Poll
Question:
How do you generally like Beethoven's 'Big Nine' played?
Option 1: I tend to prefer quicker tempi
votes: 29
Option 2: I prefer more leisurely speeds
votes: 8
Option 3: I'm easy either way
votes: 18
I listen to Beethoven's symphonies a lot. It's my 'default' symphony cycle, if you will. Consequently, I've acquired a fair few interpretations. In some, tempi are quicker, in others, slower.
I used to prefer a more leisurely pace, but I've recently become quite disenchanted with such (the only exception being the 'Pastoral', which I've always preferred slower). I'm beginning to see the benefits of hearing Beethoven with the added 'bite' that swifter speeds seem to give to his symphonies. And I blame the likes of Zinman, Mackerras and Herreweghe for this.
How do you take your Beethoven symphonies? Does the speed make a difference for you, or can you enjoy a variety of tempi equally well?
The tempi should reflect Beethoven's metronome marks, which seem sensible to me, other than the march in the Ode to Joy which is very slow and must have been the result of an error on copying or something like that. When Beethoven asks for 'con brio' how often do we hear it? And Beethoven is the more 'con brio' composer of them all.
I have bounced around a theory - completely unprovable - for years.
Given Beethoven's deafness, given the frustration and impatience in a composer attacked by deafness, and given the complaints from performers that many things seem too fast, if one really follows those metronome markings, can one conclude that Beethoven is being influenced by the ability of his mental ear to "hear" a work on a different time level, i.e. his mental hearing has become accustomed to the speed of thought, rather than more practical considerations?
This might explain those fast metronome markings: his imaginary orchestras have no trouble with them! :o
Quote from: Cato on November 01, 2007, 09:53:22 AM
I have bounced around a theory - completely unprovable - for years.
Given Beethoven's deafness, given the frustration and impatience in a composer attacked by deafness, and given the complaints from performers that many things seem too fast, if one really follows those metronome markings, can one conclude that Beethoven is being influenced by the ability of his mental ear to "hear" a work on a different time level, i.e. his mental hearing has become accustomed to the speed of thought, rather than more practical considerations?
This might explain those fast metronome markings: his imaginary orchestras have no trouble with them! :o
I think you may have something here. Then again, it could be all in my head. ;D
Or art thou, fatal vision, but a Beethoven of the mind?
I voted, as it turns out, with the majority.
Alle Menschen werden Brüder . . . .
It really depends on the passage or phrase. But generally I like it not too slow and too fast. The 5th must be carried out with a lot of energy though, and so far only Karajan's '77 do it for me.
What I primarily care about, for any performance I listen to, is that the interpretation is consistent, both with the intended purpose of the individual performance, and the rest of the performance itself.
Beyond this, fast and slow, they both have their places, in Beethoven or otherwise. ;)
I don't think that it's necessarily a matter of speed but of energy. While I have and enjoy all the LvB from Toscanini I also have (and enjoy just as much) Furtwangler. Both of these conductors managed some real bite in their Beethoven despite vastly contrasting styles and tempi.
I've heard the Zinman and find that it's just Beethoven played fast and not a cycle worthy of inclusion in my collection. I've also heard some stupendously boring slow Beethoven as well. Pierre Monteux, in the LvB 7th is an example of just how well a Beethoven symphony can be played yet you could not describe it as fast or leisurely.
Quote from: Holden on November 01, 2007, 12:10:26 PM
I don't think that it's necessarily a matter of speed but of energy.
Absolutely. :)
I really can't answer this poll. I think it depends upon the specific work in question, although like George and Holden I think it's also a matter of orchestral texture and power, which does not necessarily correspond to speed. Sometimes I have a clear tempo preference -- the 8th, for example, works best for me when played swiftly (Scherchen is probably my favorite), whereas a quick Eroica will drive me up a wall (I like Klemperer's measured power). In the 7th, on the other hand, I can go either fast or slow, depending on other aspects of the performance.
I've heard these works so many times, I find that I often focus on a particular moment or phrase, a point where the musical narrative takes a dramatic turn, if you will, and I'll often judge a performance based largely on how well a conductor's interpretation of that moment matches up with my own (ie with the ideal performance running cheerfully through my head). The clearest example of what I mean is the moment around 7 or 8 minutes into the Eroica's funeral march when the fugue begins -- Klemperer's stereo recording just captures the drama of that moment perfectly, and builds on it so well through the remainder of the movement that it's always held a special place for me...
Quote from: Holden on November 01, 2007, 12:10:26 PM
I've heard the Zinman and find that it's just Beethoven played fast and not a cycle worthy of inclusion in my collection.
Thank you for saying that, I wholeheartedly agree. I don't mind fast Beethoven -- I like Hogwood, Gardener, Harnoncourt, and Scherchen's cycles, amongst others -- but Zinman just sounds emotionally flat to me. I'm sure there must be something there, as so many people praise it, but I just don't get it...
Oh dear... another false dilemma. The quality of a tempo depends on the execution. A fast pace can be as dull as a slow pace can be full of tension. It depends on the conception of the work and the performers' conception of the soundscape they wish to produce. As long as it is interpretively convincing, I'm fine with it.
Interesting comments. Yes, I neglected other key elements such as texture, style, energy and so on, and I did so deliberately. I was listening to Masur and the Gewandhaus recording of the Ninth when this poll/thread occurred to me: the performance is an infuriating mix of fast and slow, especially in the finale, and it got me thinking of other recordings and how the tempi in each correspond with what I enjoy - or am annoyed by - in said performances.
As I've complained here before now, Barenboim grinds the 'Eroica' to a near standstill in the first two movements, which crucifies the work for me; Abbado (VPO) isn't quick, but he adds a power that's just not there in Danny Boy's rendition. Then we hit the recording made by Gardiner for the BBC film 'Eroica', and it's a swift thrill ride throughout - the first time this work actually clicked for me, as it happens.
Then again still, there's the question of the 'Pastoral': Karajan goes quick in his '63 cycle, Jochum slows it right down in his '78 outing, Mackerras quickens the pace in the 90s while in the same decade, Davis eases off the gas and delivers what is, for me, the ideal. And to bring this ramble full circle, Masur takes the 'Pastoral' at a leisurely pace, and his recording also seems to work extremely well.
Quote from: O Mensch on November 01, 2007, 01:11:10 PM
Oh dear... another false dilemma.
Yes, I'm having a few of these right now. Must be lack of sleep.
Bear with me: normal service will soon resume. ;)
I enjoy clarity, energy, and brisk speeds. Which is why I enjoy the Mackerras Cycle so much, it has all of the above.
The Zinman has clarity and speed but in my opinion lacks energy.
depends, what would Ludwig want?
Quote from: hornteacher on November 01, 2007, 01:53:31 PM
The Zinman has clarity and speed but in my opinion lacks energy.
