Brahms Symphonies repeats
Kerrison
movement repeat in Brahms's 1st Symphony. Am I right in thinking that
this repeat, and indeed the one in the first movement of Brahms's 2nd,
was never observed, either on disc or in the concert-hall, by all the
'greats' of the past, such as Toscanini, Furtwangler, Weingartner,
Klemperer, and so on? In Toscanini's case, since he always used to say
"Do as written," it seems odd that he did not "do as written" when it
came to those repeats.
I believe they weren't observed on record until the 1960s when Kertesz
did them for Decca, though I speak from memory. But are there any
surviving broadcasts recorded in much earlier times when older
conductors made those repeats ? If not, were they even made in
Brahms's own lifetime? It's different with Brahms No. 3, I think, as
the repeat in that was, and is, observed much more often, though
whether it was ever done on 78s I wouldn't know.
Johannes Roehl
> At the BBC Proms the other day, Vladimir Jurowski observed the first
> movement repeat in Brahms's 1st Symphony. Am I right in thinking that
> this repeat, and indeed the one in the first movement of Brahms's 2nd,
> was never observed, either on disc or in the concert-hall, by all the
> 'greats' of the past, such as Toscanini, Furtwangler, Weingartner,
> Klemperer, and so on? In Toscanini's case, since he always used to say
> "Do as written," it seems odd that he did not "do as written" when it
> came to those repeats.
Toscanini didn't observe all repeats in Beethoven symphonies either.
(and he used horns instead of bassoons in the reprise of the 2nd subject
in Beethoven 5,i and similar instrumentation retouches)
> I believe they weren't observed on record until the 1960s when Kertesz
> did them for Decca, though I speak from memory. But are there any
> surviving broadcasts recorded in much earlier times when older
> conductors made those repeats ? If not, were they even made in
> Brahms's own lifetime? It's different with Brahms No. 3, I think, as
> the repeat in that was, and is, observed much more often, though
> whether it was ever done on 78s I wouldn't know.
I think the repeats were done in Brahms' lifetime, although his own
position seems to have been ambiguous. Reportedly he said, that
exposition repeats should be played if the audience is not too familiar
with the music, but could be left out later on. Note that (like
Beethoven in his 9th) there is no repeat in the first mvtm. of the
fourth, although in late chamber music (like the clarinet quintet) the
repeat is called for in the first mvmt.
Johannes
Paul
In the late 60s / early 70s, Adrian Boult was one of the few who
observed the repeats in the Brahms Symphonies, as you can hear on his
EMI set. Later, Giulini also did the same. I heard him conduct the
Brahms 2nd with the Philharmonia at the Royal Festival Hall in the
late 80s and he made the exposition repeat.
Paul
Christopher Howell
>
> In the late 60s / early 70s, Adrian Boult was one of the few who
> observed the repeats in the Brahms Symphonies, as you can hear on his
> EMI set.
But I'm not sure when he began doing this. In his earlier Nixa cycle
(1954/5) he followed the usual trend of giving the repeat only in no.
3.
Speaking from memory since I don't have the disc to hand (no doubt
somebody will correct me if I'm wrong) but didn't Monteux make the
repeat in at least one of his recordings of no. 2?
Chris Howell
Bastian Kubis
>> In the late 60s / early 70s, Adrian Boult was one of the few who
>> observed the repeats in the Brahms Symphonies, as you can hear on his
>> EMI set.
>
> But I'm not sure when he began doing this. In his earlier Nixa cycle
> (1954/5) he followed the usual trend of giving the repeat only in no.
> 3.
>
> Speaking from memory since I don't have the disc to hand (no doubt
> somebody will correct me if I'm wrong) but didn't Monteux make the
> repeat in at least one of his recordings of no. 2?
Answering from memory, I am pretty sure he did in both the VPO and the
LSO recordings, but probably not in the SFSO one. [Those are all I have
heard.]
Bastian
Heck51
> > this repeat, and indeed the one in the first movement of Brahms's 2nd,
> > was never observed, either on disc or in the concert-hall, by all the
> > 'greats' of the past,>>
Solti takes the exposition repeats....
>
> Toscanini didn't observe all repeats in Beethoven symphonies either.
> (and he used horns instead of bassoons in the reprise of the 2nd subject
> in Beethoven 5,>
AT uses horns "in addition" to bassoons, not in place of ....
Johannes Roehl
I stand corrected! But many other "literalist" conductors (e.g.
Leibowitz) use horns in place of bassoons.
I remember that when I checked it some time ago I blamed the odd sounds
and the fact that I couldn't quite decide what was playing there on the
bad sound of the recording!
And, IIRC, AT doubles the 'celli with horns in the reprise of 8,i, where
Beethoven probably intended the drowning of the main theme by the rest
of the orchestra as a joke.
Johannes
harpsichordian
The only Brahms 3 on 78s I remember taking the first movement repeat
is Koussevitzky's (Victor set DM-1007).
Best wises,
Bryan Bishop
Matthew�B.�Tepper
letters to be typed in news:7gudl2F...@mid.individual.net:
> Toscanini didn't observe all repeats in Beethoven symphonies either.
> (and he used horns instead of bassoons in the reprise of the 2nd subject
> in Beethoven 5,i and similar instrumentation retouches)
And the first movement exposition repeat in his 1952 broadcast (issued on LP)
of the 5th was faked; it's not there in the televised performance.
I recall reading at the time that Bernstein/NYP was the first recording of
the 5th to include the fourth movement repeat in the 5th; since such claims
are almost always false, does anybody know a previous example?
--
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
Matthew�B.�Tepper
letters to be typed in news:7b249f68-4ada-442d-8dd2-
4ebcc7...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> The only Brahms 3 on 78s I remember taking the first movement repeat
> is Koussevitzky's (Victor set DM-1007).
My favorite of this symphony!
BrianK
At first I thought you were right but then I checked what I think is
the best, and certainly my favourite, recording of Brahms's 2nd - the
one made by Stokowski just a few months before his death (now
available on Cala) - and found that he does indeed observe the
exposition repeat in the first movement. However, there are lots of
subtle differences in the way Stokowski takes the exposition each
time, so that it really does not sound like a repeat at all.
It is a long time since I listened to it but I recall that Adrian
Boult (with the London PO on an EMI LP) was much the same both times
in the 1st movement exposition and made it sound rather bland. I used
to like Boult's relaxed but lyrical way with this symphony but in
comparison with Stokowski (and Kertesz, another of my favourites) I
now think it is rather a plain and unexciting performance.
Brian K
Heck51
> I recall reading at the time that Bernstein/NYP was the first recording of
> the 5th to include the fourth movement repeat in the 5th; since such claims
> are almost always false, does anybody know a previous example?>>
I don't know if it's previous to Bernstein's, but Steinberg takes the
repeat of 5/IV on his PittsSO recording on Command.
it's really excellent...I favor the repeat, I wish everyone took it.
Kerrison
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks to the on-line Gramophone archive, I've found their November
1963 review of the Philips Monteux Brahms 2 (with the LSO) which says
that "unlike almost every other conductor on record" he made the first
movement repeat both in that recording and on another one he'd made a
few years earlier with the Vienna Philharmonic for RCA. The word
"almost" suggests there may have been someone else who'd done it at
that time, but who?
