PDA

View Full Version : Who has the fastest 7th?


euphony131
01-18-2001, 03:25 AM
B's 7th symphony, 4th movement: Allego con brio -- that estatic, Bacchanalian eruption! Always been curious to hear the FASTEST recorded version of that movement. Does anyone know whose interpretation is the most frenzied?

The more conservative conductors seem to shy away from the the no-holds-bar "adrenaline" in that movement, prefering to play it safe and even-keeled. But me like danger! Whose is the most "dangerous"?

Mako
01-18-2001, 08:16 AM
I only have the Berlin Philharmonic and von Karajan performing the 7th. Wouldn't say it was too frenetic.

Kevin
01-18-2001, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by euphony131:
B's 7th symphony, 4th movement: Allego con brio -- that estatic, Bacchanalian eruption! Always been curious to hear the FASTEST recorded version of that movement. Does anyone know whose interpretation is the most frenzied?

The more conservative conductors seem to shy away from the the no-holds-bar "adrenaline" in that movement, prefering to play it safe and even-keeled. But me like danger! Whose is the most "dangerous"?

Try Pierre Monteux with the LSO for one of the fastest 4th movements. However, Kleiber with the VPO is probably the best.

euphony131
01-18-2001, 08:47 PM
Hi Kevin and Mako,

Yeah, I dig Kleiber's too, and I also have Von Karajan -- his 1963 cycle. And though overall I lean towards David Zinman's, I'm not sure who I'd pick for that particular movement. Zinman actually plays that part slower than Von Karajan. Contrary to popular belief, not EVERYTHING by Zinman is faster than his predecessors.

So Pierre Monteux, eh? Hmmmm.... I'll have to check it out.

What I'd just die to hear is that movement played at whirlwind speed -- just ALL-OUT, FULL-BORE MANIA! http://www.gyrix.com/~cgraye/ubb/smile.gif A piece like that just begs to be UNLEASHED. Grrrrr...

Mako
01-19-2001, 08:22 AM
Euphony,

Just bought a set by The Academy of Ancient Music conducted by Christopher Hogwood. Ancient Music! Perish the thought! Anyway, the set is pretty standard and the 7th is about the same speed if not slower than Karajan. Good luck in the search!

Kevin
01-19-2001, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by euphony131:
Hi Kevin and Mako,

Yeah, I dig Kleiber's too, and I also have Von Karajan -- his 1963 cycle. And though overall I lean towards David Zinman's, I'm not sure who I'd pick for that particular movement. Zinman actually plays that part slower than Von Karajan. Contrary to popular belief, not EVERYTHING by Zinman is faster than his predecessors.

So Pierre Monteux, eh? Hmmmm.... I'll have to check it out.

What I'd just die to hear is that movement played at whirlwind speed -- just ALL-OUT, FULL-BORE MANIA! http://www.gyrix.com/~cgraye/ubb/smile.gif A piece like that just begs to be UNLEASHED. Grrrrr...

Hello Euphony,

If speed in the 4th movement is what you want then definitly listen to Monteux with the LSO. You get three other symphonies in the set including a great 5th. How can you lose?

Rod
01-19-2001, 01:34 PM
All this chat is interesting but rather perhaps pointless unless you also give the timings by the clock, this is the only way we can really compare without actually hearing the piece in question. Also you must obviously say if the repeat is observed.

Rod


------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

euphony131
01-19-2001, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by Rod:
All this chat is interesting but rather perhaps pointless unless you also give the timings by the clock, this is the only way we can really compare without actually hearing the piece in question. Also you must obviously say if the repeat is observed.

Rod





Point taken, Rod. That brings to mind, another question -- Why are "repeats" so often considered to be optional? Did not B. and other composers give details on whether to repeat or not? And how exactly would you define a "repeat"? Just the replaying of a particular passage and nothing more?

Peter
01-20-2001, 05:04 AM
Originally posted by euphony131:

Point taken, Rod. That brings to mind, another question -- Why are "repeats" so often considered to be optional? Did not B. and other composers give details on whether to repeat or not? And how exactly would you define a "repeat"? Just the replaying of a particular passage and nothing more?

The repeat serves a very important function in creating the right structure - as Beethoven is considered the greatest master of this, I'm astonished that most conductors take the liberties they do - B is very specific about repeats - we know when he doesn't want the exposition repeated (Razumovsky no.1 1st movement for example), so why ignore the repeats in the Eroica or the 5th Symphony as is usual?

