Piano Sonatas 20, 21

There's little contrast in the two subjects in the Waldstein's first movement, for just one example. (The whole Waldstein comes off as somewhat mechanical and character-less.) And Gilels doesn't make efforts to connect his notes into lines--listening to the development section of the first movement of the Appassionata, for instance, he doesn't exploit the tension of the repeated Es (what are initially repeated Es, at any rate). This is one of the most important apects of the work. Gilels also doesn't seem to get the architectural significance of the three chord sequence in the left hand that begins in measure 4 and continues throughout the work in some metamorphosis or other. He also misreads mm. 127-129, but nearly every pianist except Arrau does, it seems. (They ain't triplets!) The coda is underpowered and does not contrast. There are some positives in the interpretation: Gilels plays the left hand chords in mm. 73-79 of the Appassionata's second movement with more clarity and grace than any pianist I've ever heard. And the clarity of the rapid-fire syncopations in the last movement is positively jaw-dropping (mm. 168-175, for example). But, despite some brilliant moments and a *gorgeous,* burnished tone, this disc offers just a hint of what could have been, and should have been, from an interpretor of this stature. Folks who think this is "the best Beethoven recording ever" or whatever should get out and hear more varied or far-reaching interpretations.

The Les Adieux is either the final or next to final sonata of that period, depending on whether or not you think of the next after the Les Adieux, no. 27 Opus 90, as the first of the final "late" period of the composer's Piano Sonatas.

All of the three are difficult to play with some passages in the Waldstein being next to impossible on a modern piano. Suffice it to say that Gilels' playing is superb, almost beyond belief at times. Witness the final coda of the Appassionata, those fortissimo chords followed by the very rapid chords are miraculously played.

However, I can imagine that some might find the sheer sense of control, and particularly rhythmic control, and discipline that Gilels brings less attractive than the more frenetic Richter, Serkin or any number of more volatile readings.

With Gilels we are more in the realms of viewing these great compositions from an architectural point of view, so sound is his sense of structure. There is a tremendous sense of security and even predicatability here. For me, that is intensely satisfying and makes the impact of the music something that goes way beyond the pianistic achievement.

It is, of course, a terrible pity that Gilels died before finishing the whole series. He had recorded most of the sonatas and the outstanding ommission is the very last one, opus 111. That's bad enough, but when I read in Richter's notes that Gilels, with whom he had a longstanding and very difficult relationship, died as a result of a medical mishap in Moscow, the pity turns to a tragedy. Gilels was due to complete the series within a few months of his death in time for his 70th birthday in October 1986 - he died in October 1985. My question is - is this true?

Nonetheless, whatever one's preference is in terms of an approach to Beethoven's piano works, give this disc a shot. I think it is a classic.

This Disc simply proves he was peerless. Though i say that, i say that with one slight exception (to be explained later.) His "Apassionata" is one of SCARY Brilliance, from Titanic Rage to Poetic Sadness sometimes all at the same time. His Ringing out of some of the MASSIVE Fortissimo Chords in the first movement are at the peak of Passionate Violence, as if he was trying to destroy his poor Piano. one can truly imagine the idea that Beethoven Broke Piano strings with his Outrageous Virulent Virtuosity listening to such Vehement playing.

The "Waldstein" is a Jewel onto itself, Majestic and the rhythmic pulse never once fades or falters. the control Gilels exerts is Steely and Formidable, not many on this planet heretofore or since could have played so energetically yet so cleanly and precisely.

The thing i admire the most is, Gilels never sloppily indulges in Sentiment or Emotional upheavels (like some of the more "RUSSIAN" Ilk, you know who you are, Mr's. Horowitz, Rubinstein and ESPECIALLY the Horrendously overeaxaggerated Ricther whom ripped Beethovens music more to shreds than illuminated it!) his playing is of the best and most positive kind, the kind of playing exemplified by Pollini, Andsnes, O'Conor they simply play the music on the page. they do not INTERPRET it, which is always a danger with Beethoven, I have always found the less INTERPRETATION the better.

Now on to the Crown Jewel of the set, But also the one with the Earlier mentioned exception. I personally don't think that ANYONE could have exemplified the stark emotion of The "Les Adieux" Sonata any better than Gilels, because of hearing his playing of this piece on the radio one night it became my all time favorite piece of music standing proudly beside Beethoven's Eighth Symphony. His playing is Luminary and Translucent but also Heartrendering and Immensly saddening. without Pretention or Sentimentality he exults and extolls the feeling of lonliness and heartbreak Ludwig poured into this piece with out explicitly saying anything of the sort except in the vague movement descriptions, Beethoven simply let the music do the emoting, and GOD ABOVE, it Emotes! And Gilels is a near perfect advocate of the language of sadness and one might say despair that Ludwig inbued this music with. BUT, and here's where some may think i am loony, but i have always thought that John O'Conor's Performance of this piece was the most satisfying simply for the lack of personal involvelent in the music, the almost abject distance and true "letting the music do the talking" you don't hear him trying to impress his personality onto the music, the music says plenty enough without anyone TRYING to make it speak. O'Conor's Pianism is First rate as well, and his personality is far less evident than in Gilels version, yet perhaps that's for some what makes his version the more desirable, i personally think in those last stacatto notes of the first movement ( you know, Bum-bum-bum, bum-bum-bum, bum-bum-bum, bum-bum-bum, bum-bum-BUM-bum) Before the upsweep of notes in the right hand near then very end, Gilels seems to force the issue of the Stacatto notes leading up from a very low and soft piano to an almost Forte expression, as if trying to give more gravity and weight to the theme, yet O'Conor plays the entire Passage at piano and far more delicately, and it seems that that is the right tact, it feels more taciturn and dejected, the light in the dark, as if in this theme which can be all at once upbeat and horribly depressive that even in sadness there can be hope.

But again, on any level, on a scale of 1-10 star performances, this is a 32! YOU SIMPLY MUST OWN THIS! I Do!