Gunther Schuller - The Compleat Conductor (1998, Oxford University Press)

The Compleat Conductor

This page intentionally left blank

The Compleat Conductor GÜNTHER SCHULLE R

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS New York Oxfor d

Oxford Universit y Press Oxford Ne w York Athens Aucklan d Bangko k Bogot á Buc'iio s Aire. s Calcutt a Cape 'Ibwn Chcnua i Da r e s Salaa m Delh i Florenc e I long Kon g Istanbu l Karachi Kual a l.iunpu r Madri d Melbourn e Mexic o Cit y Muniba i Nairobi Pari s Sa o Paul o Singapor e 'laipc i Toky o 'Ibront o Warsa w und ûHMicidted campameu in Berlin Ibiida

n

Copyright © 199 7 by Günther Schuller Kirs t published b y Oxford Universit y Press, Inc., 1997 Kirst issue d as an Oxfor d Universit y Press paperbaek, 199 H Oxford ¡ s a registered trademar k o f Oxford Universit y Press All right s reserved. N o par t o f this publication ma y be reproduced , stored i n a retrieval system , o r transmitted, in any form o r by any means , electronic, mechanical , photocopying , recording , or otherwise , without th e prio r permission o f Oxford Universit y Press. I ,ibrary of Congress Cataloging-iii-Pnblication Dat a Schuller, Günther. The compleat conductor/ Günthe r Sehnller. p. cm . Includes bibliographical reference s an d index. ISBN 978-0-19-506377-6 ; 978-0-19-512661- 7 (pbk.) 1. Conducting. 2 . Orchestral Musi c —Interpretation (Phrasing, dynamics, etc.) I . Title MT85.S46 199 4 7H1.45 —dc20 9V3Ó06 5

79 1 08 6 Printed i n th e Unite d States of America

Contents Preface, vii

PARTI A Philosophy of Conducting, 3 PART I I A History of Conducting, 67 PART II I Beethoven: Fifth Symphony, 109 Beethoven: Seventh Symphony, 231 Brahms: First Symphony, 27 9 Brahms: Fourth Symphony, 379 Strauss: Till Eulenspiegel , 42 5 Ravel: Daphni s e t Chloé Second Suite, 459 Schumann: Second Symphony, 49 5 Tchaikovsky: Sixth Symphony, 5 2 J Postscript, 53 7 Afterword, 54 7 Discography, 54 9 Index, 56 3

This page intentionally left blank

Preface

The ide a fo r thi s boo k firs t cam e t o m e som e thirt y year s ag o when , havin g begun m y own conducting career , I realized, with tota l astonishment , tha t wha t I ha d bee n aske d t o pla y a s a hor n playe r unde r variou s famous maestri , an d what I ha d hear d i n hundred s o f performance s a s a listene r an d eager-to-lear n young composer , ver y ofte n di d no t correspon d a t al l t o wha t composer s ha d written i n thei r scores . A nobody a t the tim e i n th e worl d of music an d working with som e o f the mos t famou s and reputedl y best conductor s o f the time , I was mightily puzzle d b y the discrepancie s betwee n thei r 'interpretations ' an d wha t I was seein g i n th e score s a s I bega n t o stud y the m fro m a conductor' s poin t o f view. I knew, of course, abou t tradition s and tha t ther e wer e good one s an d ba d ones (th e latte r especiall y in opera) . Bu t thes e deviation s fro m th e tex t wer e so prevalent an d countermande d th e mos t fundamenta l element s o f composition , particularly temp o an d dynamics , tha t becaus e o f my aw e o f these conductor s I was har d pu t t o reconcil e thei r 'interpretations ' wit h wha t I wa s beginnin g t o appreciate a s th e tru e essenc e o f thos e works , understoo d throug h o r gleane d from thei r composers ' wonderfull y comprehensiv e notation(s) . Little b y littl e I bega n t o tak e th e courag e o f m y ow n finding s (whic h wer e only thos e thing s tha t I foun d clearl y indicate d i n th e score s o f th e masters) , and t o insis t in m y rehearsals and concert s o n 'realizing, ' that is , bringing to life , that whic h th e composer s i n thei r grea t wisdo m ha d written . I bega n t o experience th e inspiratio n that wil l com e fro m a thorough , minutel y detaile d stud y of a scor e an d a n unquestione d respec t fo r it . Sinc e muc h o f what I wa s conduct ing i n thos e earl y days was contemporary music—the ne w musi c oftha t tim e — and sinc e ther e wer e usuall y no establishe d tradition s or recording s t o fal l bac k upon, I wa s learnin g t o respec t rigorousl y the conten t o f a score—b y whom ever—and th e scor e becam e a kin d o f sacre d documen t fo r me . I n al l th e in tervening year s I hav e see n n o reaso n t o chang e m y view s o n thi s matter , whether i n standar d or contemporar y repertory.

Vlll PREFAC

E

I wa s encouraged greatl y along thi s pat h b y working (as a hor n player , not b y the wa y as a conductin g student ) wit h grea t musician s such a s Rudol f Kolisch and Edwar d Steuerman n (i n chambe r music ) a s well as Toscanini, Reiner , an d Monteux, wh o wer e mor e exactin g i n respec t t o basi c notationa l element s an d more consistent , i.e . self-disciplined , than mos t o f thei r contemporarie s wit h whom I worked and/or observed . Not tha t Toscanini , Reiner , and Monteu x wer e in an y wa y automatons wh o rigidly , slavishly, unimaginatively rendered th e mu sic. Quit e th e contrary , no t onl y wer e the y appropriatel y flexibl e i n matter s o f tempo —sometimes tw o of the m eve n perhap s to o much—bu t mor e importan t for me , I coul d se e clearl y tha t thei r 'interpretations ' cam e ou t of , i.e. , from, a thorough stud y and understandin g o f the score . Their ego s rarel y interfered with the music , an d thei r re-creativ e imaginatio n wa s inspired b y th e full content o f the score . More troublin g was when conductors , suc h a s Szel l o r Walter, preache d on e thing an d practice d another . I t took a while t o sor t that out—eventuall y i n favo r of th e composer . Whe n I als o understoo d tha t Walte r an d Szell , t o nam e jus t two famou s maestri , als o performe d n o contemporar y musi c — truly contempo rary, tha t is , an d perhap s comple x an d difficult— I bega n t o realiz e tha t I was dealing no t onl y with a certai n personal/musica l phenomenon, but wit h a deep rooted professiona l reality, in whic h ne w musi c o f challenge wa s frowned upon, pushed aside , an d therefor e the lesson s learnable therefro m neve r learned . I too k u p conductin g rathe r late—i n m y earl y thirtie s —initially conductin g my ow n works , but soon , encourage d b y th e musician s I worke d wit h i n Ne w York, generall y the crea m o f the crop , I branche d ou t no t onl y int o othe r con temporary music (Babbitt , Carter, Sessions , Várese, Schönberg, Webern , Krenek , Stravinsky, etc. , etc. ) bu t als o th e classica l an d Romanti c masterpiece s I love d so dearl y an d whic h I alread y 'knew, ' althoug h somewha t superficially , fro m having playe d muc h o f that literatur e (bu t a s I hav e indicated , unbeknowns t t o me) ofte n i n erroneou s an d misguide d interpretations . I bega n t o creat e som e smal l consternatio n b y doin g Beethove n symphonie s in hi s metronome tempo s (o r ver y clos e thereto ) an d eve n mor e b y insisting on real p' s an d pp's, requirin g th e whol e rang e o f distinction s between th e typica l eight o r s o dynami c levels , rathe r tha n th e commonl y use d 'loud-soft-and-in between' variety . As a composer , subtl e dynami c differentiation s had rea l mean ing for me. The y wer e no t jus t som e haphazar d abstractio n tha t coul d b e modi fied o r ignored , bu t on e o f the composer' s mos t basi c tools wit h whic h t o color , to decorate th e music , t o delineat e for m and structure , to clarif y line s and layers of music , t o creat e variet y of expression —in short , to creat e rea l music . Rather quickl y I began t o see , t o m y surprise , that i n mos t o f the conductin g world 'nobod y give s a dam n abou t th e composer'—livin g o r dead ! I n fact , thos e very word s wer e initiall y going t o b e th e titl e o f thi s study . Bu t a s I bega n t o work o n th e boo k I realize d tha t suc h a titl e wa s to o flippant , too provocative , and unsuitabl e fo r wha t I soo n als o realize d had t o b e a scholarl y an d exhaus tively documente d stud y t o carr y an y weight. I formulate d th e boo k i n thre e majo r parts , the firs t tw o modes t i n size , th e

PREFACE I

X

third rathe r extensive . (Indee d th e thir d par t becam e mor e an d mor e extensiv e as I worked a t it , mor e extensiv e tha n I ha d originall y planned.) O n th e fac e o f it, th e listing s an d citing s an d comment s i n Par t II I would , I the n believed— and stil l believe—b e considered , wer e the y t o appea r alone , th e raving s o f a grumpy frustrated curmudgeon: t o which th e instan t reactio n woul d be : 'All tha t can't reall y be true! ' I kne w fro m th e outse t tha t I woul d hav e t o establis h no t so muc h m y credential s (the y are ultimatel y unimportant) , bu t rathe r th e crite ria b y which on e coul d objectively , consistently, reasonabl y evaluate th e wor k of conductors. Thu s I decide d t o devot e on e chapte r (Par t I ) t o m y ow n idea s and criteri a abou t th e ar t o f conducting , a s a n interpretive, re-creative art—m y 'philosophy,' a s i t were—an d a secon d chapte r (Par t II ) t o a kin d o f histor y of conducting, a s writte n an d though t abou t b y som e o f th e greates t practitioner s of this curiou s an d difficul t performanc e art . The researc h fo r Part I I led t o man y interestin g surprises, especially in th e re reading an d re-stud y o f Wagner' s writing s on conducting , i n m y vie w s o ofte n misinterpreted an d misuse d fo r variou s polemica l an d ideologica l purposes . I was als o delighte d whe n i t becam e eviden t tha t mos t o f thos e writings—fro m Mattheson t o Walter—actuall y confirme d m y ow n thinking , m y ow n 'philoso phy' o f conducting . The result s o f m y finding s (Par t III ) ar e quit e depressing—indee d s o de pressing that , predictably , man y reader s will rejec t quickly and completel y wha t I hav e written . I n tha t event , I invit e thos e individual s to perus e carefull y th e more tha n 30 0 recording s I hav e listene d t o i n exhaustiv e detail . A singl e lis tening t o a Beethove n symphon y coul d tak e tw o hour s o r mor e whil e I kep t voluminous note s o n al l aspect s o f the performance , positive and negative . I f at the en d o f suc h a n expenditur e o f tim e an d effor t an d har d listening—no t t o mention th e purchasin g an d borrowin g o f thes e severa l hundre d recording s — readers ca n stil l argu e wit h m y findings , I will be trul y amazed. Recording s an d scores d o no t lie—th e forme r are a s fixed and unequivoca l as the latter . Fortunately, othe r reader s will salute my work, happy that finally someone ha s gone t o the troubl e o f sorting these matter s ou t an d havin g the courag e t o differ entiate righ t fro m wrong , a s well a s the courage—an d th e challenge—t o nam e names. (Withou t names , Par t II I coul d b e see n a s a fairl y worthles s exercis e i n some sor t of indulgent self-gratification. ) A thir d group—perhap s younge r would-b e conductors—wil l (i t i s hoped ) learn muc h fro m thi s book. As I say, the factua l evidence state d i n i t is clear an d immutable: ther e are the score s on on e sid e and th e documentar y recording s o n the other . I f w e ca n al l retur n t o trul y believin g i n th e ar t o f conductin g a s a kind o f mission o f bringing the grea t masterwork s of the pas t and th e presen t t o life i n respectful , selfless , non-egotistical , ye t imaginativ e an d creativel y re creative ways , we wil l have wel l serve d ou r Mus e —Mistress Music . Since I am a compose r o f some reputation , man y ma y wonde r wh y I did no t devote m y critica l energie s t o contemporar y o r 20th-centur y works. Th e reason s are several . One i s tha t contemporar y musi c i s almos t alway s performe d muc h more correctl y (at leas t technically) , much mor e respectfully , tha n th e famou s

