. What is the greatest string quintet?
I was like w t f


----------



## Larkenfield

This is a beautiful work full of depth of feeling, soul, and spirituality. I doubt that anyone who nitpicks it to death has a feel for Schubert, to begin with. Schubert's worst sin? He will sometimes get fixated on a melody or a certain passage and be reluctant to let it go. I'm not bothered by it because there's a way of playing it with a slightly different inflection and Schubert has a way of giving his listeners a great opportunity to hear what he loves most about his own music.

But truly, those who have no obvious appreciation of his genius for melody and the flowing quality of his music, it's spirituality, are missing the point or crawling up the wrong tree. He's one of the immortals and I don't give tinker's damn about such short-sighted critics as Dr. David Wright and another short-sighted, soulless academic, Hans Kelle-the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to mischaracterizing certain composers and music criticism, such as Chopin and Schubert-two of the greatest melodists of all time. Melody and harmony-and neither composer is without having a sense of harmonic surprise-are two of the reasons why these composers still live and listeners are drawn to them, not to mention Schubert's subtle emotional sensitive and spirituality that seems to come directly from a heavenly source. _That can't be taught._

Lieder would be unimaginable, unthinkable without the profound depth of a work such as _Winterreise_. And yet some of his harshest critics think of him as nothing but a writer of "tunes" when he set some of the great poems of his time to music in an imaginative setting.

I've also heard his symphonies and enjoyed them because they were written when he was in what seems like the endless creative flow of his own imagination... I've heard them all in one sitting, enjoyed them and wasn't bored or wasted my time by wondering why he wasn't as good at counterpoint as Bach, Mozart or Beethoven. He was being _Schubert_ and his music is as immediately distinctive, identifiable and recognizable as any of the truly great composers.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Agreed; I read the Wright paper and think it is relatively well researched and at least makes some decent arguments, but in general I think he is missing the point, judging Schubert by a standard that he was never even trying to attain. I can see why he would criticize Chopin, too...
Really, there's no one "correct" way of making music (which is what makes it so wonderful!). Schubert had quite a unique approach (in some ways maybe even as unique as Beethoven) and if you don't like his music, that's fine, but understand that there's a reason that he's as loved as he is by so many.


----------



## Jacck

try also the Sokolov version. I am not expert, since I am rarely bothered by searching for the best interpretation. But I heard both Sokolov and Richter, and I actually prefer Sokolov


----------



## DavidA

hammeredklavier said:


> https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/schubert.pdf
> _"Let me quote one example. Take the A flat Impromptu, the second of the set known as D935. He writes a tune of about eight bars then repeats it an octave higher. Then he repeats the theme and the octave higher version and so we have the tune four times in succession all in the same key. Then he has about 13 bars of chords which go nowhere and what does he then do? Repeat the tune and then again the same tune an octave higher. He repeats the bars of chords and the tune another twice. So the main tune comes eight times in three minutes. It is all the same and tedious and the tune is not varied rhythmically nor is there a change of key or any development.
> 
> There follows a trio section of 12 bars of nothing but broken chords. What does he do next? Repeat the 12 bars of broken chords. Another 34 bars of boring broken chords continues the piece. What follows that? Those 34 bars of broken chords again followed by eight bars of....broken chords. The tune in A flat returns and is immediately repeated an octave higher. There follows those bars of purposeless chords and the tune again and yet again that slight tune an octave higher. The tune is still in the same key and rhythmically the same. The music is so tame; it shows no invention, skill or development. There are no interesting harmonies or development. It is all so bland as well as being painfully boring and monotonous, and it is so juvenile and undeniably amateur! And do you really want to hear 90 odd bars of broken chords?
> 
> There are so many other examples which will prove the point! Schubert may have written some pretty tunes but nothing else, said Hans Keller.
> 
> Study his songs and notice that most of the time the piano part is merely vamping, merely common chords repeated. Vamp, vamp, vamp. In one extended passage in the Piano Trio in E flat the left hand of the piano part has only three notes which appear and appear and appear. Some of his songs are really dreadful. Look at the piano part of Death and the Maiden for example. It is so sterile, unimaginative and, frankly, very poor."_


Frankly after reading some of the other barmy things Wright has written I would certainly not put him down as a reliable critic. You have to stretch your head to believe anyone intelligent would write some of the things he does.


----------



## Larkenfield

No one suggested, at least I haven't, that Schubert is beyond criticism. In fact, I brought up a couple of points myself. But the soulless, heartless, short-sighted, academic criticism by some of his harshest critics is, IMO, a chronic mischaracterization and incompatible with understanding Schubert's sensitive and receptive nature, nor is it particularly illuminating because it's not balanced with an appreciation of his major strong points, such as his spirituality and melodic genius, to show that his critics may actually understand him in the first place. It's the foulest kind of dismissive music criticism, especially when it includes moralistic personal attacks and judgments of his character, such as what the UK's David Wright has been known for.

There's no composer who ever lived who did not have short-comings of some kind. The trick is to see everything in balance, and some evidently are not interested in that and end up trashing some of these great and already accepted into the standard repertoire as memorable if not IMMORTAL composers—and Schubert is one of them, according to those who appreciate him, because he's still actively played today... Lieder and the piano literature would be unthinkable without him and he continues to be performed by many of the great vocalists and pianists in the world.

