Beethoven symphonies by Chailly

[Gerard]

After having heard 4 symphonies and 3 overtures it is evident that this is a
really splendid set.
Chailly plays very driven, very compelling, and very beautiful at the same time;
gripping but never rough.
I've really enjoyed this, and very likely I'll listen to it again and again.
The recording (sound) is magnificent.
For me this is the most recommendable set of the last few years. This goes
straight to the top of the Beethoven pile. Although the expression has been
misused here many times: it is superb.

Extra attractive is the addition of 8 overtures.
Ugly, unattractive cover though. And I don't like the user-unfriendly
packaging - when taking out one of the cds (or when reading the booklet), the
other cds can fall out.

BTW in the booklet it says:
>>Toscanini, Karajan and Gardiner - these for Chailly represent "three roads
that all lead to Beethoven. Now we're laying out a fourth."<<

[wkasimer]

On Oct 15, 3:42 pm, "Gerard" <ghendri-nospam_k...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> And I don't like the user-unfriendly
> packaging - when taking out one of the cds (or when reading the booklet), the
> other cds can fall out.

Judging from the blurb on Amazon, this packaging is for the "initial
period" only, so presumably this will be available later in more sane
packaging. I hate those CD sleeves that are integral to the booklet.

Thanks for the review.

Bill

[John Thomas]

Could you let us know which Beethoven symphony sets from the last few
years that you own?

[Gerard]

John Thomas wrote:
> Could you let us know which Beethoven symphony sets from the last few
> years that you own?

I cannot check them all now.
But OTTOMH: Vänskä, Krivine, Immerseel, Haitink, Abbado (twice with BPO).
Do Rattle and Barenboim count?

[John Thomas]

They do if you compared them to Chailly's 4 symphonies and 3
overtures. Which 4 and 3 BTW?.

[pianomaven]

The one real disappointment among those mentioned is the musically
dessicated recordings by Osmo Vanska and the Minnesota Orchestra. If
this is the way Beethoven should sound, I don't much care for him.
Beethoven without balls. Denatured. Emasculated. Distilled of any
signs of Beethoven the man.

The pity is that these Chailly recordings have not been released in
SACD sound, as they were surely recorded so as to allow it at some
time in the future.

TD

[wkasimer]

On Oct 15, 6:57 pm, pianomaven <1pianoma...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The pity is that these Chailly recordings have not been released in
> SACD sound, as they were surely recorded so as to allow it at some
> time in the future.

Hasn't Decca given up on SACD? I haven't seen a hybrid disc from them
in at least a couple of years.

Bill

[M forever]

On Oct 15, 6:57 pm, pianomaven <1pianoma...@gmail.com> wrote:

Why is that a pity? You wouldn't be able to hear the difference anyway.

[RiRiIII]

Just bought it and went directly to the 5th. Amazing super charged and perfectly performed reading. Fully agree with your comments. It looks like a big success.

[Gerard]

I've heard symphonies 1, 2 and 3 from CD, and 4 (partially) and 7 on radio.
And the overtures Die Geschöpfe des Prometheus, Leonore 3, and Fidelio.
I didn't have time to do any comparing (or to continue listening to the other
pieces today).

[operafan]

On Oct 15, 6:57 pm, pianomaven <1pianoma...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The one real disappointment among those mentioned is the musically
> dessicated recordings by Osmo Vanska and the Minnesota Orchestra. If
> this is the way Beethoven should sound, I don't much care for him.
> Beethoven without balls. Denatured. Emasculated. Distilled of any
> signs of Beethoven the man.

Agree with you on Vanska's, but for different reasons. I find them
efficient and Kappelmeisterish, but they offer nothing beyond that.
The SACD sound is fine. I bought two of these (symphonies 3, 8 ,9),
and I regretted it. I heard others on copies borrowed from a library--
they were like snappy run-throughs. I like Zinman's set among the
recent recordings I've heard. And his Missa Solemnis is really
outstanding, too.

[operafan]

On Oct 15, 8:56 pm, wkasimer <wkasi...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Hasn't Decca given up on SACD?  I haven't seen a hybrid disc from them
> in at least a couple of years.

Yes, no Decca SACDs in a long time. None of the sets on SACD that I've
heard are particularly memorable (Haitink, van Zweden, Vanska).

[Mark S]

Where does one purchase this set at this time? The US release date is
Nov 15, and I don't see it at Presto or MDT.

[Gerard]

Mark S wrote:
> Where does one purchase this set at this time? The US release date is
> Nov 15, and I don't see it at Presto or MDT.

In a record store in the Netherlands.

And it is sooooo easy to find on Presto Classical and MDT:
http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/r/Decca/4782721
(Scheduled for release on 24 October 2011)

http://www.mdt.co.uk/MDTSite/product//4782721.htm
(release date 24/10/11)

[Gerard]

This set does not stop being amazing. It gives the impression that everything
sounds the way you always have wanted Beethoven to sound, in every detail. And
the impression that this set is the only Beethoven set you really need.
Exaggerated of course, but if this is your only Beethoven cycle, you're not
missing much about Beethoven - a few more overtures only ;)

It's very difficult to point to one or two symphonies as the 'heights' in this
set. The set as such is the 'height'. It's very consistent from start to end. I
could say (as an impression after one hear through) that the 8th symphony struck
as exceptionally good, but actually everything else is as good. I didn't compare
much (only a few parts of the 7th, with recordings by Blomstedt and Barenboim -
comparing them all should take me a few weeks). A top recommendation.

[paposhvili]

My expectations weren't high and still I was largely disappointed.

I am a fan of Chailly's, really, but I think his move to Leipzig was a
failure, despite the marketing hype like "the orchestra sounds reborn
under him" etc. from the very beginning.

Actually, the orchestra was to blame for this, in my opinion. They
simply were not up to their job. Well, I hoped for improvement, but
haven't seen any progress so far.

Chailly's Bach turned out to be a disaster, and even his recent Mahler
was a pale shadow of his glorious performances at Concertgebouw.

And now this new Beethoven cycle. Chailly may not be the best
classicist around but it was a shock to hear such an unidiomatic
Beethoven from major German orchestra. This is a mess, with huge
problems of articulation and orchestral balance. Coupling the big,
amorphous orchestral sound with breakneck HIP tempos in adagios
doesn't help either. Gianandrea Noseda with his poor Beethoven cycle
fares much better, I believe.

Gewandhausorchester may well be the worst German orchestra at the
moment. This is a shame, really.

[Oscar]

On Nov 5, 4:42 am, paposhvili wrote:
>
> My expectations weren't high and still I was largely disappointed.
>

> Gewandhausorchester may well be the worst German orchestra at the
> moment. This is a shame, really.

:: eating popcorn ::

[paposhvili]

Here is a sample (the first movement of the 8th) for you to judge
yourself:

http://www.mediafire.com/?ma3ikdy5owu3w8o

Compare this to the provincial Deutsche Radio Philharmonie Saarbrücken
Kaiserslautern conducted by Stanislaw Skrowaczewski (also in the
upload) and you'll see what I mean.

[Matthew Silverstein]

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 08:48:14 -0700 (PDT), operafan wrote:

> Yes, no Decca SACDs in a long time. None of the sets on SACD that I've
> heard are particularly memorable (Haitink, van Zweden, Vanska).

Järvi's superb set is on SACD.

Matty

[M forever]

Thanks for uploading these samples. I enjoyed both of them. Both are
also played extremely well. I don't quite see the point in comparing
an interpretation of Brahms 1 to one of Beethoven 8. Two very
different pieces in different styles.
I personally think Chailly's interpretation of that movement is
fantastic, one of the best I have ever heard. It's really musically
very much to the point. It also once again displays Chailly's knack
for making every phrase and motif "speak" and connect to what came
before and what comes afterwards. It is also a great blend of a
"classicist", "historically informed" style of interpretation with
traditional orchestral playing culture.
But, whatever one thinks about the interpretation by the conductor,
that has little to do with the quality of the orchestral playing as
such. I think you are making the - among not musically educated
listeners very common - mistake of confusing your own random emotional
reaction to the interpretation with the actual quality of the playing.
The GOL is still considered one of the top orchestras in the German
orchestral "scene", for good reasons. That you are so surprised how
good the orchestra from Saarbrücken is shows that you don't know much
about that "scene" either.

[paposhvili]

The Brahms recording was simply on my desktop at the moment.

I don't think I'm confusing my emotional reaction to the
interpretation with the actual quality of the playing. Actually, the
orchestral playing isn't that bad in the 8th. It is Chailly's
interpretation which is laughable in my opinion.

The orchestral shortcomings are more evident when Chailly is more or
less straightforward. Listen to the very first track of the album for
example: http://www.mediafire.com/?bbro1k0ofwkzi4r

Not that I'm surprised by the quality of German orchestras. On the
contrary, most of them outperform the current Gewandhaus Orchestra, I
believe.

[M forever]

On Nov 5, 2:51 pm, paposhvili <paposhv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The Brahms recording was simply on my desktop at the moment.
>
> I don't think I'm confusing my emotional reaction to the
> interpretation with the actual quality of the playing. Actually, the
> orchestral playing isn't that bad in the 8th.

That does seem to suggest that you are confusing that.

> It is Chailly's
> interpretation which is laughable in my opinion.

In how far?

> The orchestral shortcomings are more evident when Chailly is more or
> less straightforward. Listen to the very first track of the album for
> example:http://www.mediafire.com/?bbro1k0ofwkzi4r

What shortcomings?

> Not that I'm surprised by the quality of German orchestras. On the
> contrary, most of them outperform the current Gewandhaus Orchestra, I
> believe.

Orchestras don't "outperform" each other. They aren't sports teams.
The technical standard of orchestral playing is generally very high
these days anyway, and that is evident by the quality of playing and
music making delivered even by less known orchestras like the one from
Saarbrücken. The GOL still has a pretty special sound and playing
culture though, and it is a pleasure to hear that paired with a
musically as interesting conductor as Chailly. I am glad he moved
there.

[Ray Hall]

Lena wrote:
>
> (So much, actually, that maybe some conductors could consider the
> merits of despecializing themselves from Beethoven (or Mozart, or
> Haydn). Why do everything? There's other music; music that doesn't
> ask for similar investments in, say, pattern-happiness as this does.)
>
> Otoh, there no rule that says you can't do these as un-classically as
> you wish, and I'm glad you both found something you like.

