# Diabelli Variations -- discussion



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

There are some who just don't "get" the Diabellis, others who find them pretty hard slogging, and yet others who like them just fine. This thread is to discuss what you think of this big set of variations and, particularly, your favorite recordings -- if any!


----------



## Copperears (Nov 10, 2013)

Brendel, for me, the last round; I like his combination of muscle and intellect in his approach to both Mozart and Beethoven.

His recording of the Emperor Piano Concerto for Phillips (live performance) is absolutely stunning as well, btw; the audience goes nuclear at its finish, and the recording engineers see fit not to cut off or fade out the resulting sonic blast. Yes it's that good.


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

I enjoy all of Beethoven's many sets of variations, the Diabelli Variations included. Barenboim's performance is very strong, in my opinion, although I most enjoy Brendel's interpretation.

On a tangential note, I find it very touching that Liszt likened Schumann's Carnaval to Beethoven's Diabelli Variations. In 1856, Wasielewski, Schumann's first biographer, asked Liszt for a detailed account of his friendship with the newly deceased Schumann. Liszt, bedridden with an ailment that wracked the lower half of his body with painful abscesses, wrote a very touching and lengthy account of his relations and opinions of Schumann the man and composer, and there is no reason to doubt Liszt's sincerity. Considering the awe with which Liszt held Beethoven's works, it's an extremely laudatory comparison, and it frustrates me to no end how shabbily and ungratefully Liszt was treated by the Schumann's.


----------



## Copperears (Nov 10, 2013)

The Schumanns were a little crazy, I think. When I was busy learning and memorizing Carnaval that, at least, was my impression. "This was clearly written by a madman, trying to break his piano and hands both!" "And she must have been even crazier to have hung around him!"


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I've found the best to come from Brendel and Anderszewski.

My next favorites are Mustonen, Sokolov, Richter ("70" and "86"), Barenboim, Pollini, Kinderman and Schnabel.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

The Diabellis are a prime example of music that can work from many conceptual viewpoints. The range is so great that I wouldn't know how to begin to pick a favorite. Just compare Richter's and Mustonen's recordings, for instance.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

This is the recording that truly brought the Diabelli Variations alive for me:


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> This is the recording that truly brought the Diabelli Variations alive for me:


I much preferred his second recording of op 120, the one on Onyx, which has trememdous manacing muscularity.

I'm really exploring recordings of this a lot right now in fact, it's probably my favourite Beethoven piano piece. Ones which I would single out as very special are:

Leonard Shure (Epic)
Michael Oelbaum
Rosen
Kuerti
Sokolov
Pollini (live preferably)
Horszowski
Daria Rabotkina
Bernard Roberts
S Richter (Prague)
Nikolayeva 1979
Brendel 2001
Kovacevich (Onyx)
Arrau (Philips)

Leonard Shure's Epic recording has been transferred and put on symphonyshare. Do not confuse it with his later recording on Audiofon. Sokolov's recording took a huge ammount of effort for me to appreciate, and even now I find it pretty challenging, but wonderful.

There are lots which I need to revisit - like the live one from Serkin and Katchen. And some I really don't know what to make of, like Mustonen's .

Has anyone heard Koroliov's?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Ukko said:


> The Diabellis are a prime example of music that can work from many conceptual viewpoints. The range is so great that I wouldn't know how to begin to pick a favorite. Just compare Richter's and Mustonen's recordings, for instance.


Yes, and in a way it's important for the performer to have a conceptual viewpoint to unify all the variations. That's one of things which distinguishes a really outstanding performance like Oelbaum or Kovacevich (Onyx) from a less successful one (like Schnabel's )


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> Yes, and in a way it's important for the performer to have a conceptual viewpoint to unify all the variations. That's one of things which distinguishes a really outstanding performance like Oelbaum or Kovacevich (Onyx) from a less successful one (like Schnabel's )


I'm not sure you can (or should) "unify" these variations. They strike me as more of a mosaic, which assembles itself as the piece approaches its conclusion. Great fun, but fun that assembles power as things proceed.


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

As with most large sets of variations and miniatures, I can't really listen to the entire set through as a single work, but I enjoy picking and choosing them.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Can't say as I've ever seen the big deal about the Diabellis. Given my choice of Beethoven's solo piano music, I'd listen to almost anything else first.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

KenOC said:


> There are some who just don't "get" the Diabellis, others who find them pretty hard slogging, and yet others who like them just fine. This thread is to discuss what you think of this big set of variations and, particularly, your favorite recordings -- if any!


