Prom 49 - 19.08.13: Berlioz, Mendelssohn, Bach & Beethoven

[LaurieWatt]

No-one minds if you don't like this music played on smaller ensembles, but if you declare that it's "the wrong sound quality" or make sweeping statements about what ensemble it was intended for, you need to be able to back it up with a bit more research, never mind more listening to refresh the ears and the responses.

Brahms was extremely flexible about how his music should be performed, but seems (if he had a choice) to have preferred smaller ensembles in which strings would not dominate winds. He conducted it with orchestras ranging from 49 players in Karlsruhe (strings 9-9-4-4-4 in the premiere of No.1) and Meiningen, to 113 players in Hamburg for No.2 at a festival in 1878. Playing the 4th in Meiningen (an orchestra he especially loved to work with) in 1886 he declined an offer to augment the string section. (There's much more about this in the notes to the Mackerras SCO cycle - strings 10-8-6-6-4). A main thrust of the HIPS movement was - precisely - to rebalance the orchestra in favour of winds and brass. Which I often find very convincing and thrilling.

As for Beethoven, his music was premiered on ensembles of even greater variety of size and quality, and the controversy about tempi indications should be well-enough-known to render categorical dismissals about "fast tempi" invalid. There isn't a single right way to play his, or Brahms', symphonies. But many listeners have been so ear-washed by the larger-scale, Heroic/Epic/Romantic performances which formed the canonical credo of the recording catalogues for so many decades before the challenges of Norrington, Gardiner, Bruggen, Harnoncourt et al, that they can only hear performances like Ticciati's as a betrayal of their emotional investment - in their purchased collections of Furtwangler, Klemperer, Karajan etc., and in their love of that particular sound. (Which is not to forget those older conductors who related to a leaner & fitter tradition - Scherchen, Rene Leibowitz, Dorati, at times even Toscanini or Erich Kleiber).

I count myself lucky to have heard Norrington's Eroica early enough to be excited by it, rather than shocked. It now surprises me that anyone would find Ticciati's first movement too fast or lean (those pianissimos registered in my room as magically soft AND clear, the fortissimos thrillingly contrasted), or those of Zinman or Krivine.
(I once recommended the Zinman 3&4 (with reference to Rob Cowan's review) to a musiclover, who called me a few days later to relate, a little tetchily, how much he had hated it, and the time & trouble it had caused him to return to HMV to exchange it for the 1959 Klemperer!)

So these things are indeed very personal; but if you wish to judge a given performance (rather than ticking the like/dislike box), whether in sound or tempi, it is usually best to do so from a perspective of some breadth and depth.

Splendid!

[Rolmill]

I went to this concert and generally enjoyed it. I don't have a problem with chamber forces in Beethoven, relishing the zip and clarity which they can bring; in this case I felt that the woodwind were particularly well-served by the balance and gave a very good account of themselves. To my (cloth) ears, it was the brass who had occasional intonation problems, but not enough to mar a vibrant and engaging performance.

I agree with the substance of Jayne's comments about string forces, but I'm not sure to what extent they apply to Berlioz (not a loaded comment, I genuinely don't know!). I'm afraid that in this case I agree with RobertLeDiable - in the hall, I felt that the King Lear overture was the least successful performance, with string tone sometimes sounding undernourished and simply underpowered, and the whole coming across as rather episodic and unstructured.

Hough was less scintillating than I had expected in the Mendelssohn, and I thought there were some clear disagreements with the orchestra re tempo, but there were some lovely cantabile passages as well as plenty of bravura. The Bach/Benjamin was interesting, but again I found some of the horn tuning slightly distracting.

So for me, not a great concert but lots to enjoy.

[Hornspieler]

I went to this concert and generally enjoyed it. I don't have a problem with chamber forces in Beethoven, relishing the zip and clarity which they can bring; in this case I felt that the woodwind were particularly well-served by the balance and gave a very good account of themselves. To my (cloth) ears, it was the brass who had occasional intonation problems, but not enough to mar a vibrant and engaging performance.

