Interesting video, but we must be living in different worlds - maybe it's my age. The Bulow/Lebert edition was THE most popular and well known edition for ages, as far as I'm aware. Almost every pianist I knew (including myself) grew up learning Beethoven from those Schirmer editions - probably due to the low cost of Schirmer editions and their reputation. My teacher scribbled all over the edition, however, correcting errors in editing and judgement, but it was still used - my teacher had to work hard to make sure I didn't turn into a Bulow or Schnabel clone. Only in time and maturity did most students "graduate" to an urtext edition, when they had demonstrated the ability to think for themselves and engage in some research into historical performance methods that could help them achieve their own considered interpretation. Even then, one had to beware of editing choices in urtext editions, such as Henles unfortunate decision to conflate accents and staccato marks in their older editions. I still have my old Schirmers and Schnabels - falling apart to various degrees. My opinion is that if you're young and new to a composer, the edited editions are helpful - but at some point it's desirable to use urtexts and make your own decisions. This applies to all composers, I think.
Thank you, that's a very interesting perspective. Yes, I think the Bulow edition has since gone out of vogue-at least I never see it used anymore among "serious" performers. Schnabel is a bit more frequently found but even that one is rare. I think you have the right idea about things here. Just as a sidenote, for me it is hard to fault with Henle about wedges and dots and the like when Beethoven himself was so messy and inconsistent about using them! His autographs can be a bit of a nightmare to decipher.
15:30 Bülow is a moron. These octaves are NOT to be played legato! These are disjointed notes, there is no slur (and even a slur would indicate a sentence, not a legato)... absolutely no reason for a legato.
Totally true. My teacher is a fan of Schirmer's and younger pianists seems not really looked into it. I am glad that I saw the trend that people totally switched to urtext for teaching and learning these pieces. I can say old pianists were start and grow with Schirmer's, Schiff, Barenboim. Just find their masterclass on youtube, they said lots of details that just printed on Schirmer's. New generation pianists are clearly grow with Henle's such as Lang Lang so their Beethoven don't have that much of small details which only exist on these Schirmer's. Just search Barenboim give Lang Lang masterclass on Appassionata (and even Schiff's masterclass the same place) just find 1st mov bar 51-52 how they played according to Schirmer's and how Lang Lang and other younger generation played according to urtext. Also see the difference of Pathetique 3rd mov lift hand of bar 51-56. How can i say? I will agree that urtext version actually lost details here. Historic version should be correct in these places.
Now, nearly 60 years after my ambitious recital at 18, where I performed the first movement of Beethoven's Pathetique Sonata, I'm working to get it back under my fingers. At the time, I only had 2-3 years of lessons under my belt. I still have the score and was delighted to discover that it's the Schirmer edition, complete with Bülow's notes. Thanks for giving me some context.
Thank you for addressing an interesting and important topic. I was first introduced to the Sonatas back in the mists of time via the Bulow edition, back when I had no clue that alternate editions even existed. By the time I was in my college years, it was that era you mention when textual authenticity had become the mantra, and the messages I was getting from those in the know were telling me to get out the garlic and crucifixes, and to keep away from Bulow at all costs - so somewhere along the line I ditched my trusty old yellow Schirmer Bulow, which I now regret. In college, my professor had me purchase the Schnabel, which I still have in a beautiful edition published by Simon and Schuster. I eventually began looking for other options, desiring further help and ideas for fingering - having found that Schnabel tended to design fingerings according to his ideas regarding phrasings and other purely musical considerations, regardless of whether that meant greater difficulty of execution. I felt that the blasted things were hard enough without making things even more awkward. By this time I was beginning to realize that seeking a guide to the ideal fingering for Beethoven could be a highway to madness, but this didn't stop me from accumulating several more editions: Kalmus Urtext (with zero fingerings, but not the worst choice you could make), the Caxton-Tovey ARSM ( sensible non-idiosyncratic fingerings), and the Arrau Peters (which I think on balance has become my current favorite. Arrau had his own fingering quirks: avoiding using adjacent outer fingers whenever possible (3-5 instead of 4-5 in many situations), and frequently favoring a "bunched-up" hand position (e.g. 1-2-5 instead of 1-3-5 for a close position triad), but although many of his suggestions may look peculiar at first, I have found them to be efficient and practical most of the time. As far as textual reliability goes, I've found that most editors of modern editions seem to be diligent enough about fidelity to manuscript and primary sources. You make an excellent point about latter day prejudice against 19th century scholarship. So I am resolving never again to sniff at anyone I see having Herr Bulow's Beethoven on their shelves, and if I should happen across a flea market copy of that venerable old edition, I may well re-acquaint myself with him.
Excellent, I’m using the cooper ABRSM edition which I’ve had since my parents bought me when I was a kid and I love; will definitely be buying the Bulow edition. I agree in general that this fascination of only using urtexts and ignoring the advice, suggestions and inspiration of edits by great pianists, and historical figures in their own right, is a rather sad situation. I completely understand wanting to know the composers true intentions but the comments of others can be really enlightening.
This is fascinating! I’ve always loved the Schnabel edition, and I’ll have to check out the Bulow too… I recently sat in on a class with Nicholas Kitchen at NEC on interpreting Beethoven’s manuscripts, and he went so far as to argue that Beethoven had his own specific system of dynamic indications that was far more nuanced than the standard pp-p-mp-mf-f-ff scale-and that no published editions I’m aware of replicate faithfully. For instance, Beethoven would sometimes underline or double-underline his dynamic markings, or would sometimes write “ppmo” instead of simply “pp,” and if one looks closely enough, it is possible to discern some sort of pattern in how these dynamics are used. I’m not totally convinced that all of these variations in markings were intentional (it seems entirely possible that we’re just finding meaning where there is none). But in any case, this argument makes a good case for why it’s valuable to look at the manuscripts themselves when studying Beethoven.
Once again you amaze me at how similar our musical thinking is. In the late sixties I fell in love with Beethoven Sonatas and the recordings of Wilhelm Kempff. At 14 years old I purchased both volumes of the Schirmer, VonBulow edition Sonatas and still use them today. I have the Schnabel too but I much prefer the Schirmer. The commentary and fingerings are priceless. You do great work here and your commentary is so spot on. Thanks
I actually got the two volumes of Bülow/Lebert Beethoven sonatas published by Schirmer when I was in high school (in the 80s). I eventually moved on to some of these Urtext editions you speak of, but in recent years, I have found myself returning to the Bülow edition because I find that his fingerings often work well for me and often prefer them to the fingerings in the Urtext editions. It’s funny to be returning to these as they were considered ‘yucky’ somehow and over edited compared to the Urtext editions when I was in my 20s in the 1990s.
The edition of the Bülow pupil Frederic Lamond is worth a look. It is important to be aware, that neither the Bülow nor the Schnabel edition are fully pedalized. If you feel very uncertain regarding the pedaling, the Casella edition (Ricordi) and the Weiner edition (EMB) may be helpful. Regarding the Henle editions: both the Hansen and the Perahia fingerings are excellent. I think two of three volumes of the new Perahia edition have been published so far.
Very interesting discussion. Thanks very much for sharing. I often read from an Urtext and consult other editions. An edition that is not often talked about is the Tovey edition. Tovey wrote that wonderful book on Beethoven sonatas, with measure by measure analysis. 19th Century editions of Bach, notably WTC are quite interesting as well,
I've been learning the sonatas from Schenker's edition, particularly in a dover edition. Very few footnotes and some differences in tempo markings, but the score is very clean and open for personal markings, fingerings, etc.
Also, Schenker was careful to use Beethoven's phrasing slurs - which sometimes led to some peculiar but always interesting fingering choices. Bulow's long phrasing slurs reflect his ideas about Beethoven's metameasures, but do violence to Beethoven's more local phrasing. Schenker wrote an essay called "Let's do away with the phrasing slur," which was at least partly a response to Bulow's edition.
When working thru a Beethoven Sonata, I tend to rotate thru Cooper, Schnabel and Bulow editions, especially when I am unsure about a marking or a tricky fingering. It gets a little tedious at times -- going thru three editions to make a choice, but then I feel assured I've made an " educated" decision for performing the Sonata.
Fascinating, thanks. I recently returned to studying piano after decades away from the instrument, and what I have is the Bulow/Lebert that my parents bought for me when I was a young teenager. Now that I'm studying on my own, I often want to hurl these volumes across the room (OMG the fingering he suggests for the runs in the last movement of the Appassionata made me burst out laughing, and don't get me started on some of the editorial choices), but I agree that the footnotes can be quite interesting and helpful. I'm thinking about coughing up for an urtext edition, but I don't plan to get rid of my B/L.
Yes, Bülow was obviously a bit idiosyncratic! You do have to kind of pick and chose, but there is always something really interesting in there. I haven't actually performed Appassionata before, so I can't comment on the utility of what he recommends, but I remember it is eccentric.
@@jdbrown371 Actually I think that fingering would be possible! I'm guessing you guys are talking about crossing the 4th finger over the 3rd in the main theme. A weird fingering that wouldn't fit most people-I'm fairly certain I would probably use a more normal fingering there (maybe thumb on the downbeats). But I could see that fingering could work. You would need to have an amazing technique, and a knack for that kind of hand shift... Which is probably what Bülow had in spades!
