Luogo e data di registrazione		Teldec Studio, Berlin (Germania) - 25/26 aprile 1978
	Original Editions		Telefunken | 6.35450 EX | 3 LPs | LC 0366 | durata: 45' 54" · 49' 30" · 42' 52" | (p) 1978 | ANA | stereo
	Edizioni CD		Teldec | 0630-17368-2 | 2 CDs | LC 6019 | durata 68' 27" · 69' 31" | (c) 1997 | ADD | stereo | Remastered Warner Classics "Apex" | 2564 69223-7 | 2 CDs | LC 04281 | durata 68' 31 · 69' 33" | (c) 2009 | ADD | stereo | Remastered
	Executive Producer		Heinrich J. Weritz
	Recording Producer and Tonmeister		?
	Recording Engineer		?
	Cover		Ludwig van Beethoven, Gemälde von J. W. Mähler, 1815
	Art Direction		?
	Note		-

BUCHBINDER & BEETHOVEN 6 LPs - 6.5289 FK - (p) 1976 6 LPs - 6.35368 FK - (p) 1977 3 LPs - 6.35450 EX - (p) 1978

Complete works for cello and piano The laws of art are often unfathomable; not infrequently its further paths, its fate, appear to he even more unfathontable. This once again becomes evident From the Beethovcn cello works which even still today - particularly as an integrated unit - tend to be regarded as a part of the unknown Beethoven. The especial element of Beethoven's autograph works deserved interest in certain part sectors. and this is most definitely the case with the works introduced here; for in their own way they provide an indication of Beethoven's general compositional development. A new aspect is treatment of the instrumental duet as such, but a further new element is Beethoven's method towards simultaneous creative work in other fields. The two last sunatas op. 102 are unparalleled works which, composed at such an early period, point to a style in the far distant future. "Deux Grandes Sonates pour le Clavecin ou Pianoforte avec un Violoncelle obligée" is the title of the two sonatas op. 5. In this connection the noteworthy point is not only that the cello - contrary to present-day understanding - does not appear as accompanying instrument to the piano, but that there is express reference to obbligato application. This is a rejection of the old baroque practice of a solo instrument with basso continuo accompaniment, with corresponding liberties of the accompanist as his own contribution. That this reference in the present edition was not a mere coincidence is apparent from Beethoven's more express instructions in a different context. Just a few years later he wrote to the Leipzig publisher Hoffmeistet concerning the parts of his septer op. 20: "Tutti obligati. (I cannot write anything non-nbbligato because l already came into the world with an obbligato accompaniment". Thus Beethoven was less concerned with creating a fundamentally fresh style for the cello sonata, than coining a new form of the solo sonata with two firmly interrelated instrumental parts; over and above this, the cello departed from its heterogeneous function of mere reinforcement of the bass and was given a self-sufficient and independent significance. As regards individual works, it is always advisable to enquire as to the particular occasion. Beethoven had written the op. 5 sonatas in 1796 during a visit to Berlin for Pierre Duport, the first cellist of the Prussian Court Orchestra. and performed it together with him at the court. In his way he probably took to heart what Christian Friedrich Daniel Schubart had once said about Duport: "He plays the violoncello with such magic power that it is difficult to find anybody in Europe to equal him. He guides the bow as in a storm and rains down notes. He rises above and beyond the extreme heights of the fingerboard and finally disappears in the rnost delicate harmonics“. Incidentally King Friedrich Wilhelm II of Prussia, to whom the sonata was dedicated, was also an expert in this field; he enjoyed Duport's tuition and was regarded as a diligent cellist and keen chamber music player. As is the case with most of the piano works. the cello works are also orientated to the forms of the sonata and of the theme with variations. The sonatas op. 5 bear their own stamp in so far as each consists of two movements and waives the usual slow middle movement as well as the scherzo; both have an adagto introduction as the opening movement, and a rondo as the concluding movement. In his endeavour to bring the cello more strongly into the foreground, Beethoven by no means neglected the piano part, as one can already see at the beginning of the 1' sonata. At the end of the brief adagio introduction it makes a brilliant impression with a wide-ranging cadenza-like passage. But even the allegro beginning which immediately follows on indicates that the piano is allotted the task, appropriately accorded to the orchestra in instrumental concrtos, of guiding the themes of the solo. Furthermore there are themes which appear to be inspired purely and simply by the cello - passages and cantilenas at any rate which in all positions are able to emphasise the unmistakable singularity of the instrument. Beethoven had always been a master of the art of contrasts and especially so when it was a matter of such markedly individual characters such as the piano and cello. This contrast-related design is rnost effective in the mobile forward-pressing first theme compared to the retarding syncopated beats of the second theme. The conspicuous thematic diversity, which incidentally the two sonatas have in common, results in Beethoven to a large extent abandoning his usual technique of motif and thematic development in favour of freer and more imaginative progress. In many respects the second sonata already seems to be somewhat further developed; although featuring several common aspects in the overall attitude, it nevertheless displays a noticeable increase in expression. From the outset, the beginning recalls the mood of the pathos-laden piano sonatas which are so typical of Beethoven; we hear mighty chords and dotted rhythms which are further developed throughout the entire