X PREFAC

E

classical an d Romanti c piece s o f the standar d literature . Readers—an d compos ers—may b e ver y surprise d a t suc h a statement . Bu t i t i s absolutely true—for simple (althoug h saddenin g an d maddening ) reasons . I n ne w musi c —especially in premier e performances—conductor s an d othe r interpreter s ar e mor e o r les s relegated t o 'realizing ' t o th e bes t o f thei r abilitie s wha t a compose r actuall y wrote, wha t a compose r ha s specificall y notated . Ther e ar e usuall y n o re cordings, n o previou s traditions , n o 'interpretations ' b y 'legendar y maestri, ' t o fall bac k upon , to b e influence d by . Most ofte n th e onl y thin g tha t exist s is th e score, th e text , wherea s i n olde r musi c typicall y a whol e histor y of traditions, of received interpretations , tend s t o exist , sanctifie d b y critic s an d othe r pundits , with th e ne t resul t tha t hardl y anyon e bother s t o loo k a t th e origina l score , certainly no t i n detail . The secon d reaso n I did not dwel l on th e performanc e of new o r more recen t music i s that, a s muc h a s I love , admire , an d devot e m y energie s t o th e man y great work s of th e 20th-century , m y large r concer n i s with th e masterpiece s o f the past . For not onl y are the y a s great as the masterpiece s o f our tim e —indeed, most peopl e woul d argu e that the y ar e greater—but also th e famou s older works of th e pas t constitut e th e foundation , th e legacy , o f ou r musica l literature , against which , bot h historicall y and interpretively , ou r present-da y wor k a s re creative, performin g musician s ough t t o b e judged . I f w e ca n sho w s o littl e respect fo r th e masterwork s of th e past , a s i s typicall y the case , w e ca n hardl y claim t o understan d an d represen t thos e o f the present . Accordingly, I chose th e eigh t work s discussed herein, partl y because the y ar e world-famous belove d masterpieces , staple s o f th e symphoni c repertory , an d partly becaus e the y eac h embody , i n additio n t o genera l interpretiv e issues , spe cific conductorial/performanc e problems , i n man y case s uniqu e t o thes e works . Initially, I ha d planne d t o includ e Beethoven' s Eight h Symphony , the Schuber t "Unfinished," th e Dvora k "Ne w World " an d G majo r symphonies , Weber' s Oberon Overture , Mendelssohn' s Hebrides Overture , Ravel' s Rhapsodie Espagnole, and Debussy' s Afternoon o f a Faun. Bu t soo n i t becam e clea r tha t suc h inclu sions would make this already sizable book too voluminous and involv e an unac ceptable amoun t o f redundancy, give n tha t mos t interpretiv e misdeed s fal l int o a fe w basic categories . The forma t an d structurin g o f th e boo k cause d concern , fo r I realize d tha t built int o th e ver y concep t o f the boo k wa s a certai n amoun t o f redundancy. As the boo k gre w an d expanded , Oxfor d Universit y Pres s an d I becam e rathe r alarmed a t the magnitud e o f the expansion . I found i t mor e difficul t tha n I ha d originally expecte d t o dea l wit h th e (unavoidable ) massiv e attentio n t o detail , and t o document irrefutably my findings regarding the interpretation s containe d in th e hundred s o f recording s by nearl y as man y conductors . Thi s ma y o r ma y not requir e a n apology , bu t perhap s a n explanation . Inevitably , the boo k i s i n fact abou t details—detail s o f performance , o f interpretation . A p p i s no t a p , anymore tha n a fis a /for a poco rítardando i s a molto ritardando — even though in th e rea l worl d thes e subtl e differentiation s ar e largel y disregarded . Because these ar e crucial distinctions, which hav e everythin g to d o wit h th e appropriat e

PREFACE X

I

or inappropriat e outcom e o f a performance , i t was essential tha t a grea t par t of my analyse s of the recording s (i n Par t III) had t o dea l wit h suc h details . On th e questio n o f specifying names an d providin g considerable detai l a s to how conductor s 'interpreted ' a particula r passage, tha t becam e absolutel y man datory, not onl y because tha t wa s (is) the essentia l rationale of the boo k bu t also , if on e i s goin g t o mentio n on e name , i n al l fairnes s on e mus t lis t an y an d al l others t o th e exten t the y ar e relevant . I t woul d b e patentl y unfai r t o mentio n (isolate) on e conductor , say , negatively, without mentioning th e other s t o who m the sam e commen t i s applicable. Hence , th e ofte n longis h list s o f conductors ' names. On e alternative , incidentally , woul d hav e bee n wha t ha s sometime s been don e i n th e past , namely , t o mentio n jus t a fe w o f one' s favorites—o r unfavorites—and dea l onl y wit h them . I n m y view , however, suc h a n approac h is essentially unfair an d meaningless , sinc e i t is , in eliminatin g a priori a hos t of names, fa r too subjective , indeed incapabl e o f even remotel y claimin g objectivity. Anothe r alternative—althoug h impossibl e t o seriousl y contemplate doing — would hav e bee n t o lis t ever y positive an d negativ e critica l observation I mad e during th e thousand s o f hour s o f painstakin g listenin g t o th e ove r 40 0 re cordings—in whic h cas e th e boo k woul d hav e bee n abou t 250 0 page s long ! Indeed I could hav e writte n a smal l boo k o n eac h recording . Some reader s ma y tak e exceptio n t o m y penchan t fo r occasionall y resorting to musicians ' colloquialism s i n a n essentiall y seriou s didacti c book . Frankly , I don't min d mixin g suc h commo n parlanc e no w an d the n wit h a n otherwis e analytical, scholarl y approach t o th e subject , no t onl y t o bette r mak e th e poin t but als o to retai n th e flavo r o f such typica l 'musicians-talk' comments . Finally, b y way not o f apology bu t explanatio n (an d warning) , if some o f m y writing seem s 'extreme ' —if I appea r t o som e t o b e a 'radical ' —it i s becaus e I hear an d se e things tha t mos t other s don' t seem t o hea r o r car e about . I believe it i s high tim e tha t som e forceful , realisti c writing on th e subjec t of conductor s and conducting—an d interpretation—tak e place . I ow e thanks t o s o man y wh o hav e i n on e wa y or anothe r helpe d m e wit h thi s project. Firs t o f all, my loyal staff (i n m y publishing and recor d companies ) wh o often ha d t o pitch i n wit h various research chores , abov e all, Pamela Mille r an d my secretary , Dere k Geary , t o who m fel l th e brun t o f typin g u p th e tex t an d integrating int o i t the hundred s o f music examples . Thes e illustrations , incidentally, becam e necessar y when earl y on I realized that , needles s t o say , not ever y reader will carry around wit h hi m (o r have acces s to) a score of, say, the Beetho ven Fifth . I f my job was to show the differenc e betwee n wha t Beethoven actually composed an d wha t mos t performance s in fac t deliver , it wa s mandatory tha t I show wha t Beethove n wrote . Tha t wa y direc t comparison s ca n b e made ; bu t therefore, also , th e nee d fo r the man y music example s containe d herein . I shoul d als o like to than k Alic e Abraham, hea d o f the WGB H (Boston ) record library , throug h whos e kindnes s I wa s abl e t o liste n t o hundred s o f re cordings fo r untold hour s —LPs an d CD s —rather tha n havin g to buy , beg, bor row, o r stea l them . I shoul d lik e furthe r t o than k Richar d Dye r fo r lendin g

Xll PREFAC

E

me certai n importan t recording s an d out-of-prin t reference book s centra l t o m y research, an d m y student and friend , Yoichi Udagawa, for help in various organizational an d researc h matters . I wis h also to tender m y appreciation t o Mr . Arbie Orenstein (fo r his help an d advice o n th e Rave l segment) , th e librarian s at th e Ne w Englan d an d Oberli n conservatories an d th e Harvar d Musi c Department , wher e I wa s abl e t o stud y certain valuable , now-very-rar e 7 8 recording s tha t hav e neve r bee n reissue d i n any for m an d probabl y never wil l be ; an d likewis e to Davi d Brodbec k fo r identi fying th e source s o f certai n crucia l quotation s b y Brahms , Lewi s Lockwood , Robert Pascall , George Bozarth and Walte r Frisc h fo r various helpful kindnesses. Special thank s als o t o Del l Hollingswort h o f th e Harr y Ranso m Humanitie s Research Cente r a t the Universit y of Texas i n Austin for making availabl e to m e Ravel's autograph scor e o f Daphnis e t Chloé. Similarly , I owe thanks to Ms . Kat e Rivers a t th e Musi c Divisio n of the Librar y of Congress fo r help i n reproducin g the numerou s autograp h facsimile s contained i n th e book . My thank s als o g o t o Da n Kastne r and Dr . Stanle y Hoffma n o f Score s Inter national (Boston ) and thei r staf f fo r producing th e hundred s o f musi c example s scattered throughou t th e book ; likewis e t o Joh n Scholl , als o i n Boston , whos e technical know-ho w i n preparin g th e facsimil e plates wa s of enormous help . Deep gratitud e als o t o Rober t DiDomenica , composer , teacher , an d flutis t extraordinaire, wh o diligentl y read throug h th e entir e manuscript , an d no t onl y advanced a number o f excellent suggestion s but als o caugh t a numbe r o f serious lacunae i n m y over-al l discourse. I wis h als o t o than k Sheldo n Meyer , m y edito r a t Oxfor d Universit y Press for over thirt y years , an d edito r Leon a Capeles s fo r thei r belie f i n th e importanc e of this boo k an d thei r loya l suppor t i n midwifin g i t throug h al l it s various diffi cult birthpangs . Last bu t no t least , I wish to dedicat e thi s boo k t o the memor y o f my late wife , Marjorie, wh o wa s a t onc e m y severes t criti c an d m y stronges t supporter , an d with who m I spen t no t onl y hal f a centur y togethe r i n a n idea l persona l an d musical relationship , bu t i n consor t wit h whom—a s aspirin g teen-ag e musi cians—I ha d m y firs t epiphana l revelations , listenin g t o an d sharin g th e grea t masterworks o f the pas t (an d th e present ) with eac h other . G. S . Newton Centre, Massachusetts October 1996

NOTE: A s a specia l accessor y t o Th e Compleat Conductor, ther e i s availabl e i n all majo r recor d store s a C D o f the Beethove n Fift h an d Brahm s Firs t symphonies, recorde d b y th e autho r an d a remarkable , hand-picked Ne w Yor k orchestr a (CM Recording s (2051) , 16 7 Dudley Road , Newto n Centre , M A 02159) .