One thing that went through my mind recently while listening to the Goldbergs is how the initial few (3) seem to establish the range of what is to follow, rather like in op 120. I'd be keen to know to what extent Beethoven was familiar with BWV 988. I wonder if anyone here has seen Beethoven's notebooks from the various times that he was writing op 120.

One metaphor for op 120 I find helpful is that of a quest, an arduous journey with various stopping off points on the way but basically forward motion, often difficult forward motion. Pollini seems to me to capture this very well. And that metaphor leads naturally to thinking about the result of the quest, the final variation.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> I'd be keen to know to what extent Beethoven was familiar with BWV 988. I wonder if anyone here has seen Beethoven's notebooks from the various times that he was writing op 120.


I think there can be little doubt that Beethoven was quite familiar with the Goldbergs, both from internal evidence and from external. As the publisher's puffery in 1823 says, "The splendid Fugues, Nos. 24 and 32, will astonish all friends and connoisseurs of serious style, as will No2. 6, 16, 17, 23, &c. the brilliant pianists; indeed all these variations, through the novelty of their ideas, care in working-out, and beauty in the most artful of their transitions, will entitle the work to a place beside Sebastian Bach's famous masterpiece in the same form."


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I'm not sure you can (or should) "unify" these variations. They strike me as more of a mosaic, which assembles itself as the piece approaches its conclusion. Great fun, but fun that assembles power as things proceed.


One thing we know is that Beethoven attached importance to the order. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "assembles itself as the piece approaches its conclusion", can you say a bit more about this interesting idea?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> One thing we know is that Beethoven attached importance to the order. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "assembles itself as the piece approaches its conclusion", can you say a bit more about this interesting idea?


Just my impression! I don't think it contradicts Beethoven's concern with the order of the variations. FWIW, YMMV!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Diabelli Variations is certainly for me one of the greats. Brendel thinks it is the greatest work ever written for the piano. I do know, however, good musicians who don't get it. So obviously a work which divides.
Of the recordings I have:
Andersewzski ( not sure about the spelling) is the best modern performance, IMO.
Richter (Phillips) is very special
Anda is quirky but well worth a listen
Kovacevich 1 is tremendous - far better than his later one IMO. A truly great recording.
Benjamin Frith is unheralded but right up there with the best. A performance of real character.
Schnabel is mesmeric despite some dropped notes and the primitive recording. 

Others I have heard who are great exponents are:
Brendel - He introduced me to this piece by playing it at the Proms. I was shocked by the silly waltz at the beginning Beethoven called a 'Cobbler's patch'
Serkin - again a great performance which is full of insight.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

At the time a host of composers wrote variations on the Diabelli waltz ,but Beethoven being Beethoven had to write a great long set. I think they are marvellous,but I don't see that there is anything to "get" they're a set of variations !
I have many versions, but like the 1962 Wilhelm Backhaus best I suppose, I always think that Backhaus plays the way I would imagine Beethoven did--forceful and craggy.
It's worth listening to the other composers versions--they are nothing like as long as Beethoven's--including Moscheles, Mozart, Schubert and Liszt. I have a recording of Joerg Demus playing them on a period piano by Conrad Graf.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

moody said:


> At the time a host of composers wrote variations on the Diabelli waltz ,but Beethoven being Beethoven had to write a great long set. I think they are marvellous,but I don't see that there is anything to "get" they're a set of variations !
> I have many versions, but like the 1962 Wilhelm Backhaus best I suppose, I always think that Backhaus plays the way I would imagine Beethoven did--forceful and craggy.
> It's worth listening to the other composers versions--they are nothing like as long as Beethoven's--including Moscheles, Mozart, Schubert and Liszt. I have a recording of Joerg Demus playing them on a period piano by Conrad Graf.


Buchbinder's set is pretty easy to find, on CDs and/or LPs. Whatever Beethoven's plan, several pianists have managed to find a path (among them several paths) to a cumulative effect; for them, and for listeners like myself, the Diabellis are more than _just_ 'a set of variations'.


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2013)

KenOC said:


> There are some who just don't "get" the Diabellis, others who find them pretty hard slogging, and yet others who like them just fine. This thread is to discuss what you think of this big set of variations and, particularly, your favorite recordings -- if any!


KenOC sugar pie, I already raised this in a recent posting in the 'What are you listening to' thread. I'll get down to what I think later, once I've trawled through the postings that follow...


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2013)

Ukko said:


> [...] The Diabellis are a prime example of music that can work from many conceptual viewpoints [...]