Or .... something like, "Chailly is a rich man's Dutoit ...". I had a
similar reaction to Chailly's Mahler. Generic, broad, awash with sound,
but little else.

Ray Hall, taree

[CharlesSmith]

On Thursday, November 10, 2011 5:20:07 PM UTC, Lena wrote:

> On Nov 10, 8:07 am, Ray Hall <raymon...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > Lena wrote:
> >
> > > (So much, actually, that maybe some conductors could consider the
> > > merits of despecializing themselves from Beethoven (or Mozart, or
> > > Haydn).   Why do everything?  There's other music; music that doesn't
> > > ask for similar investments in, say, pattern-happiness as this does.)
> >
> > > Otoh, there no rule that says you can't do these as un-classically as
> > > you wish, and I'm glad you both found something you like.
> >
> > Or .... something like, "Chailly is a rich man's Dutoit ...".
>

> (laugh)

>
> > I had a similar reaction to Chailly's Mahler. Generic, broad, awash with sound,
> > but little else.
> >
>

> Well, I'm sort of sorry to hear that. I haven't heard it, and I was
> thinking I'd fish around and at least try Chailly in other repertoire
> (than the Classics).
>
> Lena

I've always very much enjoyed his Hindemith Kammermusik recordings (RCO), but will now have to listen again to check on their neo-classical phrase life.

Charles

[MSW]

On Nov 10, 11:20 am, Lena <emswo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I'm sort of sorry to hear that.  I haven't heard it, and I was
> thinking I'd fish around and at least try Chailly in other repertoire
> (than the Classics).
>
> Lena

The Brahms concerti with Freire and Repin are wonderful. And there's
lots of other great Chally Leipzig recordings, though the idea of him
as the "rich man's Dutoit" in the case of his Mahler and many other
RCO recordings is fair swipe.

I had a strongly negative reaction to the first movement of the
Beethoven 4th symphony when I heard it the other day. If I didn't know
who it was, I could easily have summarized it as the work of a
conductor who had no idea what the music means. Phrase relationships
were destroyed in a slur of energetic note-playing that even makes the
dynamics irrelevant. It was the commen-held stereotype of Solti
mutated into something real and worse.

[MSW]

On Nov 10, 9:51 am, Lena <emswo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (*) As a very first thing, if one wants to pay homage to the big
> features of Classicism in music, one probably shouldn't run phrases
> together into a relatively airless, unsegmented line, like Chailly
> does in these movements.  Because, even on paper, the phrases stop and
> start (via a series of little cadences), get broken up and reassembled
> differently.  This mobility and liveliness is a huge Classical
> feature, as I'm sure everyone knows: the phrases are designed to
> answer each other, comment on each other, exchange small moveable
> parts with each other.  This means that a stamp as a "classicist"
> conductor -- what is that, really? :) -- would at the very least
> require more articulation of the details of all this phrase life and
> movement.  A so-called "long line" is fine, but more is needed.
> Cents donated.

Lena, this is a great post, though I'm hoping I'd value it as much if
my ears didn't agree 100%, which they do.

[Mark S]

I was interested in this set, but reading your response - along with
Lena's - has greatly lessened my interest.

Perhaps my first clue that the set wasn't good should have been the
rave review it received from Gerard.

[Gerard]

Mark S wrote:
>
> I was interested in this set, but reading your response - along with
> Lena's - has greatly lessened my interest.
>
> Perhaps my first clue that the set wasn't good should have been the
> rave review it received from Gerard.

I always do that when you're interested in something.

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> appears to have caused the following
letters to be typed in news:22f7b384-2953-4f24-8c54-8b196a581c18
@k38g2000pro.googlegroups.com:

Indeed. I'm ready to just think of the wretch as "Balthazar Gerard" and be
done with him.

--
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

[Gerard]

Of course. You cannot think about people who just are enthousiastic about some
recording of classical music and write about that in a newsgroup.

[gereco]

On Nov 10, 9:51 am, Lena <emswo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> While I'm here, I might as well comment.   The comment is something
> along the lines of:  ouch, ouch, ouch, ouch...!  :)  (Please don't
> take this seriously.)
>
> I also really don't want to take anything away from either of you, but
> Chailly's outer movements of the 8th (thanks to Paposhvili for the
> first movement) left out quite a bit of Beethoven.  That's not to say
> that they can't be enjoyed for their take on the matter, or as
> Gewandhaus documents, or however one wants to view them.
>
> My opinion is that it looks like the metronome marks and achieving an
> energetic forward motion were given more consideration than (a)
> phrasing (b) connections between patterns (c) counterpoint (d) the
> time signature (e) humor (f) the natural evolution of the movement.
> That's probably enough of a complaint, as a first pass. :)
>
> (I don't know that the Gewandhaus has that big a part in that,
> though.)
>
> So I agree with Paposhvili -- I don't think these were a 'mess', but I
> don't consider these interpretations to be terribly "Classical", or
> classicist, or classicizing.   These were fast and energetic, though.
> If that works, okay. (*)
>
> I know I should try some of the other symphonies; maybe Chailly's 5th
> will work better for me.  Though, unless what I tried was a total
> aberration in the Chailly oeuvre (which I'm not too familiar with), I
> think my favored Beethoven conducting might proceed along slightly
> different lines.  But that's ok, there's plenty of this out there for
> everyone.  :)

>
> (So much, actually, that maybe some conductors could consider the
> merits of despecializing themselves from Beethoven (or Mozart, or
> Haydn).   Why do everything?  There's other music; music that doesn't
> ask for similar investments in, say, pattern-happiness as this does.)
>
> Otoh, there no rule that says you can't do these as un-classically as
> you wish, and I'm glad you both found something you like.
>

> Lena

>
> (*) As a very first thing, if one wants to pay homage to the big
> features of Classicism in music, one probably shouldn't run phrases
> together into a relatively airless, unsegmented line, like Chailly
> does in these movements.  Because, even on paper, the phrases stop and
> start (via a series of little cadences), get broken up and reassembled
> differently.  This mobility and liveliness is a huge Classical
> feature, as I'm sure everyone knows: the phrases are designed to
> answer each other, comment on each other, exchange small moveable
> parts with each other.  This means that a stamp as a "classicist"
> conductor -- what is that, really? :) -- would at the very least
> require more articulation of the details of all this phrase life and
> movement.  A so-called "long line" is fine, but more is needed.

> Cents donated.-

It's always a pleasure to read your posts for the fluidity and
straightforwardess of what you express.

And usually topped off with good humor, too! ["cents donated."
<g>]

_G

[paposhvili]

Thank you to both Lena and MSW. Really enjoyed reading your thoughtful
comments.

Along these lines, let me share the recording of the Beethoven 4th
which otherwise may go completely unnoticed: Simone Young conducting
the Bergen Philharmonic Orchestra (in 1998-2002 Mrs. Young was a
principal conductor there).

http://www.mediafire.com/?k59tyg7a2bl1oa8

Apologies for the low bitrate Real Media file. This is what I have. My
VLC Media Player plays it without problems, though.

A sensational performance of the work in my opinion. You have to hear
it to believe it!

[MSW]

What I've heard has been very limited, FWIW.

[maready]

On Nov 11, 4:49 am, Lena <emswo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 11:23 am, MSW <mswdes...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Nov 10, 9:51 am, Lena <emswo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]

>
> > > This means that a stamp as a "classicist"
> > > conductor -- what is that, really? :) -- would at the very least
> > > require more articulation of the details of all this phrase life and
> > > movement.  A so-called "long line" is fine, but more is needed.
> > > Cents donated.
>
> > Lena, this is a great post, though I'm hoping I'd value it as much if
> > my ears didn't agree 100%, which they do.
>

> Though I claim I prefer arguing, :) it's still nicer to find
> agreement.
>
> (Oh, and no mention of "phrase life" is complete without hints at
> shady commerce in the contrapuntal ranks.  But I hope someone else can
> figure out the economic implications of Bach viewed as the black
> market.)
>
> Lena

I really enjoy Chailly's recordings of 20th-century music (Mahler,
Second Vienna School, Berio, Hindemith.) He also made great recordings
of the earlier Bruckner symphonies (0-3), although that was a long
time ago .... I second the above recommendation for the Freire/Chailly
Brahms concertos.

And thank you Paopshvii for sharing the Simone Young Beethoven 4 --- I
look forward to hearing this. Her Bruckner (1,2,3,4 and 8) and 'Mathis
der Maler' on Oehms are excellent and her Beethoven should be
interesting at the very least!

[Oscar]

US Amazon has processed my order. These are shipping now to Prime
members, should arrive on my stoop on Monday.

[Dufus]

On Oct 15, 1:42 pm, "Gerard" <ghendri-nospam_k...@hotmail.com> wrote:


Telegraph review :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/classicalcdreviews/8898747/Beethoven-Complete-Symphonies-CD-review.html

[Gerard]

Thanks.

[M forever]

On Nov 22, 3:03 pm, Dufus <steveha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 15, 1:42 pm, "Gerard" <ghendri-nospam_k...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

> Telegraph review :http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/classicalcdreviews/8898747/B...

Rattle recorded his Beethoven symphonies in Vienna, not in Berlin (he
did record Fidelio with the BP though), but apart from this small
detail which the review got wrong but which isn't all that relevant in
this context, I pretty much agree with the review, after having
listened to the set quite extensively over the past week. There is a
nervous energy and tension in the music making, a plasticity to the
soundscapes, and a compelling inner logic to the way Chailly shapes
and fits together all the details which is quite fascinating to listen
to. Now and then, I actually had that rare feeling as if I was
listening to the music "for the first time", but not because of random
gimmicky stuff (like Pletnev in his cycle), but because it is often so
convincing. Like the first movement of the 9th which is a really
stormy voyage here, not majestically plodding along. Now and then, I
felt Chailly couldn't always make the generally relatively quick tempi
work in slower sections and movements (e.g. the slow introduction of
the 4th does come across as a little hurried, and not just because of
the actual tempo), but overall, I find it an interesting and rewarding
set. The playing of the orchestra is quite phenomenal, especially how
the string sections still manage to articulate their parts and play
with great unanimity even at those breakneck speeds - some of those go
right to the edge of what one can do with such a relatively large body
of strings. I would have wished for a little more transparency of the
sound in some places, and I still think the winds are often set too
far back in the sound picture.

