decided to take advantage of the copious amounts of free time i'll have this winter break and *finally* learn the 2nd and 3rd movements of the moonlight sonata. (2nd was a breeze, but i want to try and understand it more thoroughly cause IMO it's an incredibly underrated movement). Anyway, in light of this i've been listening to recordings of the piece (and all the other Beethoven sonatas) more in the last couple weeks, and I stumbled upon this absolute gem:





One of the most vivid and colorful interpretations I've ever heard - of course rubato and romantic phrasing are applied liberally, but certainly not excessively IMO. It's a shame, if you ask me, that playing like this is so heavily frowned upon in modern times.

Listened to less than 60 seconds. Hate it.

Second and third movements sounded very strange compared to performances from the last 50 years. Today this type of playing would just be called rhythmically inaccurate IMO. The endless breaking of the hands/rolling of the octaves in the first movement also sounds bizarre.

It's recordings like these that make me wonder about the "virtuosity" of some of the past greats. Personally, I think many recordings made by members here are superior.

I think it's difficult for people to listen past the quality of the recordings, in which a lot of nuances are lost; and of course, tastes change.

A bit OT, but a few years ago I met a man who had a collection of antique reproducing grand pianos (which, unlike the old "player pianos," reproduced dynamics). He had paper rolls on which some of Paderewski's performances were recorded, and had pianos in condition to play them. Now that was amazing to hear (and watch)!

Sorry, not my taste.

Sort of makes one wonder what the fuss was about. For all that, I suspect Paderewski had the most magnetic charisma of any pianist since Liszt, and probably an absolutely glorious tone which -of course- would be generally lost on the recordings as jdw posts above.

As for the breaking of hands -which comes across as such an affectation- times were different. I'm reminded of how overwhelmingly popular the Meyerbeer operas were in their day. But listening to musical excerpts, I'm at a loss to find much of sustaining interest.

But to be fair, the Meyerbeer operas dealt with very controversial topics that were dynamite at the time, they were huge spectacles, often requiring roles for six major singers (Tosca times two?). To mount a real slap-up production of a Meyerbeer opera today would be inconceivably expensive.

I suspect that Paderewski was pretty old when he made that recording, and it is well documented that he suffered strain injuries when he was younger that affected his playing for the rest of his life. You might compare it with Harold Bauer's recording, made about the same time. His mannerisms are not so exaggerated.

Really stores? Your powers of discernment are so refined that it takes less than minute to condemn a performance?

It's not as if Paderewski is some unknown performer. He was the highest paid artist of his day and the most acclaimed pianist by the general public since Liszt. He was well known for the lusciousness of his tone, the grand sweep of his performances, the elegance of his style. He was not known for note perfect playing - if you wanted that sort of performance you waited for Busoni or Godowsky to come around. Paderewski, on the other hand, could transport audiences to a frenzy. Were all these people 100 years ago stupid or Philistines?

The reason we don't like the breaking of hands in turn of the century performances, or the occasional wrong note, or the excesses of rubato, is that we live in an age where standards are defined by the recording process, which allows for wrong notes in particular to be erased and re-recorded. We expect public performances to adhere to this high-wire standard, which unfortunately knocks out a lot of performers who have interesting conceptual approaches to offer but don't have the nerves to appear in public.

19th century audiences wanted completely different performances. They wanted emotional power, drama, excitment, pathos, tenderness, and dozens of other attributes to playing that are easier to produce if the performer does not have to focus first and foremost on note-perfect playing. This is why Paderewski was so successful.

Understand too that the recording process didn't really take off until 1910, and Paderewski's recordings came late in his life when he retired from the stage. They do not represent his best playing, with the exception of a few pieces like the Liszt Hungarian Rhapsody No. 10, where his technique held together.

These recordings from the early 20th century - even the Ampico piano rolls - are treasure troves of piano playing. Paderewski's Moonlight Sonata may not be the most brilliant gem of the lot, but it has its beauty and meant something to the listener back then. If we try for a moment to think, listen, and feel like they did, we will capture some of that beauty. Maybe we will even rethink what our musical standards should be, because rest assured, 50 years from now people are going to listen to performances we like and scratch their heads at our poor taste.

It's okay, but it's no Paderewski!

He was said to have created a sensation that hadn't been seen since Liszt and I have to believe charisma is a huge part of that. I have many ancient recordings (Hoffman, Freidman, and others)and none of them display the sloppiness of Paderewski. The free-style aspect of it doesn't bother me at all, it's the clumsiness with which it was done.

My view is closest to yours.
Actually more so.

Most of the posts on here bother me.
Not because of the criticisms, which I can well understand and might even somewhat share, but because they fail to see what's good and even great about Paderewski. Sure, "breaking of the hands," screwing around with the rhythm, blah blah blah.
It's all true, and we may or may not like it, or even approve of it.

But listen, in the 1st movement, to what he does with the melody.

Listen to how it sings. Listen to how it is unobtruded by the accompaniments. (Yes, BTW, plural accompaniments.)
Listen to how it veritably soars above the accompaniments. Listen to how perfectly each next melody note picks up on the decaying dynamic of the preceding one. And BTW a goodly part of what enables these aspects of the melody to be this way is how he plays the accompaniments.