I'm sure you're right. Name me three (or more) of them, if you'd be so kind.


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> [...] Yes, and in a way it's important for the performer to have a conceptual viewpoint to unify all the variations [...]


And that viewpoint is? Please consult with Ukko before replying.


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2013)

StevenOBrien said:


> As with most large sets of variations and miniatures, I can't really listen to the entire set through as a single work, but I enjoy picking and choosing them.


Maybe I'm wrong (it is entirely conceivable), but I would have thought that they work best via an entire play-through.


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2013)

ahammel said:


> Can't say as I've ever seen the big deal about the Diabellis. Given my choice of Beethoven's solo piano music, I'd listen to almost anything else first.


There is no big deal - they are as consummate as any other of the LvB output.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Just in case I am being addressed by TalkingHead, and folks are wondering at my silence in response, I have found it salubrious to avoid reading that member's posts. If you wish to take that as being intimidated by his erudition, feel free.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

One reason the Diabelli Variations are so admired is they start with the theme, and each variation that follows becomes a near-entity, and from theme through all the set, the material gets further and further away from both theme and original harmonization, each variation becoming a further variant of what went before. The piece "never goes home."

That departing from the theme or harmonic frame and going further and further away and never returning to it, I believe, was quite radical for the time, and may still be an outstanding feature which makes them nearly unique in the literature.

I don't think there is any hidden "unifying device," which means a rendering has to have the just right set of weights, balances, and especially a dead-on set of tempi relationships, to keep the entire work sounding as a whole... which is no mean feat.


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2013)

moody said:


> [...] I think they are marvellous, but I don't see that there is anything to "get" they're a set of variations ! [...]


The ToS (that I have signed) require that I pass no comment on the syntax and punctuation employed by the poster quoted above. Nevertheless, I would question what Cap'n Moody means by "getting a work". Each time that I listen to the Diabellis I am humbled by how much I have missed (i.e. "didn't get"). Cap'n Moody's ears and mind must be of a superlative order.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

TalkingHead said:


> The ToS (that I have signed) require that I pass no comment on the syntax and punctuation employed by the poster quoted above. Nevertheless, I would question what Cap'n Moody means by "getting a work". Each time that I listen to the Diabellis I am humbled by how much I have missed (i.e. "didn't get"). Cap'n Moody's ears and mind must be of a superlative order.


Beethoven is rarely what anyone would call a subtle composer, and if you take him down off a pedestal, dust him off, and really look at him a good number of times, a lot of the glamor of mystery of "the profundity" of it all kind of takes its place. Cap'n Moody also has decades on many of us who are nonetheless old coots, having racked up that many more auditions of live performances and more numerous recordings going further back in time.

LOL, you get so much under your belt that a comment like "the Khachaturian _Toccata_ is a nice piece" mightly offends some younger listener who is still busy with it at the stage a little after first discovery: they probably think it is one of the most profound things they've ever heard. Well, it is a nice piece. So, too, is the _Diabelli Variations_ a nice piece


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

PetrB said:


> I don't think there is any hidden "unifying device," which means a rendering has to have the just right set of weights, balances, and especially a dead-on set of tempi relationships, to keep the entire work sounding as a whole... which is no mean feat.


That made me smile because it's so reductive. I suppose at one level of description what makes a performance gel has to do with technical things like tempi but that sort of thing is surely only interesting to pianists. And at a more fundamental level you have to answer questions about why one way of playing rather than another. Why Kuerti played it his way and Kovacevich his. The answer may have something to do with what they think the music is about. What it means.


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2013)

Ukko said:


> Just in case I am being addressed by TalkingHead, and folks are wondering at my silence in response, I have found it salubrious to avoid reading that member's posts. If you wish to take that as being intimidated by his erudition, feel free.


Dear Ukko, I was addressing you in response to one of your postings above (I can't recall which; you know how it goes - so many posts, and only a few merit a response from my part). Still, you know how much I count on your opinion, so I was wondering if you could let me (and others on the forum) have your performance recommendations for the execution of the Diabellis that give you the required ... ah .. insights. Do tell.


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2013)

Ukko said:


> The Diabellis are a prime example of music that can work from many conceptual viewpoints.


This is the second time I have (re)visited your posting; I ask you (once again) for a summary (layman's terms will suffice) of these conceptual viewpoints. If you are unable to provide them, I must conclude ...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> That made me smile because it's so reductive. I suppose at one level of description what makes a performance gel has to do with technical things like tempi but that sort of thing is surely only interesting to pianists. And at a more fundamental level you have to answer questions about why one way of playing rather than another. Why Kuerti played it his way and Kovacevich his. The answer may have something to do with what they think the music is about. What it means.


