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

[Ariosto]

There is always the problem of balancing the parts. To my taste there were far too many strings (even if there were not as many as the larger professional orchestras often use).

I'm having respect for your taste subcontrbass, but personally I loved the full sound of the strings. So many orchestras produce varying amounts of thin dead sounds - this was a revelation! Even with the Beeb not having much idea about what they were doing I thought the balance OK - on TV at any rate.

[pilamenon]

Agree with most of the comments here - the First took a while to get into its full stride, I felt, but the orchestra were on fire by the finale. The Second was a joy from start to finish, and conductor and orchestra handled the false ending with magnificent aplomb. As said earlier, how good to see this symphony take centre stage for a change.

There can't have been many larger audiences for a 45-minute work by Boulez, and I felt the musicians deserved more applause than they received for such a sustained, intense piece of work. I found the "river" analogy referred to in the programme helpful in listening. Comparing it with the recent recording by the Ensemble Orchestral Intercontemporain, I did wonder if the marimba didn't slightly swamp the textures, and the harp was virtually inaudible to me in the circle. It's such a rhythmical piece that it's quite hard to sit still and listen to it! Barenboim also great to watch here.

A very satisfying evening - and looking forward to being back for 7 and 8 on Tuesday.

I do agree about the projections of Beethoven - they are pointless.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I think it is time to acknowledge the wonderful performance at this evenings Prom (Friday 20/07/12).
I feel lucky to have lived and experienced the time of Daniel Baremboim - both as a pianist and a conductor, and overwhelmingly as a wonderful musician.
The orchestra is quite wonderful too, such dedicated playing, and enjoyment at making music, playing to each other and making very fine chamber music.
This is what music should all be about. We should feel priviliged to have witnessed the genius of Baremboim and have heard such wonderful playing. Orchestral playing to shame a lot of professional orchestras.

We can experience and learn so much - Beethoven brought to life again, and not dredged up by some dreary dried up old conductor whose is way past his sell by date.

Totally agree, Ari

I would also add a word of appreciation about Barenboim's genius for programming: some of the comments here suggest that at least some listeners might have "given another kreutzer if only they'd stop" (or that there were "too many notes, Mr Boulez")? Barenboim realizes that to experience Boulez today gives audiences a flavour of what Beethoven's contemporaries experienced at performances of his works: a mixture of boredom, hostility, doubt and outright enthusiasm.

[salymap]

Barenboim must surely be in his sixties at least now. I last saw him live playing trios with Jackie and err
who was it, at the Brighton Music Festival in the 1960s, at a guess.

I'm filming all his concerts and they will be nice to go back to when I can,hopefully, hear them better.


Wow, he's 70 this year. How time flies

[BBMmk2]

I must have missed the Bouklez. Which piece was that?

Thank you, Ariosto!! a new composer perhaps?

[Ariosto]

Must be a new one!!

Yes, Saly, he (DB) would be about 70 now, and he (we noted) looks a lot older recently. But still with the same energy.

Ferney - you put that very well, and I suspect that in the near to distant future people may well view Boulez even as old hat!!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Barenboim will be seventy in November.

I remember when he appeared on Desert Island Discs in 2006, Sue Lawley mentioned that he was "nearly 64" and DB pretended to be outraged, repeatedly mentioning that he was "sixty-three" (his emphasis) thereafter.

[heliocentric]

Much as I find "late" Boulez has a tendency towards seeming self-parody (Sur incises for example), and much as his endless warming-over of previous pieces has a tendency towards homogeneity and diminishing returns IMO, I did enjoy Dérive 2 a lot. Its lack of overtly dramatic moments might make it seem too long to some, but the Boulez is so to speak in the details and I found concentrating on those greatly rewarding; also, Barenboim seems to be one of the very few conductors apart from PB himself who really understands how to bring out the best in this music.

I can't really understand someone's statement about Dérive 2 being uncharacteristically long: Structures, Livre pour quatuor, Pli selon pli, Répons and Sur Incises are all on the same kind of scale, and Explosante-fixe and Le marteau sans maître, to name only these, aren't that much shorter.

[PJPJ]

Agree with most of the comments here - the First took a while to get into its full stride, I felt, but the orchestra were on fire by the finale.

Listening yet again at home and for the first time in decent sound the First is quite delightful. And, I must say, the engineers have captured excellent sound. I don't envy the players in the later symphonies - how anyone copes with the heat of the weather and the TV lights.......

