Clock-watching

[LMcD]

I've been trying to follow the learned discussion about recordings of Elgar's 1st Symphony, especially when it comes to timings, and found myself wondering whether it really matters in most cases how long a performance or recording of a particular piece lasts. Surely the quality of the performance and the listener's enjoyment are the most important criteria. The last thing I'm worried about when listening to any great work is whether this or that conductor is that little bit faster or slower than the next. How dull life would be if every recording of every work took exactly the same time or interpreted the composer's intentions in exactly the same way!

[richardfinegold]

With respect to an Elgar Symphony, what ever the duration is I feel that was an amount of time lost in my life.
With respect to the issue in general, timings are not the whole story. For one there is the issue of repeats; a conductor who observes them all will naturally take longer in a given movement. And then there are cuts; in the longer Romantic works some conductors will make slices here and there. The most important issue however is the maintenance of the feeling of musical progression. There are plenty of Furtwangler and Klemperer recordings with long durations and slowish pulses that still maintain a sense of movement and keep the listener involved. No doubt this is harder on the players to maintain and can require more of a degree of effort from the audience

[Pulcinella]

With respect to an Elgar Symphony, what ever the duration is I feel that was an amount of time lost in my life.
With respect to the issue in general, timings are not the whole story. For one there is the issue of repeats; a conductor who observes them all will naturally take longer in a given movement. And then there are cuts; in the longer Romantic works some conductors will make slices here and there. The most important issue however is the maintenance of the feeling of musical progression. There are plenty of Furtwangler and Klemperer recordings with long durations and slowish pulses that still maintain a sense of movement and keep the listener involved. No doubt this is harder on the players to maintain and can require more of a degree of effort from the audience

Before counting bars and checking the third movement timing of Boult's Elgar 1, I did wonder if (as it's a live performance) he was reacting to something such as heat in the RAH, audience restlessness, or whatever. But no: he seems to be following Elgar's tempo indication.

But I'm sure that there's a fair degree of flexibity of performance even from the same conductor on different days with different orchestras and in different venues.

[LMcD]

Before counting bars and checking the third movement timing of Boult's Elgar 1, I did wonder if (as it's a live performance) he was reacting to something such as heat in the RAH, audience restlessness, or whatever. But no: he seems to be following Elgar's tempo indication.

But I'm sure that there's a fair degree of flexibity of performance even from the same conductor on different days with different orchestras and in different venues.

Simple soul that I am. none of those things enter my mind as I let Elgar 'take me away' (to coin a phrase).

[Pulcinella]

Simple soul that I am. none of those things enter my mind as I let Elgar 'take me away' (to coin a phrase).

I'm sure you're not in the lowest depths!

[smittims]

I confess I have written lists of timings in recordings, our of interest. For me, tempo is an important part of an interpretation. Not the only one , of course. For example , let's take two well-known Beethoven slow movements, the adagios of the Ninth Symphony and the Hammerklavier sonata.

My favourite recordings are the slow, but not the slowest tempi; enough but not too much. If music is rushed, or feels rushed, one cannot savour it at its best. So, inthe Ninth, Furtwangler is most satisfying for me. But a faster , more andante tempo, can reveal a fresh perspective , if sensitively done: Ansermet, for instance. But there is 'too slow' as shown in the mysterious performance someone found in YouTube last year . There, the music was simpy lifeless. It takes skill to keep the pulse going.

In the Hammerklavier adagio, I found Solomon most satisfying until I discovered Eschenbach's 1979 EMI recording, which is very slow, but very moving (in my view). Again, someone recommended an even slower one on YouTube (can't remember the name of the pianist) and again,that was too slow, so the musici failed to come to life.

And of course you are quite right to say that there are other aspects of good performance: execution, intonation, timbre, and so on. Sir Thomas Beecham, for instance , had the knack of putting a 'lilt' into the rhythm, which is more important than the overall timing. I don't think I've ever timed a Beecham recording.