Part I

This page intentionally left blank

A Philosophy of Conducting A struggle, mor e o r les s unconscious , between th e creato r an d th e interprete r is almost inevitable . The interes t of a performer i s almost certai n t o b e centered i n himself . -T.S. Eliot , The Sacred Wood

Conducting i s surel y the mos t demanding , musicall y all-embracing , an d com plex o f th e variou s discipline s tha t constitut e th e fiel d o f musi c performance . Yet, ironically , it i s considered b y mos t peopl e —including, alas , most orchestra l musicians—to be eithe r a n easy-to-acquir e skil l (musicians ) or the resul t of some magical, unfathomable , inexplicabl e God-give n gift s (audiences) . I t i s actually neither, th e skill s require d i n conductin g a t the highes t artisti c levels bein g any thing bu t eas y t o acquire—man y conductor s neve r achiev e the m a t all—whil e what th e publi c mostl y perceive s a s the magi c an d majest y o f the bato n is , bu t only i n th e bes t hands , a resul t o f many year s of intensive stud y and har d work , as well a s talent, of course . Talent i n an d o f itself i s not enough . Talen t i s also a much misunderstoo d o r misinterpreted commodity . Talen t ma y b e innate , inborn , eve n inherited ; bu t talent, n o matte r ho w great , need s t o b e developed , nurtured , an d honed . Fo r the skill s inheren t i n fin e conductin g compris e a whol e networ k o f specifi c abilities an d attributes : physical/gestural , aural , analytical , intellectua l —even psychological an d philosophical . Fo r th e conducto r mus t no t onl y kno w al l there i s to kno w abou t a score , dow n t o th e mos t minuscul e details , bu t mus t develop th e gestura l skill s t o transmi t tha t informatio n clearl y t o a n orchestr a and th e psychologica l dexterit y t o relat e effectivel y (especiall y i n rehearsals ) t o an orchestr a —itself a comple x collectio n o f talente d individuals , personalities, and artisti c egos. When audience s overrat e an d musician s underrat e conductors ' abilitie s an d accomplishments, i t is because th e forme r tend t o confus e conductin g wit h gestural histrionics , and th e latte r wit h mer e tim e beating . Ther e are , o f course , skillful tim e beaters , eve n amon g world-famou s conductors, an d equall y skillfu l 3

4 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

podium exhibitionists . But these fo r the mos t par t demea n th e ar t of conducting , making i t muc h les s tha n wha t i t ca n an d shoul d be . T o delineate an d analyz e what conductin g a s a n art—no t merel y a s a professio n o r a caree r o r a busi ness—is an d shoul d be , wil l be th e burde n o f Part I o f this book . The talent s an d skills—innat e an d acquired—tha t ultimatel y compris e th e ar t of conductin g ar e awesome . Thi s undoubtedl y explain s why s o fe w conductor s attain them . Ther e als o ough t t o b e a sens e o f mora l obligation , a sens e o f unalterable respec t fo r the grea t literatur e comprisin g our Wester n musica l heri tage; a sense that th e ar t of conducting mus t b e see n a s a sacred trust to translat e into a meaningfu l expressive acoustical reality , with a s much insigh t and fidelit y as i s humanly possible , thos e musica l documents—th e scores , th e texts—lef t u s by th e grea t composers . These triple demands—talent , hard work , and a n aestheti c morality—ar e un fortunately i n shor t suppl y today . Perhap s the y alway s wer e t o on e degre e o r another, bu t i t seems t o me tha t i n this age of hype, promotion, publi c relations , and careeris m —in a n er a whe n commerc e an d profi t motivatio n dominat e al most th e entir e socia l aren a —in suc h a n environmen t conductin g ha s turne d more an d mor e int o a business , int o a commercia l enterprise , wit h th e predict able an d commensurat e lowerin g o f artisti c standards : i n short—apar t fro m a few gloriou s exceptions—wit h a rathe r seriou s debasemen t o f th e ar t o f con ducting.1 Those wil l surel y seem ver y stron g word s t o man y readers , especiall y thos e who si t a t hom e wit h thei r '50-masterpieces ' recor d collections , idolizin g th e 'rich an d famous ' amon g th e conductors , th e superstars—th e Bernsteins , th e Karajans—to who m the y attribut e virtuall y god-like qualities . Clos e critica l ex amination o f wha t i s actuall y produce d o n mos t podium s o r i n th e recordin g studios o f th e worl d reveal s tha t muc h o f th e busines s o f conductin g i s mor e and mor e drive n b y extra-musical , extra-artistic considerations an d motivations . Not tha t lac k o f talen t an d artisti c integrity , charlatanis m an d musica l fraudu lence ar e limite d t o ou r er a o r are someho w a n inventio n of our times . Interpre tational excesse s an d abuse s o f th e grea t literatur e hav e lon g existed , probabl y since conductin g becam e a distinc t profession . Bu t th e financia l an d materia l stakes o f succes s i n thi s er a o f electroni c communicatio n advance s an d mas s markets ar e s o muc h highe r today , s o muc h mor e temptin g an d therefor e s o much mor e potentiall y corruptin g than eve r befor e in ou r cultura l history . Artistic standard s and artisti c integrity have decline d dramaticall y in recen t decades , succumbing t o careerist and commercia l pressure s at an alarmin g rate. The ide a that a musica l artist , a conductor , ough t t o serv e th e musi c —rather tha n th e music servin g the musician—i s occasionall y give n li p service , bu t i s rarely pu t into practice . 1. A remarkably knowledgeable an d courageous , no-holds-barre d exposé o f th e seriou s degradation and venalit y i n th e conductin g business, th e wheelin g and dealin g of the power-brokerin g managements tha t contro l most of the musi c business, is Norman Lebrecht' s Maestro Myths: Great Conductors i n Pursuit o f Power (Ne w York , 1991) . I t i s soberin g reading , to sa y th e least , an d i s highl y recommended t o anyone concerned abou t th e integrit y of the ar t an d professio n o f music .

A PHILOSOPH Y O F CONDUCTIN G 5

Such servic e ough t t o exten d t o th e musi c o f ou r ow n time , an d I beg , no t just th e firs t decad e an d a hal f o f our century . Th e idea l 'compleat ' conducto r is also an arden t advocate fo r the bes t i n ne w music , with a deep and unshakabl e commitment t o performin g the grea t musi c o f his contemporaries . Thi s implie s taking risks , th e kin d o f risk s courageou s conductor s suc h a s Koussevitsky , Sto kowski, Mitropoulos , Reiner , Steinberg , an d Dorat i too k i n varyin g degrees an d ways. I mus t sa y that I ca n hav e onl y a diminishe d respec t fo r a conducto r o r any musician , n o matte r ho w good otherwise , who feel s littl e or n o commitmen t to th e musi c o f his ow n time . It ma y perhap s surpris e the la y reader tha t ther e i s something lik e a philoso phy o f conducting an d tha t th e ar t o f conducting ca n b e defined . But the n i t is doubtful tha t eve n th e majorit y o f conductor s (an d would-b e conductors ) eve r think seriously about suc h matters . Indeed , musician s drif t int o conductin g now adays withou t muc h though t o f what i n fac t the y ar e undertaking , with littl e o r no awarenes s o f what th e conductor' s ar t entails—o r shoul d entail . Th e desir e to lea d a n orchestr a derive s muc h mor e fro m som e ego-drive n ambitio n whic h has little o r nothing t o do wit h serious music-making, or with a sense o f humility and devotio n i n servin g th e art . Th e ide a tha t i t i s an enormou s privilege , bu t also a n awesom e responsibility , t o conduc t Beethoven' s Eroica o r Stravinsky' s Sacre d u Printemps o r Brahms' s Fourt h Symphony , i s rarel y considered . Mor e often tha n no t i t is seen merel y a s a stepping ston e i n a career, an d thu s t o fame and fortune . It i s much mor e usua l tha t a youn g musicia n on e fin e da y wake s u p t o th e vague notio n tha t he—o r latel y she—woul d lik e t o direc t an d contro l a musical performance, rathe r tha n merel y pla y a par t i n it . Typically , thi s vagu e notio n soon turn s int o a n irresistibl e desire an d the n a drivin g obsession. I n rare r in stances, th e decisio n t o tur n t o conductin g i s prompted b y chance, a n acciden t of fate , a n incidenta l encounter : mos t commonl y whe n a residen t conducto r becomes incapacitate d an d a musician , wh o ma y neve r hav e conducte d before , is quit e suddenl y prompte d t o tak e ove r a t a rehearsa l or—les s frequently—a t a concert (a s in th e cas e o f Toscanini, fo r example) . To be sure , ther e ar e thos e wh o are , b y their talen t an d personality , destined to becom e conductors : musician s who hav e inbor n intellectual , expressive , and physical aptitude s t o interpre t composers ' works , an d t o elici t suc h interpreta tions fro m a collectio n o f orchestral musicians . Bu t eve n tha t grou p o f conduc tors rarel y take s th e tim e a t th e firs t hin t o f conductin g impulse s t o analyz e critically wha t th e art , th e craf t o f conducting , actuall y involves . Rarel y i s thought give n t o th e immensit y o f suc h a decisio n an d t o th e awesom e chal lenges i t entails. I' d like to think tha t i f young aspirin g conductors wer e t o thin k more deepl y abou t thes e matters , man y woul d b e deterre d fro m pursuin g thi s particular, mos t demandin g o f musical professions. As i t is, musicians tend t o declare themselve s conductor s b y merely announc ing as much t o the worl d an d ironically—sadly—th e worl d generall y accepts th e pronouncement withou t question, regardless of whether th e particula r individual has conductin g talents , regardles s of whethe r th e individua l ha s th e technical ,