------------------
'Man know thyself'

Rod
01-20-2001, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by euphony131:

Point taken, Rod. That brings to mind, another question -- Why are "repeats" so often considered to be optional? Did not B. and other composers give details on whether to repeat or not? And how exactly would you define a "repeat"? Just the replaying of a particular passage and nothing more?

This is an example of the contempt performers have for their audience, and (I presume latently) the music. I suppose they think we're too thick to notice. Even 'authentic' performers ommit repeats on occasion! With recordings it may have been forgiveable in the days of vinyl, where space is limited, but there's no excuse with cd format. If the performer thinks the movement is too long and tedious if the repeat is observed then they are playing it incorrectly - the classic example being the scherzo of the 'Archduke', which is played so ponderously slow that the trio repeat is never observed lest the audience fall asleep in the process!

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 01-20-2001).]

chrisg
01-20-2001, 03:20 PM
What I'd just die to hear is that movement played at whirlwind speed -- just ALL-OUT, FULL-BORE MANIA! A piece like that just begs to be UNLEASHED. Grrrrr...

I'm still looking too. Some come close though.

With repeat:

Bruggen, 7:58. If you don't mind HIP, this just might be the one for you. As flat out as they come in the finale, but a tad slow in the 1st movement (14:42).

Harnoncourt, 8:14: The best of his set, great from start to finish. Lean and mean.

Zinman, 8:30: Well, it's pretty fast anyway. Lean with no mean, no punch, just plain dull.

Mackerras, 8:34: Another great performance, with a powerhouse finale. His first movement is also very fast (12:46 w/repeat), but the rhythm doesn't hold together as well as C. Kleiber or Harnoncourt.

Carlos Kleiber, 8:36: A classic. As good as the finale is, I find myself wishing for just a little more bang.

Without Repeat (how could they do that!)

Karajan '62, 6:30.

Furtwangler '43, 6:26: Starts out fairly slowly, but in typical WF fashion, speeds are all over the place. By the end, the BPO is scrambling to keep up. Allowances have to be made for the 1943 live recording quality, but this is a hoot.

Colin Davis / RPO '61, 6:52: Picks up steam as it goes and really packs a punch. Besides omitting the repeats, the only thing I don't like about this recording is the plodding tempo for the trio of the scherzo.

If only they'd let me conduct.

Chris

Kevin
01-21-2001, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by chrisg:
What I'd just die to hear is that movement played at whirlwind speed -- just ALL-OUT, FULL-BORE MANIA! A piece like that just begs to be UNLEASHED. Grrrrr...

I'm still looking too. Some come close though.

With repeat:

Bruggen, 7:58. If you don't mind HIP, this just might be the one for you. As flat out as they come in the finale, but a tad slow in the 1st movement (14:42).

Harnoncourt, 8:14: The best of his set, great from start to finish. Lean and mean.

Zinman, 8:30: Well, it's pretty fast anyway. Lean with no mean, no punch, just plain dull.

Mackerras, 8:34: Another great performance, with a powerhouse finale. His first movement is also very fast (12:46 w/repeat), but the rhythm doesn't hold together as well as C. Kleiber or Harnoncourt.

Carlos Kleiber, 8:36: A classic. As good as the finale is, I find myself wishing for just a little more bang.

Without Repeat (how could they do that!)

Karajan '62, 6:30.

Furtwangler '43, 6:26: Starts out fairly slowly, but in typical WF fashion, speeds are all over the place. By the end, the BPO is scrambling to keep up. Allowances have to be made for the 1943 live recording quality, but this is a hoot.

Colin Davis / RPO '61, 6:52: Picks up steam as it goes and really packs a punch. Besides omitting the repeats, the only thing I don't like about this recording is the plodding tempo for the trio of the scherzo.

If only they'd let me conduct.

Chris




Monteux in '61 with the LSO completes the 4th movement at 6:30. It is a seismic, blistering performance.

chrisg
01-21-2001, 10:15 PM
Monteux in '61 with the LSO completes the 4th movement at 6:30. It is a seismic, blistering performance.

OK Kevin, but how are the horns? Too many conductors bury them as something to fill out the texture. I want them to knock me out of my chair.

cg

[This message has been edited by chrisg (edited 01-21-2001).]

