BaL 26.04.14 - Haydn Symphony no. 101 "Clock"

[Bryn]

The expected straw clutching is now in full swing. However, please bear in mind that the majority of Beethoven's symphonic metronome marking were appended by him long after the symphonies they were added to had been performed at least once in his presence, and according to Ries, who was in a position to know, Beethoven got quite irate about tempi slower than those he intended being imposed upon his works.

Until a very few decades ago it was commonly held that it was a physical impossibility for Beethoven's symphonies to be performed at his metronome indications. We now know that to be quite untrue, and not only where period instruments are employed but also, in many cases, using 'modern' instruments.

[Bryn]

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.

I'd just like to make it clear that this is most definitely not what I was referring to re. "straw clutching". Venue and other circumstances make a huge difference where suitable tempi are concerned. In a very much more modern context, I think of John Tilbury's two commercially available recordings of Morton Feldman's Triadic Memories. That recorded in an Innsbruck recording studio in 1996/7 has a duration of 79' 28". The 'live ' recording made at St. John's, Smith Square in 2008 lasts 103' 53". A performance he gave at Conway Hall, some months prior to the Innsbruck recording sessions, lay somewhere between the two in stop watch time. Venue acoustics and instrument characteristics have a great impact on such matters.

[Petrushka]

Bruckner completely subverts the expected notion of having the trio slower than the scherzo in his 9th Symphony where the trio is deliberately faster thus giving it an unsettled, even disturbing, feeling.

[Dave2002]

Venue acoustics and instrument characteristics have a great impact on such matters.

Not only on tempi, but also on dynamics. I once went to a very painful concert in Hemel Hempstead Pavillion, with Rhozdestvensky conducting Shostakovich 5 and Walton's 1st Symphony. It would have been really good in a large hall, such as the RFH, but the conductor took no prisoners, and all the ff and fff passages were played as such with seemingly no consideration of the effect on the eardrums of those of us sitting in the auditorium. As it happens I recall we were quite far back - which meant really not too far back at all - but in the front it could have had even more impact. It's one of the few times when I started to dread each loud outburst as I knew it was coming. Loud = OK, threshold of pain Not OK!

[Barbirollians]

How deaf was Beethoven when he added his metronome marks ?

[kea]

How deaf was Beethoven when he added his metronome marks ?

The metronome was invented around 1815? so he would have been pretty deaf. Could still judge from watching the metronome though.

Beethoven always liked fast tempi as far as I can tell—Prestos, Prestissimos, Vivaces (always faster than an "Allegro" for him) etc everywhere from Opus 1. There may be a few miscalculations, but for the most part the tempi actually manage to be about as fast as can be played without ever becoming outright impossible. (minim = 138 for the Hammerklavier's first movement, for instance—often claimed to be impossible—is in fact very close to the tempi achieved by Schnabel, Gieseking, and Michael Korstick on modern pianos with their heavier action, though in the first case with quite a few slips. Not that Beethoven himself would necessarily have been able to play that movement flawlessly either; his technique had become significantly attenuated by the late 1810s due to deafness and lack of practice.)

[Bryn]

The metronome was invented around 1815? so he would have been pretty deaf. Could still judge from watching the metronome though.

Beethoven always liked fast tempi as far as I can tell—Prestos, Prestissimos, Vivaces (always faster than an "Allegro" for him) etc everywhere from Opus 1. There may be a few miscalculations, but for the most part the tempi actually manage to be about as fast as can be played without ever becoming outright impossible. (minim = 138 for the Hammerklavier's first movement, for instance—often claimed to be impossible—is in fact very close to the tempi achieved by Schnabel, Gieseking, and Michael Korstick on modern pianos with their heavier action, though in the first case with quite a few slips. Not that Beethoven himself would necessarily have been able to play that movement flawlessly either; his technique had become significantly attenuated by the late 1810s due to deafness and lack of practice.)

It should be born in mind that Beethoven was never totally deaf, though in his later years his hearing was seriously impaired. From about 1818 he found it too difficult to be sure what people were saying, so tended to get then to jot down what they wanted to say.

[kea]

It should be born in mind that Beethoven was never totally deaf, though in his later years his hearing was seriously impaired. From about 1818 he found it too difficult to be sure what people were saying, so tended to get then to jot down what they wanted to say.

He did have moments of relatively un-impaired hearing, though they became less and less frequent. I think the main problems (at least initially) were tinnitus and loss of the low frequencies but I could be wrong.

Regardless, he seems to have known exactly what he wanted.

[waldo]

He did have moments of relatively un-impaired hearing, though they became less and less frequent. I think the main problems (at least initially) were tinnitus and loss of the low frequencies but I could be wrong.

Regardless, he seems to have known exactly what he wanted.

It was the high frequencies which went first. An article in the British Medical Journal speculated that this loss lead him to put fewer high notes in his compositions during the early phase of his deafness. The idea seemed to be that he was deliberately avoiding what he couldn't hear. Once he became completely deaf - which I think he was, for all intents and purposes, in the final years of his life - he put them back in again!

[Nick Armstrong]

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.

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?

Great calls, aioli ! ... with Minkowski as the dark horse wot galloped up on the rails.

Having now caught up with this BAL, I got a lot out of the variety of approaches illustrated. I thought the Minkowski sounded too driven and noisy in the last movement. The Abbado sounded fun. Am I going to rush out and replace my Davis/Concertgebouw set? Probably not. (Did Sir Colin 'do' the Trio joke ok, unlike Abbado? I can't check at the moment.)

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

There may be a few miscalculations, but for the most part the tempi actually manage to be about as fast as can be played without ever becoming outright impossible. (minim = 138 for the Hammerklavier's first movement, for instance—often claimed to be impossible—is in fact very close to the tempi achieved by Schnabel, Gieseking, and Michael Korstick on modern pianos with their heavier action, though in the first case with quite a few slips.

Schnabel plays the first movement at a fairly steady minim=124, Gieseking is similar, but with more rubato, which might give the performer a little respite. Korstick, I've never heard. I suppose a disklavier might be able to play it at 138.

[vinteuil]

. I suppose a disklavier might be able to play it at 138.

... well, just as we know that Bach really composed with the Steinway in mind, it is not unreasonable to suppose that Beethoven was really thinking of Conlon Nancarrow's Ampico player-piano when he composed the Hammerklavier....

[rauschwerk]

Schnabel plays the first movement at a fairly steady minim=124, Gieseking is similar, but with more rubato, which might give the performer a little respite. Korstick, I've never heard. I suppose a disklavier might be able to play it at 138.

Beethoven was quite explicit that the metronome mark was to apply only to the opening bars of movements.

[aeolium]

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.

Yes, I agree with that view. It does mean that the conductor needs to consider a tempo for the minuet that will also sound right for the trio. I'm not sure if we heard any examples in the review of conductors who kept the same speed for minuet and trio.

[Barbirollians]

Great calls, aioli ! ... with Minkowski as the dark horse wot galloped up on the rails.

Having now caught up with this BAL, I got a lot out of the variety of approaches illustrated. I thought the Minkowski sounded too driven and noisy in the last movement. The Abbado sounded fun. Am I going to rush out and replace my Davis/Concertgebouw set? Probably not. (Did Sir Colin 'do' the Trio joke ok, unlike Abbado? I can't check at the moment.)

I found the way that Davis ran on into a never nearer photo for fourth rather odd . He seems to hit the balance in the famous movement perfectly to me . I am with caliban - no rush for me to supplement the Davis .