Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Interpreters of Beethoven Sonatas?

Does anyone know any good interpreters of Beethoven's Sonatas (especially his late ones)?
I usually listen to Backhaus and Richter but i would like to know of more, so any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Kempff is good.

I've recently converted to Barenboim as my favourite though!

For sure somebody would mention Artur Schnabel pretty soon, so why not.
If you haven't checked him out, you have to -- before you wonder much more about this.

Let me put in a vote also for a guy that I had the chance to meet and get to know a bit in France -- Eric Heidsieck. I think his interpretations are among the most "interesting" -- perky, sometimes a little quirky but not much, and full of life. He's "different," but not far-out or strange like we might say about Glenn Gould. Some of his stuff is on YouTube, mostly in Japanese for some reason.
(He's very popular in Japan -- dunno why there particularly.)

Gilels. Definitely.

i thank you all and i shall work through these suggestions. i presume you're talking about Wilhelm Kempf and yes Schnabel is good. I have never heard of Heidsieck so i shall check him out. I have never been a particularly big fan of Gilels but i have never heard his Beethoven so maybe that can sway me into liking him! anyway i thank you all again.

it's shame there aren't more recordings of Cziffra or Solomon playing Beethoven.

I am a fan of Gilels. His Waldstein, Op. 2 No 3, and Pathetique really won me over. His Hammerklavier is wonderful too.

aahh, i am awaiting to hear the greatest rendition of the Hammerklavier! I thought Richter came close but the final movement wasn't as perfect as the previous two, but i could have become too lethargic by then. Maybe Gilels holds my dream performance, and it always does tend to be the ones you least expected!

Brendel.

Richard Goode.

The greatest Beethoven player and conductor of his time was Han von Bulow. I just finished a great bio of Bulow by Alan Walker. The programs back then were often gigantic. Von Bulow quite frequently played the last 5 Beethoven Sonatas on one program and once played the Hammerklvier fugue as an encore.

Von Bulow also seems to have been one of the great masters of the comical insult. It seems like everyone other page of the book is filled with some extremely clever but nasty comment by von Bulow.

For some performances von Bulow made the orchestra play standing up and from memeory. Von Bulow himself almost always conducted without the score.

Lots of people try and conduct without the score. From what I've heard, they frequently have memory slips, which orchestra members detest.

It's showboating. In my old gig the md always had a stage hand go on stage to remove the conductor's desk in full view of the audience just before he would go on stage himself.

Not von Bulow.

Which other conductors besides Karajan(?) conduct most/all of the time without the score?

Schnabel - of course, has already been mentioned.

For Late Sonatas - Christoph Eschenbach is fascinating. He takes some liberties, but his playing is very imaginative and very appealing.

Ronald Brautigam is very good, as well - especially if you want an interpretation on an older forte-piano.

Gulda. Friedrich Gulda.

Sir Simon Rattle. I've been enjoying lately the Berlin Philmarmonic 'concert hall' feature where all concerts from 2008 season on can be watched high-definition on a Sony HD TV (internet streaming). Rarely have I seen him using a score.

Eschenbach is known for conducting without a score. I heard him conduct a wonderful "Turangalila" from memory a few years back.

While I can't speak for other conductors who don't use the score, in von Bulow's case I feel quite certain that it had nothing to do with showboating. He had a prodigious memory and probably didn't give it a second thought or assumed it was part of mastering a score. Nothing in the book indicated von Bulow went without the score to make an impression. He even made the orchestra players memorize the score on some works(Beethoven symphonies, I think).

Gilels is masterful in Beethoven. I like Richard Goode as well , but actually prefer his earlier Beethoven sonatas to the later ones .

I have two recommendations for the complete set, both already mentioned above. They're both passionate but rigorously disciplined, in the manner of Richter.

1. Brendel, the early Vox recordings. This is the fiery young Brendel (not the, um, sort of lethargic older Brendel), and he achieves a pearly sound in his Hammerklavier that's magnificent.

2. Ronald Brautigam on the forte-piano. I'm not generally a fan of period instruments, but these recordings are revelations. for each sonata, you feel that you're right in the parlor room where it's being unleashed in public for the first time.

