Ihre Suchergebnisse

Fono Forum

Rezension Fono Forum April 2018 | Thomas Schulz | 1. April 2018 ,,100 Jahre Kommunismus" – so lautete das Motto des Kunstfests Weimar im...

,,100 Jahre Kommunismus" – so lautete das Motto des Kunstfests Weimar im vergangenen Jahr. Da lag es auf der Hand, ein Werk aufs Programm zu setzen, das konkret einem früheren Jubiläum der Ereignisse von 1917 gewidmet war, nämlich Prokofjews "Kantate zum 20. Jahrestag der Oktoberrevolution". Ungewöhnlich ist dieser Entschluss trotzdem, denn das Werk wird so gut wie nie aufgeführt, vor allem wegen der gigantischen Besetzung, die neben Orchester und Chor auch noch eine zusätzliche Blechbläserkapelle, ein Akkordeonensemble sowie eine futuristische Geräuschinstrumente einbeziehende Schlagzeuggruppe umfasst. Auch die Textzusammenstellung von Marx über Reden von Lenin und Stalin bis zur sowjetischen Verfassung von 1936 ist heute nur noch schwer zu goutieren. Übrigens nicht nur heutzutage: Bei den Mächtigen fand das Werk keine Gnade. So wurde die für 1937 angesetzte Uraufführung fallengelassen, und die Kantate erklang erst nach Prokofjews Tod.

Nichtsdestoweniger hat die Partitur einiges zu bieten – nämlich nicht nur niederschmetternde Wucht, sondern auch avantgardistische Kühnheit bis hin zu Geräuscheffekten (Gewehrsalven, Sirene, Sturmglocke), wie sie Stalin damals garantiert nicht gefallen hätten. Der Dirigent Kirill Karabits verwirklicht gemeinsam mit der Staatskapelle Weimar und dem Ernst Senff Chor Berlin auf bewundernswerte, ja gnadenlose Weise die Extremwerte, lässt es sich auch nicht nehmen, an einer Stelle das in der Partitur geforderte Megafon selbst in die Hand zu nehmen und Lenin'sche Parolen über dem orchestralen Getümmel zu skandieren. Das ist schon ein außergewöhnliches Erlebnis. Die Qualität der einzigen anderen Gesamtaufnahme des ungekürzten Werks unter Neeme Järvi (Chandos) wird mühelos erreicht, wenn nicht überboten. Da fällt auch die magere Spieldauer von 42 Minuten nicht weiter ins Gewicht.
Gramophone

Rezension Gramophone March 2018 | Peter Quantrill | 1. März 2018 Once read, it's hard to forget, but best to lay aside Reger's claim for his Op...

Once read, it's hard to forget, but best to lay aside Reger's claim for his Op 77b String Trio as satisfying the demands of his age for a new Mozart. 'Even more beautiful' it may be than the Flute Serenade with which it shares an opus number, but the trio's least far-fetched claim to cast some flickering shadow of Mozartian lightness of spirit lies in a divertimento-like character most pleasingly heard in a Larghetto which shares the formal, spacious layout and grave beauties of the gardens in Potsdam and the Nymphenburg. The rough, stamping humour of the subsequent Scherzo rather coarsely banishes any lingering illusion of imperial (or Classical) finesse, though the finale makes partial amends with a Haydnesque turn of dialogue and brevity.

If the steam of dumplings still rises from Reger's better-known chamber and orchestral music for some listeners – I'm rather partial to a dish of Griessklösschen myself – then they should find the calorie count more to their taste in the attenuated textures of the string trio, even in the more densely woven lines of Op 141b. The German Trio Lirico do a fine job of sounding more like a sextet, not without some effort caught by the microphones. Rival ensembles on Naxos and Gramola are also audibly taxed – somehow huffing and sighing are grist to the mill of the Regerian aesthetic – but I prefer the ebb and flow of the new recording, the opportunities for contrast and genial dialogue taken wherever they arise, such as in the serenade-like lilt of the first movement's second theme.

