Kleiber and the 7th symphony

[Chaszz]

Originally posted by Kreutzer:
Carlos' father Erich Kleiber also played that passage in the same way. Probably a variant found in an autograph score or set of parts. Being highly regarded conductors, they must have some form of authentification traced back to Beethoven's manuscripts.

[This message has been edited by Kreutzer (edited April 17, 2003).]

In case they DONT have such authentication...Here I go risking having tomatoes thrown at me again, but I can't help it...

let's put aside a genius like Beethoven for a brief moment and look at the bigger picture...

We know that until fairly recent times, performers were expected to improvise to some extent. They had cadenzas to create, for one thing. Before Beethoven, I believe (I may be wrong) that markings were less used and the interpreter was somewhat freer to play the way he/she saw fit. Certainly there are relatively few markings in Bach, who also couldn't have cared less in many cases what the particular solo instrument in a given concerto was. Bach's music, judging from its popularity and generally acknowledged profundity, hasn't lost much because of this, except in the case of Rod. Now we have undoubtedly profited much in many cases from having the surer hand of the genius in a well-marked score...
but perhaps we have lost the link between composition and improvising that was common in earlier times and in many other cultures' music also. And we have inherited a split whereby the rock and jazz people do all the improvising and the classical do none, and carefully tend a tradition that is steadily losing new adherents except in its theatrical offshoot, opera. Perhaps classical music would be a current and developing art form instead of a museum if we hadn't had this kind of development away from any real artistic responsibility on the part of the performer, except for interpretation pure and simple.


[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited April 17, 2003).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Chaszz:
Now we have undoubtedly profited much in many cases from having the surer hand of the genius in a well-marked score...
but perhaps we have lost the link between composition and improvising that was common in earlier times and in many other cultures' music also. And we have inherited a split whereby the rock and jazz people do all the improvising and the classical do none, and carefully tend a tradition that is steadily losing new adherents except in its theatrical offshoot, opera. Perhaps classical music would be a current and developing art form instead of a museum if we hadn't had this kind of development away from any real artistic responsibility on the part of the performer, except for interpretation pure and simple.

It is perhaps ironic that Beethoven the greatest of all improvisors should have been the first to actually write his cadenzas out, and in the case of the Emperor concerto actually incorporate them into the score, thus depriving the soloist the chance of improvisation. Beethoven clearly saw a distinction between a work of art fully written out and free improvisation - he would not tolerate embellishments of his works (he actually chastized Czerny for doing this, however the generation that followed, Liszt etc.. were particularly guilty of this). It was however common practice and indeed a musician was expected to include an improvisation (usually on a given theme) in a concert - it is I suppose a shame that this has died out, but how many great pianists these days are composers, let alone great composers?

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

[orpheus]

Originally posted by Peter:
It is perhaps ironic that Beethoven the greatest of all improvisors should have been the first to actually write his cadenzas out, and in the case of the Emperor concerto actually incorporate them into the score, thus depriving the soloist the chance of improvisation. Beethoven clearly saw a distinction between a work of art fully written out and free improvisation - he would not tolerate embellishments of his works (he actually chastized Czerny for doing this, however the generation that followed, Liszt etc.. were particularly guilty of this). It was however common practice and indeed a musician was expected to include an improvisation (usually on a given theme) in a concert - it is I suppose a shame that this has died out, but how many great pianists these days are composers, let alone great composers?

I think a great many great pianists are composers, but their own music is in little demand. Just yesterday I was surprised to read on an early Brendel recording of Liszt (on vinyl)that he - Brendel - was a composer. Glenn Gould was also a composer, all though not a very good one in my opinion.

I think Mozart was the first to write out cadenza, before Beethoven. He at least wrote them out for the E flat concerto, which I am am sure was a for the Empereor on some level - with the introducction of the piano in the orchestral introduction.


[This message has been edited by orpheus (edited April 18, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by orpheus (edited April 18, 2003).]

[OboeKing]

I have a totally unrelated question about the 7th symphony as well!

