BaL 1.03.14 - Beethoven Symphony no. 7 in A

[Bryn]

... I find it really hard to hear any of the seventh as a dance, whatever Wagner thought.

Let's for once put that oft repeated Wagner snippet in context:

"All tumult, all yearning and storming of the heart, become here the blissful insolence of joy, which carries us away with bacchanalian power through the roomy space of nature, through all the streams and seas of life, shouting in glad self-consciousness as we sound throughout the universe the daring strains of this human sphere-dance. The Symphony is the Apotheosis of the Dance itself: it is Dance in its highest aspect, the loftiest deed of bodily motion, incorporated into an ideal mold of tone."

[silvestrione]

Let's for once put that oft repeated Wagner snippet in context:

"All tumult, all yearning and storming of the heart, become here the blissful insolence of joy, which carries us away with bacchanalian power through the roomy space of nature, through all the streams and seas of life, shouting in glad self-consciousness as we sound throughout the universe the daring strains of this human sphere-dance. The Symphony is the Apotheosis of the Dance itself: it is Dance in its highest aspect, the loftiest deed of bodily motion, incorporated into an ideal mold of tone."

Another view: "That demoniacally obsessive rhythm, those savage transitions, pauses, and silences, the sheer physical impact of the orchestration with its fanatically barking horns - ....if we listen afresh, we shall surely find this one of the most terrifying pieces of music ever written, far more scarifying, after a hundred and forty years, than Stravinsky's Rite of Spring after forty. If it is joyful, it can only be the blood-curdling joy of battle."

Wilfrid Mellers in Man and his Music

Either way, I don't think the term 'mechanical' helps much with this symphony. The Stravinsky on the other hand is to do with motor rhythms, crushing mechanical process, engines, etc., rather more than the Russian spring I suspect!

[Bert Coules]

Bryn, I did know the context but it's good to have it here for others to see, so thanks. I wish someone would come up with a better, less florid translation though. Actually, I wish that of all Wagner's writings.

The full quote doesn't alter my mind: for me, even if I fully understood just what "the loftiest deed of bodily motion" actually is, I don't believe I'd be convinced that that music, much as I love it, is the ideal accompaniment to it.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Since my last post, I have listened to the January 1950 VPO/Furtwangler recording. Superb interpretation, but I made a point of listening for mechanistic hints. Furtwangler of all people, with his flexible, intuitive rethinking of each performance, could never be that. (An opinion, of course.)

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

But only if their significance is understood, grasped and absorbed, surely? "Important features of structure" are all well and good, but not boring the audience (or at least the non-cogniscenti portion of it) seems to me to be more so. But, as I said, it's a purely personal reaction. For me, most repeats fatally diminish the impact of hearing the material first time round (in any one particular performance, I mean).

Yes, I've no problem with people not liking the repeats - or even with those who find them "boring" (there are plenty of recordings that cater to all tastes). What I wish to take issue with is your suggestion that such listening is more "progressed" than those of Beethoven's contemporaries - if structure and timing is being perceived as "boring", "unsubtle" over-retiteration of a melody, then that ain't "progress".

[Bert Coules]

That's a fair point: perhaps I should have said "changed" rather than "progressed". Though I don't accept that appreciation of structure and timing is necessarily a more desirable or valid way of reacting to music than is a straightforward visceral response.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

- if structure and timing is being perceived as "boring", "unsubtle" over-retiteration of a melody, then that ain't "progress".

But let us not dismiss "experience". Conductors who know this music inside out, have come to an understanding of the structure that may outweigh even what the composer envisages.


I'm just making my hasty escape now to avoid being burnt at the stake.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Beethoven, Alpie - Beethoven.

I've no problem with the idea that there are some works in the repertory (almost all that I could so imagine coming from the 19th Century) that might benefit from conductors and other performers adding their own extra bits, twiddles and (especially) cuts. But all the conductors of past, present and future put together don't have a tenth of Beethoven's "envisionings". Not even Furtwangler, who most disturbs such a notion.

This is, of course, simply a matter of fact, not opinion.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Actually, I think Furtwangler was Beethoven, reincarnated.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Actually, I think Furtwangler was Beethoven, reincarnated.

- I would be persuaded to agree, save that I've heard WF's Symphonies.

But you put me in mind of that line in Close Encounters of the Third Kind:
"Einstein was right about them." (ie the non-terrestrial lifeforms)
"Einstein probably was one of them!"

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

- I would be persuaded to agree, save that I've heard WF's Symphonies.
...

I admit, that does cast some doubt on the theory.

[Hornspieler]

I'm not sure that this is the case at all, Bert - it often seems that 21st Century listeners are so used to paying attention to melodic and thematic materials that they miss important features of structure that the cogniscenti of Beethoven's age would be paying equal attention to. Balance, structure, timing - these are all crucial aspects of Beethoven's genius: Music as architecture seems often to bypass many modern listeners who give the impression that these terms just mean "the way the tunes are connected". The repeats are an important part of "the point".

A well-reasoned argument, FHG, but I do feel that there are exceptions; particularly in respect of repeating the exposition in the opening movement of a symphony.

