The Great C Major redux

Dear Tam,

In the issue of romantic versus strictly classical readings of the Great C Major and the Unfinished, these works fall squarely on the cusp between the two epochs. In that way a classical reading (as given by Erich Kleiber in the Great C Major or more or less by Boult in the Unfinished) is entirely within the likely style they would have received at the time, and to my mind a very satisfactory viewpoint. But if one takes the flexibility and romantic view of Furtwangler and to a lesser extent by Boult in the Great C Major (where both underline the structure with really quite wide tempo changes at importantant musical paragrahps) I tend to think this is equally valid as it seems to work. I am prepared to believe that Rattle's Vienna recording of the Ninth may very well be rather compelling even though I have not yet had the chance to listen to it!

Where Rattle comes more unstuct to my mind is that he takes this romantic view full on in Beethoven which is less romantic music than Schubert, even though this is an entirely personal view. Furtwangler certainly uses a fairly broad view of what classical style is in Beethoven and occasionally this irks me! This is when I am a bit tired and is not my usual response! On the other hand I do enjoy Klemperer's rather stoical classicism in Beethoven, which seems to underline its fast moving and rock-ike strength above any other conductor in his best readings (like 9, 8, 5, 4, 2, and 1, in my view, but of course this is indeed personal).

The big divide is really with Brahms, where the necessary style is completely different. Only Weingartner, among the readings I am aquainted with, manages to be too classical for me in this music, though the result is fascinating, and has its merits. Brahms had strong views on the necessary element of romantic flexibility required, but never-the-less admired Weingartner, so no absolute conclusion can be drawn.

Just for interest I ordered three discs of Edwin Fischer playing Concerti by Mozart and Haydn today. What will be fascinating to me is whether my memory from twenty odd years ago and more of these in their 78 issues is accurate in placing him as a more classical player than my other favourite Mozartian, Clara Haskil! In these he is found with and without a conductor in such places as London (LPO in no 20), Berlin (his own chamber orchestra in no 17), London (with the Philharmonia under Joseph Krips in no 23) and in Vienna (with the Philharmonic with him directing from the keyboard in the Haydn Concerto in D), which may prove illuminating in view of previous thoughts about conductors, contributions in classical concertos...

No doubt there will be a Thread in that!

All the best from Fredrik

Dear Fredrik,

I listened to the Erich Kleiber again this morning and was reminded again just how wonderful a reading it is (what is interesting, to me, anyway, is that two of my favourite accounts of this symphonhy are so radically different). What is so impressive about Kleiber is how he gets the drama in the reading (keeping his tempi very steady as opposed to the Rattles of this world who get their drama, among other ways, in the variation of that). However, Kleiber is always a long way from the staid predictability that could so easily come from such an approach.

Interestingly, the Furtwangler early 40s performance with the BPO (I cannot recall the exact year, it is either 42 or 44), is in many ways remarkably similar to Rattle in approach.

Of course, Rattle's Beethoven is quite another matter and his set is the only survey I have ever parted with (although there are currently one or two that I am considering losing). I don't know if his it is that his approach was romantic that did it for me, this was some two years ago and my understanding of such terms was a not what it is now (it was far more a case that I knew what I liked and that wasn't it). Somehow he managed to make Beethoven dull. Sometimes I can put on a CD and do something else (surf the web or glance through a paper), with Beethoven this is simply impossible, or so I thought, with Rattle, I drifted away and only noticed when the disc had stopped. I think as much as any romantic tendencies it was his modernist streak (which was one of the reasons I was warry of his Schubert).

Interestingly, I heard him do Beethoven 9 at the Proms two years ago. There was a wonderful bit of Schoenburg (sp?) in the first half, much more to his talents. The Beethoven was marred by the RAH accoustic where despite some wonderful singing from the CBSO chorus I was left wanting the volume turned up. However, two things struck me in that performance. Firstly, towards the end of the slow third movement there is a chord (repeated once, if memory serves) that I had not noticed before, the way he built it as the music goes 'du-du-dum-dum-DAH du-du-dum du-du-dum du-du-dum' (I'm sure you will have no idea which passage I am aluding to from that awful description - if only I had a score before me!). Anyway, the way the chord was played (some of the finest string ever heard) was absolutely spine chilling. Each new recording I buy, I hope to hear something close. I never seem to. More interestingly, though, was the start of the 4th movement where Beethoven quotes the preceeding 3. The way Rattle brought this out struck me in a way it never has before (perhaps unsurprisingly since this sort of thing occurs a great deal in Mahler and elsewhere and to great effect), it is Beethoven looking forward to the romantic era (though not close to straddling it in the way Schubert does) and for a moment Rattle was at home.

