In 2002 schreef Simon Roberts in de (usenet) nieuwsgroep rec.music.classical.recordings een viertal berichten waarin hij 48 opnamen van de vijfde simfonie van Beethoven met elkaar vergeleek. Deze berichten zijn hieronder ongewijzigd overgenomen.
Nieuwsgroepen: rec.music.classical.recordings
Van: "Simon Roberts"
Datum: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 13:42:51 -0500
Lokaal: ma 21 jan 2002 20:42
Onderwerp: Beethoven 5 Part I
Matty Silverstein asked for us to list our favorite recordings and
explain why they're favorites. Having more recordings of it than I
remember I thought I would grab all the ones I have (or at least could
find), give them a quick listen (no, not all of them all the way
through) and see what happened. I expected there wouldn't be many
because for some reason this is a work that, until I'm actually
listening to it, I assume I'm sick of hearing and don't want to hear
again. As a result, I hardly ever deliberately buy recordings of it;
rather, they come attached to something else I want. So I was rather
dismayed by the stack that kept growing at an pretty fast clip as I
wandered around looking for them (I've probably missed a few, having
forgotten what they're coupled with), and listening to them took rather
longer than I intended/expected/hoped. I'm glad I did, though, because
oddly enough the process made me enjoy hearing the piece more, not less,
and I seem to have gotten over my bias against listening to it. (I also
had some surprises along the way, liking some performances more than I
expected, others less, the latter allowing me to free up some shelf
space....)
Anyway, a preliminary matter: why does adherence to Beethoven's
metronome marking in the first movement matter (to me, anyway)? (I don't
mean to suggest it doesn't matter in the other movements.) "Because
it's what the score says and it's possible" seems to be Schuller's
answer in his chapter on this piece (unless I missed something). His
answer makes sense if you treat music, as he seems generally to do, as a
content-free abstraction, with scores as blueprints to be obeyed
because, well, that's what blueprints are for, and with recordings to be
evaluated almost exclusively in terms of their accurate reflection of
the black marks on the page.
Fair enough, I suppose. But that's not how I listen and certainly not
why. The first movement is, to state the obvious, music of high (or, I
guess, if you're dk or Ray Hall, low) drama, and it sounds dramatic in
at least some sense in almost any performance (but see below). However,
the specific dramatic character of the music varies with its
interpretation, and a very fast performance, especially one which isn't
subjected to grand rhetorical tempo shifts, can (but needn't) convey
facets that a slower one can't (and vice versa, of course). In the
quieter passages, that includes nervousness, anxiety, furtiveness,
sinisterness, urgency, restlessness, and the like, which can be conveyed
even in the second subject if the violin line (and, when they have it,
the clarinet and flute) is subtly accented in the right way and the
quietly menacing cello/bass di-da-da-dums are properly articulated (e.g.
bars 63-84). Take it slower, though, and the result (especially in the
second subject) is usually a patch of all-purpose of tranquility or
repose or respite, which strikes me as rather uninteresting. I also
think the movement works best if tempo fluctuations are kept to a
minimum. I understand the point of some slamming on the brakes at, say,
bar 474 (even Maestro Come Scritto Toscanini did it, albeit less than
some), but doing this undermines or even prevents a sense of
relentlessness (especially when done in several places), which I think
makes better sense of the music. I don't mean, of course, that this is
the only way to hear it or think of it, and I occasionally like to hear
a performance where the conductor's foot seems to hover permanently over
the brake pedal, but I might as well state at least one bias up front
because it colours everything I say below.
Obviously the comments that follow are all pretty superficial, but a
proper evaluation of all these recordings would require a lengthy book,
and, aside from questions of sheer competence, and despite being a
federal employee, I don't have time to write one. I shall focus, if at
all, on a few details here and there.
One such, which may seem trivial to some, is what I shall refer to as
"the triplets" or "the triplet problem" in the finale. By that I mean
not just triplets but a triplet followed by a fourth note, di-di-di dum,
a sequence of them at bars 124-131 (counting without the repeat, that
is). This passage evidently presents awkward balance problems. What
one usually hears is a repeated sequence consisting of two notes in the
violins answered by the horns' and trumpets' (and, if you're lucky,
timpani's) di-di-di dums, the rhythmic effect of the two combined being
dee daa' di-di-di dum, dee daa' di-di-di dum, etc. Perhaps we'll also
notice the response to the violins' phrases in the violas, cellos and
basses.
What we almost certainly won't hear is that the horn/trumpet/timpani are
engaged in a dialogue with the winds (minus piccolo), which play exactly
the same di-di-di dum rhythm. Ignoring the strings, what we should hear
is a series of di-di-di dums tossed back and forth without a break
between the wind choir and the horn/trumpet/timpani choir. But this is
not something I've ever actually heard clearly. (There's a similar
problem in the finale of the Haffner Symphony - conductors usually bring
out a dum di di dum dum figure in the brass but don't let us hear wind
equivalents to which they are responding.) Perhaps because the flutes
are playing in unison (unlike the other winds) and (also unlike the
other winds) because they have a rising figure rather than four notes at
the same pitch, one occasionally is aware of a vague twittering sound,
as though a small, startled bird had been temporarily let loose in the
back of the hall, but that's about it. Maybe this can't be brought out
in the concert hall, but in the recording studio it ought to be possible
to make the exchange audible. Oh, and while all this is going on, there
are punctuating chords from the trombones at the start of each bar;
you'll almost never hear them, either. I note that at the start of this
sequence all parts have the same dynamic marking, piu f, the previous
marking being f (aside from a ff in the bassoons).
