Beethoven Symphonies HIP

[Florestan]

If you guys had the balls for a 'music fight'

You're definitely on the wrong forum, pal. This one is about music. If you want fighters with balls, you should register on a K1 forum.

[Rod Corkin]

You're definitely on the wrong forum, pal. This one is about music. If you want fighters with balls, you should register on a K1 forum.

Well I didn't really mean a real 'fight', I meant it figuratively, perhaps that was lost on you? I don't just talk music, I for one actually provide it here, lots of it!! So think before you type next time.  On the other hand some of the responses in this chain and others here are indeed tinged with not a small amount of aggression, so perhaps a real fight would be appropriate in some cases.

[M forever]

Well I didn't really mean a real 'fight', I meant it figuratively, perhaps that was lost on you? I don't just talk music, I for one actually provide it here, lots of it!! So think before you type next time.  On the other hand some of the responses in this chain and others here are indeed tinged with not a small amount of aggression, so perhaps a real fight would be appropriate in some cases.

Speaking of providing music, I do a lot of that, and if you want a real fair and unbiased discussion about interpretation, head over to my "Mystery Orchestra" or Greta's "Mystery Comparison" which will be back up with fresh links soon and post your unbiased, blind, but, according to yourself, highly expert opinion.
We actually discussed Beethoven 5 just recently and missed a real Beethoven expert like you.
Now it's Bruckner 9, but that's just as fascinating a piece and something I am sure you have much to say about, and about the interpretations.
We look forward to that.

Speaking of experts, I just listened to the Norrington clip I linked to in reply #79, and I was both suprised and intrigued that Norrington allows the transposition of the horn part in that most critical moment of maybe the whole first movement, a passage about which there are definitely very divided opinions. Kleiber does it, too. It's not what Brahms wrote, but it does seem to make more sense. But - is it "authentic"?

Mr Corkin, what do you think? For your convenience, here is the link to the clip again:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/29qzkv

and the moment in the score: 

[FideLeo]

While there is no actual "HIP" Mahler,

Herreweghe had made a recording of Mahler DKW with his OdCE.   

[M forever]

Oh, great. I didn't know that. That might be very interesting. Herreweghe has done a lot of good stuff, a very serious musician. I was a little disappointed by his Bruckner 7, but the 4th came out really nice.

I actually just ordered that.

[FideLeo]

Thanks for that, pricey they are, and JPC does not list them anymore, so they are not widely available anymore I guess.
Will asap order at least the period one, and think about the modern version.

All Norrington LCP Brahms are still in print in Japan - as Japanese issues - so all N's notes have been translated.

[Rod Corkin]

Speaking of providing music, I do a lot of that, and if you want a real fair and unbiased discussion about interpretation, head over to my "Mystery Orchestra" or Greta's "Mystery Comparison" which will be back up with fresh links soon and post your unbiased, blind, but, according to yourself, highly expert opinion.
We actually discussed Beethoven 5 just recently and missed a real Beethoven expert like you.
Now it's Bruckner 9, but that's just as fascinating a piece and something I am sure you have much to say about, and about the interpretations.
We look forward to that.

Speaking of experts, I just listened to the Norrington clip I linked to in reply #79, and I was both suprised and intrigued that Norrington allows the transposition of the horn part in that most critical moment of maybe the whole first movement, a passage about which there are definitely very divided opinions. Kleiber does it, too. It's not what Brahms wrote, but it does seem to make more sense. But - is it "authentic"?

Mr Corkin, what do you think? For your convenience, here is the link to the clip again:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/29qzkv

and the moment in the score: 

Well this is an interesting twist on the idea. To be honest I do not really care what the orchestra is or who the conductor is as long as I like what I hear from them. But I have a taste for period instruments so that would be essential.

But I am not really a fan of Brahms so I'm not sure my assessment would be of any value to you, with or without this horn 'anomaly', my specialism is Beethoven and Handel. I would be forced just to assess the music in itself and the result would from be undoubtedly negative re Brahms. Nevertheless my advice would always be to stick to the score unless there was substantial evidence of a copyists error.

[Expresso]

Sorry but I don't think Rachmaninoff recorded these in 1890-1910 or did he? 

Rachmaninoff played very different instruments in Russia (where the pieces in
question, i.e. the suites for two pianos, were composed and first performed)
than what he used later for recording.

No, these recordings were made between 1930-1940. What i meant by HIP is that Rachmaninoff plays his music the way he wanted it to be.
I wasn't refering to authentic instruments. I will agree with M. on that HIP isn't only about authentic instruments.

What is said was mostly a joke... i meant that only the composer's own conducting or playing is 100% HIP  

[FideLeo]

What is said was mostly a joke... i meant that only the composer's own conducting or playing is 100% HIP  

Consider how much the conducting of someone like Bruno Walter had changed between 1930 and 1960, I am not sure that is necessarily true either.     

[karlhenning]

That's a total nonsensical idea.

Ah! I see you've met Rod!

[M forever]

But I have a taste for period instruments so that would be essential.

Good thing this particular clip is on "period" instruments then. I think you will find it interesting.

