# FRANZ LISZT - Sonata in b minor s.178



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Hello all,

I just uploaded the studio masterclass I did about Franz Liszt's Sonata in b minor and also my recording of the full sonata is available on a youtube link below:

http://opusdissonus.com.br/CIMIRRO_studio-master-class_002.htm

This is the Liszt's Sonata played according the "Scientific System of Interpretation or Musical Hermeneutics" where I discussed the long repeated mistakes from tradition which are not present in the score and the lack of recordings playing this as it was written by Liszt.
As you may notice, I try to make something more similar to the original ideas of Liszt during the period of 1853-57 despite of any revisions he made on the interpretation (specially after the premiere and after Friedhein's almost "new" version from 1880).

So this must be the way the piece would sound when composed and first played by Liszt, Bülow, Klindworth and Tausig.
I also posted 3 scores which are already available on internet: the manuscript, the first edition and Friedheins hand comments on Joseffy's edition.






Tell me how different it is for you 

Best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I just listened to the Sonata. Fantastic performance. I'm only a fairly recent convert to Liszt's music (couldn't stand it before), but now it appeals to me. I'm going to have to listen through again and follow the score. The pdf of the Breitkopf & Hartel score is a bad scan though, I can hardly read it!


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

Great! I've listened to it from the beginning till the end. I understand you want to play it authentically, well, as you say as Liszt played it. Here there are couple of my remarks as a listener ( well, we should understand that as every listener I got used to listening a common interpretation, so, may be my comments are conditioned by my experience). Taking all above said into an account I say my opinion.

Introduction theme is wonderfully done in terms of showing mephistophel's substance, you play it with less pedal, more secco and stacatto. Sometimes it's too stacatto for me, especially in a right hand, too abrupt (I presume it's your idea how it should sound).
Secondly, when the second lyrical theme begins, for my taste it's too dry, the same as above because you limit pedal usage but when in a development section the same theme is played with more pedal, because texture is different and without pedal it can't be played simply because it would be way too complicated, impossible to connect lots of notes . More pedal means more traditionally played, but sounds great!

Thirdly, when fugato begins it's not very stable rhythmically, in your interpretation I hear a bit of accelerato...or it sounds like that. anyway I'd wish when the first voice begins it should be more "bouncy", I mean rhythmically, it would be really cool! well, I mean it's all easy for you technically , we all know it's a difficult sonata, but with your technique we don't even discuss such things. I just talk about interpretation itself.

one more thing, when you play in a high register if possible I'd like to hear more "light". I mean in terms of color of a sound. It would be great as a counterpart for a low register. well, it can also depend on a recording and maybe in a different acoustic it sounds differently....I am almost sure about it. 

I mean I'd like to hear more colors of register sounds, make this difference really huge, not just with dynamics, forte and piano, but colorfully this would add a fantastic, really mephistophelish effect. But I don't know, maybe an entire idea of your interpretation is a bit different from what I am talking about. 

Please, don't take it as a critique, it's just some observations. I tell them because you are already a great pianist and it's just an opinion of a listener.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Wonderfully done technically. I'm not familiar enough with this sonata to know the differences you mention compared to present day performances. My only critique, such as it is, which is not your fault, is the piano. Is it a Steinway or comparable? IMO Liszt requires a powerful sounding piano for these works. Ordinarily I wouldn't mention it except that it is a recording that required a lot of work and preparation.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

eugeneonagain said:


> I just listened to the Sonata. Fantastic performance. I'm only a fairly recent convert to Liszt's music (couldn't stand it before), but now it appeals to me. I'm going to have to listen through again and follow the score. The pdf of the Breitkopf & Hartel score is a bad scan though, I can hardly read it!


Yes, this edition is from IMSLP, sorry!
Of course, I recommend the reading of henle edition, which is very helpful, but it is not public domain, so, I couldn't post it.
Thank you so much for listening and for considering a second time!



helenora said:


> Great! I've listened to it from the beginning till the end. I understand you want to play it authentically, well, as you say as Liszt played it. Here there are couple of my remarks as a listener ( well, we should understand that as every listener I got used to listening a common interpretation, so, may be my comments are conditioned by my experience). Taking all above said into an account I say my opinion.
> 
> Introduction theme is wonderfully done in terms of showing mephistophel's substance, you play it with less pedal, more secco and stacatto. Sometimes it's too stacatto for me, especially in a right hand, too abrupt (I presume it's your idea how it should sound).
> Secondly, when the second lyrical theme begins, for my taste it's too dry, the same as above because you limit pedal usage but when in a development section the same theme is played with more pedal, because texture is different and without pedal it can't be played simply because it would be way too complicated, impossible to connect lots of notes . More pedal means more traditionally played, but sounds great!
> ...


Don't worry, I fully understand your view as observations, thank you for writing this
The main point for your first observation is quite easy to understand, 
Usually all the indications in the Sonata are played like there was only "staccatos"
But there are a lot of "Spiccati" written which ask us to keep only 1/4 of the note sounding, (while staccato, also presented, ask for a duration of 1/2 of the note) and Liszt ask us to make differences between both in the score.
So, yes, the result is very dry and far from the expected after knowing the "stantard traditions"

Second lyrical theme seems to be the same case, there are several written "rests" under some notes which are never observed because of the use of pedal, and in some moments Liszt omit some rests (opening then the possibility of using pedal during the full bar (in these cases, maybe my decision is dry, yes)

About the the third, yes, I agree it is not "stable rhythmically", and it is my intention since it was even normal to have fugues played with such expression as one can notice in the interpretative editions of those times.
Anyway, part of this fugato (specially the first part of it) can be perfectly strict in time, and that would not be bad in my opinion. On the other hand I really dislike the way Howard suggests everything to be made giving too much attention to metronome feeling all the time - the music seems to "die" or "lie in a classicist view" which is far from Liszt's standards, specially in the 50's.

About the colors I agree, unfortunately this is not much on my possibilities because i need to deal with the possibilities of the microphones and piano/studio I'm using. The high registers dies quite early in my opinion (specially after have been playing in a Stuart & Sons pianos, no piano is great after that!) and even the una corda pedal in this piano I'm playing means almost not too much in sound qualities as it could be expected, so I always need to solve this problems after the piano shows me the "best" possibility in return - that doesn't mean it will sound as I want indeed.

Despite of answering all the topics you mention, your comments made me happy because it means you gave attention to my work, and for that i'm very thankful. If later you agree or not with my comments, that is not a problem in any sense. So feel free to keep your opinion or not 

All the best
Artur


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

DaveM said:


> Wonderfully done technically. I'm not familiar enough with this sonata to know the differences you mention compared to present day performances. My only critique, such as it is, which is not your fault, is the piano. Is it a Steinway or comparable? IMO Liszt requires a powerful sounding piano for these works. Ordinarily I wouldn't mention it except that it is a recording that required a lot of work and preparation.


Yes, it is, maybe not the best as I just mentioned in other reply, but it is a Steinway... 
Thank you also for listening!


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

cimirro said:


> Yes, this edition is from IMSLP, sorry!
> Of course, I recommend the reading of henle edition, which is very helpful, but it is not public domain, so, I couldn't post it.
> Thank you so much for listening and for considering a second time!
> 
> ...


Thank you for your comments too. And it's really interesting for me to know what you think about the sonata and what you think being a right interpretation of it according to your goals. It would be great to have more posts like this on this forum.
It's really new for me to know about composer's "spicatti" intentions.

As for Howard recommendations I would just ignore them:lol: Who cares? well, I mean I know how authority can make one feel. But I mean if you share the same opinion and you think about it as being right, then it's better to forget that you agree here with someone whose recommendations you don't really like. Just do the most beautiful for the sake of music, not because of acceptance or opposition to any person. hm.... that's sort of psychological point here :lol:

And about pianos....yeah, that can be frustrating not to show to the fullest what you are capable of because of pianos or recording conditions.....I mean when you play the way you play, but technology cannot capture it properly. Anyway I think when you play live is what it should be in terms of colors, etc.

By the way may I ask you what is your concept of this sonata? Not only ideas about being precise about what is written in music and how it could have been played in 19th century but what it is about, the story behind. It's known to be quite a philosophical composition despite of its imagery. But even images, personalities, ideas behind the themes are not purely images, but a part of a concept of an entire sonata.What is your vision of it?


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

I haven't had a chance to listen to the master class yet, but I'm interested in how does your reading compare to the recordings done by Eugene d'Albert and Arthur Friedheim, who were Liszt pupils?


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

gardibolt said:


> I haven't had a chance to listen to the master class yet, but I'm interested in how does your reading compare to the recordings done by Eugene d'Albert and Arthur Friedheim, who were Liszt pupils?


No doubts, my recording is quite different from d"Albert and Friedhein's ones and one may notice I comment this on the master-class too. So I strongly recommend listening first the master-class, specially the introduction.

Friedhein's interpretation, which is not only recorded but also "written", is a result of his studies with a Liszt long after the bad reception of the 1857 premiere (studied in 1880's), so no doubts it is a accepted textural revision by Liszt in order to make an "easier" version to listen to by the public.

My recording, an unedited studio full performance, is more related to what is written dowm in the score and the original intention which obviously was not well received as already mentioned.

Curious to hear about your impressions later...!



helenora said:


> Thank you for your comments too. And it's really interesting for me to know what you think about the sonata and what you think being a right interpretation of it according to your goals. It would be great to have more posts like this on this forum.
> It's really new for me to know about composer's "spicatti" intentions.
> 
> As for Howard recommendations I would just ignore them:lol: Who cares? well, I mean I know how authority can make one feel. But I mean if you share the same opinion and you think about it as being right, then it's better to forget that you agree here with someone whose recommendations you don't really like. Just do the most beautiful for the sake of music, not because of acceptance or opposition to any person. hm.... that's sort of psychological point here :lol:
> ...


Concerning the concepts of the Sonata, of course, it is a personal opinion of mine, so no agreement is necessary.
But despite of all the "tales" around the music (Faust, Biographical content, Bible related, etc) I don't see this as a work where you tell a story which can be written down.

Of course, a listener can easily have his/her impressions, and this is quite good. 
My view is that the work is "as abstract as the musical art can be". (somewhat similar to some Schopenhauer's statements about the art of music if I remember well)

This is connected with feelings directly, no doubts, so, yes, in some moments I have the same feeling I had when reading Goethe (there is Mephistopheles at several points), or even similar feelings to reading "Manfred" and still some feelings from Senancour and others who affected Liszt a lot.
But there is no direct connection in a descriptive sense.
This is part of the fantasy around this art. This is the result of a life experience, but not in an noticed autobiographical order in my opinion.

