# Alfred Brendel Appreciation Thread



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I really enjoy his style of playing. While I feel it's best suited for Classical Era style, I enjoy hearing his Beethoven with the same kind of approach he utilizes with classical style era music.

His Beethoven is a bit emotionally detached, but I like how proper it sounds. He makes Beethoven rather pleasant and smooth which is refreshing. 

I have a disc of him doing some Haydn which was my first exposure to his style and I fell in love then.


He's great!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

It's not dissimilar to Gould who I feels approach was best suited for Baroque music, but is refreshing to hear him use that same touch on different eras.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Brendel is one of my favorite pianists. Not only for the Classical Era, but also for Schubert, Schumann, and even Liszt. I enjoy his intellectual (some might say over-intellectualized!) approach to the music. It's clear from his playing that he has analyzed the pieces thoroughly, with attention to the harmonies and structures, and he wants to communicate his analytical insights to the listener.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Bettina said:


> Brendel is one of my favorite pianists. Not only for the Classical Era, but also for Schubert, Schumann, and even Liszt. I enjoy his intellectual (some might say over-intellectualized!) approach to the music. It's clear from his playing that he has analyzed the pieces thoroughly, with attention to the harmonies and structures, and he wants to communicate his analytical insights to the listener.


I like the term you used, "analytic insights", it explains a lot including the concept that approach to the music can have different intentions and provide different results in what notions the music will convey. It also reinforces the concept of making a piece your own and using it as a vehicle to promote ideas.

Good assessment Bettina.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I used to find him boring, since he doesn't go for drastic effects, but later found he presents the music in a very logical way, and not without feeling and interpretive touches. Great pianist.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I haven't listened to enough Horowitz to be sure, but would it be accurate that he attempts to be as close to the score as possible, putting as little of himself into the music as possible and as much of the composer as possible he can? That's how I feel his Mozart, at least, comes across. It comes off as very studied.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I haven't listened to enough Horowitz to be sure, but would it be accurate that he attempts to be as close to the score as possible, putting as little of himself into the music as possible and as much of the composer as possible he can? That's how I feel his Mozart, at least, comes across. It comes off as very studied.


I used to hate him too. But i believe you got it, that he tries to stay true to the essence of the music. Coming accross as studied is not how I find it though. He plays like a machine technique-wise, but of course as human too.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I haven't listened to enough Horowitz to be sure, but would it be accurate that he attempts to be as close to the score as possible, putting as little of himself into the music as possible and as much of the composer as possible he can? That's how I feel his Mozart, at least, comes across. It comes off as very studied.


That's not how I hear Horowitz. To my ears, it sounds like he often deviated somewhat from the score (but in a very compelling way that appeals to me). He tended to use a lot of sudden - and extreme - dynamic contrasts, some of which are not notated in the score.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I used to hate him too. But i believe you got it, that he tries to stay true to the essence of the music. Coming accross as studied is not how I find it though. He plays like a machine technique-wise, but of course as human too.


When I say studied, I mean he took a close survey of the score to be as close to it as possible.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I used to hate him too. But i believe you got it, that he tries to stay true to the essence of the music. Coming accross as studied is not how I find it though. He plays like a machine technique-wise, but of course as human too.


Who did you love initially when you first got into classical? (Talking pianists here)


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Bettina said:


> That's not how I hear Horowitz. To my ears, it sounds like he often deviated somewhat from the score (but in a very compelling way that appeals to me). He tended to use a lot of sudden - and extreme - dynamic contrasts, some of which are not notated in the score.


It is difficult to not put a single ounce of yourself into the music, but on the whole, would you say he is a purist to the score and the composer's thoughts?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Who did you love initially when you first got into classical? (Talking pianists here)


Kempff, Kovacevich, and Gilels. I still like the last 2, but Kempff has started to annoy me sometimes. I used to like the poetry in his playing, but he seems to go overboard to me now. William Kapell as I said a few times is the only one I can listen to Chopin and Rachmaninov with. Both horowitz and Rubenstein thought very highly of Kapell, but unfortunately he died in an accident at a young age.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> It is difficult to not put a single ounce of yourself into the music, but on the whole, would you say he is a purist to the score and the composer's thoughts?


Apart from his added dynamics, I would agree that he was pretty much faithful to the score. His playing was extremely precise and clean - he had unbelievable technique! I have no idea how he managed to play such clean runs. His technical approach was rather idiosyncratic, with flat fingers instead of the standard curved hand position. It obviously worked for him!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Bettina said:


> Apart from his added dynamics, I would agree that he was pretty much faithful to the score. His playing was extremely precise and clean - he had unbelievable technique! I have no idea how he managed to play such clean runs. His technical approach was rather idiosyncratic, with flat fingers instead of the standard curved hand position. It obviously worked for him!


A lot of great pianists used flat fingers. Arrau was another. Can't remember who else. I got into an argument before about that with someone who claims they should be curved.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I remember once hearing the notion that all the greatest pianists had their own sense of technique. One of my "flaws" in my playing, or re-worded in a positive light, something unique to my playing, is I don't always use the same fingering when performing my pieces, but it works for me.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I remember once hearing the notion that all the greatest pianists had their own sense of technique. One of my "flaws" in my playing, or re-worded in a positive light, something unique to my playing, is I don't always use the same fingering when performing my pieces, but it works for me.