Rod
01-22-2001, 06:04 AM
Originally posted by chrisg:
Monteux in '61 with the LSO completes the 4th movement at 6:30. It is a seismic, blistering performance.

OK Kevin, but how are the horns? Too many conductors bury them as something to fill out the texture. I want them to knock me out of my chair.

cg



This is a big problem with Beethoven performances in general, the addage that the horn should be seen and not heard simply does not apply to Beethoven. If I was directing, I'd have the (natural, of course) horn players play with 'bells' turned forward to get a more prominent sound. I've seen old painting of horn players holding their instrument (no childish giggling here please!) in a much different manner to what it done today.

Rod


------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 01-22-2001).]

Kevin
01-22-2001, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by chrisg:
Monteux in '61 with the LSO completes the 4th movement at 6:30. It is a seismic, blistering performance.

OK Kevin, but how are the horns? Too many conductors bury them as something to fill out the texture. I want them to knock me out of my chair.

cg

Your right, of course. The horns are good, but not great. Kleiber with the VPO has better sound from the brass. With Monteux I simply an pointing out the speed which goes back to Euphony's original question. Your survey is quite good on speeds and Papa Monteux's is an excellent performance that provides velocity in the 4th movement comparable to Von Karajan's speed.
Is the recording by Sir Colin Davis still available?

More than any other Beethoven symphony, I find the 7th varies greatly in recorded performance quality within the 4 movements.

This message has been edited by chrisg (edited 01-21-2001).]

chrisg
01-22-2001, 07:28 PM
If I was directing, I'd have the (natural, of course) horn players play with 'bells' turned forward to get a more prominent sound

Why Rod, I'm shocked, shocked! Good for you, but I'd do you two better by doubling the horns and having them stand up Mahler style.

cg

chrisg
01-22-2001, 08:32 PM
The horns are good, but not great. Kleiber with the VPO has better sound from the brass. With Monteux I simply an pointing out the speed which goes back to Euphony's original question. Your survey is quite good on speeds and Papa Monteux's is an excellent performance that provides velocity in the 4th movement comparable to Von Karajan's speed.

Too bad about the horns. Thanks to this thread, I'm about OD'd on the finale of the 7th, but that will pass. I'd still place Mackerras and Harnoncourt 1st, with Bruggen, and Davis right behind. For pure speed, it's Bruggen. Removing the first repeat, I figure he times in at 6:15, which sounds just a little too hectic for me. Still, it's great fun as an alternative. The horns register, but it's the trumpets that tend to dominate.


Is the recording by Sir Colin Davis still available?

Not in the U.S. apparently. Mymusic.com, an excellent Canadian source, does list it. It's on an EMI "double fforte", oddly coupled with a reasonably good Schubert 9th (Szell / Cleveland), and some nothing special Rossini Overtures conducted by Davis.

More than any other Beethoven symphony, I find the 7th varies greatly in recorded performance quality within the 4 movements.

Agreed. I still haven't found one I'm completely satisfied with.

This finale is one of the few movements in the Symphonies where I prefer a much faster tempo than indicated. All my favorites time at around 8:30 or less, while the metronome chasers (i.e. Gardiner, Norrington, Zander) take about 9:00.

cg

euphony131
01-22-2001, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by chrisg:
If I was directing, I'd have the (natural, of course) horn players play with 'bells' turned forward to get a more prominent sound

Good for you, but I'd do you two better by doubling the horns and having them stand up Mahler style.

cg

Ah-Ha! By jove! That's it! "Mahler-style" with "bells" turned forward and double the number of horn-players! Now there's a performance guaranteed to rock the house! Oh, let's do away with convention and formality altogether and usher back the days of unbridled Romanticism! God, what I wouldn't give to see all the stodgy, stuffy, pedantic Rules done away with!

BTW, I thought Zinman's use of brass for the 7th was pretty darn close to jaw-dropping. Maybe not as frenetic and fast as I'd like for the 4th movement, but the best -- overall -- that I've heard. Check out the enchanced sound of double-basses & cellos (or is it just the double-basses? Correct me if I'm wrong) in the Marcia Funebre of the 2nd movement! Wow!

Rod, when you said "bells turned forward" I assumed you meant having the "umbrella-like" opening of a brass instrument pointed forward at the audience, but don't most orchestras already do that? If not, then shame on them! Of course, I suppose not all brass pieces are capable of being "turned forward" -- how would one do that with a tuba for instance?