Finally, for convenience sake I shall at times refer to "the horn call."
It's not just a horn call, of course, but that's what we usually hear.
(I refer to bars 26-28, where the horns, bassoons, clarinets and oboes
play that uplifting six note phrase (in all too many performances you
don't hear the winds at all, while the string bass arpeggio that follows
it is usually drowned out by the sustained horns and timpani).)
I'll briefly discuss them in the order in which I listened to them.
Being rather long, I'll post it in installments. Obviously not all are
favorites..
Toscanini NBC 1952 RCA
I don't much care for this. i is fastish and weighty, but the emphatic
rhythms are presented rather squarely and crudely, there's little
suggestion of furtiveness or sinisterness in the quiet passages, the
orchestral is rather scrappy and tonally coarse (not in a good way); ii
is too plain for its rather slow tempo; there's not much mystery at the
transition from iii to iv - though iv itself starts extremely well,
fairly slow and grand. The winds can be heard quite well in the
triplets but at the expense of relatively weak brass and barely audible
timpani.
Toscanini NBC 1939 RCA
Much better; i is similar in outline but less rigid/more nuanced, has
greater dynamic variety, is better played, better controlled, more
exciting. ii is still too slow - slower than 1952 - but more
interestingly phrased/shaped and thus doesn't seem slower. The
transition from iii to iv is better, but still rather lacks mystery; iv,
on the other hand, is magnificent when it arrives - slowish, grand and
exciting, superbly paced, tension perfectly maintained throughout,
excellent brass/timpani triplets (but with the winds barely audible).
Toscanini NYPO 1933 M&A
(I also have this on Lys; haven't compared the
sound)
i is nowhere near as gripping as 1939 - a bit too slow, with unwelcome
(by me, anyway) broadening at certain climactic points, lacking the
irresistible drive of 1939 (no repeat, either); the overall effect is
oddly restrained. The rest is fairly similar to 1939, its effectiveness
undermined by the inferior recorded sound.
Abendroth BPO 1939 Tahra
I'm not sure why but I was surprised how fast his i is, quicker than
Toscanini, and with a strikingly articulate attack on the opening theme,
each note sounding separately attacked to a degree perhaps unmatched
elsewhere - very effective. Throughout the string playing is
magnificent in terms of tone and articulation, so I mind less than I
otherwise might that they tend to dominate. I especially like the
gentle violin portamento used occasionally in quiet passages. This
strikes me as more interestingly shaped than any of Toscanini's, but I
could do without the broadening at certain climactic points, though
they're less extreme than some and in their way rather effective. The
sinister quality I want in the quiet sections isn't really present here
either. ii is still too slow for my taste, but I find his
phrasing/shaping more interesting than any of Toscanini's. The
transition from iii to iv is superbly done, though when iv arrives, it
does so to less dramatic effect than Toscanini/1939 (for one thing, it's
much faster, and the timpani are barely audible), though overall this iv
has a certain fiery theatrical excitement about it.
Furtwaengler BPO 1937 Biddulph
i is a bit slower, but not excessively so, and more grandly rhetorical
than any so far, very weighty, with less intrusive slow-downs than in
his later performances. String playing unsurprisingly as wonderful (and
dominant) as for Abendroth, with again the occasional delightful subtle
portamento in quieter passages and with superbly articulate cellos and
basses, though the articulation of the opening theme isn't as detached
as Abendroth's. ii is less distinctively shaped than Abendroth's, a
rather simpler and perhaps more effective lyricism. The transition from
iii to iv is, unsurprisingly, aptly mysterious, but when iv arrives its
effect is undermined by the inaudibility of the timpani; the triplets
are underplayed on both sides.
Furtwaengler BPO 1943 Tahra and DG
(didn't compare the transfers)
A frustrating performance. The tempo changes are crude, creating a
jarringly episodic effect that prevents any sense of momentum, not to
say relentlessness, and while the balances are much better than in 1937
(as is the sound generally), the orchestral playing isn't. On the other
hand, when he doesn't slow down, the music has tremendous vigor,
achieving at times a sort of defiant, weighty, swagger that may be in a
class by itself. Too bad his frequent resort to the brake pedal keeps
breaking the spell. ii is to these ears ludicrously slow for an andante
con moto, but if one can look past that one will probably find that his
subtle shaping and colouring of the music make it work.. The transition
from iii to iv is darkly brooding - very effective - and iv itself
arrives with as grand an entrance as any, the opening chords taken
slower than the rest (Gunther Schuller won't approve) to tremendous
effect, the timpani audible this time, the triplets more effective than
before (though not the winds), the trombone punctuations excitingly
present.
Furtwaengler BPO 1954 Tahra
The slow-downs in i may be less intrusive than in 1943, but everything
else is watered down too, with far less intensity, tension and drama;
the same goes for the finale. ii has a certain tragic eloquence about
it that works well, but overall I'm not taken with this.
