BaL 1.06.13 - Brahms Symphony no 2 in D

[akiralx]

Apologies, aki, for completely missing the point you were making here: that I can blame on the Talisker!

No worries - I suppose this might not be the place to reveal that I rarely listen to this recording (unlike his superb First and Fourth) because of the repeat, as I tend to prefer recordings without it... Like you I will relisten tomorrow (I now have two complete Abbado sets after buying his Symphony Edition).

What is Abbado's earlier multi-orchestra set like?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I suppose this might not be the place to reveal that I rarely listen to this recording (unlike his superb First and Fourth) because of the repeat, as I tend to prefer recordings without it...

Ah, well ...

I shall give the entire BPO/Abbado set another listen - I "remember" the First and Fourth being very good but not "superb" performances, and the Third as being a travesty of the score - beggaring around with the Tempi in a way that I found entirely annoying. But this is the same memory that "remembered" that the Second (the only disc I bought from the set) as being almost the very best ever I'd heard, even if it didn't include the Expo repeat, so what do I know?!

[seabright]

My "Somewhere it has been stated" remark earlier comes from 'Musical Opinion' (March-April 2013) in an article by Mark Doran. However, I misattributed Brahms's comments as having been made to Weingartner when in fact they were made to Hans von Bulow. It was in the first movement of the 2nd Symphony of Beethoven that Weingartner recommended no observance of the repeat, in his "On the Performance of Beethoven's Symphonies" (1906).

Doran does point out that Brahms had told a Berlin professor named Karl Heinrich Barth that he was "generally in favour" of the first movement repeats in his works being observed. However, then comes the reference to Bulow who, in his "Briefe und Schriften," wrote: "In the First and Second Symphonies I delete the repetition of the first part of the first movement, for which the Master, incidentally, authorised me." Doran points out that this permission was granted because Bulow wanted to perform the first three symphonies in one concert and was evidently concerned at its overall length.

Well, it was instructive and interesting, in view of the foregoing, to spend a while investigating all the Brahms 2nds on You Tube, that great repository of treasures and rarities, where one can see and hear wonderful performances of the past that might not otherwise be encountered. Here is a list, derived from the uploads thereon, of a sampling of several maestri's commercial recordings, radio broadcasts, TV transmissions and DVD releases, starting with those who do NOT make the first movement repeat in the Brahms 2nd Symphony and who incidentally constitute the majority ...

Carlos Kleiber / VPO
Haitink / Concertgebouw
Mariss Jansons / Bavarian Radio SO
Karajan / BPO
Toscanini / NBC
Karl Boem / VPO
Furtwangler / VPO
Weingartner / LPO
Toscanini / Philharmonia
Klemperer / Philharmonia
Myung-Whun Chung / French National Radio SO

One can also add Beecham and Mravinsky to those who did not observe the repeat.

These conductors are among the few on You Tube to observe the first movement repeat:

Kertesz/ VPO (his commercial LP)
Giulini / Los Angeles PO (ditto)

Additionally, it should be noted that several conductors did not make the repeat in their first recordings but put it in for their re-makes:

Stokowski / Philadelphia (out) and National Philharmonic (in)
Bernstein / New York PO (out) and Vienna PO (in)
Monteux / San Francisco (out) and Vienna PO (in)

There are several other complete Brahms 2nds on You Tube but that list will suffice until Saturday when doubtless Stephen Johnson will reveal more of the same. Of all those on display, it was Carlos Kleiber's Vienna Philharmonic reading that was as electrifying as it was beautiful. Essential You Tube viewing in fact!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I can take it! (I'd like to blame the Tallisker, but no one would believe it - least of all me!)

As "punishment", I'm playing the Abbado disc (and, yes, he does) - and it's magnificent! The recording has excellent detail and "width"; the playing is superb; the tempi sound exactly right. This is going to be very hard to "beat"!

Abbado usually wins anyway.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

... I misattributed Brahms's comments as having been made to Weingartner when in fact they were made to Hans von Bulow.
...
Doran does point out that Brahms had told a Berlin professor named Karl Heinrich Barth that he was "generally in favour" of the first movement repeats in his works being observed. However, then comes the reference to Bulow who, in his "Briefe und Schriften," wrote: "In the First and Second Symphonies I delete the repetition of the first part of the first movement, for which the Master, incidentally, authorised me." Doran points out that this permission was granted because Bulow wanted to perform the first three symphonies in one concert and was evidently concerned at its overall length.

"In fact"? The only "fact" here is that Bulow claimed that Brahms had "authorized" the cut. And, from your chosen source, it seems that this was to placate the conductor who wanted to perform three symphonies in a single concert - not as a model for all performances of the Symphonies. Again, from your chosen source, it seems that this was contrary to his "general favour" was to play the Movements complete, as the Music in them requires to make their complete effect. This is all very different from your earlier suggestion that the composer had "changed his mind", seabright.

But you are absolutely right about the youTube videos: the Kleiber is especially welcome, as he didn't commit his ideas to a studio recording. But he's wrong (and the composer is right) about the Expo repeat - just as he's right about the equivalent one in Mozart #36 on the same video.