I could call these things "images", but these are "images" for the ear, not for the eye.

So, the connection between the themes is made by its own art. And this is the story behind I feel! A wonderful one, a kind of "Festklänge".
But here maybe the human fantasy on view, not the "Fest" exactly.
The feelings, the fear, the sorrow, the fury, the indifference, the mystic, freedom, joy, prison, ... well, at some point some may say it is a game of words... but how can I explain this better? I don't know.

I still believe and try to do the same as remembered by Liszt's students, sometimes the explanation is necessary in sound, sometimes in showing a landscape (as Friedhein mentions about his studies on "Harmonies du Soir" with Liszt).
Sorry if my views disappoint, but this is too personal, and not necessary I'm too interesting as a person...
But I'm happy you asked anyway 

Best
Artur


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

I'm not qualified to comment on any of the weighty technical issues, but I like your performance! 

I have never been Liszt's number one fan, but this particular work has resonated with me ever since I first heard it. It may well be one of his greatest.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

brianvds said:


> I'm not qualified to comment on any of the weighty technical issues, but I like your performance!
> 
> I have never been Liszt's number one fan, but this particular work has resonated with me ever since I first heard it. It may well be one of his greatest.


Thank you so much!
Your opinion is welcome no matter if this is qualified or not (or in agreement or not). Being open to music is the most important virtue.

Several people keep believing in the old impression that Liszt was a mere showman making compositions full of scales and arpeggios, but this is not really true. Despite of making a lot of paraphrases (which I praise a lot) and effective salon-works, he made also one of the biggest revolutions in the music history not only composing but also influencing/promoting composers of his times and making possible the future generations like Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Bartok, Sorabji, and several others.

Paraphrasing the old Hanslick:
"anyone who has heard Liszt's best works and finds it bad is beyond help"

All the best
Artur


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

cimirro said:


> Thank you so much!
> Several people keep believing in the old impression that Liszt was a mere showman making compositions full of scales and arpeggios, but this is not really true. Despite of making a lot of paraphrases (which I praise a lot) and effective salon-works, he made also one of the biggest revolutions in the music history not only composing but also influencing/promoting composers of his times and making possible the future generations like Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Bartok, Sorabji, and several others.


Yup, he was quite innovative, and a lot of the stuff Wagner ended up getting credit for actually originated with Liszt.


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

cimirro said:


> No doubts, my recording is quite different from d"Albert and Friedhein's ones and one may notice I comment this on the master-class too. So I strongly recommend listening first the master-class, specially the introduction.
> 
> Friedhein's interpretation, which is not only recorded but also "written", is a result of his studies with a Liszt long after the bad reception of the 1857 premiere (studied in 1880's), so no doubts it is a accepted textural revision by Liszt in order to make an "easier" version to listen to by the public.
> 
> ...


Thank you for a detailed explanation. It's not at all disappointing since you are talking about your own views. When I speak about images I don't really mean visual pictures in mind, it's exactly as you said "images" for a ear.

and yes, I totally agree that it's not about telling a story literally, it's rather ideas that can help us to create sound effects and build an entire interpretation of a piece.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

cimirro said:


> Paraphrasing the old Hanslick:
> "anyone who has heard Liszt's best works and finds it bad is beyond help"


I thought the Hanslick quote was: "whoever has heard that, and finds it beautiful, is beyond help" (regarding the B Minor Sonata). Posterity has not been kind to Hanslick...


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Lisztian said:


> I thought the Hanslick quote was: "whoever has heard that, and finds it beautiful, is beyond help" (regarding the B Minor Sonata). Posterity has not been kind to Hanslick...


Indeed it is,
This is why i said "Paraphrasing" - something like "changing" Hanslick's originals to fit MY opinion


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

cimirro said:


> Indeed it is,
> This is why i said "Paraphrasing" - something like "changing" Hanslick's originals to fit MY opinion


I thought that might be the case, and therefore: well played


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I "learned" the piece on the Arrau recording, and on the quite different but equally remarkable Argerich one -- but hadn't heard the piece for years until I listened to your performance. I agree that the most pronounced distinction/difference that I heard -- memory notwithstranding --was the sharpness of the staccato/spicatto notes -- but that didn't hinder my enjoyment. You're a terrific pianist, and I have long considered this Liszt's masterpiece.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Nice work, I like the way you've recorded your piano, not so heavy on the reverb, it sounds good.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

tdc said:


> Nice work, I like the way you've recorded your piano, not so heavy on the reverb, it sounds good.


Thank you so much, pianos and studios can be a great problem sometimes.
I wish I could build my own at some point with a Stuart piano, but I'm far from having money enough for this.
Anyway, i'm happy to be able to make my recordings as I'm doing concerning the quality. Seems ok, we can find worst piano sounds in the market.



MarkW said:


> I "learned" the piece on the Arrau recording, and on the quite different but equally remarkable Argerich one -- but hadn't heard the piece for years until I listened to your performance. I agree that the most pronounced distinction/difference that I heard -- memory notwithstranding --was the sharpness of the staccato/spicatto notes -- but that didn't hinder my enjoyment. You're a terrific pianist, and I have long considered this Liszt's masterpiece.


Thank you so much! I'm happy this version can be enjoyed as much as others - this is the plan! :devil: :lol:

Best
Artur


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Also, I forgot to mention, the ones who like this (or other recordings already posted) please subscribe to my youtube channel, there will be a lot of news in the next weeks/months!
Best
Artur


----------



## snowyflow (Jul 30, 2014)

This is very interesting work you are doing and I think it's good that you're giving us average listeners (I meant people like myself) a different ("non-traditional") perspective of how the piece sounds like. Your message exchange with user helenora is also informative and helpful. I tend to agree with the observation that overall this rendering is much less on pedal, which is the probably the direct reason for the sense of "dryness" (and I appreciate that you intentionally did that). I think I was ok with the introduction having less pedal, the place where shocked me the most was the passage leading to the climax of the Andante (starting bar 380), with every opening note on the left hand struck a strong staccato. Really an eye (or should I say, ear) opener! I checked the first edition score, indeed, they were marked with staccato + marcato on top of it, and the Friedheim edition had them crossed out and replaced with just an accent (not sure about those handwritten lines on the pedal markings, which seems crossed out...). Wow.

This reminds me of how John Eliot Gardiner advocating on playing Beethoven fifth with much faster tempi, using period instruments. That interpretation is also quite different from most of the recordings I heard.

Again, very interesting work. Thanks!


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Lisztian said:


> I thought the Hanslick quote was: "whoever has heard that, and finds it beautiful, is beyond help" (regarding the B Minor Sonata). Posterity has not been kind to Hanslick...


Actually, history has been very kind to Hanslick. His treatise _On the Musically Beautiful_ is among the most influential treatises in the history of musical aesthetics, its issues still cited and disputed to this day. His championing of early Wagner was prescient. His send-ups of some of Liszt's symphonic poems are hilarious and spot on. Like all critics, his judgments of some works, like the B Minor Sonata, encounter vigorous dissent from those with different tastes and values.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

snowyflow said:


> This is very interesting work you are doing and I think it's good that you're giving us average listeners (I meant people like myself) a different ("non-traditional") perspective of how the piece sounds like. Your message exchange with user helenora is also informative and helpful. I tend to agree with the observation that overall this rendering is much less on pedal, which is the probably the direct reason for the sense of "dryness" (and I appreciate that you intentionally did that). I think I was ok with the introduction having less pedal, the place where shocked me the most was the passage leading to the climax of the Andante (starting bar 380), with every opening note on the left hand struck a strong staccato. Really an eye (or should I say, ear) opener! I checked the first edition score, indeed, they were marked with staccato + marcato on top of it, and the Friedheim edition had them crossed out and replaced with just an accent (not sure about those handwritten lines on the pedal markings, which seems crossed out...). Wow.
> 
> This reminds me of how John Eliot Gardiner advocating on playing Beethoven fifth with much faster tempi, using period instruments. That interpretation is also quite different from most of the recordings I heard.
> 
> Again, very interesting work. Thanks!


Thank you so much for your comments, and I'm happy to notice you checked the score since this is also my intention asking to all the interested people, who are able to read music, to check the score without keeping a famous recording interpretation in mind.

Hope you have checked also the master-class on Beethoven's Pathetique Sonata, I'm pretty sure a lot of my observations will sound different from the Beethoven's interpreters from traditional classical media to everyone's ears.

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## lextune (Nov 25, 2016)

Thanks for posting! I have studied, played, and performed the Liszt Sonata for decades, and even wrote a sort of collectors guide once, [ http://lextune.blogspot.com/2006/03/liszt-sonata.html ]

I listened to your interpretation, and despite disagreeing with many of your interpretive choices personally, I still found it compelling. That is my biggest compliment! :cheers:

Your conviction, and consistency of concept shows, and that feeling fleshes out the Sonata nicely. It speaks to the indefatigable nature of Liszt's masterpiece the way it stands up to endless reimaginings.

I see little value in going over the differences of opinion we might have on what constitute the mistakes of tradition, so I will simply say 'Bravo!', and hope to hear your playing again.

-Lex


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

lextune said:


> Thanks for posting! I have studied, played, and performed the Liszt Sonata for decades, and even wrote a sort of collectors guide once, [ http://lextune.blogspot.com/2006/03/liszt-sonata.html ]
> 
> I listened to your interpretation, and despite disagreeing with many of your interpretive choices personally, I still found it compelling. That is my biggest compliment! :cheers:
> 
> ...


Hello Lex,

Thank you for your comments and compliments.
I fully understand your opinion and I'm happy to notice you have made such guide, the blog seems quite interesting I'll check more articles later.
And yes, feel free to check other free audios and videos on my youtube channel, I'll be happy if at some point people enjoy any of them and make a comment there too.

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

cimirro said:


> Hello all,
> 
> I just uploaded the studio masterclass I did about Franz Liszt's Sonata in b minor and also my recording of the full sonata is available on a youtube link below:
> 
> ...


