BaL 22.04.23 - Schubert: Symphony no. 5 in B flat D. 485

[Goon525]

Agree on both counts. I don't like the discussion veering away from the work in question and off into this well-worn territory, but I equally don't like being told that the only way to appreciate a recorded performance is in the highest possible bit/ sample rate and that anything lower is....well, here we go again...

I don’t think anyone has said that, merely that higher res can be audibly better than lower. If you can access high res, use it - even if it’s less important than, say, how good the recording is in the first place. Doesn’t mean it’s NOT important.

[Goon525]

Going to listen to the Bohm again this morning - another charmer of a performance as I recall but also an excuse to listen to his legendary Pastoral again.

Agreed on both counts!

[Master Jacques]

I listened to the Gaigg (recorded version CD quality). I just don’t believe that the thin- ish string sound you have correctly identified would have been that produced by some of the musicians of the Burgtheater orchestra at the ad hoc premiere all those years ago. A read of current thinking on string vibrato history suggests to me that vibrato would have been used perhaps sparingly but certainly in the manner recommended by Leopold Mozart - bridge to peg as it were rather than side to side.
For one thing the Burgtheater musicians would have had plenty of vibrato floating over their heads every night to emulate …too much perhaps.

Before she became the laid-back conductor 'Michi', the veteran violinist Michaela Gaigg made her reputation by playing in the sinewy and vibrato-free style associated with 1980s Austro-German HIPP, which now itself sounds pretty historic - even dated. This background might well account for the 'scrawny' string sound she apparently prefers, and also the irritating practice of accenting and cutting off the last note of phrases - for example, the main theme of the 1st movement, which finishes with a sustained minim in the scores I've seen, rather than the sforzando quaver adopted in this cpo performance.

I'm open to correction, if a newer edition claims the jabbing quaver is what Schubert meant by his smooth, scored minim.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Before she became the laid-back conductor 'Michi', the veteran violinist Michaela Gaigg made her reputation by playing in the sinewy and vibrato-free style associated with 1980s Austro-German HIPP, which now itself sounds pretty historic - even dated. This background might well account for the 'scrawny' string sound she apparently prefers, and also the irritating practice of accenting and cutting off the last note of phrases - for example, the main theme of the 1st movement, which finishes with a sustained minim in the scores I've seen, rather than the sforzando quaver adopted in this cpo performance.

I'm open to correction, if a newer edition claims the jabbing quaver is what Schubert meant by his smooth, scored minim.

Well it’s a minim in the 1884 Breitkopf & Hartel edited by one Johannes Brahms . Wasn’t he famous for his meticulous scholarship?

[Master Jacques]

Well it’s a minim in the 1884 Breitkopf & Hartel edited by one Johannes Brahms . Wasn’t he famous for his meticulous scholarship?

He was indeed - no quavers, then, for the Bearded Wonder!

[jayne lee wilson]

Before she became the laid-back conductor 'Michi', the veteran violinist Michaela Gaigg made her reputation by playing in the sinewy and vibrato-free style associated with 1980s Austro-German HIPP, which now itself sounds pretty historic - even dated. This background might well account for the 'scrawny' string sound she apparently prefers, and also the irritating practice of accenting and cutting off the last note of phrases - for example, the main theme of the 1st movement, which finishes with a sustained minim in the scores I've seen, rather than the sforzando quaver adopted in this cpo performance.

I'm open to correction, if a newer edition claims the jabbing quaver is what Schubert meant by his smooth, scored minim.

It is an exaggeration, if not clearly inaccurate, to call the last note of first theme a sforzando in the live Gaigg; there is no extra emphasis upon it at all, let alone a "sudden or strong" one.
But several conductors play it short like Gaigg does - Gardiner, Gardner and Jacobs among them; Beecham, Bohm and other older recordings I tried use a much longer value, so perhaps there has been some textual variant found at some later point. I would add that many earlier conductors omit the repeat, so they are hardly following the score in that respect; it seems to me especially damaging to the structural balance in such a short movement as this one; and several period performances use it creatively, avoiding literal repetition.