@@TheIndependentPianist Yes, I was talking about the 4th-finger crossing. Maybe some people could pull that off, but I can't! I'm using a fingering I found online for "large hands", 1-2-3-4-5. I don't have particularly large hands, but as long as I keep my hands moving and don't let them sit in the area of the 1st note, I can pull it off.
My teacher asked his students which edition of the Beethoven sonatas they thought they should own. His answer was "6 or 7 of them." By the way, don't forget the edition Claudio Arrau did for Peters. It is full of his great insights as well as fingerings worth considering.
Totally agree with you, only use URTEXT is nonsence for students. Currently we can still easy to find Schirmer's (Bulow-Lebert) version for reference. It's full of remarks and everything is writen by those student's of Beethoven or Student's of Student's of Beethoven. The interpertation of these old full or remarks version, they should not been written by Beethoven, but might delivery oral to these guys. To say these 1800's version are wrong is totally ridiculous course these musians are far closer to Beethoven. I would just like if i could only have this Schirmer's version. I started mine first 3 of his sonatas on this edition only, it really help me to understand these masterpieces way beyond my musical knowledge 20 years ago. And it really saves me a lot of time to understand these details. You can see those mater class by all these beloved pianists, their knowledge actually comes from this version a lot. After that i have more versions to research more detail into it. Beyond all URTEXT books I will say I like new version of Henle most. I won't say it's the most accuate urtest (and we will never know it's the most accuate?) but because I have already have all my Bach collection in Henle and thier print are actually most satisfe my eyesight, the notes are bigger than others, hahaha.... Now I use Henle to play on piano (cause my eye have already fully get used to Henle's style of type setting and Henle provide largest notes) and I sight reading Henle Scores much smooth than any other publishers. And i read Schirmer's on my desk. I will copy those most important things on Schirmer's to Henle to remind myself. Fingering, I always find any Schirmer's fingering worked better than anyother publisher. I won't stick to any fingering of any version but i would always like to check back on Schirmer's for reference. Schirmer's Beethoven fingering are already just like fingering by myself. And I will always check where it's different than my instinct and usually i can find there is someting i just missed. But these old edition has a main drawback, I just realized I play one piece always the same kind. It's all marked on it so if i put it in front of me i will try to do everything as on the score. I would like i play any piece differently everytime. Especially I play Schirmer's edition of Mozart sonatas i jus stick to it and play over and over again and same and same. My brain might become lazy on it. Thus i find myself to play with URTEXT and read with old versions it's best for me. My teacher is a fan of Schirmer's and younger pianists seems not really looked into it. I am glad that I saw the trend that people totally switched to urtext for teaching and learning these pieces. I can say old pianists were start and grow with Schirmer's, Schiff, Barenboim. Just find their masterclass on youtube, they said lots of details that just printed on Schirmer's. New generation pianists are clearly grow with Henle's such as Lang Lang so their Beethoven don't have that much of small details which only exist on these Schirmer's. Just search Barenboim give Lang Lang masterclass on Appassionata (and even Schiff's masterclass the same place) just find 1st mov bar 51-52 how they played according to Schirmer's and how Lang Lang and other younger generation played according to urtext. Also see the difference of Pathetique 3rd mov lift hand of bar 51-56. How can i say? I will agree that urtext version actually lost details here. Historic version should be correct in these places.
Thanks for the interesting video! You are absolutely right in what you say about Urtext editions. But most modern Urtext editions admit it themselves. Not necessarily when it comes to marketing, but in their prefaces and commentaries etc.: it is always decisions of the editors, and often other decisions would have been possible. In many cases you also find statements like: according to source A this, but according to source B this etc.. With Beethoven it is perhaps less the case, but with Schubert, for example, modern Urtext editions have often brought great changes compared to the old editions - not to mention the phrasing slurs, tempo and performance indications of some older Bach editions. As a basis, I find an Urtext edition useful and important. As far as fingerings are concerned, I have the impression that there are 2 types of fingerings: those of great pianists that suggest a certain interpretation. Sometimes these fingerings are difficult to understand. Arrau's fingerings are often quite obvious to me, but with Schabel, Andras Schiff, Perahia, Edwin Fischer, etc., I sometimes wish for a commentary on why I should use that fingering, what is intended by it. And then there are the more didactic fingerings, the ones you call "not brilliant". These are aimed primarily at getting through the musical text as economically and effortlessly as possible. That is also a justified idea, isn't it?
I do have the complete Henle Urtext you just showed 😅 Plus some Schnabel and Bülow of some sonatas. I also have a quite interesting Casella edition nobody has mentioned yet. I don't know if the complete edition exists but I would be very tempted to buy it.
When we come to Beethoven's 32, there is another EXCEEDINGLY great edition, but rare (extremely rare) which is the Goldenweizer edition. You should look at his pedalling advise and wow to it.
@@TheIndependentPianist None of those old dead guys were perfect, and we've got the recordings to prove it. I had an awful Schnabel shocker in the last sonata not too long ago. Serves me right for listening to Pollini play it! But Mr. Schnabel still is great. What he shat out is better than anything I can do, as it is with most pianists.
What do you think of the Breitkopf Beethoven Sonatas? I studied the 12th Sonata with Breitkopf because Lamond's fingerings were waaaay more adequate for me than Arrau's fingerings. The phrasing, spacing and editing was also quite good, at least for me.
@@TheIndependentPianist Yess, the Catalogue numbers are on the first pages of both PDF Volumes. 4341 & 4342. It's a high quality PDF, Breitkopf reissued the same both Volumes in 2018 wich I bought. There is an extensive adition about who was Lamond and other intersting information that cannot be found easily on the internet. Otherwise, the content is pretty much the same as the one found on Imslp.
I have always used the Henle editions, because one of my main teachers believed in them. However over the years I am becoming more and more unhappy with them. Hence I have a few other editions for comparison. A lot of the fingering in Henle editions are terrible! Of course I change them most of the time. I Will seek out the Bullow editions. One of my great teachers who was a pupil of Friedman, was an advocate of the Schnabel editions. I find his fingerings quite unorthodox, though they often work.
Thanks for your positive view of the HvB edition. I grew up with it and learned much from the annotations........why not have a legendary master from the past take you by the hand through these works? Many of the fingerings showed me how inefficient my own were. Ever seen Busoni's micro-managed edition of the WTC? Or his other Bach editions? Ditto on the fingering and annotations in them. The irony is that a teacher who may condemn these editions will then verbally annotate and edit at the lesson....... P.S. I've caught a couple of mistakes in Henle.............
Thanks for this video. It explains something that really confused me about Urtext. As an "adult returner" I've been searching for editions with the best fingering notations. I have found that Urtext has been the worst for this, often with little to no fingering notations. Now I know why. Edition Peters seems to be hit and miss, and Schirmer is just wierd. Alfred Masterworks Edition has worked best for me so far. Thank you.
Interesting. My Beethoven-line teacher (via Lechitizky) was happy enough with the Moonlight sonata edition by Goldenweiser. However, I compared this edition with the Donald Tovey plus other person one (can't remember the other person - Harold Claxton?) and I found different fingerings for that most difficult bit in the 3rd movement (a third, I think that is played in the RH - in 4 or 8 different areas). Goldenweiser has what seems strange fingerings at first - and to be honest I still can't get Goldenweiser's fingerings to be quick enough. Maybe I should have tried the Tovey Claxton version.
As always one should and must read and listen to variety of resources. I think one should preferably use “best” urtext editions and then - as with all editions - use ones own intellect, taste and fingering to reach the playing and interpretation one looks for.
As ever, Cole, I really enjoyed listening to your commentary, with played examples: just fascinating. However, in terms of worthy published editions of the works of the great composers, I do not feel qualified at all to express an opinion (just for a change!). As a poor analogy, I think of the many wildly different performances of Shakespeare's plays I have seen staged over the years, and no doubt drawn from published editions ranging from the acknowledged scholarly to the contentiously benighted! But they all sought to capture the universal truths that make Shakespeare timeless, and communicate them to the audience in such a way as to make maximum impact. I suppose, in a similar way, musicians seek to communicate the truth - as they sense it - from the limitations of music notation just as actors do from the naked limitations present in the written word. Our preferences for performance can be ideologically driven or unrestrained in subjective nuance . . . so I say, thank goodness for such choice as, to quote (!) a clichéd proverb: 'variety is the spice of life'! 🤣
I've been playing the piano my whole life, and I never once even though about trying to connect large octave leaps. It's illogical! Naturally, I've always used a "quiet carriage of the hand" for octave leaps. It makes it SO much better, technically and musically. THat said, there are of course instances where the octaves are close enough to each other (Chopin's Opus 25 Number 10) where legato fingering is feasible, but big jumps? That should just about always be 5-1, 5-1, and so on.
I grew up with the Schenker edition. However, for fingerings, the Henle app is it. Most of the Beethoven sonatas have the fingerings by Saint Saens, Arrau, Schnabel and several others. The fingerings by Michael Korstick--also in the app--are the most ingenious for my money. They also have the fingerings by that awful German, Hans Martin Theopold. The only downer is that Henle makes you pay more for fingerings by Murray Perahia. That said, there's more to life than fingering. The points made about the Bulow edition in this video are thought provoking. I have to confess, I never got that deep with Beethoven.
