Shostakovich metronome marks
Christopher Howell
and its metronome mark, I commented that Shostakovich was an example
of a modern composer who had insisted on observance of his metronome
marks, only to find that his metronome was out of order and had been
for years.
A reader approached me privately, asking what my source was.
It's no always easy to track down the source of something you've
"known" for a long time, but in the end I remembered:
Here it is, from a September 1970 review in Gramophone of a reissue of
Efrem Kurtz's 1958 recording of Shostakovich 1. The reviewer was
Malcolm MacDonald.
"... many of the tempi are too fast. Reviewing the original mono issue
in March 1958 RF [Roger Fiske] gave the history of these speeds: a
feeling on Kurtz's part that Shostakovich's indicated metronome speeds
were wrong; an appeal to the composer; an instruction to keep to the
metronome marks; obedience, to a great extent, to that instruction.
But there are still two unknown factors in the equation: did
Shostakovich know, at the time, that his metronome had been out of
order for years; and did he hear and aprove the result of his
instruction in terms of music, not of metronome marks?"
This is only a secondary source, though. MM writes as though it were
common knowledge that Shostakovich had had problems with his metronome
but doesn't state how he knew. I suppose if Shostakovich had issued a
caveat to his metronome marks some time in the 1960s it would have
created quite a stir at the time but has maybe been forgotten since.
Can anyone here recall any statement of the kind?
Chris Howell
John
For what it's worth, I recall an article written back in the late 60s/
early 70s, which related how Previn quizzed Shostakovich about his
tempi. I believe Shostakovich's reply was "whatever you think best" --
or words to that effect. Sorry I can't be more specific.
Dontait...@aol.com
There was a thread here a few months ago that led to this subject.
Unfortunately, it wasn't the initial subject of the thread, as I
recall, so I have no idea how you might locate it by an archive
search.
What I recall is that someone else mentioned that Shostakovich's
metronome was faulty and that what he put in his scores was therefore
also not what he wanted. Also that he eventually acknowledged it.
What led me to reply was a story I read somewhere about Toscanini.
Unfortunately, I can't remember where. Anyway, it had to do with a
reception in New York City at the Soviet consulate during World War
II. Toscanini was there. A Soviet diplomat, knowing about Toscanini's
American premiere of Shostakovich's Symphony no. 7 (and perhaps about
his repeated performances of Shostakovich's Symphony no. 1), asked
Toscanini why he had never conducted Shostakovich's Symphony no. 5.
Toscanini is said to have replied that he knew the score, liked and
admired it, and would like to conduct it -- but that in his opinion
the metronome marks made it impossible to perform the work to the best
effect. Since he didn't want to disobey the composer's intentions, he
felt he couldn't perform the work.
Sorry I can't say where I read that. But I know I did. I must
search.
Don Tait
Dontait...@aol.com
>snip<
> For what it's worth, I recall an article written back in the late 60s/
> early 70s, which related how Previn quizzed Shostakovich about his
> tempi. I believe Shostakovich's reply was "whatever you think best" --
> or words to that effect. Sorry I can't be more specific.
I never saw that. It would be very interesting.
Shostakovich must have changed his feelings over the years. He had
repeated correspondence, and a couple of conflicts, with Serge
Koussevitzky about tempi (mainly) during the 1940s. In one instance,
Shostakovich had received lacquer discs of a Koussevitzky/BSO
broadcast of Symphony no. 8. He complained about various things,
including Koussevitzky's tempi. After some correspondence,
Koussevitzky abandoned the recording of the symphony he'd begun for
RCA Victor (1946, I think) after only the first movement was done.
Much to be regretted. The test pressings of movement 1 reveal a
performance of colossal power and emotional intensity, and the
broadcast recordings of the complete symphony don't seem that
different from later performances by Mravinsky and others.
Koussevitzky then ran into trouble with Shostakovich about Symphony
no. 9. SK championed it in the USA from the start, then started to
record it for RCA Victor in (I think) 1946. He had test pressings sent
to Shostakovich -- who criticized SK's tempo for the slow movement.
