Beethoven 5 Part I
Simon Roberts
explain why they're favorites. Having more recordings of it than I
remember I thought I would grab all the ones I have (or at least could
find), give them a quick listen (no, not all of them all the way
through) and see what happened. I expected there wouldn't be many
because for some reason this is a work that, until I'm actually
listening to it, I assume I'm sick of hearing and don't want to hear
again. As a result, I hardly ever deliberately buy recordings of it;
rather, they come attached to something else I want. So I was rather
dismayed by the stack that kept growing at an pretty fast clip as I
wandered around looking for them (I've probably missed a few, having
forgotten what they're coupled with), and listening to them took rather
longer than I intended/expected/hoped. I'm glad I did, though, because
oddly enough the process made me enjoy hearing the piece more, not less,
and I seem to have gotten over my bias against listening to it. (I also
had some surprises along the way, liking some performances more than I
expected, others less, the latter allowing me to free up some shelf
space....)
Anyway, a preliminary matter: why does adherence to Beethoven's
metronome marking in the first movement matter (to me, anyway)? (I don't
mean to suggest it doesn't matter in the other movements.) "Because
it's what the score says and it's possible" seems to be Schuller's
answer in his chapter on this piece (unless I missed something). His
answer makes sense if you treat music, as he seems generally to do, as a
content-free abstraction, with scores as blueprints to be obeyed
because, well, that's what blueprints are for, and with recordings to be
evaluated almost exclusively in terms of their accurate reflection of
the black marks on the page.
Fair enough, I suppose. But that's not how I listen and certainly not
why. The first movement is, to state the obvious, music of high (or, I
guess, if you're dk or Ray Hall, low) drama, and it sounds dramatic in
at least some sense in almost any performance (but see below). However,
the specific dramatic character of the music varies with its
interpretation, and a very fast performance, especially one which isn't
subjected to grand rhetorical tempo shifts, can (but needn't) convey
facets that a slower one can't (and vice versa, of course). In the
quieter passages, that includes nervousness, anxiety, furtiveness,
sinisterness, urgency, restlessness, and the like, which can be conveyed
even in the second subject if the violin line (and, when they have it,
the clarinet and flute) is subtly accented in the right way and the
quietly menacing cello/bass di-da-da-dums are properly articulated (e.g.
bars 63-84). Take it slower, though, and the result (especially in the
second subject) is usually a patch of all-purpose of tranquility or
repose or respite, which strikes me as rather uninteresting. I also
think the movement works best if tempo fluctuations are kept to a
minimum. I understand the point of some slamming on the brakes at, say,
bar 474 (even Maestro Come Scritto Toscanini did it, albeit less than
some), but doing this undermines or even prevents a sense of
relentlessness (especially when done in several places), which I think
makes better sense of the music. I don't mean, of course, that this is
the only way to hear it or think of it, and I occasionally like to hear
a performance where the conductor's foot seems to hover permanently over
the brake pedal, but I might as well state at least one bias up front
because it colours everything I say below.
Obviously the comments that follow are all pretty superficial, but a
proper evaluation of all these recordings would require a lengthy book,
and, aside from questions of sheer competence, and despite being a
federal employee, I don't have time to write one. I shall focus, if at
all, on a few details here and there.
One such, which may seem trivial to some, is what I shall refer to as
"the triplets" or "the triplet problem" in the finale. By that I mean
not just triplets but a triplet followed by a fourth note, di-di-di dum,
a sequence of them at bars 124-131 (counting without the repeat, that
is). This passage evidently presents awkward balance problems. What
one usually hears is a repeated sequence consisting of two notes in the
violins answered by the horns' and trumpets' (and, if you're lucky,
timpani's) di-di-di dums, the rhythmic effect of the two combined being
dee daa' di-di-di dum, dee daa' di-di-di dum, etc. Perhaps we'll also
notice the response to the violins' phrases in the violas, cellos and
basses.
What we almost certainly won't hear is that the horn/trumpet/timpani are
engaged in a dialogue with the winds (minus piccolo), which play exactly
the same di-di-di dum rhythm. Ignoring the strings, what we should hear
is a series of di-di-di dums tossed back and forth without a break
between the wind choir and the horn/trumpet/timpani choir. But this is
not something I've ever actually heard clearly. (There's a similar
problem in the finale of the Haffner Symphony - conductors usually bring
out a dum di di dum dum figure in the brass but don't let us hear wind
equivalents to which they are responding.) Perhaps because the flutes
are playing in unison (unlike the other winds) and (also unlike the
other winds) because they have a rising figure rather than four notes at
the same pitch, one occasionally is aware of a vague twittering sound,
as though a small, startled bird had been temporarily let loose in the
back of the hall, but that's about it. Maybe this can't be brought out
in the concert hall, but in the recording studio it ought to be possible
to make the exchange audible. Oh, and while all this is going on, there
are punctuating chords from the trombones at the start of each bar;
you'll almost never hear them, either. I note that at the start of this
sequence all parts have the same dynamic marking, piu f, the previous
marking being f (aside from a ff in the bassoons).
Finally, for convenience sake I shall at times refer to "the horn call."
It's not just a horn call, of course, but that's what we usually hear.
(I refer to bars 26-28, where the horns, bassoons, clarinets and oboes
play that uplifting six note phrase (in all too many performances you
don't hear the winds at all, while the string bass arpeggio that follows
it is usually drowned out by the sustained horns and timpani).)
I'll briefly discuss them in the order in which I listened to them.
Being rather long, I'll post it in installments. Obviously not all are
favorites..
Toscanini NBC 1952 RCA
I don't much care for this. i is fastish and weighty, but the emphatic
rhythms are presented rather squarely and crudely, there's little
suggestion of furtiveness or sinisterness in the quiet passages, the
orchestral is rather scrappy and tonally coarse (not in a good way); ii
is too plain for its rather slow tempo; there's not much mystery at the
transition from iii to iv - though iv itself starts extremely well,
fairly slow and grand. The winds can be heard quite well in the
triplets but at the expense of relatively weak brass and barely audible
timpani.
Toscanini NBC 1939 RCA
Much better; i is similar in outline but less rigid/more nuanced, has
greater dynamic variety, is better played, better controlled, more
exciting. ii is still too slow - slower than 1952 - but more
interestingly phrased/shaped and thus doesn't seem slower. The
transition from iii to iv is better, but still rather lacks mystery; iv,
on the other hand, is magnificent when it arrives - slowish, grand and
exciting, superbly paced, tension perfectly maintained throughout,
excellent brass/timpani triplets (but with the winds barely audible).
Toscanini NYPO 1933 M&A (I also have this on Lys; haven't compared the
sound)
i is nowhere near as gripping as 1939 - a bit too slow, with unwelcome
(by me, anyway) broadening at certain climactic points, lacking the
irresistible drive of 1939 (no repeat, either); the overall effect is
oddly restrained. The rest is fairly similar to 1939, its effectiveness
undermined by the inferior recorded sound.
Abendroth BPO 1939 Tahra
I'm not sure why but I was surprised how fast his i is, quicker than
Toscanini, and with a strikingly articulate attack on the opening theme,
each note sounding separately attacked to a degree perhaps unmatched
elsewhere - very effective. Throughout the string playing is
magnificent in terms of tone and articulation, so I mind less than I
otherwise might that they tend to dominate. I especially like the
gentle violin portamento used occasionally in quiet passages. This
strikes me as more interestingly shaped than any of Toscanini's, but I
could do without the broadening at certain climactic points, though
they're less extreme than some and in their way rather effective. The
sinister quality I want in the quiet sections isn't really present here
either. ii is still too slow for my taste, but I find his
phrasing/shaping more interesting than any of Toscanini's. The
transition from iii to iv is superbly done, though when iv arrives, it
does so to less dramatic effect than Toscanini/1939 (for one thing, it's
much faster, and the timpani are barely audible), though overall this iv
has a certain fiery theatrical excitement about it.
