Accuracy to the score (Beethoven, Schumann, Bruckner, et al.)

[(poco) Sforzando]

Some of us have been having a lively discussion over in the Schumann Kreisleriana thread (Great Recordings board) over the issue of fidelity or accuracy to the composer's score. It started when amw pointed out how Imogen Cooper's recording of the final movement didn't come even close to playing the rhythms that Schumann wrote, and some others (mainly myself, I suppose) opened that discussion to other questions about rhythmic accuracy and general fidelity to the score in certain works of Bruckner, Beethoven, and more.

So perhaps you can take a look at the Kreisleriana thread and we can continue the discussion here. Obviously we have had many lively debates about the merits of various recordings, but does fidelity to the score factor as a decision in your evaluation of a recording? Do you feel it benefits you as a listener to know what is written in the score, or do you take it for granted that (despite differences in approach) the performers you hear generally represent the score accurately? Or does the score not matter at all, so long as the performer's interpretation is convincing to your ears?

[jochanaan]

There's no excuse for rhythmic inaccuracy. Flexibility is another thing, but always within what's written; quarter notes, dotted eights, and the rest must be recognizably themselves and not something else. Also, tempos should reflect what the composer wrote, within performers' abilities.

Yet there is also the question, Does what we have equal what the composer actually wrote?

[Jo498]

Despite my doubts about some practical issues that I mentioned in context of Bruckner 7th,iii, I am mostly with you "in principle". (And I find the last Kreisleriana piece by Cooper an epic failure...)

Although research has shown that a lot of rhythmical notations might have been approximate (e.g. the double-dotting and notes inegales in baroque music) and maybe sometimes meant something considerably more free (less precise) in performance, in cases like Beethoven and Bruckner it seems pretty clear that they wrote stuff like the Appassionata theme or Bruckner's double dotting, because they meant it. That is, they certainly would not have taken such trouble if they had expected "streamlining" of those rhythms into a simpler form in performance.

[(poco) Sforzando]

There's no excuse for rhythmic inaccuracy. Flexibility is another thing, but always within what's written; quarter notes, dotted eights, and the rest must be recognizably themselves and not something else. Also, tempos should reflect what the composer wrote, within performers' abilities.

Yet there is also the question, Does what we have equal what the composer actually wrote?

Your last question brings up another nagging part of the problem. How often do we find the scores we read are the product of editors who add their own layer of interpretation? This question came up in our Bruckner discussion when we were discussing the validity of the metronome markings, especially for the very opening, which conductors routinely ignore. And of course there are the famous triangle and cymbal issues in the slow movement.

But Jochanaan, if you have not yet done so, could you look at the Bruckner issues I raised in the Kreisleriana thread, and give me your opinion as a woodwind player on the practicability of the double-dotted rhythms in the scherzo to Bruckner 7? I could cut and paste all my comments into this thread, but it's easy enough to people to go to the other one. You say there is no excuse for rhythmic inaccuracy, and I contend that rhythmic inaccuracy is exactly what we normally experience when hearing this piece.

[jochanaan]

...But Jochanaan, if you have not yet done so, could you look at the Bruckner issues I raised in the Kreisleriana thread, and give me your opinion as a woodwind player on the practicability of the double-dotted rhythms in the scherzo to Bruckner 7? I could cut and paste all my comments into this thread, but it's easy enough to people to go to the other one. You say there is no excuse for rhythmic inaccuracy, and I contend that rhythmic inaccuracy is exactly what we normally experience when hearing this piece.

Oh, it's possible to play them with reasonable accuracy, as long as the tempo isn't too fast.  I would be surprised, for example, to hear strict accuracy in a Furtwaengler recording; yet I would be even more surprised to hear inaccuracy from the likes of Bernard Haitink.  (I haven't heard Haitink do Bruckner 7, but I have his Bruckner 5 with the Concertgebouw from the Seventies; it's a model of accuracy without sacrificing expressiveness. )

[jochanaan]