Stokowski, like Boult, observed the first movement repeat in his
stereo Brahms 2, now on Cala as stated above, but he didn't do so on
his Philadelphia 78s, no more than Boult did for Nixa / Pye in 1954.
This leads me to suspect that because other conductors had already
observed it on their recordings, Boult and Stokowski, when they came
to make their respective stereo versions, were probably "advised" by
their record producers to follow suit.
Ward Hardman
> Johannes Roehl <parrhe...@web.de> appears to have caused the following
> letters to be typed innews:7gudl2F...@mid.individual.net:
> > Toscanini didn't observe all repeats in Beethoven symphonies either.
> > (and he used horns instead of bassoons in the reprise of the 2nd subject
> > in Beethoven 5,i and similar instrumentation retouches)
> And the first movement exposition repeat in his 1952 broadcast (issued on LP)
> of the 5th was faked; it's not there in the televised performance.
> I recall reading at the time that Bernstein/NYP was the first recording of
> the 5th to include the fourth movement repeat in the 5th; since such claims
> are almost always false, does anybody know a previous example?
Did Bernstein's performance precede Klemperer's mono Philharmonia
recording of July, 1955? That had both first and fourth movement
repeats.
--Ward Hardman
"The older I get, the more I admire and crave competence,
just simple competence, in any field from adultery to zoology."
- H.L. Mencken
Ward Hardman
The only really important repeat in the Brahms symphonies is that in
the first movement of the Third. The movement seems too short without
it.
In the 78 rpm era, just thumbing through my collection, I see that
Koussevitzky took the repeat, but Stock, Mengelberg, and
Knappertsbusch did not. (Stock/CSO got through the first movement in
8:40, handily beating 78 rpm side time limits!)
Tape era repeat takers included Klemperer, Dorati/LSO, Dohnanyi/
Cleveland, Boult/LSO, Toscanini/NBC, Schuricht/Stuttgart.
Non-repeaters include Walter (all), Jochum/Berlin, Sanderling/Dresden,
Celibidache/Munich, Horenstein/Bamberg, Barbirolli/Vienna, Belohlavek/
Czech Phil, Boehm/Vienna, and Cantelli/NBC.
The only Brahms Seconds with repeats in my collection are Boult and
Monteaux/Vienna. I don't mind the repeat, but it's not as vital as
the one in the Third.
--Ward Hardman
"The older I get, the more I admire and crave competence,
just simple competence, in any field from adultery."
- H.L. Mencken
Dontait...@aol.com
[much editing]
> Thanks to the on-line Gramophone archive, I've found their November
> 1963 review of the Philips Monteux Brahms 2 (with the LSO) which says
> that "unlike almost every other conductor on record" he made the first
> movement repeat both in that recording and on another one he'd made a
> few years earlier with the Vienna Philharmonic for RCA. The word
> "almost" suggests there may have been someone else who'd done it at
> that time, but who?
I don't know every recording of Brahms 2 that might have been
available in the UK in or before November 1963, but I must say that to
a greater or lesser degree I know almost all recordings of the
symphony from 1962 or so and before, and in my experience the Monteux/
Vienna Philharmonic recording for RCA from 1956 was the first to
include the first movement repeat. I well remember the excitement
caused by the opportunity for record listeners to hear it. But as
always, I could be mistaken.
Monteux's first two recordings of Brahms 2, with the San Francisco
SO, omitted the repeat. Perhaps to fit the music on eight 78 and (in
the case of the 1950 remake) 45 sides.
> Stokowski, like Boult, observed the first movement repeat in his
> stereo Brahms 2, now on Cala as stated above, but he didn't do so on
> his Philadelphia 78s, no more than Boult did for Nixa / Pye in 1954.
> This leads me to suspect that because other conductors had already
> observed it on their recordings, Boult and Stokowski, when they came
> to make their respective stereo versions, were probably "advised" by
> their record producers to follow suit.
Of course they would almost surely have had to agree to the
suggestion, I'd think. Stokowski could be unpredictable (as well as
autocratic) to say the least, and could have decided to include the
seldom-observed repeat on his own. It would be interesting to know
about both conductors in this. (It's also interesting that after
having made several previous recordings of Strauss's Blue Danube
Waltzes over the years, all abbreviated to a greater or lesser degree,
during his last years Stokowski recorded it for Pye with every single
repeat observed. It lasts about 14 minutes.)
Don Tait
BrianK
repeats are considerably more important than suggested above. In my
view many compositions that have real stature - and they do not have
to be ones that are meaninglessly dubbed 'great works' - are enhanced
enormously when repeats are taken. For me, Beethoven's 5th is
diminished if the 1st and 4th movement repeats are not taken, and
similarly with the 1st movement repeat in the Schubert string quintet.
Of course if a repeat is done as a straight run-through of what came
before then do not bother. My basic point is that there can be a very
strong case for repeats if the music can stand it and the performers
are prepared to interpret 2x + y as something more than just x + x +
y, if you get my drift.
All of this has implications for music history too. I remember some
years ago taking issue with a UK Gramophone reviewer who, in
pontificating on the 'greatness' of Beethoven's Eroica symphony,
claimed that it was considerably longer than any symphony written up
to that time. While I fully agree that the Eroica was a landmark in
the development of the symphony, the fact is that Mozart's Jupiter
with all repeats taken is almost as long as the Eroica if Beethoven's
tempo markings are observed (I cannot check at the moment because I am
working overseas, but I think Nikolaus Harnoncourt recorded the
Jupiter symphony with all repeats and it was well over 40 minutes).
Brian K
Dontait...@aol.com
> On Sep 11, 7:42 am, "Matthew B. Tepper" <oy�@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Johannes Roehl <parrhe...@web.de> appears to have caused the following
> > letters to be typed innews:7gudl2F...@mid.individual.net:
> > > Toscanini didn't observe all repeats in Beethoven symphonies either.
> > > (and he used horns instead of bassoons in the reprise of the 2nd subject
> > > in Beethoven 5,i and similar instrumentation retouches)
> > And the first movement exposition repeat in his 1952 broadcast (issued on LP)
> > of the 5th was faked; it's not there in the televised performance.
> > I recall reading at the time that Bernstein/NYP was the first recording of
> > the 5th to include the fourth movement repeat in the 5th; since such claims
> > are almost always false, does anybody know a previous example?
>
> Did Bernstein's performance precede Klemperer's mono Philharmonia
> recording of July, 1955? �That had both first and fourth movement
> repeats.
Yes, it did. By some years. James H. North's discography of the New
York Philharmonic lists the recording date for the Bernstein as
September 25, 1961. Klemperer's 1955 mono version is the first I can
think of that included the fourth movement repeat -- but he made a
very early '50s LP for Vox in Vienna about which I remember little and
which I currently can't play because of equipment issues.
Don Tait
Christopher Howell
> This leads me to suspect that because other conductors had already
> observed it on their recordings, Boult and Stokowski, when they came
> to make their respective stereo versions, were probably "advised" by
> their record producers to follow suit.- Nascondi testo citato
>
> - Mostra testo citato -
Boult made a number of statements in his later years about having come
to realize the importance of repeats - he also recorded Mozart 41 with
all repeats (one of the first to do so) and gave Mozart 40 in public
with all repeats (but his Westminster recording of c.1959 makes the
"pragmatic" choice usual at the time). So maybe we should give him the
credit for being his own man here. Also, if he had been taking
"advice" of that sort he ought to have done Schubert 9 with all
repeats, but he went on doing it without till the end.