[Mark S]

On Nov 23, 7:16 am, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I pretty much agree with the review, after having
> listened to the set quite extensively over the past week. There is a
> nervous energy and tension in the music making, a plasticity to the
> soundscapes, and a compelling inner logic to the way Chailly shapes
> and fits together all the details which is quite fascinating to listen
> to. Now and then, I actually had that rare feeling as if I was
> listening to the music "for the first time", but not because of random
> gimmicky stuff (like Pletnev in his cycle), but because it is often so
> convincing.

Great. Looks like I need to shell out another $45. That is, as soon as
I come to grips with that fact that both you and Gerard find this set
exceptional. :O

[M forever]

That's pure coincidence. I am sure you will at least find these
recordings worth your while listening to them, potentially enjoy them
a lot. I don't "agree" with everything Chailly does, and I wouldn't
say they are "the greatest ever" or something like that, but they are
certainly worth checking out.

[wagnerfan]

I'll be getting as well!!! Wagner fan

[Thornhill]

Well said. I've been listening to the set for the last two days and
have greatly enjoyed it.

FYI for prospective buyers: Amazon has it for only $36.

[M forever]

What do you think about what I said that the winds are not always
served well by the recording, that they often seem to be a little too
dimly lit and too far back in the sound picture? Not throughout
though, and usually not in soli, but in tutti, I feel that is quite
often the case. Again, not all the time, and there are great moments
when they do come through really well, like in 6/iii when the first
tutti comes in, you can hear the raspy low notes of the second horn
really (and in this context, surprisingly) well which gives the whole
thing kind of a "rustic" edge.
But in other places, for instance at the very end of the Eroica, 5
bars from the end, the horns and trumpets land on a held Eb, and the
bassoons and clarinets start a Eb major scale going up which is then
picked up in the next bars by the rest of the winds and the strings -
here you can't hear the clarinets and bassoons at all. BTW, one of the
many passages in Beethoven's symphonies which "prove" that the
orchestration works very well but was definitely written with the kind
of instruments and the size of orchestra that was typical in
Beethoven's day in mind. Not a big deal, just a small detail that I
wish could have been realized a little better, in this case, by the
brass hitting the note forte but going back immediately to "let
through" the woodwinds. Or simply doubling the woodwinds. There is
nothing "wrong" with that. It was done in Beethoven's time, too, when
they had a large string section.
But maybe I am nitpicking because there are other moments where the
balance works extremely well. For instance, the famous "whooping"
woodwind passage in the first tutti of 9/ii where, going back to
Wagner, many conductors assign the line in the woodwinds to the horns,
too, arguing that Beethoven would have done so had he had valve horns
in his day. Chailly here manages to stay true to the original
orchestration but he takes the strings down one dynamic notch, so the
woodwind come through very well here.

[Gerard]

No big deal indeed. Not worth 2 few hundreds words.

>
> wish could have been realized a little better, in this case, by the
> brass hitting the note forte but going back immediately to "let
> through" the woodwinds. Or simply doubling the woodwinds. There is
> nothing "wrong" with that. It was done in Beethoven's time, too, when
> they had a large string section.
> But maybe I am nitpicking

Not "maybe".
Just nitpicking.

[Gerard]

Wait until someone else comes to bash this set (again).

[Mark S]

On Nov 23, 11:52 am, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Great. Looks like I need to shell out another $45. That is, as soon as
> > I come to grips with that fact that both you and Gerard find this set
> > exceptional.  :O
>
> That's pure coincidence. I am sure you will at least find these
> recordings worth your while listening to them, potentially enjoy them
> a lot. I don't "agree" with everything Chailly does, and I wouldn't
> say they are "the greatest ever" or something like that, but they are
> certainly worth checking out.

OK. I just ordered the set from amazon.

[M forever]

On Nov 23, 4:19 pm, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 11:52 am, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Great. Looks like I need to shell out another $45. That is, as soon as
> > > I come to grips with that fact that both you and Gerard find this set
> > > exceptional.  :O
>
> > That's pure coincidence. I am sure you will at least find these
> > recordings worth your while listening to them, potentially enjoy them

> > a lot. I don't "agree" with everythingChaillydoes, and I wouldn't

> > say they are "the greatest ever" or something like that, but they are
> > certainly worth checking out.
>
> OK. I just ordered the set from amazon.

I don't think you will regret the investment. Just opened my killfile
for a quick peek at what "Gerard" had to say in response to my last
post (the way that works in Google is that it simply blanks him out,
so I do see that he is still obsessively commenting on pretty much
everything I say - sometimes threads are riddled with these blanks all
over the place LOL).

That guy is really sick. I mean in the truest sense of the word. Even
if we happen to agree on something, he has to find *something* to post
an OCD/ODD comment on.
Then again, he obviously doesn't hear that well, so maybe he simply
doesn't get what I am saying.
Nonetheless, I would like to invite comments from more competent
listeners who have heard these recordings about what I perceive to be
a slight problem with the sound balance, regarding the winds.

[Bob Harper]

On 11/23/11 5:39 PM, M forever wrote:
> I don't think you will regret the investment. Just opened my killfile
> for a quick peek at what "Gerard" had to say in response to my last
> post (the way that works in Google is that it simply blanks him out,
> so I do see that he is still obsessively commenting on pretty much
> everything I say - sometimes threads are riddled with these blanks all
> over the place LOL).
>
> That guy is really sick. I mean in the truest sense of the word. Even

> if we happen to agree on something, he has to find*something* to post

> an OCD/ODD comment on.
> Then again, he obviously doesn't hear that well, so maybe he simply
> doesn't get what I am saying.
> Nonetheless, I would like to invite comments from more competent
> listeners who have heard these recordings about what I perceive to be
> a slight problem with the sound balance, regarding the winds.

Let's see. Eight words on the subject, one hundred forty-five ad hominem.
Do you begin to understand why you have become an irrelevant joke?

Bob Harper

[pianomaven]

No. Because he's a dick. And a dumb dick to boot.

Not fair to hold our little Nazi fuck up to a higher standard, Bob.
The best thing to do is to ignore him, or pity him. Or both.

TD

[M forever]

On Nov 23, 9:32 pm, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:

Funny you don't have anything to say about Gerard's obsessive
commenting on most of what I write - thousands and thousands of ad
hominem words - and on most of what other people write, too -
thousands more pointless words. Not that I care - but you apparently
cared enough to even count my words in this last post.

So why this comment, but you don't have anything to say about Gerard's
obsession with commenting on everything and attacking me for
everything I say.

Oh yes, that's right, Harper, that's because you are a fucking
hypocrite. Speaking of which, how is the guy who is nailing your
daughter? Have they gotten married yet or are they still living in
sin? How much in indulgences will you have to pay so they don't burn
in purgatory for too long later?

[Oscar]

On Nov 23, 8:45 pm, M forever wrote:
>
> So why this comment, but you don't have anything to say about Gerard's
> obsession with commenting on everything and attacking me for
> everything I say.
>
> Oh yes, that's right, Harper, that's because you are a fucking
> hypocrite. Speaking of which, how is the guy who is nailing your
> daughter? Have they gotten married yet or are they still living in
> sin? How much in indulgences will you have to pay so they don't burn
> in purgatory for too long later?

Herr Schaffer around the holidays is just so warm 'n fuzzy, isn't he?
What _are_ your plans for tomorrow, Michael?? Howard Johnson's?

[Gerard]

That's a lot more (relatively) on the subject than usual.

The rest is the usual BS, of course. And it does not make any sense.
E.g. "he obviously doesn't hear that well".

[Gerard]

Why?
No one is more "competent" than the Übermensch.

[Gerard]

Lies.

> Not that I care - but you apparently
> cared enough to even count my words in this last post.
>
> So why this comment, but you don't have anything to say about Gerard's
> obsession with commenting on everything and attacking me for
> everything I say.
>
> Oh yes, that's right, Harper, that's because you are a fucking
> hypocrite. Speaking of which, how is the guy who is nailing your
> daughter? Have they gotten married yet or are they still living in
> sin? How much in indulgences will you have to pay so they don't burn
> in purgatory for too long later?

As disgusting as ever.

[Thornhill]

I only had a chance to listen to the 5th symphony on my audio system
before I left for Thanksgiving -- I listened to the cycle twice
through on my iPod while traveling. Some I'm hesitant to pass any
judgement on the sonics.

Because Chailly is using a full string section, I'm not surprised to
hear you say that the winds don't come through as well as the should
-- that kinda goes with the territory. But from my iPod listening, I
don't think the sonics detract from the performances.

One thing that did strike me about the sound when I was listening to
the 5th on my audio was that the timpani did come across a bit booming
with too much reverb.

[M forever]

Isn't that a hotel chain? Why would I go to a hotel to celebrate
Thanksgiving?
Anyway, since both my GF and me don't really do Thanksgiving and both
our families are far away (she is from Australia), we hadn't really
planned anything special, but we got invited to the turkey thing by
someone she knows from her university. So we'll do that tonight. We
also thought about taking a spontaneous trip, maybe up to Montreal.
We'll see.

How about you? Are you going somewhere or did your GF not get time off
from the nail salon?