Sorry but how do we know that this is how Liszt would have played it? yes this might be the "Scientific System of Interpretation or Musical Hermeneutics" but how do we know how Liszt would have interpreted the notes? Would he have been as fastidious as we moderns like to be? As a layman who plays the piano but would never even get past the first page of a work like this I congratulate anyone who can actually play it. However, as in my collection I have the work played by pianists such as Argerich, Richter, Ogden, Brendel, Rubinstein, Graffmann, Bolet, Gilels, Van Cliburn, et al, I did find the interpretation rather careful and lacking in élan by the side of these great masters. It appeared the interpretation of a musicologist, which is perhaps what the purpose was. I am far less concerned with the musicological aspects and rather more about the sweep of the performance.
Hope you don't mind the criticism but you did ask for an opinion. But thanks for sharing it.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Sorry but how do we know that this is how Liszt would have played it? yes this might be the "Scientific System of Interpretation or Musical Hermeneutics" but how do we know how Liszt would have interpreted the notes? Would he have been as fastidious as we moderns like to be? As a layman who plays the piano but would never even get past the first page of a work like this I congratulate anyone who can actually play it. However, as in my collection I have the work played by pianists such as Argerich, Richter, Ogden, Brendel, Rubinstein, Graffmann, Bolet, Gilels, Van Cliburn, et al, I did find the interpretation rather careful and lacking in élan by the side of these great masters. It appeared the interpretation of a musicologist, which is perhaps what the purpose was. I am far less concerned with the musicological aspects and rather more about the sweep of the performance.
> Hope you don't mind the criticism but you did ask for an opinion. But thanks for sharing it.


Hello DavidA

I have no problems with criticism at all, specially when the other side is open to dialogue,  so, since you ask, I can easily answer this for you.
First, this is not intended to be "Liszt's own interpretation", this is MY interpretation focused in *Liszt's requests, which anyone can find in the score*. 
And of course, everyone who really study basics of music theory is able to understand the differences between marcato, martelato, spiccato (as a fast staccato), staccato, portato, tenuta, and so on.

I have no motives to believe Liszt would mark, let's say, more then 50 notes with spiccato, and more than 50 notes with staccato (and simialr with marcato and martelato plus others) in a single score just for fun and without any importance in mind. (and in this case most part of the recordings are not going to impress me anymore since they are not giving the deserved attention to the music)
By the way, If you study the history of Sonata form and have in mind what Liszt did in this score, then you will have no doubts he knew very well what he was doing in each note.

The main problem is that the market is not focused in other things than making money. so, no matter what Beethoven, Liszt or Chopin intentions in the score are, if you have someone easy to "sell", then that is just fine for the market.

So, the interpreters, since most of them are often unrelated to the art of composition now and just study how to play according to a tradition which is kept through the recordings companies, are not really faithful to the musical score as the media claims they are, and unfortunately public can't notice this unless they decide to study carefully these scores - and as we all know, general public will never do this,

I'm not sure if you listened only my recording of the piece or if you listened also the master-class, If you listen the master class you can easily notice why I decided to make such interpretation since this is a matter of coherence to what is written down by Liszt that made the Sonata's sound as it is sounding in my recording. (Liszt is the real guilty  )

The true is that basically the most famous recordings available are not really faithful to what is written, and if any of them do at least the most part of the requests written by Liszt, on the other hand they lack in the coherence of the use of such indications given by Liszt.

My question for you is, have you ever imagined how would be your impression on one of these pianists you mention playing now if all the other pianists-interpreters from the last two centuries had noticed all these details and decided to be faithful to these "details" (which are not really details when you study musical aesthetic)?

No matter how long you are listening to this Sonata, anyway, normally, if you enjoy one recording, you will be waiting to hear the same effects (or problems!) which gave you the impression of a nice "élan" (as you exemplified) in other recordings. 
The question is: how do you know they are right? is it because they are mentioned in a music magazine? or maybe because they are promoted by a record label? because they have fans?
Remembering what I just said: The main problem is that the market is not focused in other things than making money. so, no matter what Beethoven, Liszt or Chopin intentions in the score are, if you have someone easy to "sell", then that is just fine for the market.
And if it is only by your own taste, the question is: how can you decide which you prefer when basically all the recordings done until now had presented several problems which makes a new "corrected" recording sounds like an anomaly? How much time is necessary to give same "weight" for the interpreters you mention and me.

You call yourself layman, and that is not something bad, anyway, layman or not, you are able to decide by yourself what is good for you, no matter if it goes in the opposite of the market or not. I just really hope at some point you (and others) decide to check what is the original intention of the composers rather than what media "decides" as better for their marketing purposes.

I'm open-minded enough to say I dislike something based in my opinion/experience no matter if it was Bach's, Mozart's, Beethoven's, Liszt's decision or not. But I'll never consider an interpreter (or media decisions) as a "final reference" to the ideas of a composer. The score is far the best reference, and of course, it is not complete alone, you need to dedicate years of study to understand what one can drain from such symbols (musical writing) to make it sound as the final music. If there is any genius, it is the composer. The interpreters are from very good to very bad but I can't see any trace of genius in their work. (this is my opinion, and I admit I'm not really interested in the discussions about what "genius" means)

Concerning the "interpretation of a musicologist", sounds like, musicologists are not "great interpreters", and that, today, is not a really totally wrong because most part of the famous pianists are not musicologists, and most part of musicologists are not famous pianists nor dedicate too much time for performance.
On the other hand, "famous pianists" now are market products, the decision of "how good they play" is given to the public via brainwash through critics in magazines, radios, TV, and even youtube views/likes.
I can tell you my view is not only an actual musicologist's one, despite of having myself making a lot of work as musicologist, I'm very focused in the sound and artistic interpretation of the work connected with the original intentions written in the score and the impressions of the ones who were in the public during the premieres (specially the musicians).
Of course, you can check more of my free recordings on youtube and decide by yourself if my playing is result of a musicologist view or not, and not necessarily you will enjoy anyway, but this is part of the game. 

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

cimirro said:


> Hello DavidA
> 
> I have no problems with criticism at all, specially when the other side is open to dialogue,  so, since you ask, I can easily answer this for you.
> First, this is not intended to be "Liszt's own interpretation", this is MY interpretation focused in *Liszt's requests, which anyone can find in the score*.
> ...


I'm not going to discuss aspects of the score with you as you are far more qualified than me. But I would take issue with you when you talk about being 'brainwashed' - this is frankly laughable! Do you honestly think that because someone finds Horowitz (I'm listening to him now) electrifying and your interpretation relatively tame is because they have been 'brainwashed' by the critics and music magazines? No. The fact is that even as a VERY mediocre pianist myself I do know there is more to piano playing than the score (however marked) and the notes. I also know there are many different ways of interpretation. As Schonberg has said of Horowitz, 'He realised that it was a performer's duty to take the notes - the blueprint - and attempt a synthesis that mingled the mind of the composer with the mind of the interpreter.' I doubt whether Liszt himself would have played his music the same way twice. After all he was a romantic. I believe musicologists do music a valuable service but the problem is that no amount of musicology can make up for pianistic talent.
As I said I have recordings of this sonata by Argerich, Richter, Ogden, Brendel, Rubinstein, Graffmann, Bolet, Gilels, Van Cliburn, Horowitz, Cherkassky, Cziffra, Watts, Fleisher, Anda, and a few others. I have listened to their various different interpretations with pleasure. But now I am told they are wrong? I realise it is courageous of you in the light of such interpretations to throw your hat into the ring but please don't tell me I've been somehow 'brainwashed' in preferring their interpretations. Just what would Franz himself have said?


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

I'm a big big fan of the sonata and I read some Liszt biographies. Although I'm not musically educated and I so I'm in no position to criticize the "correctness" of your interpretation of the score (nor your impressive skill). But COULD it be that Liszt himself ignored his own markings and once he was behind the piano, looked op to heaven and let the trance take over? When I read testimonials of Liszt playing the piano I can't really correspond that to your interpretation (just for your info: I virtually only know Bolet's interpretation, which, for me, accords more to what I read). I'm not saying in any way that it isn't possible that your interpretation is actually closer to how Liszt would've played it then how it is traditionally played. I'm just stating an idea. 

Am I correct that your interpretation has less dynamics going on then most traditional interpretations? (less difference between fortissimo and piano)

Apart from that I can say I really like the way you record your piano, with virtually no reverb and a dry sound, I wish all recordings where like that! And I will probably listen to your interpretation several times again because it stands out from the rest indeed and maybe needs some getting used to.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

DavidA said:


> I'm not going to discuss aspects of the score with you as you are far more qualified than me. But I would take issue with you when you talk about being 'brainwashed' - this is frankly laughable! Do you honestly think that because someone finds Horowitz (I'm listening to him now) electrifying and your interpretation relatively tame is because they have been 'brainwashed' by the critics and music magazines? No. The fact is that even as a VERY mediocre pianist myself I do know there is more to piano playing than the score (however marked) and the notes. I also know there are many different ways of interpretation. As Schonberg has said of Horowitz, 'He realised that it was a performer's duty to take the notes - the blueprint - and attempt a synthesis that mingled the mind of the composer with the mind of the interpreter.' I doubt whether Liszt himself would have played his music the same way twice. After all he was a romantic. I believe musicologists do music a valuable service but the problem is that no amount of musicology can make up for pianistic talent.
> As I said I have recordings of this sonata by Argerich, Richter, Ogden, Brendel, Rubinstein, Graffmann, Bolet, Gilels, Van Cliburn, Horowitz, Cherkassky, Cziffra, Watts, Fleisher, Anda, and a few others. I have listened to their various different interpretations with pleasure. But now I am told they are wrong? I realise it is courageous of you in the light of such interpretations to throw your hat into the ring but please don't tell me I've been somehow 'brainwashed' in preferring their interpretations. Just what would Franz himself have said?


If you read what I wrote here:
*And if it is only by your own taste, the question is: how can you decide which you prefer when basically all the recordings done until now had presented several problems which makes a new "corrected" recording sounds like an anomaly? How much time is necessary to give same "weight" for the interpreters you mention and me?*
My interpretation goes far and in the opposite of the tradition, and the basis for this are the indications given by Liszt.
The words of the critic you mention are just his opinion. makes no difference at all and this is not a ruler to how one must read or not the score.

Also I'm not saying that listening Horowitz is a result of brainwash, (I like several recordings of him) but if you tell me that his interpretation (or any other) is the best based in your taste it is just your taste and that's fine - that means nothing at all.
Also, you can find Horowitz "electrifying" and there is no problems with this, my question for you is: once you check the score do you have any prove that his "electrifying playing" is the musical idea requested by Liszt in such piece?
If you answer "I don't care for such thing", then there is really nothing interesting in my work for you.

As you said: 


DavidA said:


> I doubt whether Liszt himself would have played his music the same way twice. After all he was a romantic.


Like any other human being as Liszt was, I really agree with you, that doesn't mean he would change from "Schiff" to "Gould" in two interpretations of the same Bach - and this is not because of any kind of lack of capacity, it is because of coherence of a personal interpretation on such work. Of course, he probably changed his own interpretations several times during his life. Anyway, one thing is the fantasy around history, the other is what really happens with professionals during their lives.



DavidA said:


> I believe musicologists do music a valuable service but the problem is that no amount of musicology can make up for pianistic talent.


