Bal 8.02.20/13.6.20 - Mozart: Symphony no. 39 in E flat K.543

[mallard fizz]

But we must be careful about opening discussion on politics, even on the peripheral.

I think of it as like believing horoscopes, words painted on the side of a bus or tabloid headlines. There isn't a shred of evidence for the idea.

[jayne lee wilson]

But we must be careful about opening discussion on politics, even on the peripheral.

Sorry, what? Politics.... here in the BaL on 39?

You don't know the Harnoncourt or Savall recordings, the notes to them, the seriousness of their concept?.... You didn't hear the Fischer Concert the other night....?

You think it is all "tabloid headlines"....?

[mallard fizz]

Sorry, what? Politics.... here in the BaL on 39?

You don't know the Harnoncourt or Savall recordings, the notes to them, the seriousness of their concept?.... You didn't hear the Fischer Concert the other night....?

You think it is all "tabloid headlines"....?

[mallard fizz]

Sorry, what? Politics.... here in the BaL on 39?

You don't know the Harnoncourt or Savall recordings, the notes to them, the seriousness of their concept?.... You didn't hear the Fischer Concert the other night....?

You think it is all "tabloid headlines"....?

[jayne lee wilson]

....? ...?........

[silvestrione]

For what it is worth, never mind lines of argument/analysis away from the music, the OAE/Fischer concert demonstrated, for me, the opposite of what it set out to show. I mean, that splitting the G Minor symphony either side of an interval destroyed the cohesion and impact of one of the very greatest (and most concentrated) of symphonies (while, for me, the rather self-conscious, asked for applause also made it hard to concentrate on the music).

We don't need to go further than recognising, surely, that the three were written together, have the feel of a summation (up to that point) or special statement, as they were without commission, but that, part of the miracle, is that they are three so different symphonies, each a symphonic world of its own.

[Once Was 4]

Gosh, that brings back a memory. The only time I went to a concert in Manchester Town Hall was when I was in the 6th form at the then Eccles Grammar School. The English master (a certain John Law) whisked a few of us off in his car during the lunch break to hear George Hurst conducting the BBC Northern in Tchaikovsky 5 there.

(Apologies for going off topic.)

Off topic it may be but those were wonderful concerts; you just popped in when you could and left when you had to. I was one of a number of students at the Northern School of Music who used to meet up with some of our more high-flying friends from the Royal Manchester College on a Friday lunchtime whenever we could at Manchester Town hall.

Later on I was lucky enough to play in some of them as a 'dep' with the BBC Northern; I remember a Siegfried's Rhine Journey with John Pritchard (he addressed me as "young man" in the rehearsal when I did not play a second horn solo to his satisfaction - how I wish now that this expression still applied to me!) amongst many other things; also a rather embarrassing incident regarding one of the orchestra's regular horn players which perhaps should not feature in this discussion. And playing 2nd horn with the great Sydney Coulston on 1st (Sibelius Violin Concerto) a couple of weeks before he retired (and at that time usually 'bumper' rather than Principal); I was never a pupil of his but I still learned a lot from him working in the same section and listening to his sage advice in rehearsal breaks.

Sorry - you have set me off! I will stop now.

[pastoralguy]

And playing 2nd horn with the great Sydney Coulston on 1st (Sibelius Violin Concerto).



Sorry - you have set me off! I will stop now.

Do you remember who the soloist was?

Please don't stop! Fascinating stuff!

[jayne lee wilson]

For what it is worth, never mind lines of argument/analysis away from the music, the OAE/Fischer concert demonstrated, for me, the opposite of what it set out to show. I mean, that splitting the G Minor symphony either side of an interval destroyed the cohesion and impact of one of the very greatest (and most concentrated) of symphonies (while, for me, the rather self-conscious, asked for applause also made it hard to concentrate on the music).

We don't need to go further than recognising, surely, that the three were written together, have the feel of a summation (up to that point) or special statement, as they were without commission, but that, part of the miracle, is that they are three so different symphonies, each a symphonic world of its own.

Personally, I found this interval worked surprisingly well - even when I plan to hear all three symphonies from recordings, I always feel a little daunted at what I've taken on, and having the interval broadly at the midpoint of the sequence in this concert, not something I've tried before, made it easier for me to face up to, and grasp, the work(s) as a great 12-movement span. (Which was the point here, surely: I think that was a main reason why Fischer placed the interval as he did.)