But conductors must have at least some creative freedom to adapt a score to their expressive view of it; why else be a performer? To interpret it in their phrasing, tempi and dynamics. To create the music in the moment of its sounding. So many of the greatest conductors and soloists have inspired deep affection precisely for this - their astonishing, individual musicality.
I often think of Bruckner, in a letter to Nikisch when he was rehearsing his 7th, saying "in the score many important, frequent tempo changes are not marked" - not the only time he said this. He trusted the innate musical sensitivity of his performers; he certainly wasn't alone in this as contemporary writings of Brahms' own friends and performers testify.

*****

Too unwell for more now, after hours at the hospital again today; screen-time makes me dizzy quite rapidly so I have to limit it: frustrating and unpleasant. I'll add some thoughts about René Jacobs and the B'Rock shortly, in the Owl Hours I hope, "one I made earlier.." (And a performance for the epataying of the forum bourgeois.....watch out...!.)

[Maclintick]

I'm open to correction, if a newer edition claims the jabbing quaver is what Schubert meant by his smooth, scored minim.

A related point I alluded to in an earlier post, before the thread became hijacked by forumistas who got the bits between their teeth, so to speak, is whether the Neue Schubert Ausgabe of Symphony 5 (Bärenreiter 1999 -- Arnold Feil & Douglas Woodfull-Harris) differs materially, esp. in respect of dynamic indications, from Breitkpof und Härtel 1884 ? When there's so much store set on these boards by all the dreary Brucknerisations available, and discussions of the putative HIPP-ness or otherwise of modern performances, it would be interesting to know whether FS's oeuvre is being played not only with all the notes in the correct order, but with dynamics specified by the composer.

[jayne lee wilson]

A related point I alluded to in an earlier post, before the thread became hijacked by forumistas who got the bits between their teeth, so to speak, is whether the Neue Schubert Ausgabe of Symphony 5 (Bärenreiter 1999 -- Arnold Feil & Douglas Woodfull-Harris) differs materially, esp. in respect of dynamic indications, from Breitkpof und Härtel 1884 ? When there's so much store set on these boards by all the dreary Brucknerisations available, and discussions of the putative HIPP-ness or otherwise of modern performances, it would be interesting to know whether FS's oeuvre is being played not only with all the notes in the correct order, but with dynamics specified by the composer.

What on Earth does that mean? And see my post #113 above.....

[RichardB]

it would be interesting to know whether FS's oeuvre is being played not only with all the notes in the correct order, but with dynamics specified by the composer.

I had a little spare time this evening, so I listened to the first movement as recorded by four different HIPPsters whose work I generally admire (Gaigg again, plus Brüggen, Gottfried and Immerseel), and I was struck by the way in which the opening wind chords, and the balance between winds and strings as the movement continued, was balanced differently in each of the recordings, despite the first 16 bars being marked pp in all parts. My point is that "the dynamics specified by the composer" can be interpreted in very many ways, none of which are "wrong".

[Maclintick]

What on Earth does that mean? And see my post #113 above.....

Forgive me, JLW, but what I was attempting to convey was that when it comes to Bruckner, adherence to this or that edition is perceived to be of paramount importance, and that by straying from the true path of Nowak, Haas, Carraghan or whomever, a performer is committing some heinous apostasy, whereas when it comes to poor old FS, it's regarded as OK for conductors to declare open season and to indulge their whims. For goodness sake, there's more than a hundred years between Breitkopf und Härtel 1884 and the NSA edition of this symphony, and all I was asking, of board members far more qualified than me, was whether there were material differences between the editions.

Sorry you've had a rough time today. Get well soon.

[Maclintick]

I had a little spare time this evening, so I listened to the first movement as recorded by four different HIPPsters whose work I generally admire (Gaigg again, plus Brüggen, Gottfried and Immerseel), and I was struck by the way in which the opening wind chords, and the balance between winds and strings as the movement continued, was balanced differently in each of the recordings, despite the first 16 bars being marked pp in all parts. My point is that "the dynamics specified by the composer" can be interpreted in very many ways, none of which are "wrong".