-Jason

No one has mentioned Arrau, so I will. Claudio Arrau's interpretations of the Beethoven Sonatas are my favourites. I feel that his performances bring out more warmth than many of the other interpreters. I suppose his interpretations are more individual but I like that and it's interesting to compare his playing with that of the more Germanic interpreters. Another important thing for me is that Arrau plays ALL the repeats which I think is absolutely right.

I should have too. I have 2 complete sets of the sonatas and his is one of them (the other is Heidsieck). He has always been my favorites, for just about anything he played.

I'd say Heidsieck's are more "individual" but Arrau beats just about everyone on continuous concentration and intensity.

Even the repeats of the development/recap in the first movements of the first two sonatas? Those are the only repeats I would imagine a high number of concert pianists wouldn't take.


-Jason

Why not? I hear plenty of pianists take them, as would I.

I think there are at least a couple other examples. One of them is just a small one: The last repeat in the "scherzo" (2nd mvt) of Op. 110.

And.....the "Bulow-Lebert" edition of the sonatas comes out strongly against taking the repeat of the recap of the last mvt of the Appassionata. IMO the idea of not taking the repeat is pretty absurd, and the explanation is even absurder:

"Excepting the case in the Finale of the C-minor Symphony [sic, with the hyphen] (first part), the Editor [sic, upper case] knows no more unjustifiable compulsion [sic] to repetition than this. The whole poem presses to a close; the player, who thus far has striven [sic] with all the technical and mental energy at his command to fulfil his task, must [sic] now be so near exhaustion, as to be obliged to muster his entire [sic] remaining strength in order to meet the demands of the Coda -- demands hardly to be over-estimated. If he obeys the repeat, his work will [sic] be inferior to the first time (unless he unduly [sic] saved his strength before); on the listener the repetition may make a didactic, but in no case [sic] an artistico-plastic impression [sic!!]; therefore let reverence for an extrinsic matter of inattention [SIC!!!!!!!] on the Master's part be saved up for private practice, in which the reproductive musician [sic] must always [sic] be able to accomplish at least twice as much as is required of him at a public concert."

Do you believe these guys????

Nevertheless, some people indeed omit the repeat.

P.S. Sic 'em!!!

I quite like Barenboim's recordings, I've heard Gilels' Waldstein and Hammerklavier too and they are fantastic. I'm hooked on Barenboim's Op.109 now though..

Although there are a few pianists with very good individual recordings of Beethoven Sonatas, if you take the Sonatas as a SET, I think the most consistent throughout is Alfred Brendel.

Bulow is considered by many to be one of the most important pianists and most important conductors of the second half of the 19th century. His specialty in both piano and orchestral works was Beethoven. His Beethoven recitals attracted many musicians who would follow along witht he scores. He performed cycles of all the major Beethoven piano works all over the world.

What I "can't believe" is how someone can so summarily dismiss his views(whether they're out of fashion now or not).

von Bulow was, indeed, quite renowned in his time as a pianist and conductor (he even premiered the Liszt b minor), but that Schirmer edition of the Beethoven sonatas that bears his name is terrible enough to cause many to dismiss his name from musical history altogether (myself included). The oversights and blatant errors are simply too numerous to be taken seriously, nor should anyone take seriously any "editor" of such a volume. I agree with Mark completely...it's an absolutely absurd explanation if ever there were one.

Cool! You've staked out your position.
You think what he says makes sense.
Good.

I think his reply was perhaps influenced by the fact that it was me who posted the Bulow footnote.

Considering von Bulow's accomplishmnets, I think the idea of "dismsissing his name from musical history", even if his Beethoven edition is the worst edition in history, is arroagant.

Some rhetorical questions. Have you

Given many Beetthoven cycles in major halls recently?
Played the last five Beethoven Sonatas in one recital all over the world?
Given premieres of works of the caliber of the liszt Sonata and Wagner operas lately?
Been considered the major interpreter of Beethoven for several decades?
Been musical director of the Berlin PHilharmonic lately?
Held in great esteem by musicians of the caliber of Liszt, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, R. Strauss?


I'd be curious how many major pianists or musicians think so little of von Bulow as you do.

Coming back to where we started, maybe a more relevant question would be:

What amount of major pianists or musicians think so little of that explanation about the repeat in the Appassionata.

I think it's safe to say it's the great majority of those who have seen it.

