Arrangements

[Peter]

Originally posted by chrisg:
Liszt made no secret of his supreme admiration for B's music, and to imply that his transcriptions are embellished rewrites along the lines of say, his opera transcriptions is just plain wrong.
cg

I didn't imply that - I said 'however fine' implying that they are very well done.
Liszt's admiration for B didn't prevent him from embellishing the sonatas in performance.

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

[Rod]

Originally posted by Michael:

...Since the novel came out, Supraphon have actually released on CD the exact recording mentioned by Seth, with these two works on it. (SU 3447-2111 if anybody is interested. Well worth listening to, but you'd better have a treble control on your amp - it's an early digital - 1977 - and a bit fierce in tone.)

Michael

It is interesting that B published op4 as his preffered version and that the original octet was published much later. This would imply that op4 was B's preference, yet it is almost never played (it would make a good cd accompaniment for op29). Whereas recordings of the octet are plentiful. I have this disk by Supraphon and the sound is a problem, and is exasserbated by the awfull steel string tone. I believe op104 may be a re-arrangement by B of someone elses arrangement, and is certainly the less interesting of the two works on the disk - I have listened to it only once, and much prefer op1/3.

Rod

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

[chrisg]

If Beethoven asks for Forte /legato/ Staccato etc.. the performer should do it don't you think ? If he asks for Allegro Vivace, we shouldn't get Moderato - Beethoven was one of the first composers to give precise indications as to how his music should be played, I'm only saying that they should be faithfully observed.

P.S. For my favourite Furtwangler recordings see the recommended recordings on this site !

Peter,

It looks like the "line" you draw regarding faithful observation of the score is much wider than I thought. Furtwangler's recordings are filled with what I thought were blatant deviations from the indicated tempos, unspecified tempo variations within movements, exaggerated dnymanics, unmarked pauses - you would know better than I would. Fans of the score and only the score approach hold up Furtwangler as one of their poster boys for unauthorized deviations from Beethoven's intentions.

I realize we've drifted off the validity of arrangements, but I'm reading your comment above to refer to interpretation. Here are some timings from your recommended Furt list vs. some other conductors.

Sym #3: Gardiner 15:34, 12:41, 5:32, 10:42
Norrington 15:13, 12:31, 5:43, 10:02
Savall 15:16, 12:42, 5:25, 10:49
all the above take the 1st mvt. repeat - WF skips it.
Furtwangler 16:18, 18:49, 6:31, 12:46 (BPO 12/8/52)


Sym #5/1: Gardiner 6:30, Zander 6:23, Norrington 6:33, Mackerras 6:43
Furtwangler 8:19 (BPO '54)

Sym #6/1: Gardiner 11:14, Mackerras 11:18, Zinman 10:21 - all with the repeat.
WF w/o repeat 11:50 (VPO '52) which must be by far the slowest on record.

Sym #9/3: Norrington 11:08, Gardiner 12:05, Mackerras 11:55
WF 19:32 ! (Philharmonia '54)
WF 20:08 !! (BPO '42)

Now Peter, somebody's not being faithful to Beethoven's clearly indicated intentions as per the scores. I'm not a musician so I can't be sure, but I think it's Furtwangler.
BTW, some of the above are collecting dust in my discard pile, and some are great - including all of Furt's, though I prefer his '44 VPO Eroica.

Is Furtwangler a good example of a conductor that remains faithful to the printed score, or do you just like the results he got? Perhaps there is hope for you.

cg

[Michael]

Originally posted by Rod:
It is interesting that B published op4 as his preffered version and that the original octet was published much later. This would imply that op4 was B's preference, yet it is almost never played (it would make a good cd accompaniment for op29). Whereas recordings of the octet are plentiful. I have this disk by Supraphon and the sound is a problem, and is exasserbated by the awfull steel string tone. I believe op104 may be a re-arrangement by B of someone elses arrangement, and is certainly the less interesting of the two works on the disk - I have listened to it only once, and much prefer op1/3.