Did Stokowski need "advice" from anyone?
Chris Howell
Christopher Howell
> > Did Bernstein's performance precede Klemperer's mono Philharmonia
> > recording of July, 1955? That had both first and fourth movement
> > repeats.
>
> Yes, it did. By some years. James H. North's discography of the New
> York Philharmonic lists the recording date for the Bernstein as
> September 25, 1961. Klemperer's 1955 mono version is the first I can
> think of that included the fourth movement repeat -- but he made a
> very early '50s LP for Vox in Vienna about which I remember little and
> which I currently can't play because of equipment issues.
>
> Don Tait- Nascondi testo citato
>
> - Mostra testo citato -
And the first to record Beeth 5 with the UNWRITTEN repeat in the third
movement, giving the whole scherzo and trio twice through (there's
some evidence in the sketchbooks I believe that LvB might have wanted
it at some stage) was Pierre Boulez, who then went on to omit the
repeat in the finale, which wasn't very logical
Chris Howell
Christopher Howell
all-Mozart Boston programme from the 1960s and he gives all repeats in
the finale of 39, fooling the Boston audience,who burst into applause
at the point where it normally finishes.
Chris Howell
Dontait...@aol.com
[snip]
> Boult made a number of statements in his later years about having come
> to realize the importance of repeats - he also recorded Mozart 41 with
> all repeats (one of the first to do so) and gave Mozart 40 in public
> with all repeats (but his Westminster recording of c.1959 makes the
> "pragmatic" choice usual at the time). So maybe we should give him the
> credit for being his own man here. Also, if he had been taking
> "advice" of that sort he ought to have done Schubert 9 with all
> repeats, but he went on doing it without till the end.
I'd forgotten that late Boult "Jupiter," but it had all of the
repeats indeed. I seem to recall that Benjamin Britten had all repeats
observed in his Decca recording of Mozart G Minor (#40) and that it
also took about 40 minutes.
> Did Stokowski need "advice" from anyone?
Based upon what I have read about him, which is as extensive as I've
been able to make it, he was willing to consider thoughts about things
from people he trusted as sincere and disinterested friends, but that
trying to tell him what to do was a very quick way to the door. Not
tolerated.
Don Tait
Simon Roberts
news:7gv32sF...@mid.individual.net:
And he rewrote the timpani part in the finale's of Beethoven 7 and Brahms
1, and....
Simon
Edward A. Cowan
of the Blue Danube that runs *eighteen* minutes! I haven't heard it in
some time, but I recall having thought that Barbirolli was conducting
the work more like a tone poem than like a waltz... --E.A.C.
<Dontait...@aol.com> wrote:
> (It's also interesting that after
> having made several previous recordings of Strauss's Blue Danube
> Waltzes over the years, all abbreviated to a greater or lesser degree,
> during his last years Stokowski recorded it for Pye with every single
> repeat observed. It lasts about 14 minutes.)
>
> Don Tait
--
hrabanus
Doug McDonald
> 50 years age,Mozart used to be thought of by many as a genteel, powdered-wig
> composer. Of course his symphonies had been emasculated by impatient
> conductors electing not to do repeats. I can still vividly remember the
> reviews of Christopher Hogwood's recording of the Jupiter with the Academy of
> Ancient Music, which included every repeat and lasted about 38 minutes --
> longer duration than seven of Beethoven's symphonies.
With all of Beethoven's repeats?
Doug McDonald
William Sommerwerck
> powdered-wig composer. Of course, his symphonies had been
> emasculated by impatient conductors electing not to do repeats.
> I can still vividly remember the reviews of Christopher Hogwood's
> recording of the Jupiter with the Academy of Ancient Music, which
> seven of Beethoven's symphonies. The shock was palpable. It
> surprises me sometimes, to realise that repeats are still a matter
> for debate.
I don't see where there should be much, if any, debate.
The repeat is for people not familiar with the work, to fix their "ears" on
the principal themes. The only reason for keeping the repeats is if the
movement seems too short, or the repeat is needed to make the movement's
structure seem "right". This is subjective, of course, but the idea of
including every repeat in every movement of every work seems absurd.
Thank God Bruckner didn't mark any repeats. (He didn't, did he?)
Sol L. Siegel
4ebcc7...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> The only Brahms 3 on 78s I remember taking the first movement repeat
> is Koussevitzky's (Victor set DM-1007).
>
Also Mengelberg (Columbia LX 220/3; I have it on Naxos Historical).
FWIW: The only 1st I've heard with the first-movement repeat is
Loughran/Halle. He makes it work by taking a broader and more lyric view
of the symphony.
--
- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
M forever
wrote:
In some of the symphonies, there are repeats of scherzo sections
(plus, of course, the repeat of the entire scherzo after the trio).
Bruckner did not write any repeats for expositions of first or last
movements though.
But Mahler did, in two symphonies. Which are...?
But I don't understand the "thank god" part of the above. If you don't
like the music, just don't listen to it.
Kerrison
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:47:38 +1000, Kerrison wrote
> (in article
> <8e2f13d6-54f0-4cbc-b268-35e3e6853...@o41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):
>
>
>
>
>
> > At the BBC Proms the other day, Vladimir Jurowski observed the first
> > this repeat, and indeed the one in the first movement of Brahms's 2nd,
> > was never observed, either on disc or in the concert-hall, by all the
> > Klemperer, and so on? In Toscanini's case, since he always used to say
> > "Do as written," it seems odd that he did not "do as written" when it
> > came to those repeats.
>
> > I believe they weren't observed on record until the 1960s when Kertesz
> > did them for Decca, though I speak from memory. But are there any
> > surviving broadcasts recorded in much earlier times when older
> > conductors made those repeats ? If not, were they even made in
> > Brahms's own lifetime? It's different with Brahms No. 3, I think, as
> > the repeat in that was, and is, observed much more often, though
> > whether it was ever done on 78s I wouldn't know.
>
> that of Bernstein.
>
> --
> Cheers!
>
> Terry- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Rachmaninov, of course, did not make the first movement repeat in his
own 1939 recording of his 3rd Symphony with the Philadelphia
Orchestra. However, he could easily have done so because the issued
78rpm set had a blank last side which could readily have been used,
had he wished to observe it. Stokowski, on the other hand, who had
given the premiere of the work, made the repeat on his Desmar
recording with the National Philharmonic. I wonder if he made it at
the first performance?
Later, in 1947, the Rachmaninov 3rd Symphony set was reissued with his
own 1929 recording of Vocalise filling up the last side, but the first
issue of the set had just the 3rd Symphony on 9 sides, with a blank
10th.
Johannes Roehl
On the contrary, I think that, similar to the Eroica, the repeat makes
more sense with a quick tempo. Fastish readings of Eroica,i take hardly
more time with repeat (15-16 min) than slow ones without. With a tempo
like Bruno Walter's mono recording, about 12:30 or even quicker, the
first momvent of Brahms' 1st would also last about 15-16 min. Whereas
Giulini needs more than 18 min with repeat which is kind of long.
Johannes
Bob Harper
(jsnip)
> But Mahler did, in two symphonies. Which are...?
6 of course, but not sure of the other. I'd guess 1 or 4.
