BaL 14.04.12 Mozart Symphony no 41 "Jupiter"

[kernelbogey]

[...] His slow movement tempo (ie the crotchet pulse) seems perfectly ok for Adagio cantabile to me. I'm a bit uncomfortable only with his first movement tempo, which is more like Allegro con brio than Allegro vivace.[....]

Could someone kindly explain (in a few words) the distinction between tempo and pulse? The latter term has always mystified me.

[rauschwerk]

Could someone kindly explain (in a few words) the distinction between tempo and pulse? The latter term has always mystified me.

Worried by your post that I had used these terms in a slapdash way, I looked up 'pulse' in Grove online (presumably you know how to do this with your library barcode). It says there that Pulse is "used synonymously with Beat to refer to regularly recurring articulations in the flow of musical time. Tactus is often used interchangeably with either ‘beat’ or ‘pulse’, but historically ‘tactus’ has a somewhat different meaning." and that "The pulse of musical passage is a crucial, though not the only, aspect of our sense of tempo."

[kernelbogey]

Thanks Rauschwerk - I do have access to Grove online and was being a bit lazy in posting my question! I did think your use of 'pulse' was different to how I've heard it used (something to do with the overall structure of performance of, say, a movement). I'll read up on it.

[Pabmusic]

Could someone kindly explain (in a few words) the distinction between tempo and pulse? The latter term has always mystified me.

I'll have a go, though it's not easy as 'pulse' isn't really such a standard musical term. But I think there's a useful distinction to be made between 'tempo' and 'pulse' - or, rather, between what a conductor beats and what the listener's foot taps.

'Pulse' has more to do with a fundamental tempo of the piece - not really the conductor's beat as much as the implied tempo (implied because of the way the harmony shifts, for instance). You can notice this in Sibelius's 7th, when there are times when you sense that, however fast things may be happening on the surface, deep down the wheels are turning very, very slowly. One of the jobs of a conductor (I feel, at least) is to set a basic pulse that may not be apparent from the surface of the music. Quite often in classical works there is a slow movement in 6/8 - these usually cause trouble, because it is not always clear whether it should sound as 6 beats or 2 to a bar. It makes a difference. Put crudely, beating every quaver can give a clear feeling of 6 equal beats and a definite sense of heaviness; beating 2 emphasises only 2 of the 6 notes and usually produces a rhythmic pulse of 2 in the bar - much more fleet. It may still be necessary to conduct it in 6 (because of incidental features of the music) even if the implied pulse is 2 beats to the bar - the trick then is to preserve a pulse of 2 in the bar.

I hope this helps. Think of 'pulse' as what the foot taps.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I suppose tempo is an indication of the frequency of the pulse.
The pulse is the same in Hogwood as it is in Beecham, but the tempo is different?

[rauschwerk]

Yes indeed, Sibelius. Something similar happens in the slow movement of the Jupiter. When the music turns to C minor (bar 19) and becomes more agitated on account of syncopation and the rapid figurations, the lower strings begin an 'oom-cha' accompaniment at something very close to a quick march tempo. At this point the pulse has certainly altered (I might consider conducting this in 6) but the harmony continues to change slowly - 1 chord per bar at first.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Leaving aside the possibility that referring to "twangy performances" is itself something of a "dismissive attitude", don't you rather shoot your own "argument" in the foot with the eye-catching comment

the vague "Andante Cantabile" , which can mean whatever the conductor wants it to mean.

If a conductor "wants" it to mean Presto or Largo, then you have no grounds for complaining that Norrington (or anyone else) is "speed obsessed" - or "too slow", for that matter.

Is it really that "vague", Alpie? Mozart had been a fluent speaker of Italian for about twenty years when he wrote K551, Andante cantabile wasn't as vague to him as the English "At a walking pace, songlike": more like "moving/going at a speed that can be easily sung". That doesn't seem "vague", does it? (Genuine question; not the "there, there, dear" that it looks in print!)

