# On the Subject of Tempo: Beethoven Piano Sonata #32, Op.111 Arietta



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

I have always had a preference for the 'slower' (adagios & andantes) movements of classical works perhaps because they 'calm the savage beast'.  My favorite is the Arietta from Beethoven's Piano Sonata #32, Op. 111, IMO, on the short list of greatest classical piano works of all time.

It has been my experience that the tempi of Beethoven's piano adagios is a subject of great variation among pianists. In the case of the Arietta, timing can vary from 15 to 21 minutes!

It's interesting that tempo marking of the Arietta is often given as 'Adagio molto semplice e cantabile' which has been interpreted as 'very slow in a simple singing manner' or somesuch. However, apparently in Beethoven's autograph version, he first wrote simply 'Adagio', but later, in different handwriting, he added 'molto semplice e cantabile' which some interpreters have taken to mean that, the 'molto' was meant to refer to the 'semplice e cantabile', not to the 'Adagio' (ie. Adagio molto). But it seems to me that Beethoven could have, in fact, meant the 'molto' to refer to 'Adagio'.

Further, Andras Schiff in his Op.111 lecture discussing the Arietta (start at 18 minutes) criticizes the use of a 'very' slow tempo of the Arietta, particularly in the opening, saying, for one thing, that it would not have been practical on a fortepiano of Beethoven's era.





Here is an example of a faster tempo:






Now listen to Barenboim's 2006 version which I, by far, prefer. In fact, I consider Daniel Barenboim to be one of the top Beethoven Sonata interpreters. In the Arietta, not only is his opening statement of the theme one of the most beautiful piano experiences for me, but he also interprets the recapitulation (perhaps 'resolution' would be better) (start at 15:50) in a way that gives it the importance it deserves, not to mention fleshing out nuances that so many other performers miss when they play this section much faster and louder.






Obviously, this subject is a matter of a listener's individual taste. Personally, I reject Andra Schiff's premise that the limitations of the piano Beethoven might have had access to is a determinant as to how the Arietta should be played on modern pianos. I am moved far more by an 'Adagio molto' interpretation. 

Other viewpoints?


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Well I don't know if this is correct but I think I read somewhere that Beethoven himself had a tendency to take faster tempos than were indicated in his scores. I happen to like both extremes myself but listen to Gould's and Brendel's version more than others.

Gould's I couldn't find but it clocks in at 15 minutes and 15 seconds.

Here's Brendel's which you'll probably like more as it's slower..


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

I nearly always prefer a slower tempo, I want good music to last forever.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

To be honest, I tend to judge Arietta performances by whether or not they transport me, regardless of tempo, and I haven't noticed the relationship with Op. 111, nearly much as with the slow movement of the Hammerklavier, or (similarly) with the first movement of Schubert's G major sonata -- in both cases giving the music room to breathe is essential. (My favorite Arietta, by the way, is a little heralded recording by Andrew Rangell -- which descends, in his own words, to a "silence, at the end, unlike any heard before." It clocks in at 17:50)


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

I generally prefer faster tempos for nearly everything pre-Modern. For this sonata I'm only really familiar with Pollini's recording; his Arietta is 17 minutes long, but I don't have much to compare it to.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Pogorelich's Arietta is well worth hearing. It clocks in at 19:42, but it works and never drags one iota. Also, his "boogie-woogie" variation is quick and crisp and has unusually clean articulation and rhythmic precision, something not all pianists manage.

It may be this YouTube performance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE2iyBRmA_g


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

KenOC said:


> Pogorelich's Arietta is well worth hearing. It clocks in at 19:42, but it works and never drags one iota. Also, his "boogie-woogie" variation is quick and crisp and has unusually clean articulation and rhythmic precision, something not all pianists manage.
> 
> It may be this YouTube performance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE2iyBRmA_g


The Pogorelich YouTube performance is one of my favorites, not too far behind Barenboim's. I purchased the Pogorelich CD thinking it would be the same or similar, but was surprised to find that it was not and that I didn't enjoy it as much as the YouTube.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Andras Schiff's point about the slower tempo not being practical on the fortepiano of Beethoven's time might be a valid one. But, it doesn't entirely convince me as an "case closed" kind of argument. Beethoven, throughout most of his career, was never entirely concerned with capability of the instrument or the players he was writing for. In retrospect, none of the parts in his works seem terribly outlandish or difficult for the instrument because they have been in the repertoire for so long. But at the time, many of the parts to his pieces seemed nearly impossible from the players perspective and he usually didn't give a fudge. 