In the 4th movement, at bar 121, there is a group of five bars that are classed as the 'first time bars' then there is the repeat mark which takes it back to bar 5. In my CD recording, of the Philharmonia Orchestra conducted by Kurt Sanderling, they do not include this repeat and just jump straight to the second time bar (bar 121). Is this common practice?

[orpheus]

Originally posted by OboeKing:
I have a totally unrelated question about the 7th symphony as well!

In the 4th movement, at bar 121, there is a group of five bars that are classed as the 'first time bars' then there is the repeat mark which takes it back to bar 5. In my CD recording, of the Philharmonia Orchestra conducted by Kurt Sanderling, they do not include this repeat and just jump straight to the second time bar (bar 121). Is this common practice?

Yep, unfortunately leaving out repeats is quite common. But it makes little sense with Beethoven, particularly in his middle period onwards, as the evidence suggests that he thought very carefully about repeats. I heard a recording of the Appassionata Sonata by Lazer Bermann recently. It was amazing playing, until to my horror he leaves out the repeat in the last movement! I mean of all the repeats to leave out, this is about the worst one. In this movement Beethoven repeats the development and recapitulation, not the exposition and this in itself is a stroke of genius in this piece. To leave it out is just madness.

I can understand why they did this sort of thing on earlier recordings as otherwise you couldn't fit it on the side of a 78. Also in those days no one thought of recordings as a substitute for concerts like they do now.

[Chaszz]

Originally posted by Peter:
... It was however common practice and indeed a musician was expected to include an improvisation (usually on a given theme) in a concert - it is I suppose a shame that this has died out, but how many great pianists these days are composers, let alone great composers?

I think, unless I'm mistaken, that in past centuries performers were trained to compose and improvise as well as to perform. Today I would guess (again unless I'm mistaken) that if one sets out to be concert soloist, the amount of effort given to harmony, theory, composing counterpoint, etc., is minimal, as this is no longer considered part of a performer's tools. The result is that I've never personally met a classical musician who could improvise at all, or even understood harmonic progessions and relationships anywhere near as well as the average jazz musician. An analogue to me would be a skilled doctor who did not understand basic science.

As far as how gifted the improviser may or may not be, jazz produced dozens of great improvisers in its history. Only two were geniuses (Louis Armstrong before 1935, and Charlie Parker) but a small step below that are many greats also well worth hearing. I don't think the talent is lacking, but the culture of classical music has shut it out. Quite a difference to the classical music of India, which grew up around the concept of the soloist improvising on the composition of a past master.



[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited April 18, 2003).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Chaszz:
I think, unless I'm mistaken, that in past centuries performers were trained to compose and improvise as well as to perform. Today I would guess (again unless I'm mistaken) that if one sets out to be concert soloist, the amount of effort given to harmony, theory, composing counterpoint, etc., is minimal, as this is no longer considered part of a performer's tools. The result is that I've never personally met a classical musician who could improvise at all, or even understood harmonic progessions and relationships anywhere near as well as the average jazz musician. An analogue to me would be a skilled doctor who did not understand basic science.

As far as how gifted the improviser may or may not be, jazz produced dozens of great improvisers in its history. Only two were geniuses (Louis Armstrong before 1935, and Charlie Parker) but a small step below that are many greats also well worth hearing. I don't think the talent is lacking, but the culture of classical music has shut it out. Quite a difference to the classical music of India, which grew up around the concept of the soloist improvising on the composition of a past master.

Variation form was of course originally a form of improvisation, and no wonder then that Beethoven produced the greatest set ever! I don't agree with your assertion about Classical musicians and harmony - a performer cannot possibly interpret a score musically without a knowledge of harmony - indeed I include some form of keyboard harmony and aural work in my lessons. Improvisation though does appear to be a lost art, certainly as far as public performance goes. Perhaps a factor today is the vastness of the piano repertoire.

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

[orpheus]

Originally posted by Peter:
Variation form was of course originally a form of improvisation, and no wonder then that Beethoven produced the greatest set ever! I don't agree with your assertion about Classical musicians and harmony - a performer cannot possibly interpret a score musically without a knowledge of harmony - indeed I include some form of keyboard harmony and aural work in my lessons. Improvisation though does appear to be a lost art, certainly as far as public performance goes. Perhaps a factor today is the vastness of the piano repertoire.