But that doesn't ean that you can't listen to and criticize non-period performances either, does it? After all, you called for a Furtwängler vs. "HIP" comparison. You never know what you will run into in "Mystery Orchestra".

But I am not really a fan of Brahms so I'm not sure my assessment would be of any value to you, with or without this horn 'anomaly', my specialism is Beethoven and Handel. Nevertheless my advice would always be to stick to the score unless there was substantial evidence of a copyists error.

Good thing that Brahms used the same notation system as Beethoven and Händel (BTW, you can use the äää I gave you for Furtwängler here as well!) so you can also read the score and point out which notes are actually transposed here from what Brahms wrote, can you? The argument here is much deeper than a "copyist's error" which is definitely not the case here. But the transposition makes much more sense, doesn't it?
As an eminent expert on Baroque music, this piece in which Brahms picks up a lot of very traditional techniques should be something you should be able to give us some very specific opinions about, especially the transposition in that context. Do you think it makes more sense?

Of course, others are welcome to give their opinion, too!

[karlhenning]

Wel, I am amused partly by the notions that (a) clips prove anything, and (b) furnishing links to clips counts as "discussion."

[karlhenning]

"I'll give you clips which prove that conductor x is superior to conductor y . . . ."

[Rod Corkin]

Good thing this particular clip is on "period" instruments then. I think you will find it interesting.

But that doesn't ean that you can't listen to and criticize non-period performances either, does it? After all, you called for a Furtwängler vs. "HIP" comparison. You never know what you will run into in "Mystery Orchestra".

Good thing that Brahms used the same notation system as Beethoven and Händel (BTW, you can use the äää I gave you for Furtwängler here as well!) so you can also read the score and point out which notes are actually transposed here from what Brahms wrote, can you? The argument here is much deeper than a "copyist's error" which is definitely not the case here. But the transposition makes much more sense, doesn't it?
As an eminent expert on Baroque music, this piece in which Brahms picks up a lot of very traditional techniques should be something you should be able to give us some very specific opinions about, especially the transposition in that context. Do you think it makes more sense?

Of course, others are welcome to give their opinion, too!

You forget this chain is about Beethoven, if the subject matter was Brahms I wouldn't be here in the first place, I have no interest in music from this era. I'd be no good with your score, if you want my assessment of the quality of the music per se I can give it, but you can guess what kind of a response it would be! I will have a listen, but there must be some other hard-core Brahms fans here who can help you.

[M forever]

How can you "assess" the "quality" of music if you obviously can't even read music and figure out what it says there, and what is different in a recording you listen to, and if the changes make musical "sense" or not? Especially when it comes to a composer like Brahms who was deeply, deeply rooted in the musical past and whose composing reflects a deep understanding and admiration for the likes of Bach and Beethoven.
My impression here is that you can't, and after reading some of your completely nonsensical blabla posts in the Bach/Händel thread, that impression is confirmed with every post of yours I read. You apparently don't have the slightest, not even the most superficial understanding of either Bach or Händel, nor Beethoven. Your subjective emotional response to this or that composer's music may be interesting for some people to read, maybe once in a short post, but the way you are diarrhoeaing your inflated nonsense all over the place here certainly is not.
I have no idea what happened to you and why it is so important for you in order to deal with that trauma to pontificate about subjects you don't know the very first thing about, but whatever it is that was done to you, it's not our fault here and not the place to discuss either. Maybe you should seek therapy instead of spamming a classical music forum with your nonsense about composers.

[Rod Corkin]

How can you "assess" the "quality" of music if you obviously can't even read music and figure out what it says there, and what is different in a recording you listen to, and if the changes make musical "sense" or not? Especially when it comes to a composer like Brahms who was deeply, deeply rooted in the musical past and whose composing reflects a deep understanding and admiration for the likes of Bach and Beethoven.
My impression here is that you can't, and after reading some of your completely nonsensical blabla posts in the Bach/Händel thread, that impression is confirmed with every post of yours I read. You apparently don't have the slightest, not even the most superficial understanding of either Bach or Händel, nor Beethoven. Your subjective emotional response to this or that composer's music may be interesting for some people to read, maybe once in a short post, but the way you are diarrhoeaing your inflated nonsense all over the place here certainly is not.
I have no idea what happened to you and why it is so important for you in order to deal with that trauma to pontificate about subjects you don't know the very first thing about, but whatever it is that was done to you, it's not our fault here and not the place to discuss either. Maybe you should seek therapy instead of spamming a classical music forum with your nonsense about composers.

If I were moderator here you'd be receiving a warning for posts like this, but never mind. This chain was asking for opinions relating to HIP recordings of the Beethoven symphonies - considering I have all of these recordings, in fact I have just about everything of Beethoven's on period instruments, I would say I am as qualified as anyone to participate. Concerning my wider musical preferences, I present my opinions here and people can take it or leave it without obligation...

[PerfectWagnerite]

Speaking of experts, I just listened to the Norrington clip I linked to in reply #79, and I was both suprised and intrigued that Norrington allows the transposition of the horn part in that most critical moment of maybe the whole first movement, a passage about which there are definitely very divided opinions. Kleiber does it, too. It's not what Brahms wrote, but it does seem to make more sense. But - is it "authentic"?