But especially at this time in his life, in his late period, I think he was even less concerned with practicality in his instrumental parts and he was primarily concerned with achieving some sort of transcendence in his music. 

That, and the fact that he was using the vibrations of the strings rather than actually hearing the sound of the piano to determine the outcome of his music on an acoustic level could support the idea that he wrote slower than practical music for the instrument because the vibration of the string probably would have lasted a bit longer than the sound would have practically carried in the acoustic space of the room he was in.

But I could go either way as far as a definite performing tempo.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Take a look at his metronome marking for the slow movement of the Hammerklavier sonata. That is a pretty fast tempo, and few if any pianists play it that fast (Brautigam is maybe a tiny bit slower).

I don't think it's a bad idea to play these movements according to modern sensibilities, but I personally used to feel that classical era adagios and largos and such were always too slow in the hands of modern pianists, especially in Mozart, and that the composers didn't mean "play this so that it drags" when they used the italian tempo indications. I think Beethoven's metronome marking in op 106 is evidence of this.

I've learned to listen to slow music in a different manner though, and the modern piano does support slower tempos better than period pianos.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

It is at this point in the conversation I'd like to draw attention to the link in this thread going on in orchestral music...

http://www.talkclassical.com/41686-what-junk.html

How's that for slower music?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Pianists typically use different tempos for each part of op 111/ii. Schnabel's first recording set a sort of tradition of playing the theme (Arietta) slowly and the subsequent two variations _much_ faster.

Carl Haslinger and Carl Czerny specify dotted-eighth = 63 for the Arietta. Schnabel begins at a tempo closer to half of this speed and manages to almost reach it when he gets to the end of the second variation. The tempos of subsequent variations are anywhere and everywhere in Schnabel's hands.

It doesn't seem to matter whether people choose a modern instrument or an authentic one. Both Edwin Fischer and Paul Badura Skoda (Astrée) play more or less in line with Haslinger and Czerny's tempos.

Beethoven as far as I know left no indication whatsoever about the tempo relation between variations - you would have thought that one real possibility would be that he wanted the same pulse maintained over the whole second movement. I'm not sure any record does this - over to the real Beethoven cognoscenti to suggest one.


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

Whenever I play it I keep the pulse as close to identical as I can manage it. It makes it feel so much more cohesive (but then I do the same with all three movements of the Moonlight Sonata as well). You're right, very few professionals do that. I can't fathom why---too obvious?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

If you've ever heard any HIP versions of it (Brautigam's is as good as any), I think you'd find that Schiff's arguments holds up pretty well. It's hard to imagine that melody "singing" when played slowly on a fortepiano. That said, I'm not of the mind that we must be slavish to HIP, and one of the great benefits of modern instruments is that we have the freedom to try things slower. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. As I mentioned in the "Listening to" thread, one of my favorite recordings is Richter's version of Schubert's 21st Sonata which he takes very slowly indeed: 




I have difficulty arguing that Richter is actually playing either "allegro moderato" in the first movement or "andante sostenuto" in the second, but I think it brings a level of depth and spirituality to that work I've rarely heard in faster interpretations. Regarding the Beethoven, it's one of my favorite pieces, and I actually like it somewhere in the middle between fast and slow. I think too slowly and you lose the "singing" quality, too fast and you lose the depth. I'm personally not a fan of Barenboim as a pianist, including his Beethoven. Not sure what my favorite would be, but Arrau was the first to come to mind. Appropriately, his total time is about 19-minutes, right between the Chen and Barenboim times: 





Of course, one of the beauties of recording is that we don't necessarily have to choose a "right" or "best" approach and can instead appreciate the different qualities that various interpretations bring.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Just for the sake of clarity, the Barenboim is almost exactly 20 minutes (a little over 2 minutes is applause). I've always been a fan of Arrau's Beethoven.

I wish the Richter Schubert was a higher quality recording. I would have enjoyed hearing the D960 at that slow a pace- never have before.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DaveM said:


> I wish the Richter Schubert was a higher quality recording. I would have enjoyed hearing the D960 at that slow a pace- never have before.


This is the downside of most Richter, as with Furtwangler. The best sounding version I've heard is the Praga SACD, which is now OOP. There's a studio version that's slightly faster and in better sound.


----------



## GrosseFugue (Nov 30, 2011)

I love this mvt. too! I was listening to Steven Osborne's last night!

But just how many variations are there in the mvt? 
I've read descriptions ranging from 5 to 9. Huh???

I wish music labels would break up this slow mvt into multiple tracks for easier reference and navigation.
For that matter -- they should also do it for the Grosse Fuge and the 9th symphony finale! 
Just a pet peeve of mine. :scold:


----------