All of this in spite of the poor recording quality which many of you are noting, and which I wouldn't even have registered because of the splendor that I described.

In line with what Numerian said, our views on this depend much on our standards and expectations, and what we value. Something we find in a lot of discussion of performances, both here and elsewhere, is an absence of concern and love for SOUND. Some very knowledgeable people can hold forth on musicianship and pianism for reams and reams without ever showing any concern for sound.

If you're not hugely into sound, there's no way you can appreciate what Paderewski was about. You can criticize, and a lot of what you say could be right, but you won't be addressing what he's doing and what was great about him.

Mark_C, I agree with everything you said, in spades. After reading all the responses (your's hadn't come up yet) I decided to cue the Paderewski and listen. I have to say that both of these performances blew me away. This was not at all what I expected after the comments.

Count me in to the Numerian/Mark/Tararex camp. I find these recordings fascinating and there is definitely something special about his playing. I wasn't crazy about the third movement (probably because he was too old to play it well at the time this was recorded). It wasn't about the wrong notes, the third movement just didn't work for me but there are definitely flashes of brilliance even in that movement.

Yes.

Well, Numerian, to be honest, if you go to a piano competition that's not the highest tier, you can often tell within the first few measures (unless something goes horribly wrong) how good the pianists really are.

I think these recordings are wonderful. I for one am tired of the homogenized "proper/cookie cutter/midi-like performances offered up by most current pianists.

It is my understanding that music is art, and art is all about personal expression. Why bother looking at paintings when you can look at photographs?

I am sure Beethoven would rail against some of the soulless, machinelike, recordings currently in fashion today.

Numerian, stores here has great powers. He could tell within 10 seconds that my Beethoven sucked (he took the pains to visit that thread in the recording forum just to tell me that it only took him 10 seconds ;)). So I'm not surprised that he could judge Paderewski "accurately" in 60 seconds.

I agree, but that's not what happened here -- and he didn't even say so.

He didn't say it wasn't good or that there weren't great things. I mean, he probably thinks that -- but he didn't say it. He just said he hated it. I certainly believe he could tell that in no time flat.

As I mentioned, many knowledgeable people just aren't that much into certain aspects of music, and focus on other things. If someone isn't into the main things that Paderewski was about, I'd be surprised if he didn't hate it. But that doesn't have much to do with how good it is.

I'm not a classical afficiando, but the first movement has a flow to it and blends
nicely..and has musical expression,whereas many newer artists tend towards a separation
tonally distinctly left/right hand, from a listeners point of view..is this what Beethoven
had in mind, or is Paterewski more correct in his interpretation?

In amateur competitions I've heard some pianists start out very poorly, get their nerves under control, and then go on to finish with an overall excellent performance. There are other pianists who start out well, but one memory slip undoes them. This has even happened to professionals on concert stages.

I like to listen to as much of the performance as possible before making judgments. I simply lack the perspicacity of some people to make instant assessments about performers. A talent like that could get out of control and become something of a game - "I Can Name That Terrible Performance in Three Notes!" I fear that is the approach being taken here to poor, misguided, incompetent Ignaz Paderewski.

I don't think that we can definitively determine "what Beethoven had in mind," nor whether one interpretation is "more correct" than another: correct, according to what criteria?

This is a recording from another era of musical interpretation which certainly differs in some respects from what we desire in interpretation of music from this period. So, it's not a question so much of right or wrong as it is a question of like or dislike - for whatever reasons.

Regards,

I liked the recordings-- within a few seconds. In fact, I began screaming hysterically and then must have fainted. I've never had that reaction to a Youtube recording. Can anyone explain?

Well, I don't consider it an absolute gem -- but I really DID like the presentation of the ultra-familiar first movement. It's very songful, and that exactly how I relate to the first movement -- not "misterioso" and dark, but simply "singing". The second movement was very charming. although I don't personally agree with that degree of rubato. The third movement was for me the most problematic, because there I don't believe he had the technical chops anymore to do proper justice to the movement -- but he DID have a very consistent musical approach was was for me quite clear even amidst the numerous technical imprecisions. I found his interpretation very intelligent and thoughtful throughout. THanks for posting this!

It's his hair. People went wild over his golden hair. Well, girls did anyway.

And he would rail against the liberties so many (including Paderewski here) take with his music. I have a strong feeling that he would feel Paddy was having a day at the opera with the first movement or worse yet he might feel he's poking fun at him.

Paderewski portrait by Alma-Tadema

No kidding, you are right! I had forgotten about his wild blond hair!

I gave your "Tempest" 30 seconds and I never said that it sucked. I simply said that you would probably not take my critique very well (and at that time I don't think you would have, since you bucked at every single word I uttered). That said, you're right that I don't need much time to tell what I'm listening to, but that's only because I've been listening to people playing the piano nearly every single day for almost 3/4 of my life. I'm paid to listen and when you teach, give a masterclass, adjudicate, etc. then yes, you need to be able to know quickly what you're dealing with.

Gee! It looks like mine, except that mine is much longer.

Agreed.