But only in places, I find.
I don't really know how to answer. Let me use an example: Wilhelm Furtwängler's 1944 (20/22 Mar.) 6th opens fairly slowly, as compared to Carlos Kleiber's 1983 (7 Nov.) outing in that score. Indeed, as Furtwängler is taking a nice stroll in the country, Kleiber is taking a brisk jog. Both work, though, for me. I would say that it doesn't really matter what tempo you set the band at, as long as it isn't stupidly slow or insanely fast; rather, it hinges on your ability to make a convincing case, through the performance, for the tempo. As long as there is doubt over the metronome markings, there is no sense taking that side - unless you can be a consistent and convincing advocate for the position.
What about another option for:
"Get the Menuhin"?
Quote from: 12tone. on November 01, 2007, 09:12:50 PM
What about another option for:
"Get the Menuhin"?
"RUN before the Menuhin gets you"? ::)
Q
Quote from: Cato on November 01, 2007, 09:53:22 AM
This might explain those fast metronome markings: his imaginary orchestras have no trouble with them! :o
The thing is, when you hear the music performed at these speeds it doesn't sound too fast at all, at least to me. They all sound just right. I suggest they may sound too fast to those who spend all day listening the late Romantic music, whose tempo never rises above ponderoso moderato. This would explain everything. As I said above, Beethoven above all the big name composers asks for quick tempos, this is clear purely from his Italian indications. Even the basic Beethoven allegro is no slouch.
It's not often that I find myself agreeing with Rod, but I'm fast becoming a convert to quicker Beethoven. And as jwinter (I believe) said, there are key points in each of the symphonies for which, like him, I listen; it's here that I expect certain emphasis, energy or tension. If speeds are 'wrong' at these points, then my heart sinks. :(
To take the discussion temporarily OT, I'm deliberately avoiding the new Repin recording of Beethoven's Violin Concerto (Repin's DG debut) purely because various reviewers speak of laid-back tempi ... and that reawakens in me nightmares of the Rostropovich and Vengerov account on EMI. :o
I prefer leisure speeds. The first movement, played too fast, looses its mistery and the great crescendo in the coda has not the same effect.
The tempo of Furtwängler in Bayreuth (1951), Böhm with the VPO or Fricsay with the BPO, although different, are within the limits my perspective.
On the contrary, Toscaniny with the NBC, Furtwängler with the BPO 1942 (regarding the Adagio and the Finale) have a poor respiration and a poor phrasing.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on November 02, 2007, 01:27:12 AM
The thing is, when you hear the music performed at these speeds it doesn't sound too fast at all, at least to me. They all sound just right. I suggest they may sound too fast to those who spend all day listening the late Romantic music, whose tempo never rises above ponderoso moderato. This would explain everything. As I said above, Beethoven above all the big name composers asks for quick tempos, this is clear purely from his Italian indications. Even the basic Beethoven allegro is no slouch.
Could not agree more.....
Quote from: val on November 02, 2007, 01:53:19 AM
I prefer leisure speeds. The first movement, played too fast, looses its mistery and the great crescendo in the coda has not the same effect.
The tempo of Furtwängler in Bayreuth (1951), Böhm with the VPO or Fricsay with the BPO, although different, are within the limits my perspective.
On the contrary, Toscaniny with the NBC, Furtwängler with the BPO 1942 (regarding the Adagio and the Finale) have a poor respiration and a poor phrasing.
Sounds like you're referring to a specific symphony, Val. Which one?
Quote from: Mark on November 02, 2007, 01:40:32 AM
To take the discussion temporarily OT, I'm deliberately avoiding the new Repin recording of Beethoven's Violin Concerto (Repin's DG debut) purely because various reviewers speak of laid-back tempi ... and that reawakens in me nightmares of the Rostropovich and Vengerov account on EMI. :o
That's why I perfer my girl Hilary in the Beethoven. She goes fast (but not uncharacteristically fast). Mutter's DVD with HvK is also great for those who like swifter speeds.
Cato wrote:
QuoteThis might explain those fast metronome markings: his imaginary orchestras have no trouble with them.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on November 02, 2007, 01:27:12 AM
The thing is, when you hear the music performed at these speeds it doesn't sound too fast at all, at least to me. They all sound just right. I suggest they may sound too fast to those who spend all day listening the late Romantic music, whose tempo never rises above ponderoso moderato. This would explain everything. As I said above, Beethoven above all the big name composers asks for quick tempos, this is clear purely from his Italian indications. Even the basic Beethoven allegro is no slouch.
Right: my little theory does not mean that
Beethoven was somehow being unrealistic in his expectations.
Did conductors begin a tradition of slowing things down, perhaps because of limitations in instruments and/or players at the time? Better to have slower Beethoven, performed without errors, than Beethoven with errors at the speed indicated by the composer? Or did "interpretive conducting" know something the composer did not? (
Stravinsky: "I
hate interpretation!")
On the other hand there is the reminiscence of
Goethe, visibly shaking, and walking out of the concert hall after the first movement of the
Fifth Symphony, claiming that although it was very great music, the hall would probably fall in!
What a performance that must have been! :o
Interesting that you speak, Cato, of the first movement of the Fifth. Here is one of the few places in all Beethoven's symphonies where I want that opening theme (Dah Dah Dah Daaaah, Dah, Dah, Dah, Daaaah) to be unhurried. I feel it needs to given some breathing room; you need to hear it, not just listen to it. It's a very powerful opening statement, but so many conductors take it at quite a lick, robbing it (in my view) of some of its presence, its power, and its sense of foreboding.
Quote from: Mark on November 02, 2007, 03:42:21 AM
Interesting that you speak, Cato, of the first movement of the Fifth. Here is one of the few places in all Beethoven's symphonies where I want that opening theme (Dah Dah Dah Daaaah, Dah, Dah, Dah, Daaaah) to be unhurried. I feel it needs to given some breathing room; you need to hear it, not just listen to it. It's a very powerful opening statement, but so many conductors take it at quite a lick, robbing it (in my view) of some of its presence, its power, and its sense of foreboding.
Exactly right: speed here would be detrimental. And I think it needs to be varied a little every time it reappears, so that its menace becomes unpredictable.
Quote from: Cato on November 02, 2007, 03:57:15 AM
Exactly right: speed here would be detrimental.
Yes, that wants both
weight, and
vigor, in a most
musical balance.
Quote from: Cato on November 02, 2007, 03:37:20 AM
Cato wrote:
Right: my little theory does not mean that Beethoven was somehow being unrealistic in his expectations.
Did conductors begin a tradition of slowing things down, perhaps because of limitations in instruments and/or players at the time? Better to have slower Beethoven, performed without errors, than Beethoven with errors at the speed indicated by the composer? Or did "interpretive conducting" know something the composer did not? (Stravinsky: "I hate interpretation!")
