Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827)

[Gurn Blanston]

Nice post, Brian. I especially like the concert programme bit. It is quite in keeping with somethings I have maintained in this space previously vis-a-vis making a nice evening's listening out of a variety of styles and conductors. Good lineup too!

Well, I have always thought that Luigi was being rather tongue-in-cheek with Smart when he told him 45 minutes for the 9th. Sort of like "here's a target for you!". I think that what he was really saying was don't drag it out. It isn't maestoso from beginning to end, it's maestoso where I very capably wrote maestoso!

[Gurn Blanston]

Another puzzlement. Did composers not give numbers to their symphonies in LvB's time? All I see here are key designations and nicknames. The latter make sense as shorthand, but if I see "symphony by Herr Haydn in C major," how am I supposed to know which of the many works fitting that description is meant? In any case, I'm glad that LvB 9 is no longer marketed as "New Grand Characteristic Sinfonia."

Really, they didn't, not that I've ever seen written down in their correspondence. Only the publishers did that, when they put a score in their catalog. I don't think it was in vogue yet to use Symphony #X. Your specific Haydn example still causes puzzlement even today, as except for one in f# and one in B, I don't know that he has any other unique key signatures to go by. 

[karlhenning]

Really, they didn't, not that I've ever seen written down in their correspondence. Only the publishers did that, when they put a score in their catalog. I don't think it was in vogue yet to use Symphony #X.

Right . . . I think that was a type of "composer self-awareness" which didn't set in until mid- to late-19^th c.

[Brian]

Another puzzlement. Did composers not give numbers to their symphonies in LvB's time? All I see here are key designations and nicknames. The latter make sense as shorthand, but if I see "symphony by Herr Haydn in C major," how am I supposed to know which of the many works fitting that description is meant? In any case, I'm glad that LvB 9 is no longer marketed as "New Grand Characteristic Sinfonia."

Actually - bafflingly - sometimes the Haydn Symphonies are numbered! However, they are numbered 1-12, so for example many programs sported "Haydn Symphony No 3." At first I thought this was a reference to the order of the "London Symphonies," but the key signatures don't line up. And, since there are two London Symphonies in D major, for example, without a known "field guide" to how the works were numbered back then, we'd be utterly at sea to know what Haydn's Third Symphony was.

Along the same lines, one program featured Mozart's "Symphony Op. 6"!

Beethoven's Symphony No 8 is the only Beethoven work to get numbered in the programs I've seen so far. They almost always go by key signatures or nicknames.

Couldn't resist looking this guy up. Apparently a friend of Schumann's, who died at the age of 23. Ah, the promise snuffed out...

According to the program, Schuncke was playing his own corno, too. The big symphonies seem to always have been at the beginning, and the ends of the concerts were almost invariably opera overtures - moreover, each half was about 80-90 minutes long so the effect was like having two modern concerts, in reverse order, on one night. The average Smart concert (average!) began at about 8:10 pm, ended at about 11:05 pm, and included a single 20-minute intermission.

Well, I have always thought that Luigi was being rather tongue-in-cheek with Smart

Is that Luigi van Beethoven? 

[Florestan]

I've heard that it used to be normal to put the "heavy" work at the beginning of a concert. This was common until some time in the mid-20th c., at which point the reverse order began to predominate. Why this change occurred, I don't know. Anyone?

AFAIK, they put the "newest" work first --- and "first" is just a relative term, as a symphony was oftenly split in its constitutive parts separated by other works by other composers. It's only after the Great Canon was firmly established and imposed by the Romantics that the "newest" began to be also "heavy".

Of course, "heavy" had to be balanced by some "lighter" works: the evening was long, the concert was not only an artistic but also a social event and nobody was expected to stiffly and silently sit through four hours of "transcendental", "heavy" stuff. I guess the lighter fillers were similar in purpose with the aria di sorbetto in operas: to allow the audience to have some refreshments, comment upon previous music or socialize in whatever way they saw fit, while providing a nice aural background and the opportunity for some starters to begin their career.

Today the situation is indeed reversed: the "heavy" is programmed last --- but it is only too understandable: if a concert today would feature Brahms' 4th first and some contemporary or modern piece last, I'm willing to bet that more than half of the audience would vanish during the intermission. 

That's just my two cents. 

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Beethoven's Symphony No 8 is the only Beethoven work to get numbered in the programs I've seen so far.

That makes some sense - it was his 2nd symphony in F major. Better a number than calling it "The Non-Pastoral." Personally I find names and numbers a lot easier to remember than keys.

According to the program, Schuncke was playing his own corno, too. The big symphonies seem to always have been at the beginning, and the ends of the concerts were almost invariably opera overtures - moreover, each half was about 80-90 minutes long so the effect was like having two modern concerts, in reverse order, on one night. The average Smart concert (average!) began at about 8:10 pm, ended at about 11:05 pm, and included a single 20-minute intermission.

