Beethoven Symphony Cycles

[ahinton]

My comments in #153 were sparked by kea's comment, not your own - those in #150 were in response not to your comment that in general I would say his treatment of the orchestra is less radical than his treatment of string quartet or piano. Your response to the sound of the Beethoven orchestra isn't something I can comment upon (other than a basic "my reaction is very different") but the fact of his radically new attitude to the orchestra can be presented in terms that, avoiding expressions such as "it's all so wonderful", demonstrate that it it is as radical an achievement in sound matching what he achieved with the Piano and String Quartet.

Aside from the liberation of the wind band that his contemporaries noticed, there's also the widening of the orchestral compass by the addition of piccolo and contrabassoon; the augmentation of orchestral timbre by adding trombones and an extra horn (or two) when the sound called for it. There's the separation of Double Basses from the 'cello line and the greater call on virtuoso playing from the lower strings than is found in Haydn and Mozart. Second violins have a greater independent contribution to the sound of the orchestra than before. And that - err - wonderful orchestral effect created when string pizzications are combined with sustained wind chords - as at the openings of the First Symphony (forgot to mention - it was late last night) and the Fourth. The Timpani are used for thematic purposes, not just rhythmic support of the home key, supporting the trumpets (with Haydn & Mozart, when you hear the Timps, you know you're in or approaching the home key - with Beethoven the player is required to retune the drums during a piece, for - I believe, the first time.) There are Timpani solos for the first time in the repertoire - every aspect of the orchestra becomes individualised and democratised.

OK - I get that you don't like the resulting sounds: but that doesn't negate the originality and radical nature of Beethoven's orchestral timbres. As you have commented on Alpie's Nineteenth Century response to Bach's tierce de picardie, are you not in danger of downplaying/overlooking the radical use of the orchestra that immediately struck Beethoven's contemporaries when they first heard the works? (And for some time afterwards, if Berlioz's reactions to hearing the Beethoven orchestra are to be taken as typical.)

Mon Dieu, in this and your earlier post #153 you really have come up with some wondrous and deeply thought comments! Many thanks for all of this!

[cloughie]

... the wisest of words.

It was HIPP - and in this case particularly Krivine - which allowed me to 'hear' a Beethoven orchestral sound that - to me - made sense, and was not the vulgar overblown blowsy noise which Big Band Beethoven had always seemed (to me, to me... ) to be.

I don't, probably couldn't, analyse to the extent that ferney and others do. I'm more 'wham bam thank you for the music, man'. That however does not stop me listening to different approaches but I do still like what you describe as 'vulgar overblown blowsy Big Band Beethoven' if you mean the likes of Klemperer, Jochum, Krips, Konwitschny et al. I don't believe it has to be an either... or situation.

[teamsaint]

Indeed I have no problem at all with the chamber or piano music and there are whole weeks when I listen to nothing else. But there is a problem with the symphonies, which is maybe connected with them being big public statements of some kind (Schubert's 9th is another problematic example) which somehow brings out a less radical side of the composer, I mean as concerns instrumentation in particular.

I'm interested in your comment about Schubert 9.
In my case, the "problems" ( and they are good problems) I have with this work aren't anything to do with how the composer uses instrumentation."
As Cloughie ( kind of ) suggests, I tend to accept that he knew what he was doing, and that listening with an ear to what might have been comes a poor second to try to follow what he did do, and understanding the musical sorcery he had at his disposal.
But the comment did lead me to another interesting revisit, and some useful reading here.

Not DLS's finest piece, but useful for the amateur nontheless.

I do wish RB would start a Schubert thread.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

So you quite like it, ferney. Me too.

I got the impression that Kea does, too - the description of it as a "very good" work. It's just that I think it's a lot better than that.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I'm more 'wham bam thank you for the music, man'.

I know - you don't return my texts; you're never in when I call ...

[Richard Barrett]

I know - you don't return my texts; you're never in when I call ...

Get a room you two.

Thanks for the Beethoven 1 words, and thanks to you and others for the encouraging words too...

A Schubert thread? Well I have possibly far too much to say about Schubert.

Anyway, I hadn't even heard of the Krivine recordings of Beethoven, but I'm going to check out Immerseel when I have a chance, I'm an admirer of his work in general.

[verismissimo]

Just embarking on Bruggen / Orch of 18th Century (1987-1992)...

[Cockney Sparrow]

As well as the Immerseel and Brugge, I have added Gardiner ORR and Krivine to the list on the Naxo ML thread . Also how to find the many DGG recordings there (Karajan, Kleiber, Abbado) and Warner (EMI) (cycles - Cluytens, Mackerras, Rattle, Karajan, Muti).

http://www.for3.org/forums/showthread.php?7506-Online-Naxos-music-library&p=553507&highlight=Naxos+Music+Library#post553507

[EdgeleyRob]

I wonder if it's possible for people to get into their heads that even Beethoven's symphonies don't appeal to everyone?

Also, FG, I'm quite aware of all the brilliant things he does with harmony and structure; going back to my first contribution to this thread, it's the sound I find offputting. Sound as such is very important to me. The sound of Beethoven's symphonies doesn't affect me in the way the sound of his late quartets and piano sonatas does. I'm not trying to argue that there's something wrong with Beethoven's symphonies, I'm trying to give an honest and considered reaction to them. It hardly seems worth bothering when all people seem to react with is "no you're mistaken, it's all so wonderful."

And thank you ferney for the wonderful post #153.
It does make LvB 1 seem more interesting than it actually sounds to me,which is clearly my loss.

[EdgeleyRob]

What's wrong with people on these boards - I think I've heard it all now. Another Jonny Mac moment. Beethoven's symphonies (apart from the 9th finale, which I can do without) are all great, all weave their own magic. They were the works from which I learned what proper music was about. They were the works that Scared Brahms into thinking he'd never be able to write a Symphony. Surely the Eroica was the first 'big' symphony! Is there a symphonic movement more beautiful than 2.2?

Wanna list cloughster ?

[cloughie]

Wanna list cloughster ?

Yeah!

I was talking Beethoven, edge - where would you put 2.2 in the 1-37?

[cloughie]

I know - you don't return my texts; you're never in when I call ...

I know but then I never was very HIPP!

[EdgeleyRob]

Yeah!

I was talking Beethoven, edge - where would you put 2.2 in the 1-37?

Ah !,the first thing that comes to mind when thinking beautiful symphonic movements is Rubbra 6.2 (Canto,Largo e sereno)

LvB only
4.2
7.1
6.5
9.3
before 2.2 in my book

[Barbirollians]

I would have the first Bruggen set over the Krivine any day .

[vibratoforever]

I wonder if it's possible for people to get into their heads that even Beethoven's symphonies don't appeal to everyone?

Along similar lines, I could certainly make do with a set of the odd-numbered ones only. For some reason I have always found no. 6 indigestible.