Furtwaengler BPO 1937 Biddulph
i is a bit slower, but not excessively so, and more grandly rhetorical
than any so far, very weighty, with less intrusive slow-downs than in
his later performances. String playing unsurprisingly as wonderful (and
dominant) as for Abendroth, with again the occasional delightful subtle
portamento in quieter passages and with superbly articulate cellos and
basses, though the articulation of the opening theme isn't as detached
as Abendroth's. ii is less distinctively shaped than Abendroth's, a
rather simpler and perhaps more effective lyricism. The transition from
iii to iv is, unsurprisingly, aptly mysterious, but when iv arrives its
effect is undermined by the inaudibility of the timpani; the triplets
are underplayed on both sides.
Furtwaengler BPO 1943 Tahra and DG (didn't compare the transfers)
A frustrating performance. The tempo changes are crude, creating a
jarringly episodic effect that prevents any sense of momentum, not to
say relentlessness, and while the balances are much better than in 1937
(as is the sound generally), the orchestral playing isn't. On the other
hand, when he doesn't slow down, the music has tremendous vigor,
achieving at times a sort of defiant, weighty, swagger that may be in a
class by itself. Too bad his frequent resort to the brake pedal keeps
breaking the spell. ii is to these ears ludicrously slow for an andante
con moto, but if one can look past that one will probably find that his
subtle shaping and colouring of the music make it work.. The transition
from iii to iv is darkly brooding - very effective - and iv itself
arrives with as grand an entrance as any, the opening chords taken
slower than the rest (Gunther Schuller won't approve) to tremendous
effect, the timpani audible this time, the triplets more effective than
before (though not the winds), the trombone punctuations excitingly
present.
Furtwaengler BPO 1954 Tahra
The slow-downs in i may be less intrusive than in 1943, but everything
else is watered down too, with far less intensity, tension and drama;
the same goes for the finale. ii has a certain tragic eloquence about
it that works well, but overall I'm not taken with this.
Mravinsky Leningrad 1949 BMG/Melodiya
i receives an effective, straightforward, fastish performance that
starts off up to speed, avoids rhetorical use of the brakes and relies
exclusively on accents, phrasing and dynamics to convey the drama -
Toscanini-ish but better recorded, less rigidly emphatic, and somewhat
better played (fabulous strings). ii, though, is far too slow to follow
such a fast i, and it's not as eloquently shaped as Abendroth's and
Furtwaengler's - the lines seem shorter, don't sing as well. I don't
know if this is BMG's doing or a problem with the original sources or
what, but unfortunately in iii and iv the sound is plagued by unpleasant
background pulsing. As for the performance, the transition from iii to
iv is given an interesting twist - rather than conveying mystery, he
shapes the violin line in such a way that it dances. I'm not sure it
works. Nor am I entirely taken with iv, whose arrival lacks weight
(only partly a matter of inaudible timpani). The triplet problem is
"solved" by having them all too quiet. Unusually (uniquely?) for a
performance of this vintage, he takes the repeat in iv.
Erich Kleiber Concertgebouw 1952 Decca
A generally impressive fastish i with superbly articulate strings (the
opening almost a detached as Abendroth's) and an appealing taut singing
quality which avoids the rhythmic rigidity that affects Toscanini in
varying degrees (depending on performance) and conjures up a certain
swagger at times. My only complaints are the dominance of the strings
(aside from the assertive horns and clarinets) and the slight slowing
down in quieter passages which causes a slight but perceptible drop in
tension (though it's not as bad as the equivalent in his Beethoven 9i).
ii is engagingly lyrical at a tempo that could more-or-less pass for
andante con moto, but the transition from iii to iv is a bit plain. iv,
though, begins well enough - we can even hear the timpani as a distinct
voice for the first time in this recording.
Mengelberg Concertgebouw 1940 Philips
Unless one objects to any use of the brake pedal, this i just about has
it all - superlative articulation, eloquently singing lines in the
quieter sections (though I could do with a bit more sense of menace),
swagger and grand rhetoric with less disruptive tempo changes than
Furtwaengler 1943 and superbly recorded (and played) timpani, better
than on any other historic recording (miles better than any of the
historic studio recordings in that regard) I listened to. No repeat.
ii is every bit as successful - con moto at last, a boldly sung out
performance whose loud sections are thrillingly projected, exultant and
uplifting. The opening of iii is more interestingly shaped than most,
and at a faster tempo than many, one of the few performances which let
us hear that the timpani have joined in when the horn motto returns
tutti at bar 80. Wonderful transition to iv, with distinctive phrasing
in the violins and more attention to the bass line than in most, while
iv bursts in at a fast tempo, substituting an adrenaline rush for
Furtwaengler's and Toscanini's (in their rather different ways)
grandeur - BUT here his tempo fluctuations don't convince me. Slamming
on the brakes for the horn call disrupts the momentum far too early in
the movement and makes no sense to me at all, while the less extreme
fluctuations later on also serve no useful purpose to these ears. Good
triplets, though....
Mengelberg Concertgebouw 1937 Pearl
Except for iv where the tempo shifts are a bit less intrusive, I don't
like this nearly as much as the live 1940. In outline it's not that
different, but the dull, tubby sound (the low instruments are especially
affected, their overtones seemingly eliminated - by Telefunken's
engineers?) blunts its impact, while the tempo shifts in i seem a bit
crude, a la Furtwaengler 1943, compared to 1940.
Simon
mkperman
"Simon Roberts" <sd...@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:a2hnfh$j18$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
[snip]
Give a government employee a day off and look what happens.
Marc Perman
James P. Axtell
Did I miscount, or were there *only* 48 recordings mentioned? Federal
employees are required to furnish one for each state. :-)
Seriously, this commentary should be saved in the FAQ, so when people ask
for the "est," it will be there. (This is setting the bar awfully high. I
think I'll just go and listen to a couple from the list.)
Jim
"mkperman" <mkpe...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:a2hnok$aq0$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Paul Goldstein
>Mengelberg Concertgebouw 1937 Pearl
>
>Except for iv where the tempo shifts are a bit less intrusive, I don't
>like this nearly as much as the live 1940. In outline it's not that
>different, but the dull, tubby sound (the low instruments are especially
>affected, their overtones seemingly eliminated - by Telefunken's
>engineers?) blunts its impact, while the tempo shifts in i seem a bit
>crude, a la Furtwaengler 1943, compared to 1940.
It sounds like the Pearl transfer is unnecessarily bad. I have this perf in its
Telefunken CD issue - in fact, I cited it in the earlier thread started by
Matty. The sound of the Telefunken CD is superb for the period, some of the
best 1930s orchestral sound I've ever heard, and better to my ears than the
Philips (which is also a great perf, to be sure).
Your account of the Markevitch is spot on. Remarkable that a French orchestra
could perform the 5th this well in 1959.
Paul Goldstein
Matthew Silverstein
constantly amazed by how differently we all listen to music that is so
familiar. I suppose it should not be surprising, but reading Simon's
evaluations, it became clear that--in many cases--we either conceive of the
music rather differently or just listen for different things. (I say this even
though are preference are more alike than not.)
One example is the overall feel of the first movement. Simon seems to want
anxiety, nervousness, and restlessness. These are qualities that I like, but I
prefer--especially from the development through the coda--overpowering fury
and terror. (Of course these moods are not entirely inconsistent with one
another.) For me, it is the orchestral balances during the second half of the
movement, and particularly at the end of the recapitulation and the beginning
of the coda, that make or break a performance.