[M forever]

On Nov 24, 9:27 am, Thornhill <seth.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 3:27 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 23, 3:10 pm, Thornhill <seth.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 23, 10:16 am, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 22, 3:03 pm, Dufus <steveha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 15, 1:42 pm, "Gerard" <ghendri-nospam_k...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Telegraph review :http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/classicalcdreviews/8898747/B...
>

> > > > Rattle recorded hisBeethovensymphonies in Vienna, not in Berlin (he

> > > > did record Fidelio with the BP though), but apart from this small
> > > > detail which the review got wrong but which isn't all that relevant in
> > > > this context, I pretty much agree with the review, after having
> > > > listened to the set quite extensively over the past week. There is a
> > > > nervous energy and tension in the music making, a plasticity to the
> > > > soundscapes, and a compelling inner logic to the wayChaillyshapes
> > > > and fits together all the details which is quite fascinating to listen
> > > > to. Now and then, I actually had that rare feeling as if I was
> > > > listening to the music "for the first time", but not because of random
> > > > gimmicky stuff (like Pletnev in his cycle), but because it is often so
> > > > convincing. Like the first movement of the 9th which is a really
> > > > stormy voyage here, not majestically plodding along. Now and then, I

> > > > feltChaillycouldn't always make the generally relatively quick tempi

> > many passages inBeethoven'ssymphonies which "prove" that the

> > orchestration works very well but was definitely written with the kind
> > of instruments and the size of orchestra that was typical in

> >Beethoven'sday in mind. Not a big deal, just a small detail that I

> > wish could have been realized a little better, in this case, by the
> > brass hitting the note forte but going back immediately to "let
> > through" the woodwinds. Or simply doubling the woodwinds. There is

> > nothing "wrong" with that. It was done inBeethoven'stime, too, when

> > they had a large string section.
> > But maybe I am nitpicking because there are other moments where the
> > balance works extremely well. For instance, the famous "whooping"
> > woodwind passage in the first tutti of 9/ii where, going back to
> > Wagner, many conductors assign the line in the woodwinds to the horns,

> > too, arguing thatBeethovenwould have done so had he had valve horns
> > in his day.Chaillyhere manages to stay true to the original

> > orchestration but he takes the strings down one dynamic notch, so the
> > woodwind come through very well here.
>
> I only had a chance to listen to the 5th symphony on my audio system
> before I left for Thanksgiving -- I listened to the cycle twice
> through on my iPod while traveling. Some I'm hesitant to pass any
> judgement on the sonics.
>

> BecauseChaillyis using a full string section, I'm not surprised to

> hear you say that the winds don't come through as well as the should
> -- that kinda goes with the territory.

He could have doubled the woodwinds though which was actually common
practice in Beethoven's time, too. I don't think it's a big "problem",
but there are moments, as in 5/i when there is some interplay between
winds and strings that the balance is just a little off.

> But from my iPod listening, I
> don't think the sonics detract from the performances.
>
> One thing that did strike me about the sound when I was listening to
> the 5th on my audio was that the timpani did come across a bit booming
> with too much reverb.

I don't think reverb is the problem. The bass region and the timpani
are a little underdefined by the recording in general, a little soft
and mushy, and when the player uses softer sticks as he apparently
does in 5/i, the result lacks definition a little. In Coriolan or 5/
iv, he uses harder sticks and the timpani come across much clearer,
with a firm core to the tone rather than the boomy sound in 5/i.
That's probably because Decca wanted to make the recordings sound
"warmer" - the Gewandhaus has a very clean and clear, "glassy"
acoustic which makes the sound very transparent - you can hear pretty
much everything in live concerts - which doesn't give the sound a warm
halo like the Concertgebouw or Musikverein, and that can be difficult
to record because it can sound too bright on recordings, similar to
the Philharmonie in Berlin. Maybe that also explains the wind balance.
It was probably better in the hall. I guess one can't fault Decca too
much here either. Better this than monkeying around with the balances
at the mixer too much, I guess.
In any case, these are only small "complaints". Just finished
listening to the 8th which is a breathtakingly spectacular performance
in every respect. The horn and clarinets in the trio are phenomenal.
Every musical detail is clearly and meaningfully shaped, and how well
the orchestra articulates and phrases even at the breakneck speed of
the finale is simply stunning. Chailly also makes the second movement
work really well. Note how he has the 2nd violins and violins with
their pizzicato "comment" on the main theme at the beginning, and when
it returns later, without gimmickingly highlighting the accompaniment.
The whole performance from start to finish is full of such fine
detail. This is probably one of the best 8ths I have ever heard.

[Gerard]

IOW: nitpicking only.

>
> In any case, these are only small "complaints". Just finished
> listening to the 8th which is a breathtakingly spectacular performance
> in every respect. The horn and clarinets in the trio are phenomenal.
> Every musical detail is clearly and meaningfully shaped, and how well
> the orchestra articulates and phrases even at the breakneck speed of
> the finale is simply stunning. Chailly also makes the second movement
> work really well. Note how he has the 2nd violins and violins with
> their pizzicato "comment" on the main theme at the beginning, and when
> it returns later, without gimmickingly highlighting the accompaniment.
> The whole performance from start to finish is full of such fine
> detail. This is probably one of the best 8ths I have ever heard.

Like I wrote ("the 8th symphony struck as exceptionally good").

[Oscar]

On Nov 24, 11:46 am, M forever wrote:
> We
> also thought about taking a spontaneous trip, maybe up to Montreal.
> We'll see.

Don't forget to bring your papers!

[M forever]

I don't smoke weed.

[Oscar]

On Nov 24, 1:29 pm, M forever wrote:
>
> > > We
> > > also thought about taking a spontaneous trip, maybe up to Montreal.
>

> > Don't forget to bring your papers!
>
> I don't smoke weed.

Is that supposed to be German humor? Because it's just too gut-
wrenchingly funny!!

Knock, knock.
Who's there?
The police. I'm afraid there's been an accident. Your husband is in
the hospital.

A man walks into a pub.
He is an alcoholic whose drinking problem is destroying his family.

Did you hear about the blonde who jumped out off a bridge?
She was clinically depressed and took her own life because of her
terribly low self-esteem.

Why is there no aspirin in the jungle?
Because it would not be financially viable to attempt to sell
pharmaceuticals in the largely unpopulated rainforest.

Doctor Doctor! I think I've broken my leg!
Yes, I'm afraid it's a terrible break, the chances are you'll never
walk again.

An Englishman, an Italian, and a German walk into a bar. The German
says to the bartender: 'This is an Englishman and Italian with me. I
am German.'

What did the German kid say when he pushed his brother off a cliff?
'Look, mother, no Hans!'

[M forever]

Silly nationalist stereotypes is your idea of "humor"? That's sad,
dude...

[Peter Voormolen]

EM wrote:
> 20 ROSS definitions:
> Radiotherapy Oncology Support System
> Random Origin Symbol Sequence
> Range Operations Support Squadron
> Rapid On Site Support
> Reactive Oxygen Species
> Refinement Of SIGINT Support
> Rely On Self Study
> Remote Ocean Sensing System
> Remote Orbital Servicing System
> Research Operations Support Services
> Research Opportunities in Space Science
> Resident Opportunities and Self Sufficiency
> Resource Ordering and Status System
> Review Of Subjective Symptoms
> Rewritable Optical Storage System
> River Oil Spill Simulation
> Rod Outer Segments
> Route di Orientamento alla Scelta di Servizio
> Russian Ocean Surveillance System
> Russian Oregon Social Services

Thanks.

[Dufus]

On Oct 15, 1:42 pm, "Gerard" <ghendri-nospam_k...@hotmail.com> wrote:

The 9th, complete, a Dec., 2009 performance by Chailly and the
Lepzigers :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5PhRo56l0U&feature=related

Dufus

[Dufus]

On Nov 27, 9:35 pm, Dufus <steveha...@gmail.com> wrote:

Leipzigers ; sorry.

And---Wow !

Dufus

[M forever]

Still not quite right: Leipziger is both singular and plural.

[David O.]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 19:35:19 -0800 (PST), Dufus <steve...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>The 9th, complete, a Dec., 2009 performance by Chailly and the
>Lepzigers :
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5PhRo56l0U&feature=related

I like that! It reminds me of skidding down the Broadway ski run at
Mammoth Mountain on my butt.

[Mark S]

Hurwitz has reviewed the set:

LUDWIG VAN BEETHOVEN
Symphonies Nos. 1-9; Overtures: Prometheus; Leonore No. 3; Fidelio;
Coriolan; Egmont; The Ruins of Athens; Namensfeier; King Stephan
Katerina Beranova (soprano); Lilli Paasikivi (mezzo-soprano); Robert
Dean Smith (tenor); Hanno Müller-Brachmann (bass-baritone)

Gewandhaus Orchestra & Choirs

Riccardo Chailly

Decca- 478 2721(CD)
Reference Recording - Vänskä (BIS); Barenboim (Warner); Bernstein/
Vienna (DG)

rating: 10/10

A set like this reveals tellingly the beneficial side of the
period-performance movement. There are things that Riccardo Chailly
does that likely never would have occurred to him, especially with
this orchestra, absent current research into early 19th-century
sonority and practice, particularly regarding tempo. I'm thinking of
the scherzo of the Fifth, quicker than usual and wholly convincing, or
the slow movements of the Sixth and Ninth symphonies, which flow with
expressive purpose but never sound rushed (unlike many actual period-
instrument versions). The Allegretto of the Seventh also really lives
up to its designation, but then, so did Szell's.

On the other hand, there are some "traditional" touches that also
make a lot of sense, most obviously, for example, Chailly's excellent
decision to let the trumpet play the entire main theme in the coda of
the Eroica's first movement (but he leaves the bassoons alone, as
written, in the Fifth's first-movement recapitulation). In other
words, Chailly, like Vänskä, takes what he needs from modern
scholarship and assembles a distinctive interpretive take on this
music. The result is brilliant, personal, and consistently convincing.

The one huge advantage that Chailly enjoys over any period-
instrument performance, however, is the playing of Leipzig's
Gewandhaus Orchestra. Obviously, these folks know their Beethoven, but
more to the point, it's ludicrous in the face of playing of this
quality to suggest that any period-performance group, using modern
copies of old instruments, can approach the ensemble quality on
display here. Consider the bite and weight of the strings at the start
of the Coriolan Overture, or in the trio of the Fifth's scherzo. You
also won't find any band of "authentic" instruments with woodwinds
whose parts tell with such clarity or personality. Check out the
numerous solos in the "Pastoral", or the squealing piccolo atop the
tuttis in the finale of the Fifth. The sheer excitement that Chailly
generates in the virtuosic finale of the Eighth, or the coda of the
same movement in the "Eroica", has to be heard to be believed. Really,
there's no comparison.

More to the point, this telling admixture of traditional and novel
gives Beethoven's music a range of expression and bigness of vision
that period-performance purists can't hope to match. The Ninth really
is the cosmic experience that it ought to be, aided by a fine lineup
of soloists and a magnificent, large chorus. Is it all equally fine?
Well, everyone will have their own preferences. I'd prefer a slower
tempo for the tenor solo march in the Ninth's finale, and there are
one or two other moments that might raise an eyebrow, but in the face
of such general excellence they really don't matter. This is great
Beethoven.

Finally, a consumer note. Universal was not providing promotional
copies of this set to critics (at least, not to those they consider
less important) because of the alleged cost of the packaging. So I
purchased my set at full price. What you get is a slipcase with five
CDs bound into a hard-backed booklet. It's a nice design, but you can
download the entire set for about two-thirds to a half the price, and
that might well be a better option for most listeners. Certainly it's
pointless to pay markedly extra for cardboard, plastic, and a useless
essay on Beethoven, Chailly, and the Gewandhaus. Either way, the sound
is excellent.