Hummel really doesn't deserve to be dragged into a Schubert thread and I've already explained my thoughts elsewhere on the typical vintage fortepiano sound heard on certain recordings, but not all!, with their too often poor and uneven sound that lacks any real sense of sonority or beauty, as if they sounded this poor when they were relatively new instruments and the composer may have actually enjoyed playing on them. I am simply for recordings with better vintage instruments that sound functional and playable and are capable of a beautiful sonority when the music calls for it.


----------



## DavidA

jdec said:


> ^^David c f Wright, the "eminent" pianist/composer who absolutely consumed with jealousy over the achievements of Chopin also said:
> 
> "_Chopin is not a great composer because he is a very limited composer. he was an extreme dandy, a narcissist, a man with an outrageous temper, psychological problems, personality disorders and *an overwhelming hatred of Jews.*_"


One of Wright's memorable comments about Wagner: "I don't think he was rabidly anti-semitic as a person". :lol:


----------



## Mandryka

[Eugeneonegain's] point isn't that he doesn't like Schubert, or rather, that's not his interesting point. It's that the music is repetitive and full of vamping. I think he's right that the music is repetitive at the level of melody at least, though I think there better examples of it in other pieces, and we haven't discussed how, if at all, Schubert modulates the melody which is so frequently repeated.

This repetition is what makes him, for me, an interesting composer. Because I think it challenges listeners with some questions. Why did he chose to be so repetitive? What does that repetition mean for the expressive content of the music?

Something someone said a while ago makes these questions really quite revealing, and worth probing. Someone said "he's no Beethoven." And it's true that people see in Beethoven's music a sense of exploration and development and movement to a goal which may be less obvious in Schubert's.

But it would be a very strange position to adopt, to think that there are no equally good or better ways to make poetry out of sound, other than Beethoven's.


----------



## Enthusiast

^^ It may have been me who said that in this thread - and I do see Beethoven's method as a big contrast with Schubert's - but the interesting this as you say is what he does with the repetitions. Analysing that is beyond me but my sense is that he has lots of different tricks.


----------



## hammeredklavier

https://docs.google.com/document/d/18t_9MHZTENbmYdezAAj4LRM0-Eak_MYO1HssZW2FX1U/edit Look. Schubert even wrote the best string quartet, according to TC. Death and Maiden, (frankly I laugh whenever I listen to this piece, I can't tell whether he's being serious or funny) far surpassing Beethoven's C sharp minor. He even has a symphony rated right below that tier. (Are all his symphonies truly that superior to Haydn's 83th?) What's more. He wrote the best piano sonata, far surpassing Liszt's B minor. Thank god he didn't compose a piano concerto, had he done so he have surpassed Brahms. His C major quintet literally destroys all others'. Others get frequently bashed for writing banal, simple music and their enthusiasts ridiculed for building cults around them when there is this guy who never had good grasp in counterpoint or structural balance but instead resorted to mass-producing proto-minimalist texture throughout his output. I mean come on.. Let's face it.


----------



## Littlephrase

Eh, I don’t care about Schubert’s obvious flaws. He’s still one of my very favorite composers and this particular work will remain one of my very favorite sonatas. The Molto Moderato contains almost everything I love about Schubert. There’s soltitude, wandering, darkness, introspection, memory... The Andante is equally sublime. 

It should go without the saying the work is not beyond criticism. There’s an obvious dip in quality with the final movements. It’s still good, if not great, music, but it hardly reaches the depths and the heights of the first half.


----------



## Mandryka

hammeredklavier said:


> resorted to mass-producing proto-minimalist texture throughout his output.


This is possibly true. I quite like it actually.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> eugeneonagain actually has some valid points. I have to say my faith is restored upon seeing there's actually someone with courage to speak against TC's overhype for Schubert.
> For example, TC actually believes Schubert wrote the greatest piano sonata (D960)
> and the greatest string quintet ever (D956) so overwhelmingly great that it puts all others to shame.. What is the greatest string quintet?
> I was like w t f


Well no, TC as a forum doesn't believe anything. A poll on TC showed that a majority of the pollers who took part selected the Schubert D956 quintet. And that was 8 years ago.

I am aware of The Talk Classical Community Recommended List you referenced elsewhere. It should have been made clear in the List's introductory opening that these were/are the results of polls that are limited in their significance and may be outdated. That's not to say that the List isn't useful.


----------



## Larkenfield

‘Appreciation of Schubert's music while he was alive was limited to a relatively small circle of admirers in Vienna, but interest in his work increased significantly in the decades following his death. Felix Mendelssohn, Robert Schumann, Franz Liszt, Johannes Brahms and other 19th-century composers discovered and championed his works. Today, Schubert is ranked among the greatest composers of the 19th century, and his music continues to be popular.’ 

Brahms himself personally edited the Schubert symphonies, and Schubert’s influence can be heard in the works of Bruckner. Not bad for the 31-year-old composer whose development was cruelly interrupted and permanently cut short.

‘In 1808, at the age of eleven, he became a pupil at the Stadtkonvikt school, where he became acquainted with the orchestral music of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven.’ But while admiring them, he never deliberately intended during his lifetime to be an imitation.


----------



## Josquin13

If it's performed well, I find the "repetitiveness" in Schubert hypnotic, spellbinding, & not a weakness. That he keeps returning to his beautiful, sometimes haunting melodies is part of what makes Schubert's music so special to me--why it captivates me. That is especially true of his last Piano Sonata in B-flat major, the final String Quartet No. 15 in G major, D. 887, and Fantasie in F minor for four hands, D.940 For me, those three 'late' works are among his most profound utterances.