(The following comments are made without the benefit of a score. I will do my
best to give track timings and descriptions of the music, though the former
are not always reliable and I am not very good at providing the latter.)
Take the comparison between Szell's Concertgebouw (Philips) and Vienna (Orfeo)
performances. I agree with Simon that the Concertgebouw recording of the first
movement conveys more nervous energy than the later Vienna recording, but I
find the recapitulation and coda of the VPO performance much more exciting and
terrifying.
During the exposition of the second subject, the first subject's "fate motif"
continues in the double basses. During the recapitulation, the basses are
replaced (half the time) by the timpani (a hint of the onslaught to come). As
we move towards the coda in the VPO recording (5:50), the timpani become more
and more prominent. They are also audible on the Philips recording, but they
do not generate the same sense of anticipation and excitement. (Gielen's
timpani are probably the best here.)
With the arrival of the coda comes the shining moment of the Orfeo recording
(6:08-6:15). Many recordings highlight the strings, which here repeat the fate
motif four times (playing what sounds like the same notes each time).
Underneath, the horns accompany with sustained notes, but for each repeat of
the motif, the horns play a bit higher. At this point on Szell's VPO recording
the horns absolutely blaze--more so than on any other recording I know. As a
result, the tension is doubly high. The repeated motif on the strings conveys
nervous anxiety and restless motion, and the rising horns lend a sense of
*building* drama and anticipation. During the ever-so-brief rest (6:18, where
a solo horn (?) quietly plays the fate motif once), the music seems ready to
explode. And of course that is exactly what it does (6:19)--the whole
orchestra comes *crashing* in at full throttle.
The Concertgebouw recording is not at all bad here. The rising horns are
clearly audible (6:01-6:09), but they are not as prominent nor their notes as
sustained (and thus the tension does not rise to the same degree). And after
the brief rest, the orchestra does not come *crashing* in (6:12), it merely
returns (if that makes any sense). If you have access to both recordings and
listen to this 15-second passage on both, hopefully you'll see (or hear) what
I mean. Incidentally, the conductor who handles the crashing return of the
orchestra best of all, in my mind, is Carlos Kleiber. Perhaps this is because
he draws out the rest just a bit more than the others (6:00), or perhaps it is
the perfect unison with which the VPO blasts away a moment later (6:01).
Following the big outburst comes another brief rest, only this time it is the
timpani (along with the winds and trumpets) that play the fate motif once. I
have no idea what the dynamic marking in the score is at this moment, but I
suspect it is no louder than mezzo-forte, since that is how it seems to sound
on most recordings I know. On at least a few recordings, though, the timpani
hammer out the motif fortissimo. Szell's Concertgebouw sounds rather tame here
(6:15), at least compared to Szell's VPO (6:22). Nobody beats Kleiber at this
moment (6:05), however. His timpanist hammers out the motif (on hard sticks)
in an incredibly electrifying manner--adding to the drama just when it seemed
that things could not get any more exciting.
To return to the two Szell recordings, for this 30-second patch of the first
movement, I much prefer the live Orfeo recording. (And since this is my
favorite part of the movement, I prefer the Orfeo overall.) That said, no
recording seems to get everything right. At each moment it seems to me that a
different recording is the ideal: Gielen's timpani leading up to the coda,
Szell's blazing horns at the start of the coda, Kleiber's huge crash (and
fortissimo hard-stick timpani immediately afterwards), and so forth.
(Incidentally, Gielen's recording becomes my favorite for the passages
immediately following the ones I have just described. Listen to his horns,
starting at 5:44 and especially at 5:50-5:54--thrilling.)
Whenever I listen to a performance of this movement, it is these moments that
will ultimately decide whether that performance "works" for me. It is here
that Karajan's 1962 recording--good in so many ways (especially those
mentioned by Simon)--falls short. The timpani leading up to the coda, though
audible, sound mushy and unexciting (5:30-5:44). The rising horns under the
repeating strings at the start of the coda are barely audible--especially for
the first two sustained notes (5:46-5:54). The orchestra's crashing return is
fairly satisfying (5:56), but the BPO timpani--struck with considerable
force--nevertheless sound hazy, distant, and ineffectual (6:00), nothing like
the war-like strikes on Kleiber's recording.
Anyway, it became clear reading Simon's comments that these moments--moments
that make or break a recording for me--do not seem quite so important to him.
Sometimes I think it is silly to place so much emphasis on a 20- or 30-second
passage, but there it is. No matter how much I am enjoying a performance, if
during these moments it fails to deliver, I will inevitably walk away
disappointed. My loss, I suppose.
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
> Mengelberg Concertgebouw 1940 Philips
>
> Unless one objects to any use of the brake pedal, this i just about has
> it all - superlative articulation, eloquently singing lines in the
> quieter sections (though I could do with a bit more sense of menace),
> swagger and grand rhetoric with less disruptive tempo changes than
> Furtwaengler 1943 and superbly recorded (and played) timpani, better
> than on any other historic recording (miles better than any of the
> historic studio recordings in that regard) I listened to.
Somehow I missed this one when I was comparing a few weeks ago. Having just
listened to it, I must say that I agree. Definitely my favorite historical
recording (at least of the first three movements).
> No repeat.
> ii is every bit as successful - con moto at last, a boldly sung out
> performance whose loud sections are thrillingly projected, exultant and
> uplifting. The opening of iii is more interestingly shaped than most,
> and at a faster tempo than many, one of the few performances which let
> us hear that the timpani have joined in when the horn motto returns
> tutti at bar 80.
Surely the number is not that few, is it?
> Wonderful transition to iv, with distinctive phrasing
> in the violins and more attention to the bass line than in most, while
> iv bursts in at a fast tempo, substituting an adrenaline rush for
> Furtwaengler's and Toscanini's (in their rather different ways)
> grandeur - BUT here his tempo fluctuations don't convince me. Slamming
> on the brakes for the horn call disrupts the momentum far too early in
> the movement and makes no sense to me at all, while the less extreme
> fluctuations later on also serve no useful purpose to these ears.
I quite agree. At least Mengelberg begins to slow down a few bars before the
horn calls. Other conductors (Carlos Kleiber comes to mind) seem to slam on
the breaks without any warning, and I find that to cause an even greater loss
of momentum.
Matty
Samir Golescu
On 21 Jan 2002, Paul Goldstein wrote:
> In article <a2hnfh$j18$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>, "Simon says...
>
> >Mengelberg Concertgebouw 1937 Pearl
> >
> >Except for iv where the tempo shifts are a bit less intrusive, I don't
> >like this nearly as much as the live 1940. In outline it's not that
> >different, but the dull, tubby sound (the low instruments are especially
> >affected, their overtones seemingly eliminated - by Telefunken's
> >engineers?) blunts its impact, while the tempo shifts in i seem a bit
> >crude, a la Furtwaengler 1943, compared to 1940.
>
> It sounds like the Pearl transfer is unnecessarily bad. I have this perf in its
> Telefunken CD issue - in fact, I cited it in the earlier thread started by
> Matty. The sound of the Telefunken CD is superb for the period, some of the
> best 1930s orchestral sound I've ever heard, and better to my ears than the
> Philips (which is also a great perf, to be sure).
Dear Mr Goldstein,
Your Teldec probably contains the *1942* recording, even if it's "billed"
as 1937. The Pearl set (well transferred) contains the 1937 recording,
which is slightly worse recorded and some of Mr Roberts' criticisms are in
order. To hear the live 1940 performance the best transfer yet is Hubert
Wendel's, clearly superior to Philips. Sorry if all that is confusing.
regards,
SG
Paul Goldstein
says...
It appears that a conspiracy is afoot to drive me to distraction.
First, the Grumiaux/van Beinum LvB V.C. turns out to be Grumiaux/Davis. Now
1937 turns out to be 1942.
Where will it all end?
