Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827)

[Gurn Blanston]

Good point about diversity, Brian. For all we know, historical performances may have been more diverse than modern ones. I think that's reflected in the modern HIP/PI movement. There is a notion that HIP is about the One True Way to perform a piece, but that notion is almost always perpetuated by HIP's opponents, not its advocates.

It is a tenet of real authentic performance believers, that no two performances should be alike. Sometimes I suppose it is inevitable; if I have 7 or 8 PI performances of certain symphonies, how totally different can they be? Anyone, however, who can't tell a Gardiner Beethoven from a Hogwood Beethoven from a Brüggen Beethoven, for example, just ain't paying attention! Which one is the most authentic? They ALL are!   0:)

They are recording all nine symphonies for Alpha!! Nos. 1 and 2 are already out. Very good performances, although if you played me all the HIP Beethoven 1/2 recordings out there without telling me which is which, I don't know if I could recognize which one is the new one.

Ah, thanks. I'm coming to love Alpha....

[Pat B]

Sometimes I suppose it is inevitable; if I have 7 or 8 PI performances of certain symphonies, how totally different can they be?

They can be at least as different as 7 or 8 conventional performances!

[Gurn Blanston]

They can be at least as different as 7 or 8 conventional performances!

Usually, they are more different rather than less...

[jlaurson]

I didn't see a mention of a possible set of recordings coming out of this, have you heard anything? They usually record on Novalis, but I know someone in Zurich.... 

They are recording all nine symphonies for Alpha!! Nos. 1 and 2 are already out. Very good performances, although if you played me all the HIP Beethoven 1/2 recordings out there without telling me which is which, I don't know if I could recognize which one is the new one.

The symphonies are all getting recorded. Whether they'll stick with Alpha remains to be seen, but certainly the first volume and perhaps the next are going to have the "Alpha" logo on it.

[jlaurson]

I'm envious, Jens: Wiener Akademie/Haselböck is one of my favorite ensembles,

I'm starting to really like them myself. I've been at two very fine concerts with them now (not counting the Beethoven Ninths, which was not good by technical standards and will need a lot of fixing if it is ever going to make an adequate recording... though the second of three performances, the one I skipped, I was reliably told, was by far the best of the three... so maybe there's enough there) and they are coming around in a big way, in their 30th (!!!) year of existence.

[Gurn Blanston]

I'm starting to really like them myself. I've been at two very fine concerts with them now (not counting the Beethoven Ninths, which was not good by technical standards and will need a lot of fixing if it is ever going to make an adequate recording... though the second of three performances, the one I skipped, I was reliably told, was by far the best of the three... so maybe there's enough there) and they are coming around in a big way, in their 30th (!!!) year of existence.

Good to hear, I would love to hear them in person. I'm just guessing here, but learning to put on a piece the size of the 9th has to be a major undertaking. One can't expect perfect results right from the first time, even from the best musicians. That is the charm of live performance, I would think. Also of period instruments for me, since they play closer to the edge of what is possible than modern instruments, which worked out all the danger a long time ago. Some raggedness is a small price to pay for the sound of players who really have to work for it (as Beethoven damned well knew!).

30 years; who knew? I only discovered them about 5 years ago, mainly because Novalis recordings are not exactly common here. Glad to have what I have though.   

The symphonies are all getting recorded. Whether they'll stick with Alpha remains to be seen, but certainly the first volume and perhaps the next are going to have the "Alpha" logo on it.

I would be happy with Alpha, at least I can get them. I like their packaging and notes usually too, they have a tendency to lean on the interesting stuff, like, in this case, the venues.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Quoting this over to the new thread page, and also, Monday MusicWeb published my own article about this series.

"I'm a big admirer of period performances...but this new series gets to the fundamental paradox at the heart of the movement. HIP is not about presenting the music as it was heard during the composer's lifetime, it's about an idealized version. In these live recordings, the audience sits dutifully and respectfully silent. It would have been more accurate if the Orchester Wiener Akademie had invited noblemen and social climbers to gossip and seduce each other in the audience.

"There's another factor also: period performances were nearly as diverse as modern ones. For one thing, the players were mere amateurs compared to today's immaculately trained musicians, who spend years in organized conservatories. Look no further than the tale of the premiere of Beethoven's Fifth and Sixth Symphonies. A reviewer said the orchestra was "lacking in all respects," something that certainly is not true of the superb Orchester Wiener Akademie. During the same concert, as they played the Choral Fantasy, Beethoven actually stopped the orchestra and had them start over. There is no place for this in the HIP movement.