I agree with the substance of Jayne's comments about string forces, but I'm not sure to what extent they apply to Berlioz (not a loaded comment, I genuinely don't know!). I'm afraid that in this case I agree with RobertLeDiable - in the hall, I felt that the King Lear overture was the least successful performance, with string tone sometimes sounding undernourished and simply underpowered, and the whole coming across as rather episodic and unstructuredHough was less scintillating than I had expected in the Mendelssohn, and I thought there were some clear disagreements with the orchestra re tempo, but there were some lovely cantabile passages as well as plenty of bravura. The Bach/Benjamin was interesting, but again I found some of the horn tuning slightly distracting.

So for me, not a great concert but lots to enjoy.

I am very well acquainted with all the Berlioz overtures and aware of the difficulties of "King Leat" so I do think that the SCO made quite a good fist of it. For me, "Les Francs Juges" would have been a better choice; particularly because I think the strength of the SCO is in their violins. (Thank heaven they didn't attempt "Le Corsair" - sheer chaos for the first few bars!

There seems to be two camps regarding Stephen Hough's playing. Some love it, others take a different view. Without a TV screen to decide, I would be hard put to it to decide whether I was listening to Stephen Hough or Paul Lewis (who, in the eyes of many, can do no wrong)

So what was wrong with Hough's performance? Was it not a case of the orchestra/conductor failing to stay with him?

There's "in tune" and "out of tune" - no halfway house.

Last night, the SCO were palpably out of tune in many places and in the Eroica in particular it was, to my ears, excrutiating obvious.

So what pitch were they all playing to? Could "authentic" woodwinds tune to concert pitch? Perhaps our friend waldhorn will be able to tell us. My own impression was that the violins were playing to A=440 and the cellos, basses and brass were tuned noticably higher, with the woodwinds (bassoons in particular) somewhere in between.

I hope that we shall have a lot more views on this concert.

HS

[RobertLeDiable]

No-one minds if you don't like this music played on smaller ensembles, but if you declare that it's "the wrong sound quality" or make sweeping statements about what ensemble it was intended for, you need to be able to back it up with a bit more research, never mind more listening to refresh the ears and the responses.

Brahms was extremely flexible about how his music should be performed, but seems (if he had a choice) to have preferred smaller ensembles in which strings would not dominate winds. He conducted it with orchestras ranging from 49 players in Karlsruhe (strings 9-9-4-4-4 in the premiere of No.1) and Meiningen, to 113 players in Hamburg for No.2 at a festival in 1878. Playing the 4th in Meiningen (an orchestra he especially loved to work with) in 1886 he declined an offer to augment the string section. (There's much more about this in the notes to the Mackerras SCO cycle - strings 10-8-6-6-4). A main thrust of the HIPS movement was - precisely - to rebalance the orchestra in favour of winds and brass. Which I often find very convincing and thrilling.

As for Beethoven, his music was premiered on ensembles of even greater variety of size and quality, and the controversy about tempi indications should be well-enough-known to render categorical dismissals about "fast tempi" invalid. There isn't a single right way to play his, or Brahms', symphonies. But many listeners have been so ear-washed by the larger-scale, Heroic/Epic/Romantic performances which formed the canonical credo of the recording catalogues for so many decades before the challenges of Norrington, Gardiner, Bruggen, Harnoncourt et al, that they can only hear performances like Ticciati's as a betrayal of their emotional investment - in their purchased collections of Furtwangler, Klemperer, Karajan etc., and in their love of that particular sound. (Which is not to forget those older conductors who related to a leaner & fitter tradition - Scherchen, Rene Leibowitz, Dorati, at times even Toscanini or Erich Kleiber).

