Reference Recording: Beethoven Piano Sonata Cycles 

As a pianist, and who himself has traversed the Beethoven cycle three times, I would like to state that for most us pianists, Schnabel is still THE reference cycle, despite the sonics and technical imperfections. He created a standard of music-making in general and for many or most of the individual sonatas that remains daunting (as well as inspiring) to this day and beyond.

Gilels would have been a candidate if he had completed his cycle.

Kempff's consistency within his approach also factors into the cycle's reference status, as well as the fact that no one could really copy his style, whereas many pianists superficially assimilated aspects of Schnabel, Serkin, and, to a lesser extant, Arrau.

When I was a teenager I found out that Beethoven wrote 32 piano sonatas and wondered who would want to listen to all that. That was over 60 y ears ago. In 1970 I collected what I thought was a reference set because it was a collection of individual reference recordings (of about 8 or 10 pianists)...some of those were Kempff, also. But then in 1998 my wife brought me DGG's Complete Beethoven Edition and I finally had Kempff complete. And, yes, I agree that, as a cycle, he's the man. I also have complete cycles by Schnabel, Gulda, Garrick Ohlsson, and Igor Levit. But Kempff remains the reference. I wish Murray Perahia would finish his cycle (spread across Columbia aka Sony and DGG), but until then I will be happy to stay with Kempff...the gift from my late wife.

Kempff's 'Pathetique' sold me on his approach. After living with Serkin, Gilels and Brendel, with their (undeniably appropriate) use of rubato in the slow movement, I heard Kempff: semplice. Classical. No futzing around with trying to make me FEEL something: he let Beethoven take care of that. The recording brought me to tears. And Mother McCree, what technique.

Like other people on this thread, I would argue for Arrau. I love Brendel on Schubert more than on Beethoven, but I quite like his Beethoven too.

I really, really like this series because of the explanation of why they became reference recordings. As someone who got into classical music recording via reading Gramophone in the 90s, it now makes a lot of sense how they became that way. I too remember the Brendel push, and even DG trying to push the 80s Barenboim set with added reference videos of him playing them in a giant ballroom.

The early Brendel set on Vox could have been a reference recording, but Vox was not the kind of label people took seriously. The later Brendel set on Philips was slower and more "Brendelesque", for better or (mostly) worse. I actually got the Vox set on Murray Hill Records, with not just the sonatas, but the complete piano music, 21 LPs for 24 dollars. So maybe that Brendel box was the reference recording for cheapskates.

I agree. Is a Reference recording, probably the best. In my opinion, Kempf is also my favorite in Bach's piano transcriptions...

Kempff is a great choice. The US also has some fantastic and underrated Beethoven players - I'm thinking of Claude Frank and Richard Goode's cycles in particular and Charles Rosen's late sonatas.

Would not have considered Wilhelm Kempff for Beethoven sonatas. I have enjoyed his Bach repetoire on repeated mode. Thank you. I am enjoying your reference recording series. 🙂

I rather prefer the mono traversal. My “however” for Kempff goes to his Schubert piano sonatas recording..

Thanks, Dave! I had mostly ignored the Kempff cycle because of sonic concerns and rotated between Goode, Levitt, Lewis, and Gilels (partial), all of which I think have great moments. I listened to one of my favorite benchmarks, the 24th, by Kempff, and I really enjoyed it! Look forward to hearing the full cycle.

Love his recordings of the piano concertos as well

Thank you for your explanation of how Kempff became the reference recording. His sonatas, mono or stereo, are some of my favorites, but your explanation helps to understand why his was used as a reference recording and why, despite that, some may prefer others.

I have the Kempff and Brendel late sonata sets. I like them both, but I prefer the Brendel. I find Kempffs tempos a little brisk, and I feel a sense of poetry with the Brendel recordings.

Kempf became a reference because of his delicacy, lightness and absence of gravity - he never thumped away, as Beethoven players tended to (Backhaus).....in his way he was both conservative AND revolutionary!

