# Your top 5 Beethoven piano sonatas cycles?



## Itullian

Or however many you think one should own.


----------



## DavidMahler

Arrau (especially since it comes with the concertos)

Kovacevich on EMI

Gilels (incomplete)

Brendel's second cycle

Kempff

However, I do think Pollini is champion in the final 5.

Richard Goode's is very good and was championed initially, but I dont think it stands up to the 5 I named. Schnaebel's is great if you don't mind mediocre sound.


----------



## UberB

I think Beethoven's piano sonatas are one of the works that no complete set are satisfactory. However, I would recommend:

1. Gilels (incomplete)
2. Kovacevich
3. Arrau

From here I don't like many other complete sets. Brendel and Goode for example are too restrained and don't capture the essence of this music. However Pollini's late sonatas disc is a must. From here onwards, if you are a big fan of the New Testament of piano literature (like me) then you should seek out Richter and Gilels live recordings. IMO they are two of the greatest Beethoven pianists. For example:

1. Richter in Leipzig, contains superlative recordings of opp. 109-111 (especially op.109 has never been equaled in my opinion).

2. Richter in Prague, contains much of his repertoire, including one of the greatest recordings of the Hammerklavier.

3. Richter's 1960 Moscow recording of the Appassionata on Melodiya, coupled with the Pathetique and some bagatelles. Possibly the best Appassionata on disc.

4. Gilels Plays Beethoven from the Brilliant Classics box. Among which includes the best op. 90 I have ever heard.


----------



## Guest

No love for the Schiff? Or Paul Lewis? Hmm.


----------



## markgarm

I like davidmahler's choices but would fit in Claude Frank somewhere .


----------



## nasoferm

*My top Beethoven Piano Sonatas:*

I couldn't choose 5 so I've sorted the sonatas like this:

1-3: Pollini, 4-7 Gilels, 8 Jandó, 9 Brendel (1995), 10-12 Gilels, 13 Lewis, 14 Kissin, 15 Lewis, 16-21 Gilels, 22 Brendel (1995), 23 Jandó, 24 Brendel (1995), 25-27 Gilels, 28-32 Pollini.


----------



## Oskaar

No. 1 deffinitively..
Gilels

Pommier
Barenboim
Kempff
Brendel


----------



## Amfibius

DavidMahler said:


> Brendel's second cycle


I don't "get" Brendel. However - given that the man knows far more about music than I do, I am sure that the problem must be mine and not his. Could you help me by pointing out what I am missing? What's so good about this set?


----------



## Oskaar

The sound is very good. And Brendel plays very light and techically good. He lacks some emphathy though.


----------



## Amfibius

My wife and I call Brendel "Mr. Excitement", because he never fails to send us to sleep. Everything is played the same anaesthetized way. The problem I have with him is that everything he is good at is bettered by someone else. Want a more pure Germanic interpretation? Try Kempff. More grand vision and philosophy? Try Schnabel. More musical fireworks? Try Richter and Gilels. A prettier tone? Try Schiff (although I must admit that Brendel is close!). Something a bit different? Try Brautigam.


----------



## kv466

Not a single performance out there has the attitude and sexiness that Bernstein is able to produce with this orchestra. And, by far, not a single soloist understands the music so well...has the physical ability to actually play and phrase the sections with precision and with virtuosity. The left hand is not simply a weak attempt at an accompaniment to the stronger right; the left hand, in this and in all the Beethoven concertos played by this man, is just as strong and powerful as the right and the two of them together play the most fascinating piano ever played. The cadenza is the most precise, most powerful and with the best display of virtuosity out of any ever laid down. I've challenged myself repeatedly to find something more gorgeous and I've been unsuccessful at that.

There are many live versions out there I would not speak so highly of; I refer to the studio released versions of the Beethoven concertos that you can hear on this disc:


----------



## science

I can't imagine having 5 complete sets of Beethoven's sonatas, let alone so many that I would be able to pick a top 5 - and having listened to them often enough to be qualified to do so! Unless it were my job or something...

I have Gilels and a lot of Pollini and Jandó. I like them all, especially Pollini in the late sonatas. Don't underestimate Jandó just because he recorded for Naxos: he is phenomenal. 

Someday I might get Brendel, but for now I'm not a fan of buying more recordings of music that I already have.


----------



## Vaneyes

I don't have or want, but here goes.

Completes - Gulda, Pollini, Arrau, Ashkenazy, Kovacevich

Incompletes - Gilels, Gould


----------



## nasoferm

BPS said:


> No love for the Schiff? Or Paul Lewis? Hmm.


I think I'll have to revise my own toplist after I bought the Schiff-set.
As all complete sets, it's not perfect (I've stopped looking for that), however I personally like the sound and character of Shiff's cycle. His Op.101 is now my absolute favourite.

Highlights: Op.26, Op.28, Op.79, Op.81a and an absolutely stunning Op.101


----------



## nasoferm

science said:


> I can't imagine having 5 complete sets of Beethoven's sonatas, let alone so many that I would be able to pick a top 5 - and having listened to them often enough to be qualified to do so! Unless it were my job or something...
> 
> I have Gilels and a lot of Pollini and Jandó. I like them all, especially Pollini in the late sonatas. Don't underestimate Jandó just because he recorded for Naxos: he is phenomenal.
> 
> Someday I might get Brendel, but for now I'm not a fan of buying more recordings of music that I already have.


I second your thoughts about Jando, his complete set is really good. His Op.2 is very good, and his Op.27 is almost on par with my favourite; Evgeny Kissin.


----------



## moody

Itullian said:


> Or however many you think one should own.


Why do people keep talking in cycles, I would have thought these sonatas are such that it is much more suitable to pick horses for courses.i.e. I would want (probably) a different pianist for say "Hammerklavier" than one for Nos 1and 2.Having said that if a set must be purchased the Wilhelm Kempf is really very good.


