Prom 9 (20.7.12): Beethoven Cycle – Symphonies Nos. 1 & 2

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

But to answer your question, which was rhetorical, of course: as you and I both know, the use of modern instruments is not an 'arrangement'. Whether the OAE or the LPO use the Barenreiter edition of the Beethoven symphonies, the notes and orchestration are the same, regardless of the age of the instruments. Likewise, for a Beethoven piano sonata, when Melvyn Tan plays a fortepiano or Imogen Cooper plays a concert grand piano, the score is exactly the same. Cooper's performance is not of an "arrangement".

But the "notes" sound different on instruments other than those for which the composer wrote them. The "orchestration" isn't "the same" if the performers don't use the timbres that the composers had in mind. Perhaps "arrangement" is an exaggeration, but "transcription" certainly isn't.

Alpie made a nice try, but Mozza didn't "touch up" any of his scores for any instruments other than those with which he was familiar. To suggest that this was the same sort of thing as Weingartner's re-writings of notes or Stokie's re-orchestrations doesn't hold up.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Alpie made a nice try, but Mozza didn't "touch up" any of his scores for any instruments other than those with which he was familiar. To suggest that this was the same sort of thing as Weingartner's re-writings of notes or Stokie's re-orchestrations doesn't hold up.

I was merely suggesting that Mozart was not too "precious" about the odd "tinkering" with his score, adding clarinets that weren't in his original. Mozart himself is well-known for his reworkings of Messiah And Alexander's Feast. These are arrangements. Merely playing on a more modern instrument is not an arrangement by any stretch of the imagination.

Incidentally, no orchestra today would dare perform a Mozart symphony as he actually requested - 40 Violins, 10 violas, 6 celli, 10 double-basses and double wind on each part. Of course that was rarely available, but we are convinced by followers of the HIPP movement that the tiny forces actually used were what the composer wanted instead of what he had to make do with.

[heliocentric]

a Mozart symphony as he actually requested - 40 Violins, 10 violas, 6 celli, 10 double-basses and double wind on each part

I don't think there's any evidence that he thought that would be suitable in all cases. Those numbers come from a single letter of his (11 April 1781) where he approvingly described the sound they made in one concert he attended, and the sheer novelty of the sound would probably have been one of its most attractive aspects. On the other hand Stefan Weinzierl (Beethovens Konzerträume, 2002) analyses the acoustics of spaces where Beethoven's music was actually performed a couple of decades later, and finds them to be very considerably louder with more prominent bass response than modern concert halls (owing to room shape and size, materials used for walls and seats, size and position of windows, distance between musicians and audience, and other factors) - "to make the Eroica Symphony sound as loud in the Philharmonie as it sounded in the Palais Lobkowitz, the Berlin Philharmonic would have to be expanded to something like 1000 members" - and most performances used fewer players even than most HIP orchestras use nowadays. So almost every performance of 18th century music in modern concert halls involves "arrangement" of one sort or another; hearing the music as it would originally have been heard, ie. mostly in much smaller rooms with a much smaller proportion of the space given over to audience seating, is not only economically unviable under current conditions but would probably be found fairly unpleasant by most 21st-century listeners - "too" loud, boomy and resonant.

I've yet to hear any music for which the Albert Hall provides an optimal acoustic!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

but we are convinced by followers of the HIPP movement that the tiny forces actually used were what the composer wanted instead of what he had to make do with.

Doesn't sound like you're convinced, Alpie!
Nor does Rosen in The Classical Style:

Of course Mozart did not often get an orchestra of such size, but there is no reason to perpetuate those conditions of Eighteenth Century performance which obtained only when there was not enough money to do the thing properly.

... though I seem to remember that when somebody () attempted to demonstrate Mozart's dislike of the Flute as a solo instrument by referring to his letters, somebody else () was quite adamant that we shouldn't take a single passage out of a single letter to mean anything significant.

What is absolutely certain is that, nowhere in any letters does Mozart ask for any instrumental timbres other than the ones with which he was familiar or express any dissatisfaction with the sounds they made.

Oh, and purely by coincidence, last night I was reading Bernard Harrisons book on the Haydn Paris Symphonies. Himself a "follower of the HIPP movement" (a phrase that has for some reason makes me think of Pan's People), practically the first thing he says (on page 4) is that

the first performances of the "Paris" Symphonies would have been equal in scale to those of the later "London" Symphonies by Salomon's band of about 60 players.

Not exactly "tiny". The reason we know such facts is down to the sterling efforts of the Historians of Performance Practice.

[heliocentric]

Also often forgotten in discussions of this kind is the fact that, given that everyone attests to the huge variability in the forces available to composers in Mozart's time (to name only this), there simply IS no single "right" way to perform the music (although performing Mozart's music on instruments he could never have heard does seem to me less "right" than other ways of doing it), and anyone who thinks there is is taking a much more dogmatic approach than any 18th century composer (to name only these) would have. I believe that the fact that Mozart liked the sound of an enormous orchestra says nothing about what he thought about a "tiny" orchestra, and in particular says nothing about whether or not he would have considered the latter to be a necessary compromise. To think otherwise is to project a much later attitude to "correctness" and "compromise" onto a time when these ideas had quite different meanings in a musical context.