"This is as it should be but then shouldn't the booklet explain the movement's limits? So much is unknowable, and so much of what we do know, we would never want to reproduce. The gesture of as-accurate-as-possible Beethoven is a noble one, but at some point it becomes absurd."

Very well put, and gets to my own problems with much of the HIP movement. Do we want to hear the performance Beethoven would have preferred, or the one he had to settle for?

[Gurn Blanston]

Very well put, and gets to my own problems with much of the HIP movement. Do we want to hear the performance Beethoven would have preferred, or the one he had to settle for?

Well, without getting into a whole big thing, since we already know each others thoughts on the matter; I would like to hear it played on instruments of the time, and in the venue where it was premiered. Is there some harm that comes from that? Is it not actually the overactive imagination of someone who doesn't appreciate that idea which demands having a cadre of gossipers in the audience to make it really realistic? Who in their right mind actually thinks it is supposed to be a recreation of the original, farts and all? This is simply not the basis for rational criticism.

Anyway, I have read your posts for years. I think your real problem with the 'HIP' movement stems from thinner textures, faster (or slower) tempos than you learned and loved, and the general disregard for more traditional playing styles. All of which is perfectly reasonable and above criticism.

I suspect there were people back in the early times who made claims which, in retrospect, were not only grandiose but actually undesirable. Some people have never been able to get past those stupid claims and approach period performance in a way that would allow them to appreciate it on its own terms. Any or all are welcome to disagree with this, I don't really care.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Well, without getting into a whole big thing, since we already know each others thoughts on the matter; I would like to hear it played on instruments of the time, and in the venue where it was premiered. Is there some harm that comes from that? Is it not actually the overactive imagination of someone who doesn't appreciate that idea which demands having a cadre of gossipers in the audience to make it really realistic? Who in their right mind actually thinks it is supposed to be a recreation of the original, farts and all? This is simply not the basis for rational criticism.

Anyway, I have read your posts for years. I think your real problem with the 'HIP' movement stems from thinner textures, faster (or slower) tempos than you learned and loved, and the general disregard for more traditional playing styles. All of which is perfectly reasonable and above criticism.

I suspect there were people back in the early times who made claims which, in retrospect, were not only grandiose but actually undesirable. Some people have never been able to get past those stupid claims and approach period performance in a way that would allow them to appreciate it on its own terms. Any or all are welcome to disagree with this, I don't really care.

You claim to understand my "real problem," but I think you have in the past misrepresented some of my thoughts on the matter, and probably continue to do so. I don't feel like getting into a "whole big thing" at the moment either, having spent close to an hour writing a single post on Shakespeare today, but I have no objection to period instruments or even period venues. (I love Bach on the harpsichord, as in Hantai's Goldberg Variations. I love Staier's Diabellis, and Penelope Crawford's 109-110-111. One of my regrets is having skipped a performance of Magic Flute in Prague at the same tiny theatre where Don Giovanni was first performed. The multiple dance orchestras at the end of Act One of DG make sense only in a small theatre. Another regret is the absurdity of hearing Handel's Orlando in a large NYC hall where the period instruments were barely audible.) I differentiate HIP and pseudo-HIP, pseudo-HIP being a performance that seems to me at variance with credible research and/or musical common sense.

We had a "whole big thing" about a fairly recent (i.e., not "back in the early times") Beethoven concerto performance that I consider egregiously pseudo-HIP. For one thing, although Beethoven left several examples of what he considered a cadenza - that is, a complex musical elaboration that showed both the performer's virtuosity and his skill at composition/improvisation, this performance substituted 30 seconds of meaningless noodling. For another, the performance used a single player each for Violin 1 and Violin 2, but multiple performers on the other strings. But historical documents (I think Neal Zaslaw has done a lot of work on this, IIRC) show that multiple performers were always used for the violins, which only makes sense so that they balance the rest of the ensemble. A disposition like 4-4-3-2-1 makes sense (in other words, I have no objection to "thinner textures," only to imbalanced ones), and even in today's large orchestras the same proportions are standard, such as 12/12/10/8/6. A glance at the score of the Pastoral Symphony makes it indisputable that at least 3 cellos were needed, probably more, so gauge accordingly. And nothing is going to convince me that Beethoven intended the 1st violin part in measures 119-122 of the Emperor finale to be inaudible, as it is on the recording in question when set against multiple woodwinds.

