Beethoven Symphony No. 5/Musica Aeterna/Currentzis. Sony 24/96 via Qobuz Studio.

[Bryn]

Well I'm pretty perplexed too. If this link works, do the markings at 77 indicate the repeat? Page 185.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mfpzvwm89w5gq73/Screenshot_20200424-121156.png?dl=0

Then this score fragment is shown of page 145

https://www.dropbox.com/s/uzm1hmnbvumna5d/Screenshot_20200424-123057.png?dl=0

The repeat goes back to p 145 at the X mark. It isn't clear who added these markings.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/tpdhf8vjk7...24811.JPG?dl=0

Bars 160 to 180 of the 3rd movement are marked to be repeated (with first and second iterations of bar 180 differing) anyway, and quite separately from the full scherzo and trio repeat in question.

[Barbirollians]

I have now listened to it all on You Tube - and I really admire the execution but I could not stick the interpretation - rushed, episodic indeed , and full of exaggerated brass interjections and loud dynamics much of the Scherzo sounds like the buzzing of wasps . I found it unsubtle and mannered in the extreme whilst having some exciting moments - the end of the Finale comes off better to my ears than the rest of the work.

An immense relief to turn to listen to the first movements from my favourite HIPP version from Krivine and now to VPO/Carlos Kleiber who is just as exciting but musically on a completely different plane.

[Flay]

Clarity?

Bars 160 to 180 of the 3rd movement are marked to be repeated (with first and second iterations of bar 180 differing) anyway, and quite separately from the full scherzo and trio repeat in question.

Indeed. But we're talking about a repeat from bar 236 to the beginning of the movement aren't we?

I'm not sure who has annotated the score in red, but this shows a repeat mark in bar 4

https://www.dropbox.com/s/tpdhf8vjk783ru7/_20200424_124811.JPG?dl=0

and the "1" and "2" in red on page 185 of the score after bar 237/8 possibly show the two additional cello bars in the margin [which LvB asked the publisher to remove as my #10 above] where the red X and the number 1 in red are marked.

if you see what I mean...

[Flay]

Shall we agree to agree on this one, Bryn?

[Bryn]

Shall we agree to agree on this one, Bryn?

Indeed. I raised the bars 140 to 160 repeat in case anybody finding this thread might be thinking that was what the discussion was about. One criticism I have of the introductory texts for the study score of the Jonathan Del Mar edition of the 5th is that neither Del Mar nor Barry Cooper even mentions the issue of the Scherzo and trio repeat. It is only in the quite separate critical commentary that Jonathan Del Mar deals with it, and I only know of that from third party sources.

Kenneth Woods' Urtext myths 4: Whose score is it anyway? has something to say on the matter. The Breitkopf Urtext edition co-edited by Clive Brown and Peter Hauschild offers both options where Del Mar is unequivocally against the repeat.

[Bryn]

See also: https://shareok.org/handle/11244/43874

[Flay]

See also: https://shareok.org/handle/11244/43874

Thanks. Well found. This might take some time... 176 pages

[Bryn]

Thanks. Well found. This might take some time... 176 pages

I must admit that, so far, I have only skimmed thorugh, searching for "repeat".

[Flay]

Kenneth Woods' Urtext myths 4: Whose score is it anyway? has something to say on the matter. The Breitkopf Urtext edition co-edited by Clive Brown and Peter Hauschild offers both options where Del Mar is unequivocally against the repeat.

Kenneth Woods writes very well - a blog worth following in future:

Beethoven could be indecisive about relatively important structural issues. He went back and forth on the question of repeating the Da Capo and Trio of the Scherzo of his Fifth Symphony. Of course, for years, we all knew it to go from the Trio to the spooky restatement of the Scherzo. In the last 15 years, however, we’ve learned that at one point, he did write an “ending” to take one back to the beginning of the Scherzo for a repeat of Scherzo and Trio before going to the pizzicato section. This is the same form as the Scherzo’s of the Fourth and Seventh Symphonies, so it’s certainly possible. Brown’s edition facilitates both versions, with or without Da Capo, while Del Mar is unequivocal- there can be no repeat of the Da Capo. I tried the repeat in my last performance of the piece- this led to complete disaster when the principal bassoon forgot the plan and went on to the coda. Even the critic noticed something had gone wrong. Was this Fate punishing me for disregarding Beethoven’s final wishes?