[ahinton]

Much as I find "late" Boulez has a tendency towards seeming self-parody (Sur incises for example), and much as his endless warming-over of previous pieces has a tendency towards homogeneity and diminishing returns IMO, I did enjoy Dérive 2 a lot. Its lack of overtly dramatic moments might make it seem too long to some, but the Boulez is so to speak in the details and I found concentrating on those greatly rewarding; also, Barenboim seems to be one of the very few conductors apart from PB himself who really understands how to bring out the best in this music.

I can't really understand someone's statement about Dérive 2 being uncharacteristically long: Structures, Livre pour quatuor, Pli selon pli, Répons and Sur Incises are all on the same kind of scale, and Explosante-fixe and Le marteau sans maître, to name only these, aren't that much shorter.

It was my comment (or at least my response, tempered appropriately by JLW's observations) and wasn't at all intended as any kind of criticism - rather the reverse, in fact...

[Sapere Aude]

Indeed, Leopold had some stern words to say about excessive finger wobbling, did he not?

"There are some players who tremble at every note, as if they had a chronic fever. One should use the tremolo (vibrato) only in those places where Nature herself would produce it."

From my point of view there can be convincing performances of Beethoven both generally with and generally without vibrato and making this issue fundamental is a trap that will ultimately result in "not seeing the woods for the trees".

But going back to "Leopold", even he admits that some people used vibrato. If he didn't particularly enjoy it, does it mean his taste was really the norm everywhere? How many of them vibrated "too much" for Leopold and how many didn't, in every city? Techniques varied substantially from school to school, region to region anyway.

And also, many people ignore another passage in his treatise, in the tone production chapter. He speaks about how violinists should aim to imitate the human voice and describes various techniques to achieve that:

..."In this first division (bow division) in particular, as also in the following, the finger of the left hand should make a small, slow movement which must not be sideways but forward and backward. That is, the finger must move forward towards the bridge and backward again towards the scroll: in soft tone quite slowly, but in the loud rather faster...”. Those who don't play string instruments may be surprised to learn that that movement backwards and forwards, faster or slower, as Leopold describes it, is in fact how you do ... vibrato on a string instrument, though he never calls it "vibrato". And he seems to imply the technique should be a necessary part of tone production. Which from my point of view shows again that the meaning of the word "vibrato" those days was not well established, and we may be naive to believe the word meant exactly the same thing for them as it does for us today.

But again, from my point of view, reducing music to vibrato or non-vibrato issues is missing the whole point of ...music. Surely even the musicians living during those times, played more or less beautifully, more or less convincing, more or less engaging, etc. Despite the techniques they were using. If music was reduced to simple calculus and formulas of "how many vibrations we put per note, etc", and if we believe that only some "product" of specific formulas can result in beauty, and that there is no other way, than surely there is no point for live musicians any more. Computers can and will do a better job...

That's the great thing about music, compared to, let's say physics: there is not only one possible result, only one "truth", only one "beautiful"!

[Ariosto]

From your post about Leopold Mozart I get the feeling that you may be a (professional) string player?

Interesting quote and it does put things more into perspective.

[Sapere Aude]

Yes, I am. And I play myself both (generally) with or without vibrato, depending on circumstances. But as far as I am concerned, that is not the decisive factor in the quality of a performance or interpretation, and in my enjoyment of it - and it shouldn't be.

I don't think going to a concert should feel like going to a museum. That makes the whole act frankly frigid - and turns musicians into "Egyptian mummies"! And is definitely not authentic in spirit.

From my point of view when going to concerts, we should try to experience the music as if played for the first time: as a "creative act in progress" happening right there and then, and not just as a reproduction of some "archive document", and already determined on what we want to hear.

And then ask yourself? Did I like it? Did I believe it? Did it move me?

[Hornspieler]

Yes, I am. And I play myself both (generally) with or without vibrato, depending on circumstances. But as far as I am concerned, that is not the decisive factor in the quality of a performance or interpretation, and in my enjoyment of it - and it shouldn't be.

I don't think going to a concert should feel like going to a museum. That makes the whole act frankly frigid - and turns musicians into "Egyptian mummies"! And is definitely not authentic in spirit.

From my point of view when going to concerts, we should try to experience the music as if played for the first time: as a "creative act in progress" happening right there and then, and not just as a reproduction of some "archive document", and already determined on what we want to hear.

And then ask yourself? Did I like it? Did I believe it? Did it move me?

HS

[Barbirollians]

Some interesting responses . I enjoyed it a lot the Boulez was fascinating but to be heard occasionally for my ears . Unsurprisingly, the interpretations are very similar to the recorded cycle . I agree about the 2nd probably my favourite of the recorded cycle.