Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827)

Started by BachQ, April 06, 2007, 03:12:18 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

André

Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on December 01, 2019, 05:01:19 AM
I later wanted to do it as a performance with an acquaintance... but it turned out that my voice does NOT carry over a grand piano being played behind me.

Incidentally, Thomas Mann published the 8th chapter as a standalone essay in English in Harper's Magazine (or some other such mag.), so there's precedent for reading just that. It's riproaringly funny, too... which was what surprised the above-mentioned lady in question the most, because she hadn't thought of Mann that way.

There is plenty of humour in The Buddenbrooks, The Magic Mountain and Joseph and his Brothers, too (particularly in the latter, IMO). But for some unfathomable reason I never 'cracked' Doktor Faustus  :(.

George

"I can't live without music, because music is life." - Yvonne Lefébure

Cato

Quote from: André on December 01, 2019, 05:07:58 AM
There is plenty of humour in The Buddenbrooks, The Magic Mountain and Joseph and his Brothers, too (particularly in the latter, IMO). But for some unfathomable reason I never 'cracked' Doktor Faustus  :(.

I once composed the first act of an opera with 19-tone scales (7 quarter-tones) and also used 24-tone rows (??????) based on Doctor Faustus.  I wrote the text in German and used parts of the novel itself in the libretto.

A funny story: I took the libretto to my former German professor, a very nice lady, to be corrected.

At one point she had highlighted a sentence and asked me: "How did you come up with this?"

I said: "I didn't!  Thomas Mann did!  That's taken directly from the novel."

After looking a little confused and skeptical, she said: "Oh, well, all right then."

The implication was: if I had written the sentence, it was wrong.   ???

But since Thomas Mann had written it, it was fine!   :D
"Meet Miss Ruth Sherwood, from Columbus, Ohio, the Middle of the Universe!"

- Brian Aherne introducing Rosalind Russell in  My Sister Eileen (1942)

SurprisedByBeauty

Quote from: Cato on December 02, 2019, 04:59:27 AM

At one point she had highlighted a sentence and asked me: "How did you come up with this?"

I said: "I didn't!  Thomas Mann did!  That's taken directly from the novel."

After looking a little confused and skeptical, she said: "Oh, well, all right then."

The implication was: if I had written the sentence, it was wrong.   ???

But since Thomas Mann had written it, it was fine!   :D

That is, in fact, how it goes. When I first started translating, I was told by a professor-friend: Don't ever let on that you're German. Don't have an accent, make sure everything is idiomatic, and get all the colloquialisms right. Once they trust you are a native speaker, you will get away with being creative with language and -- if it's actually good -- it's considered inventive. If they think you're a foreigner, it'll be considered a mistake, no matter how good it is.

Cato

Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on December 03, 2019, 12:29:30 AM
That is, in fact, how it goes. When I first started translating, I was told by a professor-friend: Don't ever let on that you're German. Don't have an accent, make sure everything is idiomatic, and get all the colloquialisms right. Once they trust you are a native speaker, you will get away with being creative with language and -- if it's actually good -- it's considered inventive. If they think you're a foreigner, it'll be considered a mistake, no matter how good it is.

Later on in my career I discovered that such is indeed "how it goes."   ;)

I was talking with someone about what seems to be right now the lack of a "bridge" into classical music from the usual jibber-jabber of our kulcher.  (The news yesterday had a profile of some teenager who "writes songs" in her bedroom, puts them on YouTube, and improbably became "rich and famous."  Why could that not be the case for a classical-music prodigy?)

The comic strip Peanuts was an example of a "bridge" into classical music, and specifically Beethoven.  The character Schroeder (I do not believe the first name was ever revealed) is a prodigy with a semi-magical toy piano which can play works by Beethoven (and a few others, "Papa Haydn" was once mentioned).

I recall several of my grade-school classmates becoming interested in Beethoven specifically because of Peanuts.

One would think that grade-school music would mention Beethoven, but...

I use parts of Beethoven's Missa Solemnis in my Latin classes to catalyze some interest.


"Meet Miss Ruth Sherwood, from Columbus, Ohio, the Middle of the Universe!"

- Brian Aherne introducing Rosalind Russell in  My Sister Eileen (1942)

vers la flamme

Anyone else binging on Beethoven's music for his 249th birthday today?