Really? I use the same formula for fingering, it helps me remember a piece better. Honestly i have zero spontaniety. Even when I speak.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Kempff, Kovacevich, and Gilels. I still like the last 2, but Kempff has started to annoy me sometimes. I used to like the poetry in his playing, but he seems to go overboard to me now. William Kapell as I said a few times is the only one I can listen to Chopin and Rachmaninov with. Both horowitz and Rubenstein thought very highly of Kapell, but unfortunately he died in an accident at a young age.


Kempff was the original Lang Lang, haha! That is certainly an exaggeration, Kempff's facial expressions I feel are more genuine but partially exaggerated, but not to the extent of Lang Lang.

I think Kempff is very lyrical and romantic, his Beethoven is phenomenal. I recently got his versions of Beethoven's concertos and I heard a more energized and youthful (I think) Kempff; it had a great ferocity to it compared to older Kempff which is more lyrical and subdued.

I love Kempff!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Really? I use the same formula for fingering, it helps me remember a piece better. Honestly i have zero spontaniety. Even when I speak.


Most of my spontaneity in performance is shown in my dynamics. I leave that to be inspired in the moment! Pedaling and fingering and touch is all left to be inspired in the moment of the performance.

I used to think if I ever published my pieces, I wouldn't put any dynamic markings, leaving it open to each pianist to interpret, since that happens inevitably anyways!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Kempff was the original Lang Lang, haha! That is certainly an exaggeration, Kempff's facial expressions I feel are more genuine but partially exaggerated, but not to the extent of Lang Lang.
> 
> I think Kempff is very lyrical and romantic, his Beethoven is phenomenal. I recently got his versions of Beethoven's concertos and I heard a more energized and youthful (I think) Kempff; it had a great ferocity to it compared to older Kempff which is more lyrical and subdued.
> 
> I love Kempff!


Yeah, i got both of his sets of Beethoven concertos. i used to like the later one more, but later wondered what I was thinking!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I have the 1953 version which I believe is the later version?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I have the 1953 version which I believe is the later version?


Earlier. The later in stereo is with Leitner. Forgot the conductor for the first which was in mono


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Earlier. The later in stereo is with Leitner. Forgot the conductor for the first which was in mono


Paul van Kempen


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Bettina said:


> Brendel is one of my favorite pianists. Not only for the Classical Era, but also for Schubert, Schumann, and even Liszt. I enjoy his intellectual (some might say over-intellectualized!) approach to the music. It's clear from his playing that he has analyzed the pieces thoroughly, with attention to the harmonies and structures, and he wants to communicate his analytical insights to the listener.


Hallelujah , one of my finest boxes is the Brendel set, love it.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Alfred Brendel. One of the understated greats.
I first heard the Beethoven piano sonatas played by Brendel.
And so much other stuff, too.
He remains a top shelf pick in my disc collection.

Nowadays I turn to this set when I wish to access some Brendel magic:


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I would love to splurge on a boxset of a pianist, Brendel would certainly be on my mind as a consideration!


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I would love to splurge on a boxset of a pianist, Brendel would certainly be on my mind as a consideration!


Worth ever dollar cent in you case, mine is euros.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I would love to splurge on a boxset of a pianist, Brendel would certainly be on my mind as a consideration!


"...includes all twelve of Brendel's complete Beethoven cycles..." Just kidding, I think. Did the guy think he was von Karajan?


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

I like his interpretation of Haydn, Mozart, Schubert, and part of Beethoven and Schumann.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Bettina said:


> Brendel is one of my favorite pianists. Not only for the Classical Era, but also for Schubert, Schumann, and even Liszt. I enjoy his intellectual (some might say over-intellectualized!) approach to the music. It's clear from his playing that he has analyzed the pieces thoroughly, with attention to the harmonies and structures, and he wants to communicate his analytical insights to the listener.


This ^^^ spot on :tiphat:


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Brendel is at his best in his recording of the Beethoven Bagatelles.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Brendel is my go-to for Beethoven piano sonatas, not to the exclusion of other fine pianists (Gilels, Solomon) but for an account that is true to the score, never show-boating, and not afraid to bring out the lightness and humour that is often present in Beethoven. When younger, he was a fine Liszt interpreter too. I have his recording of L's B-min sonata, which has a structural integrity to it that some of today's flash young finger-gymnasts would do well to notice.


----------



## Alydon (May 16, 2012)

Ever since I started listening to classical music Alfred Brendel has been one of my all time favourite musicians. To me most of his recordings are 'benchmark' and if I could take one pianist's recordings of the Viennese classical period, Brendel would be the man. 
I have always found a very direct approach with Brendel's playing and he has the uncanny ability to lay the score out in front of you as though this is the first time you have heard the music; I think back to his Wigmore Hall Beethoven cycle which was momentous and awe inspiring. Peerless in Beethoven, thought provoking in Schubert and idiosyncratic in Haydn and Mozart and many others, Alfred Brendel has left a massive legacy for further generations to enjoy.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

He is one of the greatest, pure and simple fact.


----------

