Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Beethoven Pathetique Sonata

I thought I would use my first post at this forum to ask if there are any opinions on the first movement repeat in this sonata. Many editions (including one I own published by Kalmus which claims to be unedited) place the repeat sign after the introduction to commence at the Molto Allegro. I understand that Beethoven's manuscript does not show the sign here and lately I've started to commence the repeat right at the beginning of the sonata when I've played the work. I've become convinced of the rightness of this as the opening motive of the introduction occurs again at the start of the development in a different key. There is a practical advantage, also, that any fatigue experienced as a result of playing the left hand tremolos, particularly on an instrument with a heavy action,can be relieved by not having to recommence the figure straight away.
I have heard only one recording (by Rudolf Serkin) in which the introduction is repeated. I would be interested to know if any other eminent pianists play the work in this way.

Andras Schiff discussed this in one of his wonderful lectures. He claims to always repeat from the Grave. I share this view, although I find that recovery from tremolos is a rather lame excuse, and should not be used when trying to convince a panel of judges that your repeating is correct.

I'm not an eminent pianist (I wish), but I repeat from the Grave as well.

Don't use the tremolo recovery as an excuse though. IMHO the music shouldn't be sacrificed because it's "easier" for the pianist. I know that's not your primary reasoning and it doesn't "sacrifice" anything in this case, but be careful when convincing seasoned musicians (judges).

Thanks for these answers.
I've been playing in public for close on 50 years so I'm fairly "seasoned" myself!
The best way to convince any panel of judges must be by the conviction of your performance.
I am interested to hear that Schiff also repeats from the Grave.
I find that a greater sense of unity is achieved in this movement, especially when repeating the Grave, if the tempo of the introduction is not too slow. If it is taken at a ponderous pace (as many pianists do) the repeat doesn't seem to work naturally.

I heard Craig Sheppard's recording on the radio some months back, and he repeats the Grave. But I will be the first dissenting voice here and say I'm in complete opposition to it.

The Grave is an introduction. Why should it be played twice? All the drama and suspense is diluted the second time around, and furthermore, it upsets the balance of the first movement.

The opening Grave is too long to bear repetition, and as such would trivialize its two later abbreviated occurances.

I agree with Jason, that the function of the Grave is an introduction. And I guess that if Beethoven did not write to repeat .. then don't repeat it

However I am not sure what tradition or performance practice dictates here.

Another example of an obvious not recommended repetition is repeating the exposition in the 1st movement in Chopin's second sonata.

Now, if the Grave is an introduction, why is the theme repeated so much? You hear theme at slow tempo several times. You also hear it in the development of the 1st mvt, and also in the 3rd mvt, although with different rhythm.

The argument for repeating the Grave that convinced me is the chord progression. At the end of the first repeat we have octave Gs in the bass with F, B, D in the treble. The dominant chord nicely resolves to the opening full C minor chord of the grave. I find it does not resolve as well to the open octave C's of the beginning to the allegro section. You would think Beethoven would have lead to the open C's with a B-natural as he does at the end of the Grave section.

Also, the Grave section is integral to the structure of the movement which makes me think it is not merely an 'introduction'. It returns to begin the development section and again at the end of the movement.

I understand Jason's point about the drama and suspense being diluted (a similar point was made by Tovey about the repeat in the last movement of the Apassionata sonata) but it could also be argued (using purely subjective terms!) that this helps to re-inforce the "mood-swings" of the movement (as playadom notes, the opening motive is repeated elsewhere in the movement).
I don't find the opening Grave too long to bear repetition (except when a really leaden tempo is adopted). The rhythm has faint echoes of a French overture style introduction, and it's now generally believed that the slow and heavy early twentieth century way of playing such movements was erroneous....however I realise that this argument is somewhat tenuous in relation to the Beethoven.
Bassio's remark that if Beethoven didn't write the repeat then don't, brings us to the point that he never placed the repeat marks at the start of the allegro so that is why there is an argument that he intended the Grave to be included in the repeat.

Which, to me, is still the most persuasive argument for not repeating the Grave.
Well maybe Beethoven just forgot to put the repeat at the start of the Allegro.

If he hadn't put the repeat at the start of the Vivace in the 7th Symphony, would we be having this same discussion?

Eh? :p

As far as I know, repeating from the beginning of the Grave (which was advocated by our 2nd year Form/analysis lecturer - though not with any but the most general justification) would make this instance pretty unique. Does anyone know if this is not the case? I certainly can't think of another example in Beethoven.