----------



## moody

kv466 said:


> Not a single performance out there has the attitude and sexiness that Bernstein is able to produce with this orchestra. And, by far, not a single soloist understands the music so well...has the physical ability to actually play and phrase the sections with precision and with virtuosity. The left hand is not simply a weak attempt at an accompaniment to the stronger right; the left hand, in this and in all the Beethoven concertos played by this man, is just as strong and powerful as the right and the two of them together play the most fascinating piano ever played. The cadenza is the most precise, most powerful and with the best display of virtuosity out of any ever laid down. I've challenged myself repeatedly to find something more gorgeous and I've been unsuccessful at that.
> 
> There are many live versions out there I would not speak so highly of; I refer to the studio released versions of the Beethoven concertos that you can hear on this disc:


My goodness, so you actually quite like these two then I take it!!!


----------



## moody

nasoferm said:


> I second your thoughts about Jando, his complete set is really good. His Op.2 is very good, and his Op.27 is almost on par with my favourite; Evgeny Kissin.


Yes, but in the case of great works it is not just the tune that you are interested in but interpretation.I have Fifteen versions of the "Emperor" because otherwise it is rather like saying,"well I've seen Shakespeare's Othello now I don't ever need to see it again. In the case of say, Bolero, one is quite enough or perhaps too many!


----------



## nasoferm

moody said:


> Yes, but in the case of great works it is not just the tune that you are interested in but interpretation.I have Fifteen versions of the "Emperor" because otherwise it is rather like saying,"well I've seen Shakespeare's Othello now I don't ever need to see it again. In the case of say, Bolero, one is quite enough or perhaps too many!


I totally agree, and I've also found that I prefer different versions on different occations. Don't know why, but my favourite LvB PC, the fourth, is amazing with Fleisher/Szell one day, and just a couple hours of sleep later I NEED the Perahia/Haitink version 

I've realized that the only way possible is to buy as many versions as possible


----------



## Il_Penseroso

Only two: Backhaus and Kempff, for Beethoven sonatas you'll need a pianist from german traditional school.


----------



## nasoferm

moody said:


> Why do people keep talking in cycles, I would have thought these sonatas are such that it is much more suitable to pick horses for courses.i.e. I would want (probably) a different pianist for say "Hammerklavier" than one for Nos 1and 2.Having said that if a set must be purchased the Wilhelm Kempf is really very good.


For me, buying a cycle is a good way of getting to know a performer. It's also a quite nice way to build a collection and updating your own "best-off". As I've written before, I tend to have different favourites on different days/weeks/years. Having several sets is therefore a good way of securing "my daily Beethoven" to be enjoyable


----------



## Itullian

folks i know all have several cycles like Kempff, Gilels, Arrau, Brendel, Franck, Kuerti, Scnabel, Barenboim, Kovacevich, Nikoleyva, Gulda,Goode, etc

bunches of them


----------



## joen_cph

I have 5 complete cycles, but they are not the best 5, it´s partly the result of not having unlimited finances. A guy on another forum has 63 complete cycles.

Mine are: Schnabel, Kempff stereo, Brendel/vox, Gulda/Amadeo, Kuerti. 

Among them, Brendel and Gulda appeal the least to my taste, but they do have some interesting moments, and as regards Kempff I mainly listen to the 29th, not so much the others. 

So Schnabel and Kuerti would qualify for an ideal 5 complete cycles. The others would probably be Kovacevich/EMI, Gilels 31 Sonatas/DG, the last I´d have to think more about. Other Gilels recordings than those of the DG set however often tend to be better.

That said, I´ve got a lot of selected sonata recordings, presenting a variety of styles and pianists. Some favourite Beethoven pianists of mine are Yudina, Ernst Levy, Richter, Gould and Hungerford. None of them made an official complete set, three of them only a handful of sonatas.


----------



## moody

joen_cph said:


> I have 5 complete cycles, but they are not the best 5, it´s partly the result of not having unlimited finances. A guy on another forum has 63 complete cycles.
> 
> Mine are: Schnabel, Kempff stereo, Brendel/vox, Gulda/Amadeo, Kuerti.
> 
> Among them, Brendel and Gulda appeal the least to my taste, but they do have some interesting moments, and as regards Kempff I mainly listen to the 29th, not so much the others.
> 
> So Schnabel and Kuerti would qualify for an ideal 5 complete cycles. The others would probably be Kovacevich/EMI, Gilels 31 Sonatas/DG, the last I´d have to think more about. Other Gilels recordings than those of the DG set however often tend to be better.
> 
> That said, I´ve got a lot of selected sonata recordings, presenting a variety of styles and pianists. Some favourite Beethoven pianists of mine are Yudina, Ernst Levy, Richter, Gould and Hungerford. None of them made an official complete set, three of them only a handful of sonatas.


The Kempff mono set with Paul van Kempen is superior, look out for that.


----------



## joen_cph

As regards the piano concerti, my list is different ! 

The few Kempff mono sonatas (some earlier than his mono complete set) I´ve heard were indeed more spontaneous than his later stereo version & I generally like that.


----------



## Juan

The problem with old cycles, like Schnabel, is the poor sound quality. I cannot stand mono recordings. I have many spared sonatas by many top pianists (Barenboim, Arrau, Kovacevich, Richter, Gelber, etc.), but only 2 complete cycles: Brendel (the last one) and Jando (Naxos). The Jando cycle tends to be underated (because being Naxos, i think). It is not the best, but a pretty decent set.

Regards


----------



## moody

Juan said:


> The problem with old cycles, like Schnabel, is the poor sound quality. I cannot stand mono recordings. I have many spared sonatas by many top pianists (Barenboim, Arrau, Kovacevich, Richter, Gelber, etc.), but only 2 complete cycles: Brendel (the last one) and Jando (Naxos). The Jando cycle tends to be underated (because being Naxos, i think). It is not the best, but a pretty decent set.
> 
> Regards


Yes, but you listen to them because they are history and in Schnabel's case because you will never hear its like again. I think the most modern recording I have is Gilels/Szell and that was in the 60's or early 70's I'm not really interested in recordings to listen to a performance per se. That's why most of my vocals are no later than the 60's


----------



## moody

joen_cph said:


> As regards the piano concerti, my list is different !
> 
> The few Kempff mono sonatas (some earlier than his mono complete set) I´ve heard were indeed more spontaneous than his later stereo version & I generally like that.


