Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827)

[Mirror Image]

Hmm... mine are probably Jaervi, Vanska, Abbado/Rome (one of the few cases where my rapid cooling on Abbado over the last years has not taken hold), Barenboim, Gardiner... HvK 70 is interesting, in that it is the most "Karajanesque" of them all, without yet making it ludicrous... I like Kletzki... and I need to listen to Kubelik a little closer. Oh, Chailly, I thought was rather good. A bit the modern successor to the Barenboim set, with its dark, deeply stained wood... but more agile and more aggressive. More anon.

Thanks for the feedback. I listened to a little bit of Karajan's early DG cycle this morning and was floored by his Pastoral. This is my kind of Beethoven performance. I like the big-boned, brawny, and sumptuous interpretation from HvK. I've heard some HIP-style performances and don't really like them, although Harnoncourt's cycle with the Chamber Orchestra of Europe seemed to make a good impression on me earlier on.

[calyptorhynchus]

I'm interested in getting an HIP type Beethoven symphony cycle that has moderate tempi.

(Yes, I know you're getting to say "HIP has to follow the metronome markings", I just just wondering if there was a cycle that didn't).

[Brian]

I'm interested in getting an HIP type Beethoven symphony cycle that has moderate tempi.

(Yes, I know you're getting to say "HIP has to follow the metronome markings", I just just wondering if there was a cycle that didn't).

Easy: Bruggen. Preferably on Philips, but he was not a speed demon in any of his recordings. The period-instrument orchestra is full of character, too.

[amw]

Brüggen on Glossa is too slow to be "moderate" for the most part.

Immerseel is moderate to a notable extent as far as I know

[calyptorhynchus]

Thanks for the recommendations. I'll look into them.

[Jo498]

To my recollection Brüggen/Philips is diverse. The Eroica is slow but some others are fairly fast. Harnoncourt (modern instruments except some brass, but rather HIP in other respects) was probably considered fast when it came out 25 years ago but mostly moderate in hindsight (Eroica quite fast, Pastoral very broad).

[mc ukrneal]

Brüggen on Glossa is too slow to be "moderate" for the most part.

Immerseel is moderate to a notable extent as far as I know

His 5th is on the fast side. I haven't heard the rest. But they used to be on youtube if you want to sample them.

[jlaurson]

To my recollection Brüggen/Philips is diverse. The Eroica is slow but some others are fairly fast. Harnoncourt (modern instruments except some brass, but rather HIP in other respects) was probably considered fast when it came out 25 years ago but mostly moderate in hindsight (Eroica quite fast, Pastoral very broad).

This is exactly right; Bruggen's Eroica is very considerably slower than, say, Karajan (adjusting for repeats not taken) -- more along the lines of Barenboim. The rest isn't as slow, though. I need to re-listen to that set to give it a fair shake, I think.

After reading Hare de Roos fascinating, sometimes loopy, but always engrossing book about Beethoven, I'm more and more convinced that the metronome markings are not worth the paper their written on; too slow and too fast or not relating to each other; riddled with mistakes, either real or perceived, that have both been "fixed" by subsequent editors or are being adhered to. It's such a mess an everyone just tweaks or follows the metronome markings that they currently care for (including the whole HIP crowd), that it's just best to see what works for oneself musically and not attach too much worth to the 'spirit of the letter'.

[Jo498]

I disagree wrt the metronome marks. There are a few errors and they might be generally a little too fast but overall they seem pretty consistent (especially taking into account the dozens of suggestions by Czerny and others published in the 20 years after Beethoven's death). They should or need not be followed slavishly but they should not be simply ignored either.
Sure, there is a lot of rhetorics about de-Wagnerizing Beethoven involved (and the "Haydnization" or "Mendelssohnization" of some very lightweight HIP readings does not have to be more convincing) but it can hardly be denied that there was a tradition doing almost precisely that and it included very broad and flexible tempi.

The more interesting question for me that seems historically very difficult or impossible to answer is flexibility. The fast tempo for the Eroica makes sense at the beginning but despite the lack of any further indication it seems an open question whether e.g. the "new theme" in the development section should/could not be taken considerably slower for expressive purposes. I am in favor of that and there are several passages I find "rushed" in many fast+straight readings (e.g. the last few bars of the exposition where many conductors slow down a little) although I generally love the sweep of the fast ones.