--David Hurwitz

[John Thomas]

Mark S wrote:
> Hurwitz has reviewed the set:

I'm really impressed.

[Mark S]

I've had a chance to listen to half of this set (1, 2, 5, 6, 7 +
Overtures), so I thought I'd weigh in with my impressions to date.

First, the orchestra plays incredibly well.

Second, the recorded sound is superb. If every Beethoven cycle out
there were afforded such an open, clean sound as this we might be
better able to evaluate interpretive differences. You could take
dictation from these recordings.

Third, the interpretations are a nice combination of what we might
think of as traditional and modern approaches to these scores. I would
agree with Hurwitz's review in which he outlines the similarities and
superiority of Chailly over the HIPsters.

In short, I'd think these recordings would be a welcome addition to
any serious or not-so-serious classical collection. That being said
allows me to pick a few nits:


I'm not entirely won over by the fleet tempi Chailly adopts in many of
the movements. Not because the orchestra can't articulate the notes,
but because I feel that they can't always maintain the weight of tone
they have established. This tendency is most pronounced in Sym 1 & 2.
It's a salient consideration, and one that most conductors will make
if their interpretation relies on weight of tone making their
interpretive points (Böhm, Karajan & Bernstein sring to mind in this
regard), especially in scoring points in establishing and maintaining
forward harmonic motion.

But to be honest, I don't know if this lack of tonal weight in a few
places in Chailly's set can be put down to the playing or if it's a
matter of dial turning in the control room. Others have mentioned that
the winds seem to get buried in certain places. I didn't get that
feeling (in fact, as an oboist, I was more than pleased with the
prominence given to the winds throughout this set, even in places
where the recording borders on morphing into a piccolo concerto), but
I did get the feeling that certain instruments were being highlighted
then pushed back into the perspective. This could be Chailly's doing.
It could be the engineers call. It could also be a faithful
representation of what was going on at the sessions, and that the
swift tempi I mentioned simply worked against maintaining weight of
tone (no dial turning called for). If true, then it makes for an
interesting discussion of choices made by the conductor and the
recording team.

I well remember the Decca sessions I attended when Maazel recorded
Porgy in Cleveland. There were multiple takes made of everything. Not
because mistakes had been made, but because Maazel and his recording
team were trying different things. I particularly remember the
numerous takes done of the scene where Porgy kills Crown. One of them
ended with Williard White doing this bone-chilling laugh that started
at the top of his vocal range, cascading down to the near bottom of
his bass-baritone. The take induced stunned silence in the control
room, with approving nods all 'round...for about a minute, until
producer Michael Woolcock took in the room and asked the simple
question, "can we all live with that? Not just today, but tomorrow as
well?"

What he meant, of course, is that one sets down a recording for
posterity, not just for the moment. Sure, "live" recordings are
another thing, but when you're in the studio - especially recording a
rarity like P&B was on disc back in 1976 - you often rightly elect to
round off a few of the sharpest interpretive edges that pop up on the
tapes because you know that such edges are not going to wear well over
time as that "inscribed forever in vinyl" recording is played over and
over again through the years. This is a consideration that I myself
have experienced as a participant in recording sessions as well, when
one thought a "keeper" had been made one day only to come back to the
following day's session to try again because the team thought it worth
it to get things "more perfect" than the perfection reached the
previous day.

Which brings me back to this Chailly set, which is delightfully full
of highly individualistic interpretive gestures that may or may not
sit well on repeat hearings and over the ensuing years. I say that in
large part because of what I perceive as being the perspective of why
those gestures were made by Chailly. For instance, when I first
encountered Harnoncourt's Beethoven set, I found it useful to have the
scores handy, because Harnoncourt often reveals a texture or an
articulation that has been staring one in the face forever but has
somehow missed being executed effectively by others. With Harnoncourt,
I often found myself thinking, "never heard it that way before, but
there it is, right in the score." There is no similar experience with
Chailly's set.

I'm not saying that Chailly's interpretive gestures are more willful
than those of others, but I do get that he's very a much an in-the-
moment performer who doesn't necessarily see himself as setting down
his "definitive" or "for the ages" Beethoven cycle. I get that his
answer to Woolcock's brilliant and necessary question would be, "this
is how I feel today, and if and when I change my mind, I'll let you
know and we'll have another go at things." Perhaps that's a more-
honest approach to things. Yet, there are few Mulligans in the
classical recording industry (Abbado's two DG B cycles with the BPO
being the obvious exception to the rule), and no artist today can
sanely expect that he or she is going to be able to record and re-
record standard repertoire the way Karajan did. That being a given, in
the case of the highly singular Chailly, rounding off the sharpest
edges may have resulted in the baby going the way of the bathwater.

So, my vote would be very much for this set, at least in the moment.
It's worth the price of admission for the stunning orchestra playing
alone, and for the energy and drive Chailly brings to the proceedings
(and I can report that even with all the drive that these are NOT one-
dimensional interpretations by any stretch of the imagination). I've
still to listen to the 8th, Ninth, the 3rd, and my personal fav, the
4th, so there's every chance that my views expressed above may not
hold. What I can say is that I look forward to hearing all of those
pieces in Chailly's hands, and that in and of itself bodes well for
this set remaining in the collection for a good long time.

BTW - I liked the special packaging given to this set. It's very
attractive (if dark in color - a throwback to that "serious classical
music" packaging we used to get in the 50s and 60s), and says that
Decca had the good sense to treat these recordings as something
special, rather than issuing them in the traditional jewel box
fashion. Besides, once I copy these recording into my iTunes, I won't
be dealing with the packaging.

I'll add my thoughts on the other symphonies if I feel there's
anything worth adding.

[Rich]

M. Stenroos wrote:.

>
> I'll add my thoughts on the other symphonies if I feel there's
> anything worth adding.

Thanks Mark. That review is a welcome addition to RMCR's archives.

Rich

[M forever]

On Dec 6, 1:26 pm, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I've had a chance to listen to half of this set (1, 2, 5, 6, 7 +
> Overtures), so I thought I'd weigh in with my impressions to date.
>
> First, the orchestra plays incredibly well.
>
> Second, the recorded sound is superb. If every Beethoven cycle out
> there were afforded such an open, clean sound as this we might be
> better able to evaluate interpretive differences. You could take
> dictation from these recordings.
>
> Third, the interpretations are a nice combination of what we might
> think of as traditional and modern approaches to these scores. I would
> agree with Hurwitz's review in which he outlines the similarities and
> superiority of Chailly over the HIPsters.
>
> In short, I'd think these recordings would be a welcome addition to
> any serious or not-so-serious classical collection. That being said
> allows me to pick a few nits:
>
> I'm not entirely won over by the fleet tempi Chailly adopts in many of
> the movements. Not because the orchestra can't articulate the notes,
> but because I feel that they can't always maintain the weight of tone
> they have established. This tendency is most pronounced in Sym 1 & 2.
> It's a salient consideration, and one that most conductors will make
> if their interpretation relies on weight of tone making their
> interpretive points (Böhm, Karajan & Bernstein sring to mind in this
> regard),

I think all three of those conductors would strongly object to the
idea that their interpretive points relied simply on "weight of tone".
Maybe Thielemann might like to be described like that, but I can think
of few conductors in general who I think would like that.

> especially in scoring points in establishing and maintaining
> forward harmonic motion.

What does "weight of tone" have to do with "forward harmonic motion"?

> But to be honest, I don't know if this lack of tonal weight in a few
> places in Chailly's set can be put down to the playing or if it's a
> matter of dial turning in the control room.

Or maybe it's because the weight and substance of music itself varies,
and it isn't Chailly's #1 priority to make everything sound "weighty",
no matter what?

> Others have mentioned that
> the winds seem to get buried in certain places. I didn't get that
> feeling (in fact, as an oboist, I was more than pleased with the
> prominence given to the winds throughout this set, even in places
> where the recording borders on morphing into a piccolo concerto), but
> I did get the feeling that certain instruments were being highlighted
> then pushed back into the perspective. This could be Chailly's doing.
> It could be the engineers call. It could also be a faithful
> representation of what was going on at the sessions, and that the
> swift tempi I mentioned simply worked against maintaining weight of
> tone (no dial turning called for). If true, then it makes for an
> interesting discussion of choices made by the conductor and the
> recording team.

You can listen to a podcast from the Barbican Center on iTunes in
which Chailly explains his decision not to double the winds, and his
explanation made sense to me (even though I forgot in the meantime
what it was), so I am less bothered by the balances than I was at
first. There are still some places where I think the balance could be
better, e.g. at the very end of the Eroica, the last Eb scale going up
4-5 or so before the end, beginning in the clarinets and bassoons,
then picked up by the higher winds and strings - you can't hear the
beginning of the scale at all. But that is just a minor point. In
other places, I am actually delighted by how well you can hear some of
the lower wind detail, especially the second horn which comes through
crisply e.g. in the first tutti of 6/III or at the end of the
"cascading" series of repetitions of the main motif in the last bars
of the exposition of 5/I.

Maybe because Harnoncourt already revealed those details to you?

> I'm not saying that Chailly's interpretive gestures are more willful
> than those of others, but I do get that he's very a much an in-the-
> moment performer who doesn't necessarily see himself as setting down
> his "definitive" or "for the ages" Beethoven cycle. I get that his
> answer to Woolcock's brilliant and necessary question would be, "this
> is how I feel today, and if and when I change my mind, I'll let you
> know and we'll have another go at things." Perhaps that's a more-
> honest approach to things. Yet, there are few Mulligans in the
> classical recording industry

What is a "Mulligan"?

> (Abbado's two DG B cycles with the BPO
> being the obvious exception to the rule), and no artist today can
> sanely expect that he or she is going to be able to record and re-
> record standard repertoire the way Karajan did. That being a given, in
> the case of the highly singular Chailly, rounding off the sharpest
> edges may have resulted in the baby going the way of the bathwater.

May or might?