So what do you think of the *1942* Mengelberg B-5, Samir? I think it's great.
Paul Goldstein
Paul Kintzele
Matthew Silverstein wrote:
>
> Anyway, it became clear reading Simon's comments that these moments--moments
> that make or break a recording for me--do not seem quite so important to him.
> Sometimes I think it is silly to place so much emphasis on a 20- or 30-second
> passage, but there it is. No matter how much I am enjoying a performance, if
> during these moments it fails to deliver, I will inevitably walk away
> disappointed. My loss, I suppose.
I suppose, but who here doesn't have certain favored moments in a given
piece? When I did my (far less extensive) list in response to your
thread, Matty, I noticed a moment in the finale that I was placing a lot
of emphasis on in my comparisons. It's at bar 80 (if I'm counting
correctly in my cheap score), or, for those without a score, about 8-10
seconds before the repeat in iv (or where the repeat should be). It's a
burst of blinding radiance, with everyone marked fortissimo (coming from
piu forte, three bars earlier). Maybe it's not a make-or-break moment,
but when conductors let the orchestra roar at this point I find the
effect overwhelming. Gardiner's performance, one of my favorites, has a
moment of spectacular éclat here; Kleiber is a close second. Zinman,
who did comparatively better than Gardiner in Simon's list (if I'm
reading it correctly), passes this event by with very little
recognition; there is no sense of going from red hot to white hot. But
I suppose Zinman's has its virtues.
Anyway, thanks to Simon for such a detailed and thought-provoking list.
Paul
Matthew Silverstein
> I suppose, but who here doesn't have certain favored moments in a given
> piece? When I did my (far less extensive) list in response to your
> thread, Matty, I noticed a moment in the finale that I was placing a lot
> of emphasis on in my comparisons. It's at bar 80 (if I'm counting
> correctly in my cheap score), or, for those without a score, about 8-10
> seconds before the repeat in iv (or where the repeat should be). It's a
> burst of blinding radiance, with everyone marked fortissimo (coming from
> piu forte, three bars earlier). Maybe it's not a make-or-break moment,
> but when conductors let the orchestra roar at this point I find the
> effect overwhelming. Gardiner's performance, one of my favorites, has a
> moment of spectacular éclat here;
Yes! If I'm thinking of the right moment, then I certainly agree. Track 4,
1:44 on Gardiner's recording?
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
> to make the exchange audible. Oh, and while all this is going on, there
> are punctuating chords from the trombones at the start of each bar;
> you'll almost never hear them, either. I note that at the start of this
> sequence all parts have the same dynamic marking, piu f, the previous
> marking being f (aside from a ff in the bassoons).
For great "punctuating" trombones here (and throughout this movement), give
Wand's live recording on RCA a try. The first movement is a bit disappointing,
but the rest is wonderful (one of my favorite performances of the finale).
Matty
Simon Roberts
"Matthew Silverstein" <msil...@umich.edu> wrote in message
news:ph%28.16$OE4...@news.itd.umich.edu...
> Thanks, Simon, for posting such a long and detailed set of comments!
I'm
> constantly amazed by how differently we all listen to music that is so
> familiar. I suppose it should not be surprising, but reading Simon's
> evaluations, it became clear that--in many cases--we either conceive
of the
> music rather differently or just listen for different things. (I say
this even
> though are preference are more alike than not.)
Or both.... I doubt two people listen the same way and/or for the same
things.
>
> One example is the overall feel of the first movement. Simon seems to
want
> anxiety, nervousness, and restlessness.
Not exclusively. I mentioned them solely with regard to the quiet music
(at least I think I did; that's what I meant to do, anyway), partly
because they're qualities seldom brought out, partly because the tempo
is usually too slow (though several demonstrate it's possible to get the
tempo right and convey nothing much).
These are qualities that I like, but I
> prefer--especially from the development through the coda--overpowering
fury
> and terror.
Here we really part - at least in the coda, I don't hear those qualities
at all.
> During the exposition of the second subject, the first subject's "fate
motif"
> continues in the double basses. During the recapitulation, the basses
are
> replaced (half the time) by the timpani (a hint of the onslaught to
come). As
> we move towards the coda in the VPO recording (5:50), the timpani
become more
> and more prominent. They are also audible on the Philips recording,
but they
> do not generate the same sense of anticipation and excitement.
(Gielen's
> timpani are probably the best here.)
Carlos Kleiber's are especially good here too. But unlike you I think
this passage is more effective if they're quiet (and, for what it's
worth, the score does not indicate a crescendo until ten bars after the
second timpani di-da-da dum.
Indeed I do; and while I understand why you like what Szell does in
Vienna (I do too), at the risk of sounding like David H, the differences
you hear in other performances are supported by the score. Those horn
notes are NOT sustained - they're simple quarter notes (I think that's
the American term) and thus play for half a bar; there's a bar and a
half's rest between each one. Nor, like the winds, trumpets and
timpani, but unlike the strings which get a sf every two bars, do they
have any specific dynamic marking or accent; the previous dynamic
marking, ff, was 30 bars earlier and thus it's not clear that it still
applies here (Szell doesn't maintain ff throughout). On the other hand,
the two horns play in unison, which may imply a certain prominence (or
not).
>
> Following the big outburst comes another brief rest, only this time it
is the
> timpani (along with the winds and trumpets) that play the fate motif
once. I
> have no idea what the dynamic marking in the score is at this moment,
but I
> suspect it is no louder than mezzo-forte, since that is how it seems
to sound
> on most recordings I know.
It has no dynamic marking, which either means it should be as loud as
the previous one six bars earlier, ff, or the conductor should figure
out what makes the best sense; it's followed by the next dynamic
marking, a mere f.
On at least a few recordings, though, the timpani
> hammer out the motif fortissimo. Szell's Concertgebouw sounds rather
tame here
> (6:15), at least compared to Szell's VPO (6:22). Nobody beats Kleiber
at this
> moment (6:05), however. His timpanist hammers out the motif (on hard
sticks)
> in an incredibly electrifying manner--adding to the drama just when it
seemed
> that things could not get any more exciting.
Agree re Kleiber.
> Anyway, it became clear reading Simon's comments that these
moments--moments
> that make or break a recording for me--do not seem quite so important
to him.
> Sometimes I think it is silly to place so much emphasis on a 20- or
30-second
> passage, but there it is. No matter how much I am enjoying a
performance, if
> during these moments it fails to deliver, I will inevitably walk away
> disappointed. My loss, I suppose.
Not at all; we probably all have our test passages (I certainly have
mine). Those passages matter to me too. If I had commented on all the
passages that matter to me I would still be scribbling away....
Simon
Simon Roberts
"Paul Kintzele" <kint...@english.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:3C4CB219...@english.upenn.edu...
>
> I suppose, but who here doesn't have certain favored moments in a
given
> piece? When I did my (far less extensive) list in response to your
> thread, Matty, I noticed a moment in the finale that I was placing a
lot
> of emphasis on in my comparisons. It's at bar 80 (if I'm counting
> correctly in my cheap score), or, for those without a score, about
8-10
> seconds before the repeat in iv (or where the repeat should be). It's
a
> burst of blinding radiance, with everyone marked fortissimo (coming
from
> piu forte, three bars earlier). Maybe it's not a make-or-break
moment,
> but when conductors let the orchestra roar at this point I find the
> effect overwhelming.
Yes, but the problem of doing that if you take the repeat is that it
makes the return of the opening, which has the same dynamic marking,
seem relatively ineffectual - how can the sun rise again if it's already
noon? (Of course, that's a problem with taking the repeat in the first
place...).
Simon
Matthew Silverstein
> Yes, but the problem of doing that if you take the repeat is that it
> makes the return of the opening, which has the same dynamic marking,
> seem relatively ineffectual - how can the sun rise again if it's already
> noon?