To my mind, everyone should hear the Russian pianists play D. 960 at least once, before writing the sonata off--such as Lazar Berman, Sviatoslav Richter, & Valery Afanassiev, who slow down considerably in the opening movement (especially Afanassiev), more so than the European pianists, generally. I'll never forget the first time I heard this work, it was Richter's 1972 Salzburg recording on a Eurodisc LP. I became completely entranced and couldn't get the music out of my head for days afterwards.

It takes such intense concentration on the part of the pianist to pull this off. The slowing down also makes the work more intimate & deeply personal, and gives the music a sense of being created on the spot.























(Although he doesn't slow down quite like the Russian pianists, I find that Artur Schnabel's interpretation is another 'must hear' version: 



)


----------



## realdealblues

I enjoy the work, it's not as high on the list for me compared to others (as far as my favorite Piano Sonatas go), but I enjoy it. I don't have any reservations about it. I'm not sure how I feel about the slowing down of the first movement as Richter does, but at the same time I love to hear Richter play it. I haven't put in the time to really study it intensely, like I have Beethoven and Mozart's Piano Sonatas or even Chopin's Sonatas. Maybe I'll do that this year...

Favorite recordings:
Richter (1972)
Pollini (1987)
Perahia (2003)

But I also have many others I will listen to:
Rubinstein (1965)
Kempff (1967)
Rubinstein (1969)
Brendel (1971)
Serkin (1975)
Barenboim (1977)
Serkin (1977, Live)
Arrau (1980)
Brendel (1988)
Lupu (1991)
Brendel (1997)
Brendel (2008, Live)
Barenboim (2014)


----------



## jdec

Josquin13 said:


> *If it's performed well, I find the "repetitiveness" in Schubert hypnotic, spellbinding, & not a weakness. That he keeps returning to his beautiful, sometimes haunting melodies is part of what makes Schubert's music so special* to me--why it captivates me. That is especially true of his last Piano Sonata in B-flat major, the final String Quartet No. 15 in G major, D. 887, and Fantasie in F minor for four hands, D.940 For me, those three 'late' works are among his most profound utterances.


No wonder why almost all of the master pianists chose to keep the exposition repeat of D960 1st. mov. for their recordings (when they could have easily just cut it if they had had any issue with "repetitiveness" there).


----------



## DavidA

jdec said:


> No wonder why almost all of the master pianists chose to keep the exposition repeat of D960 1st. mov. (when they could easily just cut it if they had any issue with "repetitiveness" there).


Brendel, Curzon and Schnabel miss the repeat but not very often done these days.

Actually I don't mind hearing such great music repeated!


----------



## KenOC

The D.960, like the Quintet, must and (at my place) _will _have the repeat excised, by Audacity or any other means necessary. Dynamite if all else fails!


----------



## jdec

DavidA said:


> Brendel, Curzon and Schnabel miss the repeat but not very often done these days.
> 
> Actually I don't mind hearing such great music repeated!


Right, those are some exceptions.


----------



## eugeneonagain

It can be quite different playing a work than it is listening. I've played Hindemith chamber music (I'm thinking here of Sonata for Trumpet and Piano) and enjoyed it immensely, yet there are listeners who find these works by Hindemith mind-numbingly boring to listen to; he can also be somewhat ponderous. I can see why because I've also been among the audience and thought it not quite as magnificent as when you're up there having a go at bringing the music to life. Doing is different.

Richter has been mentioned a lot in this thread. Yes, he started a bit of a trend for playing Schubert, but he really had to shake things up. It says a lot for the qualities of Richter. I'm sure he also enjoyed the challenge of taking on Schubert against advice trying to dissuade him. I'm not suggesting he wasn't sincere either; he was clearly always a sincere man and artist.

I remember reading some thesis online where the argument was similar to what is being suggested in several places above: that the repetitiveness in Schubert is somehow a positive feature; even a lucky bonus! That contrary to being something that diminishes the music, it is actually what defines its greatness.
All I can say is that wishful-thinking and an argument that pleases someone who can fall into line with that persuasion can confirm beliefs. If a person likes Schubert that much, then I'm certain they'll also buy that thesis.

I do find it unusual though that on-the-whole repetitiveness/repetition elsewhere in classical music is somewhat frowned upon and seen as a flaw. Seen as a sign of little substance, since we all know the generally lukewarm reception of minimalism around here. 
It seems to me that there are other reasons Schubert gets a free pass and it is the belief that he needs promoting because he is 'underrated' and 'tragically died too young' (even though his output was already huge). That he reminds people of Beethoven and provides a bit more of the same of what they already like _mutatis mutandis - _the cheaper option Beethoven if you will. Any suggestion of it must however be brushed away.


----------



## Larkenfield

eugeneonagain said:


> Schubert is a curious case. His technical failings are glaringly obvious and yet people go on about his music as though he is the J.S. Bach of the early 19th century. It annoys me.


His harshest critics seem to have little nsight into why listeners would enjoy hearing him anyway despite his "technical failings." They sound harsh and dismissive because actually Schubert may simply have not fit their temperament and they apparently have no appreciation of the_ spirit behind his works_ that can be immediately felt. It was a different spirit and sensitivity than what motivated Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach, whether they were technically superior or seemed less redundant. Nor do all his works have to be masterpieces to enjoy their melodic lyricism and spiritual essence. Vladimir Horowitz mentioned how often he felt that the spirituality of Schubert's music was missed or ignored. Schubert's early death is still considered by many as one of the great losses in music.