On the other hand there is the reminiscence of Goethe, visibly shaking, and walking out of the concert hall after the first movement of the Fifth Symphony, claiming that although it was very great music, the hall would probably fall in!
What a performance that must have been! :o
Maybe it had something to do with the use of increasingly huge orchestras and modern style instruments that lack the transparency of the old ones. These things work against the use of fast tempos to some degree, clarity and precision is lost. But the solution is the change the orchestra not the tempi.
The best Eroica I've heard on CD is by Jordi Savall, with period instruments and an orchestra of about 40, maybe less, and he uses the metronome marks as his guides. The effect is quite electric, especially as the sound quality is truly demonstration class.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on November 02, 2007, 04:16:59 AM
Maybe it had something to do with the use of increasingly huge orchestras and modern style instruments that lack the transparency of the old ones. These things work against the use of fast tempos to some degree, clarity and precision is lost.
It is quite likely related to that, but it isn't by any means a black-&-white "bigger orchestras necessarily mean slower
tempi and muddier texture" affair; there are composers later than
Beethoven who have used larger orchestras than
Beethoven, to play music yet fleeter of foot than
Beethoven's.
An orchestra of 40 playing
Beethoven? How cute! 8)
I tend to think Beethoven knew what he was doing and much prefer the brisk tempos consistent with his markings, though not when I first began hearing HIP Beethoven. Nowadays performances with very broad tempos can sound like slogging through mud to me.
I understand the concept of hearing things "faster" in one's imagination, but fail to see how that would affect Beethoven's use of the metronome to guide performance at the exact tempos he heard in his imagination.
Interesting that folks are divided over Zinman's cycle. One thing I like about it is its liveliness; yet others hear it as stillborn. Different strokes and I'm all for that!
Quote from: Cato on November 02, 2007, 03:57:15 AM
Exactly right: speed here would be detrimental. And I think it needs to be varied a little every time it reappears, so that its menace becomes unpredictable.
I've one name for you: Blomstedt. He gets it absolutely right, IMO. The majesty is there, and so is a slight sense of reverance for this most powerful of symphonic utterances.
Quote from: longears on November 02, 2007, 04:44:53 AM
Nowadays performances with very broad tempos can sound like slogging through mud to me.
I'm with this guy. 8)
QuoteI understand the concept of hearing things "faster" in one's imagination, but fail to see how that would affect Beethoven's use of the metronome to guide performance at the exact tempos he heard in his imagination.
I'm not convinced by the argument that Beethoven heard things faster in his imagination. I say this because, as a creative person myself (albeit in a different field entirely), I know exactly how I want a sentence to sound when read back, what pacing I want to convey to the reader. I'm merely a man with a tiny bit of talent; Beethoven was a genius. I'm sure he knew what he was doing. ;)
QuoteInteresting that folks are divided over Zinman's cycle. One thing I like about it is its liveliness; yet others hear it as stillborn.
It's a frustrating cycle for me, David. So much to admire, yet so much to quibble about. And 'quibble' is the right word: it's minor things here and there that prevent me from rating his traversal more highly than I do. :-\
Quote from: karlhenning on November 02, 2007, 04:25:26 AM
It is quite likely related to that, but it isn't by any means a black-&-white "bigger orchestras necessarily mean slower tempi and muddier texture" affair; there are composers later than Beethoven who have used larger orchestras than Beethoven, to play music yet fleeter of foot than Beethoven's.
An orchestra of 40 playing Beethoven? How cute! 8)
This is true but personally I don't like the effect of a huge string section hogging all the sound, there has to be a limit to maintain balance. But it is rare that I have heard anything 'fleeter of foot' from the Romantics, even when you hear a lot of short notes the underlying pulse is always moderate. Beethoven performed a la metronome with rasping valveless horns and battlefield drums is truly scary stuff.
Quote from: longears on November 02, 2007, 04:44:53 AM
Interesting that folks are divided over Zinman's cycle. One thing I like about it is its liveliness; yet others hear it as stillborn. Different strokes and I'm all for that!
Zinman only completed half the job, if he'd used a period instrument band instead the effect would have been much better.
Quote from: longears on November 02, 2007, 04:44:53 AM
I tend to think Beethoven knew what he was doing and much prefer the brisk tempos consistent with his markings, though not when I first began hearing HIP Beethoven. Nowadays performances with very broad tempos can sound like slogging through mud to me.
I agree that (apart from some few markings which may have been slips of the quill)
Beethoven knew what he was after, and his metronome markings should be respected; and tempi which are significantly slower are a distortion, to be resisted with diligence.
On the other hand, there is no one tempo which is going to be right in all spaces/acoustics. The Metronome Nazi is an evil equal and opposite to the Navel-Gazing "Oh, I just conduct the music the way I feel it, forget the metronome/tempo markings!" Sloth
Quote from: Rod Corkin on November 02, 2007, 04:51:51 AM
This is true but personally I don't like the effect of a huge string section hogging all the sound, there has to be a limit to maintain balance.
Sure.
QuoteBut it is rare that I have heard anything 'fleeter of foot' from the Romantics, even when you hear a lot of short notes the underlying pulse is always moderate. Beethoven performed a la metronome with rasping valveless horns and battlefield drums is truly scary stuff.
Of course, he tipped his hat to
Beethoven constantly, but
Berlioz wrote some delightfully rapid music, and if anything, he went even scarier in the
Symphonie fantastique. Ditto on the rapidity (though not the scary) for
Mendelssohn.
Quote from: karlhenning on November 02, 2007, 05:05:45 AM
Sure.
Of course, he tipped his hat to Beethoven constantly, but Berlioz wrote some delightfully rapid music, and if anything, he went even scarier in the Symphonie fantastique. Ditto on the rapidity (though not the scary) for Mendelssohn.
Ah, if you'd mentioned Berlioz before I would have understood, but that is just noise to me, all of it.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on November 02, 2007, 05:15:17 AM
Ah, if you'd mentioned Berlioz before I would have understood, but that is just noise to me, all of it.
:o
Karl, cover your eyes. You don't want to read this.
Quote from: karlhenning on November 02, 2007, 05:03:02 AM
On the other hand, there is no one tempo which is going to be right in all spaces/acoustics. The Metronome Nazi is an evil equal and opposite to the Navel-Gazing "Oh, I just conduct the music the way I feel it, forget the metronome/tempo markings!" Sloth
Quite right! And I've nothing against those who prefer a more leisurely pace--my quibble is with those who cite their preference as Absolute and even go to the extreme of trying to support it by claiming that Beethoven didn't know what he was doing.
Not a bit of it,
Mark.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on November 02, 2007, 05:15:17 AM
Ah, if you'd mentioned Berlioz before I would have understood, but that is just noise to me, all of it.
