What is your favourite record of Beethoven's op. 111 ?

[Mandryka]

I gravitate towards Penelope Crawford's recording of the last three sonatas. As a general point, do people feel that as piano technology improved, later Beethoven sonatas work better on a modern piano than the earlier works? I've never thought the Hammerklavier works on a fortepiano (that said, that's a work I've never fallen in love with)

There are lot of important trills in the late music which sound different on a modern Steinway. And the music is often rather contrapuntal too, so clarity is important -- distinct timbres in registers, that sort of thing, which may be a bit less impressive on modern Steinways.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Well, Beethoven had trouble from time to time with math and associated time signatures....

To continue: it's also possible he was struggling with how to notate the triplets later in the movement. If the meter remains 9/16, then the 9 16th notes in the left hand here are just normal notes within the meter, and the 27 notes in the right hand are 9 32-note triplets. But if you change the signature to 3/8, then the left hand becomes 3 sets of 16th-note triplets, while the right becomes 9 sets of nested triplets. It's possible that the idea of nested triplets was a notational convention not yet practiced in Beethoven's time.

(This movement is full of unmarked triplets, btw, especially in variations 2 and 3. It all comes from the first two notes in the movement, the C-G which in 9/16 is eighth-sixteenth, but in 3/8 would be a triplet.)

[Jo498]

While 60-63 for the dotted 8th seems very fast, I also think that the solution is to play the aria a bit faster than common (say ~50) and then basically keep the tempo.
I also agree that "L'istesso tempo" basically contradicts my construction above because the tempo is set by 3 beats to a bar, not 9 or 6 but I tried to find an explanation for the counterintuitive change to 6/16 that is actually 3/8.

You're correct about all the other examples of strange time signatures but most of them can be explained by the fact that for some reason 4/8 or 1/2 was uncommon as signature at the time but many allegretto or slower movements were de facto in 4/8 despite notated 2/4.

I didn't check everything but I think the only other case where Beethoven uses x/16 time is in op.110 in the arioso dolente (but this is a real 12/16 = 4 dotted 8th beats), not weirdly notated 3/8.

[Mandryka]

It looks as though here at

While 60-63 for the dotted 8th seems very fast, I also think that the solution is to play the aria a bit faster than common (say ~50) and then basically keep the tempo.

Is there a performance you've got in mind there?

[Mandryka]

Back to Lill's op 111 - it's very much my sort of thing, seems to be repaying repeated listening. Slow arietta, slow first two variations - what's not to like about that methinks.

[AnotherSpin]

Back to Lill's op 111 - it's very much my sort of thing, seems to be repaying repeated listening. Slow arietta, slow first two variations - what's not to like about that methinks.

Just listened to Opus 111 performed by Lill, and it is indeed very good. Thank you for mentioning it.

[Iota]

It's very good to hear your comments about John Lill, @Mandryka. When I was about sixteen I played in a masterclass he gave, which was a very positive and warm experience for me. And he was talking with me about the Beethoven Sonatas recordings he was making at the time, which absolutely fascinated me.
However much as I want to, I then never really got on with those recordings, and your comments are a timely reminder that it's been a long since I last tried. Op.111 sounds like a good point of re -entry. 

[AnotherSpin]

The 13 May 1937 recording of Op. 111 from this collection:

[Jo498]

It looks as though here at
Is there a performance you've got in mind there?

Not, it's just what I put together from the table by that musicologist, basically taking the fastest tempo for the theme and the more moderate ones for the "fast" variations one ends up with something like that.
At the moment I don't have leisure and patience to listen to a dozen candidates (I am not even THAT fond of this sonata, I prefer the variations in op.109)

Despite Beethoven not indicating different tempi it's still not quite clear why he choose the strange notation and I would still not be surprised if he expected some flexibility.
I think there is evidence that e.g. "espressivo" meant slowing down and "leggiero" might mean speeding up etc.

[Mandryka]

Lill takes 22:44 for the second movement of op 111; Ugorsky takes 26:54. The difference is significant, but still, I was surprised. Afanassiev comes in close to Lill at 22:38.

Arrau, another pianist with a reputation for not being in a hurry, takes 19:56 in his 3rd cycle of sonatas.

[Iota]

Lill takes 22:44 for the second movement of op 111; Ugorsky takes 26:54. The difference is significant, but still, I was surprised. Afanassiev comes in close to Lill at 22:38.

Arrau, another pianist with a reputation for not being in a hurry, takes 19:56 in his 3rd cycle of sonatas.

I think Lill's slow pace for the 2nd movement works well. I've just had a listen to his Op.111 and pleased to say I enjoyed it. It's been a number of years since I last tried his LVB sonatas and I couldn't have said the same on previous occasions.
He brings his own genuine poetry to it and has a really sleeves-rolled-up approach to high energy sections, which creates a feeling of mania and excitement that feels innately Beethovenian. Much appreciate the prompt to get back to him.

Here he is if any interested.

[Mandryka]

Lill may well be the best of the slow op111/ii s -- though there's Pogorelich to think about --  I tried Ugorski's studio recording yesterday and I thought it was awful to be honest. when you get into the groove of slow takes of that movement, you can really learn to like it like that.

[Iota]

Lill may well be the best of the slow op111/ii s -- though there's Pogorelich to think about --  I tried Ugorski's studio recording yesterday and I thought it was awful to be honest. when you get into the groove of slow takes of that movement, you can really learn to like it like that.

I sometimes love Pogo's departures from the straight and narrow, sometimes I don't. But I think any sincere take on Op.111 is worth a listen to see what might pop up.

[AnotherSpin]

Lill may well be the best of the slow op111/ii s -- though there's Pogorelich to think about --  I tried Ugorski's studio recording yesterday and I thought it was awful to be honest. when you get into the groove of slow takes of that movement, you can really learn to like it like that.