I count myself lucky to have heard Norrington's Eroica early enough to be excited by it, rather than shocked. It now surprises me that anyone would find Ticciati's first movement too fast or lean (those pianissimos registered in my room as magically soft AND clear, the fortissimos thrillingly contrasted), or those of Zinman or Krivine.
(I once recommended the Zinman 3&4 (with reference to Rob Cowan's review) to a musiclover, who called me a few days later to relate, a little tetchily, how much he had hated it, and the time & trouble it had caused him to return to HMV to exchange it for the 1959 Klemperer!)

So these things are indeed very personal; but if you wish to judge a given performance (rather than ticking the like/dislike box), whether in sound or tempi, it is usually best to do so from a perspective of some breadth and depth.

I don't know what you think gives you the right to patronise me. I'm fully aware of the size of Brahms's orchestras and I wasn't referring to Beethoven at all, if you read my post. I'm quite happy to hear HIPP performances of Beethoven by chamber forces, though Norrington is probably my least favourite conductor of the symphonies (and of most things). I was talking mainly about Berlioz. I'm prepared to listen sympathetically to a chamber orchestra playing some Berlioz (Beatrice and Benedict among the overtures works best) in a small hall, but it is the height of absurdity to play especially a relatively heavily scored piece like King Lear in the RAH with a chamber-sized string section. When I say it's the wrong sound, I mean it. You must have greater weight of string texture to balance the brass and winds. And, moreover, if you're going to play most Berlioz with a small string section even in a small hall, you need lighter-bored, 19th C brass instruments and period woodwinds if the balance is going to work. I think the SCO normally play on modern instruments (albeit with natural horns).

As for Brahms, the venues that Brahms had in Karlsruhe and Meiningen were a good deal smaller than most modern halls. Mackerras's recordings work for me in part, but the relative lack of bass at times robs the music of something. As I said, it's in pianissimos, not loud passages, that the lack of depth in tone is most injurious. This is even more so in Sibelius, as in Berglund's generally admirable recordings with the COE. I'm not arguing for string sections of 60 at all times in Brahms, nor am I arguing for a 'saturated' romantic string tone. I was always struck by Gunter Wand's Brahms (and his Beethoven actually) and the lean-ness of tone he got from both strings and wind, reaching back to a pre-war tradition well before Karajan and co came on the scene.

It seems to me that there are two things here. There are chamber orchestras that play on modern instruments and there are orchestras that play on period instruments. The modern instrument orchestras have been somewhat squeezed out of the baroque and classical repertoire by the period bands. They adopt period performance practice and still play Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc on modern instruments, which is fine, but it's not quite as central to their repertoire as it used to be, especially at the baroque end. So to supplement their repertoire (and, frankly, to atrract audiences) they have started playing larger-scale symphonic music (Berlioz, Brahms, Sibelius, even Bruckner) which still has only double woodwind - but with underpowered string sections. Sometimes it can work, in the right context, but often, for me, it doesn't - especially in the RAH. By all means let's have Gardiner and the Orchestre Romantique et Revolutionnaire doing large scale Berlioz on period instruments in the RAH, but a modern chamber orchestra doing the same piece is a compromise that doesn't serve the music well at all.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Ticciati takes the First Movement at the Tempo Beethoven marks in his score (dotted minim = 60*) - if he's wrong, then so is Beethoven. I hear no scurrying; everything has that quicksilver, elemental lightning flash that Beethoven writes for all conductors to realize: and everything is so transparent, with no serious faults in intonation, the odd split note from the Horns aside. I don't like the conductor's occasional pulling back the Tempo every so often to emphasize a structural point (this sort of thing always sounds like Glenda Slagg's "Geddit"), but he's at least aware of the structural significance of the work (Expo repeat: hurrah!) - this was a performance that reflected the young, lean, mean Napoleon whose heroic championship of Liberty Beethoven celebrated in the work.

* = ie, each bar should take about a second to play.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

AND what pathos and dignity in the Funeral March (superb Horns here) - and the Mendelssohnian handling of the Scherzo - and the way all these Musical "characters" were reunited and celebrated in the Finale. Best performance of the Eroica I can remember at a Prom - something to save: a joy forever!

