Historical performances of the 9th Symphony

[kerryblue]

Would like your views on what are some of the great performances of the 9th in the past.

I seem to remember a recording (long since lsot) of Felix Weingartner conducting the 9th with the Berlin Philharmonic in 1933? Supposedly Hitler was in attendance at this performance (clearly "alle menschen werden brueder" did not resonate!).

Other thoughts?

Regards

[Immortal Beloved]

Originally posted by kerryblue:
Would like your views on what are some of the great performances of the 9th in the past.

I seem to remember a recording (long since lsot) of Felix Weingartner conducting the 9th with the Berlin Philharmonic in 1933? Supposedly Hitler was in attendance at this performance (clearly "alle menschen werden brueder" did not resonate!).

Other thoughts?

Regards

that is strange about hitler...where did you find the information?

[Peter]

Furtwangler - Schwarzkopf, Hongen, Hopf, Edelmann; Bayreuth Festival(1951) is supposed to be the classic historical recording of the 9th.

On the whole I'm not so keen on these older interpretations as I feel they are over-romanticised and attempt to turn Beethoven into Mahler!



------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Joy]

Have you heard Mahler's interpretation of the Ninth? They had a special on my PBS station a couple of months ago and told his whole story and how he added more horns and other 'changes' to it. Although I guess he didn't touch 'Schiller's Ode' at all. I prefer it done the traditional way.

[Serge]

Mahler's "interpretation" is a travesty. Probably done just to make up for his own inability to write like B. Of course, I wouldn't know for sure his intentions, but I do hate Mahler, so I feel I'm justified.

[Immortal Beloved]

Mahler on Beethoven's ninth?! That is very odd. I've seen the LP awhile ago on Ebay, i don't remember the conductor's name.

[kerryblue]

Might have been Furtwangler, of course--believe I read it--I'll try to track down.

Regards

Originally posted by Immortal Beloved:
that is strange about hitler...where did you find the information?

[Claudie MICAULT]

I think you all know that Mahler thought he was a "réincarnation" of Beethoven !!!
It was a reason for his number of symphonies.
His ego was sufficient to add something to Beethoven's great works !!!
No further comments...


------------------
Claudie

[Peter]

Originally posted by Claudie MICAULT:
I think you all know that Mahler thought he was a "réincarnation" of Beethoven !!!
It was a reason for his number of symphonies.
His ego was sufficient to add something to Beethoven's great works !!!
No further comments...

Yes but I think he was typical of his time - the Romantics totally misunderstood the classical era, and as a result many performers felt justified in altering Beethoven's intentions, reading all sorts of literary nonsense into the music with the most ludicrous exagerations of tempi and overblown Mahleresque orchestras - Just read what Schumann and Berlioz had to say - both quite mad! we're still living with the consequences of the 19th century today, though thankfully there is greater respect now for the score.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Immortal Beloved]

Originally posted by kerryblue:
Might have been Furtwangler, of course--believe I read it--I'll try to track down.

Regards

thank you for helping me out.

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
Yes but I think he was typical of his time - the Romantics totally misunderstood the classical era, and as a result many performers felt justified in altering Beethoven's intentions, reading all sorts of literary nonsense into the music with the most ludicrous exagerations of tempi and overblown Mahleresque orchestras - Just read what Schumann and Berlioz had to say - both quite mad! we're still living with the consequences of the 19th century today, though thankfully there is greater respect now for the score.

This is great! A chain of Mahler(& Co.)-bashing whose origin has absolutely nothing to do with me! This place is starting to make sence!

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 07-07-2001).]

[dice45]

Hello kerryblue, hello Peter,

Originally posted by kerryblue:
Would like your views on what are some of the great performances of the 9th in the past.

I seem to remember a recording (long since lsot) of Felix Weingartner conducting the 9th with the Berlin Philharmonic in 1933? Supposedly Hitler was in attendance at this performance (clearly "alle menschen werden brueder" did not resonate!).

Other thoughts?

