BaL 31.01.15 - Beethoven: Symphony no. 3 in E flat "Eroica"

[makropulos]

Only for mathematicians.

Why? Beethoven put them there for a reason.

For a short and pithy summary of why a) they are genuine and b) they are worthwhile, see Gunther Schuller's "The Compleat Conductor", p. 34 (the relevant page is on google books).

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Why? Beethoven put them there for a reason.

For a short and pithy summary of why a) they are genuine and b) they are worthwhile, see Gunther Schuller's "The Compleat Conductor", p. 34 (the relevant page is on google books).

- they work marvellously, too. (Took me three attempts to get my "O"-Level Maths, by the way.)

[makropulos]

- they work marvellously, too. (Took me three attempts to get my "O"-Level Maths, by the way.)

Agreed! (and I'm hopeless at Maths too, though by a miracle I scraped O-level first time around - more than I managed with science).

Leibowitz and Scherchen both showed the way more than 50 years ago, lest anybody think this is some kind of sinister HIPP conspiracy...

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Leibowitz and Scherchen both showed the way more than 50 years ago, lest anybody think this is some kind of sinister HIPP conspiracy...

Perhaps "a" way, rather than "the" way, but Toscanini and Kleiber did the same.

[waldo]

Does anyone actually stick to the metronome markings? I was thinking about the first movement, in particular, for which Beethoven specified 60 dotted minims per minute. That's one bar a second. And no tempo variations are indicated. Given the number of bars in this movement, that means it has to be played at: 11 minutes 35 seconds (without exposition repeat), or 14 minutes 5 seconds (with exposition repeat). Has anyone ever managed this?

Looking through my own collection, I can't see any that come close. I always thought the Mackerras/SCO (my favourite version) was very fast but that clocks in at 16'37 (with repeats). Chailly, another one that sounds fast (and who claims to take the metronome markings very seriously), does it in 15'11 (with repeats). Kleiber, who is known for being fast, does 13'47 (but without repeat!); adding on 3 minutes for the exposition, takes him to 16'47 - not fast at all! Krivine does 15'27.....

And so on.......

Does anyone get it down to 14'05?

[makropulos]

Does anyone actually stick to the metronome markings? I was thinking about the first movement, in particular, for which Beethoven specified 60 dotted minims per minute. That's one bar a second. And no tempo variations are indicated. Given the number of bars in this movement, that means it has to be played at: 11 minutes 35 seconds (without exposition repeat), or 14 minutes 5 seconds (with exposition repeat). Has anyone ever managed this?

Looking through my own collection, I can't see any that come close. I always thought the Mackerras/SCO (my favourite version) was very fast but that clocks in at 16'37 (with repeats). Chailly, another one that sounds fast (and who claims to take the metronome markings very seriously), does it in 15'11 (with repeats). Kleiber, who is known for being fast, does 13'47 (but without repeat!); adding on 3 minutes for the exposition, takes him to 16'47 - not fast at all! Krivine does 15'27.....

And so on.......

Does anyone get it down to 14'05?

That's a very good point. Unfortunately Eric Grunin's site comparing almost 400 Eroica performances (and giving detailed timings for each movement) has been down since 2012...
Glad to hear that Mackerras/SCO is your favourite - mine too :)

[makropulos]

And so on.......

Does anyone get it down to 14'05?

And what about the Funeral March? Boult (Philharmonic Promenade Orch, for Vanguard/Top Rank) doesn't sound at all rushed to me, but he takes 13:01.
Mackerras/SCO is a minute longer (14:01), while many other conductors take well over 15 minutes (Toscanini in 1953 took 15:20). There is no metronome marking on the first edition of the parts, but the Simrock full score (the first authorized printing of the score. published c.1822) has quaver = 80. Metronome markings are very quickly forgotten in a performance as fine as Toscanini's - of course - but at the very least there's an intriguingly wide discrepancy in timings, given that we do actually have authentic metronome markings.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I think "sticking" to the metronome mark(s) isn't necessarily the most "informed" of "Historically-Informed Performance Practices": there is contemporary evidence that the metronome markings are a sort of "Tempo 'Key'" from which to start and return and use as a "Tonic", but with flexibility within and between bars. Krivine's marvellous performance is ideal in this respect (as in most others) - the "one bar per second" is continually referred to, but there are moments when it is relaxed (the second group and the E major episode most noticeably) and at one point even pushed forward a little. Nothing is exaggerated, nothing is rigid: the pacing here hasn't been better done.