The Second Piano Quartet is one of those several works composed after Reger had had a close encounter with a Brahmsian archetype (in this case the C minor Quartet, Op 60), and there is even a furtive tip of the hat to his exemplar at the start of the development section. Here again a sympathetic recording balance is key to the success of the performance, placing Detlev Eisinger's contribution at a discreet distance while making clear that this is a partnership of musical equals.
hifi & records

Rezension hifi & records 2/2018 | Uwe Steiner | 1. April 2018 Auch mit diesen SACDs bestätigt Audite seine Vorrangstellung bei der...

Auch mit diesen SACDs bestätigt Audite seine Vorrangstellung bei der Wiederveröffentlichung historischer Aufnahmen: Erstmals wurden die bekannten Luzerner Mitschnitte von Beethovens Eroica und Schumanns Dritter auf der Basis der originalen Rundfunkbänder und damit in deutlich besserer, wenn auch immer noch eher dokumentarischer Tonqualität ediert.
hifi & records

Rezension hifi & records 2/2018 | Uwe Steiner | 1. April 2018 Auch mit diesen SACDs bestätigt Audite seine Vorrangstellung bei der...

Auch mit diesen SACDs bestätigt Audite seine Vorrangstellung bei der Wiederveröffentlichung historischer Aufnahmen: Erstmals wurden die bekannten Luzerner Mitschnitte von Beethovens Eroica und Schumanns Dritter auf der Basis der originalen Rundfunkbänder und damit in deutlich besserer, wenn auch immer noch eher dokumentarischer Tonqualität ediert.
BBC Music Magazine

Rezension BBC Music Magazine April 2018 | Julian Haylock | 1. April 2018 Recorded live (the concertos) and in the studio (Petrarch Sonnets and...

Recorded live (the concertos) and in the studio (Petrarch Sonnets and Tannhäuser Overture) with the Berlin Radio Symphony Orchestra, Jorge Bolet imparts a velvet-toned nobility to even the most notesaturated outbursts.
www.musicweb-international.com

Rezension www.musicweb-international.com Thursday March 22nd | Dan Morgan | 22. März 2018 Recorded a hundred years after the seismic event it celebrates, this piece finds...

Recorded a hundred years after the seismic event it celebrates, this piece finds Kirill Karabits in a very different world to that of Kara Karayev, whose ballet music is the subject of his superb new Chandos recording. However, he’s no stranger to Prokofiev, as he and the Bournemouth Symphony have demonstrated with their symphony cycle for Onyx. Admittedly, my colleagues were rather more positive about that project than I was, but, for me at least, the Karayev album really marks out Karabits as a ‘conductor of interest’. Indeed, it was one of my top picks for 2017.

As so often, serendipity has played a part in the genesis of this review. Waiting to board a train many years ago I bought a copy of the BBC Music magazine [Vol. 5 No. 2], barely glancing at the cover-mounted CD. Only when I got home I noticed it contained live performances of the Prokofiev Cantata and Shostakovich’s To October, the latter written for the 10th anniversary of the Revolution. Both feature the BBC Symphony Orchestra and Chorus, augmented by the Geoffrey Mitchell Choir, under Mark Elder. These works were new to me, but such is the proselytizing passion of the performances that they quickly became firm favourites.

Then, a few weeks ago, John Quinn mentioned this new Karabits recording. I thought no more about it until a chance encounter on a web forum, which indicated a 24/48 download could be had, direct from Audite, for a miserly €4.99. Yes, it is only 42 minutes of music, but it’s far better value than the CD, which costs up to three times as much online. Given that high-res downloads are generally overpriced, this one is a bona fide bargain. What’s more, it includes a digital booklet with texts and translations: other labels, please note.

Speaking of bargains, Neeme Järvi’s 1992 recording, with the Philharmonia Orchestra and Chorus, was reissued in 2009; the 16-bit download – with Pdf booklet and artwork – is available from Chandos.net for just £7.99. And that looks even more tempting when you factor in excerpts from Prokofiev’s ballet, The Stone Flower. It’s a fine album – more on that later – but it’s not in the same league as Järvi’s sensational (R)SNO pairing of Alexander Nevsky and the Scythian Suite; recorded in spectacular sound, these are my benchmarks for both works. As an aside, I’m pleased that Chandos updated their website a while back; not only does it look good, it also works well.