_What it means,_ to a performer, can always be reduced to the minutia of technical delivery: _without technique, there is no expression, period._

Musicians are not magic communicators, but like actors, have delved into the role on all levels in order to render to the audience something which will seem expressive to that audience. Unlike actors, there is no verbal text from which musicians can "extract a meaning," but only a bunch of notes on a page.

Interpretation and _what it means_, or more accurately, what it ultimately seems to mean to both performer and audience, does 'reduce' down to accents, phrasing, articulation, dynamics -- all in minute degrees of nuance -- and in a set of variations, especially ones not so directly tied together with a thematic device, like an opera which is one "number" after the next, the tempi relationships, together with all the rest, called _prima assoluta_ are all critical to the piece at length and as a whole "making sense." Why any performance is different from another, including from the same performer on another occasion, is due to all those elements. To name any of those more specifically and in depth would be to write a book.

And yes, dependent upon how all that is executed, the piece has more, or less, of its cumulative effect.

Your sentiment about "what it means" is rather sweet, has a romantic era charm, but it is just a sentiment.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

TalkingHead said:


> Dear Ukko, I was addressing you in response to one of your postings above (I can't recall which; you know how it goes - so many posts, and only a few merit a response from my part). Still, you know how much I count on your opinion, so I was wondering if you could let me (and others on the forum) have your performance recommendations for the execution of the Diabellis that give you the required ... ah .. insights. Do tell.


Why rely on any one's uninformed / inferior opinion?

I say analyze them yourself. Then you can tell us, that is if you are the sharing sort kinda person.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

My guess about what is happening in the Diabellis is this:

I think Beethoven is using certain "germ-motives" from the original waltz, these could be little fragments of melody or "motifs", or maybe other harmonic materials about which I have little knowledge but can "hear". He takes these little fragments of the original piece and constructs a variation around that. I believe it's different from usual way a set of variations was composed (eg. 1st movement of Mozart's piano sonata K. 331) where a melody was varied by using the same chord structure, with filled-in arpeggios, etc. It's a bit like cubism in a way, very vaguely speaking. He looks at the original piece very carefully, from different directions, and in a way "explains" it by picking up one little aspect at one time - kind of a microscopic examination of the thing. Or you can say he is playing with it.

Which sounds exactly and completely like what a set of variations should be, right? That is why it sounds so good, bright and logical at the same time. There might be a deeper thought to the arrangement order also.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

PetrB said:


> _What it means,_ to a performer, can always be reduced to the minutia of technical delivery: _without technique, there is no expression, period._
> 
> Musicians are not magic communicators, but like actors, have delved into the role on all levels in order to render to the audience something which will seem expressive to that audience. Unlike actors, there is no verbal text from which musicians can "extract a meaning," but only a bunch of notes on a page.
> 
> ...


No. _How_ any performance is different from another, including from the same performer on another occasion, is due to all those elements.

_Why_ there is that difference, and why the difference matters, is quite a different matter.

Apart from that little point, I think we agree.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

shangoyal said:


> My guess about what is happening in the Diabellis is this:
> 
> I think Beethoven is using certain "germ-motives" from the original waltz, these could be little fragments of melody or "motifs", or maybe other harmonic materials about which I have little knowledge but can "hear". He takes these little fragments of the original piece and constructs a variation around that. I believe it's different from usual way a set of variations was composed (eg. 1st movement of Mozart's piano sonata K. 331) where a melody was varied by using the same chord structure, with filled-in arpeggios, etc. It's a bit like cubism in a way, very vaguely speaking. He looks at the original piece very carefully, from different directions, and in a way "explains" it by picking up one little aspect at one time - kind of a microscopic examination of the thing. Or you can say he is playing with it.
> 
> Which sounds exactly and completely like what a set of variations should be, right? That is why it sounds so good, bright and logical at the same time. There might be a deeper thought to the arrangement order also.


If I understand the posts (always a question), I am closer to agreement with _PetrB_'s notion than yours. The first variation, which Richter plays with a burlesque-like emphasis, seems to have most of the theme's material. subsequent variations drift away from that material, though the progress has a few variations that work as, ah, reminiscences. or maybe 'regroups'.

That pseudo-analysis is based on thoroughly subjective impressions. What the variations look like in the score is another thing, eh?