Sorry for the delay-missed this comment before! For Mozart I recommend the Neue Mozart Ausgabe as an Urtext (available online). I've never really found that I had too much need for a performing edition of those works so not sure if I can comment there. For Chopin, there is a new edition edited by Ekier. I've seen the Nocturnes and I thought it was excellent. For fingerings and the like, I would recommend taking a look at all the old ones, particularly Paderewski, Mikuli, Friedheim, Pachmann, Friedman... there may be others I'm forgetting. Most of these are on IMSLP and can be cosulted fairly easily. The Paderewski is not a bad choice for an Urtext, although Henle and the new edition I mentioned are better from that perspective.
For Mozart I can't tell, but for Chopin études get Cortot/Salabert edition, it's full of Cortots comments, technical analysis, short exercises that are extremely helpful for practising the etudes. For anything else by Chopin I recommend Paderewski. Yes, Ekier exists but you'd be surprised it's full of mistakes and Paderewski still remains the best edition there is.
Thank you. I have the ABRSM edition edited by Barry Cooper and the Donald Tovey editions of the Beethoven Sonatas. What do you think of these publications?
I have the Cooper as well. I find it excellent overall containing no major departures from the original, but some very useful edits and commentary on the pieces.
I think Tovey has many very interesting things to say, I wish I had thought to mention him! The Cooper edition is quite good if I recall. I saw it when it first came out and thought it seemed like a good clean Urtext.
Sorry to hear that. It is good to know though, if someone asks. I think Schirmer might still reprint them with a spiral binding, so that might possibly be better, but I don't know personally. The best is to find one of the old original printings-they put a lot more care into it back then. Not always easy to find though.
Three solid pieces of advice. 1. Completely disregard how other people played Beethoven in the past. Employ the same principles of solid musicianship and respectable piano playing with Beethoven as you would anywhere else. Caveat, play Bach. If you don't it shows! Just play Beethoven and quit being so cagey about it. Learn all the sonatas more or less in order. Why not? 2. Henle is the best, Barenreiter is really good. These older editions have a lot of cruft and bad ideas. I have every single one of them. I own more editions of Beethoven sonatas than you can find at imslp. Just get one really good one that is easy on the eyes and actually stays open while you practice. 3. You're never done studying Beethoven's sonatas. Just do a good job and move on to the next. You'll come back to the same sonatas many times.
Thanks for this Jason, it's always very interesting to read your perspectives. I 100% agree with point one and three (except I think you don't HAVE to learn them in order). I partially agree with point 2 as well. I probably am a little misleading in this video, since when I actually practice, I usually use Henle (I'm just used to it, and it is nice and clean and accurate, as you say). However, that said, I never really learned anything about playing the piano or interpreting Beethoven per se from an Urtext edition, whereas there are so many ideas in those old crufty editions that have profoundly influenced my ideas about music and playing the piano. Even if I don't use those ideas in exactly the place the editor did, they are nonetheless highly valuable. So, I think for the curious, and the ones who really want to get deep into the music, Beethoven is one place where it is great to look at tons of editions!
Bülow's commentary was a hoot, but I I have zero interest in any notations, corrections, or additions that were not originally in Beethoven's hand. Ürtext always.
That is a highly puritanical kind of pronouncement from my viewpoint. I can only say that you are missing out on many useful ideas. If I can play Devil’s advocate for a moment (since I am certainly in favor of paying attention to Beethoven’s notation) would you also feel it is useless to have the advice, fingering and ideas of an experienced teacher when learning these works?
@@TheIndependentPianist Specifically, I don't like the idea of Bülow, or any other editor for that matter, telling me how to express musical phrases. I don't like them rearranging slurs either. Fingerings should come fairly easily if one has the proper technique. Interesting you mention learning from teachers, it was two college professors that actually promoted the idea of Urtext editions only.
@@erika6651 the point simply being that you are not required to follow Bulow’s slurs and so forth-what you are getting is simply all of his thoughts on performance and interpretation. It’s no different than if you could receive the performing score of a famous Beethoven performer of the present day. That is basically what you are seeing: Bulow’s performance score. He was one of the most famous Beethoven players of the 19th century, so you certainly miss out on something if you don’t at least consult his edition, even if you don’t end up using anything. I’m not disputing the value of an Urtext, but I learned more about how to play these pieces from Bulow, Schnabel and other teachers than from an Urtext. Of course you can argue: “it’s all in Beethoven’s score,” and that is true to an extent, but you receive ideas on context and the most effective manner to realize Beethoven’s markings from teachers and from hearing great performers perform and speak. Bulow’s edition gives you a unique chance to have a “masterclass” of sorts with a long dead Beethoven specialist. There are no recordings of this guy, so his edition is all we have! I find it fascinating that we get that opportunity. It shouldn’t be the only edition you use, but it seems silly to throw it out unread!
What a misconceived video. The text is the text. I do resent the addition of fingering recommendations etc, if one can't evolve one's own one doesn't have the equipment to play these sonatas.
@@asafoetida5403 according to that logic, no one should ever take a lesson with a teacher-unfortunately that doesn’t work for most people! The text is not necessarily “the text.” Even in an urtext, the editor must make decisions. Very rarely is there only one definable source text.
@@TheIndependentPianist Could I ask what your approach to pedalling is in the first movement of that piece? The main parts I'm a bit unsure about are the development section (where I don't use any at the moment but wonder if that makes the sound too dry and detached especially at bars 77-94) and bars 153-161 where I'd like to use more like I do with the section just before that but then also want to be consistent with bar 155 where I feel like applying pedal would blur the RH counter-melody too much. Also would it be possible to see some Scriabin on the channel at some point? I love his 4th sonata but don't think I know enough about his later style to properly appreciate the sonatas thereafter.
@@feinberg4625 Interesting questions, and hard to answer in a comment. Although I haven't prepared this sonata for performance before, I imagine I would keep it pretty dry in the 77-94 area-maybe with a teeny bit on the bass notes especially where there are sforzandos. But probably mostly 1/2 pedal, and not very long ones. In mm. 153 I would definitely use some, but maybe changing more often and not pressing as deeply as the previous passage (as you noted already). Definitely there will be some Scriabin coming up-I like Sonata 4 also, as well as 2, 5, 9 and 10-and who knows, maybe I'll get to the others at some point. The later sonatas repay repeated listens. They are quite extraordinary in their own way.
@@TheIndependentPianist Thanks so much for the advice - I'm sure it'll improve my playing a lot. Really looking forward to the Scriabin as well. I've only recently gotten into him but he's quickly becoming my favorite composer after Bach.
Your heart is in the right place with regards to the urtext editions, but I think you jump to the slightly wrong conclusion far too early. If you're already at the point where you can fully grasp the vast prerequisites necessary to perform a Beethoven sonata at the highest level, musically and technically - just use an edition that most rigidly adheres to what the composer wrote and then deviate to your heart's content. Despite what your strait-laced conservatory professor might tell you, it's okay to diverge every so often, even improvise in the case of an 18th or early 19th-century piece. Don't entertain the ideas/rely on some 19th-century performer/editor and take their word for it, no matter how authoritative they might appear. Why are they any better than what you, the performer, might come up with after years of study? Just because the edition has Bülow's name emblazoned on it with a nice fraktur? Now, if you really hate urtext and really want to use that overly invasive Sigmund Lebert edition or whatever (it's your choice, after all), just be at least aware of what the composer actually put to paper in the back of your mind. And if you're a beginner, learning from these editions can lead to bad practices and habits that are hard to get rid of because of muscle memory. I especially hate the ones with fingering. No two hands are alike, and even in the 19th century, it should have been a no-brainer. I'm horrified that new editions with fingerings still hit the shelves regularly. It's okay for a Piano 101 book, but not for a goddamned Beethoven sonata. Plus, if you're Henle, at least have the courtesy to issue a version of an edition without fingering. In a digital age, it shouldn't run costs that much higher. I learned Brahms 2 using the Henle edition with fingering (it was the only option). I had "fun times" combing through all the contorted, overcomplicated suggestions and crossing them out individually. They were distracting and jarring.
My basic point in the video could be summed up as “use an urtext or study original editions for an accurate base text, but don’t underestimate how much you can learn from a performance edition.” My idea was certainly not that one should slavishly follow any edition-urtext or not. Even as regards fingering, I probably only use 10-20% of the fingerings in the various editions I have studied (Schnabel, Bulow, Arrau etc), but I learned so much about fingering ideas and general techniques-and those 10-20% were definitely worth it! I don’t mean to accuse you of anything, but I think there is a regrettable arrogance hidden beneath the idea that all we need is the score, and we don’t need anyone’s assistance to understand these pieces. Getting the insights of great artists like Bulow, Schnabel or Arrau is only going to help, whether or not you use them. More research is almost always better than less, in my experience. You are basically getting a private lesson from these artists-after that, do what you will. And as for your point about fingerings, that is precisely why I recommend looking at performing editions-it’s the urtexts that usually have the most bizarre fingerings. I do not agree that it is always best to have an edition with no fingering. No matter how advanced you are, it is always interesting and frequently useful to see another artist’s solutions. This is particularly true in Beethoven’s music, but it holds true in other places as well. How unfortunate it would be for pianists if Medtner, for example, had followed your stricture and had not provided any fingerings for his pieces! Many of his scores also act as masterclasses in the art of piano fingering. Bulow, Schnabel etc, were all artists of a similar stature and with similarly priceless insights to offer on both piano playing and musicianship.