Incidental point:

I know we are all Beethoven fans here, but do you really think Beethoven's Diabelli (I guess this is the "greatest set" Peter is refering to)are greater than Bach's Golberg Variations? For me these are as yet unsurpassed by anyone, even Beethoven - which is nothing against Beethoven,just a testament to how awesome the Goldberg are.

[Rod]

Originally posted by orpheus:
Incidental point:

I know we are all Beethoven fans here, but do you really think Beethoven's Diabelli (I guess this is the "greatest set" Peter is refering to)are greater than Bach's Golberg Variations? For me these are as yet unsurpassed by anyone, even Beethoven - which is nothing against Beethoven,just a testament to how awesome the Goldberg are.

I presume you mean the Goldbergs as performed on the piano, ie a modern arrangement to someone who thinks like me! I've heard the same music on a harpsichord and it sounds much better. It still failed to hold my interest over the long term though, but Bach never does that for me anyway. Of course I would say Beethoven's variations are the peak of the form, but I'd pay £100 for a good recording on a Graf piano, which would transform the piece. We haven't really heard this music yet.

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

[orpheus]

Originally posted by Rod:
I presume you mean the Goldbergs as performed on the piano, ie a modern arrangement to someone who thinks like me! I've heard the same music on a harpsichord and it sounds much better. It still failed to hold my interest over the long term though, but Bach never does that for me anyway. Of course I would say Beethoven's variations are the peak of the form, but I'd pay £100 for a good recording on a Graf piano, which would transform the piece. We haven't really heard this music yet.

I think Bach's Goldberg Variations work well on harpsichord, as that was what they were written for, but I've also heard very convincing performances on the piano. I don't suppose Bach would have minded a piano version as he frequently rearranged pieces from one medium to another, particularly keyboard works.

The performance in Helsinki - that I was refering to in another thread - of Beethoven's last sonatas on the broadwood I now remember was by Malcom Bilson. As I said, I was dissapointed by that, more the weediness of the piano sound than his playing.

[Rod]

Originally posted by orpheus:
I think Bach's Goldberg Variations work well on harpsichord, as that was what they were written for, but I've also heard very convincing performances on the piano. I don't suppose Bach would have minded a piano version as he frequently rearranged pieces from one medium to another, particularly keyboard works.

The performance in Helsinki - that I was refering to in another thread - of Beethoven's last sonatas on the broadwood I now remember was by Malcom Bilson. As I said, I was dissapointed by that, more the weediness of the piano sound than his playing.

Perhaps this piano was just a bad one or the venue too large for it, regardless it was not a Graf or any other Viennese brand I recommend in any case. There have been a number of Beethoven concerts using fortepianos in London that have been reviewed in the Evening Standard newspaper I read on weekdays - without exception the reviews have been good, highlighting the particular qualities and clarity of the pianos.

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

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited April 23, 2003).]

[Gurn Blanston]

Yes, the Goldbergs are great, and I enjoy listening to them too, but B treated the variation form as it had never been treated before, and actually incorporated it into sonata form by introducing non-linear aspects such as key changes and descending thirds leading into the next variation and simplification of the theme (but not the texture) progressively throughout the set, all of which combine to give far greater interest to the set as a whole and a unity which derives not from the progressive ornamentation of the theme with harmonic embellishment but from a treatment of the theme to the entire spectrum of musical possibilities. If you wish to see this, start with Op 34 (Variations on an Original Theme in F) and then Eroica Variations and finally Diabelli. Don't forget the variations from the late sonatas. Overall, the effect is one of far greater interest and intricacy than any baroque variations, even those of the great Bach, who was only, after all, laboring with the forms that he had to work with circa 1720. Even Mozart didn't do this, he wrote his variations mainly in the baroque form.
Regards, Gurn