0 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

intellectual, an d emotiona l capacitie s to translate a musical scor e int o a n appro priate interpretatio n vi a appropriate conductorial gestures . Thu s i t i s that youn g musicians wit h immense, irrestrainabl e egos become 'conductors ' i n a n instant , overnight a s it were, whil e more modes t ego s wit h mor e modes t ambition s (bu t just as much, o r perhaps even more , talent ) remai n relativel y unrecognized an d anonymous.2 Certainly i t take s a health y eg o t o develo p th e courag e t o stan d befor e a n orchestra o f seventy-five o r eight y musicians, to impos e hi s o r he r musical/inter pretive wil l o n tha t orchestra , t o i n a sens e dominat e thos e musicians , an d t o dare t o 'interpret ' th e grea t masterpiece s o f the Wester n tradition . When suc h a 'healthy' ego—let' s cal l i t a 'modest ' ego , contradictor y as that ma y sound , o r i n Bruno Walter' s phrase , a "selfles s ego " —is infuse d wit h a n equall y health y re spect fo r and gratitud e toward the musician s who labor and toi l unde r hi s baton , then on e i s likely t o ge t wha t I wil l simpl y call fo r the momen t ver y fine , high level music-makin g (t o be define d more precisel y in th e ensuin g discourse). But rathe r tha n dwellin g on the negativ e aspects of the conductin g professio n and ho w casuall y most musician s ten d t o drif t int o conductin g careers , le t u s explore i n detai l wha t i n fac t th e ar t o f conducting a t th e highes t level s entails, what i t means—o r shoul d mean—whe n someon e says , ' I a m a conductor, ' an d what i s require d i n orde r t o ear n th e righ t t o conduc t th e masterwork s of th e past and th e present . As suggeste d earlier , the 'compleat ' conducto r mus t posses s a whol e rang e of diverse talent s an d acquir e a broa d an d dee p knowledg e o f th e literatur e tha t goes far beyond that require d for any othe r typ e of performing artist—instrumentalist, pianist , singer , whatever . Bu t al l thes e talent s mus t b e encompasse d i n one all-embracin g basi c attitude : a dee p humilit y befor e th e ar t o f musi c tha t contains i n i t a profoun d lov e fo r an d unswervin g commitment t o servin g that art; a humility that consider s it a privilege, an honor , t o brin g to lif e th e master works o f our musica l heritage, an d t o communicat e throug h the m t o ou r fello w human beings . With suc h a n unostentatiou s approach , th e man y other talent s a conductor need s t o posses s wil l evolve i n prope r perspective . Ranging fro m th e somewha t philosophica l t o th e specificall y technical, th e requisite talent s an d skill s neede d t o b e a fine , perhap s eve n great , conducto r are: a n unquenchabl e curiosit y about th e miracl e o f th e creativ e proces s an d about ho w work s o f ar t ar e created ; a profoun d reverenc e an d respec t fo r th e document—the (printed ) score—tha t embodie s an d reflect s tha t creation ; th e 2. I t i s commonplace toda y for any famou s artist—singer , pianist , violinist—to plunge suddenl y into a conductin g an d recordin g career, fostere d enthusiastically, of course, b y their managements . Th e fact tha t such artists , commendable i n their origina l careers, ma y be littl e qualified to conduct seem s to matte r no t a t al l i n th e moder n marketplac e o f music , wher e fam e establishe d i n on e domai n can apparentl y substitute fo r rea l abilit y i n another . Perhap s th e saddes t manifestatio n of this trend was th e instan t 'career'—as conductor—o f pianis t Glen n Gould , whos e recordin g of Wagner's Siegfried Idyll i s probabl y the mos t inept , amateurish , wrong-headed rendition o f a majo r classi c eve r put t o vinyl .

A PHILOSOPH Y O F CONDUCTIN G 7

intellectual capacit y t o analyz e a scor e i n al l o f it s myria d interna l detail s an d relationships; a livel y musical, aura l imaginatio n tha t ca n translat e th e abstrac t musical notation s o f a scor e int o a n inspired , vibran t performance ; an d o n a more practica l level , a keen , discernin g ea r an d mind ; a versatile , disciplined , expressive bato n technique ; a n efficien t rehearsa l technique ; a precis e an d thor ough knowledg e o f the specifi c technical limitation s and capacitie s o f orchestral instruments (strings , woodwinds, brass , percussion, har p etc. ) no t onl y a s func tioning toda y but i n differen t historica l periods ; and finall y bu t no t least , a basic respect fo r th e rol e th e musicians—artist s i n thei r ow n right—pla y i n th e cre ation o f the sound s tha t ar e ultimatel y transmitte d t o the audience , artist s without whos e vita l contributio n (a s many conductor s i n thei r self-glorificatio n ten d to forget ) thei r ow n talent s an d effort s woul d no t b e expressible. It i s t o b e expecte d tha t som e wil l questio n th e sequenc e i n whic h I hav e presented thes e conductorial requisites . Some wil l eve n questio n th e ver y notio n that humilit y migh t b e a primar y elemen t i n a conductor' s make-up , a notio n (allegedly) irreconcilabl e wit h th e (alleged ) nee d fo r a conducto r t o dominat e his musicians , t o mak e the m d o hi s musica l bidding . Th e answe r to th e secon d question, however , i s simple: persuasio n tha t result s fro m a commitmen t to th e integrity o f th e ar t an d a consummat e knowledg e o f th e musi c a t han d wil l always brin g ou t th e bes t i n musicians . Moreover , th e artisti c humility I refe r t o is not (an d nee d no t be ) withou t a health y sense o f the conductor' s ow n worthiness. I t i s simply a humilit y which recognize s tha t th e conductor' s firs t priorit y is t o serv e the music , t o b e a medium , a vehicle , throug h whic h th e wor k of art is reveale d an d expressed . This humilit y the n translate s into a fierc e determinatio n t o kno w completel y and profoundl y the wor k in al l o f its aspects, t o explor e th e lette r an d th e spiri t of the work , to plum b it s expressive and emotiona l depths , i n orde r t o revea l its essence. Give n huma n fallibilit y an d variability , absolute perfectio n i s probably not achievable . Bu t i t i s certainl y th e goa l tha t conductor s mus t striv e for—i n order t o hav e th e righ t t o interpret , t o realize , th e work s of th e grea t masters , whose geniu s is many, man y times greater than their own . For i f conductor s arrogat e t o themselve s th e notio n tha t the y ar e goin g t o interpret th e masterwork s of the pas t an d th e present , the n the y had bette r real ize tha t tha t i s no t onl y a staggerin g task , bu t on e tha t impose s a profoun d responsibility to what Beethove n an d Wagne r s o aptly calle d "di e heilig e Kunst " ('the sacre d art') . An d tha t responsibility—tha t mora l an d aestheti c obligatio n — in tur n demand s tha t conductor s achiev e thei r so-calle d interpretation s through , i.e. fro m within , th e wor k o f art, i n boundles s respec t an d reverenc e fo r it ; an d that the y not , i n revers e order , willfull y o r inadvertentl y impos e som e self indulgent, over-personalize d 'interpretation ' o n tha t wor k of art. Indeed, i f I ha d m y druthers , I woul d i n thi s contex t abolis h th e term—an d the ide a of—'interpretation ' altogethe r and , followin g Mauric e Ravel' s sag e advice, substitut e the wor d 'realization. ' Ravel , one o f history's mos t meticulous, most precise , most detail-lovin g notators o f music , urged : "I I n e fau t pa s inter -

O TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

prêter m a musique , i l faut l e réaliser. " (On e shoul d no t interpre t m y music , on e should realiz e it. ) On anothe r occasion , i n a simila r vein, Rave l told Marguerit e Long, th e pianis t fo r who m h e wrot e hi s G majo r Pian o Concert o (sh e pre miered i t i n 193 2 unde r Ravel' s direction) : "J e n e demand e pa s qu e l'o n m'in terprète mai s seulemen t qu'o n m e joue. " ( I d o no t as k tha t on e interpre t m y music, bu t simpl y tha t on e pla y it); 3 th e implicatio n bein g "a s written, a s no tated," o r a s Toscanini pu t i t so often: "com e è scritto." Indeed, a s the term , an d th e ide a of , 'interpretation' ha s evolve d ove r the las t two centuries , i t has become a dangerou s concept , inimica l an d antagonisti c t o the ar t of music, les s concerned wit h the music , th e composition s an d thei r tru e intent, tha n wit h th e interpreter' s self . Interpretatio n i s abou t a s fa r awa y fro m pure 'realization ' a s i t possibl y can be , wit h basi c respec t fo r th e wor k pe r s e virtually nonexistent . Interpretation ha s com e t o mea n i n mos t circles ; 'Don't trus t the wor k o f art; don't le t i t spea k fo r itself ; we wil l decod e it , explai n i t fo r you. ' Th e modern day interpreter , consciousl y o r unconsciousl y (mostl y through arroganc e and/o r ignorance), i s alterin g th e work , th e tex t without , o f course , eve r admittin g a s much. H e insist s that he i s only makin g i t 'more intelligible,' giving you its 'true meaning.' Bu t i n fac t h e i s selectively picking out, emphasizin g a se t o f compo nents, o f features , fro m th e wor k a s a whole . I n effect , th e interprete r i s on e who translate s and transforms . And a s Susa n Sonta g pointe d ou t lon g ago , "Th e interpreter , [even ] withou t actually erasin g o r re-writin g th e text , i s alterin g it . Bu t h e can' t admi t doin g this. H e claim s to b e onl y making it intelligible, by disclosing its true meaning. " . . . "th e effusio n o f interpretation s o f ar t toda y poison s ou r sensibilities . T o interpret i s to impoverish , t o deplet e . . . i n orde r t o se t up a shado w worl d of 'meanings.' "4 Indeed, mos t interpretation , a s I se e i t an d a s i t i s practice d nowaday s (an d was vigorousl y practice d eve n i n earlie r time s b y th e like s o f Billo w an d Mengelberg) i s nothing mor e tha n a refusa l t o le t th e wor k o f ar t stan d o n it s own. Whethe r i n hermeneuti c interpretation s b y critics , historians , an d writer s or actual acousti c re-interpretation s by conductors an d performers , the work , the composition, i s not permitte d t o b e itself , t o com e t o u s i n a pur e 'realization. ' As a result , hardl y anyone—leas t o f al l audiences—ca n no w really know th e work itself , distinguis h i t fro m it s myriad interpretation s an d translations . The sa d irony here i s that anyone who ha s not experience d a true 'realization ' (as oppose d t o a n 'interpretation' ) ca n hav e n o ide a wha t a n incredible experi ence an d revelatio n tha t ca n be . I t i s folly t o thin k tha t w e a s performers, a s recreators, ca n elevat e th e wor k o f art . I t i s th e wor k o f ar t tha t ca n elevat e us . And that, onc e encountered , i s th e ultimat e experience , th e ultimat e artisti c achievement. (Se e als o Feli x Weingartner's thought s alon g th e sam e lines , cite d in Par t II , p . 102). 3. Marguerit e Long , A u Piano avec Maurice Ravel (Paris , 1971) , p . 21 . 4. Susa n Sontag, Against Interpretation (Ne w York, 1966) , pp . 6,7 .