Rod

Yeah, you're right about Opus 104 - the piano trio is much better. Although Vikram Seth apparently believes the transcription to be pure Beethoven there is a lot of doubt about it. According to the Beethoven Compendium it was originally done by an unknown composer called Kaufmann and B. got hold of it and improved it. He wrote on the copyist's manuscript "Trio arranged as a three-part quintet by Mr Goodwill (Herr Kaufman) and ...... raised from the most abject misery to some degree of respectability by Mr Wellwisher (himself)".
Opus 4 is a far better arrangement/composition but seems to be a real black sheep in the Beethoven canon. One of the FAQ's on the DGG website was why it was left out of the Complete Beethoven Edition and the compilers couldn't supply a very satisfactory answer.

Michael

[Luis]

Please all forgive me for having provoking such a discussion and stop participating on it. I'm having some REALLY tough exams and I barely have time to read your comments. At least It seams I have an ally in CG since I can agree with this 2 statements:

works for me as a fun supplement to, not a replacement for, the Violin Concerto.
(CG.)

As for anyone saying that the piano version is preferable to the original, no one here or in my experience ever has. What does this have to do with an excellent performance of the piano version being enjoyable in its own right?
(CG.)

Which are completely according to…

If there is an ethical issue behind this (respect to the composer original intentions), I don’t care so much. I my opinion the occasion while I’m listening to music is more an event of personal delight than a ritual in honor to the absolute geniusness of the composer.
(Luis)

[I sustain this and I don’t think this makes me admire Beethoven less. As it was implied on my comment, if one wants to hear “Beethoven”, fine. If one can enjoy some variations on the original, well, why not allowing him/her to doing it?!]


Some more things to add that make the arrangement valid. I always thought the two first movements of the violin concerto are a bit melancholic, not matching the third with this. (I’m not saying this is a negative or “contradictory” point). While, at least on my version for piano of op. 61, the mood of the concert is much “lighter” and less “solemn”; the second movement instead of being melancholic, has some sweetness (given by the piano) like some second movements of Mozart’s concertos and that matches better with the third. This is an enjoyable aspect that makes the arrangement, as CG said, a “fun supplement” or “enjoyable in its own right”, despite of some other aspects (in some parts one can really miss the violin, the concerto lacks of any piano virtuosism, the cadenzas are.. well, let’s just say they aren’t among the better endings written by B , and so on )

PS: thanks for the recommendations!


Luis

[Peter]

Originally posted by chrisg:


Is Furtwangler a good example of a conductor that remains faithful to the printed score, or do you just like the results he got? Perhaps there is hope for you.

cg

Thanks cg for going to the trouble of finding all those timings ! - Now when I mentioned Furtwangler, I was actually being a little flippant myself in response to your provocation ! - With the recommended recordings I have tried to include 3 categories - Historical, Authentic and Modern - To be honest, I do not now possess the Furtwangler recordings, and I did hear them many years ago when I was suitably impressed . I still think it is important to offer these historical performances so people can compare them with those of today and make up their own minds - You see I'm actually being quite democratic in my selections and not quite the demagogue you make me out to be ! - Anyway, I would be happy to hear your recommended selection for the symphonies, particularly historical.When it comes to timings, that is really a matter of interpretation, and I'm not saying that every performance should be exact to the second - that would be ridiculous - after all there is quite a wide scope within an Allegro marking - but we have all heard performances which we would regard as lamentably slow or fast.Interpretation is one thing, but turning crotchets into quavers or staccato into legato, or Allegro vivace into moderato is quite another - That is my position on this issue and I shall say no more.

On your Alkan recommendation, I have not heard it - I'm sure the performance is wonderful, and doubtless Alkan (who as a composer of piano music outdid even Liszt in technical wizzardry)achieved marvels by arranging Concerto 3 for 2 hands - but I can't for the life of me see the musical justification of a cadenza using material from the 5th symphony, no matter how brilliant.

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



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 11-08-2000).]