Hi dear Dave!! Thank you for this beautiful video. I just would like to talk about some thoughts that came to my mind while watching your "reference" series,especially this last one about Beethoven's sonatas. I somehow have the feeling that the status of "reference recording" is not the same in every part of the (civilized) world,not at all! I will just stick to my motherland,Italy,whose musical taste I know a little,being a musician (piano and harpsichord player)myself. Well...though I always loved Kempff"s two complete sets of the Sonatas,I very seldom found in my music colleagues (or my music- loving friends) the same enthusiasm that I have for the great german piano master!! Here most people love Pollini's set more(it's a great cycle, nothing to argue with that),but even more people absolutely love,adore and worship Claudio Arrau's recording,which,if I got it right, is your favorite cycle too!! (the same thing happens in Argentina and Chile,countries that I visited many times,Arrau is really viewed as a kind of deity over there). So...the first question that comes to my mind is this: is a "reference recording" something universal,and equally valid in every country, and at every time-frame of,let's say,50 years (25ago and 25 from now on)? My spontaneous answer is certainly a big "no"!!! Watching this video,I immediately had to think: "well,Dave is too humble,he personally thinks that Arrau is the top in Beethoven, but being the general consensus focuesd on Kempff,he has to give Kempff the laurel". I very personally think that,being Arrau a strong contender,and being Arrau your personal favorite,you should allow yourself to loudly and proudly say:"the reference recording is...Claudio Arrau!!!!". You would have all the rights to say that (and I am an hardcore Kempff fan,as I told you before),because you are a serious critic,a musicologist,you certainly can play one or more instruments,and you can read a music score perfectly,as I understood watching a lot of videos from your channel! In a word,I don't believe in "Vox populi,vox Dei"...the voice of the majority of music lovers is NOT God's voice,and it tends to vary according to geography(space) and historical moment(time). Many many heartfelt greetings from Arrau-loving Italy!! Sergio

Great Talk! Growing up this cycle was accepted as the reference recording in my musical circle. Although other artists had individual recordings that were lauded, when it came to a full cycle it was Kempff, Arau, and Gilels, with Kempff taking the nod for his consistency and depth of interpretation throughout the sonatas as it did not contain some of the odd eccentricities found with Arrau and Gilels in certain sonatas. I include Gilels in this discussion as to my understanding there were only one or two sonatas left to record and unfortunately we never got a studio recording of Opus 111. Personally, it is sad that Gieseking suddenly passed away while completing his EMI cycle. From the clips I have heard of it, it may have been a top contender. There was discussion around Serkin because he was as an outstanding Beethoven interpreter but for students not considered reference and Brendel's cycle was considered very good but not monumental, The man, the myth, the legend Schnabel had kudos for being the first, but we only listened because he was Schnabel and the comments you mentioned kept it from being a reference despite the heavy marketing campaign behind them when the CDs were being issued. Our attitude was more we had to make the required visit to the clinic of Dr. Schnabel, but not taking it more seriously than that. I remember the biggest fuss was made when the Kempff cycle was released on CD. DG only issued the stereo recordings which was met with a flurry of complaints as the feeling was they should have released the mono recordings with the latter being considered the better set. History deemed DG a mean task master, as the story was they forced Kempff to record the stereo cycle as it was the latest technology and they needed a new cycle from him to compete in the market place. Hence, it was not as good because it was rushed, where as the mono was a classic being recorded over several years. Plus CDs were new, and DG only wanted to issued them in stereo as a mono CD might automatically be looked down upon by a general listening audience, who were used to stereo. This was in some ways similar to Karajan, but not as dramatic. It took years for the mono cycle to come out, and when it did I listened intently for the differences, thinking how I had been denied the greatest Beethoven piano cycle ever! In the end, I found myself with same opinion as you - one can take either cycle. There are bright spots to both. After all, the secret sauce is the same: Kempff. Finally thanks for your review of the criticism surrounding his "Protestant" interpretive style. I never thought of that way and now I can see how it could detract listeners searching for a different style. If there is a reference recording of a cycle that reflects the more revolutionary Beethoven, please let us know.