I think the reason was probably age.


----------



## moody

Il_Penseroso said:


> Only two: Backhaus and Kempff, for Beethoven sonatas you'll need a pianist from german traditional school.


I understand what you mean but I thought I should visit this again only to mention some of the greatest Beethoven interpreters : Emil Gilels, Cor de Groot, Robert Casadesus, Lili Kraus, Charles Rosen, Rudolf Serkin, Yves Nat, Egon Petri. So now there is a problem although it depends what school of pianism their teachers came from. That can be checked out pretty essily but I doubt they were all the German school.


----------



## nasoferm

Gerhard Oppitz hasn't been mentioned yet. His cycle can be recommended allthough I think the deep echo in this recording is somewhat "too much" when listening for more than one hour. I've solved it by switching over to the more dry and direct sound from Gilels. But Oppitz does a fenomenal job, for example The Waldstein is superb imho.


----------



## realdealblues

I have a bunch of cycles and Gilels is the top for me. I only wish he had recorded the full cycle before he died. I wouldn't continue to look anywhere else if he had. I actually like Ashkenazy's cycle although I know it's not very popular with most Beethoven fans. I'm not a huge fan of Brendel like many others here have stated, but I'm also not a big fan of Kempff's recordings either which usually puts me in the minority. I have the Lewis, Frank, Arrau, Goode and Fischer's sets as well but I really haven't sat down and really listened to each sonata giving them all the time they deserve like I have with Gilels, Kempff, Brendel and Ashkenazy. I just picked up Barenboim's set and have heard and read about it for many years so I'm interested in hearing it. Pollini is one I have only heard 1 or 2 from as well. They are all magnificent players. I just have an idea of how "I feel" each sonata should sound when I hear it in my mind and Gilels is the closest to what I hear inside.


----------



## DavidA

Of complete sets I have only Kempff (stereo) and Schnabel. However, I have some of Kempff's earlier, mono, set which is even better than his second. Sschnabel is revelatory though somewhat inconsistent interpretively and technically. Serkin/s is incomplete but compelling and Glenn Gould is (well) Glenn Gould - quirky and provocative but usually compelling except in his lunatic Appassionata. Gould makes you rethink the music. I have some of Solomon's which has a mighty Hammerklavier and Richter live on Brilliant classics which has some tremendous performances.


----------



## KenOC

Cycles...Gilels, or for a complete cycle Schiff. See this:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/sy...ZP1D2U2Q1EK/ref=cm_sylt_byauthor_title_full_5


----------



## DavidA

I notice Sony have reissued Glenn Gould's incomplete set of the sonatas at super-budget price (along with many other of his recordings.) They are idiosyncratic but well worth hearing.


----------



## moody

Itullian said:


> Or however many you think one should own.


Why does everybody talk in cycles these days?


----------



## moody

DavidA said:


> Of complete sets I have only Kempff (stereo) and Schnabel. However, I have some of Kempff's earlier, mono, set which is even better than his second. Sschnabel is revelatory though somewhat inconsistent interpretively and technically. Serkin/s is incomplete but compelling and Glenn Gould is (well) Glenn Gould - quirky and provocative but usually compelling except in his lunatic Appassionata. Gould makes you rethink the music. I have some of Solomon's which has a mighty Hammerklavier and Richter live on Brilliant classics which has some tremendous performances.


I agree with you--apart from Gould.


----------



## realdealblues

moody said:


> Why does everybody talk in cycles these days?


Why not? I personally wouldn't want to go without having all 32 sonatas on CD.

It's hard and expensive to find individual recordings to build a collection including all 32 sonatas.

It's also nice (and I also prefer to hear) one persons take on the entire set.

Same goes for Symphonies, Concertos, etc.

So, why not talk in cycles?


----------



## Ukko

^^ The 'why not' is that you won't have the performance of _each_ sonata that connects with you the best, nor will you have performances that were particularly associated with a pianist, e.g. Op. 2/3 with ABM.

Nowadays, if you have a computer connected to good speakers, you can hear most of the sonatas in good enough sound to find those humdingers before you buy. You younkers have it dicked (as I like to mention to my nephews whenever the opportunity presents itself).


----------



## Alydon

I think you should own them all - but spare cash and shelve space allowing, these are my top choices in no particular ord

Schnabel: The prophet playing the New Testament as it were.

Brendel: His latest complete Philips set. There are many pianists similar to each other, but no other like Brendel.

Kempff: The mono set. A great thinker and will guide you through the music as though he had written it himself.

There are many, many separate recordings which will on occassions surpass the above, but as complete sets these are my favourites.


----------



## moody

realdealblues said:


> Why not? I personally wouldn't want to go without having all 32 sonatas on CD.
> 
> It's hard and expensive to find individual recordings to build a collection including all 32 sonatas.
> 
> It's also nice (and I also prefer to hear) one persons take on the entire set.
> 
> Same goes for Symphonies, Concertos, etc.
> 
> So, why not talk in cycles?