At no point I said the opposite.
Anyway, I'd like to write here something to think about: who is deciding what is "pianistic talent" and "best interpretation"? the listener? the one who never read the score and is only impressed by famous recordings which are accessible because of a market with all the mentioned problems?

Of course, you can call me untalented if you wish, but such words makes no difference at all to me, it is like a Brazilian bricklayer (who hardly had any kind access to an university) saying the American astronauts knows nothing about space and George Lucas is the talented guy about space matters because he is shown on Brazilian TV.

You can keep enjoying Horowitz and all the others you mentioned while at the same time you keep your mind open to what is happening in the evolution of musical interpretation, or not, just call me an arrogant snob and that's ok. I have no problems with this.
The most important is not "accept" what I'm saying, but asking yourself if what I'm saying have sense and checking the scores and theory books.
Check at least the first page of Henle edition of the Sonata - 37 spiccati, 12 staccati - how many of these are presented in coherence to what was played one second before by the most part of the famous recordings?
Do you really believe the same composer who wrote the piece "Lyon" do not care to what he wrote? Do you know the score of such piece (Lyon)? if not, please check it before answering.

And finally. I'm not saying "you" are brainwashed, I'm saying several people decide music by a "brainwash system" made by media, and you probably already noticed this in pop music and other things. If you are in or out, only you can answer, and after all, I'm not asking nor accusing you of anything.

Best



Razumovskymas said:


> I'm a big big fan of the sonata and I read some Liszt biographies. Although I'm not musically educated and I so I'm in no position to criticize the "correctness" of your interpretation of the score (nor your impressive skill). But COULD it be that Liszt himself ignored his own markings and once he was behind the piano, looked op to heaven and let the trance take over?


Well, there is the fantasy and the reality. 
Of course, a composer can play the same piece in very different ways, changing a lot of things, and Liszt as you probably have read, used to change a lot of things in his early periods.
Anyway, when he decided to focus on orchestral composition and bigger musical forms, he developed a very deep knowledge of musical coherence (this is why I'm using this word) and this is perfectly preserved in the musical score he left to us.
This work goes far from a simple piano piece, there are orchestral elements on it. This is more than enough for such discussion, but I propose something to think about:
Imagine this "Tchaikowsky Simphony No.4 - 3rd mov." 
Tchaikowsky goes to a piano in a friend's house, he is the composer of this symphony and decided to play it at the piano to show his musical idea to his friend.

- Will he use pedals in the starting page?

If you answer "no", you understand what I mean. The pizzicati is in the musical intention in the opening of the movement, it is not to be changed by an "interpreter" - so even Tchaikowsky would obviously play staccato imitating a kind of pizzicato and without any need of pedal at this point in his own piano "improvised" version.



Razumovskymas said:


> When I read testimonials of Liszt playing the piano I can't really correspond that to your interpretation (just for your info: I virtually only know Bolet's interpretation, which, for me, accords more to what I read). I'm not saying in any way that it isn't possible that your interpretation is actually closer to how Liszt would've played it then how it is traditionally played. I'm just stating an idea.


I understand you. My question is, these testimonials were of which period? and which piece he was playing? Are you sure it was a composition made by him?
The Sonata has no published "ossias" during his life because this is his idea of Sonata form. It is not like a paraphrase or a fantasy on opera themes. 
On the other hand, my informations about the interpretations came from the first interpreters of this piece, Bülow, Klindworth and Tausig. All of them played this work during the 1850's in private soirées or just for a small number of friends. And we have letters also of people who heard the piece played by Liszt in these years.
Now, of course, I'm not saying to you to check all the letters and waste hours in the libraries doing what I have been doing several times, but you can simply check the characteristics of each of these 3 interpreters and you will notice there are a lot of facts to research.
This is not the kind of piece Liszt played in his "showman" days, nor his students were considering such kind of "interpretation".



Razumovskymas said:


> Am I correct that your interpretation has less dynamics going on then most traditional interpretations? (less difference between fortissimo and piano)


Maybe we have several aspects to consider, I can't tell you that I have more or less dynamics, I can tell you I'm playing in an old steinway in a studio which is not the one used by the famous labels. So there are things related to interpretation and others related to the piano sound.
If you ask me something about some special part in details I can tell you what is my decision and why, and what is not.



Razumovskymas said:


> Apart from that I can say I really like the way you record your piano, with virtually no reverb and a dry sound, I wish all recordings where like that! And I will probably listen to your interpretation several times again because it stands out from the rest indeed and maybe needs some getting used to.


Thank you for considering listening again, as I mentioned to DavidA, my intention is not make people gave up other recordings, it is just call their attention to things which were not shown yet.

Best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## snowyflow (Jul 30, 2014)

This thread touches upon the core of the never-ending debate on performer's interpretation vs. composer's originality. The foundation of any interpretation should be firmly based on the score, which represents the artistic view of the composer. We can say that's the performer's duty. On the other hand, performer's individuality and creativity will have to come into play, of course within a reasonable boundary of the score. This is because music, as it has come into existence till now, is not complete until it's performed (i.e. transformed into sounds). Performance is the integral part of music making, or an extension to the composer's score. There is bound to be room (probably a lot, if we ask musicians and professional performers) of variation across performers, and even performances of a particular performer, thus forming a spectrum with one end focusing on authenticity of the original score, and other end emphasizing performer's individuality and expression. Both should be allowed, encouraged and respected.

For Liszt's Sonata in B minor, treatment of articulation markings such as staccato / spiccato are actually more subtle than other aspects of of the piece, such as tempo. Arrau's 1970 recording takes 32 minutes, yet Rubinstein's takes only 27 minutes! How did the five minutes gap come about? Which is better? Alan Walker stated that great playing of this piece must be less than 30 minutes, and I'm sure many of us will have their own preference of how fast the piece should be played. Music is probably the only form of art that leaves SO much space to performers on interpretation, let alone even more to listeners for them to understand and feel about each piece in their own ways.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

snowyflow said:


> This thread touches upon the core of the never-ending debate on performer's interpretation vs. composer's originality. The foundation of any interpretation should be firmly based on the score, which represents the artistic view of the composer. We can say that's the performer's duty. On the other hand, performer's individuality and creativity will have to come into play, of course within a reasonable boundary of the score. This is because music, as it has come into existence till now, is not complete until it's performed (i.e. transformed into sounds). Performance is the integral part of music making, or an extension to the composer's score. There is bound to be room (probably a lot, if we ask musicians and professional performers) of variation across performers, and even performances of a particular performer, thus forming a spectrum with one end focusing on authenticity of the original score, and other end emphasizing performer's individuality and expression. Both should be allowed, encouraged and respected.
> 
> For Liszt's Sonata in B minor, treatment of articulation markings such as staccato / spiccato are actually more subtle than other aspects of of the piece, such as tempo. Arrau's 1970 recording takes 32 minutes, yet Rubinstein's takes only 27 minutes! How did the five minutes gap come about? Which is better? Alan Walker stated that great playing of this piece must be less than 30 minutes, and I'm sure many of us will have their own preference of how fast the piece should be played. Music is probably the only form of art that leaves SO much space to performers on interpretation, let alone even more to listeners for them to understand and feel about each piece in their own ways.


What makes me upset is the fact that people speak about "focusing on authenticity of the original score" without any real example given in the history of the recordings for the piece in question.
I would be much more polite if there would be at least one more example of a recording of this Sonata where the score was fully respected (even if the result were far different from mine - but using the same coherence!

By the way, It is sad to notice people often put the interpreters in pedestals like "the ones able to do anything with someone's music", when they are in the most part a bunch of trained monkeys. I do not see any individuality when the articulation of a score is repeated wrongly by a tradition of hundreds of pianists during the last century - So I really can't take seriously or respect the so called "specialists" nor their "fans" when nobody gives a better answer than "this is his interpretation because this is a free art".
As I said in the past in an article "Art is not anything made by any ignorant rascal who self-proclaims artist protected by a system corrupted by money matters".

As I just mentioned in the post before yours, giving Tchaikowsky Symphony as example, no "interpreter" (Maestro in this case) in front of an orchestra will change the indication from "pizzicato" to "legato" - because this is beyond the limits of a "creative interpretation" - this is changing the musical idea - and there is no problems with this if you call yourself "arranger" of this "new version".
The main problem is the most part of pianists known by their "creative interpretations" are far from being "creative arrangers", they are in most part just changing things (without any knowledge about it) which are directly connected with the original idea of the composer (written in the score).

Anyway, yes, you can enjoy any version you want. But despite of the market and the most part of people call these "changes" as "interpretations", they are not.

It is funny how much people waste time here speaking about sense of words but they can't differ "interpretation" from "extrapolation based on a wrong tradition" - of course, I'm wasting my time explaining this since in the end any pseudo-funny guy will say "I don't like you" and it is easier call me arrogant or mad by proving something scary about the lack of attention from the so called "great masters of piano playing" in the last century concerning what is written in the score.

The idea of staccato / spiccato treatment being more "subtle" than tempo is quite weird.
Tempo, when an interpreter takes it seriously, is related to a taste's decision among the possibilities given by the composer with his indication.
So deciding what is a "better" tempo for a piece of music sounds silly if this is not the interpreter's own opinion.
One single pianist can play Liszt's Sonata both in 25 minutes or 35 min. depending of the sound treatment he is planning and/or several other aspects regarding the score, and still we may have a fantastic "interpretation" - and these changes can happen in interpretations made in two different days of any single pianist.

Allan Walker statements are useless in this case, no matter how much letters he read, or how much books he wrote, or how much people like him. He is not an interpreter. That is just an example of a personal opinion which makes no difference at all in the world of music.

Again, of course, enjoy or not enjoy any version is your decision, your taste, but despite of music "leaves SO much space to performers on interpretation" - as you said - that is totally different from changing scores without any coherence using only someone's marketing to falsely prove the interpretation is genial.

As I already said, I'm not asking people to enjoy my playing, I'm asking people to check a very wrong thing the classical music market is doing with the piano repertoire with the lame excuse of doing "great interpretations" which are far from acceptable according to any one who studied musical forms, musical theory and history of interpretation.

The decision of what is a good interpretation is still an art in itself which needs a lot of development and research, and of course, it is not related to the taste of others than the composer himself.
The rest is arrogance of ignorants who can't deal with their own will of power and/or their needing of a marketing in order to make some money.

And of course, the decision of thinking about any of these things or keeping a peaceful life with the cattle is all yours.
I write here for the few ones who really care and go beyond the words and childish forum fights - And I'm quite happy when I notice some!

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Excellent talk on the history and performance practices of the...


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

(it was posted twice)


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Larkenfield said:


> Excellent talk on the history and performance practices of the...