I find that exactly the opposite is true. Gardiner nails the moment to which
Paul refers, and I think that he handles the repeat better than anybody
(thanks, perhaps, to a tiny broadening of the tempo for those first three
chords).
Matty
Rich Schiebel
Thanks for such an entertaining and stimulating survey.
One can only imagine how your significant other now feels about
Beethoven's fifth!
Rich Schiebel
Paul Kintzele
Matthew Silverstein wrote:
>
> Yes! If I'm thinking of the right moment, then I certainly agree. Track 4,
> 1:44 on Gardiner's recording?
Yep--that's it!
Paul
Simon Roberts
"Rich Schiebel" <schi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3c4cd193...@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net...
Offices and headphones work wonders.
Simon
Paul Kintzele
Simon Roberts wrote:
>
> Yes, but the problem of doing that if you take the repeat is that it
> makes the return of the opening, which has the same dynamic marking,
> seem relatively ineffectual - how can the sun rise again if it's already
> noon? (Of course, that's a problem with taking the repeat in the first
> place...).
Well, I suppose I could just point at the text and rest my case; if
Beethoven asks for two ff's within 7 bars, why not take him at his word?
But literalism aside, I don't see any aesthetic conflict in playing each
of these ff's to the hilt. And, subjectively speaking, I'm bowled over
by it, so at least it isn't a problem for me. And why can't the sun
rise twice? I'm suspicious of the idea that there can only be one
climax in a work (or movement) and everything that surrounds it has to
be subordinated; as you mention, this is why many conductors avoid the
last movement repeat--too many suns rising. But I don't agree that
playing bar 80 ff or taking the repeat detracts from the finale's
brilliance--rather, they add to it. Conductors and orchestras should
revel in music of this clarity and power.
Paul
Samir Golescu
That's why headphones were voted in GQ the most significant
marriage-savings device, condominiums or however you say it
notwithstanding.
regards,
SG
Samir Golescu
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Paul Kintzele wrote:
> Simon Roberts wrote:
> >
> > Yes, but the problem of doing that if you take the repeat is that it
> > makes the return of the opening, which has the same dynamic marking,
> > seem relatively ineffectual - how can the sun rise again if it's already
> > noon? (Of course, that's a problem with taking the repeat in the first
> > place...).
>
> Well, I suppose I could just point at the text and rest my case; if
> Beethoven asks for two ff's within 7 bars, why not take him at his word?
> But literalism aside, I don't see any aesthetic conflict in playing each
> of these ff's to the hilt. And, subjectively speaking, I'm bowled over
> by it, so at least it isn't a problem for me. And why can't the sun
> rise twice?
It can Paul, of course, in that Asimov story developed by Robert
Silverberg (I hope I've got my data right so that the merciless Tepper
will not fry me to my Internetic death). Not on Earth, though.
regards,
SG
(who agrees with Simon R, needless to say)
Larry Rinkel
[snip]
>
> Anyway, a preliminary matter: why does adherence to Beethoven's
> metronome marking in the first movement matter (to me, anyway)? (I don't
> mean to suggest it doesn't matter in the other movements.) "Because
> it's what the score says and it's possible" seems to be Schuller's
> answer in his chapter on this piece (unless I missed something).
I think you have, and I think you are much closer to his perspective than
your skeptical response to him admits. See below for some parallels.
> His answer makes sense if you treat music, as he seems generally to do, as
a
> content-free abstraction, with scores as blueprints to be obeyed
> because, well, that's what blueprints are for, and with recordings to be
> evaluated almost exclusively in terms of their accurate reflection of
> the black marks on the page.
I could go through his book and find quotations to support what I mean, but
not tonight; it's nearly 600 pages long and it's late. But although Schuller
is certainly not much interested in trying to convey the emotional state of
a piece of music in words, and although he always talks in purely "musical"
terms of balance, dynamics, tempo, and such, I don't hear him denying
emotion. His premise, which you can accept or reject, is that the performer
attains the maximum emotional power when he realizes the marks on the page
most accurately. One simple example: "The piccolo runs ... are to be
tongued, not slurred, *not only* because they are so written by Beethoven,
*but because* they will project better when tongued." In other words,
Beethoven knows best what Beethoven should sound like, and the performance
that succeeds best is the one that most closely mirrors what Beethoven calls
for in his score.
Of course I know this is problematic, given the imprecision of musical
notation. But I think that once you yourself get down to specifics, you're a
lot closer to Schuller than you might want to admit.
[snip]
>
>
> One such, which may seem trivial to some, is what I shall refer to as
> "the triplets" or "the triplet problem" in the finale. By that I mean
> not just triplets but a triplet followed by a fourth note, di-di-di dum,
> a sequence of them at bars 124-131 (counting without the repeat, that
> is). This passage evidently presents awkward balance problems. What
> one usually hears is a repeated sequence consisting of two notes in the
> violins answered by the horns' and trumpets' (and, if you're lucky,
> timpani's) di-di-di dums, the rhythmic effect of the two combined being
> dee daa' di-di-di dum, dee daa' di-di-di dum, etc. Perhaps we'll also
> notice the response to the violins' phrases in the violas, cellos and
> basses.
This is very much like something Schuller could write.
>
>
> What we almost certainly won't hear is that the horn/trumpet/timpani are
> engaged in a dialogue with the winds (minus piccolo), which play exactly
> the same di-di-di dum rhythm. Ignoring the strings, what we should hear
> is a series of di-di-di dums tossed back and forth without a break
> between the wind choir and the horn/trumpet/timpani choir.
And here's Schuller: "But the biggest balance problem occurs in 118-21, in
which the trumpets . . . are apt to drown out not only the other thematic
lines but also the triplet figures in the woodwinds." (209)
But this is
> not something I've ever actually heard clearly. (There's a similar
> problem in the finale of the Haffner Symphony - conductors usually bring
> out a dum di di dum dum figure in the brass but don't let us hear wind
> equivalents to which they are responding.) Perhaps because the flutes
> are playing in unison (unlike the other winds) and (also unlike the
> other winds) because they have a rising figure rather than four notes at
> the same pitch, one occasionally is aware of a vague twittering sound,
> as though a small, startled bird had been temporarily let loose in the
> back of the hall, but that's about it. Maybe this can't be brought out
> in the concert hall, but in the recording studio it ought to be possible
> to make the exchange audible.
Again, from Schuller: "The instruments Beethoven adds to his basic
orchestra - piccolo, contrabassoon, and three trombones - are woefully
neglected in most performances. This is unforgivable, especially on
recordings." (206)
Oh, and while all this is going on, there
> are punctuating chords from the trombones at the start of each bar;
> you'll almost never hear them, either.
"For all one can hear of them on most recordings, they might just as well
have never been used by Beethoven.. . . This is true, surprisingly, even of
the trombones. . . .It is amazing to me that on so many recordings the
trombone color is either virtually or totally hidden." (206)
> I note that at the start of this
> sequence all parts have the same dynamic marking, piu f, the previous
> marking being f (aside from a ff in the bassoons).
>
>
>
> Finally, for convenience sake I shall at times refer to "the horn call."
> It's not just a horn call, of course, but that's what we usually hear.
> (I refer to bars 26-28, where the horns, bassoons, clarinets and oboes
> play that uplifting six note phrase (in all too many performances you
> don't hear the winds at all, while the string bass arpeggio that follows
> it is usually drowned out by the sustained horns and timpani).)
Schuller: "A caution needs to be raised for 26-27, where too often the horns
. . . blast in with an enormous ff that completely overbalance the woodwinds
that also have this phrase." (200)
"A serious balance problem arises in 28-29 and 32-33, in which the majestic
rising arpeggiated figures in the bass instruments are usually drowned out
by timpani and brass if care if taken to avoid this." (200)
>
>
> I'll briefly discuss them in the order in which I listened to them.
