Gerardo Constantini clarified his comment about Schnabel:
>Regarding Schnabel(despite the myth),his interpretations (for my taste)
>are chaotic. I can't listen to a musician who has no Rythm. Did you take
>a look to his edition of the Beethoven sonatas?.Well it is full of tempo
>changings sometimes from bar to bar.The reasons? =Nobody knows exactly why.
>Somewhere i read Schnabel based those changes on the "character" of an
>specific "passagge",or some specific "theme".For me it seem to be to much
>superficial.Of course the idea is not bad,but please don't do it in the
>whole piece,and worst in all the pieces.
To me Schnabel has an extremely strong and focused rhythm. But it's not a
metrical rhythm - you can't divide it nicely up into bars, with quavers and
semiquavers. Schnabel's playing is rhythmical in the sense that he bunches
up what belongs together and separates what belongs apart. So he rushes
from one harmonic step to the next, separates out motives and phrases,
bunches up scales and arpeggios into musical gestures. To me that serves
very well to clarify the music - but to others it can sound exaggerated or
mannered. I tend to think that 'metrical' rhythm is a cop-out - anyone who
can count can do it and then claim they've played the work in a unified
fashion. Schnabel's (and Rachmaninoff's, and Furtwangler's) rhythm comes
from within the music, it's not a ready-made grid imposed from outside.
>Schnabel give very few importance to some places which need more
>polyphonic treatment.
That may be due to the bad recording. Schnabel may not bring out 'inner
voices' very demonstratively, but he voices his chords very subtly and
sensitively, and his head certainly doesn't lose track of the polyphonic
strands, even if his fingers occasionally do. For examples where both his
head and his technique are secure in both fast and slow movements, listen
to the Schubert sonata in D major or the Diabelli variations.
>Concerning prhasing,it is very correct in general terms,but sometimes is
>plenty of wrong accents,and things like that.
What do you mean by 'wrong accents'? As I've said in my points on rhythm
above, I think Schnabel's command of articulation and accentuation was one
of his particular strengths.
>The only thing i like in his interpretations (agree with Felix) are his
>slow movements.I think he was completely identified with it.Some slow
>movements of that sonatas played by him,are really wonderful.
Glad to hear it! I'd agree that they're certainly *easier* to listen to
than many of his fast movements; that's partly because he's technically
more at ease in them, but also he is generally badly recorded, and that
doesn't help loud or fast passages. As I said, listen to some of his
Schubert sonatas, the Beethoven concerti with Sargent, the Diabelli
variations, where fast and slow passages are equally successful. In
the more difficult sonatas that's not always the case.
>Some people told me many times: The great dimension of Schnabel can not be
>expressed in words,you just have to listen him many times,and then you will
>understand.Well already passed more than 30 years of it,and i really don'
>understand yet.
Well, that's OK. I don't warm to much of Sviatoslav Richter's or Murray
Perahia's playing. As I said, Schnabel's interpretations aren't very
demonstrative - they say things implicitly rather than explicitly. I was
very moved by the cadenza and slow movement of the G major concerto (with
Sargent), the moments musicaux by Schubert, and the Diabelli Variations,
especially the great last few variations - but in the end, whether or not
Schnabel speaks to you emotionally is a matter of temperament.
Felix Delbruck
[log in to unmask]
|