And here an excellent talk on the same theme proving the one you mentioned is lacking a lot of important things in his "talk" despite of his status as Liszt's expert given by a public who have no understanding at all about what is written in the score..

http://opusdissonus.com.br/master-class_002_cimirro-liszt-sonata.mp3

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

cimirro said:


> And here an excellent talk on the same theme proving the one you mentioned is lacking a lot of important things in his "talk" despite of his status as Liszt's expert given by a public who have no understanding at all about what is written in the score..
> 
> http://opusdissonus.com.br/master-class_002_cimirro-liszt-sonata.mp3
> 
> ...


Poor public! We do have an understanding of what we hear and what we enjoy though! :lol:

I'm glad I don't have to be an 'expert' to enjoy the recordings I have!


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

While not essential, differing opinions can sometimes prove invaluable in exploring the score for those with sufficient curiosity and interest, and for listeners too in appreciating its detailed history that might not be commonly known. No one will ever have the final say on this fascinating sonata.


----------



## Josquin13 (Nov 7, 2017)

Bravo!!!! It's a pleasure to hear a pianist that actually understands the music of Liszt (for a change)--its size and scale. That's very rare. Thank you.

Yes, as I see it, whole generations of listeners have been brainwashed (or bludgeoned) by the "big virtuosos" regarding Liszt's music. In the 1930s, Liszt student Emil von Sauer said as much, when he commented to one of his students that Liszt wouldn't even recognize his music the way it was being played by the [virtuoso] pianists of the day, who were all playing it "too loud, and too fast"*.

Pianist Claudio Arrau, who studied with Liszt's favorite last pupil, Martin Krause, said much the same thing in his interviews with Joseph Horowitz (in "Conversations with Arrau"). If I remember correctly, Arrau held the view that Liszt's music was widely misunderstood, due to all the pianists that played it merely as 'virtuosic' or showy music. He contended that Liszt's music was so much more than that.

I'd go as far as to say that listeners who have not heard Arrau's interpretation of this sonata (especially his first Philips studio account, & ideally in optimal audiophile sound), but have only listened to Horowitz play the Sonata in B minor, and/or all the pianists that were subsequently influenced by Horowitz (along with the other big virtuosos of the day), won't understand what Arrau was talking about--& especially in regards to this sonata. Not surprisingly, one poster has responded that they found your interpretation, which is more or less in a true Lisztian tradition, as "tame".

After listening to many recordings of the Sonata in B minor over the decades, Arrau's 1st Philips recording remains the only one that has ever deeply moved me. I have long attributed this to the fact that Arrau was known to take greater pains in studying scores than most pianists, and concluded that he simply understood the sonata better than everyone else. Though of course I think it also had something to do with Arrau's years studying with Martin Krause, as well, and Krause's close connection to Liszt.

But I also found your interpretation moving, Arthur--as this sonata should be!, and that is rare. Indeed, your understanding and conception of the work has something common with Arrau's, in places. Though of course, I'm not suggesting that you are copying his interpretation, as there were many interpretative differences too. But clearly, you have thought deeply about Liszt's score, and come to some of the same conclusions that Arrau did--or at least, that was my impression.

I also wanted to say that while listening to your performance, there were times when I found myself struck by the idea that your interpretation might be more suitably performed on a piano that was contemporary to the decade Liszt composed this music, i.e., 1850s. There were various aspects to your interpretation where I found myself translating, in my mind, what you were doing to a period piano, and thinking yes, that is more or less how those notes would sound on a historic piano--inevitably so, in Liszt's day, when the notes couldn't be sustained for as long, or at least wouldn't sound as resonant, loud, and unwieldy, as they do on a modern grand.

Is that something that you were conscious of? Did you consider how some of the effects of this sonata might have sounded on an antique piano, circa 1853-54? Or, were you so intently focused on the score, and being acutely faithful to Liszt's markings, that you, in effect, ended up managing to channel or translate how various aspects of the score might have sounded on a piano that Liszt would have known when he composed this music?

Again, it's just an impression. In truth, I can't recall ever having heard the B minor played on a piano that would be contemporary to the time that Liszt composed the sonata. Although I have heard pianist Andrea Bonatta play the late "Harmonies poétiques et religieuses" on a 1870s period piano. Have you ever played a piano that old? I can't remember off hand what brand of piano Liszt preferred, or even if there was a piano maker (or two) that he was known to like. But I'd be very curious & interested to hear you play this sonata and test out some of your interpretive ideas on a (very good sounding) piano that Liszt might have known and played in the 1850s. As I came away with the impression that some of the differences between your interpretation and Arrau's is that you are headed more down that road than he was.

The other point that I wanted to make is that I couldn't hear your final note, unfortunately. Perhaps that was due to my regrettable loss of hearing in recent years, or the dynamic range of your recording, or perhaps I didn't have my computer volume turned up loud enough, but it wasn't audible to me. Although I did like how you chose to play the ending so softly and quietly. It was certainly preferable to the way Ivo Pogorelich plays the final note, so bluntly and insensitively. Indeed Pogorelich gives the sonata a rather nihilist ending, if you will, and that can't be right, not when you consider that Liszt's students said there was a Faustian story or program behind this music, which crucially culminates in the last notes & final note. (Though I can't remember where I've read this--whether it was from Arrau, or perhaps Alfred Brendel in his writings?--as Brendel studied Edwin Fisher, another Krause student, or somewhere else... ?)

In any event, congratulations on your excellent recording!

(*I find Sauer's comment particularly revealing in relation to Martin Krause's teaching, as Krause told the young Arrau (in Arrau's words to Horowitz) that he "shouldn't perform a work in public unless you were able to play it ten times as fast and ten times as loud as it would have to be in performance--that you only gave the feeling of mastery to an audience if you had tremendous reserves of technique, so that it seemed you could play much faster if you wished, or much louder." Clearly, Arrau took Krause's advice to heart, as he never played Liszt or any other composer too loudly (or overly fast), there was always a sense with Arrau that he still had reserves: an example that too many pianists today don't follow, and sadly, as a result, I find their Liszt & Beethoven less listenable.)

If anyone's interest in Arrau's Liszt has become piqued by my post: I'd strongly recommend the following recording & book:

https://www.amazon.com/Sonata-B-Min...93&sr=1-3&keywords=liszt+b+minor+arrau+import (for the best sound remastering, this issue is a treasure)

https://www.amazon.com/Liszt-Sonata...93&sr=1-2&keywords=liszt+b+minor+arrau+import

https://www.amazon.com/Arrau-Music-...=arrau+conversations+on+music+and+performance

In addition, here's a You Tube link to the Andrea Bonatta Liszt recording that I mentioned above (issued on the French Astrée label). I see Bonatta plays on "Piano Liszt"--a Eduard Steingraeber, Bayreuth 1873--which isn't quite early enough for the Sonata in B minor, and yet it's very interesting to hear how incredibly tranquil, soft, and quiet Liszt's "Ave Maria", "Bénédiction de Dieu dans la solitude", and "Pensée des morts" come off on this piano. I'd strongly suggest giving those three works a listen, while bearing in mind Sauer's comment to his student:






https://www.amazon.com/Liszt-Harmon...16229767&sr=1-1&keywords=andrea+bonatta+liszt


----------



## merlinus (Apr 12, 2014)

There is a Japanese SACD of Arrau's performance. The sound is much improved, but even the CD version is sonically decent. And as you said, his interpretation is at or near the top of the 20 or so I have auditioned.

My other recommendations are Krystian Zimerman and George-Emmanuel Lazaridis.

I am fortunately able to play through the sonata, but nowhere as well as you, cimirro!


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Poor public! We do have an understanding of what we hear and what we enjoy though! :lol:
> 
> I'm glad I don't have to be an 'expert' to enjoy the recordings I have!


Dear DavidA

I'm pretty sure you have an understanding of what you enjoy - it is your taste after all. 
Anyway I have no idea of what is your understanding of what you hear since I don't know how deep you study the music you listen to.
The fact is: If you do not make any study, then there is no understanding other than your taste. I hope it is not your case. 
But there is no problems in the public having a taste like this or like that.
The problem is the arrogance of a public who wants to insist that their taste overlaps the knowledge around the theme.

There is no "poor public" in this case - Even a cynical sentence needs a talented writter to keep the argument.
But I'm far from being interested in having any kind of personal discussion with you. 
Anyone who keep in a cynical way in this case, will be the only real "looser". 



Larkenfield said:


> While not essential, differing opinions can sometimes prove invaluable in exploring the score for those with sufficient curiosity and interest, and for listeners too in appreciating its detailed history that might not be commonly known. No one will ever have the final say on this fascinating sonata.


Dear Larkenfield,
I agree, there is no "final say" or "final word". 
My argument only stands for the ones who are interested in the art of 
music and its interpretation despite of a corrupted market or despite of a simple personal "taste".
In this case, differing opinions are essential in this imitative world we have in front of us.
I'm far from being interested in having people imitating the way I play the same way I'm far from being interested in repeating mistakes from a wrong tradition.
I'm very interested in the development of the arts - in the future - and I am happy to study deeply the past in order to have a solid way in front of me to walk on.
And this is the artist's view, not the public's one.



Josquin13 said:


> Bravo!!!! It's a pleasure to hear a pianist that actually understands the music of Liszt (for a change)--its size and scale. That's very rare. Thank you.
> 
> Yes, as I see it, whole generations of listeners have been brainwashed (or bludgeoned) by the "big virtuosos" regarding Liszt's music. In the 1930s, Liszt student Emil von Sauer said as much, when he commented to one of his students that Liszt wouldn't even recognize his music the way it was being played by the [virtuoso] pianists of the day, who were all playing it "too loud, and too fast"*.
> 
> ...


Dear Josquin13,
Thank you for your words. Actually your post is very interesting and informative, I only wish people would take my posts as seriously as you just did - despite of enjoying or not my results at the piano by the way.

The possible comparison with Arrau is quite interesting but I would be a liar if I tell you that I have noticed in myself any influence in my playing when in comparison to his recording. Anyway I'm happy I could give you the same "moving" feel you had with Arrau. And maybe that would be nice to me listening him again now after a long time i have first did it.

Concerning the old pianos: I have played in some very old pianos which were still working nice, that includes Erard, Steingraber, Playel and even a Broadwood during my travels for some recitals in the past. So I had very good experiences with these instruments.