Do try to get a look at NH's notes to his recording of "Mozart's Instrumental Oratorium", they are very much to do with the music, the connections between the symphonies and the character of each in sequence. A view which Savall also supports in his trilogy, to which I shall soon be listening. I do feel there's an apt poetic trajectory to having the darkest work at the centre, as if you start out bright and hopeful in 39, but have to undergo the trauma - The Valley of the Shadow of Death - of No.40, before re-emerging into the final triumph and ultimate affirmation with that uniquely conclusive finale to No.41 - Jupiter, Bringer of Joy!

For me, 39 feels very youthful and danceable, and 41 - deeper, more "mature"...

Where would you pause, S, if you hear the three works together? Or maybe you don't usually play them that way? I like to think I'll get through them at one go, but I guess I usually stop for a while after No.40....

[silvestrione]

The pause in the OAE/Rattle version a few seasons ago was, I think, after the first two symphonies. Not ideal, I'll admit! Like the last three Beethoven piano sonatas, best done without an interval, perhaps. At home I'll have a little, or a long, break between each.

I like the way you describe the 'poetic trajectory', but I do prefer to think of them on their own terms, individually, and certainly don't feel that difference in maturity between 39 and 41. I prefer 39 to 41, as a more satisfyingly affirmative experience (find first three movements of 41 just a tiny bit laboured by Mozart's so very high standards?).

Just going to listen to Bernstein/VPO in 39....

[Goon525]

The interval in both the Bohm concerts I referred to above came after 40 - but there was no suggestion that one was meant to experience the whole thing as a single continuous event.

I’ve just listened, one after the other, to Tognetti and Jacobs, on headphones so I’m reluctant to say much about sound, beyond that it seemed fine in both cases. I found Tognetti very good, pretty much on a par with SCO/Mackerras; lots of life, good bouncy rhythms and I’d have thought unexceptionable. A sensible version from which to learn the work, I’d have thought, and I don’t mean that as faint praise. For the most part Jacobs isn’t so very different - maybe the early instruments add just a bit of extra character. I can see why for some, the minuet is a bit hard to take - it is very fast, and surely not Allegretto - but I enjoyed it, and didn’t wish to rush straight back to Bohm! All the same, I do think that minuet makes it a slightly questionable library choice.

[Goon525]

Just thought readers might be interested in Hugh Canning’s review of the Ivan Fischer concert in today’s Sunday Times:-


At the Royal Festival Hall in London, an expanded Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment, conducted by Ivan Fischer, programmed Mozart’s three last symphonies, written in 1788, three years before his death; no record of their performance survives.

As the turbulent G minor work exists in two versions, one with oboes, one with clarinets, it seems unlikely that Mozart would have composed them for his own pleasure, but they make a satisfying evening, for the richness and sheer variety of the mature Mozart’s invention. He could hardly have known that these works would posthumously inspire his senior friend and sometime mentor, Haydn, the young Beethoven and Schubert, key exponents of the Viennese classical style.

Fischer introduced the concert, mentioning, bizarrely in my view, that his late teacher, Nikolaus Harnoncourt, conceived the supposed “trilogy” of symphonies No 39, 40 and 41 as a single “oratorio without words”. And yet, paradoxically, Fischer conducted the music in a bitty sequence of 12 pieces, breaking the G minor in half for the interval and encouraging applause after every movement. This strikes me as both pretentious and faux authentic — yes, people applauded between movements in Mozart’s day, but, as Harnoncourt once told me, we can’t replicate the exact acoustics of 18th-century halls and 18th-century audiences’ ears.

Even so, these lithe, bracing, rhythmically life-enhancing performances of indisputably great music proved joyous from first to last, the OAE’s superb wind soloists, and occasionally flatulent brass, thrown into high relief by deliciously transparent string textures. The performances were recorded — hopefully applause will be edited out — presumably for future release on disc or streaming.

[silvestrione]

Just thought readers might be interested in Hugh Canning’s review of the Ivan Fischer concert in today’s Sunday Times:-


At the Royal Festival Hall in London, an expanded Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment, conducted by Ivan Fischer, programmed Mozart’s three last symphonies, written in 1788, three years before his death; no record of their performance survives.

As the turbulent G minor work exists in two versions, one with oboes, one with clarinets, it seems unlikely that Mozart would have composed them for his own pleasure, but they make a satisfying evening, for the richness and sheer variety of the mature Mozart’s invention. He could hardly have known that these works would posthumously inspire his senior friend and sometime mentor, Haydn, the young Beethoven and Schubert, key exponents of the Viennese classical style.