Bob Harper
William Sommerwerck
> audience comprised of [sic] people who are familiar with the
> work and people not familiar with the work.
Any audience members who haven't hear Beethoven or Brahms are going to be
very much in the minority.
> Composers, as far as I can tell, know how to write in a repeat
> mark. They also know how to omit such a mark, if that's what
> they want. So why do you think they write them in?
Because they were compoing in a era in which listeners were likely to hear
the work only once in their lifetime.
Roland van Gaalen
William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> schreef:
>> Composers, as far as I can tell, know how to write in a repeat
>> mark. They also know how to omit such a mark, if that's what
>> they want. So why do you think they write them in?
>
> Because they were compoing in a era in which listeners were likely to hear
> the work only once in their lifetime.
No doubt you are right, but here's an amusing counterexample:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/arts_and_culture/8252444.stm
--
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam
R.P.vanGaalenATchello.nl
Johannes Roehl
> M forever wrote:
> (jsnip)
>> But Mahler did, in two symphonies. Which are...?
>
> 6 of course, but not sure of the other. I'd guess 1 or 4.
It's #1, FWIW.
I don't think the familiarity argument is all to plausible.
(As these cases of Mahler's show and also several others)
That is on of several functions repeats have. Others concern balance and
the relative weight of parts of the movement and also the overall length.
And the transition passages from the exposition to the development often
use the fact that the section is to be repeated.
Johannes
Heck51
> FWIW: The only 1st I've heard with the first-movement repeat is
> Loughran/Halle. He makes it work by taking a broader and more lyric view
> of the symphony.>>
Solti takes it also - most effectively...it is quite dramatic, and of
course the 2nd time thru the transition ["2nd ending"] to the
development is quite striking...
Heck51
> But Mahler did, in two symphonies. Which are...?>>
1 and 6.
M forever
10 points to Gryffindor.
William Sommerwerck
news:0001HW.C6D277D4...@news.tpg.com.au...
> On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 02:36:50 +1000, William Sommerwerck wrote
> (in article <h8gip3$ep5$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
> What an amazing line of argument! On the one hand, you credit
> 18th- and 19th-century composers with some kind of prescience
> of what life will be like in the 21st century: radio, television,
> recordings pumping music into every home.
Non-sequitur. If they were prescient, they would have /omitted/ the repeat,
or would have added a note: "Not obligatory on CDs."
I and most others credit composers with knowledge of their audience, and the
fact -- the fact -- that many works were heard only once. Before recordings
and broadcasts, people did not often hear a work more than once. Although
Mendelssohn is generally credited with the revival of "old" music, even in
the late 19th century new works represented a (much?) larger percentage of
concert programs. The concert hall had not become the mausoleum it largely
is today.
> On the other hand, you give no credence whatsoever to the
> possibility that Brahms, one of the most conservative of
> Romantic composers, might have been following classical
> precedents with his clear specification of repeats.
Actually, Brahms was not following Classical precedents -- he was following
Classical forms. A movement in sonata-allegro form usually has a repeat of
the principal themes.
> Do you *really* think that the excision of 150 bars from the First
> Symphony's opening movement has no effect upon the relative
> proportions of this movement and the one following it?
You haven't been paying attention to the discussion. The principal reason
for the repeat is to get the audience familiar with the thematic material,
so it can better follow (and enjoy/appreciate) its development. Listeners
who've heard the work several times don't need this repeat. It's therefore
up to the conductor to decide whether removing the repeat harms the work in
some way.
> (Thanks for the gratuitous [sic], by the way. You might consider picking
up
> a dictionary on your way home from work one day.)
I have lots of dictionaries, including two print editions of the OED, and CD
ROM of the 2nd.
The whole comprises the parts; the parts do not comprise the whole. The
audience comprises people, it is not comprised of people.
Anti-Troll-01
JG
KUSC, which takes the repeat of the first part of the 3rd movement
scherzo. I practically jumped out of my chair, shouting, "We heard that
already! Let's get to the next part!" Of course, that's a work I know
very well.
In article <0001HW.C6D1FC20...@news.tpg.com.au>,
bo...@clown.invalid says...
> On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 11:56:21 +1000, William Sommerwerck wrote
> (in article <h8ev67$jrc$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
> What nonsense! Please explain what is to be done with an audience comprised
> of people who are familiar with the work and people not familiar with the
> work. What do you suggest?
William Sommerwerck
> on KUSC, which takes the repeat of the first part of the 3rd movement
> scherzo. I practically jumped out of my chair, shouting, "We heard
> that already! Let's get to the next part!" Of course, that's a work
> I know very well.
On the other hand, Gardiner might have found a way to play the repeat such
that it added something interesting to the performance.
I'm one of those people who find the S9 tediously long. I can imagine it
being paired with "Scheherezade" (the tone poem, not the song cycle).
Edward A. Cowan
sym. was Solti's in his first Chicago set of the symphonies.
I recently listened to Steinberg's 5th, an excellent performance even if
Paul Henry Lang calls it "mostly coarse". (_The Recordings of Beethoven
as viewed by the critics from HIgh Fidelity, Great Barrington, MA: The
Wyeth Press, 1971, p.10)
FWIW, I heard the Steinberg, originally on Command, from an LP reissue
of the complete LvB symphonies on the Sine Qua Non label (SQN 7788/7). I
never had the original Command LP of the 5th for comparison, but this
SQN recording sounds vastly better than the later ABC Command LP's which
might be termed "state-of-the-art dismal" <g>. --E.A.C.
Heck51 <dgall...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I don't know if it's previous to Bernstein's, but Steinberg takes the
> repeat of 5/IV on his PittsSO recording on Command.
> it's really excellent...I favor the repeat, I wish everyone took it.
--
hrabanus
Norman Schwartz
"JG" <jgei...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.25160e093...@news.powerusenet.com...
> Jim Svejda recently played Schubert's 9th with VPO under Gardiner on
> KUSC, which takes the repeat of the first part of the 3rd movement
> scherzo. I practically jumped out of my chair, shouting, "We heard that
> already! Let's get to the next part!" Of course, that's a work I know
> very well.
>
For me on the contrary, whenever an unanticipated repeat appears on the
scene it grabs my attention, gluing me into my chair.
Matthew�B.�Tepper
following letters to be typed in
news:1j5z0qt.iii4vb17iegsuN%oldger...@nospam.com:
> My first hearing on records of the 4th mvt. repeat in the Beethoven 5th
> sym. was Solti's in his first Chicago set of the symphonies.
I recall that this was claimed at the time to be the "first" Beethoven
symphony cycle which took all the repeats. I can't recall whether that
includes the supposed repeat in the Scherzo of the 5th (which has never
seemed quite right to me, although that may be because of conditioning), but
I have this vague feeling that it doesn't.
The veracity of the claim, of course, is dubious, as I have long since lost
all faith in all such claims of primacy.
> I recently listened to Steinberg's 5th, an excellent performance even if
> Paul Henry Lang calls it "mostly coarse". (_The Recordings of Beethoven
> as viewed by the critics from HIgh Fidelity, Great Barrington, MA: The
> Wyeth Press, 1971, p.10)
>
> FWIW, I heard the Steinberg, originally on Command, from an LP reissue
> of the complete LvB symphonies on the Sine Qua Non label (SQN 7788/7). I
> never had the original Command LP of the 5th for comparison, but this
> SQN recording sounds vastly better than the later ABC Command LP's which
> might be termed "state-of-the-art dismal" <g>. --E.A.C.
