BaL 13.04.24 - Brahms: Symphony 3

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I had thought that the whole point of the HIP(P) designation was to get away from the rigidity of the ‘on historical instruments’ thingy and have a term that could apply for performances observing historical performance practice without necessarily using historical hardware. But if HIP(P) implies historical hardware after all then what’s the point of the term? (scratches head)

Well ... The thing is, we have old instruments that enable us to make modern reproductions and then make informed decisions. In the case of performance practice, we only have snippets of in information. For example Leopold Mozart's view of how vibrato should be used, but not liking the way some players at the time were using it. All it really shows is that were different ways of interpreting the music at the time, just as is the case today.

[oliver sudden]

Still… in the case of Brahms for example we have Mackerras’s symphonies with the SCO, where if I remember right he’s set out to follow what’s known about performance practice in the Meiningen orchestra as regards tempo, rubato, phrasing, and balance. (And that is a fair bit: there’s a nice publication summarising the surviving written evidence.) Not historical instruments, but if that doesn’t qualify as historically informed I’m not sure what does!

[EnemyoftheStoat]

Still… in the case of Brahms for example we have Mackerras’s symphonies with the SCO, where if I remember right he’s set out to follow what’s known about performance practice in the Meiningen orchestra as regards tempo, rubato, phrasing, and balance. (And that is a fair bit: there’s a nice publication summarising the surviving written evidence.) Not historical instruments, but if that doesn’t qualify as historically informed I’m not sure what does!

Does historically informed performance include a wilful misreading of the opening bars of the symphony, with a crescendo on the second chord contradicting the forte-forte-forte - restating the dynamic for each chord - that Brahms actually wrote?

[oliver sudden]

The possibility of being historically informed must admit the possibility of being historically misinformed

That’s an interesting point though. Is it really contradicting what a composer wrote just to do something they didn’t write? Maybe it might be contradicting, or wilfully misreading, the notation to add a crescendo to music by some hardline 20th-century modernist but Brahms was not that.

But!

playing a crescendo on the second chord does directly contradict the information in that very informative little book, Brahms in der Meininger Tradition, where one reads “die einleitenden Akkorde sind im einfachen Forte zu nehmen ohne jegliches Crescendo zum Thema hin”. And while I don’t have the booklet to the Mackerras recording (my copy is second-hand…), the cover does proudly proclaim “in the style of the original Meiningen performances”. So I don’t know what specifically is going on there. Where’s the shrug emoji?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Where’s the shrug emoji?

https://emojipedia.org/person-shrugging

I’m not suggesting a lack of knowledge here. Indeed? It was a perceptive observation.

[Pulcinella]

In my Dover score, all instruments are marked forte in bar 1 (first movement).
They are also specifically marked forte in bar 2.
In bar 3, where the contrabassoon, trombones, drums, and strings join in, yet again, there is a general specific forte for all parts (passionato for the violins) apart from the contrabassoon and double bass, which are marked fsf. Could that contribute to the 'crescendo'?

[EnemyoftheStoat]

In my Dover score, all instruments are marked forte in bar 1 (first movement).
They are also specifically marked forte in bar 2.
In bar 3, where the contrabassoon, trombones, drums, and strings join in, yet again, there is a general specific forte for all parts (passionato for the violins) apart from the contrabassoon and double bass, which are marked fsf. Could that contribute to the 'crescendo'?

I did consider that, but I hear an active crescendo on the second chord. I have the same score, btw.

The same happens, albeit less blatantly, in the Marriner that I have on now, which makes no HIPP claims, even the augmented ASMF forces having the feel of a standard-strength band.

[EnemyoftheStoat]

The possibility of being historically informed must admit the possibility of being historically misinformed

That’s an interesting point though. Is it really contradicting what a composer wrote just to do something they didn’t write? Maybe it might be contradicting, or wilfully misreading, the notation to add a crescendo to music by some hardline 20th-century modernist but Brahms was not that.

But!

playing a crescendo on the second chord does directly contradict the information in that very informative little book, Brahms in der Meininger Tradition, where one reads “die einleitenden Akkorde sind im einfachen Forte zu nehmen ohne jegliches Crescendo zum Thema hin”. And while I don’t have the booklet to the Mackerras recording (my copy is second-hand…), the cover does proudly proclaim “in the style of the original Meiningen performances”. So I don’t know what specifically is going on there. Where’s the shrug emoji?

Thanks for the reference to the book, OS. I must put it on my wishlist! My Mackerras is secondhand too but I have the booklet. Unfortunately, the fairly lengthy essay on HIPP Brahms goes into little detail about the individual symphonies.

The MS at IMSLP shows the same (repeated) dynamics though so it's not editorial.