[jayne lee wilson]

I don't know what you think gives you the right to patronise me. I'm fully aware of the size of Brahms's orchestras and I wasn't referring to Beethoven at all, if you read my post. I'm quite happy to hear HIPP performances of Beethoven by chamber forces, though Norrington is probably my least favourite conductor of the symphonies (and of most things). I was talking mainly about Berlioz. I'm prepared to listen sympathetically to a chamber orchestra playing some Berlioz (Beatrice and Benedict among the overtures works best) in a small hall, but it is the height of absurdity to play especially a relatively heavily scored piece like King Lear in the RAH with a chamber-sized string section. When I say it's the wrong sound, I mean it. You must have greater weight of string texture to balance the brass and winds. And, moreover, if you're going to play most Berlioz with a small string section even in a small hall, you need lighter-bored, 19th C brass instruments and period woodwinds if the balance is going to work. I think the SCO normally play on modern instruments (albeit with natural horns).

As for Brahms, the venues that Brahms had in Karlsruhe and Meiningen were a good deal smaller than most modern halls. Mackerras's recordings work for me in part, but the relative lack of bass at times robs the music of something. As I said, it's in pianissimos, not loud passages, that the lack of depth in tone is most injurious. This is even more so in Sibelius, as in Berglund's generally admirable recordings with the COE. I'm not arguing for string sections of 60 at all times in Brahms, nor am I arguing for a 'saturated' romantic string tone. I was always struck by Gunter Wand's Brahms (and his Beethoven actually) and the lean-ness of tone he got from both strings and wind, reaching back to a pre-war tradition well before Karajan and co came on the scene.

It seems to me that there are two things here. There are chamber orchestras that play on modern instruments and there are orchestras that play on period instruments. The modern instrument orchestras have been somewhat squeezed out of the baroque and classical repertoire by the period bands. They adopt period performance practice and still play Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc on modern instruments, which is fine, but it's not quite as central to their repertoire as it used to be, especially at the baroque end. So to supplement their repertoire (and, frankly, to atrract audiences) they have started playing larger-scale symphonic music (Berlioz, Brahms, Sibelius, even Bruckner) which still has only double woodwind - but with underpowered string sections. Sometimes it can work, in the right context, but often, for me, it doesn't - especially in the RAH. By all means let's have Gardiner and the Orchestre Romantique et Revolutionnaire doing large scale Berlioz on period instruments in the RAH, but a modern chamber orchestra doing the same piece is a compromise that doesn't serve the music well at all.

Hmm... you see you've changed tack here, a little evasively. You're now discussing the size of the orchestra in relation to the scale of the acoustic, in which we may have found much to agree about. If Haydn could descend upon us for a Special Ghost Appearance at the RAH, I'm sure he'd bring the Grand Parisian Symphony of his day rather than the Esterhazy CO. (In the Cadogan, the opposite...)

But in your initial post you were categorically denying value to smaller-scale performances in certain repertoire, which sadly you continue to do ("when I say it's the wrong sound, I mean it" - phew!) in the face of historical evidence and the success of many recordings. I don't personally find the Telarc Brahms/Mackerras recordings lacking bass - far from it, it's clean, deep and tuneful (the start of No.1 is quite strong enough for me!), but certainly more discriminatingly applied, giving a great climactic effect just when it should, as in this Ticciati/SCO Eroica. The entry of brass and drums is always especially thrilling with smaller, less richly-stringed ensembles, where with larger orchestras there's a tendency for conductors to play too loud, too often. (This Eroica had a very subtle dynamic "gradient" - subtle changes in level, which Alsop couldn't match with the period-instrument OAE; an effect probably lost on FM).

Brahms didn't often conduct his own music with double winds by the way. He may have had that option in Vienna, but it became a more habitual performance practice precisely because of the increasing size of orchestras in the later 19th C.