Any or all are welcome to disagree with this, I don't really care. But I would appreciate it if my position were represented accurately.

[Pat B]

Very well put, and gets to my own problems with much of the HIP movement. Do we want to hear the performance Beethoven would have preferred, or the one he had to settle for?

That seems to be a common critique of HIP, but I think that trying to recreate whatever he had to settle for is a small fraction of the movement. Certainly Gardiner's symphony recordings, for example, were performed at a very high technical level, in contrast to reports of some performances from Beethoven's lifetime.

For piano music, my understanding is that Beethoven was constantly anticipating the next step in terms of compass and volume -- but not necessarily to the point of the Model D, especially regarding decay time. And indeed, it's not unusual for Beethoven PI performances to use a fortepiano that's a few years newer than the piece.

For other instruments, who knows? Maybe he would have preferred valved horns and synthetic-core strings, the latter played with nonstop vibrato. Or maybe he wouldn't have.

I'm like Gurn in that I like the sound of the old instruments, and I like the playing styles of some HIP performers. And I'm thankful that I have this choice.

I think the specific recording you alluded to is an anomaly.

[Jo498]

I would have to revisit that recording but I remember being somewhat disappointed when Staier's Diabellis came out. They hovered between fairly ordinary (most of the time) and somewhat gimmicky (sound effects, including clashing cymbals? or so that I tend to find funny at best the first time around...).

I have no use for the minimalist recordings of piano concerti and overall think that piano concerti work better with modern instruments because the period piano is simply too weak against an orchestra and a small/minimal orchestra might restore the balances but is not compatible with the grandeur of the larger Mozart concerti (at least K 459, 466, 467, 482, 491 and 503) and all of Beethovens (except maybe #2).
I really think that composers back then were in a fix with piano+orchestra. On the one hand, Mozart and Beethoven obviously made concerti "symphonic" in style (and we know that they like large orchestras for symphonies if they could afford them). On the other hand period pianos would be overwhelmed easily by an orchestra that could transport the large scale grandeur and march-like pomp of e.g K 467 or LvB #1.

So while I usually prefer PI for baroque and very often in many works of Haydn and Mozart, I do make an exception for piano (+orchestra). I admit that I often do not like the sounds of the historic pianos either, but as these sounds are varying wildly, this is not the main reason.

[North Star]

For piano music, my understanding is that Beethoven was constantly anticipating the next step in terms of compass and volume -- but not necessarily to the point of the Model D, especially regarding decay time. And indeed, it's not unusual for Beethoven PI performances to use a fortepiano that's a few years newer than the piece.

I wonder - certainly the Waldstein sonata no. 21 op. 53 in C was a showcase of what his new instrument could do. And certainly he didn't write music that wasn't fully tailored to the instruments at his use when he was playing concerts himself. The Hammerklavier sonatas are again so called because they were written for the his new piano. That said, he did of course make requests for piano makers and demand more of pretty much everything from the pianos, and certainly reached for the limits, or beyond them, when writing for pretty much any instrument. Perhaps something is lost if there is no more struggle in the music. Perhaps not.

[Florestan]

(Cross post from the WAYLT thread)

I recently added to my library two historical recordings of the Beethoven´s complete set of violin sonatas and since they are less famous or known than they should be (a GMG search reveals next to nothing on them) a summary of my thoughts about them might perhaps be of interest.

So I´m starting right off with this recording, made at about the same time Schnabel recorded the piano sonatas, namely 1935-36

[asin]B00007FKQ2[/asin]

It´s surprising on three accounts.

First, the sound. Apart from the hiss, which is minimal anyway and does not detract in the least from the enjoyment even when played through headphones (which I did), there is nothing to complain. Good old mono with unbelievable clarity in both the violin and the piano. Ward Marston´s transfer might have something to do with that, of course.

Second, the team. Kreisler needs no introduction, but Franz who? Don´t google him, I did it already.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Rupp



Actually, the producer Fred Gaisberg (yes, himself!) wanted to match Kreisler with Rachmaninoff, but Sergey Vassilievich was too expensive. (Now, think about that: Kreisler and Rachmaninoff playing Beethoven sonatas!). Harold Bauer was briefly considered too, but eventually they ended up with Rupp. Not the best choice, but certainly an inspired one: if his playing is apt and committed (he clearly tried his best, and indeed succeeded) but obviously not at the level of Kreisler´s, at least he does nothing to spoil the party and there is nothing to be blamed for.