Anyway recording in these instruments is not so easy when you are not in the main propaganda of the classical music world.
I would, of course, be very happy to make recordings in such pianos if the owners would give me the access for free (and this seems to be the most difficult part - I'm not in a position of selecting which instruments I would like to use since I can't pay myself)

Answering your question, my decision on the "sound" is focused beyond the score, I mean, the music of a great composer goes far beyond the possibilities of the instrument to whom the composition is written - and this is my starting point when studying a score in order to find its "inner voices".
So, of course, because of my experiences, I have in mind how it would sound in a piano in Liszt's times, and I know how it sounds in a modern piano if I keep the focus in Liszt's views, and I know how it would sound if I play it in a Stuart piano (which is the best piano today).
So, I believe I found, in my own way, the way back to the original sound ideas thanks to this hermeneutics on the musical writing together with the experience over the years with all kind of repertoires (specially the less known ones).

In my computer I can hear the last note in 29'53''. Hopefully you can give a second try later in another speaker, but if you have had experienced some hearing loss over the time, take care of it and try to avoid listening things too loud in order to keep the health of your ears.

Also thank you for all your links, I'll check them carefully.



merlinus said:


> There is a Japanese SACD of Arrau's performance. The sound is much improved, but even the CD version is sonically decent. And as you said, his interpretation is at or near the top of the 20 or so I have auditioned.
> 
> My other recommendations are Krystian Zimerman and George-Emmanuel Lazaridis.
> 
> I am fortunately able to play through the sonata, but nowhere as well as you, cimirro!


Dear merlinus,
Thank you for your informations and kind words.

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Josquin13 said:


> Bravo!!!! It's a pleasure to hear a pianist that actually understands the music of Liszt (for a change)--its size and scale. That's very rare. Thank you.
> 
> Yes, as I see it, whole generations of listeners have been brainwashed (or bludgeoned) by the "big virtuosos" regarding Liszt's music. In the 1930s, Liszt student Emil von Sauer said as much, when he commented to one of his students that Liszt wouldn't even recognize his music the way it was being played by the [virtuoso] pianists of the day, who were all playing it "too loud, and too fast"*.
> 
> ...


Hi Josquin13. Just wanted to say that I was fortunate enough to hear Arrau perform the Liszt Sonata live years ago in LA. I thought his performance was even better than his Philips recording. Monumental.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

cimirro said:


> Dear DavidA
> 
> I'm pretty sure you have an understanding of what you enjoy - it is your taste after all.
> Anyway I have no idea of what is your understanding of what you hear since I don't know how deep you study the music you listen to.
> ...


Cimirro, I salute your artistic vision and thank you for your own marvelous performance. Liszt created a stunning masterpiece that is capable of bringing out the best in even the greatest of pianists. Would love to have heard him perform it live.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

cimirro said:


> Dear DavidA
> 
> I'm pretty sure you have an understanding of what you enjoy - it is your taste after all.
> Anyway I have no idea of what is your understanding of what you hear since I don't know how deep you study the music you listen to.
> ...


I think it's ironic when you talk about the 'arrogance' of the public when you have already implied you know better than a generation of great pianists how the work should be played! 
You say, 'If you do not make any study, then there is no understanding other than your taste.' That is a statement typical of a musicologist I fear. While I admit that a study of music can increase our understanding and hence enjoyment, I fail to believe that the great composers expected their audience to study their works from the score (as you appear to propose) in order to appreciate it. I mean, how many works are we expected to study?
I'm afraid I listen to music for sheer enjoyment and the Liszt sonata is one piece I really enjoy. The fact is I enjoy it more played the 'wrong' way by a great pianist that the 'right' way. Just me. Sorry!


----------



## merlinus (Apr 12, 2014)

In some ways this is like the difference between the Apollonian and Dionysian approach to art and life. Apollo is the god of rational thinking and order, appealing to prudence and purity. On the other hand, Dionysus is the god of irrationality and chaos, appealing to emotions and instincts.

For me, a middle path is in order. For example, there is no way I can play most of the Liszt sonata, or those of Beethoven, according to the musical tempi, but I can certainly bring out depths of feelings.

Sadly, many of today's amazing virtuoso pianists, who have a technique that I can only marvel at, seem to be playing only the notes. For me, very little emotions and feelings are expressed, which lead to lofty experiences. So in the end, what appeals to me and brings lots of pleasure and enjoyment may be antithetical to musicological research, etc. 

Wilhelm Furtwangler, to my mind, is the greatest of conductors, and he used the music to convey the depths of feelings and heights of passion and glory inherent in the notes. Yet he is often criticized for not following the supposed intents of the composers. But I could care less!!!


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

DavidA said:


> I think it's ironic when you talk about the 'arrogance' of the public when you have already implied you know better than a generation of great pianists how the work should be played!


There is no irony if I have arguments for such speech as I have, and it is not my problem if they did a historical mistake as they did (as any other normal human being can do, including myself).
The fact that you have not been interested in reading what I have to say does not invalidate my arguments. This is why I mention your opinion is only a taste and makes no difference to what I'm saying.



DavidA said:


> You say, 'If you do not make any study, then there is no understanding other than your taste.' That is a statement typical of a musicologist I fear.


Actually this is not a musicologist statement, this is an artist statement. An artist who do not care for all the development and history of his/her art is a very "incomplete" artist.



DavidA said:


> I fail to believe that the great composers expected their audience to study their works from the score (as you appear to propose) in order to appreciate it.


Sorry, but this is going to be boring as hell to keep explaining something if you have no interest at all, so, please, take some time to read what I already wrote.
I have NOT mentioned the composers are expecting the public to do anything - I'm speaking about the ones who are interested in studying the music - and these are NOT the public. 
If it is not your case (being yourself interested in such studies), then that is ok. Maybe there is nothing interesting for you in my work. 
But, in this case, at the same time, that would be great if you do not waste my time too, I mean, while you are free to write anything you wish, that doesn't mean what you have to say is of any value to a discussion like the one I'm opening here - but if you want to think about it, of course, you are always welcome.



DavidA said:


> I mean, how many works are we expected to study?


If you are only part of the public, then... none. I'm not discussing the public relation to such studies, my problem is with the professionals and with the ones who admit having any deep interest in studying such things.



DavidA said:


> I'm afraid I listen to music for sheer enjoyment and the Liszt sonata is one piece I really enjoy.


That's good, I'm not against it. I think you are doing it right for you.
But it seems you are making me waste time, explaining things that you have no interest at all. So please, keep listening and enjoying what you prefer, but do not try to rule the things you are not related to/interested in. And do not take anything here as personal.
Let's keep the study of music for the ones interested in the study of music.



merlinus said:


> In some ways this is like the difference between the Apollonian and Dionysian approach to art and life. Apollo is the god of rational thinking and order, appealing to prudence and purity. On the other hand, Dionysus is the god of irrationality and chaos, appealing to emotions and instincts.
> 
> For me, a middle path is in order. For example, there is no way I can play most of the Liszt sonata, or those of Beethoven, according to the musical tempi, but I can certainly bring out depths of feelings.
> 
> ...


Actually this view easily noticed in Nietzsche is very nice (Apollonian/Dionysian), and I can't understand why some people today still needs to stop in a "pseudo-decision out of context" (using this unrelated to the philosophy now) and choose between "studying too much in a sterile direction" versus "don't care to anything and become a jester to the public". So I agree the middle path is the good point for a real artist.

(The decision of a taste is not related to what is right, nor it means no other person will "feel" the music which was decided as "unmusical" by others - this is sufficient to prove how useless is to discuss a personal taste.
Actually Several people can enjoy a recording and several others can hate the same recording - why someone is right? these are just opinions.
The same can be said of my recording, as it can be said of any other recording too - how many recordings you would call "unmusical" while several people would call the same recording "the music of my life".
Yes, I repeated myself here, hopefully I'll not need read nor answer anything about it anymore since it is not the focus this discussion anyway.)

What I insist is that I do not know any faithful reading to this score, and sincerely I do not have interest in playing anything just for a musicological context too. 
While most part of people are used to like some famous recordings, not all are unable to notice the musicality in such "different" recording like mine is.

On the other hand, what I can tell you is, to my opinion, the "amazing virtuoso pianists" who only play notes are not "amazing virtuoso pianists" - they are very incomplete artists who are very often mediocre athletes of 10 fingers. I hardly consider wasting my time listening to them and I often call them "trained monkeys".

The example I gave about Tchaikowsky would be very simple to make anyone notice the difference from an interpretation by a Furtwangler versus the extrapolation of several "trained monkeys".
The rest is taste.

All the best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

cimirro said:


> There is no irony if I have arguments for such speech as I have, and it is not my problem if they did a historical mistake as they did (as any other normal human being can do, including myself).
> The fact that you have *not been interested in reading what I have to say *does not invalidate my arguments. This is why I mention your opinion is only a taste and makes no difference to what I'm saying.
> 
> Actually *this is not a musicologist statement, this is an artist statement*. An artist who do not care for all the development and history of his/her art is a very "incomplete" artist.
> ...


My dear friend, I am not *making* you waste your time at all, replying in such great length to my comments. That is something you are choosing to do. I just wonder why such an uninformed artist such as Richter completely takes my breath away by his performance? Could it be that there is more to a performance than merely studying it (given that you have the talent to play the notes which you obviously do - I admire you for that!) Interestingly I listened to Arrau last night as he had been mentioned but it seemed to me a little studied for all the grandeur of his playing. Then I listened to Richter just for comparison - I was only going to listen for a few minutes but was so captivated that I heard the lot.






Now I know you will, probably tell me all the 'sins' Richter commits in his performance. But the sheer sweep and daring of the performance carries me away. Isn't that what music is supposed to do to an audience? Would Liszt not have been delighted with that? I think so.
May I say I never take anything said on TC as personal. We are merely exchanging opinions as music lovers - albeit with very different approaches. I am frank in my opinions and don't mind if other people are (as long as they are polite, which you are!). 
Just one point: when you say, 'Let's keep the study of music for the ones interested in the study of music,' I would say that some of us are interested in the study of music to a point. As a historian I try and interest others to study certain aspects of history but do not necessarily expect them to study in the depth I do! I have certainly enjoyed what you say about the sonata even if I don't take all points on board, so don't think you are wasting your time. In fact I have listened to it more times recently than I have in several years. Also, let me just say I do admire anyone who can even play the thing - it makes me boggle even to look at the printed score! :lol:


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

DavidA said:


> My dear friend, I am not *making* you waste your time at all, replying in such great length to my comments. That is something you are choosing to do. I just wonder why such an uninformed artist such as Richter completely takes my breath away by his performance? Could it be that there is more to a performance than merely studying it (given that you have the talent to play the notes which you obviously do - I admire you for that!) Interestingly I listened to Arrau last night as he had been mentioned but it seemed to me a little studied for all the grandeur of his playing. Then I listened to Richter just for comparison - I was only going to listen for a few minutes but was so captivated that I heard the lot.
> 
> Now I know you will, probably tell me all the 'sins' Richter commits in his performance. But the sheer sweep and daring of the performance carries me away. Isn't that what music is supposed to do to an audience? Would Liszt not have been delighted with that? I think so.
> May I say I never take anything said on TC as personal. We are merely exchanging opinions as music lovers - albeit with very different approaches. I am frank in my opinions and don't mind if other people are (as long as they are polite, which you are!).
> Just one point: when you say, 'Let's keep the study of music for the ones interested in the study of music,' I would say that some of us are interested in the study of music to a point. As a historian I try and interest others to study certain aspects of history but do not necessarily expect them to study in the depth I do! I have certainly enjoyed what you say about the sonata even if I don't take all points on board, so don't think you are wasting your time. In fact I have listened to it more times recently than I have in several years. Also, let me just say I do admire anyone who can even play the thing - it makes me boggle even to look at the printed score! :lol:


Dear DavidA,

This is why I asked you to read again what I already wrote.
At no point I said that a performance is made by merely studying it and I'm far from interested in discussing the relation of a performance to a public.