Knowing
Berlioz's work as well as I do,
Rod, this tells me everything about your stance towards the music, and nothing about the music.
In fact, I look forward to grooving to some of The Berlioz Noise when Levine brings a concert performance of Les Troyens to Symphony Hall in the spring.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on November 02, 2007, 04:53:38 AM
Zinman only completed half the job, if he'd used a period instrument band instead the effect would have been much better.
??? Are you saying you prefer period instrument performances? All else equal, I sometimes do, too. But Zinman's Zurich Beethoven is an historically informed modern instrument performance. Using period instruments would not be consistent with the intent...sort of like riding a bicycle in a footrace. Or am I missing something here? (Sure wouldn't be the first time! 8) )
(http://a248.e.akamai.net/f/248/5462/2h/street.safeshopper.com/images/k18r65a.gif)
Quote from: longears on November 02, 2007, 05:50:27 AM
??? Are you saying you prefer period instrument performances? All else equal, I sometimes do, too. But Zinman's Zurich Beethoven is an historically informed modern instrument performance. Using period instruments would not be consistent with the intent...sort of like riding a bicycle in a footrace. Or am I missing something here? (Sure wouldn't be the first time! 8) )
These days I don't consider non-period instrument performances of Beethoven seriously. Of course Period instruments on their own do not guarantee a good interpretation. There is more to the sound than just the tempo, which is why Zinman kind of missed the point to my mind.
I like them fast and furious, and Zinman is that, he never misses a point or a note. :)
Its been several years since I actually looked at the score of the Beethoven Fifth Symphony. So I'm not really sure if the tempo markings for the opening Da Da Da Dah, and the ensuing Da Da Da Dah, are exactly the same.
I would think, that although nearing total deafness, Beethoven was clever enough to want to capture the "undivided ear" of the listener by employing a slight variation between the two. Something "special" to peak the immediate curiosity of the listener.
As I write this I am NOT listening to the music. So anything I say is based strictly on my musical memory.
Reiner and C. Kleiber employ slightly different tempi for each of those Da Da Da Dahs. They play the first set with enormous seriousness and portent of things to come. The second set is slightly fleeter of foot, as if to say "lets go boys--we'll show THEM who's boss around here". Karajan, Bernstein and Solti, reverse the order of things, with the first set being a bit less dramatic and portentous than the second set. As if they were saying ....we're going to build an edifice, the likes of which, has never been seen before.
On the othe hand the three old masters (Toscanini, Furtwaengler and Klemperer) all seem to play those two sets in the exact same tempo. Note please, I do NOT mean that the tempi adopted by those three maestri are interchangable with each other, but I DO mean that each one of them plays the first and second Da Da Da Dahs in exactly the same tempo (whichever it was that they have chosen). Now that may be accurate as far as the printed score is concerned, but as to how it affects me emotionally...well it simply doesn't do very much. It's as if I were caught in a totally unmoving traffic jam.
The same things are true regarding the orchestral outbursts after the "bridge " passages in the final movement. That first outburst (IMO) should be triumphant and regal, the repeat outburst (later in the movement) should be more "devil may care". and "out for a night around town".
Music is a "living" thing and its respiration rate is different from moment to moment. It is not fixed or set in stone. For if it were, it would become a dead thing. So for me, tempo variations are a REQUIREMENT (within musical bounds) , and not a thing to be shunned.
Quote from: Iago on November 02, 2007, 08:48:44 AM
Music is a "living" thing and its respiration rate is different from moment to moment. It is not fixed or set in stone. For if it were, it would become a dead thing. So for me, tempo variations are a REQUIREMENT (within musical bounds) , and not a thing to be shunned.
I agree a certain amount of flexibility is required to allow the music to 'breath', Beethoven's figures should be taken as the starting point by which the movement must be considered. Beethoven himself, when he provided metronome marks for his Oratorio, said that they related to the first few measures. But the flexibility should never undermine the required momentum, it should be subtle.
Quote from: George on November 02, 2007, 06:49:00 AM
(http://a248.e.akamai.net/f/248/5462/2h/street.safeshopper.com/images/k18r65a.gif)
George, you like your Beethoven symphonies at 50 bpm? And what recording do you listen to to experience that?
Quote from: Iago on November 02, 2007, 08:48:44 AM
Its been several years since I actually looked at the score of the Beethoven Fifth Symphony. So I'm not really sure if the tempo markings for the opening Da Da Da Dah, and the ensuing Da Da Da Dah, are exactly the same...
They are. At least, there's no tempo change marked except for the fermatas. The only difference is that the second fermata is actually two bars long. Nor is there any marked tempo change for the subsequent returns. In fact, the only marked tempo change in the movement is "Adagio" for the oboe cadenza (my favorite part ;D).
The "proper tempo" for any music actually depends somewhat on the size (and skill) of the orchestra. A large orchestra might have to play slower than Beethoven's MMs just so we can hear all the notes. :o If I have to choose between hearing the notes and hearing Beethoven's marked tempos, I'll take the notes. (Welllll, I suppose I don't necessarily have to hear each note of a string tremolo separately. :o ;D)
Quote from: 12tone. on November 02, 2007, 06:18:45 PM
George, you like your Beethoven symphonies at 50 bpm? And what recording do you listen to to experience that?
'Twas a joke. ::)
(Nice to see you back around the neighborhood BTW) :)
Quote from: George on November 02, 2007, 08:21:48 PM
'Twas a joke. ::)
(Nice to see you back around the neighborhood BTW) :)
HAVE YOU GOT THE MENUHIN YET?!
:D
So, how is it going?
Quote from: 12tone. on November 02, 2007, 08:39:40 PM
:D
So, how is it going?
For once, it's going well, thanks. :)
Got the Barenboim (LvB Symphony set) in the mail this week. :D
Quote from: George on November 02, 2007, 08:41:21 PM
For once, it's going well, thanks. :)
Got the Barenboim (LvB Symphony set) in the mail this week. :D
I know it's been out for some time but, when I saw Pletnev's cycle my mouth dropped. I didn't pick it up, though. Was scared too :o I heard on the radio from the announcer he took massive liberties. Do you have it?
Barenboim sounds good.
Quote from: 12tone. on November 02, 2007, 08:45:55 PM
I know it's been out for some time but, when I saw Pletnev's cycle my mouth dropped. I didn't pick it up, though. Was scared too :o I heard on the radio from the announcer he took massive liberties. Do you have it?
Barenboim sounds good.
Barenboim is dirt cheap from MDT. $26 delivered!! :o
Ask Uffe about Pletnev, she's lovin' that set. I have given up on Pletnev, whether with the baton or at the piano. :-\
Quote from: 12tone. on November 02, 2007, 08:37:24 PM
HAVE YOU GOT THE MENUHIN YET?!