[Nick Armstrong]

Abbado ....the Third ...a travesty of the score - beggaring around with the Tempi in a way that I found entirely annoying

Are you my dad?

I remember acquiring Abbado's previous reading, with the Dresden Staatskapelle, on cassette whilst at University... I was seduced by it, especially the autumnal 'poco allegretto' third movement, and the smoky Dresden sound (along with the Karajan Sibelius 5 it became the signature tune of my first term, in fact).

My dad (owner of the Klemperer Brahms symphonies) brought me down to earth with a bump when I played it at home in the holidays, describing it as sounding "like Mantovani"

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

But he's wrong (and the composer is right) about the Expo repeat - just as he's right about the equivalent one in Mozart #36 on the same video.

That's pretty strong stuff. I'm not a huge fan of exposition repeats, and have said so before. The repeat thing seems to stem from those Baroque/Rennaissance binary form danced in which both halves repeated. In Classical times, this continued, particularly in minuets, and became part of early sonata form, where both halves were repeated. Over time, the second half repeat was dropped. Then the same began to happen for the exposition as well.
Logical (and musical) progress, in my opinion.

[BBMmk2]

Poor Cali! Abbado sounding like Mantovani! Goodness!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

That's pretty strong stuff. I'm not a huge fan of exposition repeats, and have said so before.

But Brahms was.

The repeat thing seems to stem from those Baroque/Rennaissance binary form danced in which both halves repeated. In Classical times, this continued, particularly in minuets, and became part of early sonata form, where both halves were repeated. Over time, the second half repeat was dropped. Then the same began to happen for the exposition as well.
Logical (and musical) progress, in my opinion.

But not in Brahms', who demonstrates the flaw in your idea, as does Mahler in the First Movement of his Sixth Symphony. Both composers were quite capable of omitting the Expo repeats when the impetus and structure of a Sonata Movement demanded it - that they put explicit repeat instructions in the scores of other works should indicate that they had far more powerful motives (and motifs) than a sudden attack of deference to slovenly Tradition.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

On the other side of the coin, Elgar did not have exposition repeats in either of his symphonies. Yet in his sketch for the 3rd, he quite clearly indicated the exposition repeat. In this instance, I strongly suspect it was because he was short of material and that the repeat would make it last longer. I speak here as the world's no. 1 Elgar fan.

[jayne lee wilson]

My "Somewhere it has been stated" remark earlier comes from 'Musical Opinion' (March-April 2013) in an article by Mark Doran. However, I misattributed Brahms's comments as having been made to Weingartner when in fact they were made to Hans von Bulow. It was in the first movement of the 2nd Symphony of Beethoven that Weingartner recommended no observance of the repeat, in his "On the Performance of Beethoven's Symphonies" (1906).

Doran does point out that Brahms had told a Berlin professor named Karl Heinrich Barth that he was "generally in favour" of the first movement repeats in his works being observed. However, then comes the reference to Bulow who, in his "Briefe und Schriften," wrote: "In the First and Second Symphonies I delete the repetition of the first part of the first movement, for which the Master, incidentally, authorised me." Doran points out that this permission was granted because Bulow wanted to perform the first three symphonies in one concert and was evidently concerned at its overall length.

Well, it was instructive and interesting, in view of the foregoing, to spend a while investigating all the Brahms 2nds on You Tube, that great repository of treasures and rarities, where one can see and hear wonderful performances of the past that might not otherwise be encountered. Here is a list, derived from the uploads thereon, of a sampling of several maestri's commercial recordings, radio broadcasts, TV transmissions and DVD releases, starting with those who do NOT make the first movement repeat in the Brahms 2nd Symphony and who incidentally constitute the majority ...

Carlos Kleiber / VPO
Haitink / Concertgebouw
Mariss Jansons / Bavarian Radio SO
Karajan / BPO
Toscanini / NBC
Karl Boem / VPO
Furtwangler / VPO
Weingartner / LPO
Toscanini / Philharmonia
Klemperer / Philharmonia
Myung-Whun Chung / French National Radio SO

One can also add Beecham and Mravinsky to those who did not observe the repeat.

These conductors are among the few on You Tube to observe the first movement repeat:

Kertesz/ VPO (his commercial LP)
Giulini / Los Angeles PO (ditto)

Additionally, it should be noted that several conductors did not make the repeat in their first recordings but put it in for their re-makes:

Stokowski / Philadelphia (out) and National Philharmonic (in)
Bernstein / New York PO (out) and Vienna PO (in)
Monteux / San Francisco (out) and Vienna PO (in)

There are several other complete Brahms 2nds on You Tube but that list will suffice until Saturday when doubtless Stephen Johnson will reveal more of the same. Of all those on display, it was Carlos Kleiber's Vienna Philharmonic reading that was as electrifying as it was beautiful. Essential You Tube viewing in fact!

Nice bit of research, thanks, seabright...