Hold the phone; composers providing fingerings for their *own* pieces is an entirely different kettle of fish, for they might reveal something about the essence of a composition that an editor’s not privy to. Liszt’s Mazeppa is a classic example (ring and index finger to imitate galloping). As for what you mentioned about research, I regard these instructive editions as outmoded - and if I’m being honest - deathly obsolete theories on how e. g. Mozart’s or Beethoven’s music should be played. Imagine a modern-day doctor who researches bloodletting. That’s how I feel about it - but then again, I’m somewhat of a HIP snob… You raise an interesting point about arrogance. In some respect, I think you do need to be confident in your own abilities and only touch a piece when you genuinely believe you can bring something new to the table. I think that should be part of being a performer. Who needs the umpteenth sluggish half-baked recording of Schumann’s Piano Concerto riddled with conceptually flawed ‘conventions’? Not me. I am not talking about an unhealthy amount of ego, mind you. On a scale where one end is a humble composer who only plays their own pieces and the other is Ivo Pogorelich/Glenn Gould/Ervin Nyíregyházi (and other folk who advertise themselves as misunderstood geniuses), you should aim for the middle 😉 @@TheIndependentPianist
@@Kris9kris I don't think it is a completely different case if a composer provides fingerings for their own music. At least, I think it can go beyond revealing musical details particular to one composition. If a composer leaves many fingerings (as Medtner does) it amounts to a pretty clear picture of their overall approach to playing the piano. From that perspective it doesn't particularly matter that Medtner is providing fingerings for his own music-I'm sure it would be just as instructive if he left fingerings for a Beethoven Sonata or any other piece. In the same way, Godowsky's fingerings and performance indications for his own compositions are fascinating, and provide an illuminating insight into his performance style-but his fingerings for other composers' works that he edited are equally fascinating and instructive. So are the fingerings of Gieseking, or Fischer etc etc. Further, watching videos of great artists, and seeing what fingerings they use has always been fascinating and instructive for me. Watching my own private instructors in high school was again very instrumental in shaping my approach to technique. My point is that you never know from what source useful insights will come and we have the choice to be open to these insights-or we can decide we know best and close ourselves off. Personally, I took this isolationist approach myself for far too long, but once I allowed myself to evaluate more ideas from varied sources, I was surprised to find that my potential for original interpretation increased, not the reverse! I don't think true originality (as opposed to seeking after novelty) exists in a vacuum. It is informed by the past, even as it moves into the future. I also think you might want to consider revising your ideas of Hans von Bülow (and other 19th-20th century editors) as necessarily being "outmoded." Perhaps they are, but I don't even think this is a useful way to look at it. On the face of it, it's slightly ridiculous that we are talking about being "up to date" in regards to playing music written 200 years and more ago-after all, Bülow was much closer to this music temporally than we are! I would have imagined that a HIP player would be very interested in examining historical editions like Bülow's, rather than the reverse-they tell us much about how music was played at that time. Still, the issue is a little more subtle than that. Bülow epitomized only one very vibrant tradition, at a very interesting point in history. He was one of the foremost students of Franz Liszt, and widely regarded as one of the greatest musical minds of his day. Whether or not you would agree with this assessment, or consider that his ideas actually represent the "ideal" way to interpret Beethoven's music, it's an interesting enough reputation to warrant some examination. I don't think he deserves to be written off as old-fashioned. If you are going to write him off, then you might as well write off all music from the past and stick to only the most contemporary creations. As for the rest, we seem to be in agreement about confidence, and conventions etc. Again, I don't think we need to make a fetish about any particular interpretation or convention, but being open to other ideas, and exploring the ideas left behind by past musicians has been highly rewarding on my own musical journey, so I suggest it as a possibility for other musical travelers as well!
Well, if one feels they learned a lot from them - it's hard to argue against that. I'm not in the headspace of the people who believe that, and they might be even *right* in sticking to that conviction. As I said in my original comment, I don't want young'uns to believe that just because an editor is a figure of authority and great importance in the world of classical music, they must always know what they are doing. I personally want evidence-based research in my sheet music, not speculation. One of the claims these 19th-century editors made (and a chief tenet of these revisionist editions) is that if Mozart had lived to see the modern grand piano, he would have written 8 bar legato arches as well (among other things), therefore "our edition knows best". Malcolm Bilson talks about this in his lectures. This kind of thinking is arrogant and off-putting. Western notation is a deficient enough system to reveal the true "intent" of the composer. To be confronted with the unembellished, barebones version of how the music looks is one of the most critical first steps in learning a new piece. "slightly ridiculous that we are talking about being "up to date" in regards to playing music written 200 years and more ago". I don't think it necessarily is. Musicology, like all research, evolves over time. A century ago, scientists believed that dinosaurs became extinct because of starvation, and they were technically closer to them than we are. We are still discovering new things about ancient Egypt. I don't necessarily follow this slippery slope of "we might as well write off all music of the past". Old pianism is one of my passions, and I think performance practice history should be a mandatory course in all conservatories. I played Bach with a pedal before, and I actually quite like Busoni's Bach interpretations (actually, his whole discography, however small, is a gem). Still, I'm mindful and aware of what I'm engaging in and do not try to justify it with authority (which is something these 19th-century editions did). Overall, I think we agree on more things than we might think. The only thing we have a different opinion about is how highly we rate 19th-century masters talking about 18th-century ones and fingering. I just want to say it's not often you can have an intelligent discussion here on CZcams, so thank you. @@TheIndependentPianist
@@Kris9kris I think we probably do mostly agree here. Not to have the last word (sorry), but I can't help pointing out what appears to me to be a false parallel you've drawn between musicological study and paleontology/archeology etc. The distance in time between scientists in the 1920s and the dinosaurs, or between contemporary scientists and ancient Egypt is orders of magnitude greater than the distance between someone like Bülow and Beethoven. Liszt actually studied with Czerny, so there was something of a link there-although I perfectly realize that the whole "teacher lineage" thing is not justification for following any of their interpretive ideas. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of the advancement of musicology, although I have sometimes been unsettled by the tendency among some HIP performers and writers to elevate contemporary pedagogical texts to an exaggerated level of authority which can result in caricatured performances (at least to my ear). I also do think that the idea that we should automatically throw out anything that any 19th century musician had to say about any 18th century musician is spurious, although of course we shouldn't blindly follow what they say either. I think there was more of a direct stylistic progression from the 18th-19th centuries than has usually been admitted, although no doubt they also had many things they got wrong as well. I think the generally practical and creative approach 19th century musicians took towards music, and the intelligent, malleable way they tended to regard the score is quite inspiring, and also something that they had in common with the 18th century. In the 20th century this practical and creative spirit was often lost among the classical community, even in the HIP crowd. Thank you again for your comments, it has been a most interesting interchange-and feel free to comment again if you have additional thoughts. I will try to refrain from "one-upping" every comment!
Schenker is NOT (i stressed NOT, NOT, NOT) urtext by any definition. It is indeed 1920-30's and published by Universal edition (very very confusing), but Wien Urtext is an urtext edition and is a good alternative to Henle. One must really refer to Arrau's edition. and also Schnabel...... (and if you are lucky). Goldenweizer edition........
Here's something hilarious. Once there was wider knowledge of Debussy's piano rolls, there was a suggestion that those scores be reedited, on the theory that the rolls were the latest evidence of Debussy's intent. But remember that when someone said to Debussy "But that"s different from the way I heard you play it before" Debussy said, "But I don't feel it that way!" So tell me, what is a score?"
Interesting video, but we must be living in different worlds - maybe it's my age. The Bulow/Lebert edition was THE most popular and well known edition for ages, as far as I'm aware. Almost every pianist I knew (including myself) grew up learning Beethoven from those Schirmer editions - probably due to the low cost of Schirmer editions and their reputation. My teacher scribbled all over the edition, however, correcting errors in editing and judgement, but it was still used - my teacher had to work hard to make sure I didn't turn into a Bulow or Schnabel clone. Only in time and maturity did most students "graduate" to an urtext edition, when they had demonstrated the ability to think for themselves and engage in some research into historical performance methods that could help them achieve their own considered interpretation. Even then, one had to beware of editing choices in urtext editions, such as Henles unfortunate decision to conflate accents and staccato marks in their older editions. I still have my old Schirmers and Schnabels - falling apart to various degrees. My opinion is that if you're young and new to a composer, the edited editions are helpful - but at some point it's desirable to use urtexts and make your own decisions. This applies to all composers, I think.
Thank you, that's a very interesting perspective. Yes, I think the Bulow edition has since gone out of vogue-at least I never see it used anymore among "serious" performers. Schnabel is a bit more frequently found but even that one is rare. I think you have the right idea about things here. Just as a sidenote, for me it is hard to fault with Henle about wedges and dots and the like when Beethoven himself was so messy and inconsistent about using them! His autographs can be a bit of a nightmare to decipher.
15:30
Bülow is a moron.
These octaves are NOT to be played legato! These are disjointed notes, there is no slur (and even a slur would indicate a sentence, not a legato)... absolutely no reason for a legato.
