On the polar side of interpretative tradition of Beethoven sonatas Hans von Bülow should be mentioned at this point. He proposed another model of recital programs, approaching the historical concerts from the intellectual structure line and defining the performance as an eloquent pianist.
Bülow strictly disapproved elementary recital programs with short piano pieces, rather he wanted to develop such an encyclopedic design of the presented works. His performance of the last five piano sonatas by Beethoven on a single concert evening produced enthusiasm and rejection at the same time. He simply caused this kind of reaction because he intended to “educate” the audience to achieve a higher intellectual perception and understanding of Beethoven’s musical message.

The quintessence of Beethoven interpretation probably remains a matter of taste. The reception of Beethoven’s music by the audience has been mostly influenced by the personality of the pianist and his own execution of the works.
Nevertheless the unavoidable question of choosing between a faithful reading of the score and a more creative, even inventive and inspiring interpretation still characterizes the main concern.

By paying attention to the concert scene, I notice that today’s concert pianists seem to follow the musical text adherence as a rule for the interpretation of Beethoven sonatas.
Text adherence does not necessary mean to express the intrinsic being of Beethoven.
The creator of a masterwork is greater than his creation, the mental form of his work contains more than the written indications using notes, dynamic instructions, pedal signs and tempi.
I truly believe that pianists who are seeking for the right interpretation of Beethoven sonatas should try to discover the truth in between the written notes. This truth may appear hidden at first glance, but understanding Beethoven is nothing but a work in progress…

“Beethoven wrote everything in the score!” – some insiders would certainly affirm that. And it is true.
But most pianists seem to forget, or at least, to let expression completely aside when playing Beethoven.
The musical power of communicating was the real language that Beethoven consequently used to express all thinkable human emotions. From anger to serenity, from sadness to happiness, from pain to freedom, from resignation to joy. Each Beethoven sonata is a reflection of his spirit at that particular time of the Opus number and year thereof. When a pianist is playing his sonatas, then he is reading his musical diary. When a pianist has understood those works, then he is experiencing Beethoven.

Meeting Beethoven means facing his spirit. This can be possible only when letting go the inspiration through the expression of his works. Interpretation is not just textual fidelity to the score, it is far more than that. It is discovering the truth between the notes, understanding the meaning of an abstract language like black lines and signs and points on the paper, it is finally enhancing the human power of expression to reach the spiritual need of the soul.
That´s Beethoven, force of spirit.

Unfortunately, most pianists are not aware of this, they prefer to stay attached to the music text, thinking this is interpretation.

A look inside this topic in the upcoming essay on Artist’s thoughts.

Sometimes his performances have been criticized as “cold”, without the proper expression of feelings in the music.
But his intention was targeted at an execution of the composer´s work to the letter, he saw himself as an interpreter, being just between the composer´s message and the receiver – the audience.
He didn´t want to “recreate” the work, rather be captured and dissolved in the music.

Richter was enigmatic, a personality outside every normal path of musician. Probably, that´s why he gained his fame.

We don´t need to approve all his ideas and interpretations. Yet there are some performances of Sviatoslav Richter which are simply overwhelming and distinguish his charisma from other pianists.
Even Glenn Gould praised him as “one of the most powerful communicators the world of music has produced in our time”.

Unfortunately, Vladimir Bakk is no more with us. He died 2007 at age 63. Quite sad that he didn´t get the proper recognition during his life. The few videos of his performances on YouTube pay tribute to this pianistic genius.
Vladimir Bakk should become an inspiration to all those pianists who want to reach everybody´s heart and soul through the music…

What characterized the particular style of playing and interpretation that made Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli so unforgettable?
He was obsessed with technical perfection and totally exact reproduction of the score.
His devotion to the music was incredibly deep, it is known that he spent hours and hours on his practicing sessions.
I had my first impression of Benedetti Michelangeli when I was a student at the music conservatory of my home town Cagliari. My father told me a lot about this pianist, trying to motivate me to practice more like he did.
I first listened to some of his recordings, I remember to be quite impressed about his Brahms-Paganini Variations and Bach-Busoni Chaconne. Later I literally admired his recording of Ravel Piano Concerto G Major and Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto G Minor No.4 Op.40.