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

This lengthy text on recorded interpretations of the Diabellis might be of interest to some:
http://bf.press.illinois.edu/view.php?vol=12&iss=1&f=bengtson.pdf

and there´s a bit about Yudina´s views here (maybe she wrote a complete essay on the piece)
http://www.cd-classica.ru/e/a69.htm

Own Yudina, Anda/DG, Serkin/1957, Kuerti, Schnabel, Webster Aitken and Brendel/Vox, but I can´t say that it´s a work that has really grabbed me so far.


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

For any who might be interested, Peter Brook's 1960 film _Moderato Cantabile_ (based upon Marguerite Duras) credits Antonio Diabelli as the film's composer!










Recommended most to fans of Jeanne Moreau and European _ennui_. 

The Fontana label even released a 45 r.p.m. EP:


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

joen_cph said:


> This lengthy text on recorded interpretations of the Diabellis might be of interest to some:
> http://bf.press.illinois.edu/view.php?vol=12&iss=1&f=bengtson.pdf
> 
> and there´s a bit about Yudina´s views here (maybe she wrote a complete essay on the piece)
> ...


You have the Webster Aitken! I hope _moody_ sees this; he questioned why I sent him that. 

Try to hear the Mustonen; it's _different_ too.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Musicians are not magic communicators, but like actors, have delved into the role on all levels in order to render to the audience something which will seem expressive to that audience. Unlike actors, there is no verbal text from which musicians can "extract a meaning," but only a bunch of notes on a page.


Surely one could say that the notes _are_ the text. Equally one could say that the actor just has a bunch of words on a page.

There's a famous story about Hitchcock: an actor said to him that he didn't feel some of his lines seemed natural for his character to say. Hitchcock replied "Just fake it".

Sorry to digress!

As for Diabelli, I was lucky to hear Rosen play it in along with the Hammerklavier in a very small auditorium, some time ago.
It was an overwhelming experience and I could not 'snap out of it' for days.

For me the variations are demonstrative of what makes Beethoven so great. His ability to work material so completely and imaginatively and extract from it every ounce of it's expressive potential. The variations move from the humorous to the ethereal or that weird realm that only he in his late period seems to inhabit.

I'm a fan of the set!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Just a thought - I am amazed that Kempff never recorded the Diabellis given his stature as a Beethoven interpreter.

Did he ever play them in concert?


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Ukko said:


> You have the Webster Aitken! .


Yes, an old double-LP, also containing a too sketchy _Hammerklavier_, famous for a quick first movement and Finale, which others did better (Beveridge Webster, for instance). It´s been a long time since I heard Aitken´s Diabellis, but I remember them as better.
Overall, I like Mustonen´s quirky style; there´s a great disc with the Beethoven Variations on Folk Songs and Sonata 30. Very often with Mustonen, you know who´s playing, a very peculiar style, though sometimes it can be a bit too much ... Haven´t heard his Diabellis, will bear it in mind.


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Why rely on any one's uninformed / inferior opinion?
> I say analyze them yourself. Then you can tell us, that is if you are the sharing sort kinda person.


I am relying on nobody's uninformed / inferior opinion - that is your take; I am asking Ukko to present his "many conceptual viewpoints" of the Diabelli Variations because he has piqued my interest. Perhaps you too have insights that may interest me. Do tell, as I am piqued.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

TalkingHead said:


> I am relying on nobody's uninformed / inferior opinion - that is your take; I am asking Ukko to present his "many conceptual viewpoints" of the Diabelli Variations because he has piqued my interest. Perhaps you too have insights that may interest me. Do tell, as I am piqued.


There are none,it's a set of variations.


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2013)

I would say, Moody, that we let Ukko address his own response. Once we have that, we may turn to you, if it so pleases us.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> No. _How_ any performance is different from another, including from the same performer on another occasion, is due to all those elements.
> 
> _Why_ there is that difference, and why the difference matters, is quite a different matter.
> 
> Apart from that little point, I think we agree.


The how IS the why: the why IS the how.... a syntactical hiccup, and yes, we are in agreement other than that tiny hitch.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

I don´t see the reason for an uproar concerning the mentioning of many possible conceptual viewpoints on this piece. This applies to all classical music, being it in the choice of instrument and the philosophy accompanying it, performance style, nuances and architecture, possible feelings of quotations or other musical allusions (very relevant to this piece, as the article links above for instance say), and any cultural/literary layers. 
But perhaps the at times also teasing atmosphere of the Diabellis also manifests itself further here .