A PHILOSOPH Y O F CONDUCTIN G V

The stat e o f conducting , alas , i s today—with som e notabl e an d wonderfu l exceptions—far remove d fro m suc h artistic/moral/ethica l considerations . Musica l integrity, respec t fo r th e composer' s work , idealism , an d a sens e o f humilit y toward th e ar t o f music ar e i n ver y short supply. We migh t expec t fro m conduc tors a t leas t a simpl e basi c respec t fo r th e dead . Bu t whe n w e spea k o f th e Mozarts, th e Beethovens , th e Brahmses , th e Debussy s o f our musica l heritage , we ough t t o doubl e ou r respec t fo r those particula r dead, an d mak e i t a matte r of hono r an d prid e scrupulousl y to respec t thei r creations , thei r scores . Th e ar t of conducting ough t t o consist o f faithfully retracin g the manifol d steps by which the compose r originall y created th e work , of re-tracing and re-livin g the creative , visionary journe y on whic h th e compose r embarke d i n th e first instance. That i s an immens e challenge , a tas k whic h take s man y kind s o f knowledge and, i n it s highes t form , extraordinar y skills. Th e integrit y o f tha t re-creativ e process i s what i s at stake here , an d wha t thi s book wil l be about : an d b y integ rity, I mea n a kin d o f 'morality ' o f conductin g a s a n ar t an d a s a coheren t philosophy, no t a s a mer e professio n or, worse , a business. But eve n suc h stringen t criteria , a s demandin g a s the y ma y sound , ar e a s a broad philosoph y stil l to o vagu e an d general , an d ap t t o hid e a plethor a o f common conductoria l sin s and aberrations . Every conductor, afte r all , thinks of him/herself a s embodyin g the highes t mora l artisti c integrit y and possessin g all the requisit e skills t o interpre t th e grea t masterwork s of our literature . We mus t therefore conside r mor e precisel y the specifi c core skill s with which the conduc tor ca n effectivel y respon d to—an d achieve—th e state d challenges . A simple definitio n o f the ar t o f conducting coul d b e tha t i t involve s eliciting from th e orchestr a wit h th e mos t appropriat e minimu m o f conductoria l (i f you will, choreographic ) gesture s a maximu m o f accurate acoustica l results. 5 Bu t i n order t o kno w wha t thos e "mos t appropriate " gesture s an d "accurat e acoustica l results" migh t be , on e mus t hav e a precise an d dee p knowledge o f the scor e an d the creativ e process tha t produce d it . That i s not a s easy a tas k as it might see m at firs t blush . T o begi n with , w e ar e al l —we conductor s (wit h som e notabl e exceptions: Ozaw a now , and Reiner , Monteu x i n th e past , come to mind ) —to a lesser o r greate r degre e limite d b y th e physica l dispositio n o f ou r bodies, ou r own physica l structures . W e ar e i n a profoun d an d virtuall y inescapable sens e prisoners o f our bodies . Almos t al l o f us hav e som e mor e o r les s serious limita tions a s to wha t we ca n d o wit h ou r hands , ou r arms , ou r shoulders , our head , our eye s — in shor t ou r bod y equipment . Almos t al l o f u s ar e t o on e exten t o r another variousl y inept i n on e are a o r another . A perfect conductin g machine , like a n Ozaw a or , i n quit e differen t ways , a Carlo s Kleibe r o r a Reine r o r a Leinsdorf o r a Bernstein , i s an extraordinar y rarity. Mos t o f us ar e eithe r to o tall, or to o short ; ou r arm s ar e to o lon g o r to o short , o r to o stif f o r to o loose , o r to o 5. On e o f the mos t remarkabl e conductors o f the recen t past, Frit z Reiner, who ver y much practise d what h e preached , onc e pu t i t similarly i n a n interview : " . . . the bes t conductin g technique is that which achieve s the maximu m musica l resul t wit h th e minimu m o f effort " (Etude, Octobe r 1951) . One wishe s that Leonard Bernstein , Reiner's pupil, but late r one o f the world' s most histrioni c an d exhibitionistic conductors , would hav e taken his teacher' s advic e to heart.

10 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

something. Mos t o f u s ar e no t fre e enoug h i n ou r arm s an d tors o t o contro l fully th e minutia e o f movement s whic h s o cruciall y affec t th e musical/acousti c results emanatin g fro m a n orchestra ; an d mos t o f u s ar e to o habituate d t o cer tain physica l movement s t o b e fre e a t th e precis e momen t t o alte r o r contro l them. Our physica l attribute s profoundl y affec t ou r conductin g abilities , positively or negativel y a s th e cas e ma y be . Tha t i s no t t o sa y tha t on e canno t learn , particularly wit h experience , t o becom e gesturall y mor e controlled , mor e rele vant, mor e relaxed , mor e 'appropriate. ' Muc h ca n b e achieve d i n thi s real m with goo d training , an d ther e ar e man y trick s an d method s b y which on e ca n learn effectivel y t o re-trai n an d disciplin e one' s body , one' s physica l equipment , as i t were . Bu t I believe—an d kno w fro m man y year s o f experienc e an d o f observing several hundred conductor s (man y of them world-famous ) with whom I worke d a s a n orchestra l musician—tha t fo r mos t conductor s ther e ar e ulti mately som e physica l limitation s o r idiosyncrasie s which , n o matte r ho w on e tries to overcome them , cannot be entirel y outgrown. Wha t we are thus left wit h is th e goa l o f developing our physical , manual , gestura l skill s —one o f the essen tials o f our conductin g craft—t o thei r highes t possibl e potential , s o that w e ma y accurately reflec t an d transmi t t o th e orchestr a (an d thenc e t o th e audience ) that which th e musi c require s u s to express. But that physica l expression is but th e exterio r manifestation of what we know and fee l abou t th e musi c (th e score) . Al l th e physical , choreographi c skill s i n the worl d wil l amoun t t o nothin g i f they represen t a n insufficien t (intellectual ) knowledge o f the scor e an d a n inadequat e (emotional ) feelin g fo r th e musi c — in othe r word s a knowledge of what to represent, of what to 'realize.' A beautiful baton techniqu e ca n achiev e littl e i f the min d tha t activate s that bato n doesn' t know what there i s to know in th e wor k and what , in fact , it s notation expresses . The clea n bato n techniqu e o f a conductor who , for example, doe s no t hea r well harmonically o r whose min d an d ea r canno t kee p a stead y tempo ma y still be a beautiful thin g t o watch , bu t fro m a strictl y musical poin t o f view it i s a useles s skill. I t i s equally true tha t a first-rate mind an d ea r ca n achiev e ver y little i f th e technique neede d t o expres s what i s in tha t min d an d ea r i s deficient. Pursuing thi s though t further , w e must therefor e understan d precisel y what it is we have t o know in a composer's wor k in orde r t o translate i t into a n accurat e living representatio n an d expressio n o f the music . Th e answe r i n th e broades t and deepes t sens e is : w e mus t kno w everything i t i s possible t o know . B y that I mean wha t i s perhaps, i n absolut e reality , an impossibility , but certainl y a mag nificent goa l t o striv e for, and t o continu e t o striv e for as one matures . W e mus t know (o r a t leas t tr y ver y har d t o know ) essentiall y wh y ever y not e an d ever y verbal annotatio n i n tha t scor e i s there, wha t their meaning s an d thei r functions are i n th e over-al l work. In tha t sens e th e ar t o f conducting ough t t o b e th e ar t of collaboration—between conducto r an d composer—eve n dea d composers . Perhaps no w th e reade r ca n begi n t o appreciat e th e magnitud e o f th e tas k and th e comple x demand s the ar t o f conducting makes. To know how an d wh y every not e in , say , Beethoven's Fift h Symphon y i s there; to kno w how an d wh y

