Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827)

[Jaakko Keskinen]

I already like Brahms.........

Good. Then you're halfway there. 

[Mahlerian]

Good. Then you're halfway there. 

I love both Beethoven and Brahms, but still don't care for Saint-Saens.  His music is only mildly interesting to me.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

I love both Beethoven and Brahms, but still don't care for Saint-Saens.  His music is only mildly interesting to me.

From those three I think I like Brahms the least (although I still do like his music).

[Maestro267]

I'm not a big fan of the gradual creeping-in of HIPP elements into modern Beethoven performances, like the tendency to play everything at lightning speed, those timpani and natural trumpets etc. HIPP is an interesting "side-project", but it should be no more than that. The performance of music, and the instruments, should (and for the most part have) move(d) and evolve with the time. HIPP is turning Beethoven's music into an artefact of ancient times, rather than something still relevant today.

[Karl Henning]

I agree that HIPP is a valid approach, rather than that to which all must now hew.

But I actually think that one result of the HIPP movement is, in fact, a renewed relevance . . . I do not take it as a relegation to the Sonic Museum.

[Karl Henning]

And anyway, second-tier orchestras (and—let's be honest—many of the first tier, too) will continue their practice of scheduling an obligatory quota of Beethoven every year.  There is no danger of LvB being consigned to oblivion.

[North Star]

It's not as if HIPP is not a thoroughly contemporary phenomenon, with strong links to contemporary music. A symphony orchestra playing Beethoven as though it was Strauss is an artifact of ancient times. Not that there isn't a place for artifacts.

[Madiel]

The performance of music, and the instruments, should (and for the most part have) move(d) and evolve with the time.

And yet people still seem to think we ought to stick to the notes that Beethoven wrote, as if that was the most important bit of the music over and above the tempo and the instrumentation?

My own view is that pitch gets prioritised simply because that is the aspect of music for which a more precise form of notation has been found.

[amw]

I'm not a big fan of the gradual creeping-in of HIPP elements into modern Beethoven performances, like the tendency to play everything at lightning speed, those timpani and natural trumpets etc.

Those are the speeds Beethoven wanted and indicated in his scores (in fact they are often slower than the speeds Beethoven indicated), and the way he expected timpani to be played, etc. If you take issue with aspects of Beethoven's writing to such an extent, maybe his music is not for you.

[Parsifal]

I'm not a big fan of the gradual creeping-in of HIPP elements into modern Beethoven performances, like the tendency to play everything at lightning speed, those timpani and natural trumpets etc. HIPP is an interesting "side-project", but it should be no more than that. The performance of music, and the instruments, should (and for the most part have) move(d) and evolve with the time. HIPP is turning Beethoven's music into an artefact of ancient times, rather than something still relevant today.

In other words, you don't like HIP.

HIP is a modern phenomenon, involving both scholarship and experimentation, searching for a truer understanding of the intentions of composers from past eras. The fact that HIP elements have been "creeping in" to Beethoven performance reflects the fact that it is a force revitalizing Beethoven performance. Freezing in 19th century or 20th century performance practice of Beethoven is what threatens to transform the music into an "artifact," in my view.

[Parsifal]

Listened to Beethoven's String Quartet Op 130, for the first time after a while.

I remember that in the past I felt I had to approach it with a certain amount of awe, suitable to its status as a deep and profound work. This time, it strikes me as a sort of serenade, with a breezy structure and profundity running as an undercurrent deep below the surface.

I listened to two versions, the rarely mentioned Cleveland Quartet (Telarc) and the Quartetto Italiano (Philips). Both were splendid in their way. The only clear difference was in the movement which is one of my favorites in all of Beethoven, the "Alla danza tedesca."

The Quartetto Italiano more strictly follows the tempo marking "Allegro assai," but I think the result is a feeling that the music is rushed. The Cleveland plays with a much more expansive tempo and the syncopations and dynamics of the music unfolds more naturally. The Cleveland also takes the finale (the final finale, not the Grosse Fuge) more slowly, which I found less successful.

[Brian]

cross-post from new releases

-

ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT

THIS IS NOT A DRILL

IT'S HAPPENING 





EDIT
timings

CD1
Op. 127
6:59
12:58
8:57
6:30

Op. 131
6:09
3:09
0:41
13:05
5:34
1:40
6:51

CD2
Op. 130
14:32
2:03
7:38
3:05
6:09
Grosse Fuge 15:56

CD3
Op. 132
9:47
8:45
15:07
2:08
7:06

Op. 135
7:04
3:39
7:01
6:35

[SurprisedByBeauty]

Excellent! I heard some of that Beethoven, presumably, live... and was quite enthused. And I'd been hoping they'd continue their cycle... on another label if necessary. That it will work out on naive all the better.

[Parsifal]

cross-post from new releases

-

ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT

THIS IS NOT A DRILL

IT'S HAPPENING 


CD2
Op. 130
14:32
2:03
7:38
3:05
6:09
Grosse Fuge 15:56

Something is wrong. There is a movement missing. Did they refuse to record Beethoven's finale for Op 130? And the "Alla danza tedesca" is 3:05? My favorite versions are 3:30 and 3:45. That is crazy fast.

[Brian]

Something is wrong. There is a movement missing. Did they refuse to record Beethoven's finale for Op 130? And the "Alla danza tedesca" is 3:05? My favorite versions are 3:30 and 3:45. That is crazy fast.

They did not record the replacement finale. The cavatina is 6:09 and the Grosse Fuge "is" the finale. There is a rationale in the booklet about preserving Beethoven's original thoughts, but with this ensemble, I think the more music they record the better!

[Mandryka]

That is crazy fast.

There like a PI HIP Juilliard

[Brian]

There like a PI HIP Juilliard

Ha, the Juilliard Sony performance of that movement is 3:00.

[Parsifal]

They did not record the replacement finale. The cavatina is 6:09 and the Grosse Fuge "is" the finale. There is a rationale in the booklet about preserving Beethoven's original thoughts, but with this ensemble, I think the more music they record the better!

That is ridiculous. Beethoven was perfectly capable of telling a publisher "that's the way I wrote it, if you don't like it I'll take it somewhere else." He must have seen some merit to the Grosse Fuge standing on its own as an independent piece. Besides, the replacement finale is a wonderful piece, whether or not you prefer to hear it as the finale of Op 130. They should have preserved the tradition of putting both finales on the disc so the listener can program it either way.

This is a set I will pass up without reservation.

[Brian]

They should have preserved the tradition of putting both finales on the disc so the listener can program it either way.

I agree wholeheartedly with this, but will be listening to the set regardless.

[Parsifal]

I agree wholeheartedly with this, but will be listening to the set regardless.

I may be listening to it, but I won't be paying for it. (Besides, I'm in the Festetics camp.)