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

TalkingHead said:


> I would say, Moody, that we let Ukko address his own response. Once we have that, we may turn to you, if it so pleases us.


I named it: These variations start with the theme and quite steadily go away from it, further and further until there really is no reference to either the theme or harmony, but variants built upon the preceding variants, which had already diverged from the normal path variations take.

If you are not in the know about these variations, how will you know if a response is on the mark?

If you are in the know about the Diabelli, then I'd graciously request that you just spill it rather than bait another member in some ______ing contest of calling yet one of the thousands of readily found stabs and guesses or made-up definitions of some musical era or term as found on this site in just about any category.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

TalkingHead said:


> I would say, Moody, that we let Ukko address his own response. Once we have that, we may turn to you, if it so pleases us.


He won't talk to you and from now on neither will I.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I've been thinking of an interesting performance of the Diabellis, couldn't remember the pianist's name. Finally located the CD. It's Bridge BCD 9010, and the pianist is Michael Oelbaum. The strongest contrast is with Richter. The first variation By Oelbaum seems underplayed in comparison, but the Alla Marcia maestoso is emphatic enough to work, and it 'sets the tone'. I get a sense of 'organic' development throughout the work, possibly caused by choices of dynamics and pace. The final two variations seem inevitable, as if no other ending is possible. Where Richter makes the work a showcase of what convolutions and somersaults that simple waltz can be transformed into, Oelbaum makes the work a single organism of diverse parts.

I say that the strongest contrast is with Richter, because what Mustonen does is a thing apart, a result of an unusual imagination.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Reheard the *Webster Aitken *recording of the Diabellis and definitely liked its unusualness and underlying sense of forward energy. There are only few technical irregularities if compared to his accompanying "Hammerklavier", which at times makes that sonata sound like a Jackson Pollock painting, with modernist, fireworks-like gestures, but very, very sketchy (in the concluding fugue especially) ... Apparently _Moody_ isn´t a fan of Glenn Gould, and the early Gould recordings often came to my mind (his Beethoven, for instance), so seen from that perspective I understand if some may find this recording too eccentric.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Ukko said:


> I've been thinking of an interesting performance of the Diabellis, couldn't remember the pianist's name. Finally located the CD. It's Bridge BCD 9010, and the pianist is Michael Oelbaum. The strongest contrast is with Richter. The first variation By Oelbaum seems underplayed in comparison, but the Alla Marcia maestoso is emphatic enough to work, and it 'sets the tone'. I get a sense of 'organic' development throughout the work, possibly caused by choices of dynamics and pace. The final two variations seem inevitable, as if no other ending is possible. Where Richter makes the work a showcase of what convolutions and somersaults that simple waltz can be transformed into, Oelbaum makes the work a single organism of diverse parts.
> 
> I say that the strongest contrast is with Richter, because what Mustonen does is a thing apart, a result of an unusual imagination.


Oelbaum's performance is an epic quest. He plays the music as if it's a metaphor for Sisyphus and his rock. For the first time I really began to understand what people mean by making the variations unified. And I saw that it's a question of vision, of giving the music a meaning. You may not like Michael Oelbaum's understanding of the Diabelli Variations (I do -- but I've learned that there are people who want buffoonery, and there ain't no clowning in Michael Oelbaum's performance for sure) But you can't deny that it's good to have such a clear sighted coherent performance.

When I was listening to Oelbaum's Diabellies I was reminded of Grinberg's op 111/ii. No hocus pocus in the final variations.

The strongest contrast I know is with Horszowski. But maybe Backhaus too -- I don't like Backhaus's Diabelli Variations.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

joen_cph said:


> Reheard the *Webster Aitken *recording of the Diabellis and definitely liked its unusualness and underlying sense of forward energy. There are only few technical irregularities if compared to his accompanying "Hammerklavier", which at times makes that sonata sound like a Jackson Pollock painting, with modernist, fireworks-like gestures, but very, very sketchy (in the concluding fugue especially) ... Apparently _Moody_ isn´t a fan of Glenn Gould, and the early Gould recordings often came to my mind (his Beethoven, for instance), so seen from that perspective I understand if some may find this recording too eccentric.


You're obviously making it sound interesting. Can you upload a transfer?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

I would say that what emerges from the above is whether one prefers the Germanic tradition and with one or two exceptions I do.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> You're obviously making it sound interesting. Can you upload a transfer?


If you have some patience, I´ll PM you about availabilty, but it will take a while.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> You're obviously making it sound interesting. Can you upload a transfer?


My guess is that, though you may like the sum, you will be dismayed by some of the parts.


