Donald Satz ([log in to unmask]) wrote:

>My only problem with the Ashkenazy set is what I hear as a tubby sound -
>not a big problem since the performances are so good.

I only have Ashekenazy's late sonatas, but I can't say I'm particularly
impressed.  Nothing wrong with them, but nothing especially insightful or
memorable IMHO.

>Matt also mentioned the Kempff series.  That's also very good, loaded
>with insights.  Some other cycles that come to mind:
>
>Goode on Nonesuch - has received some stellar reviews, but I'm not
>convinced.  I find Goode very mainstream and ordinary.

Again on the basis of the late sonatas, I agree with you.

>Lortie on Chandos - Best to avoid this one.  I just don't think that
>Beethoven plays into Lortie's strengths.

No, I cannot imagine the purpose of this cycle.

>Kovachevich on EMI - Excellent playing, but the sound tends to be harsh.
>Others think differently.

Not me. Great pianist, lousy piano.

Has anyone mentioned the justifaiably-renowned Schnabel set? I don't think
anyone who admires the sonatas should be without that.

And Solomon's late sonatas, from the early 50s, are the equal of anyone's
and better than most.

Of modern complete sets my favourite is Claude Frank's originally made for
RCA but now on Music & Arts.  Frank (father of violinist Pamela) studied
with Schnabel and, while it would be wrong to call his cycle "Schnabel in
stereo" he certainly brings in the only Op.109 to challenge Schnabel's in
my affections.

Deryk Barker
[log in to unmask]