BaL 9.02.19 - Beethoven: Piano Concerto no 5 in E flat "Emperor"

[Bryn]

I doubt if there has ever been a more variable performer. His Ravel Rachmaninov 4 coupling from the 1950s deserves all its plaudits and BBC Legends issued a live Grieg Piano Concerto that is sensational but much of what he recorded for DG that I have heard I have found glacial especially Debussy and this Beethoven was horrible - Stephen Plaistow in a review once described his playing of another Beethoven concerto as hateful in its approach I think though he seemed less unimpressed by the Emperor recording.

Which of ABM's Beethoven concerto recordings is it that SP found "hateful"? I might well have it, or be able to find it at QOBUZ. I'd be interested to give it an audition. My guess would be the C major.

[Barbirollians]

I think it was the C Major though he did not like the C Minor much either as I recall. I am pretty sure the review was in Gramophone.

[Bryn]

I think it was the C Major though he did not like the C Minor much either as I recall. I am pretty sure the review was in Gramophone.

Thanks. I have the C major on LP (somewhere) but have never heard his C minor. I will check it out.

[Barbirollians]

Having listened to the Solomon/Menges again this morning I am amazed it was not mentioned yesterday. It knocks the vast majority of the extracts played into a cocked hat .

Wonderful Beethoven playing a heroically built first movement , an immensely affecting adagio and a thrillingly dancing Rondo and how time stands still at the transition into the finale.

[vinteuil]

Having listened to the Solomon/Menges again this morning I am amazed it was not mentioned yesterday. It knocks the vast majority of the extracts played into a cocked hat .

Wonderful Beethoven playing a heroically built first movement , an immensely affecting adagio and a thrillingly dancing Rondo and how time stands still at the transition into the finale.

Back around 1980, I had more LPs of the 'Emperor' than any other work by any composer. I have still to find a recording in which the 'slow' movement is played at the tempo which the cut time on the original orchestra parts (supposedly wrongly missing its strike-through in the copy prepared in a hand other than Beethoven's of the full score). There was an interesting television programme on this topic in the early to mid-1980s. I recorded the soundtrack to cassette at the time, but have since lost it. The second and third movements were played on original instruments to illustrate the argument in favour of a tempo around twice that most often encountered in modern times. I found the quicker tempo very convincing. The nearest on disc is that by Tan, the LCP and Norrington. They take their tempi from Czerny's metronome markings. The search continues.

As a follow-up to re-discovering "The Emperor's New Clothes" Workshop programme, the timings of the 2 LCP recordings are van Barthold 4'24" and Tan 5'47". Contrast those with, say, Gould/Stockie 9'23", and the latter is not that untypical of 'traditional' pre-HIPP performances based on editorial misreadings and/or revisions of the original materials. The slower performances can sound very enticing, but there can be no real doubt that they misrepresent the composer's intentions.

... I see that Solomon/Menges take 8 minutes and 23 seconds for the Adagio un poco mosso ...

.

[Barbirollians]

... I see that Solomon/Menges take 8 minutes and 23 seconds for the Adagio un poco mosso ...

.

How is 4.24 consistent with a marking of Adagio even - un poco mosso. As for Czerny’s metronome markings why are they necessarily reliable ? Didn’t Czerny give different marks in different publications ?

On the other hand I was interested to read yesterday that Vaughan Williams was troubled by the Scherzo of his Sixth Symphony until Barbirolli conducted it at a slower tempo than he had marked the score and RVW found that he felt it worked much better at the slower tempo.

[Bryn]

... I see that Solomon/Menges take 8 minutes and 23 seconds for the Adagio un poco mosso ...

.

Yes, but bear in mind that his recording was made well before serious research into the early history of the work was carried out. Solomon had been brought up with the errors in the published score unresolved. I don't know whether or not he was aware of Czerny's metronome markings, but the tradition of playing the Adagio un poco mosso at a slower speed was well established by time he took up the work. Given these circumstances, it must surely be heard as a magnificent performance, albeit with a tempo we now understand to be mistaken.

[Bryn]

How is 4.24 consistent with a marking of Adagio even - un poco mosso. As for Czerny’s metronome markings why are they necessarily reliable ? . . .