A PHILOSOPH Y OF CONDUCTIN G 1

1

those severa l thousan d musica l choice s an d decision s whic h produce d tha t extraordinary masterpiec e wer e made : tha t i s ou r task , an d I woul d say , ou r aes thetic/moral obligation . Thi s i n tur n mean s a complet e functiona l harmonic , pitch, an d intervalli c analysi s o f th e work ; a n analysi s o f it s thematic/motivi c content an d inne r relationships ; a n understandin g o f the work' s internal temp o relationships (withi n movements an d fro m movemen t t o movement) ; it s temp o stresses an d strain s (mos t likel y induce d b y it s harmonic rhyth m an d expressiv e needs); it s phrase an d perio d structuring , in th e smal l as well as the larg e sens e (again intimatel y tie d t o th e underlyin g harmoni c rhythms) ; it s structurin g i n terms o f primary, secondary, an d tertiar y materials; its homophonic an d (wher e appropriate) polyphoni c structuring ; its instrumentatio n (includin g a historica l understanding o f th e then-prevailin g instrumenta l capacitie s an d limitations) ; an understandin g o f Beethoven' s us e o f dynamic s (bot h a s mean s o f structural delineation an d expressive , decorative profiling) ; and finally , beyon d th e scor e itself (t o the exten t tha t availabl e documentation allows) , the backgroun d to th e creation o f the work , and an y artistic , cultura l (perhap s even social ) influences on it s creation. Conductors ofte n delude themselves int o thinking that , our conventiona l mu sical notatio n bein g limite d i n som e respects , ther e i s muc h tha t on e canno t know abou t a work because it s notation simpl y cannot revea l or prescrib e everything. Whil e i t i s true tha t ou r musica l notatio n ha s it s limitations, I would still argue tha t ther e i s much mor e t o b e gleane d fro m ou r notatio n tha n w e gener ally assume . I t i s true tha t th e ultimate , mos t subtl e nuance s an d persona l re finements o f interpretatio n ar e i n fac t not , i n a n absolut e sense , notatable . (And this boo k wil l no t b e abou t suc h subtletie s an d refinement s o f interpretation.) Indeed, tempo , temp o modifications , dynami c an d timbra i indication s canno t be absolute o r objectively precise; they remai n relativ e and thu s prone t o subjective evaluation . But i t i s just as true that they are mor e tha n adequat e t o achieve an idea l realizatio n o f a wor k and tha t a sensitiv e musicia n wit h soun d musica l instincts, probin g th e essenc e an d styl e o f a give n work—especiall y i n post Haydn/Mozart repertory—ca n extrac t insight s fro m th e notatio n o f th e scor e that wil l provid e hi m wit h ver y precis e idea s a s t o ho w t o conduc t th e work . Indeed, th e proble m i n conductin g an d interpretatio n i s not tha t ou r notatio n is 'inadequate, ' bu t tha t 5 0 percent o f it i s ignored b y most conductors . I n short , there i s much mor e reliabl e evidence i n score s than w e generally suspect, espe cially i n score s b y lat e 19th - an d earl y 20th-century composers , mos t o f who m have taken mor e tha n the usua l pains to meticulously expres s their intention s in their notation. Thi s 'evidence' then i s tantamount t o very specific instructions— instructions whic h i n m y vie w we dar e no t disregar d o r reject , which w e mus t respect, o r at leas t try to honor . I a m no t s o foolish a s to argu e tha t scores , ofte n th e onl y relevan t documen t left t o u s b y th e n o longe r livin g composer, ar e absolutely reliable . Composer s do mak e mistakes , often b y omissio n o r i n th e hast e o f creation. Publishers and editors als o make mistake s an d contribut e error s other tha n thos e mad e b y th e composer. And som e composer s are extremely precise and detaile d in thei r nota-

12 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

tion, whil e others ofte n assum e a prio r knowledg e o f their styl e an d notationa l habits. Bu t al l tha t notwithstanding , w e ough t a s conductors an d performer s to honor th e basi c premis e tha t th e scor e i s a precious , unique , sacre d document , which i n essenc e shoul d b e relie d o n fo r all the informatio n it can yield. Generally th e musi c worl d make s a mystiqu e o f conducting , a s i f i t wer e based o n som e mysterious , divine gift, bestowe d upo n onl y a fe w 'chosen' musi cians eac h generation . Th e fac t i s tha t th e highes t level s o f conductin g ar e achieved b y din t o f har d work , intensiv e study , includin g clos e scrutin y of th e score, an d a n absolut e commitmen t t o expressin g wit h th e utmos t fidelit y th e information th e scor e contains . A n interpretatio n tha t doe s no t star t wit h th e score, that fail s t o evolve out o f the scor e i n al l it s notational, prescriptive details (not jus t thos e tha t th e interprete r deem s convenien t t o consider) , i n short , a n interpretation tha t start s with th e interpreter rathe r than th e wor k (th e score ) is , I believe , fundamentall y invalid. The premise , to o ofte n affirme d today , alas,— even b y (o r perhap s especiall y by ) famou s conductor s —is t o star t a t th e othe r end o f th e process : t o arriv e a t a n 'interpretation ' befor e th e scor e i s full y as sessed, or biased by extra-notational influences , such a s a famous (but not neces sarily representative ) recordin g o r someon e else' s prio r interpretation , o r som e handed-down tradition , or—wors e yet—persona l whi m an d fancy . Befor e w e start 'interpreting' and imposin g ourselves on th e score , befor e we start intruding upon th e music , w e ough t t o adher e t o th e disciplin e o f thoroughl y studyin g every note, ever y dynami c marking , every phrase, ever y instrumentational detail ofthat score . Ou r 'interpretation ' —or 'realization'—mus t ultimatel y be derive d directly an d primaril y from th e source , aris e ou t o f the score , accumulate , a s it were, from an d through th e score . As a workin g method i n th e proces s o f revealin g th e scor e t o th e orchestr a and thenc e t o th e listener , th e specific s of how al l th e element s o f musi c (th e composer's tools ) ar e used—harmony , melod y (o r them e o r motive) , rhythm , dynamics, timbr e (orchestration) , for m an d structure—mus t b e separatel y and then collectivel y explore d an d understood . I n general , w e cal l thi s analyzin g the score . Bu t 'analysis ' ca n hav e differen t meaning s fo r differen t constituents : musicologists, composers , conductors , fo r example . I wil l therefore b e ver y precise an d spea k o f analysi s as particularl y applicable t o conducting . I n th e idea l and fulles t sens e thi s analysi s and understandin g wil l compris e al l th e vertica l (harmonic) an d horizonta l (melodi c o r thematic) relationships : how these inter sect an d influenc e eac h othe r unti l ever y note , ever y rhythm, ever y orchestra tional detai l i s seen (an d heard) , unti l th e entir e criss-crossin g networ k o f myriad, kaleidoscopi c musica l interfacing s i s understoo d an d felt . Thus , th e harmonic rhyth m o f a wor k ca n illuminat e it s phrase structure , o r th e timbra i or sonori c profilin g o f the wor k can delineat e it s formal an d textura ! aspects, o r the dynami c refinement s ca n underscor e an d revea l th e orchestra l color s wit h which a composer i s 'painting' his music. There is no true masterpiec e i n whic h these element s —these composers ' intellectua l o r intuitiv e choice s an d deci sions—do no t symbioticall y interrelat e an d ultimatel y correlat e int o a vas t an d complex musica l network.

A PHILOSOPH Y O F CONDUCTIN G 1

3

When we say that th e Eroica, the Si . Matthew Passion, Brahms's Fourt h Sym phony ar e perfec t masterpieces , wha t w e ar e reall y sayin g is that i n thos e works (and other s o f tha t calibre ) th e compose r ha s mad e thousand s o f minut e fina l decisions an d choices , selecte d fro m a veritabl e infinit y o f options , an d whic h we i n retrospec t upo n hearin g th e wor k hea r a s th e 'bes t possibl e choices, ' a s 'inevitable'—and thu s 'perfect. ' Indeed , tha t i s on e simpl e elementar y wa y of describing th e composin g process : i.e. , a composer , havin g jus t writte n th e 5t h or 572n d o r 1003r d note , now has to write the 6t h o r 573r d o r 1004t h note ; an d out o f all th e possibl e option s i n respec t t o note , pitch , an d rhythmi c choices , orchestrational decisions , dynami c considerations , etc. , th e compose r no w se lects tha t on e not e h e consider s t o b e 'th e best ' o r th e 'mos t logical, ' th e mos t consistent wit h wha t ha s com e befor e an d wha t ma y follow . An d whe n tha t choice, tha t decision , is made b y a Beethoven , a Mozart , a Brahms , a Tchaikov sky, a Ravel , a Stravinsky , a Schönberg , a Webern, a Berg , i t i s more ofte n tha n not a t suc h a leve l o f intuition , intelligence , imagination , vision , originality— and daring—tha t w e fee l i n retrospec t i t wa s th e onl y 'right ' choice , th e 'best ' choice an d seemingl y 'inevitable. ' (Th e fac t tha t th e compose r migh t te n years later, a s he develop s and matures , mak e a n eve n 'better ' decision—or , a s some times happens , revis e an d 'improve ' a previou s work—doe s no t alte r th e fac t that a t th e initia l momen t o f inspiratio n an d creation , tha t composer' s choic e was i n fac t hi s 'bes t choice.' ) It i s a conductor' s jo b t o understan d th e proces s b y whic h a thousan d an d one suc h 'inevitable ' choice s ar e mad e b y the compose r and , a s I say, to retrac e those step s o f creation , t o re-creat e i n hi s conductin g tha t decisiona l process , not i n som e merel y mechanica l renderin g bu t i n a manne r tha t i s emotionally, expressively inspire d b y tha t process . Le t m e quickl y add here , les t I b e misun derstood, that I am no t hereb y arguin g for an interpretatio n that slavishl y follow s the lette r bu t ignore s th e spiri t o f the work . Nor a m I saying that there i s somehow, eve n i f 'one doe s everythin g right,' such a thing as a (le t alone the) 'defini tive interpretation. ' On th e first point, a mechanically , technicall y accurat e performanc e ma y be clinically interesting , bu t unles s it s accurac y als o translate s int o a n emotional , expressive experience—fo r th e listener , th e musician s (includin g th e conduc tor)—it wil l b e a n incomplet e realization , on e tha t wil l not—indee d cannot— adequately represen t th e work . On th e secon d point , th e ver y idea o f a 'defini tive' renditio n i s a complet e fiction , on e whic h certai n critic s evidentl y lik e t o accord thei r favorit e interpreter s an d which , I suppose , certai n conductor s fee l they ar e abl e t o achieve . Nonsense ! Ther e ca n b e n o suc h thin g a s a definitiv e interpretation, an d fo r man y reasons . To begi n with , it i s impossible for anyon e to kno w al l ther e i s to kno w about a work , tha t is , to hav e unequivocall y total, objective knowledg e of a wor k and wha t wa s felt an d hear d i n it s creator's min d and ear . Thi s i n itsel f ought t o preclud e anyone' s claimin g that a give n perfor mance represent s the definitiv e interpretation . All we ca n actuall y get i n musical judgments an d understanding s is a n opinion ; an d th e bes t w e ca n hop e fo r is that tha t opinio n b e a richl y informe d one . Furthermore , the word s 'definitive '

