Waldstein Sonata "new ways to imagine sound"

LucaCavaliere wrote:

what do you think about that "excessive" delay (I don't mind it) on the final pause at bar 12 of the first movement? I mean: there is no indication to that effect in the score, and in the interpretations of the greats of the past and recent ones (Gilels, Kempff, Arrau, Baremboim) there is no such delay (it is only slightly more evident in Pollini, Argerich, Shiff)…

what is it?... An unwritten interpretative custom?

When I hear talk of an "unwritten interpretative custom," my thoughts inevitably run to the most famous aria from Verdi's "Il trovatore": "Di quella pira," where one of the opera's first performers, tenor Carlo Boucardé, substituted the C4—also called a chest C—for the B3 that Verdi had written in the score, because he believed that a more ringing high note would increase the effect. So much so that since then, it has been performed that way, and when Riccardo Muti restored the original some years ago, he was loudly hissed by the usual booers in the terrible gallery of La Scala.

Now, probably, among some pianistic performers, accentuating the pause of the twelfth bar of the Waldstein is becoming an "interpretative custom." I do not know who was the trailblazer in this: perhaps Pollini. These latest-generation performers evidently accentuate the pause even more. It can be liked or not, and in fact, I don't mind it at all, but perhaps the right question to ask is to what extent such an effect can be considered a free interpretation or a true correction of the Beethovenian score, just as it was for Verdi, and thus whether it is legitimate to do so.

As for the rest of your questions, I would go with Lisitsa in the second and third movements. But I don't like how she attacks the first movement, right in its opening notes. There, I prefer the other two pianists and Pollini, and probably most of all Sarac, whose video has now disappeared.

yes it's true, it has disappeared.

If you want to hear it, however, it is enough to type 'Waldstein Sarac full' into the Google search bar and the video is available (I don't know if you had listened to it before it disappeared). I find her performance interesting and very Beethovenian, even if in the finale I find the whole thing a bit disconnected.

Among these three, my preferred interpretation is that of Sophie Pacini. I hadn't written it in the first post, but it seems to me that it is the one that comes closest to the 'new ways' of imagining sound: an assertion that I mean in the sense of favoring the sonic effect at the expense of precision.

all is admitted and not conceded that:

1) I understood Ligeti's phrase as he intended it.

2) this phrase also makes sense to others.

it seems to me that the apotheosis of Lisitsa's analytical approach is in the way she performs the famous octave glissando at the end of the third movement (timestamps: 21' 22" Sophie Pacini, 24' 50" Lisitsa).

In fact, I had no doubt that your favorite interpretation was Pacini's ...! Perhaps because I myself remained quite undecided whether to prefer Sarac - I haven't listened to her, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to express my preference - or Pacini. Then I opted for Sarac for the first movement because, as you say, it is very Beethovenian: by Beethovenian I mean very energetic, and for me Beethoven is pure energy. Meanwhile, in the second and third movements, my preference goes to Lisitsa, as I have already said.

But I realize that I haven't actually replied to your statement regarding what Shiff reports from Ligeti, and now I will try to tell you how I interpret that statement.

To speak of the Waldstein Sonata is to speak of the sonata that definitively revolutionized the piano world of the early nineteenth century. Yes, because setting aside the youthful sonatas from Bonn, from the three Sonatas of Opus 2 onwards, Beethoven inserts a strong revolutionary tension into the genre - we must never forget that for Beethoven the piano was the forge of his musical innovations which he then, at a later stage, transmitted to the Quartets and Symphonies or vice versa - which manifests itself in treating what was classical production by increasing its dimensions, not just enlarging them but inserting real fractures and fillings. This research essentially reaches Opus 22 - someone would say the end of his first style - and with Opus 26 that new phase begins - and that same someone would speak of the second style - which is no longer made only of rupture but of a true struggle towards the sonata form as it had been conceived in the classical period and up to that point even by Beethoven himself. It is in Opus 26 that for the first time Beethoven indicates the sustain pedal which, surely he had used previously as well, but here becomes the bearer of new, precisely calculated effects that are not possible without its intervention. In this evolution, the following Sonatas are also very important: the two "quasi fantasia" of Opus 27, Opus 28, and in particular Opus 31 no. 2.