I'm pretty sure you are honest in saying what you feel when listening to Richter, and I'm not against anyone's taste here.
But despite of myself being impressed by several Richter's recordings I know several people who really hate his playing.
That means, a recording which can "take your breath away" is not a recording which can "take everyone's breath away" at the same time - this is the way the world is, you probably can easily find someone who will not agree with you, and that is normal.

I understand my recording may give you no good musical impression at all, but I'm sure there are people who will say, at some point, my recording "take their breath away" - after all this is just a matter of taste when related to public.

I just wanted to open a discussion about the problems of the tradition around the interpretation for the ones who are interested in such discussion in a deep way - that means the ones who just wants "study music to a point" are free to go in the direction they want - but still such personal opinions (even mine) are useless for my proposed discussion.

I could easily point out several lack of coherence in Richter's (or others) interpretations if by some reason I was asked to make such comparison, but I'm not here to attack any pianist's performance, I'm here to point out Liszt's requests according to his exhausting writting despite of my own taste.

Sincerely, when listening several recordings of the sonata now, it is quite difficult to me to enjoy any of them because almost all the time, before finishing two minutes of the recording, I already noticed the same "several missing details" in all these famous interpretations - and I can't avoid thinking (and easily proving) they are repeating things which were their impressions after listening recordings more than reading the score carefully

Long ago I was asked by a friend: which is your favorite interpreter?
And I replied: I have no favorite interpreters, I only enjoy the composer's music and I never really cared for recordings.
And my friend asked: but how can you know a piece of music without the interpreter's recordings?
I said: reading the score!

Sometimes people forget that there was no recordings available when Beethoven, Chopin (and others) were studying music of other composers(!), and several times they had not any opportunity to listen the composer they were studying (a Bach's work, for example).
So, the act of deciding right things for a music is not related to what a "famous musician" made or not in a recording.

Of course, on the other hand, the public, which is not related to the focus of my discussion, can easily use this "tool" (the recordings) to decide what they enjoy or not - but this is far from being related to any real useful sentence to an art work.

If you understand what I just wrote, then you understand why I said I'm "wasting time" - it is not my discussion's point. 
Anyway, maybe it was not a bad idea to "waste" such time once someone may pay attention to the focus I'm proposing thanks to our replies now. 

Best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## merlinus (Apr 12, 2014)

Although I almost never listen to a piece before learning to play it, afterwards it is almost always interesting to see how others interpret it. And I often find this helps me in my own playing.

As for preferring particular recorded performances over others, it is always a matter of personal taste. And for me, the SQ is usually a large part of it.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

cimirro said:


> Dear DavidA,
> 
> I'm pretty sure you are honest in saying what you feel when listening to Richter, and I'm not against anyone's taste here.
> *But despite of myself being impressed by several Richter's recordings I know several people who really hate his playing.*
> ...


You seem to miss the point of music. Music is to be enjoyed and made enjoyable. Interesting that some people hate Richter's recordings? I think that is their problem as he was voted by pianists as one of the very greatest pianist of the 20th century. But no accounting for taste - I realise Richter in certain things is not everyone's cup of tea. However, Richter's performances of the Liszt sonata are universally praised as far as I can see in spite of the 'lack of coherence'. 
Yes, as historian I dis actually realise that recordings were not available before the twentieth century. But then most people would only hear a work once or twice or not at all. I know I've heard the St Matthew Passion far more times than Bach ever did! 
You appear to be falling into the trap made by many musicologists in deciding what the public ought or ought not to enjoy as dictated by a slavish adherence to the score. But as Stravinsky once told Colin Davis, "The score is just the beginning." I assume you do not count the recordings of (say) Furtwangler or Beecham as much value?
BTW please do not feel obliged to answer if you feel I am wasting your time.


----------



## merlinus (Apr 12, 2014)

DavidA said:


> You seem to miss the point of music. Music is to be enjoyed and made enjoyable. Interesting that some people hate Richter's recordings? I think that is their problem as he was voted by pianists as one of the very greatest pianist of the 20th century. But no accounting for taste - I realise Richter in certain things is not everyone's cup of tea. However, Richter's performances of the Liszt sonata are universally praised as far as I can see in spite of the 'lack of coherence'.


Although I agree with most of what you have been writing regarding the enjoyment of music, I disagree with your statement about Richter. The two versions of the Liszt sonata I have heard from him are very good, but definitely nowhere near the best, for me.

Chacun à son goût and all that.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

DavidA said:


> You seem to miss the point of music. Music is to be enjoyed and made enjoyable.


No, YOU are still missing the point - I have *NOT SAID anything about the enjoyment and the "point of music" specially when related to the public*. My discussion is related to "interpreters" and not "public and their opinions". 
You can make music using the recording tradition or without such tradition. I'm discussing the use of the second one.

I'm not against the fact that music is to be enjoyed by the public (or not). There is no relation to what I said.



DavidA said:


> ... I think that is their problem as he was voted by pianists as one of the very greatest pianist of the 20th century.


And why am I supposed to change my mind when I have noticed problems that no other of these pianists who voted had noticed before?
And by the way, what kind of vote is this? and how many discussion and studies on interpretation these pianists had in their background? who are these pianists? what is their contribution to the art and its developments?
I'm sorry, but your statement means nothing - why should I care for what payed magazines or radio stations says?
Would you kindly answer these questions?



DavidA said:


> However, Richter's performances of the Liszt sonata are universally praised as far as I can see in spite of the 'lack of coherence'.


In this case I only can tell you I think your universe is really too small...
You can find several people (even on internet) speaking against Richter, some will even call him "cold" and "unmusical". Please, check it out, you will find such articles easily. (and It is NOT related to my opinion, ok?) 
Richter interpretation of this Sonata is loved by some people as much as any other recording of the same sonata by other pianists is loved by other people.



DavidA said:


> Yes, as historian I dis actually realise that recordings were not available before the twentieth century. But then most people would only hear a work once or twice or not at all. I know I've heard the St Matthew Passion far more times than Bach ever did!


Nice, and have you ever noticed that "having no recordings available" made no difference for the oldest interpreters interpretations? (or would you call them "non-interpreters" because they had not heard recordings?)
No interpreter really needs listening recordings to interpret a piece of music. Do you know it? How would someone make a premiere of a work in 1840 if the composer of the piece is dead?



DavidA said:


> You appear to be falling into the trap made by many musicologists in deciding what the public ought or ought not to enjoy as dictated by a slavish adherence to the score.


PLEASE, WHERE DID I DICTATED SOMETHING RELATED TO THE PUBLIC????
If you are a historian you must be able to read, and you are not doing this yet! 
If you do it, you will notice I have not dictated anything concerning public and I'm insisting in telling you that I don't bloody care for what the public listen/enjoy/decide/etc.

Why is it so difficult to understand?
Please READ what I wrote!



DavidA said:


> But as Stravinsky once told Colin Davis, "The score is just the beginning."


I would prefer this sentence in its right context, because I would easily agree with this. 
Stravinsky had not intended to create a lame excuse for bad interpreters.
I'm sure Stravinsky would not agree in calling this "beginning" as something related to calling "unimportant" 70 indications in one single page as ALLLLLLLLL THE PIANISTS HAVE BEEN DOING IN THE LAST CENTURY!
This is my question, it is not related to "how to make music form it", it is related to people "making music without any compromise with the composers indications" and being called faithful. And this is not directly connected to the public.

*If all pianists played correctly these indications, still we would have totally different interpretations from all of them - this is what you seems to be not understanding... 
*


DavidA said:


> I assume you do not count the recordings of (say) Furtwangler or Beecham as much value?


Again, I assume you have not read the example I gave concerning the Tchaikowsky's Symphony some posts earlier in this thread.

Interpretation is what conductors often do - some will be called better than others by technical reasons by other interpreters (and this will never affect the public decisions), or because of the personal taste of the listeners (which is the public's taste).
I'm not here to discuss the conductors.

I'm here to discuss these "piano trained monkeys" who are always changing the music written using the same problems created by the oldest recordings made public via market - I did a deep study on it, and if you want to find problems in my speech you will need study a lot before in order to disagree.

*No conductor will change a "pizzicato" section in orchestral strings to a "col legno" because it is his interpretation of tchaikowsky. The same respect you can't find in the trained monkeys (pianists). 
And this respect to the score is not related to any kind of "unmusicality"*
That's all.

Best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

cimirro said:


> No, YOU are still missing the point - I have *NOT SAID anything about the enjoyment and the "point of music" specially when related to the public*. My discussion is related to "interpreters" and not "public and their opinions".
> You can make music using the recording tradition or without such tradition. I'm discussing the use of the second one.
> 
> I'm not against the fact that music is to be enjoyed by the public (or not). There is no relation to what I said.
> ...


Yes but how come I enjoyed your version far less than Richter's? Or could it be his transcendental pianism has something to do with it. With respect I thought it quite dull they way you played it, just as an observer. As for your 'trained monkeys' I think you have to be careful the way you put down fellow musicians. They might think the same about you! Actually I would have said that the fault of most modern interpreters is so grimly to pursue the goal of faithfulness to the composers intentions that today's performance tends to be more of a blueprint that a work of art. Great romantic pianists like Horowitz and Cherkassky never played the same way twice. Of course we must realise that most composers were performers themselves and they realised that the performance of music layers much between the notes as in the notes themselves. Liszt was one such performer and he would have been the first to admit this. He was a member of the romantic tradition and he never played the same way twice probably. Berlioz himself said that he heard Lizst play Beethoven's Moonlight sonata in two different ways. Can you honestly believe that great improvisers like mozart, Beethoven and liszt were slavish adherents to the score - even their own? I can't. And when you come to people like Handel we know he changed his own music to suit the performance. There is a difference between respect for the score and an adherence where performances become a blueprint. And how come people like Ogden (who was a great Liszt performer and scholar before his breakdown) differ with you? Just my thoughts!