[chrisg]

On your Alkan recommendation, I have not heard it - I'm sure the performance is wonderful, and doubtless Alkan (who as a composer of piano music outdid even Liszt in technical wizzardry)achieved marvels by arranging Concerto 3 for 2 hands - but I can't for the life of me see the musical
justification of a cadenza using material from the 5th symphony, no matter how brilliant.

Well, the only justification I need or can offer is that I enjoy listening to it. I am curious how you'd react to it though. If you could temporarily forget about trying to justify it and give a listen as one pianist hearing another, who knows - you might even like it. Even if you didn't the rest of the disc is incredible, with the main work being Alkan's 'Trois Grandes Etudes, Op. 76 for the hands separately and reunited.' 1st mvt. is 9+ minutes for left hand, 2nd is 15+ for the right (both defy belief), ending with a whirlwind finale for both hands that alone is worth the price of the disc. That all this is part of a live recital is beyond belief.

Are you familiar with Hamelin? The guy is awesome, with the kind of technique that can only be compared with the likes of Richter,Horowitz, Cziffra, etc.. His Godowsky Studies on Chopin's Etudes make them sound easy.

For the curious: Marc-Andre Hamelin
Live at Wigmore Hall
Hyperion CDA 66765

Back to Beethoven.

Chris

[chrisg]

I still think it is important to offer these historical performances so people can compare them with those of today and make up their own minds - You see I'm actually being quite democratic in my selections and not quite the demagogue you make me out to be ! -
Anyway, I would be happy to hear your recommended selection for the symphonies, particularly historical.

Sorry about the provocation, but you walked right into it. I'm glad to see there is hope for you after all. Symphony recommendations gives us food for many new threads, I'll get something "historical" going. Broadly speaking, my overall favorite LvB conductors are Leibowitz, Mackerras, and Furtwangler, with Klemperer, Scherchen, Harnoncourt, Monteux, Gardiner, and some others in the mix.

When it comes to timings, that is really a matter of interpretation, and I'm not saying that every performance should be exact to the second - that would be ridiculous - after all there is quite a wide scope within an Allegro marking - but we have all heard performances which we would regard as lamentably slow or fast.Interpretation is one thing, but turning crotchets into quavers or staccato into legato, or Allegro vivace into moderato is quite another - That is my position on this
issue and I shall say no more.

I'll be picky regarding interpreting B's tempos for the symphonies, since the scores give explicit metronome markings for all the movements. Still, many people argue that for assorted reasons, these are not to be taken literally. In the fascinating commentary disc that comes with Benjamin Zander's recent recording of Sym. 5 and 7, he talks about the kind of differences in interpreting tempos you describe. Zander plays the 5th's opening 'Allegro con brio' to the metronome in 6:23, the fastest I've heard. He uses an excerpt from Carlos Kleiber's famous VPO 5th to illustrate a tempo for this movement that is "in the tempo catagory" consistent with the spirit of the score. Kleiber times in at 7:22. He defines "in the catagory" as a tempo that doesn't in itself significantly alter the character of the piece. The size of that range would depend on the listener, but I think you'd agree in principle.

As an example of being well outside the catagory, he plays an excerpt from a Furtwangler 5th. Zander is not really being critical of Furtwangler's results, but uses him to illustrate a Beethoven performance tradition that evolved (devolved?) over many years, going back at least to Wagner, and to some extent, Beethoven's lifetime. In all the examples I gave of various Furt timings, the differences with those close to the indicated tempos are HUGE, and very definately alter the character of the music. Unlike a true Furtwangler fanatic, I won't claim that all this makes Beethoven better (how's that for provocation), I just think that WF was such a great conductor and imaginative musician that he brought it off superbly well. Besides, I just like variety. In lesser hands, the result would no doubt be, as you said earlier, a travesty.

cg

[This message has been edited by chrisg (edited 11-08-2000).]

[Peter]

'He defines "in the catagory" as a tempo that doesn't in itself significantly alter the character of the piece. The size of that range would depend on the listener, but I think you'd agree in principle.'

Absolutely.

'Besides, I just like variety. In lesser hands, the result would no doubt be, as you said earlier, a travesty.'