Koussevitzky arranged for RCA Victor to re-record the movement, but it
took about a year.
Don Tait
John
I haven't heard the Koussevitsky recordings and therefore I'm not in a
position to comment. Perhaps Shostakovich, by 1970, had reached the
stage where he really didn't care very much, but I'm only guessing. I
*think* the article I cited appeared in 'Gramophone' and I'll dig it
out if I can. As everything is a complete shambles at present, that
might take quite some time! But I'll find it -- sooner or later. Now I
think about it, Previn might only have had the 5th and 8th in mind.
M forever
Shostakovich made recordings of some of his piano works, so it should
be a fairly easy exercise to compare these recordings to the metronome
markings he wrote for these works, and figure out whether his
metronome was "broken" or not. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I
am inclined not to believe that. If his metronome was broken,
Shostakovich probably noticed that. I don't think Shostakovich was an
idiot.
Matthew�B.�Tepper
typed in news:edf07a07-f6fa-4719-a01f-7edc0e5d0746
@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> Koussevitzky then ran into trouble with Shostakovich about Symphony no. 9.
> SK championed it in the USA from the start, then started to record it for
> RCA Victor in (I think) 1946. He had test pressings sent to Shostakovich --
> who criticized SK's tempo for the slow movement. Koussevitzky arranged for
> RCA Victor to re-record the movement, but it took about a year.
Correct, except that it was the Scherzo, not the slow movement. There exists
a broadcast with what I presume was Koussevitzky's "original" tempi, and it
was issued on ASDisc; but unfortunately, the timings on the back cover lump
the last three movements of the work together, so it is not immediately
possible for me to make a comparison with the commercial recording, which I
only recently picked up in its CD transfer on Biddulph. (I used to have the
three-LP RCA box of Koussevitzky recordings which included the symphony.)
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
ronwhit
> Dontaitchic...@aol.com appears to have caused the following letters to be
Matthew, I think Don is correct on this -- it was the second movement
that Shostakovich complained about Koussevitzky's tempi being too
slow. That movement was remade five months later, this time taking
only two sides versus the original three.
This was all explained in Edward Young's discography.
Ron Whitaker
Christopher Howell
>
> Shostakovich made recordings of some of his piano works, so it should
> be a fairly easy exercise to compare these recordings to the metronome
> markings he wrote for these works, and figure out whether his
> metronome was "broken" or not. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I
> am inclined not to believe that. If his metronome was broken,
> Shostakovich probably noticed that. I don't think Shostakovich was an
> idiot.- Nascondi testo citato
>
My original correspondent has come back to me with a link to an
article in the Daily Telegraph of May 19 2005, an interview by
Geoffrey Norris with Valentin Berlinsky, cellist of the Borodin 4tet
for over 60 years. It includes this:
"The music of Shostakovich has become one of their mainstays. They
played the Third Quartet from manuscript in 1947, and thereafter the
Borodins and Shostakovich forged a close bond of friendship. They
often played works through to him. Did he offer any interpretative
tips? "Sometimes he commented on our tempos. We'd say that we were
only following his own metronome marks, and his reply was, 'My
metronome at home is broken. Don't pay any attention to my metronome
marks.' "
Recognizing that your metronome is "broken" isn't a question of being,
or not being, an idiot. If you set your metronome to 60 and it ticks
evenly, why should you call it into doubt, even if it's really ticking
70 or 50 to the minute? What is the level at which you would get
suspicious and count the number of ticks it's actually giving in one
minute? Well over ten either way, I'd suggest.
Chris Howell
Christopher Howell
A Soviet diplomat, knowing about Toscanini's
> American premiere of Shostakovich's Symphony no. 7 (and perhaps about
> his repeated performances of Shostakovich's Symphony no. 1), asked
> Toscanini why he had never conducted Shostakovich's Symphony no. 5.
> Toscanini is said to have replied that he knew the score, liked and
> admired it, and would like to conduct it -- but that in his opinion
> the metronome marks made it impossible to perform the work to the best
> effect. Since he didn't want to disobey the composer's intentions, he
> felt he couldn't perform the work.