Happy birthday to the maestro. Mostly piano sonatas for me, today, though I also listened to Mitsuko Uchida play the 4th piano concerto w/ Kurt Sanderling and the Royal Concertgebouw; Carlos Kleiber conducting the 7th symphony; the Colorado String Quartet playing the Quartetto Serioso; and now I'm listening to Christa Ludwig singing Abscheulicher from Fidelio off of a recital CD w/ Otto Klemperer and the Philharmonia. More to come. I may or may not dedicate tomorrow entirely to Beethoven as well... I still want to get the Missa and the 9th symphony in there somewhere... and probably op.131 as well.

SurprisedByBeauty

Latest [Insider content] Review for ClassicsToday:

Warner's Complete Beethoven Box:


Warner's "Complete" Beethoven Box (A Bouquet of Roses and Nettles)

calyptorhynchus

Are people aware of the problem of the tempo in the finale of Op 111?
Basically Beethoven's MS makes it clear that he wants a constant pulse throughout the Arietta (a contrast to the changing tempi in the first movement), ie each beat is constant (the number of beats in a bar changes in the variations of course). Various commentators and editors such as Tovey have supported this. When the variations are played there is an impression of increased movement because of smaller notes values, but the basic pulse stays the same.
However, the pianistic traditions gets this wrong and speeds up in variations 2 and 3 so that the third variation has become famous as a 'boogie-woogie', whereas it is actually a lamenting aria with strong dotted rhythms.
Every recording of Op 111 (over 600), as far as I know, perpetrates this error, except Friedrich Gulda's second recording (on Philips), where he merely speeds up a little.
One writer who has written on this is British pianist and academic Raymond Clarke and he has broadcast a performance using the correct tempo on BBC Radio 3. However I had no idea he had also made a disk, which I have only just now found out about. It's a live recital from 1993 on a pretty obscure label:

https://www.chandos.net/products/catalogue/DD%200017

So now you can hear what this sounds like.  :)

'Many men are melancholy by hearing music, but it is a pleasing melancholy that it causeth.' Robert Burton

Madiel

So you're claiming that over 600 pianists have recorded the piece while ignoring the score?

I find that implausible. I find it more plausible that what the score actually means is different, in terms of the sound generated, compared to what you're proposing. Unless, of course, what you're proposing is that there's a difference between the manuscript and published editions, which is a different question. But then you bring in "editors such as Tovey", which rather leads me to presume that Tovey successfully got an edition printed that reflected his thoughts on the subject.
I am now working on a discography of the works of Vagn Holmboe. Please visit and also contribute!

Mandryka

#1829
Quote from: Madiel on March 20, 2020, 07:46:50 PM
So you're claiming that over 600 pianists have recorded the piece while ignoring the score?



It's the influence of Schnabel I think.

I think it's a really good example of how living and how complex making music is. Each player interprets a score according to his own acumen and sensibility. He may be guided by many things -- by the internal structure of the score itself, by his personal experience in music making, by reference to various traditions, by the action of other musicians working on the piece, by conversations with the composer. This is a form of life, a whirl of organism, which give rise to musical expression.

To return to your response, Madiel, in practice the score is just one influencing force amongst many.
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen

Madiel

Yes, but my point is that I'm not entirely certain the claim about what the score requires is accurate. The notation as to how to change from one variation to the next is not straightforward.

Unfortunately I can't locate my edition right this second but I will hunt for it.
I am now working on a discography of the works of Vagn Holmboe. Please visit and also contribute!

Madiel

#1831
In fact I found a manuscript online.

What it ACTUALLY says is simply "same tempo", while changing the time signature and using faster note values.

On what basis can you say that this actually means have the same pace of beat, but more beats per bar? How exactly do you go from 9/16 to 6/16 and add beats? Both are written to indicate 3 beats a bar. So is 12/32.  3 beats per bar.

And the variations continue to be written as 2 halves of 8 bars each.

I'm unable to find a basis in that notation to say, oh, but we don't want the music to feel fast so we'd better say that actually there are more beats per bar and so each bar takes longer. The reason that 600 pianists have a boogie-woogie is because they read that as saying they're required to have 3 beats in a bar, just as they did at the start, and that each beat should take the same amount of time as before so therefore each BAR should take as long as before.