On the other hand Beethoven's music often has a "super-bar"-rhythm, sometimes made explicit in directions like "ritmo di tre/quattro battute", that seems to require both fairly swift and not too flexible tempi.
The theme of the Eroica first movement should be felt in the moderate beat of whole bars, not in very fast quarters, I think.

Unfortunately, there are relatively few Beethoven interpretations that are "fast and flexible". Most are slow and flexible (e.g. Furtwängler) or fast and steady (Toscanini or most HIP). Mengelberg sometimes fits the fast and flexible and  (sometimes) Harnoncourt and Brüggen as well. (Not sure about examples from chamber music or piano solo)

[jlaurson]

I disagree wrt the metronome marks. There are a few errors and they might be generally a little too fast but overall they seem pretty consistent ...

...The fast tempo for the Eroica makes sense at the beginning but despite the lack of any further indication it seems an open question whether e.g. the "new theme" in the development section should/could not be taken considerably slower for expressive purposes. I am in favor of that and there are several passages I find "rushed" in many fast+straight readings (e.g. the last few bars of the exposition where many conductors slow down a little) although I generally love the sweep of the fast ones...

Actually, this reads much more like you agree with me. :-) Everyone either takes the metronome markings serious or not... and then deviates from them to their own liking or to match the Zeitgeist.


[One need not even make the leap that de Roos makes, who suggests that Beethoven deliberately published ridiculously and "obviously flawed" metronome markings. (For reasons, more or less believably, that de Roos elaborates one.) But his research on how these markings were duly ignored in Vienna, where the tradition of tempo ordinario was strong and how they were followed in early performances in Berlin (with the result that his 9th was loved in Vienna and torn to pieces in Berlin) is interesting, at least.]

[(poco) Sforzando]

This is exactly right; Bruggen's Eroica is very considerably slower than, say, Karajan (adjusting for repeats not taken) -- more along the lines of Barenboim. The rest isn't as slow, though. I need to re-listen to that set to give it a fair shake, I think.

After reading Hare de Roos fascinating, sometimes loopy, but always engrossing book about Beethoven, I'm more and more convinced that the metronome markings are not worth the paper their written on; too slow and too fast or not relating to each other; riddled with mistakes, either real or perceived, that have both been "fixed" by subsequent editors or are being adhered to. It's such a mess an everyone just tweaks or follows the metronome markings that they currently care for (including the whole HIP crowd), that it's just best to see what works for oneself musically and not attach too much worth to the 'spirit of the letter'.

Here's Harke de Roos plodding through the slow movement of #2 in 15 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edRYODUzgAg

And more below, where we are told that Harke de Roos would like to "record all B's symphonies and thereby rescue his honor." Judging from the nonsense on this video, one can only hope that Beethoven's honor remains imprisoned:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhD6Zx6FgxM

Personally, I will take Beethoven's incorrect tempos over Harke's correct ones; and the suggestion that Beethoven deliberately falsified the metronome marks (despite some problems with them, most notably in the 9th) has as much credibility as the theory that Marlowe (or Edward de Vere, or Francis Bacon, or Anne Hathaway, or Queen Elizabeth) actually wrote Shakespeare, or that Donald Trump is simply putting on an act.

[jlaurson]

Here's Harke de Roos plodding through the slow movement of #2 in 15 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edRYODUzgAg

And more below, where we are told that Harke de Roos would like to "record all B's symphonies and thereby rescue his honor." Judging from the nonsense on this video, one can only hope that Beethoven's honor remains imprisoned:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhD6Zx6FgxM

Personally, I will take Beethoven's incorrect tempos over Harke's correct ones; and the suggestion that Beethoven deliberately falsified the metronome marks (despite some problems with them, most notably in the 9th) has as much credibility as the theory that Marlowe (or Edward de Vere, or Francis Bacon, or Anne Hathaway, or Queen Elizabeth) actually wrote Shakespeare, or that Donald Trump is simply putting on an act.

Well, the proof, for once, isn't in the (hearing of the) pudding, in this Second... although it's not as bad as it's made out to be. The fallout of his book is in any case not his main argument, which remains questionable at the very least, but all the surrounding information that is meticulous and deserving of every and any attention. I do wish he had (or could have) written about Beethoven without the metronome-issue at heart; it would be the best book about the composer. Alas, everyone is inclined to think he's a crackpot.

[(poco) Sforzando]

it would be the best book about the composer.

How so? Better than Tovey, better than Kerman, better than Lockwood, better than Burnham, better than Solomon, better than Kinderman, better than Rosen? Pretty big claim there.

[Karl Henning]

Alas, everyone is inclined to think he's a crackpot.