I'm quite a big fan of Pollini, especially his late sonatas, which are the best

I started my record collection. I got the time life set which was all DG recordings. And of course I got Kempff. But I remember all the record reviews the Claudio Arrau versions. It seems to me that in the mid to late 70s when I really got going on this and through the 80s whenever I read reviews about Beethoven piano sonatas they always “ referenced Arrau or Serkin. I really don’t remember that much mention of Kempff. And I seem to have a recollection that when he was mentioned, it was out of respect Radif and love. Anyway, I look forward to listening to both the mono and stereo cycles again, and then relisten to my personal favorite, which is yours as well. Thank you for this series. it is interesting to hear about discographic history.

I think the Beethoven sonatas is an interesting case for the evolution of the "Reference" recording. It clearly was Schnabel for some time, perhaps now it is Kempff, but I think it is already moving on. I know that these days most folks who ask for a basic recommendation for the sonatas are more likely to hear the names of Goode or Brendel than Kempff. It would be interesting to see if Kempff's reputation remains the same in the future...

I'm wondering your opinion on why Wilhelm Backhaus on Decca might not have been in the running as a reference recording. Certainly he has the Germanic bona fides that you mentioned in Kempff's case. Do you think that the perceived "authenticity" of the Deutsche Grammophon label edged Backhaus out,? I've always thought of both Backhaus and Kempff to be the refererence recordings, with Schnabel the unspoken reference.

Agree. The same goes for Kempff/Beethoven Concertos for piano and orchestras cycle. Hello from Colombia, dear David.

I thought this might be a case where a later cycle displaced Kempff's as the reference recording, but evidently not. Your talk reminded me of the old joke: "Who is the greatest French author?" "Victor Hugo, alas!" 😁

My college musicology teacher, who seemed to pride himself on his dry wit, always said that Brendel was so fussy, he should have just stayed home and knitted doilies. [shrug]

Superb analysis, Dave. Your soberly objective comments about Wilhelm Kempf are spot on his performances of the Beethoven sonatas are indeed the reference. I too like you prefer Claudio Arrau ( you are right again: texture, color with gravitas). Allow me to plug my Countryman the incomparable Maurizio Pollini also

For me, the key to Kempff's interpretative style is to be found in his contribution to the liner notes accompanying the later stereo set. They make a beautiful read, full of comparisons with the natural world - a theme in the op 22 sonata 'hovering like a kestrel', or ideas in the finale (I think) of op 2 no 3 'chasing after one another like swallows', for example. Imv, it's not so much a Protestant view, as a belief that objectivity in art comes through the imitation of nature.

When I was coming up (back in the 1980s and '90s) it always seemed to be Kempff AND Schnabel that were the reference in the Beethoven Piano Sonatas. People generally seemed to admit Kempff's cycles were better as references but that you couldn't do without Schnabel, too. At least that's how it seemed to me. I'd be interested if others had a different impression. The really special thing about both those cycles is how much they hold together as a whole. Plenty of pianists are better in individual works but few seem able to make a sensible picture of the whole no matter where you dip in.

Isn't there a rare chance for a new reference recording - i.e. the one by Igor Levit (not my favourite, but very good, I think)?

I own many cycles of these amazing works, kempff and arrau and of course gulda amongst them. However, I am going to throw in a curve ball here. I remember Dave discussing that really it will be so so hard for modern versions of all of the classics to replace the known ‘references’. In this regard, i would love to suggest Igor levit, a pianist I admire greatly and have followed for a while now. His Beethoven cycle is astonishing. In fact I just finished the whole cycle again recently.

I agree 100 %. Kempff is my favourite Beethoven pianist, alongside with Sviatoslav Richter (whom I prefer to Gilels).

Clumpify!