Anyway, here's an estimate of my "Dream 4th movement" from the 7th symphony: WITH REPEATS and played with double the number of brass players in "Mahler-style" and completed in a red-hot, blistering 7 minutes flat. 7 minutes for the 7th -- even sounds catchy. With that, even the most electronically-equipped metal rock band would be blown away by its adrenaline-pumping fervor. Just what Beethoven would've wanted! http://www.gyrix.com/~cgraye/ubb/smile.gif

Who knows? Maybe even 6:30 time would be possible without distorting the coherency. Or how about 5:50 with repeats? 5:50! Whoaaaaaa! And dare we tread into the land of 4:45 time? Or would one need metha-amphetimines to keep up? Personally, I say -- LET'S JUST GO ALLLLLL OUT!

In an age where Classical Records do not sell, I can't understand why conductors aren't trying for more dynamic interpretations. After all, they've got nothing to lose (nobody's buying their records anyway) and everything to gain (an MTV video and mass markets might open up for them! They might get "groupies," start a Renaissance for Classical Music, they can start wearing sharp Armani suits instead of penguin outfits, give encores, have lights and lasers and fanfare and paparrazzi and...ah-oh...there I go again...getting ahead of myself). Sigh.

[This message has been edited by euphony131 (edited 01-22-2001).]

[This message has been edited by euphony131 (edited 01-22-2001).]

Rod
01-23-2001, 06:17 AM
Originally posted by euphony131:
Ah-Ha! By jove! That's it! "Mahler-style" with "bells" turned forward and double the number of horn-players! Now there's a performance guaranteed to rock the house! Oh, let's do away with convention and formality altogether and usher back the days of unbridled Romanticism! God, what I wouldn't give to see all the stodgy, stuffy, pedantic Rules done away with!

Rod, when you said "bells turned forward" I assumed you meant having the "umbrella-like" opening of a brass instrument pointed forward at the audience, but don't most orchestras already do that? If not, then shame on them! Of course, I suppose not all brass pieces are capable of being "turned forward" -- how would one do that with a tuba for instance?


This is nothing to do with romantisism, It's just I don't see the logic of having an instrument that projects sound AWAY from its intended audience! You can do what you like with the tuba, I would never be in my orchestra in the first place. I was unaware that Mahler did the same thing, but I have heard of it being done by baroque performers. If it means the player can't shove his hand down it, all the better. It does not mean you physically redesign the horn, you just hold it in a different manner - this is more feasible with the 'natural' horn design I specified. As I also said I have a pre-Romantic picture of a chap playing the natural horn with the 'bell' (I believe this is the correct term, someone correct me if I'm wrong) pointing forward and upward above with his head!!

Rod

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

Rod
01-23-2001, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by chrisg:
If I was directing, I'd have the (natural, of course) horn players play with 'bells' turned forward to get a more prominent sound

Why Rod, I'm shocked, shocked! Good for you, but I'd do you two better by doubling the horns and having them stand up Mahler style.

cg

What's there to be shocked about? I'm not into doubling where it's not required, for one loses clarity and bite that one hears from the natural horn especially. Personally I prefer smaller orchestras - no more than 60 in total, accoustics allowing - for Beethoven at least.

Rod


------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

Peter
01-23-2001, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by euphony131:

Anyway, here's an estimate of my "Dream 4th movement" from the 7th symphony: WITH REPEATS and played with double the number of brass players in "Mahler-style" and completed in a red-hot, blistering 7 minutes flat. 7 minutes for the 7th -- even sounds catchy. With that, even the most electronically-equipped metal rock band would be blown away by its adrenaline-pumping fervor. Just what Beethoven would've wanted! http://www.gyrix.com/~cgraye/ubb/smile.gif



Why double the number of Brass players ? Surely if the authentic movement has taught us anything, it is to get a way from the vast overblown romanticised interpretations of the late 19th century - Mahler was a prime culprit in this. I don't understand your desire for the extreme, both in volume and in speed - it sounds as though you want a cacophany instead of Beethoven.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

chrisg
01-23-2001, 07:52 PM
...(much ranting snipped)...Personally, I say -- LET'S JUST GO ALLLLLL OUT!

e131,

Knock it off ok? If you continue to insist on trying to have a little fun around here, you will be sentenced to "Junior Member" status forever.

ps. (if you find one that really rips, let me know)

cg

euphony131
01-23-2001, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by chrisg:
[b]
Knock it off ok? If you continue to insist on trying to have a little fun around here, you will be sentenced to "Junior Member" status forever.

ps. (if you find one that really rips, let me know)

cg




LOL! http://www.gyrix.com/~cgraye/ubb/smile.gif I'll let you know Chris!