I heard very few Command LPs when I was actively collecting in that medium;
one that I might want to hear again is a piano-duo recital by Leonid Hambro
and Jascha Zayde.
--
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
William Sommerwerck
> piano recital by Leonid Hambro and Jascha Zayde.
Great album! It had "En Blanc et Noir" and some other stuff.
There's a lot of Command stuff that ought to be reissued, both pop and
classical. Little of it has.
gri...@aol.com
> On Sep 11, 11:35 am, Ward Hardman <ward.hard...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 11, 7:42 am, "Matthew B. Tepper" <oy @earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > Johannes Roehl <parrhe...@web.de> appears to have caused the following
> > > letters to be typed innews:7gudl2F...@mid.individual.net:
> > > > Toscanini didn't observe all repeats in Beethoven symphonies either.
> > > > (and he used horns instead of bassoons in the reprise of the 2nd subject
> > > > in Beethoven 5,i and similar instrumentation retouches)
> > > And the first movement exposition repeat in his 1952 broadcast (issued on LP)
> > > of the 5th was faked; it's not there in the televised performance.
> > > I recall reading at the time that Bernstein/NYP was the first recording of
> > > the 5th to include the fourth movement repeat in the 5th; since such claims
> > > are almost always false, does anybody know a previous example?
>
> > Did Bernstein's performance precede Klemperer's mono Philharmonia
> > recording of July, 1955? That had both first and fourth movement
> > repeats.
>
> � Yes, it did. By some years. James H. North's discography of the New
> York Philharmonic lists the recording date for the Bernstein as
> September 25, 1961. Klemperer's 1955 mono version is the first I can
> think of that included the fourth movement repeat -- but he made a
> very early '50s LP for Vox in Vienna about which I remember little and
> which I currently can't play because of equipment issues.
>
> � Don Tait- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Klemperer's Vox Vienna Symphony recording takes the 4th movement
repeat.
I believe it is the first recording to do so.
Interestingly, it is slightly slower that the EMI mono.
Foster Grimm
Dontait...@aol.com
{editing}
> > > Did Bernstein's performance precede Klemperer's mono Philharmonia
> > > recording of July, 1955? That had both first and fourth movement
> > > repeats.
>
> > Yes, it did. By some years. James H. North's discography of the New
> > York Philharmonic lists the recording date for the Bernstein as
> > September 25, 1961. Klemperer's 1955 mono version is the first I can
> > think of that included the fourth movement repeat -- but he made a
> > very early '50s LP for Vox in Vienna about which I remember little and
> > which I currently can't play because of equipment issues.
>
> > Don Tait- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Klemperer's Vox Vienna Symphony recording takes the 4th movement
> repeat.
> I believe it is the first recording to do so.
> Interestingly, it is slightly slower that the EMI mono.
>
> Foster Grimm
Thanks. Michael Gray's discography in volume 2 of Peter Heyworth's
Klemperer biography states that the Vox recording was made at sessions
in April and May, 1951. So that might well be the first published
recording of Beethoven 5 to contain the 4th movement repeat.
Don Tait
Kip Williams
> oldger...@nospam.com (Edward A. Cowan) appears to have caused the
> following letters to be typed in
> news:1j5z0qt.iii4vb17iegsuN%oldger...@nospam.com:
>
>> My first hearing on records of the 4th mvt. repeat in the Beethoven 5th
>> sym. was Solti's in his first Chicago set of the symphonies.
>
> I recall that this was claimed at the time to be the "first" Beethoven
> symphony cycle which took all the repeats. I can't recall whether that
> includes the supposed repeat in the Scherzo of the 5th (which has never
> seemed quite right to me, although that may be because of conditioning), but
> I have this vague feeling that it doesn't.
>
> The veracity of the claim, of course, is dubious, as I have long since lost
> all faith in all such claims of primacy.
Did they remember to repeat the second symphony after they played the third?
Kip W
no, there's nothing to see here
M forever
wrote:
> > Jim Svejda recently played Schubert's 9th with VPO under Gardiner
> > on KUSC, which takes the repeat of the first part of the 3rd movement
> > scherzo. I practically jumped out of my chair, shouting, "We heard
> > that already! Let's get to the next part!" Of course, that's a work
> > I know very well.
>
> On the other hand, Gardiner might have found a way to play the repeat such
> that it added something interesting to the performance.
>
> I'm one of those people who find the S9 tediously long.
Then just don't listen to it, dummy.
> I can imagine it
> being paired with "Scheherezade" (the tone poem, not the song cycle).
Can you also imagine how that title is properly spelled? It would be
fun to hear you pronounce it. In your version, the last syllable
probably rhymes with "made". Americans...
Ward Hardman
wrote:
> "Terry" <b...@clown.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:0001HW.C6D277D4...@news.tpg.com.au...
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 02:36:50 +1000, William Sommerwerck wrote
> >>> What nonsense! Please explain what is to be done with an
> >>> audience comprised of [sic] people who are familiar with the
> >>> work and people not familiar with the work.
> > (Thanks for the gratuitous [sic], by the way. You might consider picking
> up
> > a dictionary on your way home from work one day.)
>
> I have lots of dictionaries, including two print editions of the OED, and CD
> ROM of the 2nd.
>
> The whole comprises the parts; the parts do not comprise the whole. The
> audience comprises people, it is not comprised of people.
Main Entry: com-prise
Pronunciation: kuhm-'pryz
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form: com-prised ; com-pris-ing
Etymology: Middle English,
from Anglo-French compris,
past participle of comprendre,
from Latin comprehendere
Date: 15th century
1: to include [snip]
2: to be made up of [snip]
3: COMPOSE, CONSTITUTE <a misconception as to
what comprises a literary generation — William Styron>
<about 8 percent of our military forces are comprised
of women — Jimmy Carter>
Usage: Although it has been in use since the late
18th century, sense 3 is still attacked as wrong. Why
it has been singled out is not clear, but until
comparatively recent times it was found chiefly in
scientific or technical writing rather than belles
lettres. Our current evidence shows a slight shift in
usage: sense 3 is somewhat more frequent in recent
literary use than the earlier senses. You should be
aware, however, that if you use sense 3 you may be
subject to criticism for doing so, and you may want
to choose a safer synonym such as 'compose' or
'make up.'
- Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary,
11th edition
Could it be that all those "live recordings" afflicted by stertorous
coughing are "comprised of (sic) people."
;-)
--Ward Hardman
"The older I get, the more I admire and crave competence,
just simple competence, in any field from adultery to zoology."
- H.L. Mencken
William Sommerwerck
"is composed of".
William Sommerwerck
> to be used to mean "is composed of".
I checked the Random House College dictionary. It says that the usage of
"consensus" is controversial, but that their board of "experts" is
increasingly willing to let "comprise" mean the same as "compose".
Blank their experts.
One of the wonderful things about the English language is its uniquely rich
variety of words. You can almost always find a word that means exactly,
precisely what you want.
Of course, when you blur previously accepted differences of meaning, you
reduce the language's variety and richness.
Another aspect of this blurring is the creation of homonyms by
mispronouncing words. For example, "clique" (cleek) is almost always
mispronounced as "click". At least in spoken language, the word "click" has
now acquired a meaning it never had, and doesn't need. Spoken English now
has one less word.