I thought first that his interpretations were too polite, or even unemotional, because of the exact technique and perfection. But I was able to discover soon his real signature: his beautiful and incomparable singing tone.
When playing a melodic phrase or a cantilena he let sing the piano, with his noble touch and his high-class art of making music.

Don´t forget that Benedetti Michelangeli had a deep knowledge of the instrument, he knew every detail about the piano action and he was rigorous in demanding a perfect calibration of the keyboard as well as accurate voicing. Those requirements about the piano are always necessary to grant a professional performance to a pianist, and that is what he also consequently did.

I wish I would have had the opportunity to hear him live, but it didn’t come to it, unfortunately. I can imagine how powerful and hypnotizing his performances have been for the audience. He was certainly an influential personality as a pianist and musician.
By all means his spirit of total sacrifice to the music was exemplary and his being a pianist was more than a profession, it was his life.

There are basically two types of musicians: the first ones declare their artistic Credo remaining true to the score, the others rather prefer to remain true to the musical masterwork. The first kind of musicians is strictly approaching the written notes. The score represents an indispensable fundament for the study and the examination of the composer´s work. To understand the composition means to capture exactly the text of the score, almost being obsessed with details. An analytic artist doesn´t question the written indications of the composer, as soon as the musical thought is put down on paper, the masterwork shows its perfection. The artist is not reflecting anymore, he just needs to achieve an accurate performance at the instrument to justify his exact study and faithfully approaching the score.
Sometimes this artist also makes use of additional helping methods for his meticulous analysis of the score, for example consulting different versions of the composition by other editions. But those editions only provide a basis for him to come closer and closer to the original message of the composer. Actually, the perfect solution would be having a personal communication with the creator of the musical work, the artist would have the official opportunity to honour the untouchable authority of the composer, he would serve the master by following exactly his musical specifications. Those artists consider this analytic procedure as the way to THE interpretation (Example: Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli).

An interesting metaphor could be mentioned at this point: a professional cook wants to prepare traditional exquisite dishes for his special guests and for this occasion he will be using the recipe of an old master of cuisine. He just follows the specifications of the recipe, ingredients must be exactly selected and mixed together. The dish must be prepared as the old master noticed, so the cook would honour his untouchable authority about cuisine. The dish is served to the guests. For the cook, this is COOKING.

Now we go to the second group of musicians. Those artists are focussing on the composition as a masterwork. The composition is considered as a fundament and at the same time as a source of inspiration for the study and direct approach to the composer. This artist wants to know more about the composer´s personality, he puts the score on a different perspective, using it as a directory and language of the author himself. In this case the artist perfectly understands the musical expression of the composer, being able to create an appropriate performance of the work. Reflecting, questioning, making thesis, antithesis and synthesis about the musical work guide the artist to the truth of the composition. He raises himself from servant to equal. The artist meets the composer and the composer needs the artist to execute his musical testament. For those artists this is the absolute way to achieve the musical INTERPRETATION (Example: Shura Cherkassky, Glenn Gould, and with respect, my humble self).

Here is the related metaphor: our cook wants to prepare the traditional exquisite dishes for his special guests. He has the recipe of the old master of cuisine. But he wants to know more about the master and his recipe, why he selected those particular ingredients, in which occasion the master prepared the dishes, in which manner he used to prepare them. The cook just wants to create a new recipe, perhaps being more creative with the ingredients, he wants to cook like his master did. He wants to become himself a master of cuisine, being able to prepare an excellent dinner to highly satisfy his guests. The dish is served, this procedure is COOKING and at the same time TASTING for our cook.

Back to our two artists: the first one wants to perform the composition, the second one wants to re-compose, to interpret and to deliver the composition to the listener. The first one is positioning himself between composer and listener, the second one is inviting the composer, the interpreter and the listener to join one single room. In this room all truly experience music, doing like the cook, the butler and the guests: they are joining all together the same table for dinner.