Which edition are you working from Richard, Breitkopf und Härtel 1884 or Neue Schubert Ausgabe ?

[richardfinegold]

It is an exaggeration, if not clearly inaccurate, to call the last note of first theme a sforzando in the live Gaigg; there is no extra emphasis upon it at all, let alone a "sudden or strong" one.
But several conductors play it short like Gaigg does - Gardiner, Gardner and Jacobs among them; Beecham, Bohm and other older recordings I tried use a much longer value, so perhaps there has been some textual variant found at some later point. I would add that many earlier conductors omit the repeat, so they are hardly following the score in that respect; it seems to me especially damaging to the structural balance in such a short movement as this one; and several period performances use it creatively, avoiding literal repetition.

But conductors must have at least some creative freedom to adapt a score to their expressive view of it; why else be a performer? To interpret it in their phrasing, tempi and dynamics. To create the music in the moment of its sounding. So many of the greatest conductors and soloists have inspired deep affection precisely for this - their astonishing, individual musicality.
I often think of Bruckner, in a letter to Nikisch when he was rehearsing his 7th, saying "in the score many important, frequent tempo changes are not marked" - not the only time he said this. He trusted the innate musical sensitivity of his performers; he certainly wasn't alone in this as contemporary writings of Brahms' own friends and performers testify.

*****

Too unwell for more now, after hours at the hospital again today; screen-time makes me dizzy quite rapidly so I have to limit it: frustrating and unpleasant. I'll add some thoughts about René Jacobs and the B'Rock shortly, in the Owl Hours I hope, "one I made earlier.." (And a performance for the epataying of the forum bourgeois.....watch out...!.)

Feel better, Jayne

[Ein Heldenleben]

A related point I alluded to in an earlier post, before the thread became hijacked by forumistas who got the bits between their teeth, so to speak, is whether the Neue Schubert Ausgabe of Symphony 5 (Bärenreiter 1999 -- Arnold Feil & Douglas Woodfull-Harris) differs materially, esp. in respect of dynamic indications, from Breitkpof und Härtel 1884 ? When there's so much store set on these boards by all the dreary Brucknerisations available, and discussions of the putative HIPP-ness or otherwise of modern performances, it would be interesting to know whether FS's oeuvre is being played not only with all the notes in the correct order, but with dynamics specified by the composer.

Interestingly on the first page of the Barenreiter the violin note F at the end of the Bflat rising triad in Bar 6 and at the first inversion of f major in bar 8 are crotchets whereas in the Brahms B and H they are minims. That is quite a major difference. The only dynamic indication on both scores is a pp at the opening (repeated in bars 3 and 5 ) and the odd accented note.
Unfortunately only page one of Barenreiter is readily previewable. The B and H is on IMSLP.
The crotchets would explain the slightly cut off feeling to the end of these phrases but they are what modern scholarship suggests.

[RichardB]

Which edition are you working from Richard, Breitkopf und Härtel 1884 or Neue Schubert Ausgabe ?

Youtube!

... which is Breitkopf in fact; the Neue Schubert-Ausgabe has exactly the same dynamics, that is to say flute, oboes and bassoons aren't indicated at different dynamic levels, which all performances will involve to a greater or lesser extent.

[Master Jacques]

Forgive me, JLW, but what I was attempting to convey was that when it comes to Bruckner, adherence to this or that edition is perceived to be of paramount importance, and that by straying from the true path of Nowak, Haas, Carraghan or whomever, a performer is committing some heinous apostasy, whereas when it comes to poor old FS, it's regarded as OK for conductors to declare open season and to indulge their whims. For goodness sake, there's more than a hundred years between Breitkopf und Härtel 1884 and the NSA edition of this symphony, and all I was asking, of board members far more qualified than me, was whether there were material differences between the editions.

I'd be equally interested to know how radically the NSA (which is not I think available for online perusal) differs from the old standard 1884. There's nothing beyond that J. Brahms edition on IMSLP, which suggests that was the sole option for many years - but perhaps some of the Schubertian experts here will know differently.