Mravinsky Leningrad 1949 BMG/Melodiya
i receives an effective, straightforward, fastish performance that
starts off up to speed, avoids rhetorical use of the brakes and relies
exclusively on accents, phrasing and dynamics to convey the drama -
Toscanini-ish but better recorded, less rigidly emphatic, and somewhat
better played (fabulous strings). ii, though, is far too slow to follow
such a fast i, and it's not as eloquently shaped as Abendroth's and
Furtwaengler's - the lines seem shorter, don't sing as well. I don't
know if this is BMG's doing or a problem with the original sources or
what, but unfortunately in iii and iv the sound is plagued by unpleasant
background pulsing. As for the performance, the transition from iii to
iv is given an interesting twist - rather than conveying mystery, he
shapes the violin line in such a way that it dances. I'm not sure it
works. Nor am I entirely taken with iv, whose arrival lacks weight
(only partly a matter of inaudible timpani). The triplet problem is
"solved" by having them all too quiet. Unusually (uniquely?) for a
performance of this vintage, he takes the repeat in iv.
Erich Kleiber Concertgebouw 1952 Decca
A generally impressive fastish i with superbly articulate strings (the
opening almost a detached as Abendroth's) and an appealing taut singing
quality which avoids the rhythmic rigidity that affects Toscanini in
varying degrees (depending on performance) and conjures up a certain
swagger at times. My only complaints are the dominance of the strings
(aside from the assertive horns and clarinets) and the slight slowing
down in quieter passages which causes a slight but perceptible drop in
tension (though it's not as bad as the equivalent in his Beethoven 9i).
ii is engagingly lyrical at a tempo that could more-or-less pass for
andante con moto, but the transition from iii to iv is a bit plain. iv,
though, begins well enough - we can even hear the timpani as a distinct
voice for the first time in this recording.
Mengelberg Concertgebouw 1940 Philips
Unless one objects to any use of the brake pedal, this i just about has
it all - superlative articulation, eloquently singing lines in the
quieter sections (though I could do with a bit more sense of menace),
swagger and grand rhetoric with less disruptive tempo changes than
Furtwaengler 1943 and superbly recorded (and played) timpani, better
than on any other historic recording (miles better than any of the
historic studio recordings in that regard) I listened to. No repeat.
ii is every bit as successful - con moto at last, a boldly sung out
performance whose loud sections are thrillingly projected, exultant and
uplifting. The opening of iii is more interestingly shaped than most,
and at a faster tempo than many, one of the few performances which let
us hear that the timpani have joined in when the horn motto returns
tutti at bar 80. Wonderful transition to iv, with distinctive phrasing
in the violins and more attention to the bass line than in most, while
iv bursts in at a fast tempo, substituting an adrenaline rush for
Furtwaengler's and Toscanini's (in their rather different ways)
grandeur - BUT here his tempo fluctuations don't convince me. Slamming
on the brakes for the horn call disrupts the momentum far too early in
the movement and makes no sense to me at all, while the less extreme
fluctuations later on also serve no useful purpose to these ears. Good
triplets, though....
Mengelberg Concertgebouw 1937 Pearl
Except for iv where the tempo shifts are a bit less intrusive, I don't
like this nearly as much as the live 1940. In outline it's not that
different, but the dull, tubby sound (the low instruments are especially
affected, their overtones seemingly eliminated - by Telefunken's
engineers?) blunts its impact, while the tempo shifts in i seem a bit
crude, a la Furtwaengler 1943, compared to 1940.
Simon
Nieuwsgroepen: rec.music.classical.recordings
Van: "Simon Roberts"
Datum: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 13:44:18 -0500
Lokaal: ma 21 jan 2002 20:44
Onderwerp: Beethoven 5 Part II
Scherchen VSSOO 195? Theorema
(from Westminster LPs?)
i is fastish and straightforward, less polished than Erich Kleiber and
with less long lines, but superior orchestral balances - timpani and
lower strings much better recorded. ii is slowish and fairly plain;
here, the tonal shortcomings of this orchestra matter. iii is
surprisingly restrained, but the transition to iv is extremely well
handled, with an interestingly nuanced bass line. iv erupts at a
tremendous clip, exciting in its way, but perhaps too fast, acquiring an
almost trivial skipping quality at times.
Barbirolle Halle 1947 Dutton
i opens rather slowly but to no evident purpose. For the most part the
movement just chugs along without distinctive shaping or colouring
(aside from the weird tone of the horns). The movement eventually
generates some heat, but far too late. The opening of ii is warmly
phrased, but the cumulative effect is slow and heavy. iv is taken at an
aptly slowish pace, but frankly there's nothing here that hasn't been
done much better by others with far superior orchestras.
Fricsay BPO DG
Aside from an impressive transition from iii to iv, and a iii that's so
perversely slow it's almost interesting, I don't find anything appealing
here. The start of i is terribly lethargic, slow without grandeur or
incisiveness (fate doesn't so much knock at the door as collapse wearily
against it). You would think that with a tempo this slow he would have
no need to slow down at the first Big Moment, but he does anyway.
Eventually the movement improves somewhat, but, as with Barbirolli, too
late. ii is ludicrously slow, with not a hint of "moto." iv is slowish
but unlike Furtwaengler's and Toscanini's lacks the energy to make it
work.
Cluytens BPO EMI/Seraphim
Another slowish i, but not as slow as the previous two and anyway the
conducting and playing are much more alive, and while he occasionally
uses the brake pedal, he does so less intrusively than Furtwaengler
1943 - but still enough to prevent a sense of relentlessness. The
sound is less good than on the Fricsay, though I rather like its
close-up raspiness. Nothing struck me about ii one way or another. In
the transition from iii to iv the basses are too prominent, but iv opens
well, with pleasingly clear, if tonally strange, timpani.