[Barbirollians]

Two more listened to from my collection . Alsop on Naxos - this is really good though with Naxos’s price lurch no longer a bargain disc. A loveiy performance though and with her excellent St Anthony Variations .

Barbirolli VPO - a rather mixed cycle the First in particular too slow (compare the terrific live account in Prague in 1958) . The Third is ,however, gorgeous especially the two inner movements . The outer movements are strongly projected and the tempi are not slow at all to my ears and the finale whips up plenty of energy.

[richardfinegold]

I had thought that the whole point of the HIP(P) designation was to get away from the rigidity of the ‘on historical instruments’ thingy and have a term that could apply for performances observing historical performance practice without necessarily using historical hardware. But if HIP(P) implies historical hardware after all then what’s the point of the term? (scratches head)

Excellent pregunta. Yet my understanding is that some presenters divide the choice by conventional vs HIP forces. Not sure where MacKerras and Manze would land.
The Manze set is really good, btw. The only drawback for me is the small player size leads to some underpowered climaxes

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Barbirolli VPO - a rather mixed cycle the First in particular too slow (compare the terrific live account in Prague in 1958) . The Third is ,however, gorgeous especially the two inner movements . The outer movements are strongly projected and the tempi are not slow at all to my ears and the finale whips up plenty of energy.

First of all, apologies for having apparently edited your post. I haven’t, but accidentally clicked on “edit” rather than “quote”, but realised my error before messing it up.

To continue - Barbirolli recorded the symphony with the Hallé Orchestra in 1952, also for EMI, and it’s an altogether brisker affair than his Vienna remake. Lots more energy too. That said, I really do love his later recording, and would choose it over any other. I find it surprising that Sir John and the Vienna Philharmonic didn’t get on particularly well during the Brahms symphony sessions.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Does historically informed performance include a wilful misreading of the opening bars of the symphony, with a crescendo on the second chord contradicting the forte-forte-forte - restating the dynamic for each chord - that Brahms actually wrote?

To me much more significant than that crescendo is the very dominant brass sound in the Mackerras / SCO recording presumably reflecting the reduced string desks. If that indeed matches the size of contemporary orchestras , and crucially the balance engineers have accurately reflected that balance , than yes HIPP performances are very different as a sonic experience from string heavy “modern” ones.

[makropulos]

It is very interesting to read Blume's book on Steinbach and the Meiningen tradition – and readers who don't have German will find an English translation here:

https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/handle/1773/15510

Click on the View/Open link on the left of the page and a downloadable PDF of the whole thing is there.

As for the specific issue of putting a crescendo in the opening bars, I agree that it goes contrary to Brahms's explicit markings. Furtwängler, Knappertsbusch and generations thereafter have chosen to ignore what JBr asks for and it's most annoying. When Mackerras did the Third Symphony live with the Philharmonia in 2008, he didn't put in a crescendo, and the whole thing is much more convincing as a result than what we hear on the SCO recording (though there's plenty to enjoy there). Unfortunately, the Philharmonia performance was recorded but never released (though I have a copy).

One other thing. In the old complete edition (and therefore the Dover score), the opening chords are notated as dotted semibreves. In the original edition (and Brahms's MS) they are pairs of tied dotted minims. Of course they sound exactly the same, but psychologically (for the conductor and players), Brahms's original notation has an implication of a pulse on the half bar – of momentum – which isn't there otherwise. I think that's important for launching the movement.

[oliver sudden]

In my Dover score, all instruments are marked forte in bar 1 (first movement).
They are also specifically marked forte in bar 2.
In bar 3, where the contrabassoon, trombones, drums, and strings join in, yet again, there is a general specific forte for all parts (passionato for the violins) apart from the contrabassoon and double bass, which are marked fsf. Could that contribute to the 'crescendo'?

Notation is a funny thing, eh? Why has he written f on all the chords when you’d think just once at the beginning would do? Does he really think they’ll have forgotten how loudly they played the previous bar? Or does he really think the temptation to play a crescendo is so strong that he needs to remind the players to stay at a single forte?

I think it’s more that he wants a renewed impulse at the beginning of each bar. Yet another way of writing a kind of accent, like Beethoven does in the scherzo of the 9th (bar 61).

(Having finally got around to putting it on: that’s a pretty modest crescendo Mackerras gets his players to do, surely? Barely more than just keeping it warm. Although they do more on the repeat…)

[oliver sudden]

As for the specific issue of putting a crescendo in the opening bars, I agree that it goes contrary to Brahms's explicit markings. Furtwängler, Knappertsbusch and generations thereafter have chosen to ignore what JBr asks for and it's most annoying.

Putting my performance practice detective hat on, I’m fairly confident that that tradition set in very early indeed, or at least that the temptation to do a crescendo was recognised very early on given that the Meiningen book bothers to say not to do it!