Does that just reflect (as you mentioned) different views in different eras? Maybe. But we are us.

1. You don't seem to follow that I think it's arrogant for people with "grain of sand on the beach by comparison" musical resumes to talk about musicians of von Bulow's stature in the way you did.

2. Bulow basically said that the repeat required too much energy to be justified in terms of what comes after it. He certainly wasn't lacking in technique. You seem to forget that the style of writing was far different in von Bulow's day. Liszt's bio of Chopin suffers from the same style problems as the editorial comment under discussion.

But don't you think that even we measly grains have a valid right to criticize far more accomplished artists? If someone of great stature says something I find ridiculous, it's not necessarily arrogant for me to say so (nor is it necessarily because their opinions are "out of fashion").

More generally, I just don't understand the rebuttal (prevelant on youtube) that goes:

-- I don't think X is as great as everyone says.
-- Oh yeah? I'd like to see you do better.

I don't mind anyone criticizing a major musician/pianist as long as it's not done with arrogance, sarcasm, etc. It's all about how something is expressed IMO.

Fair enough. I agree, of course!

Thanks.

And I think plover didn't realize the irony of his saying this was arrogant.

How about von Bulow taking issue with Beethoven??
I mean, he didn't just express a view about the repeat; he said the repeat marks showed "inattention" on "the Master's" part.

If he wants to talk about differing degrees of arrogance, he's welcome. But von Bulow's footnote was quintessentially arrogant.
Even if one doesn't think it was absurd.

Yes! the no.30 is one of my most favourite pieces! i remember as soon as i heard the opening bars before collapsing into that beautiful slow section i was so blown away that the very next morning i travelled halfway across Essex to buy the sheet music merely to learn the first movement! although now the rest of the piece has grown on me i will one day learn it all...

Anyway i thank you all for your suggestions and i shall make my way through:
gilels
kempff
heidsieck
goode
f. gulda
eschenbach
brautigam

(i have the feeling that once i have heard all their renditions i will know the sonatas better than even Beethoven!)

Even if von Bulow's comment was arrogant, this has absolutely nothing to do with what I said about your comment. And it certainly wasn't the reason you criticized von Bulow's comment. Why even bring it up other than to try and deflect the conversation?

Because you accused me of arrogance.
Even if true (which it isn't) you were being interestingly selective.

Look, plover: You just don't care for my stuff, in general (and for me).
Everybody pretty much knows that.
Feel free to give it a rest.

I learned pretty quickly to stay away from your posts. Please return the favor.

Interesting suggestion coming from someone with the highest posting rate at PW by far. A mere 6000 posts in the last nine months.

I knew that you often misunderstood my posts, but I didn't realize you could take it this far.

In my previous post (edited), I asked that you please return my favor. I would appreciate it, and I think it's safe to say most of the site would as well.

I should return the favor of not responding to your posts even though you just respnded to my post? How logical.

Time out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look, my friend.
I reply to your posts only after you do one of those frontal challenges to a post of mine (which is what your replies to me virtually always are).

Did you really not understand this??

In case you didn't, now you do. So, no more excuses.

Cliff's Notes: Leave me alone. I would appreciate it, and I'm sure the site would too.
If you don't think so, ask them.

You're the one who just made an excuse for your post. Although your reply didn't answer to my previous post. You can always not reply to this post... or is that not possible for you?

Von Bulow may have been the best ever, but his explanation that the repeat in the Appassionata should be skipped simply because it taxes the performer too much isn't convincing, and the flowery prose doesn't help his case.

I don't need to add any of those things to my resume in order to state my opinion (which I stand by). As I said, apparently he was quite the pianist and conductor (and feared as a teacher), but the shoddy "scholarship" he presents with one simple edition (that from a leading "expert") says more to me than any biographical footnotes could (though I've no doubt Mr. Walker has written an excellent book).

Who cares? Why do these numbers matter to you?

No one is calling him the best ever...there is no such person.

Having just finished a 450 page bio of Bulow I know he had terrific technique and the stamina to play programs almost twice as long as is normally done today. I can only speculate that for him this sonata was even more intense and technically treacherous than for most other professionals. Or maybe it was just a trade off...he could play the repeat but felt without it he'd have more left for the coda.