introduction. The lively dialogue between the two instruments at the beginning of the allegro makes a most charming impression, especially in preparation of the spirited focal point which is accompanied by piano triplets. The most genuine Beethoven is quite clearly heard in the concluding rondo, a delightful sample of his much-lauded humour, as if created specifically for the virtuoso arts of an executant of Duport’s calibre. It reminds the listener of Beethoven’s frequently expressed preference for swelling finales. No detailed information has been passed on concerning the Beethoven-Duport performance. With the Sonata in A major op. 69, composed more than ten years later, Beethoven most probably wanted to compensate his friend Ignaz von Gleichenstein, for whom the Piano Concerto in G major op. 58 was originally intended but to whom it was not, in fact, subsequently dedicated. Gleichenstein was by profession a planner at the royal and imperial court war council, as was also Beethoven's friend Stephan von Breuning. Beethoven appreciated Gleichenstein for his education, his kind-heartedness and also on account of his excellent cello playing. The diverse pastimes of the two friends went as far as a joint search for a bride. Gleichenstein was tactful enough not to want to be immortalised with his official title in the first edition of the work; this can be seen from the correspondence between Beethoven and his publisher. Dedication of the work to Gleichenstein may have prompted Beethoven to reduce the virtuoso demands somewhat - something which he was able to make up for in other sectors. Right from the beginning the cello alone is heard playing a splendid melody, an absolutely first-class example of the instruments beautiful sonorous depths. The fact that the thematic sequence of this sonata to a large degree renounces contradictory elements should not be prematurely construed as a weakness in the work. At least in a clear indication of self-reliance in the cello part we observe a sign of increasing maturity. The only astounding aspect is how the Fifth Symphony, a completely different type of work, with its extremely compulsive germinating motif developments, could have been composed in the same creative phase as this cello sonata, as is evident from an examination of the sketches. Worthy of particular note is the scherzo, which already has an unusually high standing because of its external dimensions: 519 bars compared with 280 bars in the opening movement and 220 in the finale. In this case too an adagio is limited to a brief introduction into the finale, a period of quiet before the storm which appears to have more of an interim function than a significance of its own. Beethoven’s correspondence with his publisher concerning this sonata proves, inter alia, the importance of the dynamic marks in which even Beethoven himself did not always seem to be infallible. In a letter dated 3 August, 1809 for instance he writes: "Do not laugh about my author-like apprehension. Just imagine, I find that in correcting the mistakes in the violoncello sonata I have made new errors. Therefore: in the scherzo allegro molto this ff remains as it was indicated in the first places". - And indeed the scherzo does not live too frugally from the dynamic refinements. Personal relationships are also associated with the two sonatas in C major and D major op. 102. They were dedicated to Countess Marie Erdödy and evidently intended for her and the cellist Joseph Linke who was closely connected with her music-loving home. Beethoven’s cordial relations with this countess are reflected in numerous letters which have been preserved. But precisely at this point the question has to be asked as to how much the dedication of these works has to do with her singular figure. Even contemporaries did not refrain from expressing fitting criticism. The "Allgcmeine Musikalische Zeitung" of 11 November, 1818 wrote: "These two sonatas are quite definitely among the most unusual and peculiar written for the pianofotte for a long time, not only in this form but generally. Everything here is different, quite different. from what we have otherwise received, even from this master himself. We trust he will not take it amiss if we add that not a little as it is written here now, and as it is arranged, published and distributed, also appears to be designed in such a way that it will emerge in a quite unusual, quite strange fashion". What was attracting adverse criticism here in its initial stages was nothing else but Beethoven's late style. now appearing ro an increasing extent, about the unfavourable reception of which he himself had no illusions; for a little while later he countered complaints about the disagreeable, difficult style of his piano sonata op. 101 with his own philosophy that "difficult" was a relative term, but that for the rest the maxim applied: "what is difficult is also beautiful, good, great etc. Every man will therefore see that this is the biggest praise that one can give, since what is difficult makes one eweat". The departure from the well-trodden paths is most noticeable in the C major sonata in as much as the usual cyclic sequence is only hinted at in the time changes with a corresponding change in the musical course, while basically the entire work consists of a single imagination-permeated movement. In addition to this the motif and thematic development remains extremely free and unbound. Beethoven, evidently quite intentionally, replaces the customary thematic compactness of his thoughts by an often seemingly stereotyped, short-winded motif-thematic entity which the two instruments play towards each other at brief intcrvals, occasionally even using stretto style. This is effected with a generally unmistakable tendency towards that polyphonic manner of composition which was to become so typical of Beethoven’s late style. Development is in many