We thrashed our way through this a year ago but.....
i've had a look at the Beethoven cycles available and the cycles under construction.
Paul Lewis, Andras Schiff Angela Hewitt,Mari Kodama,Maria Crinberg and Jonathon Biss. i cannot imagine any reason to buy these versions of the sonatas.
Brendel,Barenboim and Ashkenazy are fairly uninteresting artists as far as I'm concerned.
Some of these sonatas are only for giants to perform, so why choose pygmys? As for expense---anything worthwhile is worth saving for and it took me sixty years to build up my collection and I'm not (quite) finished yet.
The cycles by Gilels, Kempf (mono), Schnabel and Solomon altho' in two cases not complete are magnificent.
One in the making is that of Garrick Ohlsson, not mentioned enough here,should certainly be interesting.
But to backtrack slightly, Horowitz is not perhaps the pianist that I would first think of for Beethoven. But in 1960 RCA issued a recording of him doing the Appassionata and I have never heard anything like it and doubt I ever will.But of course he made no cycle and I doubt that he would have been interested.
Charles Rosen has just passed away, everyone should have his late sonata recordings but he didn't record a cycle.


----------



## eighthundredfortynine

Schnabel, Gulda and Brautigam are the best cycles.


----------



## Webernite

Is Brautigam's _Diabelli_ out yet? I want to hear that.


----------



## hreichgott

No one has mentioned Peter Takacs yet. His complete cycle came out in 2009? Some recent year. 

Beethoven is Takacs' life's work and it shows in this performance. It's intelligent playing with drama where called for.

The cycle ships with a book-length scholarly essay by Takacs.


----------



## Bruce

My own preference is Barenboim, though he plays the slow movement of 29 too slowly for my taste; I think he loses the form of the movement. Though I know Kempff is considered one of the best interpreters of Beethoven, I am bothered by what seems to be some rather inaccurate playing, and he doesn't bring out certain melodic features the way other pianists do, especially in 6 and 25. (My favorite for 25 is Kuerti but I've not heard his complete set.) Gulda's interpretations are amazingly precise, technically, but I feel he plays most of the sonatas too fast. Second to Barenboim for me would be Brendel's Phillips set. Thanks to those who have recommended Kovacevich and Jando; I have not heard these.


----------



## DavidA

As a one-off single disc I have just bought Richter's performance of Beethoven's Hammerklaview Sonata - the Festvial Hall performance, London 1975. I listened to it on the radio at the time. I was envious of my in-laws who were actually at the concert. The whole concert is on the disc. There is a simply tremendous performance of the Beethoven which must be one of the greatest ever committed to disc. Richter's control, drama, sense of line are all incredible. Unfortunately the disc does not have room for the encore he played at the time which was to repeat the final movement of the Hammerklavier. There was a lot of comment made about it at the time but it has not found its way onto this disc which is produced by ICA. But the disk remains a must have for Beethoven and Richter enthusiasts. Or simply for lovers of great piano playing.


----------



## Webernite




----------



## millionrainbows

1. Various Russians on the Audiophile label:









2. Then, Gulda
3. Robert Taub
4. Idil Biret
5. Schnabel


----------



## Albert7

Dang, I need to pick up the Gould piano sonata cycle while waiting for the Pollini version.


----------



## DavidA

albertfallickwang said:


> Dang, I need to pick up the Gould piano sonata cycle while waiting for the Pollini version.


They are nothing unless interesting! The Appassionata is perverse though!


----------



## KenOC

I'll jump:

1 - Gilels
2 - Schiff
3 - Buchbinder (latest)
4 - Kempff (either)
5 - Fischer

But watch out for the still-incomplete Bavouzet!


----------



## Albert7

For novelty sake, I will probably pick up the HJ Lim cycle that she completed (mostly) for EMI. I don't expect the best but if you look at the price/value per sonata it's pretty up there LOL. For $10 on iTunes it looks to be a pretty good value. Will get back here once I download it.


----------



## Lord Lance

Ah. "Best of" threads. They just won't die. 

Speaking of Beethoven's piano sonatas: How's Jeno Jando's interpretation of the thirty-two sonatas?


----------



## Triplets

Ludwig van Beethoven said:


> Ah. "Best of" threads. They just won't die.
> 
> Speaking of Beethoven's piano sonatas: How's Jeno Jando's interpretation of the thirty-two sonatas?


 Jando is an underrated Pianist because he recorded so extensivelly for Naxos. I don't have his complete cycle but sampled a few. He is better in the early and middle works. I would avoid his versions of the last great trio of Sonatas, which struck me as a bit slick and superficial.


----------



## Lord Lance

albertfallickwang said:


> For novelty sake, I will probably pick up the HJ Lim cycle that she completed (mostly) for EMI. I don't expect the best but if you look at the price/value per sonata it's pretty up there LOL. For $10 on iTunes it looks to be a pretty good value. Will get back here once I download it.


The price for the HJ lim set is 2.69$ in iTunes India.



albertfallickwang said:


> Dang, I need to pick up the Gould piano sonata cycle while waiting for the Pollini version.


The Gould set.

Convert the entire set in MP3 256 using clipconverter.cc or alternative: vidtomp3.com


----------



## Albert7

Ludwig van Beethoven said:


> The price for the HJ lim set is 2.69$ in iTunes India.
> 
> 
> The Gould set.
> 
> Convert the entire set in MP3 256 using clipconverter.cc or alternative: vidtomp3.com


Thanks for digging up the complete Gould set.  That solved my problem then .


----------



## Lord Lance

albertfallickwang said:


> Thanks for digging up the complete Gould set.  That solved my problem then .


I knew the link for quite sometime. I would highly recommend you check out the uploader's mightysmeagol's channel. His uploads are by far some of the best on YouTube. In three videos, for examples, he covered Stokowski's three box sets. God bless his soul. Also worth checking out are Arrau's recording of the 32 piano sonatas and Gulda's and Annie Fischer's, Maria Grinberg's set, Kempff's set [probably stereo; someone should verify] and the "greatest recording of Beethoven's piano sonatas because he did it first" Schnabel.

NOTE: If you liked these performances, buy them. Help the industry with the declining profits that is compositional music.


----------



## oliverletz

We (EL8ED Artists) just completed the first album of a Beethoven Sonatas series with Colombian pianist Eduardo Rojas - www.rojaspiano.com. We think he brings a new perspective and some invigorating zest and Latin fire to the table - iTunes: 




I do like Brendel's cycle for being the most Viennese rendition I've ever heard.

