Richter's account of the sonata op 2#3 is not as polished as from Gilels or Michelangeli, but I can frankly live without the icy detachment of Gilels in this piece, though not without the above-it-all imperiousness of Michelangeli or the effortless spontaneity of Richter. I'm not sure he is perfectly attuned to the moody and volatile Beethoven of the Bagatelles, but he gets near enough for me to enjoy them.
Which leaves the Hammerklavier. To start with the best, the last movement is splendid -- big, rough and commanding. I like his unusually low-voltage scherzo too, except that the dog-shaking-itself tremolo following the trio doesn't seem to mean much to him. Most of the first movement is fine also. He has the sheer size for it. He does not bring the roof down with the opening chords as Serkin does. I wish he had, but then again Serkin was unique, and maybe Richter was wiser to leave that particular effect to him. What bothers me more is that there is so little 'expressive' music in this movement that I wish Richter had made more of it. The 'arching' theme starting with the rising octave followed by a falling arpeggio is a bit businesslike, and, more seriously, in the heavenly running duet between the hands he misses the significance of the left-hand part altogether. Just listen to Serkin play both these sequences to hear what I mean.
The Adagio is a real interpretative crux. I learned decades ago to admire Solomon here -- quiet, rapt and very slow. Richter is in the same mould, so I, like many, was disconcerted by Serkin with his faster tempo, stronger tone-contrasts, more sparing use of pianissimo and absence of pedal in the wonderful florid transition-theme. Whether Serkin or anyone else has said the last word about this strange fathomless movement I doubt, but a closer look at the score suggests two things to me-- even where the player has the iconic stature of Richter, he will not plumb the genuine depths of the more iconic Beethoven by playing pianissimo where it is not marked or by equating 'una corda' with it-- it is up to Beethoven to decide whether an almost-but-not-quite-slow-waltz is an appropriate accompaniment to to the marvellous transition-theme, not up to the player to obliterate the effect with pedal. B. went to great pains to indicate that these chords are to be played short. And while a dead-slow tempo at the start may give an air of spirituality, to follow it with a jolting gear-change at the transition, as Richter and Solomon do, makes me think it was too slow to start with.
There's an interesting textual point at the reprise of the first movement main theme. The note that leads back the theme is played by Richter and everyone else I can recall -- except one --as A sharp. Beethoven actually wrote A natural, though frankly I prefer A sharp. Guess who the one is who plays what Beethoven wrote.