Klemperer 1959 EMI
The transition from iii to iv is superb, with ominous, menacing timpani
and basses, but that's about all I can find to like in it. i is too
slow and lacks tension and drive, conveying not much more than a certain
grim determination to plod on until the end; in this context rhetorical
resort to the brake pedal seems pointless, but he still does so. ii is
slow and uninteresting, the very opening of iii is so sloppily played by
the cellos and basses it should have been redone, and while iv starts
well enough (if not quite with the impact of Furtwaengler and
Toscanini), it soon runs out of steam, losing rather than gaining
momentum (not to mention sheer speed) as it progresses, so that by the
time we get to the (almost inaudible) triplets the whole thing threatens
to keel over.
Markevitch Lamoureux 1959 Decca
(originally Philips)
Fastish, straightforward performances of i don't come much more exciting
than this, the "in your face" recorded sound and the earthy, relatively
unpolished sonority of the orchestra adding an almost physical impact to
the incisive, grippingly alert playing. ii, taken more or less fast
enough, is rather plain after, say, Mengelberg, Abendroth and
Furtwaengler, but effective in its simpler, more direct lyricism. The
virtues of i return in iii, and if the transition to iv lacks mystery
(for one thing, the close sound and somewhat diminished dynamic range
make it seem a bit too loud), iv itself is thrillingly launched, very
bold and colourful at a fast tempo, the cello/bass arpeggios line
immediately after the horn calls superbly shaped, the brass/timpani
triplets projected with tremendous flair.
Dorati LSO Mercury
i superficially similar to Markevitch's, but not quite as intense and
gripping or as distinctively shaped. Feeble horn tone (surprising with
this orchestra; pre-Tuckwell?) and, as with too many Mercury recordings,
the timpani can barely be perceived. ii has the right tempo, but I'm
not sure there's anything else especially distinctive about it, good or
bad. The transition to iv is merely ordinary, while iv is fast and
plain. The wind triplets make more of an impression than they usually
do, but their brass/timpani counterparts are feeble.
Reiner CSO RCA
A fast, uneventful performance with no distinctive shaping or colouring,
whatever virtues it may have undermined by the dull recorded sound (at
least as revealed by the Living Stereo CD) - the treble lacks bite, the
bass reduced to a warm smear. The horn calls are feeble, but the wind
playing is impressive. ii and iii are uneventful too, so it was a
pleasant surprise to hear the transition to iv so nicely handled; but
when iv begins we're back to business as usual - plain, fast (too fast,
frankly) and uninteresting. It was all too easy to turn this one off.
Monteux LSO Decca
An extremely frustrating i. The basic tempo is very fast, and while it
lasts this is very successful, with more nervous energy than we usually
encounter and far superior horn playing than Dorati got from this
orchestra around the same time (though the timpani are poorly recorded
here too). The trouble is, Monteux seems determined to out-Furtwaengler
Furtwaengler, constantly fussing with the tempo at the outset (it starts
out much slower than it will become) and slowing down at certain
climactic points, grotesquely so right before the very end of the
movement. ii starts off beautifully, almost fast enough, elegantly
played and with lovely soft tone from the cellos. The transition to iv
is one of the more successful fast ones, but iv itself is undermined by
inaudible timpani and the orchestra's relative lightness of tone.
Munch BSO RCA
Extremely disappointing, the performance sabotaged by even duller,
thicker sound than RCA foisted on Reiner, making it impossible for me to
listen to.
Solti VPO Decca
After Munch this sounds pretty stunning qua sound, the bass lines aptly
present and clear-toned (but the timpani and winds almost disappear). i
is quite successful, an incisive, fastish performance, but he does not
sustain tension and sweep sufficiently through the quieter passages. ii
is ludicrously slow, especially after such a fast i, and he does nothing
interesting with it in terms of tone or phrasing to compensate. The
transition to iv is surprisingly mysterious, but the arrival of iv is
undermined by the inaudibility of the timpani.
Szell Cleveland Sony
i offers a doggedly straightforward, moderately paced performance of no
particular distinction (well played, sure, but so what?), the whole
thing undermined by the dull recorded sound. ii, on the other hand, is
presented with more rubato and tonal shading - albeit not exactly
subtle - than I would have expected from this conductor, and taken at
more-or-less the right tempo. The transition to iv is good too, but iv
itself is perhaps a bit too fast, lacking grandeur and weight - great
brass/timpani triplets, though.
Szell Concertgebouw Philips
It's not just because of the vastly better recorded sound that I prefer
this to Cleveland: in i the playing is more alert, there's more flair,
more rhetoric, even some swagger - one of the better fastish,
straightforward performances. ii is more subtly nuanced than in
Cleveland. Although the transition to iv was better in Cleveland, iv
itself is preferable here, with fabulous triplets (even the winds make
an effect here); and I love how Szell (rather vulgar, I dare say) brings
out the alto trombone in bar 296 (the only instrument not playing the
same note it played in the previous bar); other conductors do this
effectively too, including Toscanini 1933, but none more thrillingly
than Szell. The big ritard that others complain about doesn't bother me
much.
Szell VPO Orfeo
I rather wish I hadn't said earlier that I liked this best of the three.