Cheers, 
Oliver

PS: Sorry for the shameless plug above - hope I didn't tread on anyone's toes.


----------



## Albert7

Just got the Pollini cycle in FLAC (before it even comes out in iTunes USA) and it rules. I rank it up there with Gould's and Schnabel's, etc.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

albertfallickwang said:


> Just got the Pollini cycle in FLAC (before it even comes out in iTunes USA) and it rules. I rank it up there with Gould's and Schnabel's, etc.


May I inquire where (how) you acquired it so early? I'd love to get my hands on it! I can't wait.


----------



## Albert7

DiesIraeVIX said:


> May I inquire where (how) you acquired it so early? I'd love to get my hands on it! I can't wait.


Just PM me please and we can talk further .


----------



## Tallisman

Very little love for the Backhaus, it seems. What a master.


----------



## david johnson

hey, I've got me some Backhaus and like it. my complete sonata box is first Kempff.


----------



## wkasimer

Kovacevich
Korstick
Annie Fischer
Goodyear
Schnabel
and
Brautigam


----------



## Itullian

Kempff
Arrau
Schnabel
Gilels
Claude Frank
+Gulda


----------



## wkasimer

Itullian said:


> Kempff
> Arrau
> Schnabel
> Gilels
> Claude Frank
> +Gulda


Gulda and Frank among the last sets that I eliminated from my list. I'd probably choose Gilels if he'd lived to record all of the sonatas.

I haven't heard enough of Arrau to judge. I'm not terribly impressed by his EMI Beethoven recordings, but I've got his complete Philips and Decca set (all 80 CD's worth) on order from Amazon UK, who's currently selling it for a scandalously low price. I do remember, though, being irritated by the sound of Arrau's fingernails on the piano keys on one of the Philips recordings.


----------



## joen_cph

wkasimer said:


> Kovacevich
> Korstick
> Annie Fischer
> Goodyear
> Schnabel
> and
> Brautigam


I don't have Brautigam & don't know much of it, but would choose the other ones as well.

Also have Kempff/stereo, Brendel/vox (uinteresting) and Gulda/amadeo, plus individual recordings, skipped Claude Frank and John Lill.


----------



## Itullian

wkasimer said:


> Gulda and Frank among the last sets that I eliminated from my list. I'd probably choose Gilels if he'd lived to record all of the sonatas.
> 
> I haven't heard enough of Arrau to judge. I'm not terribly impressed by his EMI Beethoven recordings, but I've got his complete Philips and Decca set (all 80 CD's worth) on order from Amazon UK, who's currently selling it for a scandalously low price. I do remember, though, being irritated by the sound of Arrau's fingernails on the piano keys on one of the Philips recordings.


I'm loving the Gulda so far.
Not sure if I'd like the Kovacevich
I don't know about finger nails. 
Arrau is one of my favorite pianists.

What do you like about the Kovacevich?


----------



## wkasimer

Itullian said:


> What do you like about the Kovacevich?


I like that Kovacevich doesn't downplay any of the dynamic contrasts or sforzandi that are essential, and I like the brisk tempi that he chooses. It's a very muscular Beethoven - the only downside is that the sonics aren't great. Currently dirt cheap, so if you're curious, now is the time to pick this up.


----------



## KenOC

Buchbinder
Gilels (yes, I know…)
Goodyear (may be a temporary enthusiasm)
Kovacevich
Lewis (just to make six)
Schiff

Kudos to incomplete cycles by Bavouzet, Hungerford.


----------



## premont

KenOC said:


> Buchbinder
> 
> Kudos to incomplete cycles by Bavouzet, Hungerford.


Bavouzet's cycle is complete.

My choices:

Kempff (either cycle)

Backhaus (either cycle)

Arrau (1960es)

Badura-Skoda (either cycle, the Astrëe preferable though)

Lucchesini


----------



## KenOC

premont said:


> Bavouzet's cycle is complete.


Thanks, didn't know that. Guess it's my wallet that's incomplete. 

Added: Looked at the price for the cycle. Bavouzet's good, but is he _that _good? Right now the download price for Bavoujzet is 6.6 times the price for Kovacevich. With all due respect to Jean-Efflam, the balance is not in his favor.

For that matter, you can get the whole Stewart Goodyear cycle over at 7 Digital for $5.99. The world's gone crazy!


----------



## Highwayman

1- Kempff (stereo)
2- Kempff (mono)
3- Arrau
4- Biret
5- Gilels (could have been higher...)

P.S. If it wasn`t that much incomplete, Serkin could have been listed above...


----------



## Byron

1. Friedrich Gulda - Clear, brisk
2. Annie Fischer - Muscular, powerful
3. Artur Schnabel - Fresh, spontaneous
4. Claudio Arrau - Profound, majestic
5. Wilhelm Kempff - Lyrical, poetic
6. Emil Gilels - Broad, deliberate
7. Wilhelm Backhaus - Idiosyncratic, rhapsodic

Alfred Brendel's second cycle is the only one of his I've heard and it has never really clicked with me; he has a delicate touch and beautiful tone to be sure, and while I think this works well enough for the early sonatas, his performances of the middle and later period sonatas have always struck me as oddly detached and under-powered. Richard Goode's is technically proficient and consistent but rarely totally captivating, and Stephen Kovacevich is a bit of a mixed bag for me, sonically and interpretively. I enjoyed Ronald Brautigam's on historical instruments, though I prefer Gulda's who I think is in a similar vein.


----------



## premont

KenOC said:


> Thanks, didn't know that. Guess it's my wallet that's incomplete.
> 
> Added: Looked at the price for the cycle. Bavouzet's good, but is he _that _good? Right now the download price for Bavoujzet is 6.6 times the price for Kovacevich. With all due respect to Jean-Efflam, the balance is not in his favor.


I own the Bavouzet cycle, but haven't listened to more of it than the three CDs in vol. I (too much else to listen to). He isn't bad, but the problem is, that there are so many others, who are better.