In Tchaikovsky's Symphony #5, the second movement, there is a tricky little oboe solo about halfway through.  If you play the rhythms accurately, the expression follows naturally; yet I have very seldom heard that little solo played accurately even in such legendary recordings as the 1959 Ormandy/Philadelphia.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Oh, it's possible to play them with reasonable accuracy, as long as the tempo isn't too fast.  I would be surprised, for example, to hear strict accuracy in a Furtwaengler recording; yet I would be even more surprised to hear inaccuracy from the likes of Bernard Haitink.  (I haven't heard Haitink do Bruckner 7, but I have his Bruckner 5 with the Concertgebouw from the Seventies; it's a model of accuracy without sacrificing expressiveness. )

How fast can the tempo be without sacrificing accuracy? Is dotted quarter = 80 too fast? And if so, which do we choose: a slower tempo with more rhythmic accuracy, or a faster tempo even if it means some rhythmic imprecision?

[(poco) Sforzando]

In Tchaikovsky's Symphony #5, the second movement, there is a tricky little oboe solo about halfway through.  If you play the rhythms accurately, the expression follows naturally; yet I have very seldom heard that little solo played accurately even in such legendary recordings as the 1959 Ormandy/Philadelphia.

Is this the little countermelody when the main theme comes back in the violins? And what is the source of the inaccuracy - rhythm, dynamics, phrasing, all?

[Jo498]

I mentioned the Bruckner 7 scherzo in a German language forum and a guy tried to analyze the Rosbaud recording with audacity and estimate the accuracy. He said that the lengths were halfway between an accurate double dotting and normal dotting.

Another point that came up there is that there are some historians (Clive Brown) who supposedly claim that even in Brahms' and Bruckner's time dotting was not always supposed to be exactly 3:1 and a dot could indicate a fairly wide range of lengthening. We have been told this about the baroque already a long time ago. So maybe Bruckner's double dotting was to make sure the dotted phrase are somewhat "sharp" (say at least 3:1), not like swing triplets (2:1 note lengths).

(I am skeptical about Brown's claim, but I have never read original papers on that topic).

[jochanaan]

How fast can the tempo be without sacrificing accuracy? Is dotted quarter = 80 too fast? And if so, which do we choose: a slower tempo with more rhythmic accuracy, or a faster tempo even if it means some rhythmic imprecision?

Do you mean "quarter note"?  I could probably play Bruckner 7 with strict accuracy at about 80 to the quarter note, and accurately enough to be recognizably a 32nd note at about 120 to the quarter note--a reasonable tempo for that movement.  And my playing is not up to, say, Philadelphia Orchestra standards by any means.

Is this the little countermelody when the main theme comes back in the violins? And what is the source of the inaccuracy - rhythm, dynamics, phrasing, all?

Yeah, that's the one.  In major recordings, phrasing and dynamics and intonation are all fine; yet I have heard some rhythmically inaccurate playing of that solo even in world-class recordings. such as the aforementioned Philadelphia Orchestra one.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Do you mean "quarter note"?  I could probably play Bruckner 7 with strict accuracy at about 80 to the quarter note, and accurately enough to be recognizably a 32nd note at about 120 to the quarter note--a reasonable tempo for that movement.  And my playing is not up to, say, Philadelphia Orchestra standards by any means.

Sorry, I should've said 80=dotted half (240=quarter). That's the metronome mark in the score.

I'll have to check my Tchaikovsky 5 recordings.

[Jo498]

Interestingly, the "short notes" in the double dotted passages in Bruckner 7th 4th movement have about the same length as in the Scherzo. In the Scherzo it's a 16th at quarter=240, in the finale it is a 32nd at quarter=120 (or maybe a little slower but around this tempo)
With most performances of the finale I have the impression that the dotted phrases are certainly sharper than normal dotting, with the Scherzo I can't tell.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Interestingly, the "short notes" in the double dotted passages in Bruckner 7th 4th movement have about the same length as in the Scherzo. In the Scherzo it's a 16th at quarter=240, in the finale it is a 32nd at quarter=120 (or maybe a little slower but around this tempo)
With most performances of the finale I have the impression that the dotted phrases are certainly sharper than normal dotting, with the Scherzo I can't tell.

I agree.

[jochanaan]

Sorry, I should've said 80=dotted half (240=quarter). That's the metronome mark in the score.

That's for the scherzo, right?  I was thinking of the finale.  Yes, playing 16th notes at that tempo would be a challenge.  My guess is that Bruckner meant those notes to be played with a little more snap than if he had written them as eighth notes.