[Ariosto]

But the "notes" sound different on instruments other than those for which the composer wrote them. The "orchestration" isn't "the same" if the performers don't use the timbres that the composers had in mind.

Normally ferny I respect a lot of your comments but surely this is pure rubbish!! How does the orchestration change? Same notes, just played on better instruments than were not available to Mozart, Beethoven or whoever.

This HIPP thing really takes some believing!! NO ONE knows how it may have been performed or sounded in the pre - recording era.

UTTER RUBBISH!!!

[heliocentric]

NO ONE knows how it may have been performed or sounded in the pre - recording era.

Actually that's quite untrue. Hundreds of people in dozens of different fields are engaged in research regarding questions like this (for one recent example see my last-but-one post about concert halls), and a considerable amount of knowledge has been amassed. Instruments and performing venues have survived, as have contemporary accounts and illustrations, treatises on instrumental, vocal and compositional practice, and so on, let alone scores and parts. But your use of the phrase "better instruments" is telling here, and makes no more sense than saying music composed in the 21st century is "better" than that composed in the 18th, or that making music with highly-sophisticated computer programs is "better" than doing it with a piano or an orchestra, and I'm willing to bet my bottom dollar that you would make no such claims. The instruments of music are part of music itself - they don't get "better" with the passage of time, they change according to prevailing stylistic preferences and performing circumstances (etc.). Your selective view of progress here is highly inconsistent.

[aeolium]

Also often forgotten in discussions of this kind is the fact that, given that everyone attests to the huge variability in the forces available to composers in Mozart's time (to name only this), there simply IS no single "right" way to perform the music (although performing Mozart's music on instruments he could never have heard does seem to me less "right" than other ways of doing it), and anyone who thinks there is is taking a much more dogmatic approach than any 18th century composer (to name only these) would have. I believe that the fact that Mozart liked the sound of an enormous orchestra says nothing about what he thought about a "tiny" orchestra, and in particular says nothing about whether or not he would have considered the latter to be a necessary compromise. To think otherwise is to project a much later attitude to "correctness" and "compromise" onto a time when these ideas had quite different meanings in a musical context.

I completely agree with your remark about there being no single right way to perform the music, though when you say that 'performing Mozart's music on instruments he could never have heard does seem to me less "right" than other ways of doing it' that was surely not so very different to the way in which Mozart would have performed, or arranged for performance, the works of Baroque composers. In other words, he thought in some cases old-fashioned instruments should not be used and instead replaced by ones of his own time (as he did with the rescoring of some of the Handel oratorios). To that extent the historically informed approach is also reflecting a 'much later attitude' to performance style.

Also, when considering which instruments should be used to play classical works, the fast pace of change in the development of the piano at that time presents other problems. It may be idle to speculate whether Beethoven in the 1820s would have reverted to an earlier piano for playing one of his op 2 sonatas composed for a quite different instrument, but even an HIPP performer playing an early and a late sonata in the same programme will be covering a period during which there were significant changes in the instrument - let alone a programme which also includes earlier or later works by other composers. And as for vibrato for classical works, the evidence there seems wholly inconclusive and we will never know with any degree of certainty how much vibrato, if any, was used in late C18 and early C19 performances.

[heliocentric]

Mozart would have performed, or arranged for performance, the works of Baroque composers. In other words, he thought in some cases old-fashioned instruments should not be used and instead replaced by ones of his own time (as he did with the rescoring of some of the Handel oratorios).

Indeed. (And he updated some of the harmonies too, in his Handel arrangements!) But my point is not that he wasn't flexible when it came to such questions, but that he never heard for example a valved horn, an instrument developed for a different kind of music and which involved (as is clear from numerous 19th century accounts) what were considered to be compromises as well as "improvements". It makes no sense at all to say he "would have preferred" valved horns or whatever, any more than it would make sense to say he "would have preferred" Wagnerian harmony to the tonality of his own time.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

How does the orchestration change? Same notes, just played on better instruments than were not available to Mozart, Beethoven or whoever.

Because the instruments don't sound the same, Ari. And I think the best composers wrote for the sounds that they heard (or, In Beethoven's case, "remembered") not some sounds that didn't exist at the time.

NO ONE knows how it may have been performed or sounded in the pre - recording era.

but the sound of instruments made in the way those instruments were manufactured in the time the composers were living must be closer to the sounds those composers heard than more modern instruments? So, if we want to get as close as possible to to the sounds that the composer had in mind, then these are essential. Because these are masterpieces that make the statement "this is humanity: this is what we're capable of!" If a painting by Beethoven's contemporaries (Turner, say, or Constable) had to be restored, then the restoration would use the same materials and painting techniques as those used by the painters themselves. Nobody would say, "Oh, poor old John, having to do with these grotty old pigments. I bet he'd've used acrylics if he'd known about them, so let's use them now. Same colours, just using better paints that weren't available to him." And yet we're expected to take for granted that Beethoven didn't really care about the timbre of his Music? Or that it's "better" to hear them in different timbres? I don't think this is "UTTER RUBBISH!!!"