Same for "cache". This word has been mangled by ignorant enlisted people,
who insist on pronouncing it "cachet". The words have the same root, but not
the same meaning.
I don't object to adding words to English. I object to altering and diluting
their meanings.
Frank Berger
> The current consensus of usage is that "comprise" is not to be used
> to mean "is composed of".
In Webster's on-line "is composed of" is the second of three definitions
given. I have employed this usage often in my career and haven't yet had an
editor question it.
There is a third definition- "compose" or "constitute" as in "about 8
percent of our military forces are comprised of women." It is this usage
that I learned is incorrect and which Webster mentions has been widely
criticized.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comprises
Another source that agrees:
http://languagestyle.suite101.com/article.cfm/how_to_use_the_word_comprise
Who does your "consensus" consist of?
Or, who comprises your "consensus?"
William Sommerwerck
news:VI2dncJOqoGFBjDX...@supernews.com...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> The current consensus of usage is that "comprise" is not to be used
>> to mean "is composed of".
> In Webster's on-line "is composed of" is the second of three definitions
> given. I have employed this usage often in my career and haven't yet
> had an editor question it.
If you turn a close eye on almost any documentation -- including novels --
you'll see that editors don't edit. What they do -- other than collecting a
salary -- is not clear.
> There is a third definition- "compose" or "constitute" as in "about 8
> percent of our military forces are comprised of women." It is this usage
> that I learned is incorrect and which Webster mentions has been widely
> criticized.
So does Random House. Please see my other post.
One of the usage-notes contributors to the Oxford American Writer's
Thesaurus (which includes such people as David Foster Wallace and Simon
Winchester (who wrote a history of the OED)) comes down very strongly on the
side of "the whole comprises the parts".
God, I love reference books! "His taste exact for faultless fact amounts to
a disease."
Frank Berger
> "Frank Berger" <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote in message
> news:VI2dncJOqoGFBjDX...@supernews.com...
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>> The current consensus of usage is that "comprise" is not to be used
>>> to mean "is composed of".
>
>> In Webster's on-line "is composed of" is the second of three
>> definitions given. I have employed this usage often in my career and
>> haven't yet
>> had an editor question it.
>
> If you turn a close eye on almost any documentation -- including
> novels -- you'll see that editors don't edit. What they do -- other
> than collecting a salary -- is not clear.
>
I am precisely aware of what editors have done to and for my writing over
the years.
>
>> There is a third definition- "compose" or "constitute" as in "about 8
>> percent of our military forces are comprised of women." It is this
>> usage that I learned is incorrect and which Webster mentions has
>> been widely criticized.
>
> So does Random House. Please see my other post.
>
> One of the usage-notes contributors to the Oxford American Writer's
> Thesaurus (which includes such people as David Foster Wallace and
> Simon Winchester (who wrote a history of the OED)) comes down very
> strongly on the side of "the whole comprises the parts".
>
In other words you've retracted your first statement, right?
Doug McDonald
>
> I don't object to adding words to English. I object to altering and diluting
> their meanings.
>
>
I only object to changing two, "song" and "freedom".
Doug McDonald
Christopher Howell
>
> > My first hearing on records of the 4th mvt. repeat in the Beethoven 5th
> > sym. was Solti's in his first Chicago set of the symphonies.
>
> I recall that this was claimed at the time to be the "first" Beethoven
> symphony cycle which took all the repeats. I can't recall whether that
> includes the supposed repeat in the Scherzo of the 5th (which has never
> seemed quite right to me, although that may be because of conditioning), but
> I have this vague feeling that it doesn't.
>
> The veracity of the claim, of course, is dubious, as I have long since lost
> all faith in all such claims of primacy.
>
A much earlier cycle (from the 1950s) with all repeats was Konwitschny/
Gewandhaus but, in the UK at least, it is mainly known in mutilated
form. Only a few of the symphonies were issued in the UK during
Konwitschny's lifetime and no. 7 attracted attention as a powerful
version with all repeats. The "complete" cycle came out on the budget
Fontana label but many repeats were snipped out in order to squeeze it
all onto as few LPs as possible (7 and 8 together for instance). This
cycle has been available on CD from Edel Classics with the repeats
reinstated.
Chris Howll
William Sommerwerck
>> Thesaurus (which includes such people as David Foster Wallace and
>> Simon Winchester (who wrote a history of the OED)) comes down very
>> strongly on the side of "the whole comprises the parts".
> In other words, you've retracted your first statement, right?
Not at all! The writer agrees with me.
Alan Dawes
Norman Schwartz <nm...@optonline.net> wrote:
I would agree provided the opportunity is taken to make the repeat
interesting by varying the way that it is played eg
by changing the balance between instruments to bring out inner parts,
thinning out the textures eg by reducing the number of strings,
changing dynamics,
getting the brass or woodwind to play louder,
varying the amount of vibrato
use of portemento
etc.
Of course this means that there needs to be a proper amount of rehearsal
time. With modern conductors jetting in 10 minutes before the concert
perhaps they should observe all repeats so that the first time is a bit of
rehearsal with the repeat the performance :-)
Alan
--
alan....@argonet.co.uk
alan....@riscos.org
Using an Acorn RiscPC
Frank Berger
Huh? Your initial post on the subject was this:
" The current consensus of usage is that "comprise" is not to be used
to mean "is composed of".
Is this not the same as "the whole comprises (consists of) the parts?
William Sommerwerck
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
Maybe I should give another example:
correct: "The string section comprises violins, violas, cellos, and bass
fiddles."
correct: "The string section is composed of violins, violas, cellos, and
bass fiddles."
wrong: "The string section is comprised of violins, violas, cellos, and
bass fiddles."
The "Oxford American Writer's Thesaurus" agrees with the above. Or at least,
the woman who made the comment in it.
Frank Berger
Did you re-read your initial statement....If you stand by it, then the
"current consensus" is the opposite of what you just said.
matthias
As far as I know, it isnt; Klemperer did it already in his first
(live) recording, Los Angeles PO, 1st of January 1934.
And by the way, the bassoon/horn - passage in the first movement; I
cant hear any slice of sound of a bassoon in Toscanini's recordings...
On the other hand, the very first recording of the symphony (1911,
Kark) uses a very prominent sounding bassoon (thanks to the acoustic
recording technique!), and eg. Karajan let play the horns (probably 8
of them...) until his last recording.
Matthias Arter
M forever
Kark?
> recording technique!), and eg. Karajan let play the horns (probably 8
> of them...) until his last recording.
>
> Matthias Arter
Karajan always used 4 horns (basic rule of thumb, the winds were
simply doubled, but only in tutti passages, not in soli). The 8 horns
seen in some of the films aren't actually playing. Those films were
made with playback, and they placed all the players there because they
felt it looked more "impressive"...
Dontait...@aol.com
wrote:
{major snip}
> I don't object to adding words to English. I object to altering and diluting
> their meanings.
I do too, a bit. Not completely. I don't mean to argue, but language
does evolve and change. But I am particularly fascinated by the
alteration of "like" in American speech since 1968 or so and its
amazingly swift evolution.
