Beethoven's Piano Sonata Opus 27, Number 2 (Moonlight) in C sharp minor
was published in 1802 and was known in Vienna as the "Arbor Sonata";
Beethoven supposedly composed the work while in an arbor.  It's funny
about titles/nicknames for compositions; sometimes they have little or
no connection to the composer.  The poet and critic Heinrich Rellstab
came up with 'moonlight' by describing the first movement's imagery as
a boat in the moonlight on Lake Lucerne.  As it happens, Beethoven had
no acquaintance with this body of water.  Personally, I don't feel any
connection between the first movement Adagio and moonlight on the lake
(more on that later).

The first movement is one of the most popular pieces of classical music
in the world.  For me, its status is based on the beauty of the music
contrasted with its emotional desolation, a sensation which is enhanced by
the constant running of even triplets which constitutes the bedrock of the
movement.  My perception is that the human spirit is waning, and that after
the central climax, it recedes into the abyss.

Brendel gives a six minute reading which is outstanding; he is brooding,
inexorable, and finally accepting of defeat.  Brendel's ability to convey
the hopelessness of the situation is particularly impressive.  Sherman
sounds fine, but he can't convey the emotional depth Brendel delivers.
Sherman's triplets don't come close to providing the inexorable quality
needed to really excel in this music.  Claudio Arrau is right on the money
with an aristocratic 6'46" reading as effective as Brendel's.  If you feel
than Arrau is a little too slow, Pletnev's performance of over 7 minutes
could be problematic.  I find it a wonderfully controlled interpretation;
throughout, I sense a great reserve of energy just waiting to be let loose
but never gets uncapped and eventually is extinguished.  David Bar-Ilan
clocks in at under 5 minutes.  Initially, I felt that the tempo was much
too fast for any effective depth of feelings; additional listenings have
not changed my mind.

In the above company, Serkin does not stand tall.  He's certainly better
than Bar-Illan; his slow performance in the 7 minute range easily surpasses
that one.  However, there's a lack of projection, particularly from the
melody line above the triplets, which reduces the weight of the music.
Increasing the volume does not solve the problem.  Another issue concerns
the blending of the melody line with the triplets.  When listening to
Serkin, I get the feeling that the connection between the two is not
intimate.  Both Arrau and Brendel are more rewarding, Serkin is at
Sherman's level, and Pletnev is my favored version.

The second movement, Allegretto, is a short scherzo which can be considered
an interlude leading to the final movement of the Sonata.  For me, the
Allegretto represents the dawning of a new day - the rebirth of spirit and
hope.  The music has a seamless and swaying flow which is very important as
it enhances the feeling of joy.

Brendel is fairly good, but he's a little choppy with reduced spirit.
Bar-Illan is quick, under two minutes, with a performance which just
sounds rather routine to my ears with an excess of whimsy; there's nothing
whimsical going on here.  Pletnev gets everything right except that the
Trio might be slightly too forceful; I love his seamless flow and bounce.
Sherman engages in some awkward phrasing, but bests Brendel and Bar-Illan.
Arrau is even better than Pletnev.  His is the slowest of the comparative
versions, his flow is perfect, and the joy in his reading is magnificent.
Also, he displays a more balanced proportion to Pletnev in the Trio.

Serkin is rather dour in the Allegretto with a mediocre flow which captures
little joy and a Trio which is too heavy.  Heard in isolation, the reading
is enjoyable, but he misses the essence of the music.  Pletnev and Arrau
deliver the much better performances and prepare the listener for the
tumultuous final movement.

The third and final movement, Presto agitato, requires vituoso skills and
is one agitated and exciting piece of music.  It's clear that there's a
struggle going on, even a raging battle.  I'm not particularly interested
in a performance which lingers, pauses, hesitates, or plays cute games all
in the name of "being diffrent".  This is "power up" music, so I'm looking
for a go for broke reading which doesn't lose the music's beauty.

Sherman plays it the way I'm not particularly interested in hearing it.
He's disjointed, cute, cuts off flow on a whim, and has no interest in
"going for broke".  Actually, I have no idea what he's trying to do.  In
Sherman's hands, I start thinking that he needs more time to practice and
absorb this movement, although I'm aware that couldn't be true.  Sherman,
in his liner notes, states - "The drama lies in the obsessiveness, not the
speed".  I feel that a great performance covers both considerations and
more.

Pletnev is much better than Sherman.  The forward momentum flows well,
and structure is excellent.  However, I would like more of the demonic and
obsessive qualities projected, a performance that conveys to me an out of
control personality.  Brendel has many wonderful moments, but his reading
is sometimes too demure and drags slightly.

Arrau is a major step upward.  His chords and progressions are aristocratic
and exacting, there's no attempt at being cute, and he's appropriately out
of control when needed.

To say that Bar-Illan is very fast would be an understatement.  He
really speeds through the movement; sometimes it seems that he's on 'fast
forward'.  It's all very good up to a point, but there's a lack of lyrcism
when called for and the performance seems relentless.  For those who want
relentless qualities displayed, Bar-Illan's reading might well be very
rewarding.

Does Serkin take me to the promised land? Hardly.  Right from the initial
runs, I notice a deficiency of depth, and nothing gets better after that.
The lyricism is weak; the whole performance is weak except that every now
and then Serkin decides to bang a few keys - very disappointing.

Summary for Moonlight Sonata:  These are not Peter Serkin's greatest
moments.  After lackluster first and second movements, he gives a third
movement which I find difficult to listen to in its entirety.  Serkin
invests the whole composition with a work-a-day perception; I get no
feeling that he is into the music.  I'm familiar enough with Serkin's
artistry to know that he can do much better.  Alex, my son, is a scientific
man by profession.  But his usual answer to the poor play of an athlete is
- "he's just being lazy".  Maybe that answer isn't as bad as I thought,
because it *sounds* as if Serkin might have had that problem when recording
the work.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]