> Being rather long, I'll post it in installments. Obviously not all are
> favorites..
>
> [rest snipped to save space]
In other words, it sounds to me that although you're trying to distance
yourself from Schuller at least at the start of your post (and I join the
rest in appreciation for your extremely valuable reviews, which I am reading
with great pleasure), it's not long before you start voicing the same
concerns he does, and in language that is extremely similar to his own.
Larry Rinkel
"A serious balance problem arises in 28-29 and 32-33, in which the majestic
rising arpeggiated figures in the bass instruments are usually drowned out
by timpani and brass if care if taken to avoid this." (200)
>
"Larry Rinkel" <LRi...@optonline.nete> wrote in message
news:pC538.37893$Wu1.5...@news02.optonline.net...
Paul Kintzele
Samir Golescu wrote:
>
> It can Paul, of course, in that Asimov story developed by Robert
> Silverberg (I hope I've got my data right so that the merciless Tepper
> will not fry me to my Internetic death). Not on Earth, though.
So any performance of Beethoven 5 on a planet in a binary star system
should take the last movement repeat.... Interesting, so Beethoven
wasn't quoting Kant when he said "the starry sky above!"
> (who agrees with Simon R, needless to say)
You're both wrong, but the sun can set twice as well.
;)
Paul
Samir Golescu
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Paul Kintzele wrote:
> > It can Paul, of course, like in that Asimov story developed by Robert
Actually the cosmic premise of IA-RS' "Nightfall" was even more
complicated than that -- so you might consider a sextuple sun-setting or
in Kalgashian music or somethin'. Just don't blow the HIP
"Sun"-Ersatz-Candle, I verily beseech thee....
;)
Paul Kintzele
Samir Golescu wrote:
>
> Just don't blow the HIP
> "Sun"-Ersatz-Candle, I verily beseech thee....
Prithee, Samir, it's not a HIP argument I'm making. Carlos Kleiber
takes the repeat, and plays bar 80 pretty much fortissimo. I think
following the score makes musical sense here; the repeat gives the
finale more weight so that it is an adequately triumphant *response* to
the palpable fatalism of the first movement; this is especially true
when the first movement repeat is taken, which many conductors,
Mengelberg 1937 among them, do take (or do you argue against that repeat
as well?). I would think that if you dismiss the repeat in iv, you
should also advocate ignoring the repeat in the first movement. It
seems to me that Beethoven put the repeat in iv because it symmetrically
answers the repeat in i--fate there becomes triumphant destiny in the
finale.
Paul
Matthew Silverstein
> emotion. His premise, which you can accept or reject, is that the performer
> attains the maximum emotional power when he realizes the marks on the page
> most accurately.
But what reason is there to accept this premise? The idea that the composer
*always* knows best--that a performer, no matter how great--will never be able
to increase the emotional power of the music by deviating from the marks on
the page?
> And here's Schuller: "But the biggest balance problem occurs in 118-21, in
> which the trumpets . . . are apt to drown out not only the other thematic
> lines but also the triplet figures in the woodwinds." (209)
The woodwinds which are inaudible on Schuller's recording?
Matty
Simon Roberts
>
>I think you have, and I think you are much closer to his perspective than
>your skeptical response to him admits. See below for some parallels.
Yes, I do some of what he does (though of course in less detail). My
complaint is not with what he does - his detailed account of the various
problems encountered in realizing a score, something he does superbly well
even though he doesn't seem to realize just how much of what he
says is Schuller, not Beethoven (or whoever) - but what he doesn't do. If
you treat the text as the music, rather than a means to realizing it, and
treat music merely as formal (he gives clues that he doesn't really think
this, but the bulk of his discussion gives that impression), then you
will, for one thing, react differently to musicians who "take liberties"
with the score from how you might react if you have a different
understanding of what scores and music are. This will affect, to invoke a
different discussion, the extent to which a conductor is praised or taken
to task for failing to observe a repeat....
>
>I could go through his book and find quotations to support what I mean, but
>not tonight; it's nearly 600 pages long and it's late. But although Schuller
>is certainly not much interested in trying to convey the emotional state of
>a piece of music in words, and although he always talks in purely "musical"
>terms of balance, dynamics, tempo, and such, I don't hear him denying
>emotion. His premise, which you can accept or reject, is that the performer
>attains the maximum emotional power when he realizes the marks on the page
>most accurately. One simple example: "The piccolo runs ... are to be
>tongued, not slurred, *not only* because they are so written by Beethoven,
>*but because* they will project better when tongued." In other words,
>Beethoven knows best what Beethoven should sound like, and the performance
>that succeeds best is the one that most closely mirrors what Beethoven calls
>for in his score.
You may be right, but I'm not sure that example is a good one: "project"
may simply be a matter of creating the right amount of sound to create the
balance implied by the score.
>
>Of course I know this is problematic, given the imprecision of musical
>notation. But I think that once you yourself get down to specifics, you're a
>lot closer to Schuller than you might want to admit.
[examples snipped]
Not at all - I cheerfully admit that in the examples you give I'm doing
the same sort of thing (though of course not as well).
Simon
Matthew B. Tepper
news:Pine.GSO.4.31.020121...@ux8.cso.uiuc.edu:
> It can Paul, of course, in that Asimov story developed by Robert
> Silverberg (I hope I've got my data right so that the merciless Tepper
> will not fry me to my Internetic death). Not on Earth, though.
You mean Asimov's short story "Nightfall," which was later developed into a
novel by Robert Silverberg? Incidentally Silverberg makes an offhanded
reference to a Toscanini performance of the Beethoven 5th in his own 1958
short story "The Man Who Never Forgot," available as an eBook for 69¢:
http://www.fictionwise.com/ebooks/eBook150.htm
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Top 3 worst UK exports: Mad-cow; Foot-and-mouth; Charlotte Church
Samir Golescu
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Paul Kintzele wrote:
> Samir Golescu wrote:
> >
> > Just don't blow the HIP
> > "Sun"-Ersatz-Candle, I verily beseech thee....
>
> Prithee, Samir, it's not a HIP argument I'm making.
Paul, this was a kind of gratuitous joke, not-related to the argument you
were making in the thread. Still....
> Carlos Kleiber
> takes the repeat, and plays bar 80 pretty much fortissimo. I think
> following the score makes musical sense here; the repeat gives the
> finale more weight so that it is an adequately triumphant *response* to
> the palpable fatalism of the first movement; this is especially true
> when the first movement repeat is taken, which many conductors,
> Mengelberg 1937 among them, do take (or do you argue against that repeat
> as well?).
Oddly enough, Mengelberg did not take the repeat in his live 1940 version.
> I would think that if you dismiss the repeat in iv, you
> should also advocate ignoring the repeat in the first movement.
I don't think that follows. Incidentally, I like the repeat in (i), I
definitely don't in (iV). If I HAD to choose either both or none, I'd
choose the latter. You see how much I hate Beethoven? (:
> It seems to me that Beethoven put the repeat in iv because it
> symmetrically answers the repeat in i--fate there becomes triumphant
> destiny in the finale.
That, or he was paid by the minute..... (:
regards,
SG
Paul Kintzele
Samir Golescu wrote:
>
> Incidentally, I like the repeat in (i), I
> definitely don't in (iV).