[orpheus]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Yes, the Goldbergs are great, and I enjoy listening to them too, but B treated the variation form as it had never been treated before, and actually incorporated it into sonata form by introducing non-linear aspects such as key changes and descending thirds leading into the next variation and simplification of the theme (but not the texture) progressively throughout the set, all of which combine to give far greater interest to the set as a whole and a unity which derives not from the progressive ornamentation of the theme with harmonic embellishment but from a treatment of the theme to the entire spectrum of musical possibilities. If you wish to see this, start with Op 34 (Variations on an Original Theme in F) and then Eroica Variations and finally Diabelli. Don't forget the variations from the late sonatas. Overall, the effect is one of far greater interest and intricacy than any baroque variations, even those of the great Bach, who was only, after all, laboring with the forms that he had to work with circa 1720. Even Mozart didn't do this, he wrote his variations mainly in the baroque form.
Regards, Gurn

Yes Beethoven's variations are amazing, no doubt. But it's not fair to judge the Goldberg's by the criteria that make Beethoven't variations interesting,this paints an unfair picture of Bach. If you judge Beethoven by the very things one admires in Bach, then Beethoven comes off equally badly.

The Goldberg's exhibit incredible continuity. For instance, the progressive cycle of canons (every 3rd variation) at ever increasing intervals - unison, 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. That's just a stroke of pure genius, and it displays incredible technical mastery. It gives a wonderful formal conhesion to the cycle too. Also, the idea of repeating the theme again at the end is a wonderful idea (I don't know if Bach was the first to do this or not), an idea Beethoven uses in op.109.

It's true Bach was largely using existent forms, that's not where his innovations lie like Beethoven's obviously do. Actually I am not really sure if Bach was a very innovative composer in the sense of inventing much that was new. For me Bach's genius was in taking music to a level of emotional and technical perfection which was unimaginable before him, perhaps even after. Every time I look at the "Art of Fugue" I just can't belive that a human mind could have made that, it's almost supernatural in its brilliance. It blows my mind to think about how someone could have worked that stuff out.

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by orpheus:
Yes Beethoven's variations are amazing, no doubt. But it's not fair to judge the Goldberg's by the criteria that make Beethoven't variations interesting,this paints an unfair picture of Bach. If you judge Beethoven by the very things one admires in Bach, then Beethoven comes off equally badly.

The Goldberg's exhibit incredible continuity. For instance, the progressive cycle of canons (every 3rd variation) at ever increasing intervals - unison, 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. That's just a stroke of pure genius, and it displays incredible technical mastery. It gives a wonderful formal conhesion to the cycle too. Also, the idea of repeating the theme again at the end is a wonderful idea (I don't know if Bach was the first to do this or not), an idea Beethoven uses in op.109.

It's true Bach was largely using existent forms, that's not where his innovations lie like Beethoven's obviously do. Actually I am not really sure if Bach was a very innovative composer in the sense of inventing much that was new. For me Bach's genius was in taking music to a level of emotional and technical perfection which was unimaginable before him, perhaps even after. Every time I look at the "Art of Fugue" I just can't belive that a human mind could have made that, it's almost supernatural in its brilliance. It blows my mind to think about how someone could have worked that stuff out.

Orpheus,
Oh, I very much agree with you. As I said, I love the Goldbergs too. Actually, we would be comparing apples to oranges. My opinion about Bach is simply that he took what was there and advanced it to a state of perfection, he didn't necessarily do anything new, as you say, but he did it extraordinarily well. I also believe that much like Beethoven, he advanced the form that he was working with to a point from which his successors felt that they could advance no further, and effectively killed it. Their positions as nearly the last in the line of composers in their respective styles is not an accident of history (IMHO), but a necessity which they forced on their followers by advancing those styles to their limits. True, Handel was contemporary with and slightly outlived Bach, and Schubert did the same with Beethoven, but I feel that both of them worked within their own unique idiom which took them beyond the reach of stylistic differences with their "rivals" (I call them that only in the most general way). By the time B inherited the "classical tradition", Haydn and Mozart had already worked out most of the problems inherent in sonata form, the 2 challenges remaining which B undertook so brilliantly was to incorporate variation form and fugue into classical style. It would be difficult to argue against his success in accomplishing this, no?
Regards, Gurn