Indeed, after this Sonata, Beethoven can begin to set up vast architectures, and thus we arrive at Opus 53, in which the experimentation of the Beethovenian language takes on an absolutely new and unprecedented character. The contents are dense, the themes sound like slogans, the sonority alternates between rarefaction and condensation. Charles Rosen says that the first movement of the Waldstein: <has a characteristic way of being, not simply different from that of other composers, but also different from any other piano music by Beethoven: it is an energetic hardness, smooth dissonance, expressive but without any richness>. Even more interesting is the experimentation with piano sound and in particular with the use of the sustain pedal, with which, precisely in the finale, those effects you speak of are created.

We can add that Alfredo Casella, our important twentieth-century composer, said of the first bars of this Sonata that: <seem to belong rather to the order of "noise rather than music.">

To be clear, this statement by Casella should be understood in the most positive sense, precisely because we are talking about a twentieth-century composer and... Ligeti - a contemporary composer - even more validates the sense of all this, confirming what we have always asserted: Beethoven is a precursor to the twentieth century and his music projects directly into the 20th century and for this reason - to return to Shiff - it can be stated that: <the Waldstein is a milestone in the history of music: from then on we have new ways of imagining sound.>

thanks Daniele

as usual (or almost), after your post, the discussion could even be closed.

Or continue to propose version after version of the sonata in question, as for op 31 no.2 a little while ago. which would also be fun...

a part from these things, I find the statements by Casella and Rosen that you reported to be very accurate. Especially Rosen regarding what he says about the first movement. They seem like such simple concepts that anyone could have arrived at them. But probably, precisely because they are so simple (and so accurate, in my opinion), words so pregnant with meaning could only be found by someone of his stature.

I have always found op. 53 a difficult piece to understand. It has a quite particular rhythm (a "breath"), probably linked to the bizarre proportion between the harmonies, which are very dilated and at the same time very distant on one hand, and the very sparse thematic landscape on the other. A clue – as always in these cases – comes to me from Schnabel. But even I do not know what Ligeti meant to say.

Open content (youtube)

RedScharlach wrote:

I have always found Op. 53 a difficult piece to understand. It has a quite particular rhythm (a "breath"), probably linked to the bizarre proportion between the very dilated and at the same time very distant harmonies on one hand, and the very sparse thematic landscape on the other. A clue – as always in these cases – comes to me from Schnabel. But even I do not know what Ligeti meant.

Ahh... Red!

I am presumptuous ... in the sense that I 'presume' to have understood what Ligeti meant (and from my two previous posts, you can see which direction I am heading). Then I will be wrong...

instead, what you wrote:

«It has a quite particular rhythm (a "breath"), probably linked to the bizarre proportion between the very dilated and at the same time very distant harmonies on one hand, and the very sparse thematic landscape on the other»

It seems to me that this opens the discussion to compositional aspects and problems. And it is a discussion I find very interesting, even if I do not have the expertise to tackle it. Let me try to explain myself better: for two or three years now, I have seen each of Beethoven's major compositions also as the posing (and resolving) of a compositional problem: especially within the scope of sonatas, quartets, and symphonies.

It seems to me that, time and again, a 'constraint' is placed on the composition, and within such a constraint, everything must be resolved (and resolved well, i.e., without that constraint being felt by the listener as... a constraint)

For example, in the symphonic realm, sonata form:

Fifth Symphony, first movement, constraint: build everything using only two themes (and make sure it doesn't seem meager).

Third Symphony, first movement, constraint: build everything by reconciling a myriad of ideas and cells (and make sure it doesn't seem like a disconnected jumble)

and thus... Could it be (for me, yes) that: dilated harmonies + sparse thematic landscape is the compositional problem posed and resolved in the Waldstein?

I don't know.. Perhaps the examples I have made are also wrong, but I hope I have conveyed the idea of what I mean. If there were some among us who had the competence/desire to develop this type of observation on Beethoven's works (perhaps in the 'Composition' section), I would be the first to read those posts with interest as a simple listener

I forgot to write "compositional problems" in quotation marks