----------



## Byron

After viewing this thread and seeing the favorite sets of others I was prompted to listen to some I've never heard before, as well as re-listen and re-evaluate a few.

I must say, I had occasionally seen the Claude Frank cycle recommended in the past and my first impression is that it's pretty fantastic. Direct, robust and consistent through all the sonatas I've heard so far. It really should receive more recognition than it does and be heard more often. I'm definitely looking forward to spending more time with it, and can definitely see Frank climbing into my upper echelon of Beethoven sonata performers.

Also, I wanted to give Stephen Kovacevich another listen to see if my view had changed any, and actually I'm enjoying what I'm hearing much more this time around. I still find he can be a tad bit aggressive in sonatas that I hear as more joyful or humorous, but I guess it's better than being plodding or dull. And the sound still isn't quite as good as I would have wished for from a digital recording. But man, there's some invigorating, exciting playing here. He may not crack my top half dozen interpreters, but this is easily one of the best modern cycles out there in my opinion, probably better than Richard Goode's. Again, I'll have to spend more time with it.

Unfortunately nothing much has changed with my opinion of Brendel. He displays lovely playing on some of the sonatas, but then he turns around absolutely neuters some of the most dramatic and thrilling works.


----------



## Ras

*My top three consists of three Barenboim sets*:
- his first complete recording from *EMI, 1967-1970*.
- his complete recording from *DGG, recorded in the 1980s*
- his *second set from EMI - on DVDs* including Barenboim's performances of all the sonatas *rec. live 2005* in Berlin + some masterclasses.


----------



## Josquin13

Unfortunately, most of my favorite Beethoven pianists didn't record a complete Beethoven cycle, though a few got close. They include Rudolf Serkin, Sviatoslav Richter, Emil Gilels (who was generally better live in concert than in the studio), Solomon, Ivo Pogorelich (a brilliant Op. 111!), Youra Guller (who was great in the late sonatas), Bruno-Leonardo Gelber (one of my favorite pianists in the "Les Adieux" sonata, etc.), Mieczyslaw Horszowski (esp. in the earlier, more Mozart-like sonatas), Edwin Fischer, Glenn Gould (whose Beethoven I tend to be hot and cold on, but when he's good, he's great), Clara Haskil, Zoltan Kocsis, and Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli. For some reason, I tend to prefer Claudio Arrau in the 5 Beethoven Piano Concertos (esp. the "Emperor"), where he's a favorite of mine, over his Philips piano sonata recordings (even the earlier analogue cycle).

The following are great Beethoven performances, in my world:










































--I enjoy Glenn Gould's spoken introduction to "The Tempest" here (especially his sly humor, including the "Charlie Brown" reference at the end), and it makes me sad that he's no longer with us. Although we never actually met, Gould and I had a mutual friend, who passed away early this year: which makes me doubly sad to watch this clip, as I used to hear stories about Gould from my friend, & always felt like I sort of knew him (& yes, according to my friend, Gould's eccentricities were highly exaggerated). Gould was a brilliant, highly intelligent, amiable man, as well as, yes, a bit of an eccentric, occasionally, even to his closest friends, I was told.














---Does any pianist understand the spirit & content of these early Beethoven sonatas better than Horszowski? I don't think so.










That leaves,

1. Annie Fischer--great Beethoven playing (interpretatively), though her Hungaraton cycle was heavily edited. In her later years, Fischer could no longer play through pieces without making a lot of mistakes (you need only listen to her late concert recordings to hear what I'm talking about), & so she had to painstakingly record each sonata piecemeal--that is, short passages at a time--in order to arrive at just the performance she wanted. Does that take away from the natural flow of the sonatas? Maybe a bit, at times; however, most people don't notice. Even so, there's a perfection to her playing here that wasn't achieved naturally.

2. Artur Schnabel--not perfect playing, but it doesn't matter. The depth and beauty of Schnabel's slow movements in Beethoven have rarely, if ever, been equaled, IMO.

3. Ronald Brautigam--it's very interesting & illuminating to hear Beethoven's more complex sonatas played on a period piano--such as the dense fugal movement from the Hammerclavier sonata, etc. etc.. (I've also liked Penelope Crawford's period recordings of the late sonatas--though she hasn't attempted the Hammerclavier yet.)

4. Wilhelm Kempff--it seems that the further back you go with Kempff, the better his Beethoven playing becomes. The recent APR sets, for example, contain some of the most remarkable Beethoven I've heard from Kempff; even better, I think, than his legendary DG mono set (which most would agree is superior to Kempff's stereo DG cycle).

https://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-La...37391938&sr=1-2&keywords=kempff+beethoven+apr
https://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Pi...&sr=1-2-catcorr&keywords=kempff+beethoven+apr

5. I'd say it's a tie between (1) Wilhelm Backhaus--I feel much the same way about Backhaus as Kempff, that generally speaking, his earliest recordings are his most interesting, and (2) Claude Frank, whose fine cycle (on Music & Arts) tends to get underrated, in my view.

Honorable mention:

6. Alfred Brendel--1st Philips cycle. I tend to find Brendel at his best in Beethoven's early & middle sonatas, and in the first two piano concertos (esp. with Haitink), where he exceled, IMO. Though he was a very fine Beethoven pianist, overall.

7. Vladimir Ashkenazy--I've liked Ashkenazy earlier Decca cycle, but not so much his later digital survey of the last sonatas, which I didn't care for (as I found the playing is too emotionally detached).

8. Maurizio Pollini--I haven't heard Pollini's entire DG cycle, but from I have heard, I've liked him most in the late Piano Sonatas 28-32 (& his remarkable Piano Concertos 1 & 2 with conductor Eugen Jochum). My problem with Pollini is that he tends to have a heavy piano touch, & sometimes it's too heavy for me in Beethoven. (Has this been increasingly so in recent decades? versus Pollini's early DG years? where I tend to prefer his playing.) In addition, he doesn't always come up with the most imaginative interpretations. But Pollini can be a great Beethoven player at times--such as with his Piano Concerto No. 1, with Jochum, & in the late sonatas.