L'idée fixe 

[Brian]

Well, the proof, for once, isn't in the (hearing of the) pudding, in this Second... although it's not as bad as it's made out to be.

Having heard this recording, may I just say that it is without doubt the worst performance of the Second to ever reach my personal eardrums.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Having heard this recording, may I just say that it is without doubt the worst performance of the Second to ever reach my personal eardrums.

Sounds like a pretty strong recommendation!

[Jo498]

Not having access to that book it does sound even more crackpottish than that older theory (Reetze Talsma and Wehmeyer) that the metronome markings were exactly at double speed because one "back-and-forth" of the pendulum would have been one beat (not one back, one forth).

The metronome was a new device. Why should Beethoven have come up with a mischieveous plot to confuse everyone but publicly praise the importance of the metronome? There was no establishment with the metronome to piss off.

The other thing is that there are plenty of documented cases of non-deaf composers in the late 19th or 20th century that revised metronome markings up to 30-50% after performance or for later editions. Usually, but not always, from faster to slower.
So I am also wary of Kolisch's idea that Beethoven's tempo markings are a perfectly consistent and highly differentated system with only a few trivial oversights or copying errors.
But within reasonable error bars (10-15%) most of them are reasonable indications and they fit very well with indication by Czerny or Moscheles for Beethoven's piano sonatas from the 1830/40s. (Why would someone like Czerny not have commented on Beethoven's markings if there was some suspicion of a "coded" system? If even musicians close to Beethoven and pupils weren't in on the secret, what could have been the point?)

For me it seems clear that most of the obvious deviations in some performing traditions have nothing to do with "playability" but with either a general disliking of the composer telling one how to play and mostly with an idea that slower and more expansive equals more "profound". (Some of them are not only ignoring the numbers but also tempo words, like allegretto in the "slow" 2nd movement of the 7th and similar cases.)
It's true that in general more attention to details and more flexibility is possible at slower tempi. But there are also aspects like "sweep", "swing" and the sheer excitement of a performer "on the edge" that is often not successfully conveyed by moderate tempi.

[Parsifal]

Regarding the Metronome marks, it seems to me it would be worth while if someone would adhere to them strictly in a recording so we can judge for ourselves what we think of them.

On an unrelated matter, I stumbled across this:

http://www.gramophone.co.uk/feature/the-50-greatest-beethoven-recordings?utm_content=buffer6d631&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Some of my absolute favorites are there, some are missing. Ironically, a Beethoven cycle by the now defunct label Naive is listed. Two of my three favorite symphony cycles (Immerseel and Karajan '77) are not there. My other favorite, Harnoncourt, is. Amusing in any case.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Regarding the Metronome marks, it seems to me it would be worth while if someone would adhere to them strictly in a recording so we can judge for ourselves what we think of them.

Norrington attempted to do just that in his LCP recordings. The 2nd Symphony in particular, right at Beethoven's speeds, just zips along bubbly and lightly, and is for me the outstanding performance on the set. The fact that Harke can't play the violin runs cleanly on his piano only shows that Harke is not a very good pianist.

I don't have more time right now, but the two biggest metronome problems IMO are in the 9th, the trio to the scherzo and the tenor solo. And possibly the first movement to the Hammerklavier. But ignoring composer metronome markings is not unusual, and it's quite likely that composers change their minds years after the work was completed. It's fair to say also one may hear a tempo faster in one's head than in actual performance. Tchaikovsky is another composer whose metronome markings are routinely ignored. Set your metronome at 104 and tell me if you normally hear the first movement of #5 that fast. The third movement of #6 is often played much faster than the indicated mark. And don't even get me started on the last movement of that symphony, where Tchaikovsky's very carefully indicated tempo scheme is completely distorted, for example, in Lenny's DGG recording. (None of which means, however, that metronome markings aren't without their problems. But back to this later.)

[jlaurson]

How so? Better than Tovey, better than Kerman, better than Lockwood, better than Burnham, better than Solomon, better than Kinderman, better than Rosen? Pretty big claim there.

Well, most entertaining... and most intriguing, because he draws on an immense knowledge of the political and economic realities of the time. And he's a darn good writer. His Mozart book is much better, still... but/and it's also a treatise on the political history of Austria / Europe at the time -- and how that influenced everything that went on in the word of culture. It's a hyperbole, claiming it would be "the best" book, of course, but it's very insightful... except it's a little hard to separate fact from assumption, which annoys the German within me.