It could have something to do with Czerny being an early performer of the work and student of the composer who also new Beethoven's ire at slow interpretations of his tempo markings. That said, 4'24 is, I think, a little swifter than crotchet=60, though I think is sounds wonderful. I'm just sorry that van Barthold and Norrington did not also record the first movement.

Also, "Adagio" in Beethoven's time, did not mean the slow tempo it came to mean later. Surely you must be aware of that.

[Taking Czerny's marking at strict tempo, the movement would take around 5'28".]

[Barbirollians]

It could have something to do with Czerny being an early performer of the work and student of the composer who also new Beethoven's ire at slow interpretations of his tempo markings. That said, 4'24 is, I think, a little swifter than crotchet=60, though I think is sounds wonderful. I'm just sorry that van Barthold and Norrington did not also record the first movement.

Also, "Adagio" in Beethoven's time, did not mean the slow tempo it came to mean later. Surely you must be aware of that.

Please don’t be patronising . I asked a serious question as I understand it comparison of Czerny’s publications show that he gives different metronome markings for the same pieces in different publications. Might that not suggest they were Czerny’s choices rather than entirely accurate recollections of the tempos chosen by Beethoven .

[Bryn]

Please don’t be patronising . I asked a serious question as I understand it comparison of Czerny’s publications show that he gives different metronome markings for the same pieces in different publications. Might that not suggest they were Czerny’s choices rather than entirely accurate recollections of the tempos chosen by Beethoven .

Nothing patronising intended. Just reminding of the historical context. Even today, Adagio is often thought of as between 66 and 76 bpm, so if the 'beat; concerned is a crotchet, even 60 might be considered a tad slow.

Now spinning, Newman/Tony & co.,/Simon. They took 5'52", which is pretty close to Czerny. I do rather like the way Newman played along with the tutti, too. Newman had first recorded the 3rd concerto plus K475, over the Pond, with visiting members of the Hanover Band, then later completed the survey, including the Choral Fantasy, with many of the same musicians in London (1, 5 and the Choral Fantasy) and New York (2 and 4). Many thanks to Tony for reminding me of this set. I had to search through various boxes to find the CD of the 3rd and K475 plus CD-Rs of the others (burned from downloads a good few years ago). The piano is set rather forward w.r.t. the orchestra, and there is a touch of the Nimbus about the overall acoustic. A note on the back insert for the CD with 2 and 4 states:

Tempos (in beats per minute) as recommended by Czerny, or from the collated Beethoven tempos by Rudolf Kolisch. Musical Quarterly, 1943.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Czerny’s publications show that he gives different metronome markings for the same pieces in different publications. Might that not suggest they were Czerny’s choices rather than entirely accurate recollections of the tempos chosen by Beethoven .

The differences are not that marked - usually within six notches per beat - and never as "slow" as recordings from the '50s, '60s, & '70s regarded as "standard". And Czerny was not the only person who heard Beethoven play who supplied metronome markings: Ignaz Moscheles (who knew Berethoven well, and whom Beethoven entrusted with the piano score of Fidelio) also provided such markings based on his own memories of Beethoven's playing: they are uniformally faster than Czerny's. Given that Beethoven's own Metronome markings are also consistently faster than many famous recordings perform them, the onus moves to those who play them at the slower speeds to provide evidence to justify such speeds.

The matter has been investigated in great depth by many scholars over many years - there is online a study of the subject that takes 321 pages to discuss the many and various arguments (for and against) on the matter that have been put forward! (There's a handy summary chart of the different Czerny and the Moscheles markings on the last seven pages.)

https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/files/54586757/FULL_TEXT.PDF

Of course, there will always be performaers and listeners who prefer the insights and experiences that are offered by the 20th Century standard performance practices - and others (like me ) who appreciate these as a valid aspect of Beethoven interpretation. But I don't think there's any point in trying to argue that "this is what Beethoven 'really' meant" - whether or not he would have "preferred" his Music to be so performed ... well, that's great fun, but pure speculation.