Fischer introduced the concert, mentioning, bizarrely in my view, that his late teacher, Nikolaus Harnoncourt, conceived the supposed “trilogy” of symphonies No 39, 40 and 41 as a single “oratorio without words”. And yet, paradoxically, Fischer conducted the music in a bitty sequence of 12 pieces, breaking the G minor in half for the interval and encouraging applause after every movement. This strikes me as both pretentious and faux authentic — yes, people applauded between movements in Mozart’s day, but, as Harnoncourt once told me, we can’t replicate the exact acoustics of 18th-century halls and 18th-century audiences’ ears.

Even so, these lithe, bracing, rhythmically life-enhancing performances of indisputably great music proved joyous from first to last, the OAE’s superb wind soloists, and occasionally flatulent brass, thrown into high relief by deliciously transparent string textures. The performances were recorded — hopefully applause will be edited out — presumably for future release on disc or streaming.

Thanks very much for sharing that. ('Flatulent' brass...hmm....Was that meant as a compliment!)

[jayne lee wilson]

Just thought readers might be interested in Hugh Canning’s review of the Ivan Fischer concert in today’s Sunday Times:-


At the Royal Festival Hall in London, an expanded Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment, conducted by Ivan Fischer, programmed Mozart’s three last symphonies, written in 1788, three years before his death; no record of their performance survives.

As the turbulent G minor work exists in two versions, one with oboes, one with clarinets, it seems unlikely that Mozart would have composed them for his own pleasure, but they make a satisfying evening, for the richness and sheer variety of the mature Mozart’s invention. He could hardly have known that these works would posthumously inspire his senior friend and sometime mentor, Haydn, the young Beethoven and Schubert, key exponents of the Viennese classical style.

Fischer introduced the concert, mentioning, bizarrely in my view, that his late teacher, Nikolaus Harnoncourt, conceived the supposed “trilogy” of symphonies No 39, 40 and 41 as a single “oratorio without words”. And yet, paradoxically, Fischer conducted the music in a bitty sequence of 12 pieces, breaking the G minor in half for the interval and encouraging applause after every movement. This strikes me as both pretentious and faux authentic — yes, people applauded between movements in Mozart’s day, but, as Harnoncourt once told me, we can’t replicate the exact acoustics of 18th-century halls and 18th-century audiences’ ears.

Even so, these lithe, bracing, rhythmically life-enhancing performances of indisputably great music proved joyous from first to last, the OAE’s superb wind soloists, and occasionally flatulent brass, thrown into high relief by deliciously transparent string textures. The performances were recorded — hopefully applause will be edited out — presumably for future release on disc or streaming.

Well I'm glad he finally admitted to enjoying it all (in spite of himself, it seems...), but why "bizarrely"? The "Instrumental Oratorium" is a very carefully-thought-out concept. Sounds like Canning doesn't even know the Harnoncourt recording! Or the Savall.... Which is appalling ignorance in a critic. (Or did he see those releases and turn away with a haughty sniff? "No new ideas please, This is Classical Music!")

His assertion (it is certainly not an argument...) about applause and the interval placing as "pretentious" and "faux authentic" is superficial and arrogant with it. Why "bitty"? The whole point was to present 12 movements, rather than three symphonies.... is it too much to ask of a critic's concentration that they take a break halfway through?
He then immediately contradicts himself about the applause anyway, with an utterly illogical link, or leap, from that to the tired old cliché about acoustics and ears......terrible.
(It seems unlikely that Human Ears have evolved significantly since the 18th Century. (Classical Music might be hard to listen to if they had.)
It is of course about experience: brains, cognition, memory, thinking... (not just the ears/auditory cortex themselves).... which are very flexible, recreative, creative and inventive in the agonisingly self-aware Human Animal..).

Just a very stuffy, retrogressive, ill-considered, ill-researched review, really....

[Ein Heldenleben]

If I may be permitted to defend Hugh Canning I don’t think his review deserves the description “stuffy etc .,” He obviously hugely enjoyed the musical experience if not the extra-musical packaging and presentation - that is his right. If he thought the experience ‘ bitty ‘ one can hardly disagree with that - it’s just a subjective opinion .
I don’t know whether he is an expert on 18th century performance practice but he is certainly a first rate opera reviewer with an almost unmatched experience of the last thirty years of performance and voices . His opera reviews are almost always accurate in terms of assessing performance and particularly vocal quality - a real consumer service when opera tickets are so expensive.