> So, my vote would be very much for this set, at least in the moment.
> It's worth the price of admission for the stunning orchestra playing
> alone, and for the energy and drive Chailly brings to the proceedings
> (and I can report that even with all the drive that these are NOT one-
> dimensional interpretations by any stretch of the imagination). I've
> still to listen to the 8th, Ninth, the 3rd, and my personal fav, the
> 4th, so there's every chance that my views expressed above may not
> hold. What I can say is that I look forward to hearing all of those
> pieces in Chailly's hands, and that in and of itself bodes well for
> this set remaining in the collection for a good long time.

I am not giving to hyperbole, but I think the 8th is absolutely
phenomenal. I actually listened to it twice in a row. Then I looked at
the score online and listened to selected bits a third time.

[Gerard]

M forever wrote:
>
> You can listen to a podcast from the Barbican Center on iTunes in
> which Chailly explains his decision not to double the winds, and his
> explanation made sense to me (even though I forgot in the meantime
> what it was), so I am less bothered by the balances than I was at
> first.

You already wrote that you were nit picking.

>
> I am not giving to hyperbole, but I think the 8th is absolutely
> phenomenal. I actually listened to it twice in a row. Then I looked at
> the score online and listened to selected bits a third time.

Right. (I could hear that without score, but that does not count of course.)

>
> > BTW - I liked the special packaging given to this set. It's very
> > attractive (if dark in color - a throwback to that "serious
> > classical music" packaging we used to get in the 50s and 60s), and
> > says that Decca had the good sense to treat these recordings as
> > something special, rather than issuing them in the traditional
> > jewel box fashion. Besides, once I copy these recording into my
> > iTunes, I won't be dealing with the packaging.

For people who have to deal with the packaging it is a clumsy packaging.

[wkasimer]

On Dec 6, 3:43 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What is a "Mulligan"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulligan_%28games%29

Bill

[Mark S]

On Dec 6, 12:43 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>That being said
> > allows me to pick a few nits:
>
> > I'm not entirely won over by the fleet tempi Chailly adopts in many of
> > the movements. Not because the orchestra can't articulate the notes,
> > but because I feel that they can't always maintain the weight of tone
> > they have established. This tendency is most pronounced in Sym 1 & 2.
> > It's a salient consideration, and one that most conductors will make
> > if their interpretation relies on weight of tone making their

> > interpretive points (Böhm, Karajan & Bernstein spring to mind in this

> > regard),
>
> I think all three of those conductors would strongly object to the
> idea that their interpretive points relied simply on "weight of tone".

No one besides you is suggesting these conductors relied on weight of
tone alone, but it is one element in their interpretations that to me
is writ large. And I'm not saying that conductors would even use the
phrase "weight of tone" to describe what they're doing. That's a
phrase I picked up from orchestral conductors I've worked under,
including Aaron Copland, who was pretty direct about building a
fulsome sound in his "Rodeo" and maintaining that fullness to not only
to the note that ends a phrase, but through the length of that final
note. If anything, it's a recognition that human beings - especially
wind players - tend to get tired by the end of a phrase as they reach
the extension of their air column. One needs to find a way to sustain
a phrase so that a drop off in intensity is an artistic decision, not
the result of physical exhaustion.

[M forever]

I haven't come across anything in the Chailly cycle so far that
sounded to me as if it was the result of "physical exhaustion".
Definitely not in the 3rd or the 9th which are the longest symphonies.

[Mark S]

Just finished listening to the 8th - which is a very good performance
- and the 9th, which I disliked very much.

I have to say that I've ever heard the 9th presented as such an
inconsequential piece of music as it is here. The first movement
starts off well enough, but over the course of the movement it seems
to become a smaller and smaller compositional conception in Chailly's
hands. Oh, there's the occasional thwack from the timpani and some
very strong and well-balanced brass interjections along the way, but
these appear as if out of the blue. There's none of Bernstein's weight
and gravitas here. No feeling of inevitability and breadth one gets
from Furtwängler or Karajan. In Chailly's hands, it rather traipses
along by comparison.

The Scherzo is extremely driven and simply too fast to my ears.
Chailly's interpretation of the ff/f markings in the final 3 bars ends
with a subito piano on the final note of the movement. It sounds
contrived to me - Chailly channeling his inner Mengelberg. Yes, yes,
we all know that there's no dynamic marked on that final note, but I
just can't for the life of me believe that Beethoven desired a weak
ending to that movement. I've never heard this approach before. The
overall dynamics marked are ff and f, and Chailly makes no attempt to
play the second and fourth beats of those bars - ie: the beats without
any dynamic indication - subito piano, so why play the last note of
the movement that way, especially when it occurs on beat one of the
final bar, which is the strongest beat in the bar? To me, it's just a
gesture - look what we can do! Stop on a dime and make you take
notice.

The third movement - which to me is the crowning achievement of this
piece - is again too fast and basically a throwaway. Throughout it all
the orchestra plays magnificently, but to what end?

The finale has been bettered by so many other versions that it's
simply not even in the running. No drama or mystery to the "quasi un
recitativo" basses & celli at the beginning. The solo quartet is no
better than average. The choir sounds like a largish group (which is
fine by me) but the sopranos tend to flat every passing high note. The
tenor solo is too fast by a multiple of two and sounds, well, trite.
It had me longing to pull out Norrington's admittedly way too slow
version to counter Chailly's speed, but I couldn't as I dumped it off
years ago. Yes, Beethoven marks the section "Allegro assai vivace",
but he also marks it "Alla marcia," and I can't imagine anybody
marching at the tempo Chailly picks here. The ensuing fugue is a
little messy but thoroughly exciting. There's some very finely
balanced and strong playing from the brass throughout the movement -
really burnished tone that's worth hearing for its sake alone.

This 9th just doesn't connect with me. I'm sure many will find it
exciting and dynamic. I don't. There are nice moments and interesting
touches along the way, but the overall conception to me just doesn't
work. That said, I'll most likely give it another listen in a few days
or so, just to see if the problem lies with me and my 40 years of
listening to everyone else in this piece.

[M forever]

On Dec 11, 3:56 am, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Just finished listening to the 8th - which is a very good performance
> - and the 9th, which I disliked very much.
>
> I have to say that I've ever heard the 9th presented as such an
> inconsequential piece of music as it is here. The first movement
> starts off well enough, but over the course of the movement it seems
> to become a smaller and smaller compositional conception in Chailly's
> hands. Oh, there's the occasional thwack from the timpani and some
> very strong and well-balanced brass interjections along the way, but
> these appear as if out of the blue. There's none of Bernstein's weight
> and gravitas here.

Well, duh! That's because it is not meant to be that way.

> No feeling of inevitability and breadth one gets
> from Furtwängler or Karajan.

Well, duh again!

Nor are you expected to. That fits really nicely with what I just
wrote about HIP and all that in the other thread.

> The ensuing fugue is a
> little messy but thoroughly exciting. There's some very finely
> balanced and strong playing from the brass throughout the movement -
> really burnished tone that's worth hearing for its sake alone.
>
> This 9th just doesn't connect with me. I'm sure many will find it
> exciting and dynamic. I don't. There are nice moments and interesting
> touches along the way, but the overall conception to me just doesn't
> work. That said, I'll most likely give it another listen in a few days
> or so, just to see if the problem lies with me and my 40 years of
> listening to everyone else in this piece.

Yes, that is where the problem is, without any shred of a doubt. This
is a fantastic, musically extremely well structured performance which
also makes stylistically as complete sense as one can say any
performance can.
It is obvious that you don't yet get the whole concept and idea behind
it all, and how it does make sense. That is because of your steadfast
resistance and prejudices against anything HIP.
You react so strongly not because of what is musically going on there,
but because you don't get the whole idea behind it.

This is a *perfect* illustration for what I just said in the other
thread, about people putting their own "intuition" before anything
else, without critically reflecting on it. This performance gives you
the chance to do that, so you should at least try to go back to it
with less prejudices, but I sincerely doubt that will work out for you.

[M forever]

On Dec 11, 3:56 am, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The Scherzo is extremely driven and simply too fast to my ears.
> Chailly's interpretation of the ff/f markings in the final 3 bars ends
> with a subito piano on the final note of the movement. It sounds
> contrived to me - Chailly channeling his inner Mengelberg. Yes, yes,
> we all know that there's no dynamic marked on that final note, but I
> just can't for the life of me believe that Beethoven desired a weak
> ending to that movement.

Oh, here is your all-ruling "intuition" again! If you can't imagine
it, it must be wrong.

> I've never heard this approach before. The
> overall dynamics marked are ff and f, and Chailly makes no attempt to
> play the second and fourth beats of those bars - ie: the beats without
> any dynamic indication - subito piano, so why play the last note of
> the movement that way, especially when it occurs on beat one of the
> final bar, which is the strongest beat in the bar? To me, it's just a
> gesture - look what we can do! Stop on a dime and make you take
> notice.

But maybe there is actually a valid musical idea behind that? I am not
saying it's right or wrong, it certainly is an interpretation, but you
certainly didn't even think about that. You apparently looked at the
score, but you didn't see the answer to this question. It's actually
right there. Right in front of your eyes. You just didn't look
properly.

[MiNe 109]

In article
<ef9ff062-9b62-4803...@h3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,

The (or 'a') score can be seen here:

http://petrucci.mus.auth.gr/imglnks/usimg/5/50/IMSLP108612-PMLP01607-Lvan
Beethoven_Symphony_No.9__Op.125_mvtII_FE_FS.pdf

If one counts by hyper-measures that last downbeat is a beat three, not
as strong as the ff beat one two bars before.

Stephen

[M forever]

On Dec 11, 3:42 pm, MiNe 109 <smcelr...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
> In article
> <ef9ff062-9b62-4803-8f71-090cf902c...@h3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,

> http://petrucci.mus.auth.gr/imglnks/usimg/5/50/IMSLP108612-PMLP01607-...

> Beethoven_Symphony_No.9__Op.125_mvtII_FE_FS.pdf
>
> If one counts by hyper-measures that last downbeat is a beat three, not
> as strong as the ff beat one two bars before.
>
> Stephen

But why should we count in "hyper measures" (a term I hadn't heard
before, but I like it!)?

[MiNe 109]

In article
<06df9dba-2f17-4634...@r28g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,

Short answer: the fast tempo.

Here's wiki's take:

A hypermeasure, large-scale or high-level measure, or measure-group is a
metric unit in which, generally, each regular measure is one beat
(actually hyperbeat) of a larger meter. Thus a beat is to a measure as a
measure/hyperbeat is to a hypermeasure. Hypermeasures must be larger
than a notated bar, perceived as a unit, consist of a pattern of strong
and weak beats, and along with adjacent hypermeasures, which must be of
the same length, create a sense of hypermeter. The term was coined by
Edward T. Cone in Musical Form and Musical Performance (New York:
Norton, 1968).