Of course "like" was always there in ways we all know. But it seems
to have found its way into the speech of youthful Americans as an
entirely new element of their language in a swift period of time. Just
one instance:
WFMT in Chicago has a one-hour program on late Saturday mornings
called "Introductions." It's a showcase for young Chicago-area
performers up to about 17. Last Saturday morning there was a string
quartet made up of high school colleagues. (A few unimportant
intonation issues aside, they were very, very good.) The host talked
to the girl who was one of the violinists. I listened to her reply to
a question about how often the quartet practices: "well like we do it
like as often as we can, and like I do too, alone. So like, that's how
we do it." Like, like, like constantly in every of the many sentences
she spoke.
I found myself wondering what the rules are for this modifier usage
of "like," which seems to have become pervasive among some American
youth in only the last thirty years. Perhaps it's just something one,
like, picks up. Or, like, learrns from, like, peers.
Don Tait
Dontait...@aol.com
> On 13 Sep., 19:52, Dontaitchic...@aol.com wrote:
{big edit}
> > Michael Gray's discography in volume 2 of Peter Heyworth's
> > Klemperer biography states that the Vox recording was made at sessions
> > in April and May, 1951. So that might well be the first published
> > recording of Beethoven 5 to contain the 4th movement repeat.
>
> > � Don Tait
>
> As far as I know, it isnt; Klemperer did it already in his first
> (live) recording, Los Angeles PO, 1st of January 1934.
> Matthias Arter
Yes. That's correct, and it is very probably the oldest extant
recording to contain the 4th movement repeat. At least that has
surfaced so far. But I interpreted this thread to mean commercial
recordings of Beethoven 5 that contained the repeat. Klemperer's 1934
LAPO performance was live, and not issued commercially until many
years after the 1951 Vox LP.
A small issue, and I'd forgotten that the 1934 LAPO performance also
featured the repeat. Thanks for the reminder.
Don Tait
William Sommerwerck
speaker doesn't know how to carefully organize their thoughts.
Bill Anderson
>
> Kark?
>
Oh yes! Friedrich Kark. He conducted the first complete recording of
the Beethoven 5, on the Odeon label. He preceded the Nikisch/ BPO
sides by two years, give or take some months. Kark made many sides in
the acoustic era. mostly operatic excerpts and lighter
This was available on a Japanese Wing CD. It still may be available in
that country. It IS a trial to listen through the surface noise and
crude acoustic recording technique, but worth the effort.
There are a few Kark recordings on youtube (at least I think it is the
same conductor - they are mostly German 'hot jazz' dance band music. A
different F. Kark perhaps?)
- Bill
Bob Lombard
> The insertion of "like" at every third word probably indicates that the
> speaker doesn't know how to carefully organize their thoughts.
>
>
I believe you are like sort of right. It's a pause filler, but more like
what in writing would be a colon. She knew what she wanted to say, but
was ignorant of a precise, economical way to get there (such as voice
modulation). The words preceding the 'like' are a lead-in. The
information following the 'like' is intended to be of significance. The
'like' in these conversations is not chaff, as f**k is among servicemen.
bl
M forever
I have never heard of Kark nor seems it to be easy to locate the
recording - googling reveals a few mentionings of it, but it appears
that none of the people who have mentioned it have actually heard it.
The ensemble is identified as "Grosses Odeon- Streichorchester" which
is obvoiusly a pickup band and, as the name suggests, apparently a
string ensemble. I wonder if this recording is an arrangement for
strings or if it also features wind parts.
Bill Anderson
Even though it is the Grosses Odeon-Streichorchester it is a "full"
orchestra (well, full for acoustic discs!), including winds. I
- Bill
Matthew�B.�Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:1a1b98c6-8d61-440a-b61b-0c39b9516913
@m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 14, 1:42�pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Kark?
>>
>
> Oh yes! Friedrich Kark. He conducted the first complete recording of the
> Beethoven 5, on the Odeon label. He preceded the Nikisch/BPO sides by two
> years, give or take some months. Kark made many sides in the acoustic
> era. mostly operatic excerpts and lighter
>
> This was available on a Japanese Wing CD. It still may be available in
> that country. It IS a trial to listen through the surface noise and
> crude acoustic recording technique, but worth the effort.
>
> There are a few Kark recordings on youtube (at least I think it is the
> same conductor - they are mostly German 'hot jazz' dance band music. A
> different F. Kark perhaps?)
>
> - Bill
I bought the Wing CD a few years ago, but haven't checked its availability
since then. Yes, the year I've seen given for it is 1910; but as I said
just a few months ago, "if there is anything left of the recording industry
in four-and-a-half years, it's a safe bet that some label will reissue the
Nikisch with that false claim of primacy still in place."
--
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
Dontait...@aol.com
{snip}
> I have never heard of Kark nor seems it to be easy to locate the
> recording - googling reveals a few mentionings of it, but it appears
> that none of the people who have mentioned it have actually heard it.
> The ensemble is identified as "Grosses Odeon- Streichorchester" which
> is obvoiusly a pickup band and, as the name suggests, apparently a
> string ensemble. I wonder if this recording is an arrangement for
> strings or if it also features wind parts.
I own the Japanese Wing CD to which Bill Anderson referred, thanks
to him, and know the recording. It has both wind and brass instruments
in what sounds like a fairly close approximation of Beethoven's
scoring. The term "Streichorchester" occurs in the credits on some
early acoustical German records of classical orchestral music and can
indeed be a bit confusing. Some acoustical DGG records say "Grammophon
Streichorchester," for instance, but wind and brass players are there.
I wondered about the contradiction for years. I have now read that it
was used as something of a marketing tool because so many early
acoustical records were just of bands (brass instruments recorded best
by the process) and the companies wanted to point out that string
players were there too in a recording marketed as reflecting the
score. That's what I have read, at least.
Yes, surely a pick-up group for Kark. It's an intriguing
performance, by the way, partly because it is very straightforward.
The only indication that it's 98 or 99 years old is the old acoustical
sound.
Don Tait
matthias
When you listen very carefully to the instrumentation, you can hear
that there is only one flute, oboe, clarinet and bassoon playing - for
the last matrice there is only piccolo and no more flute, in the 2nd
mov. you can hear missing 2nd winds and also 2nd trumpet. I suppose
that there are 2 horns and (prabably) 2 or 3 trombones and (of course)
a bass tuba!
Together with approx. 10 strings and the timpani we have a bit more
than 20 musicians. A big difference to the Nikisch - recording, where
the sound is much closer to a "real" orchestra!
Therefore the "primacy" of the Nikisch - recording is not completely
wrong, when you add "with a normal Symphony Orchestra" (instead of
Odeon's studio orchestra...). Later recordings, as the Pasternack
(1916/17) and even the 24 Weingartner-version sound again much more
like the first Kark-studio issue.
Matthias
Don gave me some interesting informations about Kark (some years ago,
thanks again!), which I can add here:
Kark, Friedrich Wilhelm. Musical director for German Odeon,
1906-1910
(recording under his own name and as "Friedrich Dannenberg")
and from
1910 to 1918, for Parlophon.
("The Orchestra on Record, 1896-1924: An Encyclopedia of Orchestral
Recordings Made by the Acoustical Process" by Claude Graveley Arnold,
C.S.B." (Greenwood Press, 1997).