The reason it sounds fast is because there are 8 notes in that variation (or 4 pairings) where originally there was only 1. If you count 3 beats a bar, it's still actually damn slow.

What calyptorhynchus is effectively arguing is that all of the pianists should have 12 beats in a bar where they originally had 3, and for the boogie-woogie variation to take 4 times as long to play as the original theme despite being notated as the same number of bars.

That, in my view (and apparently the view of almost all pianists), is not "same tempo". That is ignoring the change in note values and acting as if Beethoven should have kept writing in the same length notes but couldn't figure out how to move the bar lines.
I am now working on a discography of the works of Vagn Holmboe. Please visit and also contribute!

Madiel

#1832
Just listened to Raymond Clarke.

Yeah. That's nonsense. If Beethoven wanted that he would have written longer bars with the same note values, or more bars per variation, not bars of the same length with quicker note values. Both of those options would have been considerably easier for him to write than what he actually wrote.

That is not same tempo, that is making the 3 beats per bar slower and slower.
I am now working on a discography of the works of Vagn Holmboe. Please visit and also contribute!

amw

#1833
Quote from: calyptorhynchus on March 20, 2020, 03:07:55 PM
Are people aware of the problem of the tempo in the finale of Op 111?
Basically Beethoven's MS makes it clear that he wants a constant pulse throughout the Arietta (a contrast to the changing tempi in the first movement), ie each beat is constant (the number of beats in a bar changes in the variations of course). Various commentators and editors such as Tovey have supported this. When the variations are played there is an impression of increased movement because of smaller notes values, but the basic pulse stays the same.
However, the pianistic traditions gets this wrong and speeds up in variations 2 and 3 so that the third variation has become famous as a 'boogie-woogie', whereas it is actually a lamenting aria with strong dotted rhythms.
Every recording of Op 111 (over 600), as far as I know, perpetrates this error, except Friedrich Gulda's second recording (on Philips), where he merely speeds up a little.
One writer who has written on this is British pianist and academic Raymond Clarke and he has broadcast a performance using the correct tempo on BBC Radio 3. However I had no idea he had also made a disk, which I have only just now found out about. It's a live recital from 1993 on a pretty obscure label:

https://www.chandos.net/products/catalogue/DD%200017

So now you can hear what this sounds like.  :)


It's actually not that uncommon for pianists to hold fairly close to one steady tempo for the entire Arietta.

A few examples, all timings given in minutes:seconds:
[Pianist: Theme / Variation 1 / Variation 2 (6/16) / Variation 3 (12/32/"boogie-woogie") / Variation 4 (9/16/"little stars") and continuation / Variation 5 and coda]
Michel Dalberto: 2:02 / 2:01 / 1:55 / 2:07 / 4:53 / 3:38 (overall the "evenest" tempo wise)
Charles Rosen: 2:38 / 2:25 / 2:31 / 2:17 / 6:06 / 4:05
Mitsuko Uchida: 2:17 / 2:21 / 1:57 / 2:03 / 5:31 / 4:25
Edwin Fischer: 1:53 / 1:43 / 1:36 / 2:03 / 4:32 / 3:23

Schnabel maintains an even tempo apart from a very slow Arietta: 2:48 / 1:56 / 1:53 / 1:55 / 5:19 / 4:22. Hans Richter-Haaser is similar with a less slow Arietta: 2:18 / 1:59 / 1:55 / 1:54 / 4:23 / 3:19.

The "traditional pianistic view" does seem to be a gradual acceleration as in e.g. Peter Serkin 2:57 / 2:24 / 1:52 / 1:43 / 5:44 / 4:22, but there are some alternative performances where the 12/32 variation is in fact the slowest variation in the sequence (following Edwin Fischer): Zhu Xiao-Mei 2:07 / 1:58 / 1:39 / 2:21 / 5:18 / 3:56, Anton Kuerti 2:00 / 2:07 / 1:48 / 2:15 / 5:15 / 3:30.