[rauschwerk]

Just had a listen on YouTube. Glad I didn't pay out money for it. It's ok, often better than that, but that's about it. Nothing persuades me that Currentzis is any kind of genius.

For one thing, slavish adherence to the metronome marks is a mixed blessing. Does not the coda of the finale sound a bit of a scramble at semibreve=112? It's not particularly triumphant, to my mind.

For another thing, Currentzis is not always faithful to the composer's dynamic markings.The last 12 bars of the first movement are marked fortissimo, but in the middle of them Currentzis makes a subito piano - crescendo. Why?

I cold go on, but that would be very boring.

[Pulcinella]

Kenneth Woods writes very well - a blog worth following in future:

I love the bit that says:
Even the critic noticed something had gone wrong.

[Bryn]

Regarding the matter of Beethoven's last thoughts and the Fifth Symphony scherzo and trio repeat, how about the Op. 130 final movement? Should we, perhaps, only approach the grocer's fudge as a separate work and respect his replacement final movement as the valid one with which to close Op. 130?

[jayne lee wilson]

Regarding the matter of Beethoven's last thoughts and the Fifth Symphony scherzo and trio repeat, how about the Op. 130 final movement? Should we, perhaps, only approach the grocer's fudge as a separate work and respect his replacement final movement as the valid one with which to close Op. 130?

I think the most intelligent and enjoyable response to these situations is - to have it both ways .
Play Op.130 with whichever finale you please, and play the 5th Symphony with all repeats, or just one or the other; or without any. Enjoy the listening and use your musical sensitivities & responses to judge the results in practice. Effectively what Simpson was saying, while clearly favouring all-repeats-in (his extensive chapter on the 5th is one of the best commentaries on the problem - far too long to quote).

Bruckner is the locus classicus for such things; once, the Haas version of No.2 was widely referred to as "the complete text" etc....which of course it was not. We now have two carefully edited authorised versions (1872, 1877 by Carragan) and it is our luxurious fortune to be able to enjoy both.
(Which doesn't stop anyone going back to a cherished earlier recording of Haas or Nowak).

The principle is one of informed awareness. The mistake would be to prolong the agonising about "Bruckner's (or Beethoven's) final thoughts" etc....as if we have to narrow it down to one...

(Have to cut out of here for a while - terrible problems with stinging eyes recently..)

[jayne lee wilson]

Just had a listen on YouTube. Glad I didn't pay out money for it. It's ok, often better than that, but that's about it. Nothing persuades me that Currentzis is any kind of genius.

For one thing, slavish adherence to the metronome marks is a mixed blessing. Does not the coda of the finale sound a bit of a scramble at semibreve=112? It's not particularly triumphant, to my mind.

For another thing, Currentzis is not always faithful to the composer's dynamic markings.The last 12 bars of the first movement are marked fortissimo, but in the middle of them Currentzis makes a subito piano - crescendo. Why?

I cold go on, but that would be very boring.

...just the grand old tradition of creative interpretation.....cycles from the recent Adam Fischer back to Mengelberg are far more licentious than Currentzis is here....

[Flay]

The principle is one of informed awareness. The mistake would be to prolong the agonising about "Bruckner's (or Beethoven's) final thoughts" etc....as if we have to narrow it down to one...[/I]

Absolutely. But it's been an interesting diversion.

(Have to cut out of here for a while - terrible problems with stinging eyes recently..)

Hay fever? I find that a few doses Otrivine Antistin drops (short-term use only) works a treat if you don't want to be using regular preventive drops like Opticrom or Opatanol. Or is it dry eye? Trial of lubricant drops perhaps?

Hope it's better soon.