You're certainly not alone in your preferences, but for me not doing the
repeat in iv (a) subtly (but not fatally) skews the balance of the
symphony, (b) misses out on the very Beethovenian surprise of the
sudden, snap-back repeat, and (c) brings the ending too quickly--all
that struggle for such a short victory? I certainly don't think that
every repeat in every work by every composer ought to be taken--one has
to use one's musical sense to determine whether a repeat is
desirable--but for me there isn't a repeat in any of Beethoven's
symphonies that doesn't add to my enjoyment and appreciation of the
music. I'll give another example--I never like it when conductors skip
the repeats in the Peasant's Gathering in the Pastoral Symphony--dance
music is supposed to repeat and gather steam in the repetition; jumping
ahead to the storm doesn't allow for enough time to establish the merry
"scene." Anyway, I'll stop now--I wouldn't want to repeat myself....
Paul
Samir Golescu
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
> > It can Paul, of course, in that Asimov story developed by Robert
> > Silverberg (I hope I've got my data right so that the merciless Tepper
> > will not fry me to my Internetic death). Not on Earth, though.
>
> You mean Asimov's short story "Nightfall," which was later developed into a
> novel by Robert Silverberg? Incidentally Silverberg makes an offhanded
> reference to a Toscanini performance of the Beethoven 5th in his own 1958
> short story "The Man Who Never Forgot," available as an eBook for 69¢:
>
> http://www.fictionwise.com/ebooks/eBook150.htm
69c? Are the quoted disc and the shipping costs included?
Was the recording in question used as a lethal weapon against the
alien invaders?
(Just teasing you tenderly, Mr Tepper)
BTW, what about a thread with classical music in SF -- books & movies?
Remember the Diva in "The Fifth Element"? It wasn't bad, image-wise.....
(even if the combination of opera and "swing" was musically unconvincing
as the intended prevision of the syncretic art of the future, IMO.....)
regards,
SG
Samir Golescu
> > http://www.fictionwise.com/ebooks/eBook150.htm
>
> 69c? Are the quoted disc and the shipping costs included?
Oh..... you said an "Ebook", sorry.
Jeremy Dimmick
"Samir Golescu" <gol...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.31.020122...@ux10.cso.uiuc.edu...
BTW, what about a thread with classical music in SF -- books & movies?
Remember the Diva in "The Fifth Element"? It wasn't bad, image-wise.....
(even if the combination of opera and "swing" was musically unconvincing
as the intended prevision of the syncretic art of the future, IMO.....)
regards,
SG
Well, now, Michael Moorcock's truly bizarre "Second Ether" trilogy springs
to mind: the Chaos Engineers' (self-parodic trippy anarchists) spaceships
are powered by music, and a pretty eclectic playlist it is, including
Messiaen and Jimi Hendrix, if I remember rightly.
Jeremy
Larry Rinkel
> Larry wrote:
>
> > emotion. His premise, which you can accept or reject, is that the
performer
> > attains the maximum emotional power when he realizes the marks on the
page
> > most accurately.
>
> But what reason is there to accept this premise? The idea that the
composer
> *always* knows best--
I agree that is problematic.
that a performer, no matter how great--will never be able
> to increase the emotional power of the music by deviating from the marks
on
> the page?
His response would be (and I share it to a degree) something like, "Why must
one deviate to increase the emotional power? Why not instead see the text as
both a stimulus to the performer's imagination as well as a constraint?"
>
> > And here's Schuller: "But the biggest balance problem occurs in 118-21,
in
> > which the trumpets . . . are apt to drown out not only the other
thematic
> > lines but also the triplet figures in the woodwinds." (209)
>
> The woodwinds which are inaudible on Schuller's recording?
Yes, sometimes he's not his own best advocate.
>
> Matty
>
>
Larry Rinkel
sentence about a symmetrical relationship between i and iv -- an interesting
idea, however. I agree entirely that the repeat in iv gives the finale more
breadth and weight. I hear the symphony as basically a progression from the
nervous, agitated first movement in C minor with its very fast tempo and
very short 2/4 bars, to the more expansive, triumphant finale in C major
with its broader tempo and broader 4/4 meter.
Even so, generically the tradition still remained strong at this time that
at least expositions would be repeated in sonata form movements. Beethoven
starts to get away from this in his middle period works, to the degree that
I believe his decisions to indicate repeats or not were very carefully
considered and therefore (IMO at least!) deserve the performer's respect.
Even in the Eroica first movement, where the unparalleled length could be
used to argue against the repeat, there is evidence that Beethoven thought
it essential: "My brother thought at first that the Symphony would prove too
long if the first part of the first movement were repeated, but on repeated
performance it was found that the omission of the repeat was harmful to the
work." (brother Karl to Breitkopf und Haertel, 1805). It would be
interesting to explore the implications of "harmful."
Since Beethoven's use of repeats varies considerably through his mature
works, it would be interesting as well to explore why he retained them in
some of his sonata-form movements but not others (rather than using
"sunrises" as a metaphor to argue for or against them). Some examples:
- first movement exposition repeat: Waldstein sonata; Symphonies 1-8;
Sonatas Opp. 81a, 106, and 111; Quartets Opp. 59/3, 74, 130
- no first movement exposition repeat: Appassionata sonata, Symphony 9,
Quartets Opp. 59/1, 95, 127, 132, 135; Sonatas Opp. 90, 101, 109, 110
- first movement double repeat (both exposition and development/recap):
Quartet Op. 59/2, Sonatas Opp. 54, 78, and 79
- finale exposition repeat: Symphonies 5 and 7, Sonata Op. 81a, Quartet Opp.
59/1, 130 (the second finale, of course)
- no finale exposition repeat: Symphony 8 (which has a huge coda), Quartets
Opp. 95, 131
- finale double repeat: Quartet Op. 135 (rarely heard - means the fortissimo
repeat of the slow intro is to be heard twice!)
- no finale exposition repeat *but* a development/recap repeat:
Appassionata - the only time he did this.
Maybe someone can discern a pattern here.
- larry
"Paul Kintzele" <kint...@english.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:3C4D2419...@english.upenn.edu...
David Wake
> Matthew Silverstein writes:
>> But what reason is there to accept this premise? The idea that the
>> composer that a performer, no matter how great--will never be able
>> to increase the emotional power of the music by deviating from the
>> marks on the page?
>
> His response would be (and I share it to a degree) something like,
> "Why must one deviate to increase the emotional power? Why not
> instead see the text as both a stimulus to the performer's
> imagination as well as a constraint?"
This is no response to Matthew's question. Suppose that (I can think
of quite a few examples) it just is the case that deviating from the
text increases emotional power. Surely adopting the attitude you and
GS hold amounts to biting one's nose off to spite one's face?
David
Larry Rinkel
though I would be interested in your examples, and could provide quite a few
of my own.
"David Wake" <dn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9nelkhs...@Turing.Stanford.EDU...
Matthew Silverstein
> I said "to a degree." At last look in the mirror, nose remains intact,
> though I would be interested in your examples, and could provide quite a few
> of my own.
I've already mentioned one example. At the very beginning of the coda to
Beethoven 5/i, there horns play behind repeated "fate motifs" on the strings.
On Szell's VPO recording, the horns are sustained to match the entire motif on
the strings. Simon informed me that in the score they are merely quarter
notes. I prefer Szell's way . . .
Matty
Samir Golescu
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Simon Roberts wrote:
> Furtwaengler BPO 1943 Tahra and DG (didn't compare the transfers)
>
> A frustrating performance. The tempo changes are crude, creating a
> jarringly episodic effect that prevents any sense of momentum, not to
> say relentlessness, and while the balances are much better than in 1937
> (as is the sound generally), the orchestral playing isn't. On the other
> hand, when he doesn't slow down, the music has tremendous vigor,
> achieving at times a sort of defiant, weighty, swagger that may be in a
> class by itself.