BTW -- Peter, I don't view Mahler as a "prime culprit" of "vast overblown romanticised interpretations" nor is such a label necessarily a bad thing in my opinion.

Many critics in fact said the same of B's Nineth when it first premiered; I believe words like "overblown," "ridiculous" and "incomprehendsible" were readily thrown about.

Thus I think it better to be labelled "overblown" and "romantic" than stodgy and prosaic -- gasp! Oh god! Not the "P" word!

In fact, I see a kind of spiritual geneology from Beethoven to Berlioz and finally to Mahler. "Rules? What rules! We go our own way, lay down our own path. Follow if you dare!" If that's being overly romantic than give me Romaticism PLUS three extra helpings on the side!

I'll take a Berlioz-inspired, Mahlerian-sized orchestra of 450 playing their guts out to B's 7th symphony, 4th movement at rip-roaring speed and exhiliration over any minuscle chamber orchestra with their frocks and wigs and playing at Grandma speed anyday! Lest we forget, I do believe it was Beethoven who began the trend towards larger orchestras and more dynamic sound.

Beethoven is not Bach. Beethoven is not Mozart. Beethoven is not some dainty Mr. Dandy with his ever-so-fine hankie (Cool rhyme, eh?). Beethoven is Beethoven. He is Prometheus. He is Fire. Unleash him.

[This message has been edited by euphony131 (edited 01-23-2001).]

Peter
01-24-2001, 05:28 AM
Originally posted by euphony131:


Beethoven is not Bach. Beethoven is not Mozart. Beethoven is not some dainty Mr. Dandy with his ever-so-fine hankie (Cool rhyme, eh?). Beethoven is Beethoven. He is Prometheus. He is Fire. Unleash him.



Nor is he Mahler ! No Beethoven Symphony requires the forces employed for the Symphony of 1000 ! No doubt you think Handel's Messiah should be performed in much the same way (a la Mahler) - so therefore we have to conclude that the bottom line for you is Size!



------------------
'Man know thyself'

euphony131
01-24-2001, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by Peter:
--- we have to conclude that the bottom line for you is Size!




Not just "Size" but Speed, Passion, and Fervor. An ALL-OUT, FLAT-OUT BACCHANAL ought to be mandatory for the Allegro con brio of the 7th. Wagner didn't call that symphony, "The Apotheosis of Dance" for nothing. How many of us have not moved our feet to the whirling beats in that symphony? Hardly a one I'm sure.

I'm just saying we shouldn't stymie ourselves with archiac convention. Let's break the shell! And while we're at it, let's bring in choreographed female dancers, sound-activated lasers, confetti strewn from the ceiling, riotus fanfare, joyous ecstasy...oops...there I go again. Double-sigh.

I think what we have here are two camps of thought -- Old School vs. New School. Perhaps examplified in the 19th century by the Hadyn School vs. the Beethoven School.

Don't get me wrong. I like Haydn, Mozart and I absolutely adore Bach. But Beethoven is nothing like them. His music just begs to played to the HILT with as much UNrestrained emotion as possible.

Don't just saunder out there half-dead in a stiff penguin suit and play the 4th movement at a tempo that a snail would scoff at. And you can't blame young people for not listening to Classical Music when that's your idea of "excitement."

Now truthfully, who wouldn't buy a recording that featured a 150-450 member sized orchestra ripping out the Allegro Con Brio at blistering speed and with a ferocity that bordered on sheer mania? Passion, my friend, it's all about Passion.

chrisg
01-24-2001, 09:04 PM
e131,

For using the "P" word three times in one post, you are hereby found guilty of being a hopeless "Romantic."

For the balance of 2001, or sooner if you can prove you have come to your senses, you WILL confine your listening as follows:

Keyboard music: Fortepiano performances of B's music; harpsichord only for Bach, and the rest of that crowd.