----------



## Mandryka

> His harshest critics seem to have zero insight into why listeners would enjoy hearing him anyway despite his "technical failings."


What's your ideas about this? Are they just following the crowd, all _moutons de Panurge_?



> His critics sound harsh and dismissive because Schubert may not fit their temperament


That's like whoever it was somewhere here who said that he wasn't any good because he doesn't write like Beethoven or Haydn's La Poule or Brahms's second piano concerto. Who said that?



> It was a different spirit and sensitivity than what motivated Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach, whether they were technically superior or seemed less redundant.


I have a feeling that this is true actually.



> Nor do all of his works have to be masterpieces to enjoy their melodic lyricism and spiritual core.


And this


----------



## mmsbls

Thread closed...

Re-opened and merged with the newly created D. 960 thread.


----------



## science

To me, the opening bars of the first movement are the most striking moment in the solo piano repertoire to that time in history. The whole first movement is a beautiful, intense balance of darkness and sentimentality. I'm not really comfortable with this being our most highly recommended / favorite piano sonata, but I am happy if it gets a little more recognition.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

A number of off-topic and inappropriate posts have been removed.

I'm disappointed that this thread descended into squabbling. Please don't make negative personal remarks in threads. If you think a post is offensive or inappropriate, use the 'report post' button to alert staff to it.

This is TC, the Terms of Service do apply, and yes, you do have to play nicely.


----------



## RockyIII

Funny, I'm listening to the piece right now, performed by Klára Würtz. I had the Perahia recording but prefer this one.


----------



## KenOC

I got to know Schubert's late sonatas through the recordings of Richard Goode. For some reason we seem to hear less about him these days. But he's absolutely top-of-the-heap.


----------



## science

In response to MarkW's wonderful observation:



> It's a special work and there's absolutely nothing in music like that low trill in the opening movement -- nor that step-wise modulation at the end of the finale.


Here's a KenOC insight that I appreciated:



> The "low trill in the opening movement" is likely inspired by Beethoven's cello shake in the Andante of his Op. 131 string quartet. It seems Beethoven threw this in just to keep us off balance. I know of no earlier example of this sort of thing.
> 
> When you hear it, you think, "What's this all about?" Schubert wrote his sonata a couple of years after Beethoven's work, which he admired greatly.
> 
> Listen here, in the music after 18:09.
> 
> 
> 
> .


----------



## DavidA

I can't see why we have to have this thread again as surely we all posted our opinions on the last one. Mine - simply it is one of the sublimest utterances in piano literature is clearly stated there together with the recordings I enjoy - so I'll not contribute further.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I think each repetition of the themes in this amazing sonata deserves its own separate thread, to do justice to all the subtle nuances.


----------



## hammeredklavier

science said:


> I'm not really comfortable with this being our most highly recommended / favorite piano sonata


I feel the same way and I would rate something more flexible and dynamic, namely Chopin's B minor, above it.


----------



## Phil loves classical

For those who hate hymnal singing, this sonata's theme in the first movement is for them. It's a hymn without words in all its verses and choruses, and some interludes in between.


----------



## dismrwonderful

KenOC said:


> I got to know Schubert's late sonatas through the recordings of Richard Goode. For some reason we seem to hear less about him these days. But he's absolutely top-of-the-heap.


He's still around.

http://www.richardgoodepiano.com/tour/


----------



## Larkenfield

So many problems, so many controversies are the result of _rankings_, as if a survey of votes or numbers has anything to do with the enjoyment of a particular sonata or symphony or whatever. The work of a 1st tier or a 46th tier? As if any work could be rated with such certainty! I would think that most listeners do not listen to their favorites by any composer according to such a standard or rating system, except perhaps in an exceedingly general way. Voting games are only a pastime and I think that it should be pointed out every now and then that there is a downside, that the comparison of works can be false, an interference, can be an unnecessary distraction and interfere with the pure enjoyment of them as singular and unique. As much as I enjoy this Schubert sonata, rating it as one of the greatest ever on the basis of a handful of votes is not necessarily doing it any favors. But I do not go along with the critics who have no understanding of the pure spirituality and sincerity behind Schubert's music, because they don't seem to be aware of it and they never mentioned it because all they seem to be interested in is the technical side, though I've never heard Schubert make a bad harmonic progression in his life. (Watch the effort to find one while continuing to ignore the spirit behind his music-called missing the point.) Schubert's 21st Piano Sonata does not have to be rated #1 in order to be enjoyed or considered immortal without controversy.


----------



## ManateeFL

Larkenfield said:


> So many problems, so many controversies are the result of _rankings_, as if a survey of votes or numbers has anything to do with the enjoyment of a particular sonata or symphony or whatever. The work of a 1st tier or a 46th tier? As if any work could be rated with such certainty! I would think that most listeners do not listen to their favorites by any composer according to such a standard or rating system, except perhaps in an exceedingly general way. Voting games are only a pastime and I think that it should be pointed out every now and then that there is a downside, that the comparison of works can be false, an interference, can be an unnecessary distraction and interfere with the pure enjoyment of them as singular and unique. As much as I enjoy this Schubert sonata, rating it as one of the greatest ever on the basis of a handful of votes is not necessarily doing it any favors.