cases shifted only to the rhythmic and dynamic sectors. Similarly the so characteristic trills of the late piano sonatas and quartets are not omitted in this strange game of the, so to speak, disembodied and spiritualised elements. In many respects Beethoven takes a somewhat more "conciliatory" line in the second sonata. This appears to be announced in the srnall. compact melodic arc of the introductory piano bars, especially since this is continued in a beautifully sweeping cantilena on the cello. Once again the whole is essentially a richly-inspired fantasia, but this time one with more marked concepts and a longer range. A clear pointer to the future are the harmonic liberties in the development which never before had been experienced to this extent in Beethoven's works. In the course of greater compactness of the individual sonata movements, a slow movement is now also able to achieve greater development. It is one of those strongly expressive adagios which were already to be found in Beethoven's early piano sonatas. Eight bars of solemn, choir-like striding and luxuriating in beautifully full tones precede the momentous theme declaiming "con molto sentimento d'affetto", which appears eminently to bring out the expressive range of the violoncello. A rhapsodic, free further development of this concept is joined by a simple, initially song-like and then variation-type part, in which the illuminating major key has a liberating and relaxing effect. What then follows is a restrained conclusion related to the beginning. By way of some timid, brief movcs which recall the beginning of the finale of the First Symphony, the adagio proceeds directly into the concluding movement, a construction which probably is the clearest anticipation of Beethoven's late style. This is one of Beethoven's so typical mixtures of an initially strict fugue - in this case in four parts - with highly diverse motif modification of individual component parts. One enters a world of abstract, constructivist polyphony, with lively reminders of Bach, in which the spirit of the grand fugue clearly flares up from the region of the last quartet. Beethoven's apparent struggle for new stylistic possibilities is not the only reason why these two sonatas are accorded a key position in his creative output. It also has to be borne in mind that these are the only two larger instrumental works which Beethoven composed in this particular year, 1815. A symphony and a piano concerto did not get beyond the planning stage at that time. In the normal course of events Beethoven did not accord a great deal of significance to his variation works; as far as the effort put into them was concerned they sometimes hardly differed from his extempore improvisations. The outsider might evaluate them differently. At any rate, most of the variation works were consciously not alloted opus numbers. The reasons are obscure as to how the variations on "Ein Mädchen oder Weibchen" from Mozart's "Magic Flutes" came to be listed as opus 66. For all this, the work does not take its place between op. 65 and op. 67. The twelve variations on a theme from Handel's "Judas Maccabaeus" were presumably composed in 1796, the year in which the two sonatas op. 5 were written. This was an carly act of homage to the master whom Beethoven greatly revered throughout his life. This is also reflected musically in occasional conspicuous traits of the organ toccata and the cottcerto gtosso, as well as a tendency towards polyphonic compositional style. Beethoven most likelz became acouainted with Handel's works in the home of the art loving Baron van Swieten in the early Vienna years. A point worth mentioning here is the independent role also accorded in this case to the cello. Mozart's "Magic Flute" was one of Viennaßs really big operatic attractions at that time and thus it is hardly surprising that Beethoven on two occasions composed variation-type developments on themes from the work. The twelve variations in F major on "Ein Mädchen oder Weibchen" were written in connection with the original edition, which appeared in September, 1798, or probably just before this. A notable point here is that this time Beethoven slightly altered the theme in as much as he lets the second part - which in Mozart's version is written in 6/8 time - carry on in the 2/4 time of the beginning. Incidentally, this is the first Beethoven work reviewed in the famous "Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitungt", albeit hardly to the composerßs delight. What the journal took amiss, however, was not for instance Beethovenßs arbitrary alteration of the theme, but his all too bold modulations, transitions and hardness, particularly in Variation XII, where he modulates from F major to D major, then falling back again to F major. Beethoven's merit as regards the independent leading of the cello was not one of the questions which was dear to the heart of the reviewer at that time. The seven variations on "Bei Männern, welche Liebe fühlen" prohahly owe their existence to two extremely successful repeat performances of the Magic Flute in 1801. With regard to these variations. the reviewer thought that they were not among the excellent works usually expected of Beethoven, but nevertheless conceded: "Anybody wanting to perform these cello parts must he a consummate master of his instrument". As an example of Beethoverßs variation compositions at that time, these variations are of intrinsic value in as much as they were composed close to the time in which the two famous piano variations op. 34 and op. 35 were written, which Beethoven himself emphasised as being at the crossroads of a completely new trend marking the turn towards the middle style period. In actual fact, in several passages of the afore-mentioned Magic Flute variations one is reminded of op. 34. by Hans Schmidt (English translation by Frederik A. Bishop)