The notes for the Japanese Wing CD of Kark's Beethoven Fifth say the
following (as written): "F. Kark was born 1869 near Hamburg/Germany,
started his career as a violinist/pianist, then worked as a conductor
for a Hamburg theatre, and from 1906 to 1918 he was Hausdirigent for
the Lindstroem company, that meant that he conducted (under his own
name and as Friedrich Dannenberg) mostly of the early recordings
(Odeon/Parlophon)."
I'll add that I own a few German Parlophon 78s (with their gorgeous
picture labels) of vocal recordings, and they list the conductor as
"F." or "Friedrich Kark." (Don Tait)
Heck51
> When you listen very carefully to the instrumentation, you can hear
> that there is only one flute, oboe, clarinet and bassoon playing - for
> the last matrice there is only piccolo and no more flute, in the 2nd
> mov. you can hear missing 2nd winds and also 2nd trumpet. I suppose
> that there are 2 horns and (prabably) 2 or 3 trombones and (of course)
> a bass tuba!>>
The one-time principal horn of the Boston Symphony, Willem Valkenier
[1887-1986] lived right down the street from me before he died at age
98.
before coming to America he was very active in Europe, Berlin,
Netherlands, etc - he performed in the premieres of several of R.
Strauss's later operas...he told great stories -
one involved an accoustical recording of "Don Juan" in which he
participated early in the century - he recounted how some 8 TUBAS were
lined up and used to reinforce the bass line!!
" not a musicial highlight of my career" he quipped.
Matthew�B.�Tepper
be typed in news:9106c7fe-0fb8-4fbd-9ff7-
6706d1...@z28g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
> When you listen very carefully to the instrumentation, you can hear that
> there is only one flute, oboe, clarinet and bassoon playing - for the last
> matrice there is only piccolo and no more flute, in the 2nd mov. you can
> hear missing 2nd winds and also 2nd trumpet. I suppose that there are 2
> horns and (prabably) 2 or 3 trombones and (of course) a bass tuba!
>
> Together with approx. 10 strings and the timpani we have a bit more than 20
> musicians. A big difference to the Nikisch - recording, where the sound is
> much closer to a "real" orchestra!
>
> Therefore the "primacy" of the Nikisch - recording is not completely wrong,
> when you add "with a normal Symphony Orchestra" (instead of Odeon's studio
> orchestra...). Later recordings, as the Pasternack (1916/17) and even the
> 24 Weingartner-version sound again much more like the first Kark-studio
> issue.
> Matthias
Good points, but of course Nikisch still makes a few instrumental compromises
for the acoustic horn, with those accursed tubas oompah-ing the bass lines.
Has there been a long-playing reissue of the Pasternack recording?
Simon Roberts
news:h8gip3$ep5$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>> What nonsense! Please explain what is to be done with an
>> audience comprised of [sic] people who are familiar with the
>> work and people not familiar with the work.
>
> Any audience members who haven't hear Beethoven or Brahms are going to
> be very much in the minority.
You're begging the question, assuming that "the real thing" is the symphony
minus repeats. If the real thing is the symphony with all repeats, very
few audience members have heard, say, "the real" Mozart 40 or Schubert 9,
especially if they listen via live performances.
>> Composers, as far as I can tell, know how to write in a repeat
>> mark. They also know how to omit such a mark, if that's what
>> they want. So why do you think they write them in?
>
> Because they were compoing in a era in which listeners were likely to
> hear the work only once in their lifetime.
But such composers also knew that if the audience liked a movement enough
they would applaud enough to get a repeat of the whole thing....
Simon
Simon Roberts
news:509a9b8f55...@argonet.co.uk:
[snip]
> Of course this means that there needs to be a proper amount of
> rehearsal time. With modern conductors jetting in 10 minutes before
> the concert perhaps they should observe all repeats so that the first
> time is a bit of rehearsal with the repeat the performance :-)
This reminds me of a story Culshaw tells in one of his books of a
Knappertsbusch recording session where half the orchestra was unaware he
was taking a repeat (or not taking it - I forget which; I also forget the
piece in question, but perhaps someone can tell us), resulting in chaos for
a few seconds. When Culshaw told him they would need to redo it,
Knappertsbusch allegedly responded "Oh, shit; no-one will notice."
Simon
Dontait...@aol.com
> Alan Dawes <alan.da...@argonet.co.uk> wrote innews:509a9b8f55...@argonet.co.uk:
It was a Strauss waltz, as I recall. I believe Culshaw said
Knappertsbusch wasn't observing the repeat, but as usual was winging
it without any rehearsal and the VPO wasn't sure what to do. And of
course the last thing he wanted was to have to do part of the work
again for the microphones. A great story.
Was it also Culshaw who wrote about Knappertsbusch being convinced,
very reluctantly, to rehearse for a concert? At the concert things
went off the rails in the orchestra during a symphony. Afterwards
Knappertsbusch is supposed to have said "it would all have been fine
if it weren't for that damned rehearsal!"
Don Tait
Kevin P. Mostyn
on the 78s, and another with no conductor named. I have both of them.
--
Kevin Mostyn
___________
My real e-mail address is my first name at my last name dot com
"matthias" <ob...@orangemail.ch> wrote in message
news:9106c7fe-0fb8-4fbd...@z28g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Kark, Friedrich Wilhelm. Musical director for German Odeon, ?1906-1910
(recording under his own name and as "Friedrich Dannenberg") ?and from
Matthew�B.�Tepper
the following letters to be typed in
> Actually, there were 2 issues of the Kark on Wing; one with Kark identified
> on the 78s, and another with no conductor named. I have both of them.
Which was issued first?
Simon Roberts
news:53194f85-dbfe-4c9f...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 17, 2:23�pm, Simon Roberts <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Alan Dawes <alan.da...@argonet.co.uk> wrote
>> innews:509a9b8f55alan.dawes@a
That sounds right (as does your reference to a Strauss waltz). If I
remember, I see if I can find the books and check when I get home.
Simon
matthias
> matthias <o...@orangemail.ch> appears to have caused the following letters to
> be typed in news:9106c7fe-0fb8-4fbd-9ff7-
>
>
>
>
>
> > When you listen very carefully to the instrumentation, you can hear that
> > there is only one flute, oboe, clarinet and bassoon playing - for the last
> > matrice there is only piccolo and no more flute, in the 2nd mov. you can
> > hear missing 2nd winds and also 2nd trumpet. I suppose that there are 2
> > horns and (prabably) 2 or 3 trombones and (of course) a bass tuba!
>
> > Together with approx. 10 strings and the timpani we have a bit more than 20
> > musicians. A big difference to the Nikisch - recording, where the sound is
> > much closer to a "real" orchestra!
>
> > Therefore the "primacy" of the Nikisch - recording is not completely wrong,
> > when you add "with a normal Symphony Orchestra" (instead of Odeon's studio
> > orchestra...). Later recordings, as the Pasternack (1916/17) and even the
> > 24 Weingartner-version sound again much more like the first Kark-studio
> > issue.
> > Matthias
>
> Good points, but of course Nikisch still makes a few instrumental compromises
> for the acoustic horn, with those accursed tubas oompah-ing the bass lines.
>
> Has there been a long-playing reissue of the Pasternack recording?
>
I dont think so. I got copies form different sources (sound archives
in Switzerland and the U.S.) but the second movement is still missing.
Anyway, the interpretation is not great but from the historic point of
view intersting. Im going to open a new discussion as soon I have the
time to put the 3 movements I have on my website do download!