Hearing them in close succession (I was previously stupidly relying on
my memory) suggests fewer differences cf Concertgebouw, which conveys
more nervous energy in i than this performance. ii falls somewhere
between Cleveland and Concertgebouw, the transition to iv is closer to
Cleveland than Concertgebouw This may be the best of the three finales,
however, fast but exuberant (Cleveland merely seems fast) - though it's
a shame the first set of brass/timpani triplets barely sounds.
Bernstein NYPO Sony
I don't care for his i at all, the opening slow, heavy and legato (the
exact opposite of Abendroth), the quiet passages remarkably unshaped,
the music never sounding edgy or menacing - not at all what his other
recordings in this series would lead one to expect. There's some
exciting hard-stick timpani playing, but that's hardly sufficient. ii,
by contrast, isn't particularly slow at all, the opening superbly shaped
and sung by the cellos. The transition to iv is too fast and the
timpani and basses are too loud, though when it arrives iv itself is
well enough done, and I rather like his take on the triplets - di-di-di
daaa, with more emphasis on the fourth note than any other performance I
listened to.
Leibowitz RPO Chesky
i is fast and plain - rather too plain, with insufficient dynamic
contrast and variety of mood and rhetoric, while the oboe is too loud in
the bars leading up to its solo (it almost much drowns out everything
else, even though it's only marked piano and has no crescendo until two
bars before the solo), and the timpani are too restrained and blended
in, lacking a distinct voice. The horns, however, are magnificent.
Despite these flaws, it does generate considerable excitement, the last
three minutes or so being pretty much irresistible. No complaints about
ii, really - a simply lyrical performance taken at the right tempo. In
the transition, the timpani, which are too quiet in i and completely
inaudible at the start of iv, are too loud. iv, the missing timpani
aside, is an exhilarating, fast performance, one of the better of its
type.
Simon
Nieuwsgroepen: rec.music.classical.recordings
Van: "Simon Roberts"
Datum: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 13:45:04 -0500
Lokaal: ma 21 jan 2002 20:45
Onderwerp: Beethoven 5 part III
Karajan BPO 1962
One of the few performances which begin really fortissimo, this i starts
as it continues, fast, hair-raising, dynamic, highly charged, colourful,
highly characterized within a fairly constant tempo in which
relentlessness and tension are sustained to the very end, with
tremendous swagger, verve and panache along the way. I suppose some are
put off by the glamorous sound the orchestra makes, but I love it - just
listen to the thrilling intensity of the tone generated by his first
violins on their sustained note in bar 21 - in part because it doesn't
seem to be an end in itself but put to dramatic use. Those who dismiss
his work as too smooth won't find much ammunition here - the playing is
sustained through the end of notes rather than legato and manages to be
quite incisive. After such an intense i, this rather plainly lyrical ii
forms an apt respite, the opening cello theme simply sung and not much
shaped until the end. The transition to iv is rather undermined by the
muddled sound in the bass, blurring it all together in a curiously
resonant acoustic (this hasn't been a problem in this recording up until
now). The opening of iv is excitingly done, the first three chords
taken a trifle slower than the rest (the basic tempo is not so fast) and
clearly articulated; excellent triplets despite the backward winds.
Karajan BPO 1984
Aside from the transition from iii to iv, this isn't as well recorded as
the 1962 recording, nor is the performance as good - same general idea,
and much the same tempi (except ii which is notably faster but otherwise
unremarkable), but overall a bit tamer - not bad, certainly, but
rendered completely redundant by the 1962.
Nikisch BPO 1913
I'm not sure what to make of this - is there any point judging a
performance conveyed through a recording which, though good of its sort,
is necessarily compromised by the context of acoustic recording
technology, and thus ends up sounding a bit like the work of an
augmented brass band? The opening is certainly off-putting: can this
famous conductor really have got the opening rhythm so wrong (it emerges
as a triplet, the only one of those I listened to which does)? Perhaps
I'll stop here, noting only the pleasing bits of portamento in ii and
the nice wind balances in the triplets in iv.
Boehm VPO DG
i is lethally dull - moderato ma non troppo in every respect from
beginning to end. Not a trace of energy, tension or drama. ii is at
least as bad - not only is it horribly slow but he breaks up the opening
theme into separate sub-phrases in a way that doesn't convince me at
all. The transition from iii to iv is extremely well done, but
unfortunately what it leads from and to are quite unremarkable. Unlike
i, iv generates some excitement, but it's too often achieved through
crudely prominent brass (otherwise the balances are good). Overall the
playing and recorded sound are first rate, but it doesn't matter.
Asahina 1992
i is dreadful - extremely slow, poor ensemble, no drive or tension or
urgency, episodic, lines broken up with slight rhetorical pauses and
tempo changes. The only thing that comes close to redeeming it is the
gorgeous sound conjured up by the engineers, especially the massive
sonority in the louder tuttis, all underpinned by crudely noisy timpani.
As a performance, it sounds pretty amateurish in every respect. ii,
however, despite being insanely slow, almost works thanks to the alert
playing, clean rhythms, nicely inflected phrasing, and the gorgeous warm
recorded sound - at least at the start. Unfortunately, as the movement
progresses everyone's attention seems to slip a bit and it slowly
unwinds, the passage with all those repeated violin and viola chords
starting at bar 115 plodding wearily along without the slightest
inflection (and surely too quiet for a simple forte). The transition to
iv is well done, and iv starts out at a grand tempo, but the imprecise
and somewhat lethargic playing seriously undermines its effectiveness -
like Klemperer EMI 1959, but not quite as bad, it seems to lose momentum
as it progresses. In this context the repeat is hardly welcome.