Third, the performance. Given the above, this must be a heavily Romanticized, sparklingly pyrotechnics-ladden one-man-show, right? Wrong. Dead wrong, actually. It´s poised, elegant and flowing. Kreisler is free, indeed unaware, of any technical difficulties in the score and plays with the ease and sweetness that were his trademarks. There is not the slightest hint at affectation or mannerism. There is lyricism, there is poetry, there is humor, there is insouciance and there is force and passion --- exactly where they are called for and in the right proportion. The overall approach is classical, no-nonsense, affectionate and direct and it works wonders especially in the earlier sonatas. And --- did I mention the clarity and purity of tone that Kreisler manages to get from his violin as efortlessly as if he took a stroll in the park one sunny afternoon?

This is Beethoven for the ages and it deserves a far better fate. It is THE perfect complement to Schnabel´s legendary recording alluded to in the beginning. (And is available on Youtube). Don´t run, fly!

[Scion7]

It's a crime that recording techniques at that time couldn't properly capture Kreisler.  Magnificent violinist.

[Florestan]

It's a crime that recording techniques at that time couldn't properly capture Kreisler.  Magnificent violinist.

The sound on this is surprisingly good though. Probably as close as it gets to properly capturing Kreisler.

[mahler10th]

Busy compiling my own wee lossless ultimate dream Beethoven Symphony set, but some help would be appreciated.
Here is how it is developing at the moment, but from learned members it would be nice to hear suggestions so I can listen and modify if necessary.  Especially the 9th, hells fire, I would choose Furtwanglers wartime recording, but I yearn for it to be better sounding (but just as intense), so more modern interpretations are under scrutiny...


Solti - 3
Abbado - 4
Klieber - 5
Karajan 1963 - 6
Thielmann - 7

Thats all so far.   

[zamyrabyrd]

I am currently rereading "Beethoven: Impressions by his Contemporaries" edited by O G Sonneck. Anyone read it?

[zamyrabyrd]

I just picked this up from another thread on pitch.
https://www.youtube.com/v/UnhlQUBsd6g

It is quite incredible how the opening chords of the Eroica are not only different with regard to tuning, but other aspects such as voicing and what I found to be a strange kind of rebound in the sound, present in most but not with Toscanini in two of his recordings of it where there are two beats silence and not an echo, evident in a few others. With regard to voicing, when the strings are prominent, one sometimes hears a G on top although the high flutes should cover it with the high Eb (but probably outnumbered by the the violins) I find this super fascinating. Anyone else?

[Que]

Busy compiling my own wee lossless ultimate dream Beethoven Symphony set, but some help would be appreciated.
Here is how it is developing at the moment, but from learned members it would be nice to hear suggestions so I can listen and modify if necessary.  Especially the 9th, hells fire, I would choose Furtwanglers wartime recording, but I yearn for it to be better sounding (but just as intense), so more modern interpretations are under scrutiny...


Solti - 3
Abbado - 4
Klieber - 5
Karajan 1963 - 6
Thielmann - 7

Thats all so far.   

I think Furtwängler's post war recording from Luzern is even better, and it is in excellent sound:

[asin]B00NG4B7PY[/asin]

A fully satisfactory 9th is extremely rare.... Jochum succeeded with the RCO (Universal/Decca) as did Kletzki with the Czech Philharmonik (Supraphon). Both come in complete cycles that I can strongly recommend. Notable cycles on period instruments are in my view Frans Brüggen (Universal/Decca, coupled with an amazing recording of the violin concerto) and Jos van Immerseel (Zig Zag).

Q

[jlaurson]

A fully satisfactory 9th is extremely rare.... Jochum succeeded with the RCO (Universal/Decca) as did Kletzki with the Czech Philharmonik (Supraphon). Both come in complete cycles that I can strongly recommend. Notable cycles on period instruments are in my view Frans Brüggen (Universal/Decca, coupled with an amazing recording of the violin concerto) and Jos van Immerseel (Zig Zag).

Q

I'd add Fricsay and Abbado/Salzburg to that list.