14 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

and 'interpretation ' ar e self-contradictory , sinc e th e wor d 'interpretation ' b y definition mean s a particula r renditio n ou t o f several or man y alternatives. Bu t beyond that , eve n a singl e conductor' s interpretatio n o f a give n wor k wil l no t be, an d canno t be , totall y consistent . I t wil l b e subjec t t o a hos t o f variables, starting with hi s ow n constantl y changin g emotiona l an d physica l feelings fro m day to day, but extendin g to such matter s as the differen t styl e and soun d characteristics o f differen t orchestra s (no t t o mentio n th e highl y variabl e emotiona l and physica l feelings of the musician s in thos e orchestras) , different acoustic s i n different halls , th e effect s o f weather an d atmospher e o n huma n being s a s well as instrument s an d acoustics , an d las t bu t no t least th e variable s i n th e re ceptiveness o f differen t audience s o n differen t day s unde r differen t condition s (including, o f course , thos e ver y sam e critic s wh o fee l th e nee d t o declar e a n interpretation 'definitive') ; an d s o on, virtuall y without end . The mos t tha t w e ca n eve r say about a performanc e i s that i n ou r opinion — already a hug e qualification— a certai n performanc e seeme d 'ideal ' o r 'good, ' and fo r suc h an d suc h reasons . I t i s hope d tha t thos e reason s wil l b e adduc able fro m th e score , fro m th e wor k itself , an d no t fro m som e exterio r motiva tion.6 So w e shal l no t b e speakin g her e abou t 'definitive ' performances , bu t only , where appropriate , abou t 'ideal ' o r 'good ' ones , an d — of course—o f man y 'no t so good ' ones . Fo r th e moment , however , the poin t i s that, whil e several differ ent rendition s o f a give n wor k may eac h b e valid , representative , good, idea l — if they ar e base d o n a clos e readin g o f the score—al l th e variable s of conditions and temperament s mentione d abov e ough t no t t o allo w u s t o assum e therefore that an y arbitrary , personal interpretatio n ca n als o b e vali d an d thu s b e sanc tioned. Th e excus e tha t ou r musica l notatio n i s limited o r incapabl e o f 'telling us all ' wil l simpl y no t do , because , a s alread y mentioned, close r inspectio n o f our notationa l syste m an d ho w composer s hav e use d i t throug h th e centurie s will revea l tha t ther e i s alway s muc h mor e tha t i s objectiv e an d clearl y state d (and therefor e ough t t o b e bindin g t o th e interpreter ) tha n tha t whic h i s lef t open o r unstated . I wil l dea l i n considerabl e detai l wit h question s o f tempo, temp o modifica tion, an d metronomizatio n late r i n thi s chapter—comple x subjects , to b e sure , not t o b e settle d i n som e simplisti c 'yea ' o r 'nay ' argumentations . A s much a s I ma y plead—alon g wit h Beethove n an d Berlio z an d man y othe r composer conductors—for a basi c respec t fo r metronome markings , with all th e attendan t qualifications, I mus t mak e i t ver y clea r tha t I d o no t believ e tha t a n exactin g adherence t o metronomi c indication s will by itself guarantee a good , a great , o r a 'correct, ' performance . (Mr . Norrington , Mr . Gardine r an d a hos t o f others , please note! ) Temp o an d temp o modification s are bu t on e o f man y aspect s o f 6. Th e claim s fo r 'definitiv e performances ' ar e constantl y increasing , especiall y i n th e real m o f recordings, an d mos t especiall y i n connectio n wit h th e 'perio d instrument ' movement . Ever y conductor i s well-advised t o read Richar d Taruskin' s brillian t exposé of the pretentiousnes s and ludicrous claims made b y Hogwood, Norrington, the Hanove r Band, and som e othe r present-day 'authentidsts' ("The Ne w Antiquity," Opus, (Octobe r 1987) , pp. 31-43 , 63).

A PHILOSOPH Y O F CONDUCTIN G 1

5

'interpretation' which , i n conjunction wit h man y othe r considerations , (suc h a s dynamics an d color) , ca n ultimatel y produce a n 'ideal ' performance . Mere 'correctness, ' i n fact , accomplishe s ver y little . Th e trut h i s that I hav e in m y lifetime heard man y performances wit h which , i n term s o f a certai n kind of correctnes s an d factua l evidence , I ha d intellectuall y t o disagree—perfor mances by , say, Furtwängler , Mitropoulos , Walter , t o nam e a fe w very famous ones—which nonetheles s wer e i n variou s ways transcendent, eve n sublime , aes thetic experience s an d i n som e profoun d way s revelator y performances. In th e end , m y preferenc e i s ultimatel y fo r a transcendan t renditio n whic h also involve s the utmos t respec t fo r the compose r an d hi s score. Fo r let u s never doubt tha t respec t fo r an d ful l explici t knowledg e o f th e scor e ar e compatibl e with a 'great ' interpretation/realization . I t i s onl y lesse r mind s an d talent s tha t would hav e u s believe otherwise . It i s i n thi s real m o f artisti c integrity , transcendan t perception , an d dee p re spect fo r th e composer' s creatio n tha t th e conductor' s ar t i n it s highest aspira tions an d attainment s wil l distinguish itself . Therein wil l lie th e tru e 'interpreta tion.' And suc h conductor s ar e th e rea l poets , th e reall y creative interpreters, th e visionaries o f the realm . As stated, thi s book wil l not dea l wit h th e mos t sublim e an d subtl e refinements of th e ar t o f conducting , an d fo r on e ver y good reason : verba l descriptio n an d explication canno t effectivel y dea l wit h suc h subtletie s o f expression . They ca n only b e savore d i n th e realit y of a performance . Fo r i t i s the myster y and powe r of musi c —in thi s regard , uniqu e amon g th e arts—tha t onl y i n purel y musica l terms ca n thos e highes t form s of expression b e mad e manifest . The ar t of music and o f musical interpretatio n a t tha t ver y highes t leve l i s beyond words , even , I hazard, beyon d thos e o f the greates t poets . Moreover , havin g alread y suggested that i t i s thos e subtl e variable s o f interpretatio n — as lon g a s the y d o no t g o against th e lette r an d spiri t of the score—whic h ma y giv e legitimacy to different performances o f the same piece . I t i s at tha t ver y highes t leve l o f performanc e that a wealt h o f interpretiv e choice s an d decision s becom e availabl e at leas t t o the reall y sensitive intelligen t an d imaginativ e re-creator . I t i s in thi s real m tha t there i s not on e pp , bu t man y subtl y different pp's; no t on e f bu t man y differen t kinds o f f's; no t on e slu r bu t man y kind s o f legatos , etc . etc . Th e mor e basi c point, however , i s that i t i s a pp , no t a p o r a mfl The sam e i s true o f all othe r dynami c distinctions or articulations . Take sf , for example: ther e ar e many— I a m tempte d t o say—dozen s o f different sf's. A s one tiny exampl e I offe r th e m.12 8 sf in th e firs t movemen t o f Beethoven's Sevent h Symphony (an d it s parallel, m.340). This sf ca n b e performe d i n man y differen t ways, wit h differen t feeling s an d emphases , al l o f the m withi n th e realm—th e species—of sf . Fo r example , on e ca n giv e this sf a very hard-hitting effec t wit h a strong, incisiv e attack i n th e string s (i f it were i n th e winds , with a strong , inci sively tongue d attack) . Or , on e ca n giv e thi s s f a deepl y expressive , weighty feeling, infinitesimall y delayed . Or, i t ca n b e a warm, rich singing sf, as one ca n see Carlo s Kleibe r elicit fro m th e Concertgebou w Orchestr a i n a fil m produce d

16 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

by Germa n Unite l television . (Thi s typ e o f s f i s especiall y effective—b y wa y of contrast—after th e sharpl y iterate d chord s fou r bar s earlier.) Or, on e ca n extrac t a mor e pointed , lightl y stinging sf fro m th e orchestr a wit h a right-han d stab . Another exampl e o f ho w s f s ca n hav e varie d meaning s (an d impac t differ ently) i n differin g context s i s t o b e foun d i n Beethoven' s Eroica i n th e firs t movement. I n mm . 2 5-34 Beethove n write s twelv e sf's, whic h i n al l perfor mances an d recording s are pounce d o n ff , wit h a vengeance. Suc h a n interpreta tion i s wrong—or, a t least , no t necessarily right. An alternat e interpretation , jus t as reasonabl e an d logical , i s to remembe r tha t sf' s ar e contextuall y related , de pending o n th e prevailin g dynamic leve l i n whic h the y ar e situated . Thu s a sf in p i s not th e sam e a s a s f i n f . Here , i n th e Eroicä, thos e sf's ar e al l containe d within a basi c p level ; thu s thes e ar e mil d sf's , hardl y mor e tha n slightl y heavy accents i n p (th e p' s bein g clearl y indicated i n mm.2 3 an d 27) . As further con firmation tha t thi s i s at leas t a s viable a realizatio n o f these particula r sforzandi, is th e indicatio n cresc. i n m.35 , a crescend o whic h lead s t o a full-orchestr a f f two bar s late r i n m . 37 . If , however, on e i s already deliverin g heavy, pounding , all-out sf' s i n mm.28-34 , ho w ca n on e mak e a crescend o i n th e nex t tw o bar s to a highe r dynami c level ? On e can't . These ar e bu t tw o smal l example s o f on e commonl y use d expressiv e indica tion, bu t b y extension almos t ever y notationa l devic e w e hav e ca n b e expresse d in subtl y differen t bu t stil l appropriate , legitimat e ways , that are , within th e pa rameters o f its intended meaning . It follow s fro m suc h example s an d consideration s tha t i t i s not i n thi s highe r (highest) real m o f performance an d interpretatio n tha t th e problem s o f misinterpretation an d willfu l disregar d of the composer' s intention s lie . Suc h argument s as t o whethe r on e shoul d (o r should not ) subtl y linger o n a give n not e t o brin g out it s special plac e i n a melodi c lin e o r it s harmonic function ; whethe r o r no t it is permissible in a Trio of a classical symphony' s Menue t or Scherz o to slightly relax th e tempo ; whethe r o r no t t o subtl y emphasiz e rhythmicall y a particula r harmonic cadenc e o r ingeniou s harmoni c modulatio n o r sudde n shift ; whethe r or no t i t i s permissibl e (o r advisable ) t o mak e a subtl e ritardand o i n th e las t measure o f a developmen t sectio n jus t befor e th e recapitulation—thes e ar e al l (a) viabl e interpretiv e option s eithe r way ; (b ) a matte r o f individua l taste (goo d taste, o f course) ; an d (c ) impossibl e i n an y cas e t o refere e i n som e absolut e unequivocal way . I n mos t suc h matter s w e d o no t hav e har d indisputabl e evi dence (suc h a s an earl y 19th-centur y recordin g o r definitiv e written documenta tion, precis e description s o f performanc e practice s etc.) . Wha t w e d o hav e ar e many theories , to o ofte n thos e o f self-appointed pundits , wh o clai m t o kno w th e answers an d wh o manag e t o promot e thei r idea s a s verified truths . No, thi s boo k wil l b e abou t muc h mor e elementar y considerations , matter s which i n fac t ou r notatio n i n mos t case s ca n (an d does ) clearl y reveal, ca n stat e unequivocally—and, alas , matters whic h man y famou s maestri ignore(d ) (ou t of ignorance), reject(ed ) (ou t of arrogance), or misunderstan d (stood) (out of inadequate study) . Let u s retur n fo r a momen t t o thos e earlie r mentione d prerequisite s of learn-