Intended to chart the rise of the Soviet Union from the start of the Revolution in October 1917 to the consolidation of Stalin’s power in the 1930s, this ten-movement Cantata fell victim to the political uncertainties of the time. Finally premiered in 1966, the piece demands a full orchestra, eight-part chorus, military band, bells, sirens, sundry ordnance and the ‘voice of Lenin’ heard through a megaphone. Karabits takes that role here – Gennadi Rozhdestvensky does it for Järvi – all of which adds to the fun. I say that because, at times, it’s not easy to take this music too seriously. Ditto Shostakovich’s To October, which actually sounds quite modest next to Prokofiev’s ear-battering behemoth.

Goodness, the start of Karabits’s Cantata is hair-raising, the percussion seat-pinning in its presence and power. The chorus is equally impressive when it enters in the second movement, Philosophers, and there’s plenty of thump and thrust when it comes to Marching in Close Ranks and the Interlude that follows. Bombastic? Oh yes, but it’s oddly compelling, too. The harp figures in Revolution are nicely done and the singing is suitably animated; ideally, the choral spread could be wider, the audio image deeper, but that’s a minor quibble. At least the bells are bright and very audible, and the siren sounds terrific; as for the conductor, he makes a rousing Vladimir Ilyich, loud hailer and all.

Interestingly, Karabits often presages the style and sound of the upcoming Nevsky, raspy brass and febrile chorus to the fore. Victory and The Pledge, marked Andante and Andante pesante respectively, provide some respite before the rather attractive little Symphony and the hymn-like finale, The Constitution. The vast forces deployed – Järvi and Elder are more modest in that respect – ensure a pate-cracking performance, but, alas, it’s not one I’d wish to revisit (although I am keen to hear Karabits conduct Nevsky and Ivan). Judging by the applause, the Weimar audience clearly felt they got plenty of bang for their buck.

John Quinn felt Karabits’s Cantata had more impact than Järvi’s, and, in general, I’d agree. However, there’s a clarity – a seriousness, even – to the latter’s reading that makes this newcomer seem even more overblown than it is. I suppose one could argue such public paeans need to be played for all they’re worth, but the downside here is that Karabits misses much of the care and craft embedded in the score. Despite fine playing and singing, Järvi is probably too restrained. Nevertheless, Ralph Couzens– Ben Connellan assisting – provided a vivid, well-balanced recording that’s a pleasure to listen to. The filler is a welcome bonus.

Recorded live at the Royal Festival Hall in February 1996, Elder’s performance – engineered by Philip Burwell – is blessed with a rare sense of space. The choral spread is excellent, and, thanks to chorus master Stephen Jackson, there’s a unanimity and full-throated fervour to the singing that rivals can’t match. Most important, Elder’s reading is intensely musical, without sacrificing raw excitement; the Maxim gun in Revolution, for example, is just marvellous. He also brings coherence and cumulative power to the piece, and, in so doing does full justice to the score; indeed, I can’t imagine a more thoughtful and illuminating account of the Cantata than this. Even better, the CD can be had second-hand for a few quid. Now that’s a bargain!

Karabits goes way over the top and Järvi doesn’t go far enough; Elder gets it just right.
www.musicweb-international.com

Rezension www.musicweb-international.com Thursday March 8th | Marc Rochester | 8. März 2018 In 1936 Prokofiev settled permanently in the Soviet Union having fled in the...

In 1936 Prokofiev settled permanently in the Soviet Union having fled in the wake of the October Revolution of 1917. The general line is that he had become disillusioned with the West, had not achieved in either the US or France the kind of success he had hoped, and was desperately homesick. Dorothea Redepenning takes a somewhat different view in her booklet notes; which are, it has to be said, a rather unconvincing mixture of naivety, speculation and some historical fact. She sees Prokofiev’s decision to return in a more cynical light, suggesting that, eclipsed by Rachmaninov in the US, and Stravinsky in France, Prokofiev seized the opportunity of the sudden political purge against Shostakovich (in the wake of his opera Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District) to dash home and become the Soviet Union’s No.1 composer.