Perhaps the other umpteen Asahina recordings are better..
Barenboim Berlin Staatskapelle Teldec
Despite a slowish start and retards (not excessive) in the usual places
this is a performance of considerable urgency and incisiveness; it even
swaggers a bit. Superb playing and sound. Unavoidably rather episodic,
and thus lacking relentlessness, it's not entirely to my taste, but at
least it's never dull. ii is way too slow for its tempo marking, but
the lines are well enough shaped. The transition to iv is first rate,
aptly mysterious, while iv itself is excellent, fast but not so fast as
to lose grandeur and exultation. Excellent balances throughout; even
the wind triplets are better projected than usual.
Abbado BPO DG
Dynamically restrained (that's fortissimo?) and gentle of attack, the
first five bars sum up all that will follow. Karajan has a reputation
for legato, and he's been made fun of in some quarters for encouraging
attack-free playing in the strings and famous for devoting a rehearsal
to the one fortissimo chord, trying to make it as beautiful as possible.
Be that as it may, listen to his 1962 recording with this orchestra and
you'll hear a performance of savage splendour. Listen to the new BPO
under Abbado and you'll get what sounds like a reductio ad absurdum of
the alleged Karajan ideal; I've never heard such attack-free string
playing before, the effect exaggerated by the distant, mushy sound which
lacks clarity except in the quieter passages. Aside from a couple of
climactic points where the orchestra almost lets rip (even then it
manages to sound restrained tonally), this performance of i is all about
gentle, lyrical playing at high speed, completely free of menace,
excitement, tension, and drama; the musicians never dig in. He gets the
tempo right in ii, but again, that's about all - nine minutes of gentle,
lyrical playing. iii sounds trivial. iv actually starts rather well,
and the triplet balances are well taken care of, but after the emptiness
of the first three movements, what's all the exaltation and celebration
for?
Those observations were made after merely listening to the performance
twice (several months apart - same reaction each time). As with all my
other listening for this little project, I did not do so while reading a
score. However, after listening I read Mark Stenroos repeat his
fondness for this set, in the course of which he noted that he took the
Hurwitz challenge and listened to the set again with the score, only to
find his admiration grow. Intrigued, I did the same thing with the
first movement of 5. Just as doing so reinforced Mark's admiration, it
reinforced my dismay. I'll focus on something obvious, dynamics, and
mention just some of the discrepancies in the first movement only (I don
't think these can be explained by the edition Abbado uses - Gardiner,
Mackerras and Zinman all use it too, I think). As noted above, the
movement does not start out fortissimo, but somewhere between mf and f,
the same volume as Abbado conjures up for the f at bar 19. Abbado makes
little or no distinction between f and ff in bars 21-22 (is that why he
has the sustained first violins take an unmarked diminuendo?), while
again bars 94f surely aren't ff. In the score, bars 168-180 proceed
from f through piu f to ff, but here there's scarcely any difference;
and are the winds at bar 195 really ff? Sounds like mf to me. Why is
the ff at 248-252 twice as loud at the ff at 228, 240-241 and 296?
Shouldn't the ff at 248-252 be louder than the ff at 228 merely because
the trumpets and timpani have joined in? But everyone plays louder
here. Later, there's a lengthy passage starting at bar 392 marked
initially f, then with no dynamic marking until bars 433-435, where the
winds, trumpets and timpani play unaccompanied, the winds marked ff, the
trumpets and timpani unmarked - yet the winds play at exactly the same
volume as before. Why? And why, at the very end, is there a HIP-esque
drop in volume in the last two notes? That's not in the score either.
And this is just some of the problems involving dynamics in the first
movement. If I thought the performance otherwise worked I wouldn't
care. But I don't think the score supports what he does.
Zinman Zurich Tonhalle Arte Nova
Despite being even faster than Abbado's and played by a less
distinguished orchestra, this i superbly conveys urgency, furtiveness,
restlessness, nervous energy through playing that's more alert and
characterful and better recorded to boot (though there's a bit more bass
resonance than I would prefer); it even manages to swagger. Some will
doubtless object to the ornamented oboe cadenza. Like Abbado's, this ii
proceeds at the right tempo, but unlike his this is interestingly shaped
and inflected. iii works well too, the aggressive playing of the cellos
and basses in the trio breathtaking at such a clip (probably a bit too
loud for a mere f, but it's pretty thrilling), while the transition to
iv successfully substitutes a sense of anticipation for mystery. I like
his iv too, interestingly balanced (inner string details emerge that I'
ve never noticed before), the cello/bass arpeggios coming through
clearly after the horn calls. My only disappointment is with the
triplets - in some of them the brass and timpani seem to have forgotten
to play at all. This performance took me completely by surprise when it
first came out (it was the first in the set to be released) - hitherto,
Zinman had struck me, live and on records, as a bore of the first order.
Not here.
Zander Philharmonia Telarc
His fast i gathers considerable power and drama as it proceeds, but
after Zinman's it seems rather plain and lacks his urgency and
restlessness. The playing is less articulate, there's less tonal
variety and the phrasing is less specifically shaped. Zander's
orchestra sounds bigger and has more heft, but doesn't manoeuvre as
well. Much the same is true of ii, Zander's sounding relatively plain -
I prefer the softer tone of Zinman's cellos, too (at least as recorded).