And probably the most common unintentional tempo scheme I've seen is for the pianist to attempt to accelerate consistently, but the 6/16 variation ending up being the fastest with the 12/32 variation slowing down again due to its difficulty: András Schiff [Broadwood piano] 2:19 / 1:57 / 1:45 / 2:01 / 5:28 / 3:59, Cédric Pescia 2:15 / 1:51 / 1:39 / 1:57 / 5:19 / 4:13, Bruce Hungerford 2:42 / 2:02 / 1:36 / 1:57 / 5:13 / 4:10, Stephen Kovacevich 2:40 / 2:09 / 1:30 / 1:53 / 5:13 / 3:47, Kazune Shimizu 2:29 / 1:52 / 1:23 / 1:53 / 5:34 / 3:53, Daniel-Ben Pienaar 3:11 / 2:34 / 1:57 / 2:23 / 5:25 / 4:26, etc.

Tempi for the 12/32 variation are tightly clustered in the ~30 second range between 1:50 (Solomon) and 2:21 (Zhu) with almost no outliers: Peter Serkin at 1:43 on the fast end, and Anatol Ugorski at 2:44 on the slow end. Tempi for the 6/16 variation are much more variable with a standard range anywhere between 1:23 (Shimizu) and 2:43 (Sokolov), again with Anatol Ugorski as the outlier at 3:34.

(Anatol Ugorski mostly succeeds at holding to an even tempo until the 12/32 variation: 3:39 / 3:49 / 3:34 / 2:44 / 7:50 / 5:20. Still an achievement in the sense that pedalling a bicycle as slowly as possible without falling over is also an achievement.)

This is all purely on the subject of tempo of course. Character ("a lamenting aria with strong dotted rhythms") is obviously very different.

As for what this basic overall tempo was that Beethoven intended: Czerny, who studied with Beethoven, suggested 63 to the dotted quaver in 1846. Ignaz Moscheles, who also studied with Beethoven, suggested 52 to the dotted quaver in 1838 but had switched to Czerny's suggestion by the 1850s. Beethoven himself, assigning metronome marks to some of his earlier works in 1816-8 (shortly before writing Op. 111), assigned the Adagio affettuoso ed appassionato of Op. 18 no. 1, in 9/8 rather than 9/16, a tempo of 46 to the dotted crotchet; the 9/16 time signature probably also implied a faster tempo, but at this point in Beethoven's lifetime that would hardly be a guarantee. Applied to the Arietta, these yield respective timings of 1:31, 1:51, and 2:05. We can safely assume that Beethoven's intentions were somewhere in that range, making Edwin Fischer probably the most "Beethovenian" pianist.

But of course, pianos and the reception of Beethoven's music have moved on. Nonetheless, it is interesting that while Ariettas have generally slowed down considerably, the variations themselves (at least 1-4) are still almost invariably played at Czerny-Moscheles tempos with the pianistic "consensus" seeming to be either a steadyish tempo of 48-52 beats per minute, or an acceleration from 48-52 bpm to 60-66 bpm over the course of the variations. (Anatol Ugorski's tempo, for comparison, is approximately 26 bpm.)

calyptorhynchus

Well, in the late 1990s I had a correspondence with Raymonde Clarke himself on this issue (at that time he was a lecturer in music at the university of bridal, I don't know what he is doing now, he may have retired).

Anyway, this is what (in part) he wrote:

When Opus 111 was first published, one of the earliest reviews was in a London magazine called "The Harmonican", which wrote the following in its August 1823 issue:

"The second movement is an Arietta, adagio, and extends to the extraordinary length of thirteen pages.  The subject of this is not inelegant, but its ramifications are noted down in so unnecessarily perplexing and discouraging a manner that, we may without hazard foretell, only a few very dauntless, persevering enthusiasts will ever attempt it."

The critic was wrong, because Beethoven had been aware of the confusion which would result if he notated the second movement score in academically correct notation, so in order to prevent his score from looking too complex, Beethoven had actually simplified the notation!  Ironically, it was this attempt at simplification which created the misguided performance tradition which has existed ever since.  I have seen a facsimile of the original manuscript, which (although very untidy) is identical in its choice of note values to all standard editions, including the one which the London critic saw in 1823.

As you already realise, the same harmonies are used as the basis of all the variations in the Arietta, and it was clearly Beethoven's intention that the underlying pulse should remain consistent throughout the movement, so that the slow harmonic progression remains at the same tempo.  This is what he meant when he wrote "L'istesso tempo" at the start of variations 2 & 3.  If one examines the notation of each variation in turn, one can observe what Beethoven intended, and what performers have mistakenly thought he intended.