[(poco) Sforzando]

That's for the scherzo, right?  I was thinking of the finale.  Yes, playing 16th notes at that tempo would be a challenge.  My guess is that Bruckner meant those notes to be played with a little more snap than if he had written them as eighth notes.

Yes, the scherzo. My point has been that Bruckner went out of his way to notate the motif as always double-dotted quarter/sixteenth/quarter, when it would have been clearly much easier on him and the players to go with single dotting. That being the case, it frustrates me no end that I have yet to hear a performance, live or recorded, that even seems to try to get the rhythms as written.

[jochanaan]

Yes, the scherzo. My point has been that Bruckner went out of his way to notate the motif as always double-dotted quarter/sixteenth/quarter, when it would have been clearly much easier on him and the players to go with single dotting. That being the case, it frustrates me no end that I have yet to hear a performance, live or recorded, that even seems to try to get the rhythms as written.

This one's pretty good: Claudio Abbado leading the Lucerne Festival Orchestra. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_IbwlSXHpQ

[(poco) Sforzando]

This one's pretty good: Claudio Abbado leading the Lucerne Festival Orchestra. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_IbwlSXHpQ

Thanks. He's at least at 80=dotted half and often as high as 84. I don't hear him consistently double-dotting, but when he gets it, the short note turns almost into a grace note - which may be the only practicable solution at that tempo.

[Jo498]

This is not quite about accuracy, but I got into a tempo discussion at a German language forum. Case in point is the adagio con molta espressione from Beethoven's op.22. Now this is among my least favorite LvB sonatas, so I only have a handful of recordings but a guy at this forum is listening to/comparing several dozens.
Because Gulda is by far the fastest recording of that adagio he has heard, he (and a few others) claim that it is ridiculously fast, destroying mood, depth, emotion, whatever.

I think Gulda plays it at a nice flowing tempo that does not seem hectic to me (whereas he is a little hectic in some passages in the finale).

This movement is in 9/8, so an obvious question is whether this should be in slow dotted quarters or slow 8th. Gulda (and he is almost alone in this) goes for slow dotted quarters (at ca. 42 or 126 for 8th notes). Gilels/DG is the polar opposite with 8th notes at glacial 63. Most readings are, of course, in between, typical tempi around 80 for 8th notes, I guess.
So I looked up tempo suggestions and also thought a little about the piece. Historic tempo suggestions by Czerny and Moscheles yield 100-116 for 8th notes which is slower than Gulda but considerably faster than most other pianists (Brendel and Goode supposedly also play a fairly flowing tempo ca. 100-108, I am only guessing this from the playing times, I do not have their recordings). Kolisch suggests dotted quarter 44-46 which is even faster than Gulda and almost certainly reasoned from LvB's tempo marking for op.18/1,ii which is 138 for the 8th note. The quartet movement is also in 9/8 but more passionate and with more passages in 32nds and this tempo is also faster than anyone plays that piece, the fastest I found are around 120 which is close enough I guess. But "typical" tempi for op.18/1,ii seem at ca. 100 or faster, thus considerably faster than typical/average for op.22,ii.

To me it seems fairly obvious, regardless of tempo, that the melody at the beginning goes in dotted quarters and the 16ths are "embellishments". The left hand has accompaniment that does not get more exciting if played more slowly. The whole thing seems somewhat like an opera aria and if I try to sing or hum it, I'll certainly get a rather flowing tempo. I also find that the "sighs" in M 16-17, 22-23 and the similarly "pleading" motive in M 39-42 suggests a not too slow tempo. There are not many passages with 32nds and those are clearly "coloratura"/embellishment, so this does not speak against a flowing tempo. This does not have to be as fast as Gulda but for me it would be important to still get the dotted quarters which would suggest that slower than about 30 (respectively 90 for 8ths) would be too slow.

I would have to listen to a few more recordings but I don't think the movement gets more "profound" by playing it so slowly. Despite the "molta espressione", I think it simply is not such a profound or passionate movement as in the quartet op.18/1 (or e.g. the largo e mesto in op.10/3 where I can understand much better going for a very slow tempo even in spite of historical evidence).