The letters are a big as the mistake to get
ANYTHING conducted by Menuhin.
Q
Quote from: Que on November 02, 2007, 09:46:50 PM
The letters are a big as the mistake to get ANYTHING conducted by Menuhin.
Q
:o :(
Furtwangler or Barenboim ( and Klemperer, when i feel like it) over Karajan, definately, and other under cocain type of conducting; it just lost all it's atmosphere if played too fast.
QuoteMark
Sounds like you're referring to a specific symphony, Val. Which one?
I was talking about the 9th.
Regarding the other symphonies I prefer a fast tempo, but with tension and dynamic. Walter, Karajan sometimes, Cluyens, Reiner, Toscanini, Erich Kleiber, Monteux are good examples. But not in the 9th.
Bernard Sherman quotes one period timing for the first movement (w/exposition repeat) of Brahms 1st
(premiere led by Otto Dessoff) at between 13'30 and 14'30. According to Sherman, that is faster than
most modern recordings other than those by Weingartner and Norrington. So, even at the height of
Romanticism in the 19th century, works by contemporary composers were played quite fast by today's
standards. Another reason not to double-guess Beethoven's metronome marks?
33 1/3
Quote from: masolino on November 03, 2007, 04:19:46 AM
Bernard Sherman quotes one period timing for the first movement (w/exposition repeat) of Brahms 1st
(premiere led by Otto Dessoff) at between 13'30 and 14'30. According to Sherman, that is faster than
most modern recordings other than those by Weingartner and Norrington. So, even at the height of
Romanticism in the 19th century, works by contemporary composers were played quite fast by today's
standards. Another reason not to double-guess Beethoven's metronome marks?
Most recordings made before about the 1960s are considerably faster than most modern ones. I doubt that the Summer of Love had much to do with it ;D; what seems likely is that many noted conductors were getting older at that time and either simply lost momentum or deliberately broadened their tempos. This seems true of Walter, Klemperer, Stokowski and Ormandy. (But not, notably, for Reiner or Monteux, who kept their tempos lively till the very end of their lives.) And for some reason Bernstein, Karajan and Solti also broadened their tempos at about the same time although extreme age was not a factor for them. ???
Quote from: jochanaan on November 04, 2007, 03:54:30 PM
Most recordings made before about the 1960s are considerably faster than most modern ones.... although extreme age was not a factor for them. ???
Indeed age may not actually have that much to do with slowing down....conductors such as Reiner, Toscanini also belonged to those who didn't change much. Ditto Erich Kleiber and Richard Strauss who gave us some rather fast Mozart recordings. All in all, I tend to believe that tempi were probably far more diversifed since mid-20th century (which even created a cult for slow-mo maestri like Celibidache ;D) than they were ever before.
Quote from: O Mensch on November 01, 2007, 01:11:10 PM
Oh dear... another false dilemma. The quality of a tempo depends on the execution. A fast pace can be as dull as a slow pace can be full of tension. It depends on the conception of the work and the performers' conception of the soundscape they wish to produce. As long as it is interpretively convincing, I'm fine with it.
Nail hit firmly on head. I'm with you. In general, I am biased towards quicker tempi. But then someone comes along and plays something very slowly -- Richter in the first movement of Schuberts' D 960 sonata, Lisa Batiashvili in the first movement of Beethoven's violin concerto, for example -- and I'm cheering them on. It's a question of the performer's vision, integrity and powers of concentration.
To these ears, Richter is still too slow in the first movement in D. 960. So is Afanassiev in his recordings on ECM and Denon.
Quote from: Que on November 02, 2007, 09:46:50 PM
The letters are a big as the mistake to get ANYTHING conducted by Menuhin.
Q
This is too generalized IMO. I admit, that his Beethoven symphony set is dull. And his Bach recordings are generally not to my taste considering the style and the details, but still I am captured by the high spirit of his Bach - of which I own the greater part.
Well I heard this set of Menuhin too, and it is indeed rather dull, it almost put me to sleep, and it was roughly played, by a inefficient orchestra. Sound was not hot either.
Quote from: premont on November 06, 2007, 02:22:11 AM
This is too generalized IMO. I admit, that his Beethoven symphony set is dull. And his Bach recordings are generally not to my taste considering the style and the details, but still I am captured by the high spirit of his Bach - of which I own the greater part.
I have heard good things said about M's Mozart and Schubert symphonies (ditto high spirits and low prices ;))
also. Not that I am curious about his interpretations that much to want to check it out myself, but I was not terribly
surprised to see our
premont putting a few nice words in for him.
Quote from: masolino on November 06, 2007, 01:56:52 AM
To these ears, Richter is still too slow in the first movement in D. 960.
Disagree...
Quote from: donwyn on November 06, 2007, 06:35:49 PM
Disagree...
TO THESE EARs...Richter is too slow in D960/i, since it is quite a stretch to interpret "molto moderato" as "wearily plodding" or even "glacial."
Anyways, a book on topic for those interested if it hasn't been mentioned already:
(http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/3052/0521607442ii9.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Robert Philip
Early Recordings and Musical Style: Changing Tastes in Instrumental Performance, 1900-1950
Cambridge University Press 2004
Quote from: masolino on November 06, 2007, 11:54:21 PM
TO THESE EARs...
...well, I disagree... 0:)
QuoteRichter is too slow in D960/i, since it is quite a stretch to interpret "molto moderato" as "wearily plodding" or even "glacial."
One may argue Richter's leisurely handling of "molto moderato" (the first movement) but there's no denying the bleak, gaping abyss he creates when the bottom drops out of that extremely elongated pause - prefaced of course by that menacing, bone-rattling trill. It's enervating enough a listener
could be forgiven for putting the breaks on the music right then. Fortunately relief arrives when the succeeding note sounds and brings the listener back to earth...
Quote from: masolino on November 06, 2007, 11:54:21 PM
TO THESE EARs...Richter is too slow in D960/i, since it is quite a stretch to interpret "molto moderato" as "wearily plodding" or even "glacial."
Agreed, especially as an excessively slow tempo for the first movement creates insufficient contrast with the slow movement following.
Quote from: donwyn on November 07, 2007, 05:42:20 PM
...well, I disagree... 0:)
Sure YOU are free to disagree with MY observations.
Quote
One may argue Richter's leisurely handling of "molto moderato" (the first movement) but there's no denying the bleak, gaping abyss he creates when the bottom drops out of that extremely elongated pause - prefaced of course by that menacing, bone-rattling trill. It's enervating enough a listener could be forgiven for putting the breaks on the music right then. Fortunately relief arrives when the succeeding note sounds and brings the listener back to earth...
I hear "a bleak, gaping abyss" (or for me, a
caesura) in other interpretations as well (Andreas Staier's for example) which fortunately have chosen not to overlook the composer's instruction. Frankly I think going from long to "heavenly length" in
everything Schubertian is overrated, if not downright a cliche.