The tempo (pulse) which the performer adopts in the opening theme should be retained for the entire movement.  Obviously, this theme, in 9/16, can be thought of as 3 slow beats in the bar, or 9 faster beats in the bar.  It is easy to continue in the same tempo for the following Variation 1, because the time signature remains the same, 9/16.

But what happens at the first "L'istesso tempo" marking?  This is the start of Variation 2, where every pianist makes the same mistake.  To see why, look at the end of Variation 1.  Initially, there is the "first time" passage (a bar and a third), and then, after the repeat marks, the "second time" bar.  However, the "second time" bar is not a complete bar (it consists of only six sixteenth-notes instead of nine, taking up only two-thirds of a bar) then the "L'istesso tempo" starts with four notes in the left hand (C, G, F sharp & G).  In effect, Beethoven has started Variation 2 two-thirds of the way through the bar, just as the theme and Variation 1 did.  Remember that the tempo has to be consistent throughout the movement (which is what "L'istesso tempo" means) and you'll appreciate that the initial "third of a bar" of Variation 2 (the notes C, G, F sharp & G) must be at the same speed (pulse) as the music which has preceded it.  This means that those four notes comprising the "final third of the bar" must fit into the 7th, 8th & 9th sixteenth-notes of the incomplete "second-time" bar, so that the "second-time" bar is complete.  (For the moment, ignore the change of time-signature to 6/16, as I will explain this later).

In theory, this should present no problems for the performer.  Obviously, the C will be struck on the 7th sixteenth-note of the second-time bar.  The remaining three notes (G, F sharp & G) have to be fitted into the 8th & 9th sixteenth notes, and since their values are thirty-second note, sixteenth note, and thirty-second note respectively, this means that the first G and the F sharp will both be sounded within the 8th sixteenth-note beat of the bar, then the final G will be struck AFTER the 9th sixteenth-note beat.  No note is actually struck precisely on the 9th sixteenth-note, which therefore should give a syncopated effect.  On paper, this looks obvious, as the C, G, F sharp, G figure consists of note values which total to three sixteenth-notes, equivalent to the last third of a bar of 9/16.

But what do performers do?  If you listen to them, you'll hear that they put the C on the 7th sixteenth-note of the bar, but then play the first G before the next sixteenth note.  By doing this, the F sharp is struck on the 8th sixteenth-note beat, and then the final G is played before the next sixteenth-note beat.  What happens effectively is that they crush the C, G, F sharp, G figure into only TWO sixteenth-note beats, so that the second time bar is a total of only eight sixteenth-notes long.

The problem is that once these four notes have been played, the tempo for Variation 2 has been established, and it is a different tempo for Variation 1.  If the C, G, F sharp, G figure (a third of a bar) is played in the time of only two sixteenth-note beats at the previous tempo, the first complete bar of Variation 2 (when continued at this tempo) will take only six sixteenth-notes.  Yet Beethoven marked "L'istesso tempo", indicating that he intended each bar of Variation 2 to be played at the same tempo as Variation 1.  However, Variation 2 is played much faster than it should be, because each bar (consisting of nine beats) is crushed into the time of six beats.

At this point, you'll be wondering why I haven't acknowledge the 6/16 time signature at the start of Variation 2, which would apparently explain everything.  I'll come to that in a minute, but ignore the use of a 6/16 time signature for the moment.

We have now established that Variation 2 is played at a pulse whereby each bar is passing at the equivalent of six beats of the previous tempo.  It sounds silly and trivial at this tempo, like some sort of boogie-woogie.  Throughout Variation 2, the dominant rhythm consists of an alternation between sixteenth-notes and thirty-second-notes, but in Variation 3 (again marked "L'istesso tempo") the alternation is between thirty-second-notes and sixty-fourth-notes.  In effect, what should happen is that the eight-note descending C major arpeggio in the right hand which begins Variation 3 should be equal in length to a third of a bar in the preceding variation (the same duration as the C, G, F sharp, G figure which started Variation 2).  It's easy for performers to keep the same pulse when making the transition from Variation 2 to Variation 3, because the rhythmic structure is similar but the note values are twice as small (and therefore twice as fast).  The problem is that since Variation 2 is already at the wrong tempo (the metronome mark taken is either 50% too fast, or needs a 33% reduction in speed, depending on whether you calculate it relative to the slower or faster tempo) this speed discrepancy continues into Variation 4, with grotesque results.  Have you ever heard this variation sounding like an adagio, with arpeggio decorations, which is what was intended?  Most performances which I have heard make it sound like a charleston.