----------



## merlinus (Apr 12, 2014)

Well stated, David! And other than a robot or player piano, I very much doubt that any work can be played exactly the same more than once.

Music is simply notes on a page, and it needs a performer to bring them to life. The composer can indicate tempi, dynamics, and such, but that is only a beginning point. What makes music so fascinating for me is how differently it can be interpreted and performed.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Yes but how come I enjoyed your version far less than Richter's?


Have you ever heard about personal taste? or am I supposed to believe your taste rules all the other tastes in the world?
(Clearly we are not discussing the same thing.)
The development of your taste is related to what you are exposed to - and easily someone who listened for years and enjoy Pogorelich's playing of a Prokofiev's Sonata can enjoy less the Richter's version. It is all about taste.



DavidA said:


> Or could it be his transcendental pianism has something to do with it. With respect I thought it quite dull they way you played it, just as an observer.


As I already mentioned, there are several people who would not feel any "transcendental pianism" in Richter - they would prefer other pianists.
And I already mentioned you are free to enjoy or not.
It is just amazing to notice you really believe your taste is the representation of the full world.



DavidA said:


> As for your 'trained monkeys' I think you have to be careful the way you put down fellow musicians. They might think the same about you!


And????? Still I can't understand why must I be careful about proving something which is happening in the market during the last century?
On the other hand, also it is amazing how people decide things without checking what is said - this is exactly what you are doing repeating internet sentences like a parrot. Have you opened the scores I mentioned in this thread and checked what I said?



DavidA said:


> Actually I would have said that the fault of most modern interpreters is so grimly to pursue the goal of faithfulness to the composers intentions that today's performance tends to be more of a blueprint that a work of art.


And unfortunately that would be wrong because you are clearly not able to read faithfully a musical score if you consider "most modern interpreters" as "faithfull" to the score. Simple like that. I have the examples and you are not checking.



DavidA said:


> Great romantic pianists like Horowitz and Cherkassky never played the same way twice.
> (...)
> Liszt was one such performer and he would have been the first to admit this. He was a member of the romantic tradition and he never played the same way twice probably. Berlioz himself said that he heard Lizst play Beethoven's Moonlight sonata in two different ways.


No human being play twice the same way, this is an "unnecessary" speech used only for the marketing of a "romantic player".



DavidA said:


> Can you honestly believe that great improvisers like mozart, Beethoven and liszt were slavish adherents to the score - even their own? I can't.


I'm not speaking about "believing". and what you "can" or "not" is your problem, not mine.
Improvisers can easily make several changes and that is not related to musical score or with the interpretation of a score by a non-composer/non-improviser.
You clearly need to read more if you want to speak about such themes.
Check what Charles Rosen wrote about Rosenthal teaching to him the Brahms Haendel Variations and you will see the first example of what the Lisztian School expected from a interpreter.



DavidA said:


> And when you come to people like Handel we know he changed his own music to suit the performance. There is a difference between respect for the score and an adherence where performances become a blueprint. And how come people like Ogden (who was a great Liszt performer and scholar before his breakdown) differ with you? Just my thoughts!


The problem again is your lack of information about the theme and lack of attention while reading what I wrote.
At no point I said people must play in one single way following the score. 
The main problem is that when you read the score, you will notice more than 400 NOT WRITTEN MISTAKES WHICH ARE REPEATED EXACTLY IN THE SAME WAY IN EVERY RECORDING MADE OF LISZT'S SONATA - A TRADITION MADE BY THE ACT OF PIANISTS LISTENING RECORDINGS MORE THAN CHECKING WHAT IS WRITTEN - THEY ARE REPEATING WHAT THEY HAVE LISTENED.

If you do not understand it yet, please, check the very beginning of Beethoven Pathetique, and explain to me why I am wrong about it here:
http://opusdissonus.com.br/CIMIRRO_studio-master-class_001.htm
PLEASE CHECK THE MASTER CLASS AUDIO AND THE SCORE (AND USE ANY URTEXT SCORE YOU MAY HAVE TO CHECK TOO).

I'm not in this forum to discuss foolish things. I'm very interested in replies about my "questions" - but it is necessary to be answered by someone who really read and checked what I wrote. And not just by people who are "fooling around" speaking "I think", "I believe" without any example other than media marketing sentences and wikipedia examples.

Best
Artur Cimirro


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

The funny thing is: If Liszt would still be among the living and he would have his say about this, I have the feeling his comment would be remarkably short and less far fetched and elaborate then al of our attempts in explaining his sonata. Also it would shut us up immediately :lol:


----------



## snowyflow (Jul 30, 2014)

Food of thought here. I came across below while researching on Liszt Sonata:

http://www.pianoenthusiast.com/comparative-surveys-pdf/liszt-sonata.pdf

Granted the above is the opinion of ONE person, I think the practice of basing one's opinion on specifics of a particular performer, of a particular recording / performance there of, and why such specifics are liked / disliked is a good (constructive) way of sharing.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

snowyflow said:


> Food of thought here. I came across below while researching on Liszt Sonata:
> 
> http://www.pianoenthusiast.com/comparative-surveys-pdf/liszt-sonata.pdf
> 
> Granted the above is the opinion of ONE person, I think the practice of basing one's opinion on specifics of a particular performer, of a particular recording / performance there of, and why such specifics are liked / disliked is a good (constructive) way of sharing.


Frankly I just wonder how anyone who doesn't rate Gilels or Richter in this work can be taken seriously


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I hope some listeners get a chance to hear Rubinstein's fine performance done in 1965 and in good recorded sound. What I find remarkable is its exceptional musicality and that he doesn't beat the hell out of it like is so often done. I find it one of the most refreshing and perhaps romantically courageous of any performance I've ever heard, and it does not lack drama and force. I believe it's possible to have a highly distinct and effective vision of this score without being a slave to it. It's one of the few performances that has lingered in my mind of this fascinating sonata. Bravo.


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> I hope some listeners get a chance to hear Rubinstein's fine performance done in 1965 and in good recorded sound. What I find remarkable is its exceptional musicality and that he doesn't beat the hell out of it like is so often done. I find it one of the most refreshing and perhaps romantically courageous of any performance I've ever heard, and it does not lack drama and force. I believe it's possible to have a highly distinct and effective vision of this score without being a slave to it. It's one of the few performances that has lingered in my mind of this fascinating sonata. Bravo.


I would certainly concur with that. Rubinstein was known for his Chopin but his Liszt is wonderful too on this showing!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

I like Richter and Curzon in this sonata. Argerich I admire but don't find myself coming back to very often.

Going back further, Horowitz '32 would be my favorite version of all were it not for Simon Barere, who I think outshines even Horowitz:


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Argerich is my favorite, but now that you say that... I need to hear Richter play this great work.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

I could suggest Zimerman as 1st choice. After him I vote for Horowitz. Richter is also there. There is no winner with this. Only the joy of the ultimate perfection.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Liszt: Piano Sonata In B Minor, S.178 · Ivo Pogorelich
All you need to know.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Outstanding performance by Behzod Abduraimov:


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

@cimiro

*I liked what I heard*!

This Approach from above and not from below it is very interesting. You are not putting very deep your fingers into the keys, giving (when this allowed) an easier felling, which doesn't disturb the listener, but somehow creates a musical surprise or a novelty to deal with it.

As a teacher you are, you certainly know the character of this work. I can describe it as 'journey 'into the abyss and back to the earth'' The earth is there. I listened it loud and clear. It gave me hope and power to continue. The abyss was more a deep and dark cave, without place for a lot of movements, but, also, without the feeling of asphyxiation, we must have especially with the up/down octaves, which are there for this reason. Up /down, no air / air, desperation / hope, end / beginning. Black and white!

Technically you are solid. Good phrasing, dialogue between the voices excellent, sonority is ok, but a little flat, score knowledge very good, understanding see what I have written above.

Suggestions> This piano isn't the best choice, or the recording has a thin body. Maybe both. > More pedal is needed. Liszt is bravura and pedal. Hit it when this needed it. You have written something for Busoni. He was master of the pedal phrasing and driven eco. The piano was exploding under his fingers and foot. Continue with your *excellent * work. The Master needs servants and scholars for his immortal works. I would like to listen from you also a ''traditional'' performance, which, I'm sure, it will be also great and maybe more than this, because you have what it takes to serve the biggest pianist and piano composer in the human history.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Larkenfield said:


> I hope some listeners get a chance to hear Rubinstein's fine performance done in 1965 and in good recorded sound. What I find remarkable is its exceptional musicality and that he doesn't beat the hell out of it like is so often done. I find it one of the most refreshing and perhaps romantically courageous of any performance I've ever heard, and it does not lack drama and force. I believe it's possible to have a highly distinct and effective vision of this score without being a slave to it. It's one of the few performances that has lingered in my mind of this fascinating sonata. Bravo.


A mythical performance from the Polish God. This sense: I can't breath, I can't! And suddenly comes the air. Fresh with thousands of aromas. And this feeling of happiness, before everything is taken back allowing the darkness to triumph again. Such performances make the Master happy. (after 40 years with this Sonata I can say only one thing> What the Master thought to compose it is unknown to me. But, whatever it was, came from God. He knows better...)


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

I have so many versions of this sonata on record... But it is quite special when the cerebral and furious Alfred Brendel performs this piece live, is it not?


----------



## GMB (10 mo ago)

A fascinating performance by Cimirro, which is so much slower than usual, ie Argerich and others. And yet it makes sense played like this. It reminds me of Jeno Jando on Naxos.It is more meaningful and thoughtful, not just a work of virtuosity, empty and hollow, as Liszt's critics say. I shall certainly play this version again and ponder the meaning of the work. Thanks, Cimirro,from a big Liszt fan!


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

One of my favorite classical works, and perhaps my favorite piece for solo piano. I listened to many performances of it years ago and walked away from most of them thinking that the work was complex enough to support radically different approaches. One performance I haven't seen mentioned is Hamelin's studio version on Hyperion (he has some live versions on YouTube I haven't heard), and while Hamelin lacks some of the fiery vigor and the emotional profundity of other renditions (Arrau, Zimmerman, Argerich) he did have an almost magical way of clarifying the musical language of the piece. It may not be my favorite performance as I do think Liszt should have those other qualities, but it did provide an invaluable perspective (for me) on the work as well.


----------