Certainly one wonders what prompted Prokofiev to submit to the iron fist of Soviet rule, and we cannot rule out bare-faced ambition. Yet it is difficult to reconcile the Prokofiev of enfant terrible repute with the 45-year-old man willing, it would seem, to compromise his artistic ideals for the simple lure of fame within a regime he already knew full well was discredited in the eyes of the international community. Stranger still was his willingness to bend to the will of his new political masters by composing this massive 10-section Cantata celebrating the 20th anniversary of the very event which had driven him from Russia in the first place. With texts by Karl Marx, Lenin and Stalin, as well as a generous dose of the kind of “social realism” demanded of Soviet composers at the time, it would seem outwardly that Prokofiev was effectively rolling on his back and wriggling his legs in the air, in the hope that the regime would tickle his tummy.

The music, however, tells a very different story. Again the general line is that Prokofiev decided the satirical undercurrent in his music was a shade too obvious for his own good, and suppressed the work (it was never performed until over a decade after both his and Stalin’s death). But Redepenning has her own theory. She suggests that there were those who viewed the “setting of texts by Lenin or Stalin as heresy”, and that some in power “were apparently irritated by the sound of Lenin’s speeches in combination with Prokofiev’s music”. In light of this, Molotov himself intervened and suggested that Prokofiev’s Cantata for the 20th Anniversary of the October Revolution be submitted for approval by the Committee on the Arts. On 19th June 1937 Prokofiev did indeed play through the work to the committee, but Redepenning states that he not only played the work on the piano but sung it “very badly” at the same time. Whether Prokofiev deliberately sung it very badly in order for it to be rejected, or simply because singing and playing simultaneously were not his thing, we can only speculate (Redepenning chooses not to).

All this looks as if the work might simply have been a typically overblown Soviet propaganda extravaganza to honour the heroes of the Bolshevik Revolution, the noble acts of Lenin and Stalin and the glorious devotion to the regime of the proletariat, and it is perhaps this, more even than the vast forces employed (amounting to several hundred individuals) that have kept the work on the periphery of Prokofiev discography. This recording unequivocally proves otherwise. This is a tremendous outpouring of the composer’s genius, brilliant and inventive, clearly dating from the same time as Romeo and Juliet and Alexander Nevsky but both highly original and at times breathtakingly inventive.

A chorus of accordions, ostensibly included to tick the boxes required by the authorities to elevate the popular music of the people, seems such a fantastic new ingredient in Prokofiev’s highly colourful orchestral palette, that one wonders why he did not use it in other works. The thundering percussion, the clanging bells, the blaring sirens and the speeches relayed through megaphone, might have political reasoning, but musically they add an unforgettable touch. Some of us may read the ghastly texts, hideous in their mundanity and triteness, and wonder how such drivel can inspire great music. (Others may wonder how such glorious political sentiments can begin to be matched by music of any description – never let it be said that MusicWeb International takes any particular political stance.) But the extraordinary thing about this work is how Prokofiev’s music manages to walk that fine line between dramatic depiction of the events related in the words, and biting satire which, I am inclined to think, we recognise more with the benefit of hindsight.

Recorded live at a performance during last year’s Weimar Kunstfests, one is conscious of a certain frisson of excitement and a tangible sense of electrical charge running through the performance – taking place, it should be said, on soil which, barely a quarter of a century before had been firmly within the Soviet bloc. The tremendous din of everything being thrown at the audience at the great climaxes of the sixth movement, “Revolution”, perhaps one of the most unrestrained outbursts of musical violence since the Scythian Suite, obliterates any obvious audience noise, but the exuberant applause at the end (quickly curtailed on the recording) pays tribute to what is, by any reckoning, a powerful and electrifying performance in which Karabits marshals his massed forces with almost military precision; this is a truly fabulous exhibition of musical control. The recording captures the immensity of the sound superbly, although one suspects a constant hand on the levels to prevent the true dynamic range of the performance becoming too much of an obstacle to domestic listening.
www.musicweb-international.com

Rezension www.musicweb-international.com Monday March 12th | Roy Westbrook | 12. März 2018 Martin Rasch is a German pianist born in 1974 who studied with Gerhard Oppitz...