My point is that with the speed obsessed Norringtons of this world, the slow movements are effectively quicker than the outer movements as the "slowness" is compensated for by the composer with an abundance of demisemiquavers.

I think this demonstrates the difference between "pulse" and "Tempo". I don't experience the pulse of the movement through the speed of the demisemiquavers but through the rate of harmonic change. And, if the First Movement is performed at the speed Mozart writes, then the Second is a relaxation of pulse even if it "goes" faster than a late 19th Century Adagio - the play with the "strong beat" at the start of the Second Movement is also much clearer at a "faster than 'slow'" pace.

I'm not trying to "get" at you, Alpie: we've had this sort of disagreement before and no doubt shall do so again with no hard feelings. But I so wish you'd try to see that the HIPP attitude is one based on respect for the competence of the Composers' knowing what they were doing. It's not a "bandwagon" that performers and writers have jumped on just to annoy Beecham fans. Imagine how you'd react if some idiot were to counter your statement above by referring to "the Fürtwänglers of this world" or "the Klemperers of this world, as if there were more than one such figure.

[silvestrione]

I was fascinated by all the different sounds of the period instrument bands, and the antics of the HIPs, which I don't normally buy or listen to much. An eye-opener there. I might have been tempted by Immerseel, if his slow movement tempo hadn't struck me as absurd.

Why is MC so confident he knows what speed a minuet goes at (I'm thinking of his dismissal of Beecham)? How does one work this out, in HIP terms? Do the older conductors who see it as a stately dance draw on a long tradition perhaps, which may even be right?

The only version I am tempted by is Orchestra Mozart. Does anyone have a view on MC's dismissal of this because of the recording quality?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Why is MC so confident he knows what speed a minuet goes at (I'm thinking of his dismissal of Beecham)? How does one work this out, in HIP terms? Do the older conductors who see it as a stately dance draw on a long tradition perhaps, which may even be right?

Although I greatly admire Beecham's Mozart, I do agree with MC on this one. His Jupiter minuet is extremely ponderous. A minuet is a dance after all, albeit a graceful one. But this sounds more heavy-footed than graceful.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I'm not trying to "get" at you, Alpie: we've had this sort of disagreement before and no doubt shall do so again with no hard feelings.

I know you are not, and I respect you for what you say in such a reasoned way. However, I sometimes I think the balance becomes a bit extreme, especially with Norrington, who seems to like to taunt rather than challenge.
Much of HIPP theory is based upon conjecture. It can never be based entirely on fact as none of us was there.
Often the contemporary written evidence expresses only the personal opinions of the writers.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Why is MC so confident he knows what speed a minuet goes at (I'm thinking of his dismissal of Beecham)? How does one work this out, in HIP terms? Do the older conductors who see it as a stately dance draw on a long tradition perhaps, which may even be right?

"Historically-Informed Performance Practice" is precisely what it says on the tin: performers go back to historical sources and see how these affect the Music. There is sometimes "conjecture" involved (others might prefer to use the word "interpretation") but the degree of this depends on the amount of evidence history has left. ("Evidence", as in court, is itself open to "interpretation": that's why HIP performances today often sound different from those of 20 years ago).

In the matter of the speed of Mozart's minuets, evidence comes from Mozart's comments describing Italian minuets as "played slowly", and lasting "nearly as long as a whole symphony" and wishing to "introduce the German taste in Minuets into Italy", suggesting that he preferred the faster "German" type. Not conclusive, so we look also at the metronome markings that Mozart's pupils Czerny and Hummel who, independently of each other and based on their recollections of Mozart's own performances, included in their editions of the Symphonies. Both of them give timings for the minuets of between 72 - 80 dotted minim beats per minute: some variety of opinion, but nevertheless all well above a bar per second. Strong but not entirely conclusive, so then there are the mechanical organs built in the 18th Century: tempi for Italian minuets are notably slower than those for Austro-German examples, the slowest of which is dotted minim = 69, still notably quicker than a bar per second.

It's not "conclusive", but there is enough evidence here to put the onus on those who'd like a "stately" tempo for the Minuet to provide counter-arguments in their favour. I am not aware of any being suggested.