[richardfinegold]

Alpie, I am glad that you are retired, because that list must of have taken at least one day to type.
And of course we carp about the ones not included. The Eroica that I listen to the most these days is Hogwood/AAM, and I didn't see it, although perhaps I looked in the wrong place.
This is one work that I think the HIPP movement has done wonders in restoring. Hearing it played as fast as possible, with the dissonances being given extra pungency by period instruments, can be bracing, and restores a sense of how Revolutionary it must have sounded to contemporary audiences.

[richardfinegold]

I kind of hope it's not a HIPP version that takes the laurels. Unless the changes will be rung, with 2 recommendations - HIPP, and a proper version.....

Now I've lit the fire!

Bah! Humbug!

So after Hogwood my other favorites are Furtwangler (Vienna, 1944), Toscanini (BBC, late 1930s), and Szell/Cleveland.
The Furtwangler was my first exposure to the piece and it imprinted me for life. Szell was the first complete of LvBSymphonies that I owned (40 years ago) and I could not stand the Eroica at the time, especially compared to Furtwangler. Having just bought the remastered Szell set the Eroica is my favorite from that set. Go figure.

[waldo]

And what about the Funeral March? Boult (Philharmonic Promenade Orch, for Vanguard/Top Rank) doesn't sound at all rushed to me, but he takes 13:01.
Mackerras/SCO is a minute longer (14:01), while many other conductors take well over 15 minutes (Toscanini in 1953 took 15:20). There is no metronome marking on the first edition of the parts, but the Simrock full score (the first authorized printing of the score. published c.1822) has quaver = 80. Metronome markings are very quickly forgotten in a performance as fine as Toscanini's - of course - but at the very least there's an intriguingly wide discrepancy in timings, given that we do actually have authentic metronome markings.

Acccording to the metronome markings, the funeral march should be 12'24..........So 13'01 is not too far off, I suppose.

[richardfinegold]

There! Did you enjoy it?

[Petrushka]

My first Eroica was the 1944 VPO/Furtwangler issued on a Unicorn LP which I purchased in 1974. I still find it a thrilling performance.

On the whole I do prefer the 1st movement to be taken quite fast so Chailly and BPO/Abbado are both highly regarded and I found the Abbado to be a revelation when I first heard it.

I would hope that NK (whose sympathies extend far beyond early music) will recommend one in the HIPP category, one Hipp-ite, one historical, and one traditional 'big band' Eroica. The only way to do an unmanageable BaL like this would be to take four or five from each category and whittle them down to one each.

Choosing just one overall winner is a nonsense.

[visualnickmos]

I kind of hope it's not a HIPP version that takes the laurels. Unless the changes will be rung, with 2 recommendations - HIPP, and a proper version.....

Now I've lit the fire!

Oh Gawd - I wish I hadn't said anything! I was just being - well you know......

My favs are in no particular order whatsoever;

Monteux - VPO
Giulini - LAPO
Szell - Cleveland
Klemperer - both his EMI 1950s versions
Fruhbeck de Burgos - LSO

but ask me tomorrow and there will be another list! which will probably include Wyn Morris

[waldo]

I think "sticking" to the metronome mark(s) isn't necessarily the most "informed" of "Historically-Informed Performance Practices": there is contemporary evidence that the metronome markings are a sort of "Tempo 'Key'" from which to start and return and use as a "Tonic", but with flexibility within and between bars. Krivine's marvellous performance is ideal in this respect (as in most others) - the "one bar per second" is continually referred to, but there are moments when it is relaxed (the second group and the E major episode most noticeably) and at one point even pushed forward a little. Nothing is exaggerated, nothing is rigid: the pacing here hasn't been better done.

Yes, I quite see that there might be an argument for some built-in flexibility. Nevertheless, you would still expect these variations to average out somewhat at the tempo indicated by Beethoven. Some parts might be faster than one bar a second; some a bit slower. But what seems to be the case is rather that Beethoven's tempo marking is taken as an outer frontier: it is approached, but never reached. If everyone took these indications seriously, then you would expect to see performances times clustered around this central "ideal", rather than all together on the slower side of the barrier.

The explanation for this, I would suggest (or guess), is that every single conductor who looks at these metronome markings thinks "No way. It can't be done", but as they feel they ought to take it seriously, they go a bit faster than they otherwise would.......