What some call Kenpff’s austere, “plain” approach, I’ve always found to sound like “Beethoven with brass knuckles.” Just incredibly strident tone in this music. But aside from that, the biggest thing I take away with this sonata cycle is the revelation of musical architecture. Thanks for this illuminating talk.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

One factor in making Kempff a reference recording was DG choosing his cycle for its the 200th Beethoven anniversary set - I'm not sure if it had an alternative, but it spread the stereo cycle everywhere.

Seeing as you mentioned the op. 111 and Brendel, I'll take this opportunity to ask about something that's been on my mind for a while. In Brendel's ≈1962 Vox recording of the op. 111, there's a pre-echo, for lack of a better term, in the first movement. It happens in the exposition, so if you miss it at around 3 minutes into the recording, you can catch it again at around 4:50. Just after the second subject, there's a silence before a fortissimo cascade (bar 55). If you listen closely to that silence, you'll hear the very same cascade, a very faint decoy before the actual fortissimo. First question, I'll admit: has anybody else heard this? Onwards: shouldn't this be fixable in remastering? The music may be running twice throughout the entire track and I simply don't have the ears to tell. But even if it is, then surely in moments like these when a) the error is discernable, and b) there is meant to be (approximate) silence, there is something to be done.

I have seen the Kempff recordings often referenced as the “reference” (excuse the tautology there!), but have also seen the Richard Goode box set lauded enough that I wonder if this might not also be considered a reference. Or at least a “modern altenative.” Thoughts?

You raise an interesting point - are ‘period instrument reference recordings’ (that BBC radio guests love to champion) reference recordings, or are they an acknowledgement they’re not but are instead ‘good for what they are’?

I feel much the same about Kempff's Beethoven as I do his Schubert. He's great at both--and I own the Schubert cycle. But I'll take Arrau and Goode for Beethoven (and Kovacevich); for Schubert, thanks to Classics Today, I prefer Enders, and I love Schiff too. But I get the point. If the classical music world has crowned Kempff the reference, so be it. Maybe it's time for me to buy it.

When it comes to sets and cycles, consistency (of musicality, technical address, and interpretive insight) is usually what determines the "reference recording." And consistency over those three criteria is what Kempff enjoys, not only from sonata to sonata, but also from movement to movement within sonatas. One could argue the soe exception is the "Hammerklavier," where other pianists are more virtuosic . But Kempff's mono version of that sonata is arguably more technically assured than his Stereo version, and that's one reason why critical consensus tilts toward the mono cycle. To avoid stating my personal preferences, I'll pose a question which might well reveal them. Why are Gulda's cycles not reference recordings?

For me, Friedrich Gulda on Amadeo is the reference recording, followed by Schnabel.

Obviously Kempff is best known as a Beethoven pianist but he also recorded some stupendous Brahms, and interestingly a fantastic Chopin sonata no 3

I always thought that Richter would be a "reference" recording, if I understand the premise. But I guess that shows what a neophyte I was when his Beethoven box set came out and the marketing surrounding it at the time. Plus I was awestruck at his performance of "Waldsstein."

I have to wonder what "label" we attach to someone who feels that all of Dave's "References" to date have always been their personal favourites? Whatever that label may be, I appear to be it. :)

Good Morning from Mumbai, India. I am a lover of Beethoven The Complete Piano Sonatas. Do any of you guys know whether Beethoven the complete piano sonatas played by Artur Schnabel has been uploaded on RU-vid. Thanks in Advance.

I'm struggling with whether a reference "clump" is that useful for Beethoven. Apart from the Ninth (yes, I put on a tie to write this comment), most listeners come to Beethoven through middle-period pieces. If you are just getting to know Beethoven, you'd prefer a clump that with reference interpretations for these pieces. But I fear that may lead to a misleading impression of "early" Beethoven. This is because most artists performing full cycles tend to treat the early pieces as a kale salad that must be eaten before the yummy courses. I find most cycles (Kempff included) seem to give the pre-Pathétique sonatas short interpretive shrift. The exception is Bavouzet, who (perhaps because he'd already completed a good bit of his Haydn cycle) delivers exciting performances of the early sonatas. While I enjoy his recordings of the middle and late sonatas, I don't find them particularly remarkable. So, I'd caution a novice against starting out with clumps, and suggest listening to reference versions of individual middle-period works. Then look for some early-period reference clumps, like Volume One of Bavouzet's cycle. I suspect the same could be said for the Opus 18 quartets, although I cannot think of a reference version off hand.