Totally true. My teacher is a fan of Schirmer's and younger pianists seems not really looked into it. I am glad that I saw the trend that people totally switched to urtext for teaching and learning these pieces. I can say old pianists were start and grow with Schirmer's, Schiff, Barenboim. Just find their masterclass on youtube, they said lots of details that just printed on Schirmer's. New generation pianists are clearly grow with Henle's such as Lang Lang so their Beethoven don't have that much of small details which only exist on these Schirmer's. Just search Barenboim give Lang Lang masterclass on Appassionata (and even Schiff's masterclass the same place) just find 1st mov bar 51-52 how they played according to Schirmer's and how Lang Lang and other younger generation played according to urtext. Also see the difference of Pathetique 3rd mov lift hand of bar 51-56. How can i say? I will agree that urtext version actually lost details here. Historic version should be correct in these places.
This deserves a slot on PBS or any other educational broadcast. Learned a lot from this.
PBS is an educational channel?
@@chenwu9867 PBS isn't only for kids, there is also educational programming for adults as well
@@openendedthinking4033 nah it keeps posting new-born baby videos not very healthy
Thank you!
I have enjoyed the Donald Tovey edition of the Beethoven Sonatas. He indicated which markings are his vs the Urtext . Alan Kahn
Now, nearly 60 years after my ambitious recital at 18, where I performed the first movement of Beethoven's Pathetique Sonata, I'm working to get it back under my fingers. At the time, I only had 2-3 years of lessons under my belt. I still have the score and was delighted to discover that it's the Schirmer edition, complete with Bülow's notes. Thanks for giving me some context.
Thank you for addressing an interesting and important topic. I was first introduced to the Sonatas back in the mists of time via the Bulow edition, back when I had no clue that alternate editions even existed. By the time I was in my college years, it was that era you mention when textual authenticity had become the mantra, and the messages I was getting from those in the know were telling me to get out the garlic and crucifixes, and to keep away from Bulow at all costs - so somewhere along the line I ditched my trusty old yellow Schirmer Bulow, which I now regret. In college, my professor had me purchase the Schnabel, which I still have in a beautiful edition published by Simon and Schuster. I eventually began looking for other options, desiring further help and ideas for fingering - having found that Schnabel tended to design fingerings according to his ideas regarding phrasings and other purely musical considerations, regardless of whether that meant greater difficulty of execution. I felt that the blasted things were hard enough without making things even more awkward. By this time I was beginning to realize that seeking a guide to the ideal fingering for Beethoven could be a highway to madness, but this didn't stop me from accumulating several more editions: Kalmus Urtext (with zero fingerings, but not the worst choice you could make), the Caxton-Tovey ARSM ( sensible non-idiosyncratic fingerings), and the Arrau Peters (which I think on balance has become my current favorite. Arrau had his own fingering quirks: avoiding using adjacent outer fingers whenever possible (3-5 instead of 4-5 in many situations), and frequently favoring a "bunched-up" hand position (e.g. 1-2-5 instead of 1-3-5 for a close position triad), but although many of his suggestions may look peculiar at first, I have found them to be efficient and practical most of the time. As far as textual reliability goes, I've found that most editors of modern editions seem to be diligent enough about fidelity to manuscript and primary sources. You make an excellent point about latter day prejudice against 19th century scholarship. So I am resolving never again to sniff at anyone I see having Herr Bulow's Beethoven on their shelves, and if I should happen across a flea market copy of that venerable old edition, I may well re-acquaint myself with him.
Excellent, I’m using the cooper ABRSM edition which I’ve had since my parents bought me when I was a kid and I love; will definitely be buying the Bulow edition. I agree in general that this fascination of only using urtexts and ignoring the advice, suggestions and inspiration of edits by great pianists, and historical figures in their own right, is a rather sad situation. I completely understand wanting to know the composers true intentions but the comments of others can be really enlightening.
This is fascinating! I’ve always loved the Schnabel edition, and I’ll have to check out the Bulow too…
I recently sat in on a class with Nicholas Kitchen at NEC on interpreting Beethoven’s manuscripts, and he went so far as to argue that Beethoven had his own specific system of dynamic indications that was far more nuanced than the standard pp-p-mp-mf-f-ff scale-and that no published editions I’m aware of replicate faithfully. For instance, Beethoven would sometimes underline or double-underline his dynamic markings, or would sometimes write “ppmo” instead of simply “pp,” and if one looks closely enough, it is possible to discern some sort of pattern in how these dynamics are used. I’m not totally convinced that all of these variations in markings were intentional (it seems entirely possible that we’re just finding meaning where there is none). But in any case, this argument makes a good case for why it’s valuable to look at the manuscripts themselves when studying Beethoven.
Very interesting! It's always worthwhile looking at those original sources when you have the opportunity.
Once again you amaze me at how similar our musical thinking is. In the late sixties I fell in love with Beethoven Sonatas and the recordings of Wilhelm Kempff. At 14 years old I purchased both volumes of the Schirmer, VonBulow edition Sonatas and still use them today. I have the Schnabel too but I much prefer the Schirmer. The commentary and fingerings are priceless. You do great work here and your commentary is so spot on. Thanks
What a great education! Thank you.
I actually got the two volumes of Bülow/Lebert Beethoven sonatas published by Schirmer when I was in high school (in the 80s). I eventually moved on to some of these Urtext editions you speak of, but in recent years, I have found myself returning to the Bülow edition because I find that his fingerings often work well for me and often prefer them to the fingerings in the Urtext editions. It’s funny to be returning to these as they were considered ‘yucky’ somehow and over edited compared to the Urtext editions when I was in my 20s in the 1990s.
The edition of the Bülow pupil Frederic Lamond is worth a look.
It is important to be aware, that neither the Bülow nor the Schnabel edition are fully pedalized. If you feel very uncertain regarding the pedaling, the Casella edition (Ricordi) and the Weiner edition (EMB) may be helpful. Regarding the Henle editions: both the Hansen and the Perahia fingerings are excellent. I think two of three volumes of the new Perahia edition have been published so far.
Very interesting discussion. Thanks very much for sharing. I often read from an Urtext and consult other editions. An edition that is not often talked about is the Tovey edition. Tovey wrote that wonderful book on Beethoven sonatas, with measure by measure analysis. 19th Century editions of Bach, notably WTC are quite interesting as well,
Yes, I forgot to talk about Tovey, that is also fascinating, as is Edwin Fischer's commentary on the sonatas. Thank you for mentioning it!
I've been learning the sonatas from Schenker's edition, particularly in a dover edition. Very few footnotes and some differences in tempo markings, but the score is very clean and open for personal markings, fingerings, etc.
Also, Schenker was careful to use Beethoven's phrasing slurs - which sometimes led to some peculiar but always interesting fingering choices. Bulow's long phrasing slurs reflect his ideas about Beethoven's metameasures, but do violence to Beethoven's more local phrasing. Schenker wrote an essay called "Let's do away with the phrasing slur," which was at least partly a response to Bulow's edition.
Fantastic! Apparently, Daniel Barenboim learned the Beethoven Sonatas from the von Bülow edition!
I did not know that! Very interesting to know that.
@@TheIndependentPianist Yes, he mentioned it in a discussion with Giuseppe Mantuccia - I think it's available on CZcams!
When working thru a Beethoven Sonata, I tend to rotate thru Cooper, Schnabel and Bulow editions, especially when I am unsure about a marking or a tricky fingering. It gets a little tedious at times -- going thru three editions to make a choice, but then I feel assured I've made an " educated" decision for performing the Sonata.
Fascinating, thanks. I recently returned to studying piano after decades away from the instrument, and what I have is the Bulow/Lebert that my parents bought for me when I was a young teenager. Now that I'm studying on my own, I often want to hurl these volumes across the room (OMG the fingering he suggests for the runs in the last movement of the Appassionata made me burst out laughing, and don't get me started on some of the editorial choices), but I agree that the footnotes can be quite interesting and helpful. I'm thinking about coughing up for an urtext edition, but I don't plan to get rid of my B/L.
Yes, Bülow was obviously a bit idiosyncratic! You do have to kind of pick and chose, but there is always something really interesting in there. I haven't actually performed Appassionata before, so I can't comment on the utility of what he recommends, but I remember it is eccentric.
Wow, someone else noticed Bülow's insane fingering which he probably didn't use himself. That fingering he gives in op. 57 last movement is a joke.
@@jdbrown371 Actually I think that fingering would be possible! I'm guessing you guys are talking about crossing the 4th finger over the 3rd in the main theme. A weird fingering that wouldn't fit most people-I'm fairly certain I would probably use a more normal fingering there (maybe thumb on the downbeats). But I could see that fingering could work. You would need to have an amazing technique, and a knack for that kind of hand shift... Which is probably what Bülow had in spades!
@@TheIndependentPianist Yes, I was talking about the 4th-finger crossing. Maybe some people could pull that off, but I can't! I'm using a fingering I found online for "large hands", 1-2-3-4-5. I don't have particularly large hands, but as long as I keep my hands moving and don't let them sit in the area of the 1st note, I can pull it off.
My teacher asked his students which edition of the Beethoven sonatas they thought they should own. His answer was "6 or 7 of them." By the way, don't forget the edition Claudio Arrau did for Peters. It is full of his great insights as well as fingerings worth considering.
Totally agree with you, only use URTEXT is nonsence for students.