Martin Rasch is a German pianist born in 1974 who studied with Gerhard Oppitz and others in Munich. He professes a penchant for the live performance of big cycles, the thirty-two Beethoven piano sonatas in particular. So there is no question here of a very young pianist learning some pieces just before taking them into the recording studio. The pianist has these works in his mind and his fingers. The recordings were made in nine days, spread over exactly two years, but on some days five sonatas were set down. The cycle was recorded, and is presented, in opus number, rather than strictly chronological, sequence (so the two very early sonatas published later as Op.49 are on disc six, in between Op.31/3 and Op.53). It is therefore easy to find any particular sonata, and no sonata is split across discs. To increase the attractiveness, the piano sound is good, there is a short but illuminating booklet note, and the set of nine CDs is at super-budget price (25.90 euros on the label’s website).

The earliest of these sonatas are from 1795, and it’s easy to forget that the first dozen of Beethoven’s thirty-two sonatas are works of the 18th century. The first three sonatas are dedicated to Haydn, who still had over a decade to live. How far should the playing style reflect the fact that they belong to Haydn’s Vienna, and are the work of a man in his late twenties making his way in that world? It’s perhaps tempting to play them in effect “with hindsight”, anticipating the drama and profundities to come in the middle and late periods. Martin Rasch largely avoids this, and keeps things in the right scale and style for the 1790s, even though he is using a modern Steinway concert grand piano. Disc one sets just this tone of decorum.

The first publication in the series, Op.2, is a set of three sonatas. Op.2/1, with a neat and tidily articulated opening Allegro, a slow movement that is not all that slow, a steady minuet and a Prestissimo that is not very fast. Op.2/2 is a bigger work with a 7-to-8 minute Largo appassionato which again flows nicely, taking 7:14. Charles Rosen, in his book on the sonatas, tells us that Beethoven slow movements have got slower, due to modern instruments that can sustain better, bigger concert halls, and a sense of reverence for Beethoven that leads artists to feel slow tempi are needed to reveal his profundity. Later works maybe, but not those of the 1790s surely. The largest of the set is Op.2/3 (the total timing is 28:14), in which Beethoven really wants to draw attention to his skill. Here the slow movement is a dramatic piece and Rasch responds to its rhetoric without once overdoing it. The finale, too, is very nicely played, even the triple trill in the cadenza, which the composer must have put there to show off his own keyboard dexterity.

Op.7 is “one of the longest and most difficult of the thirty-two” (Rosen), and only the Hammerklavier sonata is usually any longer than its half hour span. The opening Allegro con brio bristles with technical hazards which Martin Rasch negotiates with skill and musicality, qualities in evidence in the following movements also. The great Largo con gran espressione has much, if not quite all, of the “grand expression” the marking asks for, while the minuet and the finale are fine. Op.10 is another publication of three sonatas, of which Op.10/3 in D major is the largest, being the only one with four movements. It opens with a Presto, and this is taken at just the right tempo to provide the necessary momentum but let each incident make its point. The Largo e mesto evokes the deepest feeling so far in the cycle and if the tempo here is a bit on the slow side (though many are slower still), there is the right degree of pathos. The Menuetto is also lyrical, beginning dolce as marked but still dance-like, and the Rondo finale is done with some sense of fun, even if one has heard others make more of its range of mostly comic moods.

With the Pathétique (Op.13) we enter new territory in terms of the fame and popularity of the work, and therefore the likelihood that any collector of Beethoven sonata discs will already own several versions. If this one is unlikely to displace your particular favourite, it is a more than creditable account with a properly flowing tempo for the exquisite Adagio cantabile. More could have been made of the ensuing Rondo though. But at least there is a sense that with the Pathétique, we are still in the 18th century. Op.22 in B flat is also from 1799, and has never enjoyed the popularity of its predecessor, though the composer seems to have been rather proud of his accomplishment here. Rasch clearly regards it as highly as any sonata so far, bringing his steady seriousness of manner, especially to the Adagio con molto espressionne. Beethoven does rather less with the Viennese conventions of both the minuet and finale of Op.22, and Rasch recognises that in the propriety of his playing of them. And so we bid farewell to the 18th century.