Regards

After my recent experiences with Felix Weingartner cond. the 5th sympony (Radio Austria), I would bet he also conducts the 9th wonderfully. Haven't heard it yet, but since the radio experience Weingartner is top on my hunt list.

Due to an acquaintant's recommendation, I thought Arturo Toscanini would be good (I am still working thru his LvB symponies, so far I found a fantastic Eroica) but for the 9th I am afraid I cannot recommend it (I hate to talk down an interpretation which may be the sole preference of another forum inmate, but I have to.) Toscanini does rarely hit the Beethoven sound here, he takes tempi which are sometimes insanely fast, sometimes slow, but no matter what tempo, he always is in a hurry. It brakes into pieces. Nothing fits. This interpretation makes me angry.

I love to talk positive, so let's go: while I am typing this, I try out the Erich Kleiber (his son:Carlos Kleiber) recording from the late 50ies (I'd like to do something nasty to the producer of this record, instead of using 2 discs, he struggled to compress the music on one disc so the 3rd mvmnt is cut in two). Singers are Hilde Güden, Sieglinde Wagner, Anton Dermota and Ludwig Weber, the VPO is playing.
The Allegro and the Molto Vivace he conducts it in a very taut way, just he develops utter tension instead of hurry. I would say, it touches the level with the Leibowitz recording I recommended below. Maybe you have a little bit get used to this taut pace.
The 3rd mvmnt is just as described in the mvmnt subtitle.
Wonderful! Magic!
The 4rth mvmnt suffers a bit from the taut pace and the fact the conductor failed to tame the choir and singers, but not much and it does stay one piece, detailed and consistent. This ain't easy! Highly recommended, this recording!

René Leibowitz' 9th is my preferred 9th up to today and it was atleast the second preference at once for anyone I shared listening with. It is just Beethoven in one big piece, I love it. Besides that, sound quality is top level, it is probably the best sounding 9th you can get.

The 1st mvmnt is a tiny bit more open and breathing, less taut and the tension is a firm but easy and fluent one. Beethoven magic is there from the 1st bar.

The 2nd mvmnt I would like a leetle bit slower (but this is a question of taste, it is a bit more Vivace than Molto Vivace) apart from this is is very light and fluent and consistent; Beethoven magic is just there. But I must admid I admire the solid impact of the Kleiber 2nd mvmnt. I don't know which way to prefer.

The 3rd mvmnt considered alone is certainly less charming and overwhelming than Kleibers 3rd one, but again the Beethoven magic is there and 2nd and 4th mvmnt are linked in one big bow. Incredible, just like a bridge fitting into the landscape.

The 4th mvmnt is less diffuse and fits even better together than with the Kleiber recording, mood is euphoric, hymnic, enthusing, cheering.

Furtwangler - Schwarzkopf, Hongen, Hopf, Edelmann; Bayreuth Festival(1951) is supposed to be the classic historical recording of the 9th.

That's interesting. The old lady I call my listening teacher never was fond of Furtwängler as far as Beethoven is concerned. Not bad, she said. My own impression goes in a similar direction; I never heard a bad Beethoven recording from Furtwängler but I always found another recording I preferred. I heard this recording twice and on both occasions I sensed it as too romantic. I remember what a buddy with barbed wire on his teeth said about Furtwängler:
"no matter whether he conducts Beethoven or Mendelssohn, it's always Wagner"

On the whole I'm not so keen on these older interpretations as I feel they are over-romanticised and attempt to turn Beethoven into Mahler!

Please, Peter, be specific! "... these older interpretations ...", "... they are over-romanticised and attempt ..."
Please name knight and horse! Which interpretations?
Reading such generalizing statements always makes me cough.

Greets,
Bernhard

[Peter]

Originally posted by dice45:
Hello kerryblue, hello Peter,

Please, Peter, be specific! "... these older interpretations ...", "... they are over-romanticised and attempt ..."
Please name knight and horse! Which interpretations?
Reading such generalizing statements always makes me cough.