>
> Sorry I can't say where I read that. But I know I did. I must
> search.
>
> Don Tait- Nascondi testo citato
>
A fascinating story. But, given that Toscanini was happy to tell Ravel
he didn't understand his own music (over the tempo for Bolero), why
should he have hesitated to treat Shostakovich the same way?
Chris Howell
Gerard
> >
> A fascinating story. But, given that Toscanini was happy to tell Ravel
> he didn't understand his own music (over the tempo for Bolero), why
> should he have hesitated to treat Shostakovich the same way?
>
> Chris Howell
Maybe because Ravel did not care much about his Bolero?
Dontait...@aol.com
The Toscanini/Ravel/Bolero business has been told not only many
times, but in many ways. An excellent description of it is in Harvey
Sachs's "Toscanini," still the most balanced and researched Toscanini
biography. As Sachs tells it, it is a strange story, particularly
about Ravel. Sachs writes on page 199, about the Toscanini/NY
Philharmonic concerts in Paris in 1930:
"There was a strange and puzzling occurrence at the second concert,
which included Ravel's Bolero. The composer was present and, according
to news reports, refused to take a bow after the playing of his piece
because he felt that Toscanini's tempo had been too fast. On 6 May
Ravel wrote to his friend Helene Kahn-Casella:
'Too bad you didn't come backstage: there was quite a little scene.
People were upset that I had the audacity to tell the great virtuoso
that it was twice too fast. I only went for that...but he is a
marvellous virtuoso, all the same -- as marvellous as his orchestra.'
And two days later, to Ida Godebska:
'If I was seen at the Opera it was only because I knew that
Toscanini was taking a ridiculous tempo in the Bolero and I wanted to
tell him so, which upset everyone, including the great virtuoso.'
In September, however, Ravel wrote to Toscanini:
'My dear friend, I have recently learned that there was a Toscanini-
Ravel "affair." You yourself are undoubtedly unaware of it, although I
have been assured that the papers have spoken of it: it seems that I
refused to stand at the Opera in order to punish you for not having
taken the correct tempo in the Bolero.
'I have always felt that if the composer does not take part in a
performance of his work, he must not receive the applause, which must
then be directed only to the performer of the work, or both.
Unfortunately, I was badly -- or too well -- placed to have my
abstention pass unnoticed. Therefore, in order that my attitude not be
misunderstood, I tried, in turning toward you, to applaud and thank
you. But -- wouldn't you know it -- maliciousness lends itself to
"sensational" news better than does the truth....'
And only ten days later Ravel again wrote Toscanini:
'This is only to tell you that I would very much wish to have the
premiere of the Concerto [for the Left Hand] which I have written for
Wittgenstein to be given by you and the admirable orchestra which you
have shaped. And I am sure that Wittgenstein will not feel
differently.'
Sachs adds (page 200):
"One can hardly fail to notice that after all of the stir over the
wrong tempo, Ravel's sweet and conciliatory first letter to Toscanini
-- four months after the event -- is followed amazingly quickly by the
request for the Concerto premiere. I do not know whether Toscanini
replied to Ravel's letters; but although he never conducted the
Concerto, he continued to conduct other Ravel works during the rest of
his career." (Including Bolero.)
One thing that is not mentioned in this, however, is that Toscanini
told Ravel that he didn't understand his own music (the tempo for
Bolero). Based upon everything I have ever heard or read about him, it
would be entirely out of character for him, and Ravel doesn't mention
it it his letters about their backstage meeting. Where did you find
that, if I may ask?
Don Tait
M forever
That looks more like "anecdotal evidence" to me. Something he
allegedly said many decades ago, perhaps jokingly, with the
implication that while he apparently found it important to follow the
"letter of the score", he wanted more than just a technically correct
execution of what's written in there.
Shostakovich was known to be a very meticulous composer who worked on
every detail until he thought it was just right (more than just
"anecdotal" evidence for this can be found in many places, e.g.