After this variation, Beethoven returns to his initial 9/16 time signature and there are no further problems with the notation, as from this point on, it is clear how to subdivide each bar into nine beats.

But if Beethoven intended Variation 2 to be played at "L'istesso tempo" in the same pulse as Variation 1, why did he change the time signature to 6/16?  Surely if pianists are playing Variation 2 at a tempo which is equivalent to six sixteenth-notes, this is what Beethoven intended?  No, for the following reasons.

Variation 2 is notated in a strange mixture of 6/16 and 9/16.  If you look at various "thirds" of a bar, you will find that the note values sometimes add up to 3/16, whereas on other occasions they add up to 2/16.  Take the first complete bar of Variation 2:  in the right hand the first third of the bar and the second third both add up to 3/16 each, but on the last beat of the bar Beethoven simply puts a quaver rest, equivalent to 2/16; yet in the left hand, he uses two sixteenth-notes for the first third of the bar, another two sixteenth-notes for the second third of the bar, then uses notes values equivalent to 3/16 for the last third of the bar.  Why does he do this?

Consider the notation of rhythms in Beethoven's time.  He did not feel that 9/16 was an appropriate time signature for Variation 2, because in the 1820s this still implied a regular series of "three groups of three" which doesn't match the rhythmic character of this variation, because the of the implied syncopation (there is never a note actually struck on what could be considered the 3rd, 6th or 9th sixteenth-notes of each bar).  Variation 2 certainly has three groups in each bar, but the ear tends to hear each group as subdivided into two, rather than three, because of this syncopation.  Naturally, when pianists play it at a faster tempo, all sense of 9/16 with syncopation disappears, and it just sounds like a plain series of six beats per bar.  Tovey (in his introduction to the 1931 Associated Board edition - a good edition and still available in the UK) suggests that Beethoven could have used the time signature 18/32, which would be technically correct as regards note values.

Tovey points out that Beethoven simplified his notation by leaving out dots after what are supposed to be dotted sixteenth-notes.  If Beethoven had included all the dots, here and throughout the variation, it would have made the notation look too complicated, so he missed them out, believing that performers would understand what he meant by "L'istesso tempo".  For example, look at the left hand of the sixth complete bar of Variation 2 and you'll see that the bass stave consists entirely of what should be dotted sixteenth-notes, but Beethoven omitted all six dots, making it look like 6/16 in the bass, even though the note values in the right hand add up to 9/16 in this bar.  This is another reason why Beethoven wrote 6/16, because by omitting dots his score "looked like" 6/16 - but he did not intend performers to interpret this as "six sixteenth-note beats, each beat being equivalent to one of the sixteenth-note beats in the previous 9/16", which is what one hears in all performances.

As for Variation 3, Beethoven gave it time signature of 12/32, but Tovey points out that technically the time signature should be 36/64, so as to indicate clearly three groups of twelve sixty-fourth notes per third of a bar.  Again, Tovey points out that Beethoven omitted dots so as to not to confuse the notation.  Look at the first complete bar of Variation 3, where there is E/G in the right hand: that thirty-second-note technically should be dotted because in the left hand the same time is taken up by a thirty-second-note and a sixty-fourth-note combined.  But Beethoven did not wish to be pedantic by including all the dots.  It is of course, virtually impossible for anyone to conceive Variation 3 as having "three groups of three beats" in every bar; the ear inevitable hears it as six beats per bar.  However, this does not alter the fact that the six beats per bar which the listener hears should be equivalent in duration to the nine beats per bar which the notation implies (or would imply, if all the dots were included).