[LMcD]

I'm sure you're not in the lowest depths!

Well, I certainly wouldn't claim to be angel !

[teamsaint]

People who attended a Maazel performance of the Alpine Symphony at the RFH very late in his life might have a view on this subject.
especially if they missed the last train home…..

This one, I think.

https://www.colinscolumn.com/lorin-maazel-conducts-the-philharmonia-orchestra-in-richard-strausss-alpine-symphony-march-20-2014-royal-festival-hall-london/

[Simon B]

People who attended a Maazel performance of the Alpine Symphony at the RFH very late in his life might have a view on this subject...

Has it finished yet then? Proof positive that it's horses for courses. For me it was interminable and lifeless to the point of active irritation and indeed exasperation. I still remember it as the most distended live performance of anything I've ever experienced. However, if others were enraptured, who can deny their experience?

Meanwhile, MTT conducted Mahler 3 with the LSO a few weeks ago. A complex event to write about really given the effects of MTT's advanced illness - though this writer had a good go at summing things up: https://theartsdesk.com/classical-mu...w-triumph-life

There was no doubt that the first movement was decidedly slow on the whole - approaching 40 mins I think. Yet somehow it mostly didn't really feel that way. How this can be so in one example but not another is beyond my level of insight.

[LMcD]

Has it finished yet then? Proof positive that it's horses for courses. For me it was interminable and lifeless to the point of active irritation and indeed exasperation. I still remember it as the most distended live performance of anything I've ever experienced. However, if others were enraptured, who can deny their experience?

Meanwhile, MTT conducted Mahler 3 with the LSO a few weeks ago. A complex event to write about really given the effects of MTT's advanced illness - though this writer had a good go at summing things up: https://theartsdesk.com/classical-mu...w-triumph-life

There was no doubt that the first movement was decidedly slow on the whole - approaching 40 mins I think. Yet somehow it mostly didn't really feel that way. How this can be so in one example but not another is beyond my level of insight.

My initial comments on this subject were not meant to cover performances that might be described as 'egregious outliers' such as Bernstein's (in)famous Enigma Variations. In the case of the Elgar 1st, the differences aren't that great for a work that lasts 50+ minutes.

[Pulcinella]

My initial comments on this subject were not meant to cover performances that might be described as 'egregious outliers' such as Bernstein's (in)famous Enigma Variations. In the case of the Elgar 1st, the differences aren't that great for a work that lasts 50+ minutes.

But they're perhaps significant in terms of variation in the third movement of said symphony, the timings of which seem to be showing a considerable range. Not stirring here, just commenting.
But I'll listen to the Boult again to see if I feel stirred by it and the applause.

[LMcD]

But they're perhaps significant in terms of variation in the third movement of said symphony, the timings of which seem to be showing a considerable range. Not stirring here, just commenting.
But I'll listen to the Boult again to see if I feel stirred by it and the applause.

'Significant' as in 'important', or as in 'large'? As I'm the sort of person who would be blissfully unaware of these differences, I doubt that they would affect either way the impact that this work unfailingly has on me whenever I listen to any CD or broadcast.

[Pulcinella]

'Significant' as in 'important', or as in 'large'? As I'm the sort of person who would be blissfully unaware of these differences, I doubt that they would affect either way the impact that this work unfailingly has on me whenever I listen to any CD or broadcast.

Yes: large would have been a better description, with the significance being more in the ear of the listener.

[smittims]

In some cases of 'live' concert performances issued on CD, I think it may be a case of 'you had to be there'. What sounded wonderful on the night can sound dull when listened to on a CD in your kitchen on a wet Monday morning. I found Daniel Harding's Elgar 2 intensely moving (Royal Albert Hall 20 August 2013, it's on You Tube) despite its being much slower than either of the composers' own recordings, but if it were issued on a Music Mag CD I think there'd be criticisms. .