----------



## LancsMan (Oct 28, 2013)

I admire the Diabelli variations - and I do enjoy listening to them - but I have to concentrate on them and need to be alert. Definitely not bed time music.

In contrast when it's late at night and I need chilling I would join Count Kaiserling in asking for the Goldberg Variations.

I only have two recordings of the Diabelli (as compared to six of the Goldberg) : my preferred Kovacevich 1968 recording and Arrau's 1985 recording.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Bas (from the low countries) got me started on this thread by asking if I liked the new Schiff fortepiano version of the Diabellis better than Staier's. So I gave it a listen and the answer is: I like Staier better, at least on first listen. Not for purists probably!

My fave among the piano recordings is still Paul Lewis, who plays it middle-of-the-road but very well indeed. But I can't think of a recording that I didn't like -- it's just a matter of degree.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I saw this performance suggested on another forum this morning -- Piotr Anderswewski. Beautifully recorded and filmed. The playing? Well, very interesting at the least!


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Beethoven is rarely what anyone would call a subtle composer, and if you take him down off a pedestal, dust him off, and really look at him a good number of times, a lot of the glamor of mystery of "the profundity" of it all kind of takes its place. Cap'n Moody also has decades on many of us who are nonetheless old coots, having racked up that many more auditions of live performances and more numerous recordings going further back in time.
> 
> LOL, you get so much under your belt that a comment like "the Khachaturian _Toccata_ is a nice piece" mightly offends some younger listener who is still busy with it at the stage a little after first discovery: they probably think it is one of the most profound things they've ever heard. Well, it is a nice piece. So, too, is the _Diabelli Variations_ a nice piece


That's silly. It's one thing to not like or appreciate the Diabelli Variations, but to paint its interest as an adolescent fantasy is farfetched. People who were not close to being adolescents in music (Tovey, Brendel, Schoenberg, von Bulow) were very praising of the work, Tovey calling it the greatest set of variations, and Brendel the greatest piano work written. I'm not sure why you bring up Beethoven being put up on a pedestal. At their highest, geniuses deserve to be highly regarded; as long as we understand that even "Homer nods" (one can point to many Beethoven pieces for that). This clearly isn't one of them.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

PetrB said:


> _What it means,_ to a performer, can always be reduced to the minutia of technical delivery: _without technique, there is no expression, period._
> 
> Musicians are not magic communicators, but like actors, have delved into the role on all levels in order to render to the audience something which will seem expressive to that audience. Unlike actors, there is no verbal text from which musicians can "extract a meaning," but only a bunch of notes on a page.
> 
> ...


I don't think understanding the musical fibre of a piece, the notes, the intonations, the silences, the meter, the tempo, the scales, the phrasing, the articulation, the dynamics, the accents and all the myriad things will necessarily contribute to the affect of music. In understanding these things, what you gain is a better insight into the making of the music, but you also sacrifice the ability to experience the music as music, as a supernatural affect, a sensual feeling. For you, it might be just a "sweet sentiment" and not acceptable, but that is what is music is, and in its highest moments, it is this sensual feeling it generates which justifies the existence of music more than any any technical reason, more than any "earthly" reasons of being a craft which engages the human mind. Because the human mind's highest product is passion - and it is this passion which is the great master which makes us ever become interested in something as vain as music.

Thank You.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

Ukko said:


> If I understand the posts (always a question), I am closer to agreement with _PetrB_'s notion than yours. The first variation, which Richter plays with a burlesque-like emphasis, seems to have most of the theme's material. subsequent variations drift away from that material, though the progress has a few variations that work as, ah, reminiscences. or maybe 'regroups'.
> 
> That pseudo-analysis is based on thoroughly subjective impressions. What the variations look like in the score is another thing, eh?


Heh. I haven't studied the score, but have heard the music. My impressions are vague and can easily be disagreed with. I only wanted to contribute to somebody else's analysis whose abilities would be sharper than mine. In other words, I was just hoping to start a conversation.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

As the dust has settled, I want to ask:

How many of you really love this piece, and think Brendel was not wrong when he said it's the most special among all piano works?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> Oelbaum's performance is an epic quest. He plays the music as if it's a metaphor for Sisyphus and his rock. For the first time I really began to understand what people mean by making the variations unified. And I saw that it's a question of vision, of giving the music a meaning. You may not like Michael Oelbaum's understanding of the Diabelli Variations (I do -- but I've learned that there are people who want buffoonery, and there ain't no clowning in Michael Oelbaum's performance for sure) But you can't deny that it's good to have such a clear sighted coherent performance.
> 
> When I was listening to Oelbaum's Diabellies I was reminded of Grinberg's op 111/ii. No hocus pocus in the final variations.
> 
> The strongest contrast I know is with Horszowski. But maybe Backhaus too -- I don't like Backhaus's Diabelli Variations.