I see I have wandered now some way from Schubert. There is perhaps a very interesting thread in the romantic interpretation of pre-romantic works.

I must say, though, that all this makes me await the more keenly my Jochum recordings of the 8th and 9th and I am curious to see what he brings (presumably the liner note will begin 'while he may have been best known for his Bruckner....').

regards, Tam

Dear Tam,

Of Topic, on the Ninth of Beethoven!

I have worked out where you are in the music. The passage comes twice, nearly at the end of the movement, and I always think of it as the Gates os Elyseum in music, glimsed but not passed through...

Two performances get this passage better than others I know, and both are live with the Philharmonia. Firstly, under Furtwangler at Lucerne in 1954 [on Tahra, France], and perhaps even mor impressive is under Klemperer's hand at the Royal Festival Hall in 1960 ot 1961 [on Testament]. What is striking in this later one is that the movement has taken on a momentum all based on two (then surprising in pre HIP days) rather fast, and stable basic tempi, with splendid, long breathed phrasing, which for once integrates the Andante and Adagio aspects perfectly, but it actually sounds very grave and serious, but never actually fast at all.

The breaking up of the flow at the this point is a massive rupture in the music in Klemperer's hands, while Furtwangler takes the movement as a phenomenal reverie with a very slow, almost impossibly so, rendition which must have required immense concentration as the tension never flags. The feeling again is of a massive interruption, though by completely different means...

I wish I had my score to hand and I could quote the bar numbers for anyone else interested to find this point. It is a master stroke!

If I get my scores back before the thread closes I will post again on this...

Fredrik

Dear Fredrik,

From your description (far better than my own) I am convinced we are on the same page - one day I shall get round to getting a set of Beethoven symphony scores (which can probably be had for around the price many CD cycles).

I have the Furtwangler Bayreuth performance, which I think is very special indeed (and one of my favourite readings of the 9th - along with Berstein in Berlin and Mackerras), but I don't remember it capturing that moment with the same intensity. I think, as I suggest, it wasn't so much the way the conductor handled it, as the tone and quality of that string playing. Anyway, I'd be interested as to how the Furtwangler you mention compares.

As to Klemperer, since enjoying Davis (I shall be finishing off his cycle this evening with the 9th, so who knows...) and hearing that he was in the same mould I have been meaning to pick up his EMI cycle (since it's dirt cheap and and has Barenboim with him in the concertos to boot) - how does that compare with the testament issue?

regards, Tam

p.s. For those who haven't the slightest clue what we're talking about, please get out your 9th symphonies and listen to the last few minutes of the 3rd movement and (having read the second paragraph of Fredrik's post) hopefully all will be clear.

Dear Fredrik,

Did you catch the Prom this evening with the BBC Philharmonic under Noseda (I would be absolutely fascinated to hear your thoughts - I am currently listening to the first movement via the beeb's website and I've not heard a reading quite like it - for good or ill I will say when I've heard the rest).

regards, Tam

Dear Fredrik and others,

Try and listen again to this performance (or catch the repeat). Absolutely fascinating, though not really for good reasons, but I'm none the less glad to have heard it.

The first movement was singularly lacking in tension (the discipline of Kleiber in his tempi would nice) - often far, far too quick, indeed some of the briskest playing I have heard in this and rather sapping both the life, beauty and drama from the movement.

The second was an improvement, and towards the end the pace slackened and they delivered a bit of the drama that is there but, it was still a little lifeless.

I think the work was played much too fast - indeed, the performance would seem, to these ears, at any rate, to be an exemplar of how easy it is to lose drama and tension when one plays too fast (the Zinman Eroica is another great example of this).

The BBC Philharmonic played well though (and I still think they are a fine band - and I would like to hear this work with them under another conductor).


Interestingly I've now got the great Erich Kleiber on and he doesn't exactly go slow - however, he gets the drama and slows up to take in the beauty of Schubert's writing where needed. Those who haven't heard the Kleiber (as I've mentioned in another thread) really ought to have a listen.

regards, Tam