No problem with that either - I'm all for different interpretations providing they don't blatantly go against what is written.
It is amazing how once the emotion and sarcasm is stripped out of an argument, much common ground can be found - the problem with this medium of communication is that it is often hard to pick up on the nuances and the exact meaning a person is trying to convey .
I think we set off on the wrong foot with regard to arrangements, and really here I just feel that there are few successful arrangements of Beethoven (done by others)- Reducing an orchestral score to piano probably works best and serves more purpose particularly for students. I haven't heard the orchestral version of the Hammerklavier, but I have read that it doesn't really work. I should imagine that the very opening chords of Op.106 don't work with orchestra - maybe you disagree. I haven't heard Mahler's arr. of Op.95 either - I don't see the point personally as it isn't Beethoven - Orchestrating a work is bound to introduce notes,parts and new elements that were never intended.

I would have no problem listening to the Alkan - but it would be Alkan not Beethoven ! and I would be listening only because it is for piano - Obviously as a pianist I would be fascinated to hear a brilliant performance.

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



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 11-09-2000).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by Michael:
Yeah, you're right about Opus 104 - the piano trio is much better. Although Vikram Seth apparently believes the transcription to be pure Beethoven there is a lot of doubt about it. According to the Beethoven Compendium it was originally done by an unknown composer called Kaufmann and B. got hold of it and improved it. He wrote on the copyist's manuscript "Trio arranged as a three-part quintet by Mr Goodwill (Herr Kaufman) and ...... raised from the most abject misery to some degree of respectability by Mr Wellwisher (himself)".
Opus 4 is a far better arrangement/composition but seems to be a real black sheep in the Beethoven canon. One of the FAQ's on the DGG website was why it was left out of the Complete Beethoven Edition and the compilers couldn't supply a very satisfactory answer.

Michael

Your version of events regarding op104 makes sence to me. Other 'arrangements of arrangements' by Beethoven such as op41, whilst possessing some degree of B's input, still do not sound very Beethovenian - the overall quality is not so high. I would like to know what the unsatisfactory answer was from DG!

Whilst on this subject, I will worry about performances of the piano arrangement of op61 AFTER I have stopped worrying about the fact that hardly anyone can interpret the VIOLIN version correctly!!

Rod


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

[Michael]

Originally posted by Rod:
Your version of events regarding op104 makes sence to me. Other 'arrangements of arrangements' by Beethoven such as op41, whilst possessing some degree of B's input, still do not sound very Beethovenian - the overall quality is not so high. I would like to know what the unsatisfactory answer was from DG!
Rod

DG replied that they decided to include only one "definitive" version of each work by Beethoven. I think the fact that B gave his quintet arrangement an Opus number (4) should indicate which version B thought was "definitive".
DG contradicted themselves as well because in the Complete Edition they have issued more than one version of several works, notably the first version of Opus 18 No. 1. the piano trio arrangements of the Septet and the Second Symphony and (back to square one) the piano arrangement of the Violin Concerto, and a few others as well. In fairness to DG, these were all genuine arrangements by B himself.
Michael

[Roehre]

DG replied that they decided to include only one "definitive" version of each work by Beethoven. I think the fact that B gave his quintet arrangement an Opus number (4) should indicate which version B thought was "definitive".
DG contradicted themselves as well because in the Complete Edition they have issued more than one version of several works, notably the first version of Opus 18 No. 1. the piano trio arrangements of the Septet and the Second Symphony and (back to square one) the piano arrangement of the Violin Concerto, and a few others as well. In fairness to DG, these were all genuine arrangements by B himself.
Michael

The DGG edition doesn't contain opus 42 (Nocturne after serenade opus 8), opus 63 (piano trio after the quintet opus 4 [sic!]) or opus 64 Cello sonata after trio opus 3), though these works actually do bear an opus number. However, these arrangements are not Beethoven's, nor is it unlikely that he was involved in the arrangements.

I do think however that the quintets opus 4 and 104 should have been included.