I just noticed your comment on Wilhelm Backhaus.
When Joerg Demus made his double LP he played the Beethoven variations plus quite a number of the other composers, this included the eleven year old Liszt.
On Backhaus he commented :" For me the musical interpretation of Wilhelm Backhaus will always remain unforgettable ".
Interesting and you don't often see an artist recommending an alternate version in his own recording's notes.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

moody said:


> I just noticed your comment on Wilhelm Backhaus.
> When Joerg Demus made his double LP he played the Beethoven variations plus quite a number of the other composers, this included the eleven year old Liszt.
> On Backhaus he commented :" For me the musical interpretation of Wilhelm Backhaus will always remain unforgettable ".
> Interesting and you don't often see an artist recommending an alternate version in his own recording's notes.


Demus wrote jacket/liner notes for several of his recordings, and I never noticed his ego getting in the way of his judgement. Never heard it in his playing either - which may be why some folks find it too 'central'.

Backhaus' playing in the recordings I have exemplify for me 'strong & plain'. Too bad most of them are either in 'historical' sound or in old age. Seems to me he didn't compensate as well as Horszowski - didn't accommodate his physical limitations as well.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

I like some of Backhaus's Beethoven, especially the slow movement of the Hammerklavier. His Diabelli Variations has so far eluded me. Same with Schnabel's. Demus's own recording I've never heard. I've never appreciated Demus as a soloist though.


----------



## ShropshireMoose (Sep 2, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> I like some of Backhaus's Beethoven, especially the slow movement of the Hammerklavier. His Diabelli Variations has so far eluded me. Same with Schnabel's. Demus's own recording I've never heard. I've never appreciated Demus as a soloist though.


Backhaus and Schnabel are my two favourites for the Diabelli, I'm not sure whether Decca's recording has come out on CD, it only came out in Stereo in 1984, despite having been recorded in 1955! I don't think it's been out again since, it is superb.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

shangoyal said:


> I don't think understanding the musical fibre of a piece, the notes, the intonations, the silences, the meter, the tempo, the scales, the phrasing, the articulation, the dynamics, the accents and all the myriad things will necessarily contribute to the affect of music. In understanding these things, what you gain is a better insight into the making of the music, but you also sacrifice the ability to experience the music as music, as a supernatural affect, a sensual feeling. For you, it might be just a "sweet sentiment" and not acceptable, but that is what is music is, and in its highest moments, it is this sensual feeling it generates which justifies the existence of music more than any any technical reason, more than any "earthly" reasons of being a craft which engages the human mind. Because the human mind's highest product is passion - and it is this passion which is the great master which makes us ever become interested in something as vain as music.
> 
> Thank You.


I thank you, too, since we are in opposition here as to what is essential for music to happen, and that you are not at all emotionally hurt that I have another opinion. I often think that for the listener, music must seem all about feelings, passion, etc. What it stems from, and call that vain if you will, is the composer's urgent need to communicate something through the medium of music, and music alone (that last is a paraphrase of what Mitsuko Uchida so eloquently stated.)

But what you say of music and passion is all fine, but from a performer's point of view, highly romanticized, and somewhat a pop TV aesthetic too, "Just _feel_ it." etc. A performer can have all the right feelings, but without intellectual application and a lot of technical skill, the feeling just will not be communicated (unless you have a highly canny ability in the arena of E.S.P.)

_While none of that is a necessary concern of the recipients, it is the utmost necessity for any performer. I hasten to add their emotions are of course a part of it, but without the intellect, application and technique, the performer lacks almost all of what is essential to communicate to the listener._


----------



## BillT (Nov 3, 2013)

Novelette said:


> I enjoy all of Beethoven's many sets of variations, the Diabelli Variations included. Barenboim's performance is very strong, in my opinion, although I most enjoy Brendel's interpretation.


This one?

http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Dia...d=1386436254&sr=1-2&keywords=diabelli+brendel

I have not yet enjoyed the Diabelli, I want to try something.

Wait! Maybe this one since it's 2 CDs:

http://www.amazon.com/Diabelli-Vari...d=1386436254&sr=1-4&keywords=diabelli+brendel

- Bill


----------