Currently we can still easy to find Schirmer's (Bulow-Lebert) version for reference. It's full of remarks and everything is writen by those student's of Beethoven or Student's of Student's of Beethoven. The interpertation of these old full or remarks version, they should not been written by Beethoven, but might delivery oral to these guys. To say these 1800's version are wrong is totally ridiculous course these musians are far closer to Beethoven.
I would just like if i could only have this Schirmer's version. I started mine first 3 of his sonatas on this edition only, it really help me to understand these masterpieces way beyond my musical knowledge 20 years ago. And it really saves me a lot of time to understand these details. You can see those mater class by all these beloved pianists, their knowledge actually comes from this version a lot.
After that i have more versions to research more detail into it. Beyond all URTEXT books I will say I like new version of Henle most. I won't say it's the most accuate urtest (and we will never know it's the most accuate?) but because I have already have all my Bach collection in Henle and thier print are actually most satisfe my eyesight, the notes are bigger than others, hahaha....
Now I use Henle to play on piano (cause my eye have already fully get used to Henle's style of type setting and Henle provide largest notes) and I sight reading Henle Scores much smooth than any other publishers. And i read Schirmer's on my desk. I will copy those most important things on Schirmer's to Henle to remind myself.
Fingering, I always find any Schirmer's fingering worked better than anyother publisher. I won't stick to any fingering of any version but i would always like to check back on Schirmer's for reference. Schirmer's Beethoven fingering are already just like fingering by myself. And I will always check where it's different than my instinct and usually i can find there is someting i just missed.
But these old edition has a main drawback, I just realized I play one piece always the same kind. It's all marked on it so if i put it in front of me i will try to do everything as on the score. I would like i play any piece differently everytime. Especially I play Schirmer's edition of Mozart sonatas i jus stick to it and play over and over again and same and same. My brain might become lazy on it.
Thus i find myself to play with URTEXT and read with old versions it's best for me.
My teacher is a fan of Schirmer's and younger pianists seems not really looked into it. I am glad that I saw the trend that people totally switched to urtext for teaching and learning these pieces. I can say old pianists were start and grow with Schirmer's, Schiff, Barenboim. Just find their masterclass on youtube, they said lots of details that just printed on Schirmer's. New generation pianists are clearly grow with Henle's such as Lang Lang so their Beethoven don't have that much of small details which only exist on these Schirmer's. Just search Barenboim give Lang Lang masterclass on Appassionata (and even Schiff's masterclass the same place) just find 1st mov bar 51-52 how they played according to Schirmer's and how Lang Lang and other younger generation played according to urtext. Also see the difference of Pathetique 3rd mov lift hand of bar 51-56. How can i say? I will agree that urtext version actually lost details here. Historic version should be correct in these places.
Thanks for the interesting video! You are absolutely right in what you say about Urtext editions. But most modern Urtext editions admit it themselves. Not necessarily when it comes to marketing, but in their prefaces and commentaries etc.: it is always decisions of the editors, and often other decisions would have been possible. In many cases you also find statements like: according to source A this, but according to source B this etc..
With Beethoven it is perhaps less the case, but with Schubert, for example, modern Urtext editions have often brought great changes compared to the old editions - not to mention the phrasing slurs, tempo and performance indications of some older Bach editions. As a basis, I find an Urtext edition useful and important.
As far as fingerings are concerned, I have the impression that there are 2 types of fingerings: those of great pianists that suggest a certain interpretation. Sometimes these fingerings are difficult to understand. Arrau's fingerings are often quite obvious to me, but with Schabel, Andras Schiff, Perahia, Edwin Fischer, etc., I sometimes wish for a commentary on why I should use that fingering, what is intended by it. And then there are the more didactic fingerings, the ones you call "not brilliant". These are aimed primarily at getting through the musical text as economically and effortlessly as possible. That is also a justified idea, isn't it?
I do have the complete Henle Urtext you just showed 😅
Plus some Schnabel and Bülow of some sonatas. I also have a quite interesting Casella edition nobody has mentioned yet. I don't know if the complete edition exists but I would be very tempted to buy it.
Thanks, I'll definitely check out Schnabel on op. 10 no. 3!
I love my Schnabel Edition. But you're right, some of the fingerings are odd.
Yes. My teacher, who was a pupil of Friedman, liked this edition, but yes some of the findings are indeed, odd!
The edition by Alfredo Casella (Ricordi) includes many good ideas, and isn't nearly as pedantic as the Bulow edition.
When we come to Beethoven's 32, there is another EXCEEDINGLY great edition, but rare (extremely rare) which is the Goldenweizer edition. You should look at his pedalling advise and wow to it.
I like Beethoven, so I look forward to the coming repertoire! You don't have to play them like Kempff.
I'm sure I could never match Kempff in many ways... He was a unique artist. but I'll do my best for myself!
@@TheIndependentPianist None of those old dead guys were perfect, and we've got the recordings to prove it. I had an awful Schnabel shocker in the last sonata not too long ago. Serves me right for listening to Pollini play it! But Mr. Schnabel still is great. What he shat out is better than anything I can do, as it is with most pianists.
I've been very happy with the Schnabel. I have an Urtext edition gathering dust on the shelf.
What do you think of the Breitkopf Beethoven Sonatas? I studied the 12th Sonata with Breitkopf because Lamond's fingerings were waaaay more adequate for me than Arrau's fingerings. The phrasing, spacing and editing was also quite good, at least for me.
Actually I'm not sure I've seen the Breitkopf edition. Is that the complete works edition on IMSLP? I didn't realize it had Lamond's fingerings!
@@TheIndependentPianist Yess, the Catalogue numbers are on the first pages of both PDF Volumes. 4341 & 4342.
It's a high quality PDF, Breitkopf reissued the same both Volumes in 2018 wich I bought. There is an extensive adition about who was Lamond and other intersting information that cannot be found easily on the internet. Otherwise, the content is pretty much the same as the one found on Imslp.
I have always used the Henle editions, because one of my main teachers believed in them. However over the years I am becoming more and more unhappy with them. Hence I have a few other editions for comparison. A lot of the fingering in Henle editions are terrible! Of course I change them most of the time. I Will seek out the Bullow editions. One of my great teachers who was a pupil of Friedman, was an advocate of the Schnabel editions. I find his fingerings quite unorthodox, though they often work.
Thanks for your positive view of the HvB edition. I grew up with it and learned much from the annotations........why not have a legendary master from the past take you by the hand through these works? Many of the fingerings showed me how inefficient my own were. Ever seen Busoni's micro-managed edition of the WTC? Or his other Bach editions? Ditto on the fingering and annotations in them.
The irony is that a teacher who may condemn these editions will then verbally annotate and edit at the lesson.......
P.S. I've caught a couple of mistakes in Henle.............
Thanks for this video. It explains something that really confused me about Urtext.
As an "adult returner" I've been searching for editions with the best fingering notations. I have found that Urtext has been the worst for this, often with little to no fingering notations.
Now I know why.
Edition Peters seems to be hit and miss, and Schirmer is just wierd.
Alfred Masterworks Edition has worked best for me so far.
Thank you.
Interesting. My Beethoven-line teacher (via Lechitizky) was happy enough with the Moonlight sonata edition by Goldenweiser. However, I compared this edition with the Donald Tovey plus other person one (can't remember the other person - Harold Claxton?) and I found different fingerings for that most difficult bit in the 3rd movement (a third, I think that is played in the RH - in 4 or 8 different areas). Goldenweiser has what seems strange fingerings at first - and to be honest I still can't get Goldenweiser's fingerings to be quick enough. Maybe I should have tried the Tovey Claxton version.
I like the Peters Edition, if only for Arrau's fingering which is mostly exatly right for me. Is actually an Urtext i think
As always one should and must read and listen to variety of resources. I think one should preferably use “best” urtext editions and then - as with all editions - use ones own intellect, taste and fingering to reach the playing and interpretation one looks for.
As ever, Cole, I really enjoyed listening to your commentary, with played examples: just fascinating. However, in terms of worthy published editions of the works of the great composers, I do not feel qualified at all to express an opinion (just for a change!). As a poor analogy, I think of the many wildly different performances of Shakespeare's plays I have seen staged over the years, and no doubt drawn from published editions ranging from the acknowledged scholarly to the contentiously benighted! But they all sought to capture the universal truths that make Shakespeare timeless, and communicate them to the audience in such a way as to make maximum impact. I suppose, in a similar way, musicians seek to communicate the truth - as they sense it - from the limitations of music notation just as actors do from the naked limitations present in the written word. Our preferences for performance can be ideologically driven or unrestrained in subjective nuance . . . so I say, thank goodness for such choice as, to quote (!) a clichéd proverb: 'variety is the spice of life'! 🤣
What do you think of the Kohler Peters edition?
Fascinating!
Old editions can be like the Tonebase videos of the 19th century. Same with text books
I've been playing the piano my whole life, and I never once even though about trying to connect large octave leaps. It's illogical! Naturally, I've always used a "quiet carriage of the hand" for octave leaps. It makes it SO much better, technically and musically. THat said, there are of course instances where the octaves are close enough to each other (Chopin's Opus 25 Number 10) where legato fingering is feasible, but big jumps? That should just about always be 5-1, 5-1, and so on.