John

I can't think of another Beethoven work offhand in which an opening motive is used after a fermata chord and before the reappearance of the allegro's opening subject both in the development and at the coda. You could argue against making the repeat of the grave that the recapitulation runs straight on from the development section with no reference to the grave figure.
Obviously all those editors who have indicated the repeat from the beginning of the allegro believe that Beethoven just forgot to indicate it there. That's a question to which there can be no definite answer.
In the end it all comes down to a matter of choice and I now feel slightly uncomfortable if I hear the work played without the Grave included in the repeat.

I don't repeat the introduction. I'm convinced that's the correct way to do it. For no reason whatsoever.

...other than the apparent fact that you're trusting your instincts.

...which might have been formed by listening to the performances (recorded or otherwise) of generations of pianists who had used edited editions of this sonata.

I'm currently learning this sonata and am very surprised to learn that there is uncertainty where the first repeat begins - I think I take the 'repeats from the molto allegro' standpoint mainly because I considered the idea as if I was listening to the piece for the first time and I think it would be strange hearing the exact same opening grave section again after the fireworks of the molto allegro. When we get to the Allegro the first time - it makes everyone realise that this movement is 'fast' after all and what we just heard must have been an introduction - I'd be a little disappointed if the music went back to grave and it was exactly the same again - it would be better if something changed, where the music could take a different route i.e. the G minor Grave where we ingeniously go to E minor. I think I just about justified my opinion didn't I?

Also - if you practice those octaves with a 'dead finger weight' in a slow tempo staccato and in different rhythms. They can be achievable on heavy pianos. But I know what you mean - these octaves can be so difficult to master, but I am convinced that the technique is concerned with the fingers and not the wrist as everyone thinks. If there is any difficulty in playing these well, it's because the pinky is ever so slightly tightening up...

I like the fact that you've looked at Beethoven's notation as closely as you have, however, if you look again you'll see that when he "closes out" the exposition the first time his notation is exactly the same as at the end of the Grave (with, obviously, the exception of the extra "g" from the bass octave). Good eye though.

Two year bump?

I've never heard the Pathatique repeated from the Grave... I should check this out!

I love this thread. Thanks for starting it and thanks to JoBert for reminding me to do a search for it. I actually started another thread but I will repost it here. I have never seen an edition (even urtext) that repeats all the way from the beginning. However, after hearing Serkin play it I immediately thought it was so much better musically. All of these posts here have been great for me to read!

Here is my post that I was referring to. Apologies for the duplicate. Next time I will search before starting a new thread ;-).

I am starting to work on this sonata again because I would like to play it at my next recital. It has been years since I have played it and I have always had two question that I never asked about it so I thought I would post it here to see what insight others may have to provide.

I have listened to several pianist's interpretations of this sonata. My favorite interpretations are by Rudolf Serkin and Artur Rubinstein. Here are my two questions with comments:

1. The repeat of the first e con brio section: Rudolf Serkin goes all the way back to the opening Grave section. Artur Rubinstein on the other hand, like all the rest of the pianists I have listened to goes back to the start of the first e con brio section. I prefer the way Serkin does it because I feel that the contrast is needed. I like it so much that if I don't do it, I would prefer not to repeat the first e con brio section at all. I can't believe Serkin did this by mistake while recording it and decided to leave it that way. He was way too good for that IMHO. I am more apt to think that he did his research and decided to specifically play it this way. I would love to hear how others feel about this.

2. The mordents in the e con brio sections: Beethoven specifically wrote them as mordents - not triplets or any other type of ornament for that matter. He wrote them that way on purpose and I want to honor his work by following what he has written. However, when playing at the tempo that I feel the e con brio sections should be played at, I feel it is humanly impossible to play the mordents as written. Serkin takes the e con brio at a tempo that I would expect the e con brio to be played at but IMHO, his execution of the mordents are more like triplets. Rubinstein on the other hand, takes the e con brio at a slightly slower tempo but his execution of the mordents are IMHO as mordents should be played. What do you guys think about how these should be executed?

I know these questions may seem trivial, but they make a world of difference in the portrayal of the piece to the audience IMHO. I can play it either Serkin's or Rubinstein's way for the most part but wanted to get other opinions from members of this forum. It will help me to ultimately decide which way I want to perform this work at my next recital.

Thanks for any guidance/input!

All my best,
FrankieC