In iii the cellos/basses in the trio lack the sheer flair of Zinman's,
nor is the transition to iv as interestingly handled, but when iv
arrives it does so with more grandeur.
Carlos Kleiber VPO DG
Not as fast as Zander but more dramatic, with greater variety of mood
and tone, notably better played (but lacking Zinman's nervous energy);
probably better recorded too. ii is effective in its simple graceful
lyricism, and the transition to iv is superbly done. I have doubts
about iv, though, which starts out with a horribly brassy opening and
suffers from timpani that are so underbalanced they may as well not be
playing at all (they've been well enough balanced until now); likewise,
the cello/bass arpeggios after the horn calls are almost completely
inaudible (they really are horn calls here; those fabulous horns drown
out everything else). The wind triplets come across relatively better
than is often the case, but that's partly because the brass are tame and
the timpani tamer still. His piccolo player probably has the most
engaging tone of any, especially on his long trill before the coda.
Overall I'm not sure this performance lives up to the hype (except
perhaps in i), though given the extent of the hype I'm not sure anything
could..
Rattle VPO EMI
Rattle's i proceeds at much the same tempo as Kleiber's but they have
nothing much else in common. Thanks partly to the more distant
recording, the sheer sound of the orchestra has little impact here,
while the balances are radically different, the timpani very prominent
(in the brief fanfare at 390-391 that launches the coda they almost
drown out the trumpets and winds), the brass discreet. This is
nowhere near as distinctively shaped and coloured as, say, Kleiber's or
Zinman's, though the breaking up of the line in the second subject of
which David H disapproves arguably adds some nervous energy to the
proceedings. ii is opened rather fussily and his solution to the
problem of what to do about the repeated chords in the passage I
complained about in Asahina's (bars115 et seq.) is barely more
persuasive - surely far too quiet, though at least there's some
variation in stress. iii is distinguished by a curious diminuendo he
inserts at the ends of the phrases in the trio - it's interestingly
articulated and shaped, but I'm not sure I'm won over by it; for one
thing, it quite undermines the cumulative power of the music. The
transition to iv is nothing special, and neither is the finale, which
lacks sweep and power compared with the best.
Simon
Nieuwsgroepen: rec.music.classical.recordings
Van: "Simon Roberts"
Datum: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 13:45:43 -0500
Lokaal: ma 21 jan 2002 20:45
Onderwerp: Beethoven 5 part IV
Vanska BBC Scottish, BBC Magazine
i is unlistenable - fastish and live, but not at all lively, bizarrely
restrained and without a trace of urgency, the whole thing undermined by
the distant, drab sound. After a minute and a half I skipped ahead to
ii, only to find the same thing - a good tempo, but he managed to make
that sound lethargic too. Lethargy infects iii as well, while the
cello/bass launch of the trio is a scrambled mess. The very opening of
iv is dreadful, each chord starting rather restrained followed by a
slight crescendo; it doesn't work (well, not for me anyway). Worse, the
movement loses energy and momentum as it progresses. The triplets are
almost inaudible, except for the last brass/timpani set, where the
timpani thunder it out.
Mackerras RLPO EMI
A very good, fast i with an apt sense of urgency and colourful playing
(better than the similarly paced Zander and Rattle), though I wish the
microphones had been placed a bit closer. ii proceeds at a good pace,
and is well shaped, though the breaks in the opening cello line are
perhaps a bit too intrusive/disruptive. The transition to iv isn't
anything special, but the arrival of iv itself is, a fastish performance
superbly balanced (the triplet problem almost solved) with a fair amount
of swagger; the unmarked timpani swells he provides under the cello/bass
arpeggios (nicely audible) that follow the horn calls are a nice touch.
Tiboris Warsaw P.O. Albany
In the notes we are told that "Mahler was unusual for his time for his
insistence on performing the 'fate' motif at the beginning . in tempo,
rather than with portentous solemnity." Tiboris uses Mahler's
reorchestration; too bad he doesn't also try a Mahlerian performance to
go with it - not only does he take that motif slower than the rest, but
the whole damned thing has "portentous solemnity." The entire movement
is pedantic and staid, utterly devoid of urgency. ii is no better (and
too slow), while iii is so slow it's laughable. At the start of iv
(also too slow) he doesn't join the opening chords and the whole thing
seems to unwind from the very beginning. Despite what they're asked to
do the orchestra somehow manages to play very well, and the recorded
sound is good, but it doesn't matter. If there's another recording
using Mahler's reorchestration, it's probably better.
Schuller GM
Ever want to hear Beethoven 5 as chamber music? Here's your chance. I
don't know how big the orchestra is, but the relatively close recording
and Schuller's peculiar conception of what an orchestra should sound
like combine to make it sound curiously small scale and intimate. Most
of the time brass and timpani are almost completely inaudible - not once
to they play out - though I rather like the raspy quality of the lower
strings, which have more prominence than they often do on records, and
throughout the whole performance the strings are superbly articulate. i
is fast and straightforward, utterly lacking in weight and power and
variety of tone or inflection, but it does have tremendous nervous
energy and urgency. ii is fast as well, the opening almost jauntily
phrased; not sure if I like it. iv starts out rather well, though the
inaudibility of the timpani is a liability, while so prominent is the
double bassoon it almost sounds like a concerto for the instrument
(fairly engaging, actually). If this all makes rather a joke of
Schuller's obsession with orchestral balances, so do the triplets - the
winds are completely inaudible. For all that his notion of orchestral
balances isn't mine, I find the sounds he conjures up oddly compelling,
but the whole thing is decidedly odd.