[Barbirollians]

The differences are not that marked - usually within six notches per beat - and never as "slow" as recordings from the '50s, '60s, & '70s regarded as "standard". And Czerny was not the only person who heard Beethoven play who supplied metronome markings: Ignaz Moscheles (who knew Berethoven well, and whom Beethoven entrusted with the piano score of Fidelio) also provided such markings based on his own memories of Beethoven's playing: they are uniformally faster than Czerny's. Given that Beethoven's own Metronome markings are also consistently faster than many famous recordings perform them, the onus moves to those who play them at the slower speeds to provide evidence to justify such speeds.

The matter has been investigated in great depth by many scholars over many years - there is online a study of the subject that takes 321 pages to discuss the many and various arguments (for and against) on the matter that have been put forward! (There's a handy summary chart of the different Czerny and the Moscheles markings on the last seven pages.)

https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/files/54586757/FULL_TEXT.PDF

Of course, there will always be performaers and listeners who prefer the insights and experiences that are offered by the 20th Century standard performance practices - and others (like me ) who appreciate these as a valid aspect of Beethoven interpretation. But I don't think there's any point in trying to argue that "this is what Beethoven 'really' meant" - whether or not he would have "preferred" his Music to be so performed ... well, that's great fun, but pure speculation.

Yes I saw that - evidently a very thorough piece of work . There does not seem much change in approach to this Adagio relatively recently Brendel with Rattle and Uchida seem well above 8 minutes .

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Moscheles is an interesting and important character - in addition to his association with Beethoven, he also taught Mendelssohn - and it was hearing Moscheles play that made Schumann want to become a Musician when he was eight years old. His granddaughter (born just two years before he died) was Jelka Rosen - the painter, who married Delius.

[Nick Armstrong]

NK needs to choose a few

He followed your advice...

I enjoyed this BAL and listened several times to some sections - it was good to hear a number of recordings I'd never heard before. Always difficult to judge tempi in juxtaposition with other versions, but on this hearing, the Michaelangeli and Tan performances would make me run a mile. The Kovacevich sounded a bit... noisy. The Perahia sounded a little precious and lifeless after the lovely Radu Lupu performance of the slow movement start.

In general it made me think that the most natural, unforced approach is best to let the power of the music tell... I grew up with the Pollini/VPO/Böhm recording (did that get a look in? maybe, if NK did make an error as pointed out by Silvestrione above) and that seems admirable to me, still. (Talking of errors, I jumped when NK said that the Zimerman/Bernstein was from 1993, knowing that LB died in 1990 - it was recorded in Sept. 1989 and released autumn 1992, so I suppose one can let NK off on that one)

But I was glad to have a fresh new suggestion, and the 'winning' Minnaar/NSO/de Vriend seems to be very much the sort of performance I like, no-nonsense and beautifully played (as it's on Qobuz, it's had an airing already)

.

Gould/Stockie, which is such a hoot.

[HighlandDougie]

... I see that Solomon/Menges take 8 minutes and 23 seconds for the Adagio un poco mosso ...

.

Hmm, pace Barbs, it really is slow, to the point of - almost - becoming becalmed. I also thought that Solomon was teetering on the fine line between being beautifully played and being self-indulgent, as in, "beautiful playing for beautiful playing's sake", rather at the expense of the flow/line of the music. I didn't think that the transition into the final movement was particularly well-handled, which I put down to the slow tempo. And, in fairness to NK, given that there are frequent moans on the BaL thread about too few musical illustrations, I thought that he almost went too far the other way. In view of the sheer number of recordings, he was bound to omit/skip recordings dear to boarders' hearts - and if that included Solomon, I don't think that that was a capital offence.

I thought that NK's point about performances being faster in earlier decades, then slowing up from the 50s onwards then speeding up again was interesting, although Uchida/Rattle is clearly a recent exception. As a comparison with Solomon, I dug out Gieseking/VPO/Walter (recorded in 1934), which is 2 minutes faster than Solomon and sounds "righter", tempo-wise. OK, it's not nearly as well played as Solomon or Gilels - and it's all a matter of personal taste - but, ancient recording notwithstanding, it sounded more Beethovenian to me.