The A flat sonata Op.26 begins with a set of variations, each of which might have been more distinctly characterised, and Rasch might have made more of the several switches to quieter playing (subito piano). But he does maintain a steady tempo through the variations, holding the movement together well. The Marcia funebre is a true funeral march but still at a march pace, not too dirge-like. Of the pair of Op.27 sonatas, both styled “quasi una fantasia”, it is the second (the Moonlight) which comes off the better. Not so much for its opening Adagio sostenuto, which lacks something in moonlit magic compared to many other versions, but for its charming Allegretto and a rollicking Presto agitato. The Pastorale Op.28 is another named sonata, not as celebrated as the Pathétique or the Moonlight perhaps but bigger than either, needing 25:41 here for its four movements. Rasch again thinks that a famous moniker requires no special treatment (he could be right of course), so that there is nothing very pastoral about the opening movement that, unusually for Beethoven, slightly outstays its welcome at ten and a half minutes. The Andante is in a march tempo which Rasch keeps moving very attractively, while the pastoral finale with a drone bass is done in a suitably rustic manner.

The Op.31 is another set of three, of which the D minor second sonata (“The Tempest”) is among the best known of the middle period, and the greatest of the sonatas up to this point. Fortunately it also gets the best performance up to this point in Rasch’s cycle. The opening material in Rasch’s hands has the drama the writing demands, especially in the leaping bass figure and the pleading soft reply, where he gets a real dynamic contrast, and the start of the development, which has the essential improvisatory feel. The great finale has the driven quality its perpetual motion needs without becoming over-driven, and the whole performance suggests the work might be more central to Rasch’s repertory, played outside full cycles. Op.31/3 is a comparable success, with an appealing ebullience in the scherzo and the skipping tarantella of the Presto con fuoco finale.

With the quintessential middle-period sonatas, the Waldstein Op.53 and the Appassionata Op.57, we arrive at two of the greatest, and most popular, of all works for the piano, let alone Beethoven sonatas. Martin Rasch for the most part rises to their considerable demands as far as technique goes, if not always with the ideal temperament. In the opening movement of the Waldstein, the pulse for the first subject is a proper Allegro con brio and as button-holing as it should be. The recapitulation is immediately preceded by some slight hesitation of pulse, or if it is a moment of rubato it is not very welcome in such a driven piece. The finale is more solid than spectacular perhaps, though Rasch copes well with the many technical demands of the long Prestissimo coda. The Appassionata is a similar story, with powerful, dramatic, accurate playing, but not quite heaven-storming enough in the outer movements. The lower emotional temperature of Op.78 and Op.79 suit Rasch better on this evidence, for they are both given joyful performances.

The sonata Les Adieux Op.81a sets off on its journey with a horn call – a three note motif over which the composer wrote the three syllables ‘Le-be-wohl’ or ‘farewell’ in German. But Rasch gives no sense of a programme in the piece, rather downplaying the drama behind the notes. The finale (‘The Return”) is marked Vivacissimamente – in a very lively manner. What we get is surely modified rapture at best, not so much a matter of the speed as of the absence of brightness of articulation or a lift to the rhythm. He doesn’t sound all that excited about this return. Op.90 is from 1814, and the composer had been writing piano sonatas for twenty years. Its status is one of being in between the middle and late sonatas, as is that of the following sonata Op.101 of 1816. Op.90 is well brought off by Rasch in the first movement. He sees it as a middle period work, with no attempt at the searching qualities of the final works. The lyricism of the second and final movement finds him a bit matter of fact, but better that than nudging the delightful main theme into sounding more laden with meaning than it is.