Couldn't agree more. When I first became interested in classical music and was looking acquire some knowledge on the subject and some direction on what to listen to, I soon found that I got absolutely nothing out of lists of names of composers and works that I had no point of reference for. One of the first books I picked up on the subject was by Phil Goulding -- the 50 greatest composers and their 1,000 greatest works or something. I found the arbitrary rankings and his insistence on being _exclusive_ to be incredibly annoying. "Sorry, I can't discuss Schoenberg or Rachmaninoff because they don't make it onto my list". And most of the book seemed to be filled with rankings and rationalizations for those rankings, as if I cared. Realizing it's lack of substance, I quickly got rid fo it and I went on to pick up a book by David Dubal called The Essential Canon of Classical Music which I liked much more. It wasn't perfect, but I liked how _inclusive_ the book attempted to be; the author wanted to give as many great composers and great works as possible their due and celebrate their individuality without worrying about how they compared or ranked to other composers or works.


----------



## Larkenfield

"Any structural or technical discussion is clearly banned; especially if it isn't sufficiently laudatory. Be aware that a thread entitled e.g. "Was Schubert rather a semi-skilled amateur?" would disappear très rapidement. So it's impossible to even broach."

I doubt if such discussions are banned, but they're probably not welcomed if the attitude behind them is narrow, academic, and exclusively one-sided with none of the composer's strengths ever mentioned, such as his inspired melodic lyricism, to show some kind of a balanced perspective on a well-loved and almost universally praised composer.

He's been welcomed and played for over 200 years. If anyone considers that Schubert wrote 600 works of just about every possible description, many played by every major symphony orchestra, vocalist and keyboard soloist in the world who charge money for their performances-establishing Schubert as a composer of professional standing-such a condescending fictitious premise that he was "a semi-skilled amateur" may not exactly be well thought out or go over well, to say the least, nor would it likely be uplifting to the forum and worthy of discussion like mischaracterizing Babe Ruth as a mediocre football player. But perhaps one can admire for a split second that persistent, determined way of trying to take him down a peg. However, it's doubtful that Johannes Brahms, Felix Mendelssohn, Robert Schumann, Franz Liszt, Anton Bruckner, Vladimir Horowitz, Alfred Brendel, Arthur Rubinstein, Fritz Wunderlich, Carlos Kleiber, George Szell, Claudio Abbado and a long list of other world-class, non-semi-professional musicians would appreciate or agree with the reference.

But yes, Schubert does have his shortcomings as a composer just like anybody else and he could have perhaps tightened up some of his works structurally and technically. But instead, he moved onto the next thing that inspired him as part of his short 31-years on earth. He gifted the world with the poetic depth of _Winterreiss,_ even if it might be beyond the depth or interest of everyone to appreciate it. Nor does his 21st Piano Sonata have to be perfect to be considered _iconic,_ truly representative of his spirit. When he died, he was still hearing incredible music in his head.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Larkenfield said:


> and exclusively one-sided with none of the composer's strengths ever mentioned, such as his inspired melodic lyricism,


I have mentioned and acknowledged Schubert's melodic qualities in several other threads and also in the one that was shut down.

The example I gave wasn't a thread I was planning, it was a blunt example to show that hardly anything critical can be written without it causing a shower of complaints, denials and accusations of lack of sophistication in listening.

Babe Ruth a mediocre 'football player'?


----------



## joen_cph

In the other thread, some recordings were mentioned, such as on this page
Schubert: Piano Sonata #21 in B-flat, D. 960

David A listed some



> Brendel
> Curzon
> Schnabel
> A Fischer
> L Fleisher
> Perahia
> Pollini
> Lupu
> Anda
> Serkin
> Richter
> Horowitz
> Kovacevich
> Kempff
> Uchihida
> Peres
> Nocoleyeva
> Ashkenazy
> Pollini
> Buchbinder
> Leonskaja
> Katsaris
> Zacharias
> Arrau


and I supplemented with



> - Yudina
> - Sokolov
> - Kuerti
> - Zimerman
> - L. Berman
> - Badura-Skoda
> - Moravec (live only)


There was a a bit of interest regarding* Moravec* - if a recording could be traced.

I have only found a university library recording with limited access, from University of North Texas Concert Hall (29th January 1993):
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1075083/
The timings for the complete sonata there are 20:27 - 10:27 - 3:48 - 8:22

but there is at least an also easily accessible youtube of the slow movement, now 10:06 and allegedly from another 1993 university performance, at Princeton New Jersey, suggesting an interesting interpretation:





The Princeton version is not on their archive website
http://libweb5.princeton.edu/MusicReserves/musicreserves.aspx?id=92&ecr=1&xsl=legacy.xsl


----------



## Mandryka

I'm very much enjoying these recordings, I'm convinced that you need a proper Schubert piano to express the drama caused by the tension among the simultaneous voices. This isn't lyrical music at all IMO, in the sense of tune in the top line and a bit of accompaniment lower down. Leonhardt is very aware of that.









The discussion on the previous thread has helped me to see that Schubert's a much much more interesting composer than I had thought -- it came at just at the right time because my interest in his music was revived a couple of weeks ago when I heard the recordings of the second trio and the G major quartet that Tetzlaff was involved in.


----------



## manyene

One of my favourite piano sonatas, resplendent with melody and invention. I have Brendel and Curzon: I like both equally


----------



## WildThing

science said:


> The best source for recording recommendations is probably Trout's blog post on this work:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Condensed Listing
> 1. Richter (1972, Prague)
Click to expand...