It seems that concerts in those days were more like mini-festivals than our modern idea of concerts. Understandable perhaps when you can't just throw on a recording.

AFAIK, they put the "newest" work first --- and "first" is just a relative term, as a symphony was oftenly split in its constitutive parts separated by other works by other composers.

Remember that the next time some purist tells you it's improper to listen to single movements of a symphony rather than the whole thing!

Today the situation is indeed reversed: the "heavy" is programmed last --- but it is only too understandable: if a concert today would feature Brahms' 4th first and some contemporary or modern piece last, I'm willing to bet that more than half of the audience would vanish during the intermission. 

I know they do this, but IMHO the rationale is faulty. Isn't it just as easy to show up late as to leave early?

[Florestan]

Remember that the next time some purist tells you it's improper to listen to single movements of a symphony rather than the whole thing!

That would be a purist of modern persuassion... perhaps a purist of the 1820 school would be horrified by our concert / listening habits. 

I know they do this, but IMHO the rationale is faulty. Isn't it just as easy to show up late as to leave early?

Of course it is, but why they really prefer an order New-Old I don't know. 

[Brian]

It seems that concerts in those days were more like mini-festivals than our modern idea of concerts. Understandable perhaps when you can't just throw on a recording.

Which is why the calls for encores were so vehement - on one program, Smart says that the Euryanthe overture was demanded a second time very strongly, so he had to speak to the audience about how some of the musicians really needed to go, but he got shouted down! And with reason: those folks weren't going to hear the Euryanthe overture again for years.

I know they do this, but IMHO the rationale is faulty. Isn't it just as easy to show up late as to leave early?

The most important stuff would actually be in the middle - particularly the symphony at the start of Part II. Reason being that especially back then, showing up late was the sign of a truly fashionable person. Starting with instrumental stuff and then moving to concertos/arias was a trend that began originally because that was the stuff people didn't mind missing while they arrived late. Which maybe explains why living composers get played first today 

[Que]

A new recording of the incidental music to Egmont doesn't come around every day!



Q

[Gurn Blanston]

A new recording of the incidental music to Egmont doesn't come around every day!



Q

And it's such nice music, too. MI, I would guess?

[Que]

And it's such nice music, too. MI, I would guess?

Yes, so it seems.  Though De Billy is reportedly New School like Vänskä - HIP influenced and strictly faithfull to the score.

Q

[Antoine Marchand]

... Though De Billy is reportedly New School like Vänskä - HIP influenced and strictly faithfull to the score.

Let him be anathema! 

[karlhenning]

There needs to be some back-story to this . . . .

Now that How to Tell is in the can, I have at last been listening (gradually) to the Vermeer Quartet set . . . it's like hearing Beethoven again for the first time (not that I've ever less than loved Beethoven).

Back-back-story: I caught part of a radio broadcast (in hindsight I am guessing a BSO live performance) of the Opus 61, and I happened to have tuned the radio to that dial in (I understood this only in retrospect) during one of the Schnittke cadenze . . . well, that multi-layered dislocation put the cadenze at a disadvantage, and now I am a keen Schnittke enthusiast, and so readier than ever to give those cadenze a fresh go.

So I went ahead and pulled the trigger on the Harnoncourt 14-disc-er . . . .

[karlhenning]

Or is that cadenza the one that Beethoven did up for the Opus 61a?  In any event, this will be interesting . . . .

[Brian]

Or is that cadenza the one that Beethoven did up for the Opus 61a?  In any event, this will be interesting . . . .

If there were timpani interruptions, it's Beethoven! Having not heard Kremer, I can't tell you, though. Glad you are enjoying your march through the Vermeer set so much - I'm doing the exact same thing, slowly, as a year-long project.

[karlhenning]

Did Schnittke really write cadenze for the Beethoven Opus 61, or did I dream it? ; )

[karlhenning]

. . . Glad you are enjoying your march through the Vermeer set so much - I'm doing the exact same thing, slowly, as a year-long project.

We should designate one of them for a week's listening group, what do you say?

[DavidW]

What is the Vermeer Quartet competitive with the Takacs Quartet?  I haven't heard of them before excepting Stuart's posts.

[Scarpia]

Now that How to Tell is in the can, I have at last been listening (gradually) to the Vermeer Quartet set . . . it's like hearing Beethoven again for the first time (not that I've ever less than loved Beethoven).

Glad you're enjoying, it is really a superb set.

[snyprrr]

As I'm plowing the Chamber Field @1799-1869, incl. WAM,Schbert,Mendl,Schumnn,Brahms,Dvrk, I'm finding that I'm not all that interested in non-SQ LvB. What gives?

Any particular PT I should retry?