I grew up with the Schenker edition. However, for fingerings, the Henle app is it. Most of the Beethoven sonatas have the fingerings by Saint Saens, Arrau, Schnabel and several others. The fingerings by Michael Korstick--also in the app--are the most ingenious for my money. They also have the fingerings by that awful German, Hans Martin Theopold. The only downer is that Henle makes you pay more for fingerings by Murray Perahia. That said, there's more to life than fingering. The points made about the Bulow edition in this video are thought provoking. I have to confess, I never got that deep with Beethoven.
Buchbinder, who has just about every edition ever published, likes the Liszt edition best. Has anyone used this one?
Interesting enough, the Liszt edition that I own has no fingering, no remarks of Liszt, no lisztian editing of the text, nothing.
Im interested in what editions you would recommend for Mozart Sonatas and Chopin Etudes/Ballades
Sorry for the delay-missed this comment before! For Mozart I recommend the Neue Mozart Ausgabe as an Urtext (available online). I've never really found that I had too much need for a performing edition of those works so not sure if I can comment there. For Chopin, there is a new edition edited by Ekier. I've seen the Nocturnes and I thought it was excellent. For fingerings and the like, I would recommend taking a look at all the old ones, particularly Paderewski, Mikuli, Friedheim, Pachmann, Friedman... there may be others I'm forgetting. Most of these are on IMSLP and can be cosulted fairly easily. The Paderewski is not a bad choice for an Urtext, although Henle and the new edition I mentioned are better from that perspective.
For Mozart I can't tell, but for Chopin études get Cortot/Salabert edition, it's full of Cortots comments, technical analysis, short exercises that are extremely helpful for practising the etudes.
For anything else by Chopin I recommend Paderewski. Yes, Ekier exists but you'd be surprised it's full of mistakes and Paderewski still remains the best edition there is.
I think the Arrau Edition has the most interessting fingerring....
Thank you. I have the ABRSM edition edited by Barry Cooper and the Donald Tovey editions of the Beethoven Sonatas. What do you think of these publications?
I have the Cooper as well. I find it excellent overall containing no major departures from the original, but some very useful edits and commentary on the pieces.
I think Tovey has many very interesting things to say, I wish I had thought to mention him! The Cooper edition is quite good if I recall. I saw it when it first came out and thought it seemed like a good clean Urtext.
Schnabel is my go-to edition, but unfortunately it's published by Alfred.
The editions are poor quality and the pages are constantly falling out. :(
Sorry to hear that. It is good to know though, if someone asks. I think Schirmer might still reprint them with a spiral binding, so that might possibly be better, but I don't know personally. The best is to find one of the old original printings-they put a lot more care into it back then. Not always easy to find though.
Three solid pieces of advice.
1. Completely disregard how other people played Beethoven in the past. Employ the same principles of solid musicianship and respectable piano playing with Beethoven as you would anywhere else. Caveat, play Bach. If you don't it shows! Just play Beethoven and quit being so cagey about it. Learn all the sonatas more or less in order. Why not?
2. Henle is the best, Barenreiter is really good. These older editions have a lot of cruft and bad ideas. I have every single one of them. I own more editions of Beethoven sonatas than you can find at imslp. Just get one really good one that is easy on the eyes and actually stays open while you practice.
3. You're never done studying Beethoven's sonatas. Just do a good job and move on to the next. You'll come back to the same sonatas many times.
Treat the Diabelli variations as though it were the 33rd sonata and show it lots of respect and reverence.
Thanks for this Jason, it's always very interesting to read your perspectives. I 100% agree with point one and three (except I think you don't HAVE to learn them in order). I partially agree with point 2 as well. I probably am a little misleading in this video, since when I actually practice, I usually use Henle (I'm just used to it, and it is nice and clean and accurate, as you say). However, that said, I never really learned anything about playing the piano or interpreting Beethoven per se from an Urtext edition, whereas there are so many ideas in those old crufty editions that have profoundly influenced my ideas about music and playing the piano. Even if I don't use those ideas in exactly the place the editor did, they are nonetheless highly valuable. So, I think for the curious, and the ones who really want to get deep into the music, Beethoven is one place where it is great to look at tons of editions!
I have most editions you mentioned, none of them is ‘holy’, the combination works, btw it’s ‘oor’-text lol
Haha, well old habits die hard... Americans always say 'er'-text!
I prefer the A# myself! 17:24
You are in good company with Liszt and Bulow!
Use Henle, get a good teacher.
Bülow's commentary was a hoot, but I I have zero interest in any notations, corrections, or additions that were not originally in Beethoven's hand. Ürtext always.
That is a highly puritanical kind of pronouncement from my viewpoint. I can only say that you are missing out on many useful ideas. If I can play Devil’s advocate for a moment (since I am certainly in favor of paying attention to Beethoven’s notation) would you also feel it is useless to have the advice, fingering and ideas of an experienced teacher when learning these works?
@@TheIndependentPianist Specifically, I don't like the idea of Bülow, or any other editor for that matter, telling me how to express musical phrases. I don't like them rearranging slurs either. Fingerings should come fairly easily if one has the proper technique. Interesting you mention learning from teachers, it was two college professors that actually promoted the idea of Urtext editions only.
@@erika6651 the point simply being that you are not required to follow Bulow’s slurs and so forth-what you are getting is simply all of his thoughts on performance and interpretation. It’s no different than if you could receive the performing score of a famous Beethoven performer of the present day. That is basically what you are seeing: Bulow’s performance score. He was one of the most famous Beethoven players of the 19th century, so you certainly miss out on something if you don’t at least consult his edition, even if you don’t end up using anything. I’m not disputing the value of an Urtext, but I learned more about how to play these pieces from Bulow, Schnabel and other teachers than from an Urtext.
Of course you can argue: “it’s all in Beethoven’s score,” and that is true to an extent, but you receive ideas on context and the most effective manner to realize Beethoven’s markings from teachers and from hearing great performers perform and speak. Bulow’s edition gives you a unique chance to have a “masterclass” of sorts with a long dead Beethoven specialist. There are no recordings of this guy, so his edition is all we have! I find it fascinating that we get that opportunity.
It shouldn’t be the only edition you use, but it seems silly to throw it out unread!
What a misconceived video. The text is the text. I do resent the addition of fingering recommendations etc, if one can't evolve one's own one doesn't have the equipment to play these sonatas.
@@asafoetida5403 according to that logic, no one should ever take a lesson with a teacher-unfortunately that doesn’t work for most people!
The text is not necessarily “the text.” Even in an urtext, the editor must make decisions. Very rarely is there only one definable source text.
I'm not sure why I'm watching this as an amateur who can barely manage Beethoven op 10 no 2 but very interesting nonetheless 😂
Thanks! Why not after all? Op 10 no 2 is actually quite tricky anyway 🙂
@@TheIndependentPianist Could I ask what your approach to pedalling is in the first movement of that piece? The main parts I'm a bit unsure about are the development section (where I don't use any at the moment but wonder if that makes the sound too dry and detached especially at bars 77-94) and bars 153-161 where I'd like to use more like I do with the section just before that but then also want to be consistent with bar 155 where I feel like applying pedal would blur the RH counter-melody too much. Also would it be possible to see some Scriabin on the channel at some point? I love his 4th sonata but don't think I know enough about his later style to properly appreciate the sonatas thereafter.
@@feinberg4625 Interesting questions, and hard to answer in a comment. Although I haven't prepared this sonata for performance before, I imagine I would keep it pretty dry in the 77-94 area-maybe with a teeny bit on the bass notes especially where there are sforzandos. But probably mostly 1/2 pedal, and not very long ones. In mm. 153 I would definitely use some, but maybe changing more often and not pressing as deeply as the previous passage (as you noted already).
Definitely there will be some Scriabin coming up-I like Sonata 4 also, as well as 2, 5, 9 and 10-and who knows, maybe I'll get to the others at some point. The later sonatas repay repeated listens. They are quite extraordinary in their own way.
@@TheIndependentPianist Thanks so much for the advice - I'm sure it'll improve my playing a lot. Really looking forward to the Scriabin as well. I've only recently gotten into him but he's quickly becoming my favorite composer after Bach.
Your heart is in the right place with regards to the urtext editions, but I think you jump to the slightly wrong conclusion far too early. If you're already at the point where you can fully grasp the vast prerequisites necessary to perform a Beethoven sonata at the highest level, musically and technically - just use an edition that most rigidly adheres to what the composer wrote and then deviate to your heart's content. Despite what your strait-laced conservatory professor might tell you, it's okay to diverge every so often, even improvise in the case of an 18th or early 19th-century piece. Don't entertain the ideas/rely on some 19th-century performer/editor and take their word for it, no matter how authoritative they might appear. Why are they any better than what you, the performer, might come up with after years of study? Just because the edition has Bülow's name emblazoned on it with a nice fraktur? Now, if you really hate urtext and really want to use that overly invasive Sigmund Lebert edition or whatever (it's your choice, after all), just be at least aware of what the composer actually put to paper in the back of your mind. And if you're a beginner, learning from these editions can lead to bad practices and habits that are hard to get rid of because of muscle memory. I especially hate the ones with fingering. No two hands are alike, and even in the 19th century, it should have been a no-brainer. I'm horrified that new editions with fingerings still hit the shelves regularly. It's okay for a Piano 101 book, but not for a goddamned Beethoven sonata. Plus, if you're Henle, at least have the courtesy to issue a version of an edition without fingering. In a digital age, it shouldn't run costs that much higher. I learned Brahms 2 using the Henle edition with fingering (it was the only option). I had "fun times" combing through all the contorted, overcomplicated suggestions and crossing them out individually. They were distracting and jarring.