End quote.

The differentiation of ff and f on the notated downbeats qualifies as "a
pattern of strong and weak beats" on a local scale.

Stephen

[M forever]

On Dec 11, 3:59 pm, MiNe 109 <smcelr...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
> In article

> <06df9dba-2f17-4634-b7a2-6a48dc263...@r28g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,

Good definition. But how do we know that this applies here? Maybe it
is a later concept? Or maybe it is more of an analytical concept or
tool, something that can be used to analyze the way a piece is
constructed, but how do we know the "hyper measures" are supposed to
be heard as such, meaning that the "sub measures" are supposed to be
slightly weaker so one can hear that "hyper structure"?

The other question is, what do ff and f mean here? Does it mean that
Beethoven wants us to go from ff one notch to f?

[MiNe 109]

In article
<ae2f1903-062b-48fb...@v6g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,

The concept applies everywhere and nowhere, like compound meter or
subdivision.

> The other question is, what do ff and f mean here? Does it mean that
> Beethoven wants us to go from ff one notch to f?

That's a stronger case than that one shouldn't.

Stephen

[M forever]

On Dec 11, 5:06 pm, MiNe 109 <smcelr...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
> In article

> <ae2f1903-062b-48fb-8835-f6cf8638c...@v6g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,

If it applies everywhere and nowhere, does it apply here or not?

> > The other question is, what do ff and f mean here? Does it mean that
> > Beethoven wants us to go from ff one notch to f?
>
> That's a stronger case than that one shouldn't.

So the passage should start ff but then go back to f? Why then is the
f repeated several times?

[M forever]

On Dec 11, 5:37 pm, Lena <emswo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Without taking sides on how to do the final measure.
>
> Yes, hypermeter applies all over, especially in this movement.
> Earlier in this movement Beethoven indicates changes of hypermeter
> verbally ("ritmo di tre battute" etc.).

That's the answer I was looking for. I think this very clearly
indicates that the change of "hypermeter" should be clearly heard and
felt.

> Generally, there are different ways to define hypermeter (or any sort
> of meter)  -- by accents, by regular harmonic changes ("harmonic
> meter"), by regular phrases/patterns, and so on.   Some of these are
> felt a lot (accents), some are weak (meter defined by subtle
> patterns).
>
> So in particular, every time you get regular alternations of accents,
> there's a hypermeter; that's a direct emulation of what happens with
> the beats in a measure.
>
> All the levels of meter should be felt...  (though it's partly a
> judgment call, and partly it depends on how the meter is defined).
>
> Though you shouldn't ignore the original pulse on the level of the
> measure.   If you feel a strong pulse on the hypermeter level, you get
> more forward momentum, but you may also begin to obliterate the
> original meter (that's what complaints that someone conducts "one to a
> bar" are talking about).   If the tempo is fast, there's more danger
> of this.
>
> (That's one of the things I think is unoptimal about some parts of
> this Chailly - as I sort of said somewhere earlier.   I don't want
> that to stop anyone from liking Chailly's takes, but for me he steps a
> little over the meter-hypermeter boundary.   He uses unmarked accents
> on first beats of bars, sometimes with a similarly unmarked strong-
> weak accent alternation.  For instance in 8/i.  That puts rather a lot
> of extra pulse and bouncy momentum into a piece.  Which might be
> unadvisable when the composer's idea seems to be to stop momentum,
> like in the mm. 12--30 (or so) passage.)

But that kind of stuff is exactly what can be gleaned from some
contemporary comments about performance practice at the time, which is
why it is something that has been picked up eagerly by many "HIP"
performers. Some of the use it very formulaic, like your idol Frans B,
some use it in a much more nuanced and flexible way, such as Chailly
does here.

> > The other question is, what do ff and f mean here? Does it mean that
> > Beethoven wants us to go from ff one notch to f?
>

> IMO, both the ff and the f act as accents; the ff is a stronger
> accent.

Correct, as well as setting a higher basic level. So the f in this
case does't mean that it should go back to f as a dynamic level, it
means the marked notes - still in ff - should be more accented than
they would normally be, being on the "weaker" beats of the measure.
I find it intriguing that Chailly noticed there is actually no f on
the last note. I never noticed that. A very typical case of one is so
used to the idea that that's how it goes that one never looks what is
actually there - or not.
Is it a misinterpretation? Did Beethoven simply forget the last f?
Hard to tell because those last bars are actually not in the
autograph. But one can see all over the autograph that he was very
meticulous in marking such things in all parts, e.g. when the change
from 3/4 to 2/4 first occurs at the transition to the trio. It is also
interesting to see that he only thought later to reinforce that moment
with a single D from the bass trombone - the very first entrance of
any of the trombones - because he wrote it on an empty system under
the rest of the score.

> To Stephen:  thanks very much for taking these discussions where they
> are now, and for the excellent example you gave elsewhere.  (We could
> maybe talk about what the hypermeasure is exactly in this scherzo end
> -- and in the equivalent places earlier -- but we don't have to do it
> here.)
>
> (I have a preference on that final measure, but I don't think it's
> that big a deal.  :) )
>
> Lena

[M forever]

On Dec 11, 6:27 pm, Lena <emswo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Right...

>
>
>
> > > > The other question is, what do ff and f mean here? Does it mean that
> > > > Beethoven wants us to go from ff one notch to f?
>
> > > IMO, both the ff and the f act as accents; the ff is a stronger
> > > accent.
>
> > Correct, as well as setting a higher basic level. So the f in this
> > case does't mean that it should go back to f as a dynamic level, it
> > means the marked notes - still in ff - should be more accented than
> > they would normally be, being on the "weaker" beats of the measure.
>

> That's what I think.

>
> > I find it intriguing that Chailly noticed there is actually no f on
> > the last note. I never noticed that. A very typical case of one is so
> > used to the idea that that's how it goes that one never looks what is
> > actually there - or not.
> > Is it a misinterpretation? Did Beethoven simply forget the last f?
> > Hard to tell because those last bars are actually not in the
> > autograph.
>

> If he did forget, nobody will probably know.  :)   Chailly's "subito
> piano" take might be a bit of interpretive freedom, but I at least
> don't have a strong reaction against it.
>
>  (I think the last downbeat sounds good done at the same level as the
> unaccented beats previously; so not terribly loud.)

>
> > But one can see all over the autograph that he was very

> > meticulous in marking such things in all parts,   [...]
>
> That's generally true with Beethoven, right?

Dunno. I haven't looked at his autographs much. But it would appear to
be "in character" as Beethoven was quite obsessed with detail. In the
9th, one can see that he marks all parts quite consistently. One can
also see that in the "tre battute" section, he marked the 3-bar
phrases 1,2,3 in red.

In any case, one can tell from detail like this that Chailly really
studied the scores and reflected on what is actually there. Another
example for that is in 5/i, when the recapitulation begins, in the
bars before the oboe cadenza, almost everyone slows down and softens
down the dynamics in order to smoothly transition into the cadenza.
But that's not what it says in the score. Apart from the fact that
there is not rit. there - which may not mean that one isn't "allowed"
- more importantly, Beethoven here writes a cresc. to ff where in the
exposition, it is only f. In the exposition, the violins hold their G
on a fermata, usually played ff to great dramatic effect, and here it
is the oboe which holds that note - usually mf with little to no
dramatic fact and no "surprise" factor because everyone "prepares"
that moment so nicely. But I don't think that is what LvB wanted at
all. The score certainly doesn't suggest that. It should mirror the
same moment in the exposition.

> > It is also
> > interesting to see that he only thought later to reinforce that moment
> > with a single D from the bass trombone - the very first entrance of
> > any of the trombones - because he wrote it on an empty system under
> > the rest of the score.
>

> That's interesting.  I didn't realize it, and if I've read about it,
> I've forgotten it.  (I haven't taken a look at the autograph (for this
> particular movement) -- commendable that anyone has.

You can take a look at the autograph on imslp.org. It is extremely
difficult to read. As far as I can tell, the ending of the scherzo is
not there. So apparently he came up with that later.
Corresponding to how he handled that passage in 5/1, I think LvB here
wanted another "surprise" effect. The passage where the meter suddenly
switches from 3/4 to 2/4 occurs three, when it "slams" into the trio
with a big accent (even underlined by that single trombone), then at
the end when the trio suddenly appears again for just a brief moment,
and then at the very end. Except this time it leads into *nothing*. A
very unexpected and unprepared ending. So I think it is probably quite
intentional that he didn't write a f on the last note, to heighten the
sense of surprise, and it is quite possible that Chailly got this
totally "right" where most other conductors overlook that detail. It
certainly makes "sense" in the context.

[Mark S]

On Dec 11, 2:18 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > > The other question is, what do ff and f mean here? Does it mean that
> > > Beethoven wants us to go from ff one notch to f?
>
> > That's a stronger case than that one shouldn't.
>
> So the passage should start ff but then go back to f? Why then is the
> f repeated several times?

If one looks at the final three bars as an example of hypermeasures
(with measures one and two grouped into one hypermeasurebar of four,
followed by the final note which constitutes beat one of a new
measure), one can view the bars one and two as being a single bar with
a strong first beat (ff) followed by three other beats in the measure
that would normally not have the same stress. Normally, beat one would
be strongest, beat three the next strongest (but less strong than beat
one) with beats 2 & 4 constituting weak beats. Beethoven here asks for
a strong first beat followed by three equally strong beats 2, 3 & 4.
In this hypermeasure treatment, the last note of the piece equates to
the first beat of a new measure, which - if we follow the pattern
Beethoven has established earlier in the movement - means it should be
played ff. Beethoven doesn't mark every note in those final two bars
"f" because it would be ridiculous to expect them to be executed as
such at the speed of the piece. The "in between notes" that have no
dynamic marking over them are to be played but not stressed to the
level of beats 2, 3 & 4, because they morph into the "and" of those
beats (ie; the weaker half of those beats).

