A strange Eroica

[Guest]

During a performance of this work, something strange happened.

In the final movement, at (I suppose) the very first variation (bar 44), the theme was here taken up, not by tutti strings, but by the five main solo strings. Now, the only time I’ve heard this before, was by David Zinman and his Tonhalle Orchestra Zurich, contained in the Sony 60-CD Beethoven set, whose other quirks in other Beethoven Symphonies, made me disregard them all as a conductor’s whim. I can give specific examples of these if required. I don't much care for his interpretations anyway, but that's just me, maybe.

But now, last night’s conductor, one Mr Andris Poga, hailing from Latvia, has again played this particular passage with soloists. Is there any textual references referring to this? Can other more knowledgeable people than me shed some light on whether Beethoven (yet again!) had a change of heart on whether this passage (and others I can name in his other symphonies) should be played with just solo rather than full strings?

I really would like to know.

Thanks for any information,

Mario

[Roehre]

During a performance of this work, something strange happened.

In the final movement, at (I suppose) the very first variation (bar 44), the theme was here taken up, not by tutti strings, but by the five main solo strings.
...
Can other more knowledgeable people than me shed some light on whether Beethoven (yet again!) had a change of heart on whether this passage (and others I can name in his other symphonies) should be played with just solo rather than full strings?

I really would like to know.

Thanks for any information,

Mario

Auferstehen,
all Beethoven symphonies (with exception obviously of the ninth) can quite easily be played as string quartet, implying that four part solo string are able to catch the whole score without losing its compositional impact (which is demonstrated by the numerous transcriptions of any of these pieces for other instrumental combinations than e.g. Liszt's piano arrangements for one [or two] pianos).
A discussion is going on whether this implies as well, that some passages in Beethoven's orchestral works which are set for strings only [an intermezzo for strings in opus 117 e.g. springs to mind, and as such can be interpreted as a "forebear" to the late quartets], could -or perhaps even: should- be played by solo strings.
There is no evidence pro or con this interpretation to be found in either scores corrected by Beethoven or Beethoven's own sketches.
Therefore it is a personal interpretation and decision by the conductor to do so.

[An analogy is found in Mahler's 1st symphony's 3rd mvt: is the Frère Jacques theme to be played by double bass solo, or by the whole double bass section? Haitink e.g. seems to decide depending on the concert hall's acoustics]

[Auferstehen2]

Thanks Roehre.

So basically, since there's no clear sanction by the composer, this is yet another example of how a conductor feels Beethoven can be improved upon?

[Piano Man]

Ok, I have to hold my hands up to this one.

I had been doing some research in Cambridge back in 1979/80, on some other matter, and had come across a report that, at some time Beethoven had gotten really upset that the players that he was obliged to work with in Bonn were not up to standard and a number of string players couldn't maintain a decent tone when playing pp. So he'd instructed only the front row to play certain passages.

Since I was at Cambridge, I took this snippet to Christopher Hogwood and suggested that that passage in the Eroica was a prime candidate to try this. He tried it and it seemed to work. Others have since taken this up, including Zinman. I certainly didn't mean this to become standard practice since orchestral players a usually so much better.

I'm not sure if this research was ever published. I know that I didn't, although Hoggers might have.

[Auferstehen2]

Piano Man,

Intrigued by this reply and thank you very much indeed for posting. If such a man so passionate about integrity as Mr Hogwood thinks it works, who am I to argue? I didn't much care for it last night, as I always prefer to hear what the composer wrote, rather than what a prima donna conductor thinks he should have written. But that may be just me. Or perhaps I really should stop considering my miniature Eulenburg score to be sacrosanct?

Piano Man, I'd like YOUR view please - for that particular passage, which do you prefer, "tutti" strings or ''soli''?

Best wishes,

Mario

[Piano Man]

Auferstehen,

My own view is that these are, in the main, insignificant details that will have little or no bearing on whether I enjoy the performance or not. In certain cases, the passage taken "ripeno" makes sense and sometimes it wouldn't. I cannot imagine the Philharmonia in 1955 under Klemperer making sense of it. However, with Zinman, it seems to be in keeping with his overall style.

I cannot remember whether CH used it in his recording, and I missed the broadcast of the 6th with Fischer a few weeks ago. I might invest in that.

[Auferstehen2]

Hm...

Time for me to go and do some soul-searching I think. I used the wrong terms didn't I? I think it should have been ripieno and concertino.

Thanks Piano Man

Mario

[Roehre]

He tried it and it seemed to work. Others have since taken this up, including Zinman. I certainly didn't mean this to become standard practice since orchestral players a usually so much better.

I'm not sure if this research was ever published. I know that I didn't, although Hoggers might have.

It must have been published. Unfortunately I haven't a clue where, as it is quite a long time ago as I read this somewhere.

[gradus]

Dear Mario
I think you will find more wonders and strangenesses in Eroica performances here, one including a harpsichord, as well as a comprehensive list of recordings and various excerpts from sprinters and distance men, current and long gone.

http://www.grunin.com/eroica/

Regards
G

[Auferstehen2]

Gradus,

Thanks for that!

Isn't it simply extraordinary how differently, different people see a work? And at the risk of upsetting people, may I say something?

I'm honestly not trying to generate some posts here for the hell of it, but what in heaven's name do people find in Klemperer's interpretations of Beethoven's works? I do not own a single copy of a single symphony by him, although I concede that his transition from the third to the fourth movements of the Fifth, and the rock solid tempo of the first movement of the Seventh can stand the test of time.

Beyond these, I have always found his readings to be ponderous, heavy, overweight, and his lower strings and brass, especially in Brahms, producing what used to be called a fat sound. There is NEVER a humorous moment in Klemperer - his last movement of the Eighth is as serious as death itself. One can forgive Celibidache for his Brucknerian grandeur, but Klemperer I find is of the old school, where all is serious, and nothing is light. And like Schmidt-Isserstedt, he got slower and slower as he got older.

I'm sorry if these comments upset some of Klemperer's fans, but I'm only trying to be as honest as I can. Maybe I need to chill out, as I'm writing this during half time, when my team is losing to Wolves!

Mario

[Piano Man]

... what in heaven's name do people find in Klemperer's interpretations of Beethoven's works?

Normally, I'd agree with you. The stereo recording of the Eroica, whilst extraordinary structurally, is very slow and ponderous. The 1955 mono recording is in a different class entirely. I implore you to have a listen.