My basic point in the video could be summed up as “use an urtext or study original editions for an accurate base text, but don’t underestimate how much you can learn from a performance edition.” My idea was certainly not that one should slavishly follow any edition-urtext or not. Even as regards fingering, I probably only use 10-20% of the fingerings in the various editions I have studied (Schnabel, Bulow, Arrau etc), but I learned so much about fingering ideas and general techniques-and those 10-20% were definitely worth it!
I don’t mean to accuse you of anything, but I think there is a regrettable arrogance hidden beneath the idea that all we need is the score, and we don’t need anyone’s assistance to understand these pieces. Getting the insights of great artists like Bulow, Schnabel or Arrau is only going to help, whether or not you use them. More research is almost always better than less, in my experience. You are basically getting a private lesson from these artists-after that, do what you will.
And as for your point about fingerings, that is precisely why I recommend looking at performing editions-it’s the urtexts that usually have the most bizarre fingerings. I do not agree that it is always best to have an edition with no fingering. No matter how advanced you are, it is always interesting and frequently useful to see another artist’s solutions. This is particularly true in Beethoven’s music, but it holds true in other places as well.
How unfortunate it would be for pianists if Medtner, for example, had followed your stricture and had not provided any fingerings for his pieces! Many of his scores also act as masterclasses in the art of piano fingering. Bulow, Schnabel etc, were all artists of a similar stature and with similarly priceless insights to offer on both piano playing and musicianship.
Hold the phone; composers providing fingerings for their *own* pieces is an entirely different kettle of fish, for they might reveal something about the essence of a composition that an editor’s not privy to. Liszt’s Mazeppa is a classic example (ring and index finger to imitate galloping). As for what you mentioned about research, I regard these instructive editions as outmoded - and if I’m being honest - deathly obsolete theories on how e. g. Mozart’s or Beethoven’s music should be played. Imagine a modern-day doctor who researches bloodletting. That’s how I feel about it - but then again, I’m somewhat of a HIP snob… You raise an interesting point about arrogance. In some respect, I think you do need to be confident in your own abilities and only touch a piece when you genuinely believe you can bring something new to the table. I think that should be part of being a performer. Who needs the umpteenth sluggish half-baked recording of Schumann’s Piano Concerto riddled with conceptually flawed ‘conventions’? Not me. I am not talking about an unhealthy amount of ego, mind you. On a scale where one end is a humble composer who only plays their own pieces and the other is Ivo Pogorelich/Glenn Gould/Ervin Nyíregyházi (and other folk who advertise themselves as misunderstood geniuses), you should aim for the middle 😉 @@TheIndependentPianist
@@Kris9kris I don't think it is a completely different case if a composer provides fingerings for their own music. At least, I think it can go beyond revealing musical details particular to one composition. If a composer leaves many fingerings (as Medtner does) it amounts to a pretty clear picture of their overall approach to playing the piano.
From that perspective it doesn't particularly matter that Medtner is providing fingerings for his own music-I'm sure it would be just as instructive if he left fingerings for a Beethoven Sonata or any other piece. In the same way, Godowsky's fingerings and performance indications for his own compositions are fascinating, and provide an illuminating insight into his performance style-but his fingerings for other composers' works that he edited are equally fascinating and instructive. So are the fingerings of Gieseking, or Fischer etc etc. Further, watching videos of great artists, and seeing what fingerings they use has always been fascinating and instructive for me. Watching my own private instructors in high school was again very instrumental in shaping my approach to technique.
My point is that you never know from what source useful insights will come and we have the choice to be open to these insights-or we can decide we know best and close ourselves off. Personally, I took this isolationist approach myself for far too long, but once I allowed myself to evaluate more ideas from varied sources, I was surprised to find that my potential for original interpretation increased, not the reverse! I don't think true originality (as opposed to seeking after novelty) exists in a vacuum. It is informed by the past, even as it moves into the future.
I also think you might want to consider revising your ideas of Hans von Bülow (and other 19th-20th century editors) as necessarily being "outmoded." Perhaps they are, but I don't even think this is a useful way to look at it. On the face of it, it's slightly ridiculous that we are talking about being "up to date" in regards to playing music written 200 years and more ago-after all, Bülow was much closer to this music temporally than we are! I would have imagined that a HIP player would be very interested in examining historical editions like Bülow's, rather than the reverse-they tell us much about how music was played at that time.
Still, the issue is a little more subtle than that. Bülow epitomized only one very vibrant tradition, at a very interesting point in history. He was one of the foremost students of Franz Liszt, and widely regarded as one of the greatest musical minds of his day. Whether or not you would agree with this assessment, or consider that his ideas actually represent the "ideal" way to interpret Beethoven's music, it's an interesting enough reputation to warrant some examination. I don't think he deserves to be written off as old-fashioned. If you are going to write him off, then you might as well write off all music from the past and stick to only the most contemporary creations.
As for the rest, we seem to be in agreement about confidence, and conventions etc. Again, I don't think we need to make a fetish about any particular interpretation or convention, but being open to other ideas, and exploring the ideas left behind by past musicians has been highly rewarding on my own musical journey, so I suggest it as a possibility for other musical travelers as well!
Well, if one feels they learned a lot from them - it's hard to argue against that. I'm not in the headspace of the people who believe that, and they might be even *right* in sticking to that conviction.
As I said in my original comment, I don't want young'uns to believe that just because an editor is a figure of authority and great importance in the world of classical music, they must always know what they are doing. I personally want evidence-based research in my sheet music, not speculation. One of the claims these 19th-century editors made (and a chief tenet of these revisionist editions) is that if Mozart had lived to see the modern grand piano, he would have written 8 bar legato arches as well (among other things), therefore "our edition knows best". Malcolm Bilson talks about this in his lectures. This kind of thinking is arrogant and off-putting. Western notation is a deficient enough system to reveal the true "intent" of the composer. To be confronted with the unembellished, barebones version of how the music looks is one of the most critical first steps in learning a new piece. "slightly ridiculous that we are talking about being "up to date" in regards to playing music written 200 years and more ago". I don't think it necessarily is. Musicology, like all research, evolves over time. A century ago, scientists believed that dinosaurs became extinct because of starvation, and they were technically closer to them than we are. We are still discovering new things about ancient Egypt. I don't necessarily follow this slippery slope of "we might as well write off all music of the past". Old pianism is one of my passions, and I think performance practice history should be a mandatory course in all conservatories. I played Bach with a pedal before, and I actually quite like Busoni's Bach interpretations (actually, his whole discography, however small, is a gem). Still, I'm mindful and aware of what I'm engaging in and do not try to justify it with authority (which is something these 19th-century editions did). Overall, I think we agree on more things than we might think. The only thing we have a different opinion about is how highly we rate 19th-century masters talking about 18th-century ones and fingering. I just want to say it's not often you can have an intelligent discussion here on CZcams, so thank you. @@TheIndependentPianist
@@Kris9kris I think we probably do mostly agree here. Not to have the last word (sorry), but I can't help pointing out what appears to me to be a false parallel you've drawn between musicological study and paleontology/archeology etc. The distance in time between scientists in the 1920s and the dinosaurs, or between contemporary scientists and ancient Egypt is orders of magnitude greater than the distance between someone like Bülow and Beethoven. Liszt actually studied with Czerny, so there was something of a link there-although I perfectly realize that the whole "teacher lineage" thing is not justification for following any of their interpretive ideas.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of the advancement of musicology, although I have sometimes been unsettled by the tendency among some HIP performers and writers to elevate contemporary pedagogical texts to an exaggerated level of authority which can result in caricatured performances (at least to my ear). I also do think that the idea that we should automatically throw out anything that any 19th century musician had to say about any 18th century musician is spurious, although of course we shouldn't blindly follow what they say either. I think there was more of a direct stylistic progression from the 18th-19th centuries than has usually been admitted, although no doubt they also had many things they got wrong as well. I think the generally practical and creative approach 19th century musicians took towards music, and the intelligent, malleable way they tended to regard the score is quite inspiring, and also something that they had in common with the 18th century. In the 20th century this practical and creative spirit was often lost among the classical community, even in the HIP crowd.
Thank you again for your comments, it has been a most interesting interchange-and feel free to comment again if you have additional thoughts. I will try to refrain from "one-upping" every comment!
I feel that too…Henle has been lying on Beethoven (Sonatas)…!
I opined that Batok's edition of B's 32 is worth referred to. Also Liszt's edition (i think published by Boworth...... with Liszt's fingering)
Schenker is NOT (i stressed NOT, NOT, NOT) urtext by any definition. It is indeed 1920-30's and published by Universal edition (very very confusing), but Wien Urtext is an urtext edition and is a good alternative to Henle.
One must really refer to Arrau's edition. and also Schnabel...... (and if you are lucky). Goldenweizer edition........
Here's something hilarious. Once there was wider knowledge of Debussy's piano rolls, there was a suggestion that those scores be reedited, on the theory that the rolls were the latest evidence of Debussy's intent.
But remember that when someone said to Debussy "But that"s different from the way I heard you play it before" Debussy said, "But I don't feel it that way!"
So tell me, what is a score?"
You can have the compositon or you can have the score, but not both.