Orchestral music: Original instruments only, as conducted by, Hogwood, Norrington, or Gardiner. No fair sneaking in Savall, I have his Eroica, and he does the "P" thing. Any Furtwangler, and it's another year. Beecham's "Messiah", and it's lights out for you.

All music written after 1827 is off limits.

Enjoy,

cg

Luis
01-24-2001, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by euphony131:
Now truthfully, who wouldn't buy a recording that featured a 150-450 member sized orchestra ripping out the Allegro Con Brio at blistering speed and with a ferocity that bordered on sheer mania? .

A copy for me please! (Size rules!) http://www.gyrix.com/~cgraye/ubb/smile.gif

euphony131
01-24-2001, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by chrisg:

-- you WILL confine your listening as follows:

Keyboard music: Fortepiano performances of B's music; harpsichord only for Bach, and the rest of that crowd.

Orchestral music: Original instruments only, as conducted by, Hogwood, Norrington, or Gardiner. No fair sneaking in Savall, I have his Eroica, and he does the "P" thing. Any Furtwangler, and it's another year. Beecham's "Messiah", and it's lights out for you.

All music written after 1827 is off limits.





Why Chris, I do believe you just described Rod and Peter's idea of Heaven -- sans the Gardiner of course for Rod. http://www.gyrix.com/~cgraye/ubb/smile.gif LOL!

You sooooooo fun--nie.


[This message has been edited by euphony131 (edited 01-24-2001).]

~Leslie
01-25-2001, 02:49 AM
OK, I didn't really scrutinize this thread but I think I got the general gist of it, and it's hilarious.

I clocked my humble recording of the 4th mvt of the 7th w/ Janos Ferencsik conducting at 137 BPMs. Ending at 7.06. Repeats? elephino.

Do I like bold horns? Yes, part of the Beethoven allure.

Do I like volume, with big orchestras? With this composer, yes, yes, yes. ~

Peter
01-25-2001, 06:02 AM
Originally posted by euphony131:

Why Chris, I do believe you just described Rod and Peter's idea of Heaven -- sans the Gardiner of course for Rod. http://www.gyrix.com/~cgraye/ubb/smile.gif LOL!

You sooooooo fun--nie.




It just goes to show how the medium of the internet has a long way to go, because neither Chrisg nor yourself seem to understand my position - so I'll spell it out :

1) I ACTUALLY PREFER MODERN TO AUTHENTIC INSTRUMENTS.

2) I THINK HISTORICAL PERFORMANCES ADD A VALUABLE NEW DIMENSION AND THROUGH ROD'S ENTHUSIASM I HAVE COME FROM A POSITION OF DISMISSAL TO ONE OF APPRECIATION.

3) Chrisg - I play Scarlatti on the piano myself.

4)I AGREE THAT MANY PERFORMANCES OF B ARE FAR TOO LAME - AND INDEED THE FINALE OF NO.7 IS OFTEN TOO SLOW - The introduction to no.7 is often TOO fast, as is the introduction to The Consecration of the House on my Kurt Massur recording !

5)I BELIEVE THAT THE COMPOSER'S DIRECTIONS SHOULD BE FULLY OBSERVED - SO IF HE ASKS FOR ALLEGRO CON BRIO - HE SHOULD GET HIS CON BRIO. IF HE ASKS FOR 2 HORNS, HE SHOULD HAVE 2, NOT 20.

6)I DO NOT THINK THAT AN ORCHESTRA OF MAHLERESQUE PROPORTIONS IS RIGHT FOR BEETHOVEN - NOR IS A CHAMBER ORCHESTRA OF BACH.

7)AS LONG AS A PERFORMER RESPECTS BEETHOVEN - I CAN RESPECT THE PERFORMER.

You can call this dogmatic if you like Chrisg, I think it is open minded and common sense.



------------------
'Man know thyself'

chrisg
01-25-2001, 05:53 PM
Peter,

Sorry if I've misunderstood your postition, perhaps I took you too literally here.

Why double the number of Brass players ? Surely if the authentic movement has taught
us anything, it is to get a way from the vast overblown romanticised interpretations of
the late 19th century - Mahler was a prime culprit in this.

The doubling the horns suggestion is just having a little fun. I do think though, that it might be great fun to hear. The authentic movement has taught me to enjoy music in a new and different way, but has definitely not taught me to "get away" from anything. It has also taught me that "authentic" (a topic for much debate) conductors, can be just as dull as their more traditional counterparts.