This is the Richter recording I have, but the liner notes say it was recorded in 1972 in Salzburg. Is this the same recording referred to by Trout, or is there a different recording from Prague?


----------



## DavidA

WildThing said:


> This is the Richter recording I have, but the liner notes say it was recorded in 1972 in Salzburg. Is this the same recording referred to by Trout, or is there a different recording from Prague?


Someone said 'like the drip of a Chinese water torture.' Masterly playing in a way but is it Schubert?


----------



## ccar

WildThing said:


> This is the Richter recording I have, but the liner notes say it was recorded in 1972 in Salzburg. Is this the same recording referred to by Trout, or is there a different recording from Prague?


Different recordings indeed:

1. Prague 25 Sept 1972 and 2. Salzburg Aug 1972


----------



## janxharris

science said:


> Schubert's Piano Sonata #21 in B-flat, D. 960, is currently on the sixth tier of the Talk Classical community's favorite and most highly recommended works -- and it is for the moment our highest rated piano sonata!
> 
> It does not get its own article on Wikipedia, but there is an article about it together with D. 958 (#19) and D. 959 (#20), including a little analysis that amounts to a little bit of a listening guide. The best source for recording recommendations is probably Trout's blog post on this work:
> 
> I am personally surprised not to see Uchida there.
> 
> As usual, the main questions are: *Do you like this work? Do you love it? Why? What do you like about it? Do you have any reservations about it*?
> 
> And of course, what are your favorite recordings?
> 
> Please keep the discussion to your opinions and thoughts about this particular work. There will eventually be threads on many other of Schubert's works - by coincidence, in fact, the string quintet is next up. There is also a thread about Schubert in the "composer guestbook" forum, in case you want to discuss your opinions and thoughts about Schubert in general.


I'm still digesting this but, so far, it's a real discovery. Thanks for posting.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Several posts have been edited to remove off-topic content and negative personal remarks. Reasoned critical comment on the work under discussion is permitted and encouraged, but ad-hominem remarks are not. Period.


----------



## mmsbls

I have merged the two Schubert D. 960 threads. I tried to keep pretty much anything that pertained directly to Schubert's D. 960 and approved some previously unapproved posts. We did unfortunately decide to delete many posts that seemed to derail the thread or comment negatively on others. Many deleted posts included replies to posts we felt were inappropriate. It's hard to keep those when they are quoting and responding to posts that were deleted.


----------



## eugeneonagain

There will be no actual 'çritical commentary' then, especially when powers from without are perpetually deciding what counts and what doesn't according to what seem like nebulous rulings. So it will remain another thread of neutral lists, and praise. 

No discussion at all really. And no matter what I say it is policed. Even making statements like this one is classified as 'trolling'. It seems I just have the wrong opinion and thus must not express it. I keep being told it's 'how 'it is expressed, but can any honest person seriously hold that view?

Edit it, delete this entire post. It hardly matters.


----------



## Larkenfield

---------------


----------



## VelvetChutzpah

joen_cph said:


> In the other thread, some recordings were mentioned, such as on this page
> Schubert: Piano Sonata #21 in B-flat, D. 960
> 
> David A listed some
> 
> and I supplemented with
> 
> There was a a bit of interest regarding* Moravec* - if a recording could be traced.
> 
> I have only found a university library recording with limited access, from University of North Texas Concert Hall (29th January 1993):
> https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1075083/
> The timings for the complete sonata there are 20:27 - 10:27 - 3:48 - 8:22
> 
> but there is at least an also easily accessible youtube of the slow movement, now 10:06 and allegedly from another 1993 university performance, at Princeton New Jersey, suggesting an interesting interpretation:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Princeton version is not on their archive website
> http://libweb5.princeton.edu/MusicReserves/musicreserves.aspx?id=92&ecr=1&xsl=legacy.xsl


@joen_cph and @All Did you manage to access the whole Moravec performance? Man, have I looked everywhere for it?


----------



## flamencosketches

I don't understand why this thread is on the front page...? No replies since February


----------



## Mandryka

I'll make a reply.

I've been enjoying this









Koroliov's schtick is that he finds and draws your attention to counterpoint. _Prima facie_ this sonata does not come across as interesting material from this point of view, but I can assure you that what Koroliov makes of it, both in terms of antiphonal polyphony and even in terms of simultaneous polyphony, is a revelation.

I've been listening to a lot of Koroliov recently and I recommend his Schubert and his Beethoven.


----------



## NLAdriaan

First transcendental piano music I know (Yes, I know Bach's music quite well, but D.960 is in 'another language'). It took a S. Richter to show us all the depth of this music and I personally heard it live on its best a few years ago, when played by Krystian Zimerman. The words 'heavenly length' are used for the 9th symphony, but I suggest to duplicate them for this sonata.


----------



## Enthusiast

flamencosketches said:


> I don't understand why this thread is on the front page...? No replies since February


Perhaps the moderators' renovation took a couple of months to reach relaunch?


----------



## Guest

koroliov is one of the unheralded piano giants of this age with like you mention a different approach; less pyrotechnics but a lot of depth; his bach records are his best IMHO


----------



## hammeredklavier

Mandryka said:


> [Eugeneonegain's]
> This repetition is what makes him, for me, an interesting composer. Because I think it challenges listeners with some questions. Why did he chose to be so repetitive? What does that repetition mean for the expressive content of the music?







