BaL 2.01.16 - Beethoven: Symphony no. 5 in C minor

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Does anyone know of a link that's more detailed than the Wiki article?

https://www.baerenreiter.com/en/focus/app-beethovens-9th/del-mar-edition/

The score of the Fifth doesn't seem to be available separately!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

https://www.baerenreiter.com/en/focu...l-mar-edition/

The score of the Fifth doesn't seem to be available separately!

Thanks, as always.


Edit: The 5th does seem to be available separately, but it costs 43 euros.

2nd edit: http://www.vsmusicsupplies.com/beeth...re-13661-p.asp

(but it may not be the same edition?)

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Thanks, as always.

A pleasure. There's also this article for anyone with JSTOR access (or a subscription to the magazine).

[Petrushka]

https://www.baerenreiter.com/en/focu...l-mar-edition/

Thanks for the link. The fact of the matter is that Beethoven included repeats in every one of his other symphonies so it seems unthinkable to me that he wouldn't have done so in the 5th. Whatever the evidence, it seems to me to be so perfectly right to hear the repeat that I've always been surprised that more conductors don't do it.

The only recording of the Beethoven 5th I had for sometime was Furtwangler's 1943 BPO live performance on an old Unicorn LP purchased in 1974. Carlos Kleiber's Vienna recording followed and that was also my other one for quite a long time. I've now got a great many both in boxed sets of the complete LvB symphonies or singly. I'll count them up but at a guess it probably exceeds 30.

[Roehre]

One for Roehre, I think - IIRC, Loughran's was the first to record the repeat, based on an early edition who's accuracy has, I think, since been questioned. Jonathan Del Mar's edition contains (again IIRC) a full discussion of the evidence.

IIRC it's Boulez who recorded the scherzo repeat first.

The discussion whether a repeat should or shouldn't be inserted in the score (which is obviously another discussion than should or shouldn't it be played/recorded ) basically hangs on the material used during the first performance.

I. it IS in the prepared orchestral parts and it IS in Beethoven's autograph (autograph pp.145-185), but it has been marked in (most of) the orchestral parts and in the autograph (in red crayon) as to be skipped.

II. However, this score was also used for the first printed edition. Where Beethoven changed parts of scores he did so by crossing out pages if these couldn't be removed (e.g. the final bars of Symphony 8: crossed out, new bars on next page; Christus am Oelberge: pages excised, bars on remaining pages crossed out, where necessary new pages inserted).
This isn't the case with opus 67's autograph.

III. A complication is the fact that the part of the pages containing the repeat were removed -but NOT destroyed or crossed out- after the parts were printed (Winter 1808, Beethoven involved) but before the score was published (1826, without Beethoven's involvement). In the facsimiles of the score the repeat is present - the excised pages have been reunited with the score (ince mid-20c IIRC, the excised pages are still known as Mendelssohn 20)

There is more, but these 3 points give some indication why the question of the scherzo-repeat is not easily answerable.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

IIRC it's Boulez who recorded the scherzo repeat first.

Yes, when I saw Boulez on Alpie's list, I realized that Loughran couldn't have been first.

(The rest of your post was quite informative, too )

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The fact of the matter is that Beethoven included repeats in every one of his other symphonies so it seems unthinkable to me that he wouldn't have done so in the 5th.

Sorry? Are you saying that Beethoven "included repeats" of the Scherzo and Trio "in every one of his other symphonies", Pet? (Which is the point of the debate in the Fifth, I thought.)

[verismissimo]

Just back home, so late joining this party, but

Wot no Nikisch/BPO from 1913?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Arthur-Nikisch-Conducts-Beethoven-Philharmonic/dp/B0010V90BS/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1451242230&sr=1-1&keywords=beethoven+nikisch

[Bryn]

Come to that, much more recently, and on the famed Australian Eloquence label, there's LSO/Monteux.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Sorry? Are you saying that Beethoven "included repeats" of the Scherzo and Trio "in every one of his other symphonies", Pet? (Which is the point of the debate in the Fifth, I thought.)

That's not really a bombproof argument in the case of Beethoven. He was far from consistent in this respect. Symphonies 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 & 9 have ABA minuet/scherzo movements, whereas 4,6 & 7 are ABABA. There is of course a repeat in the Trio of no 5.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

That's not really a bombproof argument in the case of Beethoven. He was far from consistent in this respect. Symphonies 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 & 9 have ABA minuet/scherzo movements, whereas 4,6 & 7 are ABABA. There is of course a repeat in the Trio of no 5.

Well, of course I know this!

As I understood the point of the discussion about "the repeat" in the Third Movement of the Fifth refers to a suggested ABAB (with internal repeats) - link to Finale pattern (as opposed to the more customary AB [with internal repeats] - link to Finale). Pet's comment The fact of the matter is that Beethoven included repeats in every one of his other symphonies so it seems unthinkable to me that he wouldn't have done so in the 5th made me wonder if he was suggesting that the Scherzo and Trio are repeated "in every one of his other Symphonies". If he merely referred to the internal repeats, then I don't see how it affects the discussion about whether the Scherzo and Trio can/should be repeated.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I was agreeing with you (for once )

However, the 5th having a scherzo ABABA would at least be consistent with the other "middle" symphonies.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I was agreeing with you (for once )

However, the 5th having a scherzo ABABA would at least be consistent with the other "middle" symphonies.

Not quite - the final A would be missing, the (repeated) Trio followed by the link into the Finale. And the Scherzo of the Sixth has a double trio, so more ABCA (the C being the 2/4 section, linked to the first Trio by a brief [3 bar] reference to the Scherzo. (And the structure of the Scherzo of the 9th is unique in the Symphonies in combining the ABA outline with a Sonata structure - with repeats not only of the Exposition but also of the Development/Recapitulation! Repeats often overlooked )

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Not quite - the final A would be missing, the (repeated) Trio followed by the link into the Finale.

Now I'm getting confused. I'd assumed the extra section was a repeat of the scherzo/trio - ABAB, followed by the muted version of A which merges into the eventual link to the finale

And the Scherzo of the Sixth has a double trio, so more ABCA (the C being the 2/4 section, linked to the first Trio by a brief [3 bar] reference to the Scherzo.

I see what you mean, but I think of what you call AB as being the scherzo section, and therefore just A, the 2/4 section being the trio.

[Alison]

Anybody know anything about Nicholas Baragwanath?