For the Eroica, I would never want to be without the ultra-Romantic Furtwangler, the drama of Klemperer, the maniacal drive of Scherchen, the HIP Mackerras, the even HIP'er Jordi Savall, or the best of all worlds Rene Leibowitz. I can listen to any of these (and other) diverse approaches with equal pleasure, and for me, that's all gain. I have a hard time understanding why anyone who loves this music would limit themselves to one approach.

In your last post you put it very differently:

I THINK HISTORICAL PERFORMANCES ADD A VALUABLE NEW DIMENSION AND THROUGH ROD'S ENTHUSIASM I HAVE COME FROM A POSITION OF DISMISSAL TO ONE OF APPRECIATION.

I agree 100%.

AS LONG AS A PERFORMER RESPECTS BEETHOVEN - I CAN RESPECT THE PERFORMER.

Here's a gray area. I'm curious as to some examples of performers you (or anyone else) think have dis-respected Beethoven through their interpretations.

cg



[This message has been edited by chrisg (edited 01-25-2001).][/B][/QUOTE]



[This message has been edited by chrisg (edited 01-25-2001).]

euphony131
01-25-2001, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by ~Leslie:

I clocked my humble recording of the 4th mvt of the 7th w/ Janos Ferencsik conducting at 137 BPMs. Ending at 7.06. Repeats? elephino.


Leslie,

What do you mean by "elephino?" Affirmative on the repeats? Than by God that is the version I need to get!

~Leslie
01-26-2001, 02:38 AM
Uh, it is a cross between an elephant and a rhino. eleph - ino ~#:^0

And it meant I didn't know if they played the repeats or not. As a Beethovenian in moderately good standing in this British gentlemen's site that must mean I deserve to be horsewhipped on the stairs of the club.

Were it not for everyone soundly asleep in this household, I'd give it a spin, but it will have to wait til tommorrow.

I DO like some confrontation, it lends interest to a forum, but I'd hate to see everyone getting their subjective hackles up about what Beethoven would have wanted, etc, etc.

But that cul de sac always leads me to the ever pervasive question of what would Beethoven want if he had access to modern recording technology and instrumentation. ~Ciao~

Peter
01-26-2001, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by chrisg:
I'm curious as to some examples of performers you (or anyone else) think have dis-respected Beethoven through their interpretations.

cg



Well the Poco Sostenuto of the 7th Symphony is an example - Karajan takes this at a ridiculously fast pace, completely destroying the architecture of this introduction. Kurt Massur does the same with the Introduction to The Consecration of the House, which should be very stately - Rarely is the 1st movement of Symphony no.5 played Allegro CON BRIO - what right has a conductor to ruin this exciting and vigorous music by playing it half speed ? - the opening bars are always TOO slow. There really are plenty of examples where artists have taken tremendous liberties with B's intentions, and to no point - I cannot say that I have ever heard an example of someone improving on Beethoven - when played AS HE ASKS, the result is ALWAYS far superior.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

Rod
01-29-2001, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by Peter:
Well the Poco Sostenuto of the 7th Symphony is an example - Karajan takes this at a ridiculously fast pace, completely destroying the architecture of this introduction. Kurt Massur does the same with the Introduction to The Consecration of the House, which should be very stately - Rarely is the 1st movement of Symphony no.5 played Allegro CON BRIO - what right has a conductor to ruin this exciting and vigorous music by playing it half speed ? - the opening bars are always TOO slow. There really are plenty of examples where artists have taken tremendous liberties with B's intentions, and to no point - I cannot say that I have ever heard an example of someone improving on Beethoven - when played AS HE ASKS, the result is ALWAYS far superior.


I agree absolutely, if fact rarely is ANY Beethoven allegro con brio actually played in this manner. This lameness in interpretation is correspondingly felt across the whole tempo range - allegro becomes allegro moderato, allegro moderato/ma non troppo becomes quasi andante, adagio becomes largo! So that the music becomes so ponderous that the repeats have to be ommited! How and why this has come to be I just don't know, I have mentioned elsewhere an interview with the Lindsay Quartet I read recently whereby they are actually going to take notice of the mentronome marks for their new Beethoven recordings. Why now and not 20 years ago?

Rod

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin