BaL 26.04.14 - Haydn Symphony no. 101 "Clock"

[aeolium]

What anyone "rather feel[s]", is pretty irrelevant, surely? Let's know the evidence against. My guess is that it will boil down to the equivalent of "Beethoven got his metronome marks wrong", i.e. a load of poppycock.

Since the evidence for performance speeds of Haydn symphonies is inconclusive, it has to come down ultimately to what people (principally those responsible for playing the works) feel, within the boundaries of the tempo markings in the score. The reviewer certainly gave the impression that he felt this work could bear a variety of different approaches with respect to tempo.

[verismissimo]

If there were a book opened on the selection, I might have a punt on Mackerras with the Orchestra of St Luke's, with Jochum/LPO as the historical choice. Not sure who would start as favourite - Abbado/COE, perhaps?

Well spotted, aeo!

[Bryn]

Since the evidence for performance speeds of Haydn symphonies is inconclusive, it has to come down ultimately to what people (principally those responsible for playing the works) feel, within the boundaries of the tempo markings in the score. The reviewer certainly gave the impression that he felt this work could bear a variety of different approaches with respect to tempo.

Indeed, but while listening to BaL I was somewhat taken aback by the sloppiness of some aspects of the presentation. Re. Norrington, for instance, and quite possibly re. other conductors, we were given little of no indication as to which of their various recordings was being referred to. There are currently at least three recordings available of 'The Clock' (not Haydn's name for the work, IIRC) conducted by Norrington. The approach to the third movement varies greatly between the early recording with the LCP and the later two with the Stuttgarters. There was also something of a rethink between the two with the Stuttgarters, yet we are given the impression that there is but one Norrington view of the tempi to be adopted,and how much to repeat. As with Krivine's Beethoven symphonic surveys (those on CD and YouTube), different performances directed by the same conductor try different approaches to such matters.

[visualnickmos]

.....I do wonder what speed a lot of symphonies were actually played at in the years of their composition. I rather feel that many orchestras of the time may not have been able to play at the speeds which present day performers can manage, and that includes today's "authentic" performers playing on "period" instruments.

Yes - indeed a salient point; even with our knowledge of the instruments, HIPP, etc,etc à l'époque we will never really have a true notion of how fast they were actually played, or even of how they really sounded.....

[MickyD]

Such a pity that the Kuijken performance didn't get a mention, I would like to have heard it.

[Dave2002]

What anyone "rather feel[s]", is pretty irrelevant, surely? Let's know the evidence against. My guess is that it will boil down to the equivalent of "Beethoven got his metronome marks wrong", i.e. a load of poppycock.

A form of argument which has been misused elsewhere in other contexts. It can also be used here too, "what is the evidence against Klemperer's speeds?" However, you are right - we have no, or virtually no, evidence for what tempi performers of the day were able to cope with, and we do know now that is is possible to play some of the music very fast indeed, because some performers of today can do so and do so well.

Since you have raised the point, though, I have also been surprised, and in some cases very impressed with, some high speed performances of Haydn keyboard works, both on modern pianos (Zimerman - brilliant) and on older instruments - usually reproductions. Instinctively I feel they are wrong - but perhaps they are not, and the composer really did want, or hope that, the pieces could have been played with such bravura.

So, how do we go about estimating what speeds composers such as Haydn expected their music to be played at, and what tempi performers of their day were actually able to play at? My "feelings" were based on a suspicion that many instruments would not have been responsive enough, and that the performers would not have been able to overcome their shortcomings - but I could indeed be very wrong about that. In the absence of recordings, are there any written accounts which would provide evidence one way or another?

[aeolium]

In the absence of recordings, are there any written accounts which would provide evidence one way or another?

There are IIRC metronome markings provided by Czerny for the London symphonies, but this was for an edition of a piano version some 30-odd years later. I have no idea how reliable these are or from what sources Czerny had put them together since he was only a child in the 1790s.

[Sir Velo]

Since you have raised the point, though, I have also been surprised, and in some cases very impressed with, some high speed performances of Haydn keyboard works, both on modern pianos (Zimerman - brilliant) and on older instruments - usually reproductions. Instinctively I feel they are wrong - but perhaps they are not, and the composer really did want, or hope that, the pieces could have been played with such bravura.

So, how do we go about estimating what speeds composers such as Haydn expected their music to be played at, and what tempi performers of their day were actually able to play at? My "feelings" were based on a suspicion that many instruments would not have been responsive enough, and that the performers would not have been able to overcome their shortcomings - but I could indeed be very wrong about that. In the absence of recordings, are there any written accounts which would provide evidence one way or another?