Quote from: masolino on November 07, 2007, 09:34:04 PM
Sure YOU are free to disagree with MY observations.
Well, yes. But isn't this a discussion board? To my mind your correspondence earlier as well as here invites a least a modicum of response. Or am I wrong?
In case you're wondering, I'm certainly not trying to be a pendant.
QuoteFrankly I think going from long to "heavenly length" in everything Schubertian is overrated, if not downright a cliche.
I could be wrong (again) but I always thought "heavenly length" meant including every repeat in performance, particularly the lengthy ones? Which can lead to "too much of a good thing".
But as to your overall point I'm not sure what you're driving at. I don't see the tie-in between what Richter does (slow first movement) to what is supposedly clichéd. You say Afanassiev is slow as well but who else slows down like these two do? Certainly not the masses! Which means these two are more anomalies than anything.
Anyways, just talking out loud...no need to answer if you don't wish to...
I would say "heavenly length," as Schumann coined the phrase, has nothing to do with performance per se, but instead refers to the expansiveness with which Schubert developed the structures of each of the four movements.
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on November 08, 2007, 05:45:42 PM
I would say "heavenly length," as Schumann coined the phrase, has nothing to do with performance per se, but instead refers to the expansiveness with which Schubert developed the structures of each of the four movements.
Yes, perhaps from Schumann's vantage point - with his fondness for writing in the miniature - it might seem Schubert really laid on the expansiveness in his music.
But in all honesty from my 21st century vantage point I see Schubert as no more "expansive" than a great many other composers.
And no telling what Schumann would have made of the music of Wagner/Bruckner/Mahler had he lived to hear it!
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on November 08, 2007, 05:45:42 PM
I would say "heavenly length," as Schumann coined the phrase, has nothing to do with performance per se, but instead refers to the expansiveness with which Schubert developed the structures of each of the four movements.
Maybe it's me but I never felt that Schubert achieved the same level of inspiration in the final two movements than the first two. The third movement is especially weak and repetitive, and when taken with all the indicated repeats gets wearisome real fast.
Quote from: donwyn on November 08, 2007, 06:14:44 PM
Yes, perhaps from Schumann's vantage point - with his fondness for writing in the miniature - it might seem Schubert really laid on the expansiveness in his music.
But in all honesty from my 21st century vantage point I see Schubert as no more "expansive" than a great many other composers.
And no telling what Schumann would have made of the music of Wagner/Bruckner/Mahler had he lived to hear it!
Schumann knew some of Wagner's earlier works at least, and found them repellent. As I recall, the two men met once, and Wagner complained that Schumann didn't open his mouth while Schumann complained that it was impossible when Wagner spoke to get a word in edgewise. As for Bruckner, I think it's reasonable to say that he learned some of his expansive, leisurely style from Schubert's instrumental works.
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on November 08, 2007, 06:22:34 PM
Schumann knew some of Wagner's earlier works at least, and found them repellent.
Early Wagner seems to induce that reaction in many folks! ;D
QuoteAs I recall, the two men met once, and Wagner complained that Schumann didn't open his mouth while Schumann complained that it was impossible when Wagner spoke to get a word in edgewise.
LOL
QuoteAs for Bruckner, I think it's reasonable to say that he learned some of his expansive, leisurely style from Schubert's instrumental works.
Interesting point. The two do seem to have the gift of erecting complex structure in leisure time.
Quote from: donwyn on November 08, 2007, 06:36:07 PM
Early Wagner seems to induce that reaction in many folks! ;D
Middle and late Wagner too!
Quote from: Rod Corkin on November 09, 2007, 12:24:00 PM
Middle and late Wagner too!
Only when Karajan touches it...
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on November 08, 2007, 05:45:42 PM
I would say "heavenly length," as Schumann coined the phrase, has nothing to do with performance per se, but instead refers to the expansiveness with which Schubert developed the structures of each of the four movements.
The irony here is when some interpretators take the catch phrase the wrong way (as intended by Schumann it is not a cliche) and make what is suitably long in a Schubert movement (no, doing repeats doesn't make energetic music making seem one second too long) into something of an interminable drag. That is what that particular Richter performance seems like to
my ears.
Quote from: donwyn on November 08, 2007, 05:36:03 PM
Well, yes. But isn't this a discussion board? To my mind your correspondence earlier as well as here invites a least a modicum of response. Or am I wrong?
Yes an informative response is of merit, but mere disagreement really is neither here nor there in a discussion.
Quote from: fl.traverso on November 10, 2007, 05:55:23 AM
Yes an informative response is of merit, but mere disagreement really is neither here nor there in a discussion.
I disagree .........
On the radio this morning, I heard the slow movement (and that movement only) of the Fourth Symphony by Norrington and (IIRC) the COE. Felt too fast; just a shade too fast, for the most part, but too fast.
Quote from: karlhenning on November 10, 2007, 08:14:43 AM
On the radio this morning, I heard the slow movement (and that movement only) of the Fourth Symphony by Norrington and (IIRC) the COE. Felt too fast; just a shade too fast, for the most part, but too fast.
No,no,no, of course not too fast my friend, only too fast for you, that's the fine distinction. ;D
I let you in on a secret, I found it to be too slow......... :o
Common, Beethoven lived on a fast lane, and he was constantly arguing with the musicians in his time, and shouting, faster you bastards...honestly! :)
Quote from: Harry on November 10, 2007, 08:22:23 AM
No,no,no, of course not too fast my friend, only too fast for you, that's the fine distinction. ;D
I let you in on a secret, I found it to be too slow......... :o
Common, Beethoven lived on a fast lane, and he was constantly arguing with the musicians in his time, and shouting, faster you bastards...honestly! :)
Honestly,
Harry, the composer marked that movement
Adagio. Norrington did not conduct that movement
Adagio.
Oh, I know, I know: both you and Norrington know better than the composer. So I withdraw my objection ;D
Quote from: karlhenning on November 10, 2007, 08:27:46 AM
Honestly, Harry, the composer marked that movement Adagio. Norrington did not conduct that movement Adagio.
Oh, I know, I know: both you and Norrington know better than the composer. So I withdraw my objection ;D
Well Adagio was thrice as fast in Beethoven's time, as it now is, and I have that from high authority...... ;D
Quote from: Harry on November 10, 2007, 08:22:23 AM
Common, Beethoven lived on a fast lane, and he was constantly arguing with the musicians in his time, and shouting, faster you bastards...honestly! :)
Where in the world did you pull that rabbit out of a hat?
A rarebit, rather than a rabbit, perhaps, Larry 8)
Quote from: Harry on November 10, 2007, 08:38:08 AM
Well Adagio was thrice as fast in Beethoven's time
Hmm, I have my doubts ;)
More than one passage in that
(* ahem *) Adagio movement felt unfetteredly
Allegro,
Harry. That just cannot be right. Even
Beethoven (or,
especially Beethoven) must have wanted some contrast in tempo/character.
Quote from: karlhenning on November 10, 2007, 09:02:09 AM
Hmm, I have my doubts ;)
More than one passage in that (* ahem *) Adagio movement felt unfetteredly Allegro, Harry. That just cannot be right. Even Beethoven (or, especially Beethoven) must have wanted some contrast in tempo/character.
....... perhaps
Harry needs to get up to speed on LvB's tempo indications ........
Quote from: karlhenning on November 10, 2007, 09:02:09 AM
Hmm, I have my doubts ;)
More than one passage in that (* ahem *) Adagio movement felt unfetteredly Allegro, Harry. That just cannot be right. Even Beethoven (or, especially Beethoven) must have wanted some contrast in tempo/character.
"
Exactly Adagio means according to Beethoven Allegro. ;D
I am kidding you of course, but in some letters from Beethoven and from his tagebucher it is noted, that he thought the boys of the band bungled up his tempo directions almost always, and he made great havoc about that. It seems it was never fast enough for him, as it is for me, by the way. And of course Beethoven wanted contrast in movements, and Norrington provides that, as Hogwood does by the way....
Quote from: karlhenning on November 10, 2007, 09:02:09 AM
Hmm, I have my doubts ;)
More than one passage in that (* ahem *) Adagio movement felt unfetteredly Allegro, Harry. That just cannot be right. Even Beethoven (or, especially Beethoven) must have wanted some contrast in tempo/character.
I just checked my metronome markings, and 84 bpm to the eighth note, Beethoven's published marking, just feels too fast for this Adagio; I could not play it as an orchestral musician and give the notes their full emotional value. But maybe Norrington shaped it so that it sounded all right. I think I'd have to hear before I judged--although the Chamber Orchestra of Europe (I assume that's the COE you referred to, Karl...?) ought to be an appropriately-sized group to play Beethoven, and competent enough to play the notes clearly even at Beethoven's original MMs. :)
On the other hand, Karl, it's possible that we're just a couple of old fogeys when it comes to Beethoven. ;D
Quote from: Harry on November 10, 2007, 09:23:35 AM
"
Exactly Adagio means according to Beethoven Allegro. ;D
I am kidding you of course, but in some letters from Beethoven and from his tagebucher it is noted, that he thought the boys of the band bungled up his tempo directions almost always, and he made great havoc about that. It seems it was never fast enough for him, as it is for me, by the way. And of course Beethoven wanted contrast in movements, and Norrington provides that, as Hogwood does by the way....
Think of the metronome mark for the adagio of the 9th symphony. Beethoven has metronome mark of 60. How can this above all numbers be a mistake? We all know 60! He also offers the same mark of 60 for the molto adagio of String Quartet Op.59, No.2. He gets it wrong again?? Methinks not.
Not sure if this has already been presented in this thread, but here is a very interesting article on this subject:
http://www.benjaminzander.com/news/detail.asp?id=158
Quote from: Rod Corkin on November 11, 2007, 01:34:28 AM
http://www.benjaminzander.com/news/detail.asp?id=158
What a yawner. It's 9 something in the morning and I had a big cup of coffee yet halfway through that article I feel like crawling back in bed again. Typical Ben Zander, more verbose than Wagner.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on November 11, 2007, 06:00:21 AM
What a yawner. It's 9 something in the morning and I had a big cup of coffee yet halfway through that article I feel like crawling back in bed again. Typical Ben Zander, more verbose than Wagner.
What are you doing up at 9 something in the morning on a Sunday in any case?
Quote from: Rod Corkin on November 11, 2007, 10:14:39 AM
What are you doing up at 9 something in the morning on a Sunday in any case?
Well my 10 month old daugther woke up at 6:30 am, which means I have to get up at 6:30am.
Anyway usually I can stand listening to Zander the first time (like all the Mahler stuff he did) but the second and third time through his rant is a bit more difficult to take. I didn't get very far this time but this bothers me:
When Beethoven composed the opening of the Symphony No.5, he must have had some particular 'meaning' in mind, he must have heard the music in some particular way. He cannot possibly have heard it both at the Furtwangler-Klemperer tempo and the one he wrote in the score. It is unlikely that he was indifferent about the matter - just as unlikely, in fact, as that he would have been indifferent as to which notes were played. For Beethoven cared so deeply about the tempi at which his works were performed that, according to his friend Anton Schindler, whenever he heard about a performance of one of them, 'his first question invariably was: "How were the tempi?" Every other consideration seemed to be of secondary importance to him'. The entire argument is not based on facts, it is based on assumptions and
maybes and most
likely's. Maybe Beethoven WOULD like the Klemperer or Furtwangler tempo choices some days of the week but Norrington tempi others days of the week.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on November 11, 2007, 06:12:43 PM
Maybe Beethoven WOULD like the Klemperer or Furtwangler tempo choices some days of the week but Norrington tempi others days of the week.
Maybe.
Maybe when Beethoven had heard all Bruckner en Mahler symphonies, and had experienced the "Titanic" present day symphony orchestras, maybe he would have agreed.
But then he
probably would have written something quite different... :)
But I still enjoy a Furtwängler performance! ;D
Q
Maybe Beethoven would have to re-write and and re-orchestrate his symphonies if he were to use today's bloated orchestras and their bloated tempi and dynamics. ;)
After finding this thread once I was shown the better search function, I thought I'd give it a bump since after the recent discussions about Beethoven symphonies, HIPP or Modern Orchestra - I have discovered that the decisions regarding tempo are what signify the most crucial difference to my enjoyment of the recording.
And in order to achieve the quicker tempi, I think a smaller orchestra is needed - hence the recordings I enjoy the most, have been called "Hybrid" - which I have been told means a modern instrument orchestra, but with smaller numbers and utilizing quasi HIPP interpretive choices concerning tempo, dynamics and articulation.
Besides Jarvi and Dausgaard - are there any others who might fall into this style?
The problem with metronome markings is that composers change their minds at times. They've been known to conduct or play their music at different tempi at different times because they felt differently about the tempi on different occaisions.
Brahms was absolutely opposed to metronome markings, because he felt there was no such thing as one "right" tempo for any movement in any of his symphonies, concertos or other works.
So the next time jolly Roger or other HIP people comes out with a theory about the "right" tempi for His music, you should be wary.
Another factor can be the first recordings we get to know of a given work.
It's very easy to get accustomed to the tempi on that recording, and when you hear other versions of that piece, the tempi may seem wrong to you. This has happened to me quite a few times, but I've found that if you give repeated hearings to the other recordings, you can get accustomed to them,too.