Harnoncourt COE Teldec
i offers interesting details and unconventional phrasing, and if you
really want to hear the clarinets along with the strings at the opening,
this, along with Hogwood, is probably your best bet, but the performance
seems oddly reticent, lacking sweep, drive and urgency. Too bad he didn
't use Concentus Musicus. Nor am I persuaded by the opening of ii, the
line broken up too intrusively into short phrases. The transition to iv
is distinctively phrased, but iii is too restrained and the opening of
iv doesn't sound quite confident enough, partly because the sound lacks
weight. Disappointing (though at least it's not boring).
Norrington LCP EMI
Norrington has One Big Idea - The Dynamic Swell - and applies it
throughout. It gets pretty old pretty fast, showing up as early as the
fourth note of the opening theme (and whenever it reappears; by having
the clarinets not swell, he makes them more audible than usual, but if
that's the point it's an odd way to do it), and is used on just about
every sustained note, whether in the strings, brass or timpani, even at
the start of iii and in the transition to iv, so that by the time it
reappears in iv after the horn call, the effect has long lost any
positive effect it might otherwise have had (cf Mackerras who does it
there too, but it's the first time he does it and it works). Nor is the
swell the only problem with the very opening; combined with the almost
legato phrasing of those four notes, the result is a complete absence of
menace. Also present is The Swell's younger sister, The Tapered Phrase,
and when you combine this with his fondness for breaking the music up
into short phrases (he does this even more than Harnoncourt at the start
of ii) the effect is a complete absence of any sort of long line - the
music too often seems snatched at. There are times in i where this
brings out the unsettled, restless quality of the music, but the lack of
cumulative tension is detrimental; the occasional interesting orchestral
detail - low snarling trumpets, for instance - is insufficient
compensation. Tapering deprives iv of sweep and drive too, and while
the wind triplets come through nicely, that whole sequence sounds oddly
enervated.
Hogwood AAM Oiseau Lyre
Hogwood's characteristic plainness is a welcome relief after Norrington'
s ultimately ineffectual fussiness. i features much bolder, more
straightforward playing with a better sense of line while scarcely
losing restlessness. The overall effect is exciting, if not the last
word in imagination or subtlety. i is the highlight, however: ii is too
plain, the cellos and basses are too tonally thin to give the trio in
iii any power, and while the transition is quite well handled (I love
the crisp tone of the quiet timpani), iv, grandly lauched, doesn't have
enough drive and momentum as it progresses, seeming to lose shape,
definition and sweep between the noisy bits.
Brueggen Orch. 18th C Philips
Superior to Norrington and Hogwood in every way - better string playing,
less choppily phrased, subtler brass and timpani (not just p or ff),
more nuanced, better attention to phrasing and articulation. A fast
performance which conveys urgency and restlessness well, though unlike
some of the faster performers he takes the very opening a trifle slower
than the rest, to good effect. ii is also up to speed, though the
opening is perhaps too fussily shaped. The transition to iv is very
good for a fast one (it's easier to do mystery at a slower tempo), with
interesting dynamic shaping in the bass line. iv starts a bit choppily,
the three opening chords separated a trifle, but thereafter it's first
rate, with plenty of drive and sweep - unlike Norrington and Hogwood,
Brueggen knows how to maintain tension between the noisy bits. Unlike
some performances, this seems, if anything, to gain momentum and drive
as it proceeds - an exciting account.
Gardiner ORR DG/Archiv
i is not that different from Brueggen's, but Gardiner's string playing
isn't quite as articulate and thus doesn't convey urgency as well. This
may in part be the fault of the recording, whose bass is rather thick in
louder passages, swallowing detail and even entire sets of instruments
(the timpani disappear into the murk far too often). The build-up to
the coda is excitingly done, however. ii starts more simply that it
does in the hands of the other HIPsters, perhaps to good effect, but at
the first ff passage I find the legato he adds unpersuasive. The
transition is nothing special, but iv opens very well indeed and, like
Brueggen and unlike Norrington and Hogwood, he maintains tension and
momentum. The triplet problem is better solved here than in most. I
would also suggest that (as with so many other Gardiner performances)
this is HIP playing for those who don't usually like it - his orchestra
employs fewer HIP tricks (especially phrasing) than many others, and he
and/or the engineers diminish the tonal differences between their
instruments and the usual modern ones.
Gielen SW German Radio EMI
I had completely forgotten just how good this is, a fast, fiery
performance superbly played, with excellent balances, captured in
uncommonly rich, warm sound (as good as that afforded Asahina). i
reminds me a little of Karajan, with its sostenuto playing and, despite
the speed, weighty, full orchestral tone, long lines, sweep, drive and
even swagger. ii proceeds at exactly the right tempo, the opening cello
theme played with gorgeous, soft tone and very subtle tonal shading and
rubato that's utterly free of line-breaking fussiness. The transition
from iii to iv is very good for a fast one, while the opening of iv is
superbly done, excellently balanced and with due attention paid the
cellos and basses (this is true throughout); he even almost solves the
triplet problem. The whole movement has tremendous drive, not once
sagging. A nice way to end my listening sessions.
Simon