Among digital era sets:

Other than the unfinished cycles of Gilels & Gelber (& maybe Brendel's 3rd cycle), and Ronald Brautigam's period cycle, I haven't been overly keen on any of the fully digital cycles that I've heard in recent decades. Maybe if Igor Levit or Hinrich Alpers were to complete a cycle...


----------



## Itullian

i have been listening to samples of the Kovacevich and finding hard to get past the shallow, glassy, harsh sound.
The dynamics sound off to me too.
It seems obnoxious to me. Where's the poetry?
What am I missing here?


----------



## Josquin13

Itullian said:


> i have been listening to samples of the Kovacevich and finding hard to get past the shallow, glassy, harsh sound.
> The dynamics sound off to me too.
> It seems obnoxious to me. Where's the poetry?
> What am I missing here?


I agree. Bishop-Kovecevich isn't nearly mercurial or imaginative enough for me in Beethoven's Piano Sonatas. It's all too much on the same level--there aren't enough dimensions discovered in the music (the depth of poetry, as you say). I've never understood why the British rags rate his Beethoven sonatas so highly. Although, with that said, he is very good in the 33 Diabelli Variations & Bagatelles I think:


----------



## Byron

Itullian said:


> i have been listening to samples of the Kovacevich and finding hard to get past the shallow, glassy, harsh sound.
> The dynamics sound off to me too.
> It seems obnoxious to me. Where's the poetry?
> What am I missing here?


I'm not sure you are missing anything. I think Bryce Morrison's review from Gramophone pretty much hits the nail on the head. He writes:



> Kovacevich's Beethoven not only bristles with a formidable physicality but shows little time for small talk or the sort of charming aside or innuendo that can sometimes endear you to less urgently committed players...
> 
> Kovacevich's one-sidedness, his way of playing so close to the edge, cast a uniform colour, weight and texture on music which should surely express poetry of an infinite variety...


His playing has a consistent nervous energy and turbulence about it which in certain sonatas is excellent, but as I said before he glosses over the charm and wittiness of others.

I still prefer this set to Brendel's with it's austerity and lack of drama, or Goode's often generic note-spinning. But it's not in my top 5 or 6 or 7.


----------



## Guest

Itullian said:


> i have been listening to samples of the Kovacevich and finding hard to get past the shallow, glassy, harsh sound.
> The dynamics sound off to me too.
> It seems obnoxious to me. Where's the poetry?
> What am I missing here?


It was recorded over many years so the audio is variable, but I generally agree about it being glassy and clamorous. Performances strike me as consistently aggressive. It is a distinguished set, but far from a favorite with me. I much prefer the earlier Bishop/Kovacevith of the Philips years.


----------



## Itullian

^^^^Also the dynamics terrible.
The low parts are too low. You can hardly even hear them at normal volume.


----------



## DavidA

Baron Scarpia said:


> It was recorded over many years so the audio is variable, but I generally agree about it being glassy and clamorous. Performances strike me as consistently aggressive. It is a distinguished set, but far from a favorite with me. I much prefer the earlier Bishop/Kovacevith of the Philips years.


Yes I agree. The younger Kovacevich was less ruthless in his playing for the better. The comparison is found in the Diabelli Variations where the (much lauded) later version is rushed beyond all reason. Not a patch on his younger self.


----------



## DavidA

A case must be made for Schnabel, who within limited sonics and technique set a benchmark

Also Annie Fischer's humane cycle


----------



## Guest

I like Kempff (either), Arrau (analog), Pollini (what I've heard), Brautigam, Barenboim (EMI, '67).


----------



## Byron

Itullian said:


> ^^^^Also the dynamics terrible.
> The low parts are too low. You can hardly even hear them at normal volume.


I don't think anyone has argued the recording quality is very good. Some enjoy his interpretations more than others, and those who enjoy them don't let sub par sonics prevent them from listening. I mean compared to Schnabel it's absolutely pristine. :lol:


----------



## Itullian

Byron said:


> I don't think anyone has argued the recording quality is very good. Some enjoy his interpretations more than others, and those who enjoy them don't let sub par sonics prevent them from listening. I mean compared to Schnabel it's absolutely pristine. :lol:


I have no problems with Schnabel's sound


----------



## Byron

Itullian said:


> I have no problems with Schnabel's sound


Absolutely state of the art.


----------



## DavidA

Byron said:


> Absolutely state of the art.


It was in its day but isn't now. With Schnabel you have to take the dated sound and his quite quirky interpretations. Also don't expect the clean fingering of modern virtuosos. But some of his interpretations are revelatory and set the benchmark. I believe his teacher (Leschetizky) told him he would never make a pianist as he was too much a musician!


----------



## Guest

Byron said:


> I don't think anyone has argued the recording quality is very good. Some enjoy his interpretations more than others, and those who enjoy them don't let sub par sonics prevent them from listening. I mean compared to Schnabel it's absolutely pristine. :lol:


It's worse than Schnabel.


----------



## Byron

Baron Scarpia said:


> It's worse than Schnabel.


Sure it is. 2.......


----------



## maudia

Arrau - perhaps he is more Arrau than Beethoven but who cares ?
Gilels - perfect
A.Fischer - the more dramatic in a way I think Beethoven would like
Gulda - both the mono and stereo versions are interesting - full of surprises
Richter - not a cycle (have 19 with him) but so brilliant (his Appassionata, for instance...)

Of course there many many others favourites...Baremboim, Backhaus, Schiff, Schnabel, Pollini, Solomon...

Dont like Kempff (with exceptions) ! His mono version is better but to cold in general to my taste, like Brendel, I miss more shadows and fire in their interpretations. Among the more "objective" interpreters I prefer Serkin (have 14 sonatas with him).