I wonder how many of us have rehearsed a piece of music in our heads, so to speak, and then played a recording of the work. Invariably, the time it takes to play a piece through internally is shorter than the actual performance, usually by some margin. In the case of Beethoven, without the opportunity to hear the work played back to him, a faster metronome marking than could be played without the piece sounding ridiculous, would have appeared natural.

[rauschwerk]

In the case of the Haydn London symphonies, an intelligent conductor must surely examine all twelve minuets. They are surely not intended to go at the same speed, since Haydn marks them variously Allegro, Allegro molto, Allegretto, Moderato. Two (those of Nos. 95 and 103) are without tempo markings. Perhaps they were intended to go at the standard tempo. The Allegro molto (no.94) is surely more of a German dance than a minuet, hence the fast tempo marking. The breakneck metronome marks of Czerny can hardly represent what Haydn actually wanted and I would ignore them. Musical intelligence is the thing. As for Klemperer, I fear he was too often hidebound by the 19th century traditions in which he was raised.

[aeolium]

What about the question of the speed of the trio in relation to the minuet, rauschwerk, as this was an issue that came up in the review? IIRC, Minkowski took a brisk speed for the minuet but then slowed down considerably for the trio but another conductor - I can't recall who - took quick speeds for both minuet and trio, making the trio sounding (to me) hurried. Is there any guidance on this?

[BBMmk2]

Didn't the reviewer mention a certain lack 'piano' in the Colin Davis set but included it in his top five, which I like. I will be hearing the complete recording on Monday.

[rauschwerk]

What about the question of the speed of the trio in relation to the minuet, rauschwerk, as this was an issue that came up in the review? IIRC, Minkowski took a brisk speed for the minuet but then slowed down considerably for the trio but another conductor - I can't recall who - took quick speeds for both minuet and trio, making the trio sounding (to me) hurried. Is there any guidance on this?

None that I know of. I would support a slight easing of tempo for the trio, but Harnoncourt's decision to go much faster in No. 101 and elsewhere seems to me purely whimsical. I see that Haydn in 1799 said of performances that were too brisk; "they will ruin my minuets...for these minuets are a cross between minuets for dancing and prestos."

[Tony Halstead]

None that I know of. I would support a slight easing of tempo for the trio, but Harnoncourt's decision to go much faster in No. 101 and elsewhere seems to me purely whimsical. I see that Haydn in 1799 said of performances that were too brisk; "they will ruin my minuets...for these minuets are a cross between minuets for dancing and prestos."

My view is that slowing down for a Trio in 'classical' symphonies, in the absence of any new tempo indication by the composer, is an unnecessary and even intrusive 'performance practice'.
Just as bad is the often-encountered practice of inserting a pause - however short - between Minuet and Trio; this destroys the flow and the musical continuity of what is essentially a single ternary structure rather than three linked movements.

[waldo]

I wonder how many of us have rehearsed a piece of music in our heads, so to speak, and then played a recording of the work. Invariably, the time it takes to play a piece through internally is shorter than the actual performance, usually by some margin. In the case of Beethoven, without the opportunity to hear the work played back to him, a faster metronome marking than could be played without the piece sounding ridiculous, would have appeared natural.

Quite right. There are countless cases where just this has happened to composers: they set a metronome mark and then, when they actually hear the piece, realise it would have to be adjusted - and sometimes by a considerable margin. This certainly happened to Bruckner, who first heard one of his symphonies played as a piano reduction by two students. After the first few bars, he stopped them and asked them why they were going so fast. They explained that they were merely following his metronome markings. Bruckner replied "But I didn't know it would sound like that!"

This is something that Barenboim likes to bang on about in his various writings; it seems to be a pet topic. He himself varies his tempos depending on the venue and the nature of the orchestra. Different venues, with their different acoustical properties, require different tempos. It is, for him, about the sound: it's particular weight, the rate of decay and so on. All this must be taken into account when setting a tempo.

As for the tempo adopted in, say, the classical era, the answer is surely that it would have varied from one place to another, and one person to another, at least as much as it does today. More so, probably, given the problems with travel and limited flows of information. This town would play their minuets like this, that city like that. Different species would flourish on different cultural islands: a long beak here, a short stubby one there.........

I think a kind of optical illusion comes into play which makes us think that the past, being so far away, has a kind of uniformity that no actual place ever has. We attempt to understand by means of generalisations and conceptual schemes and then begin to mistake these generalisations and schemes for the real thing, which is surely as heterogeneous and inconsistent as our own particular reality. In short, my guess is that the classical era was a riot of diversity. Much like any other era.

[rauschwerk]

My view is that slowing down for a Trio in 'classical' symphonies, in the absence of any new tempo indication by the composer, is an unnecessary and even intrusive 'performance practice'.

I would unhesitatingly defer to you on that issue!