the French critic Marcel Marnat in the very beautiful book by André Boucourechliev on Beethoven published by Edition du Seuil cites Wilhem Kempff in a comparison of different integrals of Beethoven's sonatas...he writes: ''Wilhem Kempff....two integrals or floats a perfume from the 18th century....'' and you mention schnabel....little story from the time of the release of the complete by arthur schnabel (that glenn gould loved a lot by the way....) emi had thought at the same time of a complete sonatas with alfred cortot.....started but not finished....cortot would have said: who can confront arthur schnabel....?

Would Wilhelm Backhaus and Friedrich Gulda be considered as reference for Beethoven Sonata cycle too?

Thabk you very much. What about Richard Goode's cycle?

I’m surprised Gulda was not mentioned in this whole discussion. He has no less than 3 complete cycles under his belt, in mono and stereo. I understand that he tended to be viewed as something of an “eccentric”, and wasn’t exactly marketed to the hilt like Kempff or Brendel, but posterity seems to have judged him quite well. In particular, his readings lack the “austerity” (read “boredom”) afflicting both Kempff’s and Brendel’s cycles. Critics (particularly at Classics Today) appear to agree. What removes him from contention given our criteria?

Kempff's lack of "fire" and lack of irrationality in his music making makes him not my preferred Beethoven-pianist. But I adore his Handel Gluck Bach-recordings, transcriptions and so on. When I read that his father and grandfather were church musicians, it all made sense to me. That's what I also see Wilhelm as. But, on topic, I agree that Kempff may be the ref in Beethoven. He represents a middle ground in the interpretations and it's all clear and "there".

I think Kempff might claim the reference recording for the Schubert cycle as well as the Beethoven.

Have always loved this set! Pristine Classical, a company that restores old recordings, has remastered this set. Wonder if you have heard it? Also, could you give a recommendation for the 10 best Cds of harpsicord music on piano?

There doesn't seem to be any shortage of suggestions of topics for you to do (a series of) videos on. That being said: What about a series on absolutely stellar recordings that were/are ill-suited to be considered a reference recording, based on a consensus among critics, due to, e.g., * the performance being too idiosyncratic or special, * poor availability of the physical product and/or lack of support by a major label, * poor timing of publication (e.g., being overshadowed by by other recordings, maybe even on the same label), * the record receiving the appreciation that is deserves only decades after it was originally published, due to change in taste, or * common prejudice against the artists involved/the artists being based, e.g., in the GDR, of all countries.

I nominate Boult’s stereo set of Vaughan Williams symphonies as a reference version that other sets are always compared to (although I like Previn’s better).

If Gilels had been able to finish his cycle he might have become the reference, I think. For period performance Beethoven sonatas I think the Brautigam is considered the reference, even though it's relatively recent.

For me Kempf is more convincing in the Schubert sonatas.

In my humble opinion, Igor Levit's recording is a highlight of the 21st century and could be considered a new reference recording. Time will tell.

Kempff made the piano sing.

Whilst I completely understand your reasoning for choosing Kempff's cycle as the reference, I do enjoy the cycle released on Decca by Mitsuko Uchida.

It's unfortunate that politics enters into the reference recording discussion. The Richard Goode set would never be considered a reference recording because he is not German and Nonesuch is a small American record label without the world wide marketing of DG. But for musicality, imagination and technical polish the Goode set is one of my references. Schnabel being the other one.

The HIP reference is surely Brautigam, partly by default.

As a kid my parents would play his Beethoven sonatas all the time. It is because of this early exposure to Kempff and his Beethoven that I started studying piano. I think Kempff's interpretation is truly classical.