A little comment on this part of Mr Roberts' comments. I personally think
this to be the greatest performance of the Fifth, among those I know. I am
not surprised he prefers Mengelberg's though. Some reasons, besides those
mentioned by Mr Roberts, might be that Mengelberg has more "apparent
textural clarity" and also that, despite Mengelberg being 15 years
Furtwangler's senior, the older conductor had more of a modern "historical
consciousness" than the "metaphysical" Furtwangler (in a nutshell,
Mengelberg's Beethoven was much more different from his Brahms than
Furtwangler's Beethoven was different from *his* Brahms).
It might be of interest (if not worthy as an immediate musical argument)
to know that Furtwangler programmed the Fifth more than any other work,
while Mengelberg, if my information is correct (I invite correction),
complete cycles aside, programmed the Third more often than the Fifth.
Furtwangler himself left notes that show he preferred the Fifth, and even
the Fourth, to the Third. He was not ashamed to say, quite unPC (:, that
he found "even" the Fourth Symphony superior to the Third. Furtwangler had
no borders though in his admiration for the Fifth and the Ninth. (All
these are backed up in Furtwangler's own writings, forgive me for not
giving quotations.)
Now back to the music itself: Mr Roberts' description of the "facts",
in WF's 1943 Beethoven Fifth, is doubtlessly accurate and fair. My
interpretation of them would be different though. I do definitely not find
the tempo changes crude and/or "episodicness"-creating. On the contrary,
I find Furtwangler's approach to the piece extraordinarily organic and
convincing, even more so than Mengelberg's (whose live 1940 recording I
also prefer, followed by the 1942 studio recording.... the 1937 one is
grossly similar, but a bit less well recorded and with slight
instrumental inaccuracies).
What Furtwangler (and nobody else I've heard, except for, partially,
Walter & Klemperer) realizes is performing the 1st mvt of the symphony
"from the whole to the detail", or, in Schenkerian terms, "from the
background to the foreground". What do I mean? What is more obvious in
that movement? The "ta-ta-ta-TAAAA", apparently giving birth to
"ta-ta-ta-TA-ta-ta-ta-Ta-ta-ta-ta-Ta", of course. The rhythm. There is so
much rhythm in here that, after the late RCA version Toscanini (the
earlier ones I like more) or the Reiner or the Szell I get a bit sick of
this rhythm. I have so much of this rhythm that I could sell it engross
and never miss it.
Furtwangler seems to pay much more attention, on a vertical level, to the
*harmonic rhythm" [pass the "introduction"]:
c[Cm]-----------G[GM]-----------c-----G-----c-----G-----c seventh-chord
GGGGGGGGGGGG (remember Wagner writing in his book on conducting about
Beethoven's specter coming out of the grave and asking the conductor "hold
my fermata long and terrible!"
The way of phrasing, corroborated with a kind of subtle accelerando
preceding the obvious ritenuto before the fermata renders this scheme
psychologically eloquent.
On a horizontal level, it's like Furtwangler would prioritize the notes,
at one level, as such:
[ggg] Eb [abaaGeeeC ggg] D [aaaGfff] [upper] D[taking over,register-wise]
[ggf] Eb D [ggf] Eb D [ggf] E C GGGGGGGGGGGGG!
but, on another level, *also* the "hidden melody" "G Eb Ab G Eb C / G D Ab
G F D / etc." seems to have a life of its own.
On the last (with other conductors first) level, Furtwangler is of course
taking care of the foreground "ta ta ta TA ta ta ta TA ta ta ta TA" as
well.
In other words, Furtwangler does not offer the clearest articulation of
the foreground because he didn't choose to. He apparently (and judging by
his close relation with -- admiration for -- Schenker, that's not too
speculative an argument) had many "organically conflicting" layers of
"clarity" to deal with, making them negotiate and capturing in the process
the feeling of fresh improvisation.
There would be so much more to say, but I hope that, even in discussing
only the beginning of that recording, I offered an alternate perspective
on the matter. Needless to mention, Mr Roberts' posting was anyway on the
laudative side and I do agree with other perspicacious observations he
offered.
regards,
SG
P.S. Mr Roberts' estimate of Nikisch's recording was all fair and
accurate. I continue to believe that Nikisch was among the greatest, but
that recording is of little interest other than for historians or fanatics
or both, such as I. (-: The only recording that remotely suggests a little
bit of what must have been Nikisch's appeal is that of a Liszt's rhapsody,
with a dizziness-inducing final accelerando. A pity the man died in 1922
and not, *at least*, in 1932.
Simon Roberts
[snip]
>In other words, Furtwangler does not offer the clearest articulation of
>the foreground because he didn't choose to. He apparently (and judging by
>his close relation with -- admiration for -- Schenker, that's not too
>speculative an argument) had many "organically conflicting" layers of
>"clarity" to deal with, making them negotiate and capturing in the process
>the feeling of fresh improvisation.
[snip]
Perhaps I'm missing the point, but couldn't he have done that without
slamming on the brakes to the extent he does? He does so more in this
performance than in the other two I listened to....
Simon
Matthew Silverstein
> Furtwangler himself left notes that show he preferred the Fifth, and even
> the Fourth, to the Third. He was not ashamed to say, quite unPC (:, that
> he found "even" the Fourth Symphony superior to the Third. Furtwangler had
> no borders though in his admiration for the Fifth and the Ninth.
I prefer those to the Third as well . . .
Matty
Samir Golescu
Well, if:
a) Furtwangler recorded it three (actually 11 and 3/4 (/:) times
b) he never performed it twice in precisely the same way then, corollary:
c) he was bound to do in one/some of them some things more than in
other(s)
regards,
SG (-:
Larry Rinkel
on pages 19-20 of the Eulenburg miniature score, bars 375-381, and as
written all the instruments are sustained, even the trumpets - except the
timpani, which can't sustain, and the horns. The horns play quarter notes on
every other downbeat, and they double an inner part that is scored only for
the second violins and (in part) the violas. Each of the horn notes
coincides with a sforzando in the strings.
I don't have Szell's VPO recording, but I have his Cleveland version, and
you are right in that Szell brings out the horn line prominently. But in the
Cleveland recording they are not sustained over each two-bar segment; I am
guessing that they might have been told to play the quarter notes tenuto
(i.e., held for their full value). At the very fast tempo, I can't be 100%
positive they are not sustaining slightly longer than a quarter note, but
there is a definite attack and release, and space between each of their
notes.
So I don't hear Szell really "departing" here. To my mind, this is an
imaginative realization of the texture that remains within the constraints
of the score. But I don't deny that excessive literalism is possible, and
can detract from the performance. I'm thinking of Norrington's finale to
Beethoven 9, at the point when the instrumental recitatives close (the Bump!
Bump! dominant-tonic cadence on the whole orchestra) and the lower strings
begin the Big Tune pianissimo. Nearly every performance I have heard makes a
brief pause after the tonic chord in the full orchestra. This is, however,
not literally marked - although in several other passages just preceding,
Beethoven indicates fermatas over the bar line to suggest a short pause.
Norrington after Bump! Bump! takes no pause at all, and though his version
is literally more correct, compared to the standard practice it sounds
senseless to me, not giving the final tonic Bump! enough rhetorical weight
and not suggesting a major change in section.
In other words, though I believe strongly in the authority of the score, I
am trying not to be dogmatic ("biting off one's nose to spite one's face,"
as Mr. Wake put it).
Nonetheless, I am irked when, at the opening of the last movement of the
9th, conductors slow down the tempo for the string bass recitatives, even
though Beethoven specifically writes, "In the character of a recitative,
*but in tempo*. . . . ."
"Matthew Silverstein" <msil...@umich.edu> wrote in message
news:iDz38.109$OE4....@news.itd.umich.edu...
Matthew Silverstein
> So I don't hear Szell really "departing" here.
The VPO recording is quite different (in this and other respects) from the
Cleveland recording. (I have both, as well as the Concertgebouw recording.)
Matty