I'm sorry if you felt patronised; I thought I'd gone out of my way to balance the personal with the historical, and attempt to see performance practice in a wide and deep, un-dismissive, relativistic perspective.

[edashtav]

Ticciati takes the First Movement at the Tempo Beethoven marks in his score (dotted minim = 60*) - if he's wrong, then so is Beethoven. I hear no scurrying; everything has that quicksilver, elemental lightning flash that Beethoven writes for all conductors to realize: and everything is so transparent, with no serious faults in intonation, the odd split note from the Horns aside. I don't like the conductor's occasional pulling back the Tempo every so often to emphasize a structural point (this sort of thing always sounds like Glenda Slagg's "Geddit"), but he's at least aware of the structural significance of the work (Expo repeat: hurrah!) - this was a performance that reflected the young, lean, mean Napoleon whose heroic championship of Liberty Beethoven celebrated in the work.

* = ie, each bar should take about a second to play.

I don't like the conductor's occasional pulling back the Tempo every so often to emphasize a structural point . Emphatically, I didn't like that either but drew a different conclusion: that Ticciati's basic tempo was too fast. Few people feel that Beethoven's tempi marks were practical, surely?

[RobertLeDiable]

Hmm... you see you've changed tack here, a little evasively. You're now discussing the size of the orchestra in relation to the scale of the acoustic, in which we may have found much to agree about. If Haydn could descend upon us for a Special Ghost Appearance at the RAH, I'm sure he'd bring the Grand Parisian Symphony of his day rather than the Esterhazy CO. (In the Cadogan, the opposite...)

But in your initial post you were categorically denying value to smaller-scale performances in certain repertoire, which sadly you continue to do ("when I say it's the wrong sound, I mean it" - phew!) in the face of historical evidence and the success of many recordings. I don't personally find the Telarc Brahms/Mackerras recordings lacking bass - far from it, it's clean, deep and tuneful (the start of No.1 is quite strong enough for me!), but certainly more discriminatingly applied, giving a great climactic effect just when it should, as in this Ticciati/SCO Eroica. The entry of brass and drums is always especially thrilling with smaller, less richly-stringed ensembles, where with larger orchestras there's a tendency for conductors to play too loud, too often. (This Eroica had a very subtle dynamic "gradient" - subtle changes in level, which Alsop couldn't match with the period-instrument OAE; an effect probably lost on FM).

Brahms didn't often conduct his own music with double winds by the way. He may have had that option in Vienna, but it became a more habitual performance practice precisely because of the increasing size of orchestras in the later 19th C.

I'm sorry if you felt patronised; I thought I'd gone out of my way to balance the personal with the historical, and attempt to see performance practice in a wide and deep, un-dismissive, relativistic perspective.

I didn't change tack. I attempted to reinforce my opinion that modern instrument chamber orchestras with modern wind and brass instruments playing pieces by composers like Berlioz, especially a piece like King Lear which is quite brass heavy, do not work because there isn't enough weight in the string sound. That problem is merely exacerbated in a very large space like the RAH, but it would be a problem in a 2000 seat hall as well. In a studio recording, of course the balance can be artificially adjusted, but as a previous poster who was actually at the RAH said, the Berlioz in this case didn't work because the string section was too small.

You refer to Brahms not conducting his music with double winds. Presumably by that you mean he didn't double up his wind sections but that wasn't what I was saying. In the orchestral business, by double wind we mean two of everything, not four. Then you keep going back to Beethoven, but as I said I didn't mention Beethoven - I have no problem with the SCO or any other chamber orchestra playing the Eroica. You seem determined to misinterpret my posts so that you can parade your own knowledge.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I don't like the conductor's occasional pulling back the Tempo every so often to emphasize a structural point . Emphatically, I didn't like that either but drew a different conclusion: that Ticciati's basic tempo was too fast.