Very often, this is because one feels that the composer has produced a "first time bar" to facilitate a return to the opening statement but to me, it always sounds wrong and out of context. Three examples immediately spring to mind:

Mendelsohn's Italian Symphony
Brahms 2nd symphony
Beethoven's Eroica (Heaven knows, it's long enough without that repeat.)

But if I wear my other hat - that of producing a recording of a live concert with certain ensembles, such as the laughably titled "Academy of the BBC", (aka BBC Training Orchestra) for subsequent broadcast on Radio 3, all possible repeats were welcomed ....

"... two chances to get it right and use the better of the two twice for the edited version!"

Don't think it didn't happen - I was there.

Also, spare a thought for those poor fiddles in Schubert's Great C major. If you play all of the repeats, their arms are dropping off by the end of the performance.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

HS - thanks for the reply. The discussion about Exposition repeats is one that has run and run before and will no doubt continue to do so. In Beethoven's defence, I would point out that, with the repeat in the First Movement of the Eroica (which takes about 14-15 minutes if performers trust the Allegro con Brio marking and the composer's metronome mark of one bar every second) the climax of the Movement occurs precisely half-way through the Movement (bars 405-440 of 846) whereas it appears only a third of the way through (bars 250-283 of 691) if the repeat is ignored. This means that the "new" Oboe melody in E minor that immediately follows the climax is not just a haunting, strange new idea, (although, heaven knows, it is that, too) but also a structural marker, pointing the end of the first half and the beginning of the movement away from the dissonances of the climax (just as the first half moves towards them). Including the Expo repeat gives an Exposition of 310 bars (as opposed to 155 without it) - which balances out the 294 bars of the Recapitulation and Coda(s) - the extended Coda/"second development" from bar 557 to the end is unbalanced/disproportionate without the Expo repeat earlier: it becomes a sort of Leaning Tower of Pisa, top heavy with the climax reached far too early. (I sound like my first wife.)

It also helps keep the Movement better in proportion with the length of the whole work (first two movements about 14 - 15 minutes each, last two together about 15 minutes): playing the work at the tempi Beethoven gives avoids the sense that some people have that it's a "long" work - the score suggests a total playing time of about 45-50 minutes; shorter than the Choral, Brahms' 1 & 2, most of Bruckner's, any of Mahler's ... )

BUT (and this is moving to my opinions rather than observations) - any repeats shouldn't be a simplistic "cut and paste" job. There is a very well known recording of Haydn Symphonies which "includes" all the repeats that I'm sure were added in the editing room rather than in performance (there are suspicious page turns at exactly the same moment, and one bow catching a Music stand that happens at exactly the same point in the score). The repeats should, I'm sure, re-encounter the Music in the light of what has been heard since the first time we heard it: "development" should begin with the Expo repeat - the same thing, but subtly different.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

...There is a very well known recording of Haydn Symphonies which "includes" all the repeats that I'm sure were added in the editing room rather than in performance (there are suspicious page turns at exactly the same moment, and one bow catching a Music stand that happens at exactly the same point in the score). The repeats should, I'm sure, re-encounter the Music in the light of what has been heard since the first time we heard it: "development" should begin with the Expo repeat - the same thing, but subtly different.

I agree. That is Really Bad!! It reminds of the time when I was given a miniature score of Mozart 40 to accompany the 78s we had (VPO/Furtwangler with the 3rd movement intact) and I noticed that the side changes in the slow movement exactly coresponded with the repeats. So I decided to be faithful to the score, by playing each side twice. I was punished for my fidelity when the wire inside the record playing arm snapped, and despite attempts to repair it, the old gramophone never worked again.

[aeolium]

playing the work at the tempi Beethoven gives avoids the sense that some people have that it's a "long" work - the score suggests a total playing time of about 45-50 minutes; shorter than the Choral, Brahms' 1 & 2, most of Bruckner's, any of Mahler's

But at the time it was thought to be an unusually long work. Thayer reports that the reviewer in the Freymutighe of the first public performance wrote: "The public and Herr Beethoven, who conducted, were not satisfied with each other on this evening; the public thought the symphony too heavy, too long, and himself too discourteous, because he did not nod his head in recognition of the applause...On the contrary, Beethoven found that the applause was not strong enough." And Thayer further reports a story "that Beethoven, in reply to the complaints of too great length, said, in substance: 'If I write a symphony an hour long it will be found short enough!' He refused positively to make any change in the work, but deferred to public opinion so far as, upon its publication, to affix to the title of the Symphony a note to the effect that on account of its great length it should be played near the beginning of a concert, before the audience was become too weary." [never mind about the other works!] Of course we won't know how long that first performance lasted, but its audience would have been used to hearing works not longer than 30 minutes.

I think the value of repeats all depends on the strength of the overall performance. I have heard performances where the inclusion of the repeats just sounds like going through the motions, and those without (like some of Furtwängler's) where the absence of repeats does not weaken the performance. But in other cases, like Gulda's playing of Mozart sonatas, the inclusion of the repeats sounds so right that I find it difficult to listen to performances that omit them.