@2:27: "Repetition is what gives form to music"

everyone repeats,
some repeat to enhance motivic unity in their work, 
others repeat to fill bars without really having a strong sense of direction.

I think it's fair to ask the question, which category Schubert's D960 belongs.


----------



## chesapeake bay

Mandryka said:


> I'll make a reply.
> 
> View attachment 116236


You are right, this is really good!


----------



## Mandryka

chesapeake bay said:


> You are right, this is really good!


He has another Schubert CD with 959 and 894 which is also good.


----------



## Mandryka

hammeredklavier said:


> @2:27: "Repetition is what gives form to music"
> 
> everyone repeats,
> some repeat to enhance motivic unity in their work,
> others repeat to fill bars without really having a strong sense of direction.
> 
> I think it's fair to ask the question, which category Schubert's D960 belongs.


Why can't you have both: repeat for unity and favour stasis over motion? That's what I'm proposing Schubert was exploring.

I haven't heard the video clip yet, so sorry if this is addressed there.

(There's a relation between memory, nostalgia, and repetition in musical time which may be interesting to think about.)


----------



## flamencosketches

https://www.amazon.com/Sviatoslav-Richter-Early-Virtuoso-Legend/dp/B071RLKJV3/

There's a GREAT version of the D960 on here. I don't know much information on when it was recorded, etc, but it was pretty early on in his career. Sometime in the '50s.


----------



## Mandryka

flamencosketches said:


> https://www.amazon.com/Sviatoslav-Richter-Early-Virtuoso-Legend/dp/B071RLKJV3/
> 
> There's a GREAT version of the D960 on here. I don't know much information on when it was recorded, etc, but it was pretty early on in his career. Sometime in the '50s.


I still remember the shock I felt when I first heard him play that, in Alderburgh, I couldn't believe my ears. It's easy to be blasé about it now.

Generally I think Schubert's music is particularly resilient, you know, you can tamper with it in all sorts of ways - play it fast or slow, lyrical or articulated, happy or dark - somehow it survives the treatment, or can do. You can't get away with it so easily with Mozart and Beethoven and Bach I think.


----------



## Enthusiast

I'm not sure Celibidache would agree with that.


----------



## Larkenfield

The same does not mean in the same way. —Frédéric Chopin


----------



## eugeneonagain

hammeredklavier said:


> @2:27: "Repetition is what gives form to music"
> 
> everyone repeats,
> some repeat to enhance motivic unity in their work,
> others repeat to fill bars without really having a strong sense of direction.
> 
> I think it's fair to ask the question, which category Schubert's D960 belongs.


Both categories perhaps. Schubert lets you know what the 'motivic unity' is by inscribing it onto the head of a hammer and repeatedly hitting you on the head with it.


----------



## Phil D

I love Rubinstein's version. I like Schnabel's too, but, using headphones, this hiss and crackle are a lot to bear.


----------



## pianoforever

This is a great list. I personally share your favorites, and would add A. Fischer's both EMI and Hungaraton recordings with a preference to the latter.


realdealblues said:


> I enjoy the work, it's not as high on the list for me compared to others (as far as my favorite Piano Sonatas go), but I enjoy it. I don't have any reservations about it. I'm not sure how I feel about the slowing down of the first movement as Richter does, but at the same time I love to hear Richter play it. I haven't put in the time to really study it intensely, like I have Beethoven and Mozart's Piano Sonatas or even Chopin's Sonatas. Maybe I'll do that this year...
> 
> Favorite recordings:
> Richter (1972)
> Pollini (1987)
> Perahia (2003)
> 
> But I also have many others I will listen to:
> Rubinstein (1965)
> Kempff (1967)
> Rubinstein (1969)
> Brendel (1971)
> Serkin (1975)
> Barenboim (1977)
> Serkin (1977, Live)
> Arrau (1980)
> Brendel (1988)
> Lupu (1991)
> Brendel (1997)
> Brendel (2008, Live)
> Barenboim (2014)


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I really don’t see why this is our most recommended piano sonata - the Liszt sonata, several of Beethoven’s, a couple of Mozart’s, Prokofiev's War sonatas, Ives’s Concord, and even Schubert’s 16-20 are all higher up my personal list. But it’s still a very beautiful composition, with that signature rarefied, almost desolate, inward late-Schubert aura. I do think it is insanely top-heavy - but the finale is just fine. Really only Richter could play it as slow as he does and make it work. Otherwise it’s Uchida (possibly my favorite Schubertian pianist), Kempff, Lupu, Schnabel, and a real dark horse - Alicia de Laroccha - for me.


----------



## aioriacont

this sonata is so special to me. I have listened to it A LOT already, of course in various interpretations, and it always sends shivers. Otherworldly music. Only Schubert and Bach have such effects in my listening experience, at that degree. I always believed S is the continuation of B anyway...


----------



## The3Bs

Many good interpretations mentioned in the latest posts... 
For me at the top is still Richter and Sofronitsky....
Then I also like:
Kempff 
Schnabel
Lupu
Pollini

Have not heard Perahia... so will add that to my wish listening list...

Of the modern recordings, I find interesting:
Afanassiev (Controversial I know)
Shai Wosner
Imogen Cooper
Zimermann


----------



## flamencosketches

Brendel, Schnabel, Uchida, Ashkenazy, Richter (when I'm in the mood). This is a phenomenal work. Tied with the String Quintet in C as Schubert's two major late masterpieces, in my book.