Except that 1) he stopped doing it after the Exposition; and 2) so did Barenboim last year at a much slower Tempo.

Few people feel that Beethoven's tempi marks were practical, surely?

Beethoven didn't. And don't call me Shirley.

[jayne lee wilson]

I didn't change tack. I attempted to reinforce my opinion that modern instrument chamber orchestras with modern wind and brass instruments playing pieces by composers like Berlioz, especially a piece like King Lear which is quite brass heavy, do not work because there isn't enough weight in the string sound. That problem is merely exacerbated in a very large space like the RAH, but it would be a problem in a 2000 seat hall as well. In a studio recording, of course the balance can be artificially adjusted, but as a previous poster who was actually at the RAH said, the Berlioz in this case didn't work because the string section was too small.

You refer to Brahms not conducting his music with double winds. Presumably by that you mean he didn't double up his wind sections but that wasn't what I was saying. In the orchestral business, by double wind we mean two of everything, not four. Then you keep going back to Beethoven, but as I said I didn't mention Beethoven - I have no problem with the SCO or any other chamber orchestra playing the Eroica. You seem determined to misinterpret my posts so that you can parade your own knowledge.

FINALLY got around to hearing the King Lear Overture by Berlioz, played by Robin Ticciati and the Scottish Chamber Orchestra... with stunning power, precision and panache! I don't think I've heard a better conceived or executed performance this season, and the engineering via HDs was marvellous. All of my comments on the Eroica apply here too. The strings (especially cellos and basses) were cleanly-voiced, textured and tuneful, the wind solos characterful and expressive, providing the perfect launching pad for the brilliance of the brass and percussion outbursts. Ticciati and the SCO phrased with great suavity and elegance, maintaining a tension which kept the audience quiet through the pauses. I didn't hear a single moment of obscured lines or inner detail, the balance was immaculate; again that magical, whisper-soft string pianissimo, and the brilliant offsetting of the brass and timps within the framework of a leaner, more tuneful string sound. As in the Eroica, the vivid impression was of a tight, disciplined and virtuosic ensemble in a large acoustic space, which I found very appealing. (I love Mackerras' Prague CO Mozart recordings, another smallish ensemble, spaciously set by Telarc in those reverberant Czech Halls).

Of course, home listeners may well have had the best of it; the sound of a chamber orchestra, and the perception of its performance, is bound to vary greatly according to where you sit in such a large hall. But I could detect no sign of level manipulation or artificial highlighting in a very natural tonal balance. But as I said, given that subtle and wide-ranging dynamics were a crucial feature of the concert, FM compression could have been a serious misrepresentation (and for that matter, DAB at its usual bitrates with its almost unavoidable high-frequency problems would probably do those delicate, precise strings no favours either).

I've no idea of the string complement of the orchestras Berlioz was most used to; certainly the Paris Orchestra of his day (who premiered King Lear in 1833) was very fine, and probably could furnish a larger string band if required. But for me, this chamber-orchestral account worked brilliantly! I hope other listeners will offer their comments on this terrific performance.

[edashtav]

Except that 1) he stopped doing it after the Exposition; and 2) so did Barenboim last year at a much slower Tempo.


Beethoven didn't. And don't call me Shirley.

I felt the pulling back of tempo continued longer than you state, but I'd have to check - I do get bees in my bonnet.

I don't trust Beethoven's metronome, do you Miss Temple?

[teamsaint]

I felt the pulling back of tempo continued longer than you state, but I'd have to check - I do get bees in my bonnet.

I don't trust Beethoven's metronome, do you Miss Temple?

I had similar worries about Sibelius' metronome a while back, Ed. Important point!

[Hornspieler]

FINALLY got around to hearing the King Lear Overture by Berlioz, played by Robin Ticciati and the Scottish Chamber Orchestra... with stunning power, precision and panache! I don't think I've heard a better conceived or executed performance this season, and the engineering via HDs was marvellous.