Of course, there is no arguing with taste. But looking at the music and also listening to it (I can't play) I see a far stronger case for a flowing tempo and almost nothing seems to speak for the very slow readings of e.g Gilels and Arrau. If one looks into Beethoven's (or Czerny's) tempo suggestions, "typical" adagios counted in 8th notes have 72-80, so Gilels' 63 would be very slow even then.

[amw]

Coincidentally I read something the other day in Rosen's Beethoven sonatas companion about tempo, and basically the use of "standard tempi" whose metronome marks would be self-evident from the Italian word. He focused a lot on Allegretto, which is almost always around 76 to the beat (e.g. the Allegretto finale of Op. 22 should be taken at about crotchet = 76 because that is the fastest tempo at which the demisemiquavers are easily comprehensible, or something like that). Andante is closer to 63, whereas Allegro is around 126-144. Most of the "Allegretto" movements in Beethoven thus should be taken slower than they are nowadays—except the one in Symphony 7 which should be taken faster—whereas almost all of the Allegros should be faster. Apparently.

Beethoven's later metronome marks might give some clue. The adagio sostenuto of the Hammerklavier, obviously a slower tempo than the mere adagio of Op. 22, is marked 92 to the quaver—so the "adagio sostenuto" applies to the dotted crotchets, which are indeed very slow at about 30-31. The fundamental unit of tempo in 6/8, 9/8, 12/8 meters in Beethoven always seems to be the dotted crotchet, so it seems likely the tempo shouldn't go below something that sounds faster than "adagio sostenuto"; maybe 36-40 as the minimum range and ~50 as the maximum. Gulda's recording sounds within the right range to me, possibly even on the slow side (could see performances under 6 minutes working fairly well). I agree that the "espressione" here is the expression of an opera aria (which he carried to self-parody in 31/1 later), not a dramatic scena (18/1) or whatever, and is essentially static—which is why you need to characterise the music a lot to make the emotion convincing. Gulda unfortunately ignores the "molta espressione", which is in keeping with his approach of avoiding emotional display (one I generally like) but in this case goes against the expressed wishes of the composer.

I think last time I sightread through Op. 22 I took the adagio around 42-44ish, though I once experimented with playing it as quickly as possible (given the demisemiquavers) which given my inferior playing skills probably came out to around 54-56ish and could possibly lend the music a much more expressive feel in the hands of someone good, though if Beethoven truly wanted that tempo he'd probably have written "Adagio ma non troppo".

[Jo498]

I believe the "standard tempo" suggestion is contentious because there are statements from Beethoven that "tempi ordinarii" would be a thing of the past and for "modern" music he was happy to have the metronome. But op.22 is still a fairly early piece, so the "standard tempo" might well apply.

The first movement works well (and is usually played) in a "standard" fast Allegro (144-160 for crotchet), in the allegretto finale Gulda is again the fastest at ca. 82-84 (and as I said, this sounds a little too fast, other than his adagio), typical tempo is probably around 66-72 (Gilels ca. 56...)

As you know the 92 for quaver in op.106 is deemed way too fast by many pianists (Rosen plays it considerably slower as well) and listeners and there are other movements that are frequently played in rather slow quavers with no suggestion of larger units (i.e. dotted quarter notes or the like) left. (Before I listened to Gulda and looked into the matter, the 92 from op.106 would have been my spontaneous suggestion for the op.22 adagio.)
So you would conclude that most of these movements are usually played too slow?

As I said, I do not have access to many recordings of op.22 but Gulda (5:30) seems (one of) the fastest in the catalogue by a considerable margin.
In that ongoing survey at the Austrian forum the only other pianist below 7 min. is Brendel (ca. 6:40), Goode around 7 (this is ca. 100 for quavers). Most are between 8 and 9 min, corresponding to ca. 76-88 (25-30 for dotted quarter). The slow ones like Arrau (10:45), Gilels (11:15) are at 63-66 (21-22 you can't really count/feel this anymore in dotted quarters)
So even if we give a wide margin and say 30-50 for dotted crotchet (I am not sure I'll ever learn those terms...) is in the ballpark we have to conclude that the "upper half" of that range is only touched upon by Gulda (at ca. 42), considered absurdly fast by aficionados, and the median (probably around 80 (26-27)) is considerably slower than our slowest tempo suggestion (30)!