Beethoven - which Eroica?

[Thropplenoggin]

Since I read, in Sir Charles Mackerras's notes to his RLPO Beethoven 9 recording, that there were "misunderstandings on the part of both Beethoven and his nephew as to whether one was supposed to read the top or the bottom of the little weight on the metronome", I have accepted that Beethoven's metronome markings are almost certainly impractically brisk, and that the faster ones might be more in error than the slower. If, as I suspect, there are no recordings of the Hammerklavier sonata in which performers at any point get to minim = 138, then I think we are forced to agree with Tovey that it is an impossible marking. As to whether that speed might be achieved on a piano of Beethoven's time, I can only say that I doubt it. Such an instrument may well facilitate passagework, but there is a great deal more to the physical challenge of that movement that mere passagework, such as the high speed 2 octave lh leaps in the first couple of pages.

To return to the Eroica: I agree with Mackerras and others that Beethoven's markings must be taken seriously and believe also that when he wrote Allegro con brio it was what Rosen calls a standard classical tempo - he always meant the same one. Now the first movement of the C minor piano trio (not metronomed by Beethoven) is also Allegro con brio in 3/4, and if it were taken at, say, the same speed at which Klemperer recorded the first movement of the symphony in 1955 (dotted minim = 46 from my measurement of the first 28 bars) it would be hopelessly flaccid. I have never heard a performance a slow as that. That is one reason why I no longer listen to that Klemperer recording.

As for:

"Composers frequently revise their tempo instructions after hearing the work in performance, and learning what effects are achieved and what works and what doesn't. Sadly, that was a luxury denied to LvB."

and

"We're all blessed to enjoy our Beethoven the way we choose to listen to it - nothing is right, wrong, or definitive - aren't we lucky?"

I could not agree more!

Well put. Makes a change from the usual belligerence and bellicosity from the Beethoven wannabes on this board.

[aeolium]

If, as I suspect, there are no recordings of the Hammerklavier sonata in which performers at any point get to minim = 138, then I think we are forced to agree with Tovey that it is an impossible marking.

rauschwerk, there is an interesting illustrated lecture by Andras Schiff on the Hammerklavier from a few years back in which he is supportive of the metronome marking (though at the same time suggesting it is virtually unplayable at that speed!) and he mentions that it was possibly Franz Liszt who was the first to give a successful performance of the work. Schiff does however say that the metronome marking was for the first bars only and that there were tempo variations within the movement. Schiff's comments on the metronome markings occur in the first 10 minutes of the first part of this lecture (though I think the whole lecture is worth listening to):

http://audio.theguardian.tv/sys-audio/Arts/Culture/2006/12/13/03-29_bflatmaj_op106.mp3

http://audio.theguardian.tv/sys-audio/Arts/Culture/2006/12/13/04-29_bflatmaj_106_2.mp3

[Roehre]

Since I read, in Sir Charles Mackerras's notes to his RLPO Beethoven 9 recording, that there were "misunderstandings on the part of both Beethoven and his nephew as to whether one was supposed to read the top or the bottom of the little weight on the metronome", I have accepted that Beethoven's metronome markings are almost certainly impractically brisk, and that the faster ones might be more in error than the slower. (...)

But that still does not explain why the markings for the quartets, made at the very same time as those for symphonies 1-8, are fully accepted.

To return to the Eroica: I agree with Mackerras and others that Beethoven's markings must be taken seriously and believe also that when he wrote Allegro con brio it was what Rosen calls a standard classical tempo - he always meant the same one. Now the first movement of the C minor piano trio (not metronomed by Beethoven) is also Allegro con brio in 3/4, and if it were taken at, say, the same speed at which Klemperer recorded the first movement of the symphony in 1955 (dotted minim = 46 from my measurement of the first 28 bars) it would be hopelessly flaccid. I have never heard a performance a slow as that. That is one reason why I no longer listen to that Klemperer recording.

Very valid conclusion IMO

As for:

"Composers frequently revise their tempo instructions after hearing the work in performance, and learning what effects are achieved and what works and what doesn't. Sadly, that was a luxury denied to LvB."

and

"We're all blessed to enjoy our Beethoven the way we choose to listen to it - nothing is right, wrong, or definitive - aren't we lucky?"

I could not agree more!

I could not agree more!

[french frank]

Oh dear. The thread was closed and I appear to have been the last person to post on it. I don't think I was the one to close it - that would have involved several deliberate procedures - but if I was the inadvertently guilty party -

Well, I was at a concert. Out from 4pm until after 11pm - actually, if you're in Host guise, when you are writing a reply you'll see, bottom left, just below your text window, a little check square with 'Close this thread' alongside it. If you inadvertently click anywhere close to that rubric, on or even to the right, the box checks and the thread is closed when you post. So only one procedure then.

I often find I'm unexpectedly where I didn't mean to be - e.g. reading someone's biog when I intended to click on the last post in the thread.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Guilty as charged then

[rauschwerk]

But that still does not explain why the markings for the quartets, made at the very same time as those for symphonies 1-8, are fully accepted.

True, no doubt. Sadly, the only Beethoven quartet scores I own are those of the late ones, so I haven't been able to bring out my inner anorak to focus on that issue.

[Tony Halstead]

my inner anorak.

I love that! I'm making a mental note of the phrase so I can use it myself when required!

[Bryn]

Here's another performance of the first movement of Op. 106 which observes the composer's tempo marking (including the metronome mark). The whole character of the movement is so very different from that which emerges from the much slower tempi favoured by most of today's pianists. I am quite convinced that the character revealed here, infelicities of this particular execution notwithstanding, is closer to what the composer was calling for than the gravitas we usually get:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFrVnCKD_Nk&list=PLDB104BAFF7D897DE&index=42

[aeolium]

I like Solomon's recording of the first movement of op 106 - not at all portentous or heavy though not at the metronome marking, allowing the detail to shine through clearly yet with a propulsive energy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKlLPe86Flk

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Here's another performance of the first movement of Op. 106 which observes the composer's tempo marking (including the metronome mark).

Interesting, but for most of the time, it's at around crotchet = 120, not 138

[Thropplenoggin]

Interesting, but for most of the time, it's at around crotchet = 120, not 138

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Interesting, but for most of the time, it's at around crotchet = 120, not 138

Of course I meant minim = 120/138 and not crotchet.

[Thropplenoggin]

Of course I meant minim = 120/138 and not crotchet.

Sir, you have quavered in your response!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Sir, you have quavered in your response!

Not really. The proportion of the error remains constant.

[Sir Velo]

Not really. The proportion of the erroe remains constant.

No need to get crotchety about it.