And, to answer another question, do I believe that 600 pianists could misread the score, yes, easily, especially in the modern era when experience of the work is likely to begin with hearing recordings rather than studying the score.
'Many men are melancholy by hearing music, but it is a pleasing melancholy that it causeth.' Robert Burton

amw

#1835
Dalberto recording isn't on youtube but here's the moment of transition from Variation 1 to Variation 2 from Charles Rosen - https://youtu.be/ARa8LIJpRNY?t=293
Hans Richter-Haaser - https://youtu.be/8ge5lOKNs84?t=780
Edwin Fischer - https://youtu.be/fc78baFyMOs?t=732
Olga Pashchenko - https://youtu.be/y8Eg9K5BRyg?t=240
Robert Riefling - https://youtu.be/X3-X4UUaot0?t=782

All of these are "correct" for their tempo in that the beat is maintained. Clarke (the one he's made available on Soundcloud that is) actually does slow down pretty significantly at the transition into variation 2 (his timings: 2:57 / 2:32 / 3:09 / 2:30 / 4:58 / 3:43) and is therefore somewhat less "correct"; it would probably have been easier if he'd picked a faster tempo, though. Here's Ugorski's transition (also "correct" for his tempo, which is however wildly "incorrect"): https://youtu.be/y_Ch7JY4i5Y?t=438

I suppose one could obtain the most perfect "L'istesso tempo" possible through use of a metronome, or a click track.

Madiel

#1836
Well, Calyptorhyncus, a significant part of what Raymond Clarke wrote does not accord with your own attempt at description.

And the fact is, if you keep 3 beats a bar at the same pace that variation will not sound slow. It just won't. Not unless the opening of the movement was truly glacial. As amw says, if you use a metronome and translate directly you will get something that doesn't sound at all like what Clarke does. I literally worked through it myself this afternoon.

He may well be right that some people accelerate a bit and heighten the effect, but they don't speed up nearly as much as he's claiming. Some of his basic observations are correct, but then his attempt to apply mathematics to what other pianists are actually doing is way off.
I am now working on a discography of the works of Vagn Holmboe. Please visit and also contribute!

Mandryka

#1837
Quote from: amw on March 20, 2020, 11:42:33 PM
Dalberto recording isn't on youtube but here's the moment of transition from Variation 1 to Variation 2 from Charles Rosen - https://youtu.be/ARa8LIJpRNY?t=293
Hans Richter-Haaser - https://youtu.be/8ge5lOKNs84?t=780
Edwin Fischer - https://youtu.be/fc78baFyMOs?t=732
Olga Pashchenko - https://youtu.be/y8Eg9K5BRyg?t=240
Robert Riefling - https://youtu.be/X3-X4UUaot0?t=782

All of these are "correct" for their tempo in that the beat is maintained. Clarke (the one he's made available on Soundcloud that is) actually does slow down pretty significantly at the transition into variation 2 (his timings: 2:57 / 2:32 / 3:09 / 2:30 / 4:58 / 3:43) and is therefore somewhat less "correct"; it would probably have been easier if he'd picked a faster tempo, though. Here's Ugorski's transition (also "correct" for his tempo, which is however wildly "incorrect"): https://youtu.be/y_Ch7JY4i5Y?t=438

I suppose one could obtain the most perfect "L'istesso tempo" possible through use of a metronome, or a click track.

I like Dalberto's sound, and his approach. Thanks for pointing it out, it's on Qobuz.

There's a similar issue with the speed of the first variation of the Goldberg Variations,  Gould set a trend - Egarr discusses this in his paper Cantabile Heaven, and I think Glen Wilson discusses it too (may be wrong about that! )
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen

calyptorhynchus

Clarke of course was a lecturer at the University of Bristol not bridal (autocorrect). 😺
'Many men are melancholy by hearing music, but it is a pleasing melancholy that it causeth.' Robert Burton

calyptorhynchus

Quote from: Madiel on March 21, 2020, 12:12:23 AM
Well, Calyptorhyncus, a significant part of what Raymond Clarke wrote does not accord with your own attempt at description.

And the fact is, if you keep 3 beats a bar at the same pace that variation will not sound slow.
When I said var 3 should sound like a slow aria I didn't mean it would sound as slow as the theme (I meant it should sound a lot slower than most interpretations you hear) . And I did say that the movement sounds like it increasing in speed because of smaller note values. What the argument is about is whether pianists should literally increase in speed per beat during the movement.

And if Beethoven had wanted to introduce a trivial dance into this movement he could have just written Allegro alla tedesca.
'Many men are melancholy by hearing music, but it is a pleasing melancholy that it causeth.' Robert Burton