Interesting. I don't have too many recordings of this work but in addition to the Kleiber I checked Klemperer and Mackerras (I also have Walter but it's at the office and I don't remember the details of that particular moment) and Mackerras is the only one that plays that passage as written (he does it the same again about 10 bars later at bar 403. I can see how both ways works. By not transposing you get a natural emphasis on the accent that Brahms wrote on the "C" and the moment sort of just stands out more. Maybe a lot of horn players have trouble with the part so it got transposed?

[M forever]

That's a irrelevant question because it's not such an outrageous occurrence, and not so uncommon both for Brahms'time and earlier composers either. Beethoven writes high Bs and Cs in several places.

I don't quite understand what you mean by the reference to 403. I was talking about the (written) C in the first horn in the second last bar (which I marked with the arrow). That should logically be an octave higher.

Brahms *rarely* writes for the horns above G, but he writes a high C for the 3rd horn just 2 bars before. True, the 3rd horn is in low C, so transposed for F horn it would actually be a G, while the high C for the first horn (in E) would actually be a B on the F horn. But from a natural horn point of view (which is what Brahms allegedly wrote for, hence the notation in different keys, otherwise he could just have written eveything in F) a high C is a high C and equally hard to hit no matter how low it actually sounds.

And he writes a high Bflat (=A on the F horn), just a few bars later (see second pic) - and that is the second part of the same phrase, just a step lower, that should begin with the high C and the jump an octave down to the middle C - exactly paralleling what celli and basses play here (although you can't see that in the pic).

So that is puzzling and a little unlogical, especially for such a very craftsman like composer like Brahms. It looks like he had somehow made up his mind never to write above a certain pitch for the horn. Although that high C (=B on the F horn=E sounding) isn't all that uncommon at all. The same applies to his bass writing, BTW, Brahms hardly ever writes below the E which is the lowest note on the 4-string bass which had become more or less the standard by then, even if the melodic line suddenly leapes up an octave and the celli actually continue below E. I think there is actually a low C for the basses in Deutsches Requiem, but I don't think there are any notes below E anywhere in the symphonies, even in places where it would make more sense. And Beethoven and a lot of other composers had never worried about that and just written down to C if the context called for it. Whether or not basses with these low notes were available is a different question. But it is very common to transpose some of the notes down an octave when 5-string basses are available (which they are in every professional orchestra in Germany because they all play on 5-strings). 

[PerfectWagnerite]

Oh, that's where you were referring to. I thought you were referring to measure 395...and I have a hard time telling the details through the computer speakers.

In your first red-inked bar, the 1st and 2nd horn parts DO follow what the celli and basses are doing: first horn play a (written) C (actually an E in concert pitch) and the 2nd horn follow with a C an octave lower. The net effect is two Cs played in consecutive beats an octave apart, just like the celli and basses. So whether you have a high C followed by a middle C  played by the first horn or a middle C in the 1st horn followed by a low C in the second horn, the effect of a falling octave is the same. Maybe playing a (written) high C followed by one an octave lower is too demanding. Yes a few bars later Brahms writes B-flats octaves apart for the same 1st horn but that is two semitones lower and that makes all the difference in the world sometimes.

[M forever]

Sorry, you misunderstood. I didn't ask about whether or not the way Brahms wrote that to avoid the high C, since there is absolutely no doubt that that is the reason for what he did here, but whether people think it should be restored.

That what's in the score is not "correct" is not a matter of opinion, so please, no emotional discussion and upsetness. That's a matter of understanding the most basic aspects of musical analysis and theory. What you said there about the falling octave is wrong, not in my "opinion", it is just wrong. The melody line of the upper part counts, if there is octave doubling below it has very little importance. So no, the falling octave is not "covered" by the second horn, especially since the first stays in the same octave and then moves up a minor third. It is not a matter of having some of the notes somewhere in some parts, but of context. Even if it was, the passage is still unlogical because the second part of the phrase beginning on the high Bflat (D) in the first horn "echoes" the first phrase and it does in every single contributing part, second horn, celli, basses - just not in the first which isn't even sonical "padding", it can be heard very clearly.

Again, that's not my opinion, that's a very simple and basic fact very clear to anyone who knows musical theory a little (and musical theory is very objective), as is the fact that there is no reason at all that Brahms should have written the middle C with the single exception that he thought it may have been too high for the first horn. Which it isn't for any good horn player. As can be heard in those performances which "restore" the high C (E), like the one in the clip.

So the *question* and matter of opinion here is simply whether one shouldn't play the first note an octave higher because Brahms wrote something here which simply doesn't make sense and that is very strange for a very "correct" composer like him, or whether one should be "true" to the text. What is "authentic"?
My personal opinion is that the first C should be an octave higher, as Kleiber and Norrington have it played, and also that illogically diverted bass lines should be played an octave lower if 5-string basses are available.

An example for this occurs in the first symphony (see below).

But *that* is my opinion. The first point isn't.


I still don't get your point about 395. Please elaborate.