I prefer Lewiss than Goode in general but both are not among my favourites

Sorry my English mistakes.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

1. Schnabel
2. Kempff mono
3. Gilels
4. Kovacevich
5. Arrau


----------



## hoodjem

Schnabel (various labels)
Arrau Philips
Goode Nonesuch
Gilels (incompl.: 29) DG
Brendel (cycle no. 2 from 1970-77, analogue) Philips/Decca


----------



## wkasimer

Schnabel
Kovacevich
Buchbinder 2
Fischer
Gulda (stereo)


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Annie Fischer
Schnabel
Arrau
Kovacevich
Lortie

Gilels and Serkin would be near or at the top if their cycles were complete


----------



## hoodjem

maudia said:


> Arrau - perhaps he is more Arrau than Beethoven but who cares ?
> Gilels - perfect
> A.Fischer - the more dramatic in a way I think Beethoven would like
> Gulda - both the mono and stereo versions are interesting - full of surprises
> Richter - not a cycle (have 19 with him) but so brilliant (his Appassionata, for instance...)
> 
> Of course there many many others favourites...Baremboim, Backhaus, Schiff, Schnabel, Pollini, Solomon...
> 
> Dont like Kempff (with exceptions) ! His mono version is better but to cold in general to my taste, like Brendel, I miss more shadows and fire in their interpretations. Among the more "objective" interpreters I prefer Serkin (have 14 sonatas with him).
> 
> I prefer Lewiss than Goode in general but both are not among my favourites
> 
> Sorry my English mistakes.


I agree on Kempff: too cold.


----------



## staxomega

wkasimer said:


> Schnabel
> Kovacevich
> Buchbinder 2
> Fischer
> Gulda (stereo)


I've heard Gulda in mono (Orfeo) and Amadeus (stereo), I assume you mean the Amadeo cycle? I've never heard the Decca cycle and don't know if that is mono or stereo which is why I ask.

My own personal list (somewhat in order and only cycles that are truly complete)

Annie Fischer
Andrea Lucchesini
Wilhelm Backhaus (mono)
Artur Schnabel
Eric Heidsieck or Claudio Arrau 1960 Philips (very tough number 5 spot, many fine cycles that could occupy that)


----------



## wkasimer

staxomega said:


> I've heard Gulda in mono (Orfeo) and Amadeus (stereo), I assume you mean the Amadeo cycle?


Correct - it was originally on Amadeo (with one track per sonata, as I recall), but has since been issued by both Decca Eloquence and Brilliant.



> I've never heard the Decca cycle and don't know if that is mono or stereo which is why I ask.


The one that was issued in Decca's Original Masters series is monaural, and I don't like it as well as the later Amadeo set.



> My own personal list (somewhat in order and only cycles that are truly complete)
> 
> Annie Fischer
> Andrea Lucchesini
> Wilhelm Backhaus (mono)
> Artur Schnabel
> Eric Heidsieck or Claudio Arrau 1960 Philips (very tough number 5 spot, many fine cycles that could occupy that)


Good list - I really wanted to include Lucchesini and Heidsieck (and Yves Nat), but couldn't bear to part with the five I listed.


----------



## haziz

1. Annie Fischer (my favorite)
2. Wilhelm Kempff (either the 50s mono or the 60s stereo set or preferably both)
3. Richard Goode
4. Alfred Brendel (I am thinking of his most recent set, but I think I have all 3 buried somewhere in my music collection)
5. Probably Emil Gilels (I have only a couple of CDs - I don't have all of his Sonatas, and I do realize that the whole is a partial set)


----------



## staxomega

wkasimer said:


> Correct - it was originally on Amadeo (with one track per sonata, as I recall), but has since been issued by both Decca Eloquence and Brilliant.
> 
> The one that was issued in Decca's Original Masters series is monaural, and I don't like it as well as the later Amadeo set.
> 
> Good list - I really wanted to include Lucchesini and Heidsieck (and Yves Nat), but couldn't bear to part with the five I listed.


Thanks for the info. I kicked off a lengthy Hammerklavier discussion a couple of weeks ago in the GMG Beethoven Piano Sonatas thread after that being one of the more played sonatas from last year's Beethoven 250 and Gulda Orfeo and Amadeo are two I studied closely.

Sort remarkable to hear his sheer virtuosity, especially in the Orfeo cycle which to the best of my knowledge could not be edited since they were broadcast tapes, even among those very brisk interpretations I heard only heard very forgettable mistakes. For me taking the Adagio at 13 and 14 minutes is a bit crazy reckless but also hard not to be impressed by his cavalier attitude. The Amadeo is the cycle I've been more familiar with for a long time (only heard about a third of the Orfeo) and overall I just finding myself wanting more in the late sonatas, for me they're not the most probing interpretations but I wouldn't expect _any_ kind of that from Gulda and he stays true to himself. As a whole based off of what I heard from the Orfeo, the Amadeo was a better realized cycle and what I'd have higher in my personal ranking outside the 5.

Paul Badura-Skoda's Astree was another tempting one for the number 5, but for fortepiano I ultimately find him quite lacking compared to Peter Serkin (Graf) in those late sonatas so I kept him off. Kempff (mono DG, though I like the even earlier 78 performances more) and Bernard Roberts were also tempting for that spot. Rudolf Serkin would have easily cracked the top 5 if he recorded them all.

Very nice to see all the appreciation for Annie Fischer (even if her incomplete EMI recordings are superior), I remember when I joined TC there were only a handful of us that admired her. The Hungaroton cycle in the maroon red box was out of print for well over 10 years until they brought it back in a different packaging, which I imagine made it more accessible to more people.


----------



## CnC Bartok

John Lill
Paul Lewis
Claudio Arrau
Stephen Kovacevich
Artur Schnabel
(But replace Kovacevich if we allow Gilels' incomplete cycle)


----------



## Savino

Schnabel, Schnabel, Schnabel, Schnabel, and Schnabel


----------