Quote from: Franco on February 16, 2010, 07:13:58 AM
Besides Jarvi and Dausgaard - are there any others who might fall into this style?
Zinman, Harnoncourt, Vänskä, Abbado, Mackerras.
Quote from: Superhorn on February 16, 2010, 07:38:38 AM
The problem with metronome markings is that composers change their minds at times. They've been known to conduct or play their music at different tempi at different times because they felt differently about the tempi on different occaisions.
Brahms was absolutely opposed to metronome markings, because he felt there was no such thing as one "right" tempo for any movement in any of his symphonies, concertos or other works.
So the next time jolly Roger or other HIP people comes out with a theory about the "right" tempi for His music, you should be wary.
Another factor can be the first recordings we get to know of a given work.
It's very easy to get accustomed to the tempi on that recording, and when you hear other versions of that piece, the tempi may seem wrong to you. This has happened to me quite a few times, but I've found that if you give repeated hearings to the other recordings, you can get accustomed to them,too.
I take your point - but in my reading of Beethoven, I get the impression tempo was a serious consideration, and besides, I am not interested so much in anyone trying to tell me what tempo is "correct" as much as someone playing the works with a tempo that I have found one I prefer, which is on the quicker side.
And, coincidentally, this usually is closer to the printed marking.
Quote from: DavidRoss on February 16, 2010, 08:07:48 AM
Zinman, Harnoncourt, Vänskä, Abbado, Mackerras.
I'm guessing you mean the newer Abbado. I have that one wishlisted, and I might get some of the Mackerras too, since I love his Mozart recordings (I have one opera and three or four PC with John O'Conor). Vanksa's name keeps coming up, and I own nothing by him, so between Beethoven and Sibelius - I bet I will succumb to that siren song soon.
Quote from: Franco on February 16, 2010, 08:17:17 AM
I'm guessing you mean the newer Abbado. I have that one wishlisted, and I might get some of the Mackerras too, since I love his Mozart recordings (I have one opera and three or four PC with John O'Conor). Vanksa's name keeps coming up, and I own nothing by him, so between Beethoven and Sibelius - I bet I will succumb to that siren song soon.
To add to Dave's list there is also Rattle which is really not that bad. But there is also Herreweghe and the second Norrington cycle (Stuttgart). Out of the ones that I've heard I think that top marks go to Järvi and Harnoncourt. :)
Yes, he means Abbado in a red box ('the Rome cycle')
Quote from: Brian on February 16, 2010, 08:33:50 AM
Yes, he means Abbado in a red box ('the Rome cycle')
You bet--one of my faves! Hope you're still enjoying it, Brian!
Masur has recorded two Beethoven cycles for Philips; one analog and one digital; can you tell me which 9th of his you're referring to? I heard the digital remake recently when I borrowed it from my library and the tempi seemed unobjectionable to me. Overall, it seemed like a fine performance ot me, by a conductor who certainly knows his Beethoven.
I don't consider tempo a big deal. It's what the performers do with their selected tempo that counts.
Quote from: Franco on February 16, 2010, 08:17:17 AM
I'm guessing you mean the newer Abbado. I have that one wishlisted, and I might get some of the Mackerras too, since I love his Mozart recordings (I have one opera and three or four PC with John O'Conor). Vanksa's name keeps coming up, and I own nothing by him, so between Beethoven and Sibelius - I bet I will succumb to that siren song soon.
My personal favorites for quality swift tempo performances are the Mackerras (Liverpool cycle) and the Abbado (Rome cycle) with Vanksa close behind.
I'm not sure where Vanska gets his reputation for "swift tempos" - he's actually at or slower than traditional tempi. His 7.ii takes 9 minutes, his 9 is a very conventional 15/14/14/23 (at 66 minutes, much closer to Karajan than Mackerras), and his Eroica has a funeral march 3 minutes slower than many of the HIP types.
I think Karajan is spot on.
He may miss out the repeats, but that suits a modern audience, and his tempo and furioso (try the 5th from the 60's) is as quick and tight as the master would have approved.
I love Klemperer and Norrington's Beethoven. I'm fine with any speed that works.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on February 17, 2010, 03:45:24 AM
I love Klemperer and Norrington's Beethoven. I'm fine with any speed that works.
If only somebody had the evil vision to combine Klemperer's tempi with Norrington's ensemble, that would be a CD I would have to hear...
Quote from: Harry on November 10, 2007, 09:23:35 AM
...in some letters from Beethoven and from his tagebucher it is noted, that he thought the boys of the band bungled up his tempo directions almost always, and he made great havoc about that. It seems it was never fast enough for him...
Um, which movements were the tagebucher talking about? These comments would make sense if they referred to, say, the first movements of the Seventh and Eighth, or the Ninth's scherzo; but I doubt they referred to any of his genuine Adagios. (Incidentally, "slow" movements in the Nine are often only slow by contrast; note the Allegretto in the Seventh, and the Allegretto scherzando in the Eighth. Only the Third, Fourth and Ninth contain true Adagios. On the other hand, the piano concertos's slow movements are Largo, Adagio, Largo, Andante con moto (often played closer to Adagio), and Adagio un poco mosso...! 8))
Quote from: Bulldog on February 16, 2010, 02:20:50 PM
I don't consider tempo a big deal. It's what the performers do with their selected tempo that counts.
I can't quite agree with that in total. As a performer myself, I know just how important tempo is. However, the metronome marking is only one facet of a movement's "tempo," and sometimes the least important. When musicians play precisely and staccato, with bright tone and lots of accents, any movement will sound fast even if the actual speed is relatively slow; and when musicians play smoothly and draw out the tones, the movement will sound slow regardless of how fast it's actually played. Beethoven, before his deafness became too extreme, was by all reports a consummate performer who would have understood this...
Quote from: jochanaan on February 18, 2010, 07:35:24 AM
However, the metronome marking is only one facet of a movement's "tempo," and sometimes the least important.
I wonder about dismissing too easily the metronome markings in Beethoven's scores.
Quote from: Lethe on February 17, 2010, 04:00:16 AM
If only somebody had the evil vision to combine Klemperer's tempi with Norrington's ensemble, that would be a CD I would have to hear...
I'd like to hear Norrington's tempi with Klemperer's ensemble, myself. And the medication bills for the players, following that.
anything but Cobra.
Quote from: Franco on February 18, 2010, 07:44:07 AM
I wonder about dismissing too easily the metronome markings in Beethoven's scores.
Which I'm not doing. :) I'm just saying that sometimes other factors are more important than strict adherence to a metronome marking...
Quote from: Renfield on February 18, 2010, 02:27:09 PM
I'd like to hear Norrington's tempi with Klemperer's ensemble, myself. And the medication bills for the players, following that.
Why would anyone not being a legislative body want to hear a medication bill, let alone several, is beyond me. :P