Op.101 is a four-movement work which some pianists apparently consider the most difficult sonata to play, but Rasch gives no sign of that. Indeed it is another one of the most convincing interpretations in the set. The first movement grows and flows quite naturally through to its close, and the dotted rhythms of the second movement have a Schumannesque spring in their step. The preludial slow movement is affecting and the big finale’s fugal passage has an insouciant air that suits it well. It is followed on disc 8 by the imposing opening of Op.106, the Hammerklavier sonata.

There is a notorious controversy over the right tempo for the first movement of the Hammerklavier, coming from a muddle over the composer’s metronome mark. Personally I like the Schnabel and Pollini approach – going for as fast a tempo as the music will bear but which will still permit clean articulation (though Schnabel does not always manage this). But broader tempi, like that Rasch adopts here, can work too of course (and are more commonly heard), and this Allegro is pretty convincing. The brief scherzo is despatched with aplomb, and the great slow movement – one of the composer’s finest attempts at the sublime – does not lose its grip over its long (18:49) span. The fugal finale is an imposing and satisfying account if not quite a jaw-dropping tour-de-force. But it’s marked Allegro risoluto, and his resolute tempo and manner gives Rasch space to let us hear what is actually going on in the massive fugue. It would make a good version from which to get to know this amazing sonata.

The last three sonatas (Op.109 – Op.111) are all among the successes of this recorded cycle. The elusive first movement of Op.109 holds together well, and the theme and variations of its finale are expertly explored, yielding a cumulative eloquence. This continues into Op.110, the easiest of the last three to get to know and love, perhaps. Rasch sounds as if he loves it rather than merely reveres it. He certainly offers a fine account. The last work of all, Op.111, was called by Thomas Mann “the end of the sonata” – implying there was nothing left to say once Beethoven had explored the form over thirty-two infinitely varied examples. It certainly feels that way if you hear it after four days spent listening to its predecessors from one artist, as I have just done. It shows, too, that Rasch can use an extreme tempo when he feels it is really justified. He begins the wonderful Adagio molto semplice e cantabile with the utmost gravity, but still semplice. At the end of this immense traversal, he wants us to take time, and in this performance of the work, time stands still. It crowns a fine achievement by Rasch.

Martin Rasch comes across in the set as the dutiful servant of this music. His interpretations are central, rarely individual or eccentric. He sounds determined to be self-effacing in the cause of this great art. He has no particular mannerisms in his playing. There is often a steadiness of tempo in fast movements and flowing relative swiftness for slower movements, avoiding extremes either way. He has the technique to encompass the demands – which are not exactly negligible – of all these works, if occasionally suggesting that they can still be taxing. But a sense of struggle is a part of the aesthetic, at least from the middle period on. Others with more transcendental piano techniques can make the sonatas sound easy, too easy perhaps. Throughout the set he never condescends to what might be seen as the lesser works, but brings the same seriousness to them as to the big favourites. This is a valuable asset in a complete cycle.

No artist can ever tell us all that this music has to say. This is a very good set, if not quite one to upset the prevailing rankings, where Brendel’s third cycle (the digital one) stands out. I have a personal soft spot for Kovacevich’s cycle too, which is the one I think Rasch’s perhaps most resembles. Among other recent cycles, there are at least two that have been less noticed than they deserve. Michael Korstick on Oehms has much to offer in the more famous works among the thirty-two, as well as sometimes more individuality in the wrong sense of more extremes (a world-record 28-minute Hammerklavier adagio!). I especially like Mari Kodama on Pentatone, who is very straight in the same way as Rasch, sometimes with more dash to the pianism. Both of these have excellent SACD sound, the Pentatone perhaps the best ever given to these works. (But only the Pentatone retains the SACD mastering in the boxed set version, while Oehms offers only CDs in the box.) Many will also want a cycle on a period instruments, and another SACD series, Ronald Brautigam’s on BIS, will allow you to hear how different they might have sounded to their composer, and at various points reveal what he really meant us to hear. All of these cost several times more than the Audite box.

But for those looking for a (very affordable) way into these inexhaustible works, Martin Rasch’s cycle never misrepresents any work among the thirty-two. He does justice to each one, and he depicts them in proper relation to each other across this astonishing career-long journey. But he is more than just a reliable guide, he is often also a persuasive advocate.

Suche in...

...