Stating your opinion is not the same as "dismissing someone from musical history". Von Bulow's accomplishments as a pianist and conductor are not just biographical footnotes. For around 40 years he was one of the most important non composer musicians in the world. I think any shoddy scholarship, if true, seems inconsequential by comparison.

Von Bulow was held in incredibly high esteem by Liszt, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, and R. Srrauss but I guess not by stores.

Gilels is my favorite in Beethoven overall but I don't think he recorded op 111 and I find his op 110 to be somewhat under par.
As always with these things it comes down to personal taste.
Just to add a couple of names to your already impressive shortlist.Try Rudolf Serkin for the late sonatas in particular, also if you can, have a listen to Kovacevich's Beethoven cycle.Oh, and for a surprisingly good set on the cheap, try Jeno Jando on Naxos.

Gilels for me too, but a very close second is a recent recording no one has mentioned -- Paul Lewis. Unbelievably fine.

Yes he's very solid.He's one of those pianists that make you think "oh, it's really not difficult at all".I've really been enjoying his concerto cycle at the proms, looking forward to no 5 in three weeks time.
By the way Perahia's wonderful 1989 performance of the 5th is on Iplayer at the moment in case anyone wants to watch it.There's also an interview with Paul Lewis on the same programme.

Toscanini and Mitropoulos both conducted without score. Toscanini's eyesight was notoriously poor (as was his temperament ), and Mitropoulos had his scores so thoroughly memorized that he even conducted rehearsals without score! Imagine that. Though this did lead to some inaccuracies in performance, cf his live recording of Wozzeck where the singers aren't always on the proper pitch- something I hasten to add that I certainly wouldn't catch even with a score!

Someone once asked Knappertsbusch (one of the greatest conductors of Parsifal) why unlike Karajan, he always used the score: 'Because I can read music!'

I heard his Op. 106 on the radio some months back. Incredible.

If it is anything like his Liszt bio, then it is self-recommending. Most of what I know about von Bulow (besides the Schirmer Beethoven edition) is from Schonberg's two excellent books -and IMO required reading- 'The Great Conductors' and 'The Great Pianists'.

The final sentence I'll agree with!

Ah, the Golden Age of Pianists - tremendous pianists bringing unique and daring interpretations to the public. We have left that age and have now entered the Literal Age of Pianists, where the score is god and individuality is a dangerous thing when not applied strictly to tempo and dynamics. Every performance is expected to be 'authentic' - whatever the heck that might be! So many scholars and performers weighing in on how Beethoven would have played his sonatas in the past - never realizing that sometimes we want to hear how someone else will play his sonatas in the present.

Why choose one modern pianist over another? They frequently blend together, making a collective interpretation of Beethoven that is more dry and pedantic, than alive and moving. Great - the score has been mastered. If I want to hear a literal interpretation of the score, I can do that in my head. I'm more interested in hearing someone who is daring enough to play Beethoven in a manner that is surprising, alive and tells me something new about the piece. How often does this happen today? Hmmm....

It happened a lot in the past. The same pianists who shook the musical world with their outstanding performances are now usually scolded, insulted and dismissed by the dry scholars of today. Schnabel had some very strange ideas of how to treat measures and the emphasis accorded to them - but he's absolutely fascinating to listen to. Bulow had some odd ideas about how to interpret the Sonatas - but so many people forget that much of what he wrote was intended for the amateur at home, or the student - and they forget, or have never heard, his electrifying performances. Busoni liked to take Bach and expand him to perform better on the modern piano, and what performances! Many of the greatest pianists who ever lived had nothing close to an urtext edition to work from, or even autographs to consult. How EVER did they manage to become world-famous? It appears they just had the talent and power to bring convincing and amazing performances, without having to spend their entire life consulting musty books as to proper, period performances. Thank GOD. We can leave that to some of our more anal-retentive musicans. They will be sure to point out all the scholarly flaws a great pianist makes. LOL.


We'll see how many dry, pedantic, by-the-book pianists are remembered 50 years in the future, or what mark they make in the present. It's to the point that it's very easy to hear a Beethoven Sonata played, whether it's on cd, radio, dvd, whatever. It's the rare pianist that makes me want to actually perform a concert and hear their interpretation of Beethoven. I have passed up many pianist's performances where I live, because they bring very little to Beethoven anymore. Too many pianists are too scared to be brave and daring with Beethoven. He's almost an untoucheable monument today, and one's competence as a pianist is too often judged by how one adheres slavishly to the original score. Technical competence is not a reason to see someone perform on the piano, in my opinion. Watching a performing monkey gets old, very fast.