Whether one is listening on FM or watching meters and counting bitrates is immaterial. If an orchestra is playing out of tune, even grannie's trannie in the kitchen will reveal the fact.

All of my comments on the Eroica apply here too. The strings (especially cellos and basses) were cleanly-voiced, textured and tuneful, the wind solos characterful and expressive, providing the perfect launching pad for the brilliance of the brass and percussion outbursts. Ticciati and the SCO phrased with great suavity and elegance, maintaining a tension which kept the audience quiet through the pauses. I didn't hear a single moment of obscured lines or inner detail, the balance was immaculate; again that magical, whisper-soft string pianissimo, and the brilliant offsetting of the brass and timps within the framework of a leaner, more tuneful* string sound. As in the Eroica, the vivid impression was of a tight, disciplined and virtuosic ensemble in a large acoustic space, which I found very appealing.

* out of tune in the lower strings

[COLOR="#FF0000"]

Of course, home listeners may well have had the best of it; the sound of a chamber orchestra, and the perception of its performance, is bound to vary greatly according to where you sit in such a large hall. But I could detect no sign of level manipulation or artificial highlighting in a very natural tonal balance. But as I said, given that subtle and wide-ranging dynamics were a crucial feature of the concert, FM compression could have been a serious misrepresentation (and for that matter, DAB at its usual bitrates with its almost unavoidable high-frequency problems would probably do those delicate, precise strings no favours either).

So it was a mistake to expect a paying audience to endure those shortcomings?

I've no idea of the string complement of the orchestras Berlioz was most used to; certainly the Paris Orchestra of his day (who premiered King Lear in 1833) was very fine, and probably could furnish a larger string band if required. But for me, this chamber-orchestral account worked brilliantly! I hope other listeners will offer their comments on this terrific performance.

Amen to that.

HS

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I felt the pulling back of tempo continued longer than you state, but I'd have to check - I do get bees in my bonnet.

As the very first Tempo "modification" was the presentation of the opening two chords, I don't think it had anything to do with being "unable" to keep "up" with the pace of the main body of the Movement. And it was always a "tweaking" of a couple of beats as a "signposting" of points of structural significance [leading into the Second Group, for example] - as if wishing to suggest a connection between these points and those opening chords.

I don't trust Beethoven's metronome, do you Miss Temple?

Which one? ("Metronome" not "Miss Temple") - Beethoven was supplied with three or four metronomes by the instrument's inventor (Lorin Maazel ). The myth of "the faulty metronome" rather loses force when those who comment on it seem to think that 1) he only possessed one, and that this one was 2) faulty in both directions (too fast and not fast enough) whilst being accurate at other times; and 3) they can't decide amongst themselves which Movements are faultily indicated - the same Metronome Mark can be "far too fast/slow" for one commentator, whilst being "reliable" for another.

But a Metronome Mark of "= 60" is pretty clear - it's the pulse meted out by any mechanical clock as it ticks and tocks.

Above all, it's the effects that observing the metronome markings has on performance that makes me trust them - Allegro con brio stops being Allegro maestoso or Allegretto moderato. The connections Beethoven's Music has with Haydn's are made clear as well as the completely different attitudes that the younger composer brought to the medium. The Eroica is a young man's Music - something which Ticciati's performance really brought out - fiery, with a joyful arrogance that relishes its own audacity. Each moment "told", but the "big picture" was never lost - words like "trajectory" come in very useful at times like these, with such a ballistic realization of the score.

And to think I nearly missed this performance: stuff's happening that made me think that I didn't really have the psychic energy to cope with the Eroica - but I emerged from this performance totally galvinized by the experience. So many thanks to HS and everyone here for drawing my attention to the concert.

And how it strikes me now that this Prom was the real memorial to Sir Colin Davis: one of his students taking his wisdom but in no way subsuming his own ideas about the score with a sub-Davis attempt to present the work as if he were conducting it. One repays a teacher very poorly if one remains a student.