A similar impression from yesterday's listening to Ugorski. Pogorelich didn't resonate much either, despite my fondness for him. A long time ago, in the early 80s, I had a vinyl of this performance, but after all these years, I still haven't been able to "hear" what the pianist wants to convey.

[Mandryka]

A similar impression from yesterday's listening to Ugorski. Pogorelich didn't resonate much either, despite my fondness for him. A long time ago, in the early 80s, I had a vinyl of this performance, but after all these years, I still haven't been able to "hear" what the pianist wants to convey.

There are quite a few Pogorelich Op 111s. Apart from the DG, he made a DVD with it, and there's a recording with fine sound from the Concertgebauw, and audience recordings with terrible sound from Athens and Lisbon. I may listen to them more carefully some time - I remember the Amsterdam concert seemed good.

There's also a concert recording of op 111 from Ugorski - I remember it was more bearable than the DG

[Jo498]

What I probably had meant above and then gave Poco Sforzando credit for (he certainly deserved it for the current contribution...) was more likely a discussion below between mostly amw and Calyptorhynchus that has some more details on tempo and tempo variation in op.111,ii.
(and as I mentioned elsewhere Beethoven adagios with time signatures like 9/8 the arietta clearly belongs to the fastest type, even the tempo of the superslow Ugorski would be on the faster side for e.g. op.22,ii)

https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,12.msg1275408.html#msg1275408

[Mandryka]

Presumably an arietta needs to be at a singable tempo. This sort of thing

[(poco) Sforzando]

What I probably had meant above and then gave Poco Sforzando credit for (he certainly deserved it for the current contribution...) was more likely a discussion below between mostly amw and Calyptorhynchus that has some more details on tempo and tempo variation in op.111,ii.
(and as I mentioned elsewhere Beethoven adagios with time signatures like 9/8 the arietta clearly belongs to the fastest type, even the tempo of the superslow Ugorski would be on the faster side for e.g. op.22,ii)

https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,12.msg1275408.html#msg1275408

Thank you for all this! I was unaware of this discussion. I am working on something parallel to what Calypto did, that is, inputting passages (though not the whole movement) into Finale and converting the whole to 3/8 which is the easiest and most reliable way IMO to show the tempo structure. When I am finished notating the file (adding dynamics, slurs, etc., and most crucially adding the complete measure where 9/16 transitions to 6/16), I think you'll see what I believe Beethoven had in mind but did not notate quite exactly.

One thing I am advocating that I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere is that I think there are a lot of unwritten but implied triplets in variations 2 and 3. And these pick up the triplet at the start of the arietta. Once this is finished, I can generate a .WAV file so you can hear the result.

Thoughts, anyone?

[(poco) Sforzando]

This version of the JPG shows also how the phrase structure is preserved (L'istesso tempo) from theme through the variations:

[(poco) Sforzando]

Regarding what I consider the implied triplets, Mr. Calyptorhyncus writes:

Variation 2 is notated in a strange mixture of 6/16 and 9/16.  If you look at various "thirds" of a bar, you will find that the note values sometimes add up to 3/16, whereas on other occasions they add up to 2/16.  Take the first complete bar of Variation 2:  in the right hand the first third of the bar and the second third both add up to 3/16 each, but on the last beat of the bar Beethoven simply puts a quaver rest, equivalent to 2/16; yet in the left hand, he uses two sixteenth-notes for the first third of the bar, another two sixteenth-notes for the second third of the bar, then uses notes values equivalent to 3/16 for the last third of the bar.  Why does he do this?

Consider the notation of rhythms in Beethoven's time.  He did not feel that 9/16 was an appropriate time signature for Variation 2, because in the 1820s this still implied a regular series of "three groups of three" which doesn't match the rhythmic character of this variation, because the of the implied syncopation (there is never a note actually struck on what could be considered the 3rd, 6th or 9th sixteenth-notes of each bar).  Variation 2 certainly has three groups in each bar, but the ear tends to hear each group as subdivided into two, rather than three, because of this syncopation.  Naturally, when pianists play it at a faster tempo, all sense of 9/16 with syncopation disappears, and it just sounds like a plain series of six beats per bar.  Tovey (in his introduction to the 1931 Associated Board edition - a good edition and still available in the UK) suggests that Beethoven could have used the time signature 18/32, which would be technically correct as regards note values.

Tovey points out that Beethoven simplified his notation by leaving out dots after what are supposed to be dotted sixteenth-notes.  If Beethoven had included all the dots, here and throughout the variation, it would have made the notation look too complicated, so he missed them out, believing that performers would understand what he meant by "L'istesso tempo".  For example, look at the left hand of the sixth complete bar of Variation 2 and you'll see that the bass stave consists entirely of what should be dotted sixteenth-notes, but Beethoven omitted all six dots, making it look like 6/16 in the bass, even though the note values in the right hand add up to 9/16 in this bar.  This is another reason why Beethoven wrote 6/16, because by omitting dots his score "looked like" 6/16 - but he did not intend performers to interpret this as "six sixteenth-note beats, each beat being equivalent to one of the sixteenth-note beats in the previous 9/16", which is what one hears in all performances.

But if Beethoven could leave out dots, he could leave out triplet marks. So there's really no "strange mixture" of 6/16 and 9/16 at all. In fact, I can't see a passage like the following implying anything other than triplets (16-32), and I think that's how I always hear the passage performed:

I do however agree that the basic pulse in the movement is the bar, and not "six sixteenth-note beats, each beat being equivalent to one of the sixteenth-note beats in the previous 9/16." Schnabel I think has this right in his edition, as does Bulow when he writes dotted eighth in 9/16 = eighth in 6/16.