My feeling is that Beethoven is simply indicating that the orchestra
should stay strong throughout these final bars (remember, "forte"
means strong, NOT loud; fortissimo means "very strong," not "louder")
and not let the energy sag. This movement has a strong feel of triple
meter in the main, with a strong feeling of two in the "Trio," so
ending it in a feeling of four changes the feeling pretty dramatically
(especially as the feeling of two that precedes this has the
instruments starting their phrases on an upbeat). Of course, this is
the opposite of what Chailly elects to do. Also, there are other
instances earlier in this movement where Beethoven uses the same
dynamic markings - a ff followed by repeated fs on ensuing measures
(with each measure being treated as a single beat in a hypermeasure).

BTW - if you check your score of this movement, you will notice that
the pattern we're discusses appears earlier, at the "Presto" at the
double bar before the modulation into D Major where the winds launch
the "Trio" (page # 66 in the online score I'm viewing). Notice that
the "f" mark does appear here on the final note of this earlier
appearance. To me, it seems clear that the lack of a "f" on the final
note of the movement is an editorial mistake, as everything else about
these two instances is pretty much identical.

BTW - I was surprised to read that you had never heard of
hypermeasures. It certainly makes more sense in fast music like the
Scherzo of the 9th for the conductor to group bars into patterns of 2,
3 & 4, rather than beating in one. Makes for ease of control. If you
watch a video of Karajan in this movement, you'll see that he groups
the measures into hypermeasures, with his conducting pattern
alternating between 3 and 4, depending on where the stresses occur
within the hypermeasures.

[Mark S]

On Dec 11, 1:04 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> The other question is, what do ff and f mean here? Does it mean that
> Beethoven wants us to go from ff one notch to f?

As a string player yourself, would you not play each of these notes on
a separate bow in a downbow-upbow pattern? Maybe that's all Beethoven
was indicating. Of course, if that's the case, then the last note of
the movement occurs on a downbow, which means you'd have to make a
real effort to play that last note soft, as does Chailly. Maybe he has
them play the final two notes on the same upbow.

[M forever]

And that was my whole point in my recent reply to Lena. The first two
times this occurs, it leads into the trio, with a bang! accent on the
first note of the trio, reinforced by the bass trombone which is heard
the first time in the piece (and as I pointed out, obviously an
afterthought). Try to look at this as if you had never heard the piece
before, or try to trace the footsteps of the composer writing a piece
for people who have never heard it before. The effect of the sudden
meter change and the cascading octaves kind of "slamming" into the
trio is quite startling. Beethoven often does the "unexpected". The
sudden recurrence of the trio near the end is somewhat unexpected,
too, and relies on the same effect. But then it suddenly breaks off
and the cascading octaves return, the same passage which twice now had
kicked open the door to the world of D major - only now it suddenly
leads into - nothing. So it is very plausible that Beethoven wanted
this to be a final "surprise", and that there is no accent on the last
note because that is the whole point. This time, this leads to
nothing.

> BTW - I was surprised to read that you had never heard of
> hypermeasures. It certainly makes more sense in fast music like the
> Scherzo of the 9th for the conductor to group bars into patterns of 2,
> 3 & 4, rather than beating in one. Makes for ease of control. If you
> watch a video of Karajan in this movement, you'll see that he groups
> the measures into hypermeasures, with his conducting pattern
> alternating between 3 and 4, depending on where the stresses occur
> within the hypermeasures.

I know what "hypermeasures" are, as you can see from my lengthy
comments about them. I just don't think I had heard the specific
English term before. In the language of Beethoven and so many, many
other great composers, we call that Taktgruppierung.

[M forever]

On Dec 11, 9:00 pm, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 1:04 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The other question is, what do ff and f mean here? Does it mean that
> > Beethoven wants us to go from ff one notch to f?
>
> As a string player yourself, would you not play each of these notes on
> a separate bow in a downbow-upbow pattern? Maybe that's all Beethoven
> was indicating.

Definitely not, because that is what you would normally do. There is
no reason to indicate something which is just normal and which happens
anyway. Downbow does not automatically mean that the note is heavier.
Although with the kind of bows they had back then, that would be more
the case than with modern instruments. Even less a reason to indicate
something which would come out anyway. No, the fs are definitely there
to indicate an extra emphasis on notes which the players would
normally accent less than the first one in each bar. That makes total
sense. Of course, also to make the sudden change of meter more
striking and graphic.

> Of course, if that's the case, then the last note of
> the movement occurs on a downbow, which means you'd have to make a
> real effort to play that last note soft, as does Chailly. Maybe he has
> them play the final two notes on the same upbow.

Better, and more typical for a German orchestra, would be two downbows
on the last two notes of the penultimate bar, so the bow is at that
point closer to the tip, and then the last note just at the tip. They
might even just play the last three notes on one downbow. Of course,
it also works the way you suggested, but at that tempo, I think it
would be more effective. Unfortunately, we can't see what they are
doing at the end of this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jkd7XrdRsXA

In any case, the more we are discussing this, the more convincing it
seems to me. I can't say for sure that that is what LvB wanted, but it
seems very plausible. Looking at the autograph and how he put the fs
everywhere where he wanted them, in all parts, it seems to be highly
unlikely that this is an oversight on his or the editor's part. Plus,
the "surprise" effect this generates makes total sense in the context
of what he does earlier with the same material.

[Mark S]

On Dec 11, 6:17 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:


> In any case, the more we are discussing this, the more convincing it
> seems to me. I can't say for sure that that is what LvB wanted, but it
> seems very plausible. Looking at the autograph and how he put the fs
> everywhere where he wanted them, in all parts, it seems to be highly
> unlikely that this is an oversight on his or the editor's part. Plus,
> the "surprise" effect this generates makes total sense in the context
> of what he does earlier with the same material.

You're confusing me. Earlier you wrote, "Is it a misinterpretation?

Did Beethoven simply forget the last f?
Hard to tell because those last bars are actually not in the

autograph. But one can see all over the autograph that he was very
meticulous in marking such things in all parts."

If the final bars aren't in the autograph, then there's no way of
knowing if Beethoven left off that last forte marking. Most likely the
editors picked up what he did at the Presto I mentioned earlier, but
forgot to add the final forte indication, an indication Beethoven
actually DID make earlier in the score. I would think that any editor
purposefully leaving off that final forte indication would be messing
with Beethoven. If the bars were missing in the autograph, wouldn't
the normal way of editing be to look what Beethoven did earlier and do
the same thing at the end? And if Beethoven really wanted that soft
ending, why not reduce the orchestration while he was at it?

One other thing - why would Beethoven decide to end the Scherzo on a
soft note with the quiet opening of the Third movement in the
immediate offing? Wouldn't it be a greater contrast - a "shock," if
you will - to end the Scherzo forte or fortissimo and follow it with
something completely different in character? Remember that the Scherzo
itself has been moved from it's normal third-movement position to
second movement position by Beethoven, which makes for the unusual
sequence of a big opening movement with a loud ending followed by any
equally loud Scherzo, rather than the expected Andante cantabile
Beethoven's audiences were used to. Seems to me that by playing the
final note of the Scherzo subito piano, you're working against the
natural drama of the huge sea change in mood and feeling that comes
with the Andante cantabile being placed third, ie: after over a half
hour of loud and agitated music. By telegraphing what's coming, you're
engaging in a musical premature ejaculation, so to speak.

All things considered, I would think the missing forte indication on
the final note of the Scherzo is just a simple editing error. That, or
every single conductor who has performed and recorded this symphony
before Chailly came along with his subito piano had bad musical
instincts that they should never have trusted.

[MiNe 109]

In article
<be586738-2152-4c54...@z12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

Yes.

> > > The other question is, what do ff and f mean here? Does it mean that
> > > Beethoven wants us to go from ff one notch to f?
> >
> > That's a stronger case than that one shouldn't.
>
> So the passage should start ff but then go back to f? Why then is the
> f repeated several times?

Emphasis.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article
<d246ceef-b872-4dc9...@4g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,

Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> All things considered, I would think the missing forte indication on
> the final note of the Scherzo is just a simple editing error. That, or
> every single conductor who has performed and recorded this symphony
> before Chailly came along with his subito piano had bad musical
> instincts that they should never have trusted.

I think it's acceptable for just one conductor to try it as written for
a recording.

Stephen

[M forever]

On Dec 11, 11:36 pm, MiNe 109 <smcelr...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
> In article

> <d246ceef-b872-4dc9-bf5e-d690dc134...@4g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,

>  Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > All things considered, I would think the missing forte indication on
> > the final note of the Scherzo is just a simple editing error. That, or
> > every single conductor who has performed and recorded this symphony
> > before Chailly came along with his subito piano had bad musical
> > instincts that they should never have trusted.
>
> I think it's acceptable for just one conductor to try it as written for
> a recording.

So what do you think? Is it meant that way or is the final f an
omission in the original score or first edition or whatever, in any
case, an omission which has been carried over from one edition to the
next, or do you think Beethoven actually intended the movement to end
without that last emphasis?

[The Historian]

On Saturday, October 15, 2011 3:42:10 PM UTC-4, Gerard wrote:
> After having heard 4 symphonies and 3 overtures it is evident that this is a
> really splendid set.
> Chailly plays very driven, very compelling, and very beautiful at the same time;
> gripping but never rough.
> I've really enjoyed this, and very likely I'll listen to it again and again.
> The recording (sound) is magnificent.
> For me this is the most recommendable set of the last few years. This goes
> straight to the top of the Beethoven pile. Although the expression has been
> misused here many times: it is superb.
>
> Extra attractive is the addition of 8 overtures.
> Ugly, unattractive cover though. And I don't like the user-unfriendly
> packaging - when taking out one of the cds (or when reading the booklet), the
> other cds can fall out.
>
> BTW in the booklet it says:
> >>Toscanini, Karajan and Gardiner - these for Chailly represent "three roads
> that all lead to Beethoven. Now we're laying out a fourth."<<

I'm afraid to comment, seeing the extensive discussion with Mark S, M Forever, Gerard, Lena, Oscar, and David Hurwitz's review. But here goes.... so far I've heard the second and Eroica, and it's refreshing. I've been recently listening to a lot of recordings that make Beethoven sound ordinary (Krips/LSO, Trembley/ONFC, Haitink/CSO airchecks from his live performances in 2010) - Chailly and the LGO are not on autopilot in this set. They remind me that Beethoven is important. There's nothing routine about Chailly's interpretations, Decca provided great sound, and the LGO plays like the world class orchestra it's always been.

Thanks very much for all the comments, RMCR posters, because I'd not have purchased the set otherwise.