From my own shelves, these conductors all play the repeat:
SVETLANOV/USSRSO
HARNONCOURT/BERLIN PO
BERGLUND/COE
MANZE/HELSINGBORG SO
ZINMAN/ZURICH TONHALLE
JOCHUM/LPO

Note that most of Seabright's non-repeaters are "old school" europeans, as compared to the above (well, Jochum always did go his own way...).

Drawing the members' attention back to my msg.25 which got rather lost in the flow, but underlining my points about Brahms 4 , Beethoven Op.59/1 and the varied repeat of the classical concerto form, I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions...

(** Mahler 4 and Mahler 6... see what fhg and I are getting at...?)

[LaurieWatt]

Nice bit of research, thanks, seabright...

From my own shelves, these conductors all play the repeat:
SVETLANOV/USSRSO
HARNONCOURT/BERLIN PO
BERGLUND/COE
MANZE/HELSINGBORG SO
ZINMAN/ZURICH TONHALLE
JOCHUM/LPO

Note that most of Seabright's non-repeaters are "old school" europeans, as compared to the above (well, Jochum always did go his own way...).

Drawing the members' attention back to my msg.25 which got rather lost in the flow, but underlining my points about Brahms 4 , Beethoven Op.59/1 and the varied repeat of the classical concerto form, I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions...

(** Mahler 4 and Mahler 6... see what fhg and I are getting at...?)

To which, Jayne, I add both Mackerras with the Scottish Chamber Orchestra and Vladimir Jurowski and the LPO who both observe the repeat. I am a huge fan of both conductors but here I fear that Mackerras fails me with a very lumpily phrased first movement with greater emphasis on non troppo than allegro! Jurowski, on the other hand gets on with it, with a true sense of pace and line and also with a much nicer recording although live from the RFH. His first time bar return is absolute magic; no wonder the French liked is one the best!

[Pabmusic]

"In fact"? The only "fact" here is that Bulow claimed that Brahms had "authorized" the cut. And, from your chosen source, it seems that this was to placate the conductor who wanted to perform three symphonies in a single concert - not as a model for all performances of the Symphonies. Again, from your chosen source, it seems that this was contrary to his "general favour" was to play the Movements complete, as the Music in them requires to make their complete effect. This is all very different from your earlier suggestion that the composer had "changed his mind", seabright...

Impeccable, Ferney. I haven't stuck my nose in too much, but the thing that gets me is that Brahms actually wrote in the repeat. That must be the starting point, and arguments that it was just an 18th-century convention cut no ice, unless anyone really believes that unthinking conformity to tradition was Brahms's usual state of mind. It may have been true of Mozart (although he cut the repeat out of the Haffner, come to think of it) but hardly of someone writing 100 years later. I've already noted Dvorak's dislike of expo repeats, not including them in 7 and 8, but reinstating one in 9 - and yet we still regard that as optional.

The thing that always gets me about this is the assumption that omitting the repeat it an option at all. Why should it be? You might just as well say that it's optional to omit any passage (repeat or not) if the conductor doesn't like it. No - it's easy to omit a repeat and that's why they are often omitted.

There are occasionally real musical points to be made by omitting a repeat, but it's rare. With Brahms 2, it's the introductory nature of the first five or six bars (I personally think this is one of the weaker excuses), with Beethoven 6 it's the odd key the exposition ends in (possibly, a little better than the Brahms 2 excuse) and (one I reluctantly agree with - perhaps) with Beethoven 5, last movement, it's the blaze of C major and the first appearance of the trombones that make the repeat otiose.

But mostly is just habit, or concert, broadcast or record timings. Record timings were more influential in the days of 78s and the early days of LPs. Adrian Boult generally advocated playing expo repeats, but left them out of his first (early 50s) Brahms symphonies because of the length of LPs in those days, and the fact that the usual fillers were to be included. (By the way, name-dropping badly, I know this because he told me so! )

[jayne lee wilson]

Yes, and Boult was one of those who would play Beethoven 5 WITH the finale repeat - but only, of course, if the trio had been repeated already. As Robert Simpson says: "...Boult has pointed out to me that a serious difficulty in observing the finale repeat is to avoid a sense of anticlimax with each return of the main theme. But he has himself convincingly demonstrated how with a skilful reservation of power each appearance of the theme can be increased in intensity..."

A question of choice and balance, perhaps, but for the listener (as opposed to a performer) the Beethoven 6 repeat is ESSENTIAL; otherwise those minimalist-like figurations through the development could almost be an anti-exposition, and that isolated minor-key moment in the recap would count for much less...

How many conductors are brave enough to play Rachmaninov's 2nd Symphony with the repeat (heavenly long slow intro included?!)

[Pabmusic]

...A question of choice and balance, perhaps, but for the listener (as opposed to a performer) the Beethoven 6 repeat is ESSENTIAL; otherwise those minimalist-like figurations through the development could almost be an anti-exposition, and that isolated minor-key moment in the recap would count for much less...

Yes, I quite agree. I conducted it twice and took the repeat both times, but the set of parts we used for one performance had the repeat crossed out!