Tassie's Mravinsky biography which describes in detail how both men
worked meticulously on every detail in preparation of the premieres,
and it also lists examples of correspondence between the two about
many small details in the scores). Most musicians have a rather good
feel for tempi and since the ticking of seconds is a very well known
quantity encountered in daily life, he would have noticed if his
metronome was more than just a few clicks off, not even as many as 10
per minute.
Like I said, a more solid way of getting an idea about this would be
to compare his own recordings with the tempo indications, to see if he
generally followed them himself, if they are generally too fast or too
slow, or what degree of freedom he "allowed" himself while playing his
own works.
Bob Lombard
Not being a musician, much less a composer, the relevance of this
observation is unknown to me: subjective time has very little
relationship to real time. Even when Shostakovitch performed his music,
he would have to hear it played back to know if he conformed to his
'indicated tics'.
bl
Matthew�B.�Tepper
typed in news:df34e867-2fcc-4c87-87bf-
b7482b...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> And only ten days later Ravel again wrote Toscanini:
>
> 'This is only to tell you that I would very much wish to have the
> premiere of the Concerto [for the Left Hand] which I have written for
> Wittgenstein to be given by you and the admirable orchestra which you
> have shaped. And I am sure that Wittgenstein will not feel differently.'
And yet, Toscanini did not conduct the premiere. Wikipedia says it was
Robert Heger and the VSO. I wonder what happened here? Did Toscanini hear
what a bad player Wittgenstein actually was?
Christopher Howell
> One thing that is not mentioned in this, however, is that Toscanini
> told Ravel that he didn't understand his own music (the tempo for
> Bolero). Based upon everything I have ever heard or read about him, it
> would be entirely out of character for him, and Ravel doesn't mention
> it it his letters about their backstage meeting. Where did you find
> that, if I may ask?
>
> Don Tait- Nascondi testo citato
Trying to search my memory, I think I heard it on a programme about
Toscanini on Italian Radio, maybe over 20 years ago, and perhaps I
accepted it a little too easily. It's impossible to say without more
evidence whether this is some radio presenter's semi-fantasized
account of the event as related by Sachs and in Ravel's letters, or
whether Toscanini really did say something like that at rehearsal and
Ravel preferred to play it down.
As for such a remark being out of character, if I didn't mentally
query the story when I heard it, it was because I had always
understood that insulting everybody in sight when in a bad temper was
something of a Toscanini speciality and so it didn't jar with what I
already knew.
Chris Howell
Gerard
> Dontait...@aol.com appears to have caused the following letters
> to be typed in news:df34e867-2fcc-4c87-87bf-
> b7482b...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>
> > And only ten days later Ravel again wrote Toscanini:
> >
> > 'This is only to tell you that I would very much wish to have the
> > premiere of the Concerto [for the Left Hand] which I have written
> > for Wittgenstein to be given by you and the admirable orchestra
> > which you have shaped. And I am sure that Wittgenstein will not
> > feel differently.'
>
> And yet, Toscanini did not conduct the premiere. Wikipedia says it
> was Robert Heger and the VSO. I wonder what happened here?
Didn't Don write that he _never_ conducted the piece?
Dontait...@aol.com
> Dontaitchic...@aol.com appears to have caused the following letters to be
> typed in news:df34e867-2fcc-4c87-87bf-
> b7482b36a...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>
> > And only ten days later Ravel again wrote Toscanini:
>
> > � �'This is only to tell you that I would very much wish to have the
> > premiere of the Concerto [for the Left Hand] which I have written for
> > Wittgenstein to be given by you and the admirable orchestra which you
> > have shaped. And I am sure that Wittgenstein will not feel differently.'
>
> And yet, Toscanini did not conduct the premiere. �Wikipedia says it was
> Robert Heger and the VSO. �I wonder what happened here? �Did Toscanini hear
> what a bad player Wittgenstein actually was?
Maybe Toscanini just wasn't interested in the work? (He never
conducted Ravel's G Major Concerto either.) Or there was no pianist
around, Wittgenstein or another for the G Major, who made him want to
perform the works? One wants to know, yes?
Don Tait