Sviatoslav Richter and Claudio Arrau are the best for the sonatas IMO.

Wonderful post, Mattardo. Thank-you for that.

I have long wondered -in my dreams- what performances of Beethoven by Busoni, d'Albert and yes, von Bulow must have been like. But you may care to check out Paul Lewis.

Just a thought?

Strangely enough, no mention here of Stephen Kovacevich's cycle which IMHO is outstanding. His tempos are typically quicker than most others but the articulation clean as a whistle and phrasing quite impeccable.

In 'Thoughts on Beethoven and the Piano Sonatas' included with Arrau's 1960s recording, Arrau writes :
'. . I am often asked about the question of repeats. When does one play or not play repeats in Beethoven? The answer is simple: one always plays repeats in Beethoven. From the very first sonata Beethoven was so eigenwillig,so selfwilled,
that he would not have put a repeat sign just to conform to the conventions of the time. He uses repeats always to strengthen and enhance the structure of a work. With Beethoven the sonata form with its built-in dramatic structure became the most total means of deepest personal expression. Therefore every repeat has its own meaning and importance.'

Wonderful! Your technique is really great. The piece just needs more feeling and musicality. Really exaggerate betweens the Forte's and the Piano's, and give the piece more fire and passion. Other than that, job well done.

Richter, Gulda, Arrau, and of course , Gilels!

Basically I disagree with almost every sentence. A few points:

1. Not sure when you think the Golden Age of Pianists ended. If you think it ended before 1950, then many of the pianists on the list I recently posted of the top 100 pianists of the 20th century were playing after that date.

2. You seem to rate Schnabel highly yet he certainly was interested in following the score as written by the composer. Richter went so far as to claim there was no such thing as interpretation(an exaggerated way of expressing his views)because everything was in the score. Most of the pianists considered great Beethoven players(see people mentioned so far in this thread) followed the score reasonably closely even as far back as Han von Bulow. I think the idea of the Golden Age of Pianism style of piano playing applies more to the interpreation of Romantic music.

3. What one person calls "individuality/originality" is another person's example of "the pianist putting himself before the composer".

4. I don't think some of the Golden Age pianists like Friedman or Busoni are "scolded or dismissed" by most pianists of today. In fact, I think these pianists are generally highly revered. Although few pianists add notes to original works a la Busoni, Bach transcriptions by Busoni and others are reasonably popular.

5. I once posted a Youtube clip of 10 different pianists, most of them from later than 1950, all playing just the opening solo measures of the Beethoven' PC #4. Every one was highly different and interesting. IMO there is no inconsistency with following the score but playing in a most interesting, individual, and beautiful way.

6. Consider some recent winners of the Chopin competition: Argerich, Ohlsson, Yundi Li, Pollini, Zimerman, Blechaz. I would say most/all of these pianists play in the modern style but most people find their playing far from "boring, dry, and pedantic". Do you?

So, basically - you show that there are exceptions to everything. Ok.
1- I don't know what my reference to the Golden Age of Pianists has to do with other threads, but let's try to make the match - I'm interested in the pianists who comprised it, not the actual years. So perhaps you agree with me more than you realize.
2- I said what I had to say about Schnabel in my post - don't twist it, if you're not familiar with my reference, please. Schnabel would be ripped to schreds today for some of the liberties he took with Beethoven. Richter is an example of treating the score as the ultimate oracle of the composer - it's exactly what I don't agree with. I'm not sure why you bring his personal, highly-subjective opinion into it, as if one opinion can dismiss another opinion. The Golden Age Pianists played classical music romantically, if you would like - they didn't limit themselves to romantic music. BIG difference there.
3- Very good point, there. Not definitive, but a good opinion.
4- Again, you show a few exceptions. It does not dismiss the current attitude to older pianists.
5- Following the score, following the score. Perhaps you're not getting what my post is pointing at. Of course, many modern pianists can play slightly different from each other. That doesn't mean one must stop there, and resignedly say "there, see how slightly different I can be" such as you are saying.