That's the "historical information" that motivates the "Performance Practice": how does the Music sound when performed with this information in mind? Well, that depends on the performer and our reactions to it. It can sound "rushed", "breathless" in some performances. But, in the best, it sounds lithe, impudent and irresistable - and, for many of us, the "stately" tradition (based on trying to make Mozart sound "noble" - as if he needs any help here!) can sound stodgy and/or graceless.


EDIT: All these documents and others are collected in Neal Zaslaw's excellent book Mozart's Symphonies: Context, Performance Practice, Reception, OUP, 1989. Truly a magnificent and highly readable work of Musical scholarship.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

EDIT[/B]: All these documents and others are collected in Neal Zaslaw's excellent book Mozart's Symphonies: Context, Performance Practice, Reception, OUP, 1989. Truly a magnificent and highly readable work of Musical scholarship.

This book arrived in Thursday's post. Absolutely fascinating, though with 600 pages to digest, it's not for the faint-hearted.

[Nick Armstrong]

I enjoyed this BAL. It was good to be reminded how very good the Hogwood/AAM is - on my shelves, but haven't listened to for years, must remedy - so intelligent, lithe, alert. The Norrington (Stuttgart) was indeed lovely; I have his earlier London Classical Players, which will probably do me - for the moment - given that I seem to have far too many Mozart Symphonies - not forgetting the Caliban-recommended Krips which landed on the coconut matting ten minutes ago... Wasn't particularly taken my the JEG (odd, I used to be a complete JEG admirer - nowadays I find less and less of his product makes me happy... ) - but the Pinnock will certainly be worth listening to again

I also enjoyed this BAL and thought Martin Cotton made a good job of a difficult task. The emergence of the Boult and the Norrington from the rest of the field was interestingly argued and illustrated, I thought. I had a minor epiphany about the Norrington approach. While Hogwood sounded fresh, likewise Gardiner and Immerseel, I really don't like the sound of the strings - ironically, since I take it they are gut, they sound like fuse wire being bowed. And yet the pace / pulse of those performances is envigorating, so I thought to myself: if only it could be played like that but on modern instruments... Cue Norrington... (and Abbado/OM). I got more out of the extracts of Sir Todger's version than I have before with his interpretations so shall certainly listen with open ears to the Monday broadcast.

What someone (waldhorn?) branded inconsistency on the part of the reviewer, I read as open-mindedness: prepared to appreciate the advantages of the various approaches to performance, to rate Hogwood as well as Boult, in different ways. That's a plus as far as I'm concerned, since it leaves me to make up my own mind.

I liked the way he threw a couple of historic cats among the pigeons as well: Coates and Beecham providing fascinating points of comparison.

The only version I am tempted by is Orchestra Mozart. Does anyone have a view on MC's dismissal of this because of the recording quality?

Yes I do. I agree with him, regretfully. During each extract I was thinking - this is a lovely performance but why does it sound as if it was recorded in the cupboard under someone's stairs: I wouldn't want to listen to it. To that extent it was gratifying to hear the reviewer speak my thoughts aloud.

[vinteuil]

so I thought to myself: if only it could be played like that but on modern instruments...

... sigh. Oh dear, still some work to do with the not-quite-Calibrated, I see.

[Nick Armstrong]

the Caliban-recommended Krips ... landed on the coconut matting ten minutes ago...

So.... have you had a listen yet? I have it on as I write: the third movement.... Not quick, but with an infectious, smiling lilt (typical of his performances) that I find irresistible... and the SOUND of the orchestra The disc I have containing No 41 starts with No 39: the first chordal sequence of which (with perfectly placed timp strokes) is like a warm hug.

I wasn't particularly taken by the JEG (odd, I used to be a complete JEG admirer - nowadays I find less and less of his product makes me happy... )

I agree. I thought that the adjective used by Martin Cotton - 'brutal' - sums it up... and is a good word also to apply to his readings of the big Bach choral works which are the subject of another thread here, and to explain why I have never warmed to them.