But I don't mean that using old-fashioned (in the literal sense) instruments is automatically "closer to the sounds that the composer expected". A dull, lacklustre read-through is NOT what the composer expected to hear - far better to hear an enthusiastic amateur orchestra giving its all than such a performance. And, for what it's worth, I'd rather hear Barenboim than JEGGers in this repertoire. (It's just that I'd rather hear Krivine or Karajan than Barenboim!)

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

It makes no sense at all to say he "would have preferred" valved horns or whatever, any more than it would make sense to say he "would have preferred" Wagnerian harmony to the tonality of his own time.

Genius, heli!

[amateur51]

Because the instruments don't sound the same, Ari. And I think the best composers wrote for the sounds that they heard (or, In Beethoven's case, "remembered") not some sounds that didn't exist at the time.


but the sound of instruments made in the way those instruments were manufactured in the time the composers were living must be closer to the sounds those composers heard than more modern instruments? So, if we want to get as close as possible to to the sounds that the composer had in mind, then these are essential. Because these are masterpieces that make the statement "this is humanity: this is what we're capable of!" If a painting by Beethoven's contemporaries (Turner, say, or Constable) had to be restored, then the restoration would use the same materials and painting techniques as those used by the painters themselves. Nobody would say, "Oh, poor old John, having to do with these grotty old pigments. I bet he'd've used acrylics if he'd known about them, so let's use them now. Same colours, just using better paints that weren't available to him." And yet we're expected to take for granted that Beethoven didn't really care about the timbre of his Music? Or that it's "better" to hear them in different timbres? I don't think this is "UTTER RUBBISH!!!"

But I don't mean that using old-fashioned (in the literal sense) instruments is automatically "closer to the sounds that the composer expected". A dull, lacklustre read-through is NOT what the composer expected to hear - far better to hear an enthusiastic amateur orchestra giving its all than such a performance. And, for what it's worth, I'd rather hear Barenboim than JEGGers in this repertoire. (It's just that I'd rather hear Krivine or Karajan than Barenboim!)

A respectful, interesting and informative reply, ferney - no more than I'd expect from you.

I hope that anyone choosing to reply to the points that you make here will address them in like fashion.

[Ariosto]

But I don't mean that using old-fashioned (in the literal sense) instruments is automatically "closer to the sounds that the composer expected". A dull, lacklustre read-through is NOT what the composer expected to hear - far better to hear an enthusiastic amateur orchestra giving its all than such a performance. And, for what it's worth, I'd rather hear Barenboim than JEGGers in this repertoire. (It's just that I'd rather hear Krivine or Karajan than Barenboim!)

I think there are people who love Krivine in this repertoir and people who dislike Krivine in this repertoir.

But people who say "we DO know how it sounded in Mozart/Beethoven/Schuberts time" are just living with a false belief. They cannot possibly know. They can only guess. We have no idea how they played, or phrased, or how they coloured the sound, with or without vibrato, before the advent of sound recording. Written accounts and places where the music was performed cannot tell us how it sounded.

They are like the religious people who have an absolute belief that God exists. No one can know either way!!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

There's nothing you've written here that I disagree with, Ari.

[Nick Armstrong]

Because the instruments don't sound the same, Ari. And I think the best composers wrote for the sounds that they heard (or, In Beethoven's case, "remembered") not some sounds that didn't exist at the time.


but the sound of instruments made in the way those instruments were manufactured in the time the composers were living must be closer to the sounds those composers heard than more modern instruments? So, if we want to get as close as possible to to the sounds that the composer had in mind, then these are essential. Because these are masterpieces that make the statement "this is humanity: this is what we're capable of!" If a painting by Beethoven's contemporaries (Turner, say, or Constable) had to be restored, then the restoration would use the same materials and painting techniques as those used by the painters themselves. Nobody would say, "Oh, poor old John, having to do with these grotty old pigments. I bet he'd've used acrylics if he'd known about them, so let's use them now. Same colours, just using better paints that weren't available to him." And yet we're expected to take for granted that Beethoven didn't really care about the timbre of his Music? Or that it's "better" to hear them in different timbres? I don't think this is "UTTER RUBBISH!!!"

But I don't mean that using old-fashioned (in the literal sense) instruments is automatically "closer to the sounds that the composer expected". A dull, lacklustre read-through is NOT what the composer expected to hear - far better to hear an enthusiastic amateur orchestra giving its all than such a performance. And, for what it's worth, I'd rather hear Barenboim than JEGGers in this repertoire. (It's just that I'd rather hear Krivine or Karajan than Barenboim!)

The analogy with painting restoration has always struck me as one of the best arguments for 'historically informed' instruments.

You put it all very well, ferns, if I may say so