Are you talking about their Beethoven interpretations?
Or their playing in general?

1. My point was not that many(around 1/3 IMO) of the pianists on that list are pianists from the "Golden Age"(for me, 1900-1940 very approximately). Here is the list:
https://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubb...anists%20rank%20the%20g.html#Post1484148

The Golden Age of pianists must refer to a time period in music history. What period do you consider the Golden Age?

2. Do you agree that Schnabel was important in developing the idea that faithfulness the score was important? I gave the example of Richter becuase he is almost universally acknowledged as one of the greatest pianists ever. He is certainly not the only very great pianist who puts the composer's score before himself. And he is usually not considered boring or pedantic for doing so.

4. I could add lots of others: Cortot, Hoffman, Rachmaninov etc.

5. One person's "slightly different" is another person's significantly different. I don't think the examples in the video are only slightly different even though they're taken from just a short phrase. I don't think a pianist X think "I have to play this at least a little different from pianist Y" or "I better do something more "original" because my interpretation is not different enough from Pianist X"."
'

In general.

My current favorites are Russell Sherman and Andras Schiff.

I'm pleasantly surprised by the latter because until recently, I always found his Beethoven sonatas to be the least prepared of all the pieces on his programs.

And I find the former to be really colorful and imaginative.

But yet, I only recommend Schnabel, Brendel, Goode and sometimes Kempff and Serkin to my students.

So Pianoloverus, who's your favourite 19th century pianist/conductor known for his massive recitals, playing from memory, his almost revolutionary conducting, his extensive musical knowledge, his association with Liszt, his sharply witty tongue, and for dying in 1894?

Is it Rubinstein? It's Rubinstein, isn't it? It must be Rubinstein.

How did you know?

Friedrich Gulda for Op 2/1, 27/2 (Moonlight), 53 (Waldstein), 57(Appassionata), 106, 109

Andras Schiff for the rest.

Those are my personal favorites.

Also ofcourse Schnabel, Gilels, Arrau etc.

I am however really not fond of players like Barenboim (who I do however have very much respect for!) as they play Beethoven like he was from the romantic era (alot of rubato and some additions/retractions from the composition).

1- Ah, ok - that's the BBC Music's list. You'll have to forgive me if I don't much stock in a list comprised by a magazine, culled from select pianists using a voting system. It's very subjective, and I really didn't pay that much attention to it, to be honest with you. There are some pianists on there that are commonly thought to be Golden Age pianists, true, but not all of them.
Another list would be comprised of:
Camille Saint-Saëns
Vladimir de Pachmann
Teresa Carreño
Ignace Paderewski
Moriz Rosenthal
Ferruccio Busoni
Leopold Godowsky
Sergei Rachmaninov
Harold Bauer
Josef Lhevinne
Josef Hofmann
Alfred Cortot
Ossip Gabrilowitsch
Mark Hambourg
Wanda Landowska
Artur Schnabel
Percy Grainger
Wilhelm Backhaus
Ethel Leginska
Artur Rubinstein
Benno Moiseiwitsch
Myra Hess
Walter Gieseking
Vladimir Horowitz
Dinu Lipatti

You mention that you consider the Golden Age as referring to 1900-1940. I have also seen it listed as 1900-1950. I have the dvd The Golden Age of the Piano - but I do not consider some of the pianists in there part of the "Golden Age" - pianists such as Serkin, Gould, Cliburn, Arrau may be fine pianists, but I wouldn't include them in a listing of Golden Age Pianists.
Is there such a concrete thing as the "Golden Age"? Probably, but I don't think it's limited to a specific time period. I would include Liszt among them, and many of his contemporaries, for example.
So you may see, now, why I consider the time period irrevelant - I know, a paradox - and the pianists more important. I'm just not that interested in debating the time period. Not one bit. My original point had everything to do with pianists embodying a 'golden age' of piano-playing, regardless of the time period. It would probably be safe to say that very few pianists, if any, living today and actively performing could be said to belong to a Golden Age of Piano - again, the time period doesn't matter - I do not wish to be pedantic about it (so it's futile to say "well, of course the golden age of the piano is over - 1900-1950, so modern pianists cannot be part of that etc, etc". The shame of it all is that the Golden Age hasn't been extended.