Greets,
Bernhard

You answered my point yourself - ' With Furtwangler it's always Wagner' Toscanini 'takes tempi that sometimes are insanely fast..' You get the same exagerations with Klemperer - I recall hearing a version of the 5th that sounded like an amateur orchestra in rehearsal with tempo at virtual half speed - one reason being that these guys had such huge egos that they thought they knew better than Beethoven.

I don't make a point of listening to too many old recordings for several reasons - sound quality - you'll never convince me that an old 78 is preferable to a modern Cd and the whole approach of that period is wrong in my book, with exagerated tempi, over use of vibrato and non observance of important repeats such as the first movement of the Eroica - the more I listen to period instrument recordings the more I am convinced of this and for my money I would no longer consider purchasing something that is basically flawed.

Try listening to Jordi Savall's Eroica and you won't want to bother delving back to the 1930's!

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 07-08-2001).]

[dice45]

Originally posted by Peter:
You answered my point yourself - ' With Furtwangler it's always Wagner' Toscanini 'takes tempi that sometimes are insanely fast..'

No, i didn't. I referred to a specific performance: Toscanini playing the 9th inconsistent.

It was the generalizing aproach "they", "these" that made me hickup.

TME one cannot claim a certain musician is bullshit for Beethoven or Bach or whatever, one has to look at the specific performance.

Example 1. René Leibowitz made a gorgeous complete recording of all 9 symphonies and each of those performances is considered by countless music loving audiophiles (and some grey beards having forgotten more about it than i ever will know) to be atleast the second best performance you could get.
Exception: LvB's 6th is played way too fast by Leibowitz; it is a caricature. Not that this excentric performance denies LvB's spirit, no, it's simply played too fast fast, even me liking fast pace thinks so.

Example 2. Wilhelm Backhaus played the 32 piano sonatas; it is played very light and easy and comes through the backdoor of your mind yet it is true Beethoven spirit, nothing, not anything, is missing or diffuse, but DON'T listen to his Pathétique!

You get the same exagerations with Klemperer - i recall hearing a version of the 5th that sounded like an amateur orchestra in rehearsal with tempo at virtual half speed - one reason being that these guys had such huge egos that they thought they knew better than Beethoven.

I mentioned something about having a big EGO is incompatible with playing Beethoven elsewhere, so not to make a fool of me , i must presume Toscanini's ego was on very low volume the day he recorded this wonderful Eroica (together with Leibowitz and Erich Kleiber my preference so far).

Let's not mix up ego and strong will to shape. Example 3. Serge Koussevitzky was known to have a big ego and not to have the technical competence needed for a conductor.
Several people sharing his space reported that his superstrong will to shape and vision of the work vastly overrruled these flaws. His recording fo the 5th is proof enough for me to believe those statements.

Klemperer for Beethoven BTW is preferred best by quite a number of critics and enthusiasts, i admit it is not my cup of tea, but who am i to talk their preference down?

I don't make a point of listening to too many old recordings for several reasons - sound quality - you'll never convince me that an old 78 is preferable to a modern Cd

then I best don't try.

I don't need reasons to like a specific performance, i just like it or not and i believe it or not. No matter what date of recording.

and the whole approach of that period is wrong in my book, with exagerated tempi, over use of vibrato and non observance of important repeats such as the first movement of the Eroica - the more i listen to period instrument recordings the more i am convinced of this and for my money i would no longer consider purchasing something that is basically flawed.

Try listening to Jordi Savall's Eroica and you won't want to bother delving back to the 1930's!

Yes, i did, but not in complete, it was on the radio, it did not grasp my attention at once. Maybe i will have to grow into it.
I will get access to a CD and come back with a report.

Greets,
Bernhard


[This message has been edited by dice45 (edited 07-08-2001).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by dice45:
i must presume Toscanini's ego was on very low volume the day he recorded this wonderful Eroica (together with Leibowitz and Erich Kleiber my preference so far).

Greets,
Bernhard

Do these guys observe the repeat of the exposition in the first movement?

Obviously when it comes to interpretation it is a matter of personal choice but such things as non observance of repeats go beyond interpretation into falsification of the score.

------------------
'Man know thyself'