My only complaint about the otherwise brilliant Brendel recording is that he gets to my favorite part (starting at the 7 minute mark in his recording) way too fast, normally it doesn't come in until like 14 minutes. This of course is because he does not believe in taking the repeats in late Schubert. I firmly disagree and it's only coincidence that two of my choices are sans repeat.

OK, time for a stupid question that you all may or may not know the answer to. Did they ever use the slow movement of D960 in any of the many film adaptations of _Wuthering Heights_? I just read that book and this music kept playing in my head during certain scenes. The music would fit in perfectly with the bleak world of Brontë's story.


----------



## mark6144

Used to be always Brendel for me, but recently I have been really enjoying Leif Ove Andsnes (2008 on Warner).


----------



## Helgi

I've been listening to Dina Ugorskaja lately, and I really like her late Schubert sonatas.

Another one I've been listening to and haven't seen mentioned (although someone may have) is Maria Joao Pires.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

What always strikes me about the second movement in this sonata, and the majority of the slow movements in late Schubert, is how special the structure is. It seems like Schubert popularized a type of slow movement that starts out in a hypnotic sort of stasis, unexpectedly changes to the opposite tonality for a shockingly turbulent middle section, then returns to the main material where he makes small but hugely affecting changes. We see this also in the string quintet, the 9th symphony, the 20th sonata, the 15th quartet.


----------



## flamencosketches

Mandryka said:


> I still remember the shock I felt when I first heard him play that, in Alderburgh, I couldn't believe my ears. It's easy to be blasé about it now.
> 
> Generally I think Schubert's music is particularly resilient, you know, you can tamper with it in all sorts of ways - play it fast or slow, lyrical or articulated, happy or dark - somehow it survives the treatment, or can do. You can't get away with it so easily with Mozart and Beethoven and Bach I think.


Do you know how badass it sounds, how enviable, to a young Millennial like myself that you saw Sviatoslav Richter play Schubert's D960 at Aldeburgh...? I'd kill to go back and time and attend a performance like that.


----------



## Machiavel

I have listen to almost all pianist regarding Schubert last three sonatas and I feel they are all missing a litle something I cannot put into words that Paul Badura Skoda has. I miss him.





 Just this litle take I find he sounds much better than most great masters did in studio or live performances and Im talking about all time performances. HE seems to really understand, grasps what shcubert intentions were and what his music should express.

Off course just my two cents.


----------



## JoachimBlas26

eugeneonagain said:


> It's almost a perfect example of the things I've said are worst about Schubert. The opening movement is appalling; like something out of a music hall (that's _vaudeville_ for those who might not know).
> 
> Now the menuetto is something I know quite well because I had to learn it for an exam many years ago. The opening of it is good, but the trio is annoying with all the repetitive twiddles and the feeling that it wants to be a waltz. Here is what my mother said after I played a certain bit over and over trying to get it right:
> 
> Now, my dear mother, not being famous or a great pianist, is probably not a convincing counterweight of opinion against the illustrious cavalcade of names that have been brought forth to testify to Schubert's greatness. However, hers was an uncoloured opinion; she had nothing to lose or gain.
> 
> And what happens at the end of said minuet? It just drops off! As if someone rang his doorbell and he forgot to finish it properly.
> 
> Schubert can be pleasant to play, this is true. He wrote a lot of Ländler and other dances and they can be fun to play. They are trifles. This is what Schubert's sonatas sound like to me: someone who wrote good dances, better than average, stringing them together and calling them 'sonatas'.


I recommend that you give Schubert one more chance, without judging him. And besides, he cannot be compared to the same rod as Beethoven or Bach, his music speaks a language of its own kind.
I only listen to this sonata when I am alone, as I consider it a religious experience. I cannot debate the technical deficiencies, since I am not an expert at all, but I can assure you that he is one of the composers who really reach the depth of the soul, and that it touches me the most.
There is a phrase that says that a Schubert sonata contains more drama than a Wagner opera, maybe it was Schnabel who said it but I'm not sure.


----------



## HerbertNorman

I liked the last reaction @JoachimBlas26

I champion the work of Schubert and I love it .
Those that are putting him down and criticising his work are wrong in my opinion. There is so much to explore and there are so many emotions in his work and these fantastic works were made by a very young man , which I find unbelievable...

The haters on here will never get me reacting to their posts and in my opinion it says more about them than it does about the actual works Schubert wrote.
Technically and theoretically I am not in a position to argue with musicologists or with professional musicians... But the ones I have met all say that the emotions that are hidden in the works are impressive and this makes the interpretation of the works harder. Actually playing the works technically is not always that demanding (technically that is , but the emotions to be put in are not easy).

These last words are not mine ,but those of musicians who play(ed) them.


----------



## JTS

The work is a staggering masterpiece. I have many recorded versions of it and it's endlessly fascinating to see how great pianists deal with it. One of the best versions is by Stephen Kovacevich


----------



## HerbertNorman

JTS said:


> The work is a staggering masterpiece. I have many recorded versions of it and it's endlessly fascinating to see how great pianists deal with it. One of the best versions is by Stephen Kovacevich


I actually own this one too ... and I agree, it's very good. I have so many interpretations in my record collection, but the Schnabel and Brendel ones have always been my favourites... don't know why , probably because those were among the first ones I heard...


----------