2- I think Schnabel was a great influence on how we view music scores today, but I also think he was the exact opposite: he embodied both ideas, paradoxically. How many other pianists sound like Schnabel when they play Beethoven? If they do, are they imitating Schnabel, or imitating Schnabel's 'faitfulness' to the score? If you have time, check out Konrad Wolff's book The Teaching Of Artur Schnabel, A Guide To His Interpretation. He was a student of Schnabel's and points out many of the strange, unorthodox, interprative principles he applied to Beethoven. A very good book, and it can help illuminate some of the principles that we hear in Schnabel's recordings and we wonder "interesting, why did he do that". The book also speaks about non-Beethoven interpretation. Suffice it to say, Schnabel varied from the written score wildly sometimes, and even formulates rules for doing so. I'm not talking strictly about hitting the right notes, either.
It just seems pointless for me to reproduce all the facets of Schnabel's playing style that would be considered unacceptable today by modern pedants, when it's clearly available from his recordings, critical writings, and his own words. My entire point about Schnabel was that he was a great Beethoven player, and was considered THE definitive player for a long time, even when he was at odds with the score. This cannot be denied, not matter what influence he has had subsequently on how we treat the score.

You may feel Richter is not boring for doing 'putting the score before himself", but many find him insipid and predictable. In the end, a musical score is just a very, very inexact written means of expressing musical ideas that cannot be expressed on paper very well. Ask any composer how many compromises they have had to make when writing their ideas down on paper, how difficult it is to try to explain themselves musically on paper. It can never be done, no matter how hard they try. Even Beethoven became fed up with trying to express certain moods and tempos using certain written methods, among other ideas. I just do not understand how some people feel that a score contains all there is to know about a piece of music: it's impossible.

4- I never said all of the pianists are scolded and criticized. More examples do not change what I said. I understand your point, but what I said still stands. I was not trying to group all those "golden age" pianists under critical fire en masse.

5- Variations in opening phrases do not make a musical performance worth listening to. I suppose, however they change that opening phrase, there's a reason why many people look back at the pianists of years gone by (whatever name you want to give them) and regret that they have passed, and bemoan the idea that musical scholarship now influences most performing pianists more than musical feelings. With the advent of tape-splicing and studio-editing, many of us wish that recordings had more to offer than a technically precise and flawless performance - that's a given! Sometimes they do, of course, but very rarely as musically impressive as pianists long dead and gone.

The sanctity of the score has made pianists boring, in my opinion. Times have changed.
Personally, I think the availability of urtext editions and fascimile-autographs are great! But, I feel they are a first step into informing one of a composer's ideas and a helpful aid in reaching a personal interpretation of a piece, not a brick wall to smash one's own feelings into, not a dogmatic idea that can never be questioned.

Ah, I'll reserve my judgement on their general playing, since this is a Beethoven thread.
I'm no expert on these pianist's complete output, so I cannot comment.

As for Beethoven, a few thoughts on some of these pianists - the ones whose Beethoven I can actually remember:
Argerich should stay away from him, in my opinion.
Pollini - I think I listened to his concerto renditions. Some interesting ideas in there, some mundane ones. It's been a long time, but I felt I enjoyed some of them, but not all of them.

An interesting movie I saw last night suggests that an idea is more likely to take hold if it is associated with positive emotion or catharsis. When I saw that scene I thought of this thread and laughed. Anyway... moving along...

I'm very much on the side of judging opinions and ideas purely on their merit, rather than who holds them. Beethoven once was emphatic that his Ninth Symphony should last no longer than 45 minutes. Well, that's just crap. Forget grains of sand, forget relative musical qualifications, forget what a great man Beethoven was: crap is crap. He was thinking the music too fast in his head, and/or forgot about repeats, and/or was mathematically challenged. Benjamin Zander follows Beethoven's metronome marks faithfully and clocks in at around 57 minutes. 45 minutes is ridiculous, end of story.

Smart/talented people can make huge mistakes. For example, perhaps Bülow found himself so emotionally drained at a certain point in the Appassionata that he couldn't believe anyone would really want to take the repeat, and then turned his highly subjective experience into a universal declaration of "inattention" on the part of Beethoven. Pointing out the silliness of such a declaration is not "arrogance" or "dismissing Bülow['s overall worth] as a musician" (obviously).