A PHILOSOPH Y OF CONDUCTIN G 1

7

ing a score , o f what constitute s fine , intelligent , artisti c conducting : harmonic , thematic, structura l analysis; tempo an d temp o relationships ; full understandin g of th e work' s instrumentatio n an d it s dynami c functions . I n on e sens e thes e skills ar e beyon d question s o f bato n technique , tha t is , thos e set s o f knowledge are no t acquire d through one' s technique , although , obviously , once acquire d they nee d t o b e expressed throug h one' s bato n technique , one' s manua l skills . Those gestura l representations mus t be intimatel y geared to the expressiv e needs of th e compositions , an d only t o thos e needs . I t follow s therefor e tha t ho w a conductor move s hi s arms , ho w h e o r sh e expresse s the music' s conten t physi cally— choreographically—can onl y b e determine d onc e th e piec e ha s bee n thoroughly studie d an d understood . Thi s ide a parallels—i t i s anothe r wa y o f expressing—the earlier-mentione d though t tha t a conductor' s interpretatio n must develo p ou t o f and follo w a stud y o f the score , no t b e arrive d at before o r extraneous t o suc h study. Once tha t intimat e knowledg e o f th e scor e i s achieved , i t i s tim e fo r th e physical aspect s o f conductin g t o com e int o play . Bu t tha t alon e wil l no t b e sufficient unt o th e tas k o f realizing th e essenc e o f a score . Th e conducto r als o needs, a s I mentioned earlier , a keen ear . For, unles s the gesture s through which a conducto r interpret s tha t scor e ar e als o balance d an d tempere d b y a keenl y listening ear—listenin g no t onl y fo r wron g note s an d mistakes , bu t fo r al l th e previously analyzed aspects expresse d in that score—the n those gesture s and tha t interpretation ma y fal l wid e o f the intende d mark . I like to think of that listenin g ear as the 'thir d ear,' an ea r which 'sits ' well outside the conductor' s bod y and listen s not onl y to the totalit y of what the orchestr a is producing but als o to the effec t th e conductor's conducting i s having on that orchestra and o n th e music . I t is therefore a highly critical, a highly discriminating ear; it is a regulatory ear. But it must also be a self-regulatory ear . It must be as much directed at one's sel f (the conductor) a s at the orchestra . Thus the 'thir d ear' is an ear which, critically assesses whether how and what someone i s conducting corres ponds in fact to what is intended b y the compose r i n his score. One ofte n hear s that a certain conducto r "ha s a terrific ear " (or—mor e often , from orchestr a musicians—" a lous y ear") . An d ther e certainl y ar e conductor s with 'better' ears: better trained , physiologicall y better, mor e innatel y gifted. Bu t what i s rarely realized—or discusse d o r taugh t i n conductin g classes—i s tha t al l the 'excellen t ears ' i n th e worl d ar e irrelevan t if those ear s do no t kno w what i t is they should b e hearing. I n poin t o f fact , one' s ear s ar e useles s equipmen t i f one's mind , th e musica l intelligence , doe s no t infor m th e ear s what t o hear, what t o be listenin g for. But beyond that , th e statemen t tha t a certain conducto r "has a terrifi c ear " i s meaningless becaus e i t i s ambiguous, unles s the statemen t also define s wha t kind o f ea r i s terrific. Fo r ther e ar e i n m y vie w at leas t seve n different 'ears'—seve n differen t aura l capacities—whic h a conducto r shoul d command. Th e realit y is that mos t conductor s hav e at bes t on e 'ear, ' and man y seemingly none . The seve n kinds of ear—the seve n hearings , all directe d by the mind—whic h the complea t conductor has, are for (1) harmony; (2) pitch and intonation ; (3) dy-

18 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

namics; (4 ) timbre; (5 ) rhythm an d articulation ; (6 ) balance an d orchestrational aspects; and (7 ) line and continuity . I cannot thin k of a major conductor, working today, who possesses all seven, with the possibl e exceptions of Carlos Kleiber, Haitink, Skrowaczewski, and Gardiner . It is often sai d that Boulez has " a terrific ear. " Bu t Boulez' s terrific ear extend s only t o pitche s an d t o som e exten t t o intonation . Ther e ar e man y othe r thing s which Boulez' s ear does no t hear. While Monteux's ea r was much better , in fact , phenomenal i n respect to pitch an d intonation , —in his quiet, secure , unostenta tious way—he also heard almost everything else that needs to be heard. Stokowski had an extraordinary ear for sonority, for the sheer sensuality of sound, and virtually none for pitch and intonation. Hi s mind was not interested in the latter. Some con ductors, like Szell, Haitink , Skrowaczewski, for all their difference s i n approach , have i n commo n a keen ea r for sonoric an d orchestrationa l balance . Othe r con ductors (Furtwängler was one) hav e shown a fantastic ear for line and continuity . Most conductor s d o no t hav e innatel y th e abilit y to hea r i n th e ful l sens e I have jus t described . Som e conductor s lear n b y wa y o f year s o f experienc e t o become mor e accurate , mor e discriminatin g listeners. Since , a s I suggested, th e ear ca n onl y hear wha t the mind , th e brain , direct s i t to hear , i t follows tha t th e ear mus t be wid e open an d th e min d clear-thinkin g and uncluttered . It is one o f the mos t difficul t challenges , fo r conducting students , fo r example, to b e aurally/mentall y fre e enoug h t o hea r precisely , critically , th e result s o f their conducting . Conside r th e fullnes s an d complexit y of the conductor' s task. On th e on e hand , h e ha s t o activat e th e orchestr a b y th e movemen t o f hi s hands an d arm s i n certai n specifi c way s to produc e th e desire d sounds , whil e simultaneously listening criticall y to th e orchestr a t o asses s whether i t i s playing 'correctly,' whether the sound s emanating fro m th e orchestr a correspon d t o what he ha s i n mind , whic h i n tur n will, it is hoped, correspon d t o what the composer had i n mind . The n i n addition—agai n simultaneously— a 'thir d ear ' (an d eye ) should b e criticall y watching th e conductor , t o se e whethe r wha t th e conductor is doin g correspond s i n fac t t o thos e "mos t appropriate " gestures , whic h wil l produce i n th e orchestr a th e idea l desire d result . On e o f th e mos t commo n faults amon g youn g learning conductors , fo r example , i s to conduc t wit h hug e emotion-laden beats , whe n th e dynami c th e compose r ha s written is , say, p. N o orchestra i n th e worl d wil l pla y a tru e p whe n th e conducto r i s belaborin g i t with three-foot-lon g beat s o r hug e flailin g motions . Wha t i s even wors e i s when the conducto r the n criticize s the orchestr a for playing too loud ! Since orchestr a musician s are quic k t o criticiz e conductor s fo r no t hearin g a wrong not e — inadvertently playe d wron g o r mistranscribe d i n th e par t (suc h things happe n ofte n enough ) —I wan t no w t o defen d th e conductor , no t ever y conductor, o f course, but th e conducto r i n general . For , whil e conducting , i t is not alway s possible , eve n fo r th e bes t ear s (an d minds) , t o hea r everything . When yo u ar e reall y deeply immerse d i n th e feeling , the over-al l expression , of the music— a give n measure o r passage—yo u ma y not , i n you r intens e feelin g of th e expression , hear a tin y rhythmic, intonational o r backgroun d not e prob lem. I n concentratin g actively on on e matter , i t i s entirely possible for even th e

A PHILOSOPH Y O F CONDUCTIN G 1

9

'best ears ' t o mis s som e othe r matter , becaus e on e i s aurall y distracted b y th e chosen primar y concern . Fo r example , i t i s reasonabl e an d logica l that , i f a conductor concentrate s o n on e particula r instrument (o r note, o r ensemble bal ance), h e ma y not then hear som e partl y hidden, light mistak e in another instru ment o r i n anothe r aspec t o f the work . A ver y commo n conductoria l proble m i s giving an upbea t i n on e temp o an d the succeedn g downbea t and furthe r beat s i n another tempo . Thi s drive s orches tras crazy ; and th e conducto r i n questio n wil l have totally lost th e respec t o f th e musicians afte r tw o o r thre e suc h inep t moves , particularl y if he fail s t o realiz e that th e resultan t rhythmi c shakines s is his fault, no t th e orchestra's . Orchestra musicians , b y th e way , hav e a conducto r analyze d usuall y within the first five or te n minute s o f a first rehearsal, a t least i n respec t t o basi c abili ties. Musician s als o know that , eve n wit h ver y famou s and popula r conductors , many time s they sav e the conducto r fro m seriou s embarrassment b y not playing what th e maestr o conducts . Th e poin t is—an d al l musician s kno w this , whil e audiences mostl y don't—tha t a conductor' s bato n make s n o sound , an d a con ductor's mistake s therefor e wil l g o unnotice d b y th e audienc e (an d eve n mos t critics), bu t no t b y the musicians . Bu t if the musician s wer e to actually play th e conductor's mistakes , everyon e woul d hea r them . I n severa l orchestra s wit h which I played durin g m y twenty-yea r career a s a hornist, i t was a standing joke : "If onl y w e ha d th e nerv e t o pla y what som e conductor s conduct , thei r career s would b e ove r i n a flash." Orchestra musician s are , o f course, no t alway s paragon s o f righteousness an d complete devotio n o r commitmen t t o th e musi c —or, fo r tha t matter , t o th e conductor. Whil e a n orchestra , whe n th e chip s ar e down—a t a concert , a s opposed (sometimes ) t o a rehearsal—wil l generall y giv e it s best, concentrate , an d try t o remembe r al l tha t ha s bee n rehearsed , i n othe r respect s orchestr a musi cians, a s a lot—probabl y most—see m t o hav e littl e intellectua l interes t i n th e music itself . I don' t kno w wh y i t is , for example , tha t i t i s a rar e musicia n wh o reads th e progra m note s provide d b y the (sometime s excellent) progra m annota tor fo r that week' s concert . I also find it very curious tha t mos t musicians , a s I have mentioned elsewhere , are hardl y ever intereste d i n lookin g at o r studyin g a score , excep t perhap s onc e in a whil e t o correc t a wron g not e i n thei r part . The y generall y see m uninter ested i n th e backgroun d o f the compose r an d th e composition , especiall y when it come s t o ne w (newer ) music . I a m n o longe r amaze d o r surprise d as I use d to b e i n m y younge r year s at ho w man y orchestr a musicians , whe n asked , wil l hardly eve n kno w th e nam e o f th e compose r the y jus t playe d (unles s i t i s on e often o r fiftee n to p names) . I n som e curiou s wa y the musi c o n thei r stan d i s a kind o f anonymou s abstraction , wit h n o persona l relationshi p t o them , an d o f only moderat e intellectua l interest . I t i s something t o b e rendered—t o b e con sumed, a s it were—and the n promptl y forgotten. O n t o nex t week! Certain critics—an d man y conductors , soloists , an d chambe r musician s —have of lat e attacke d th e notio n o f scrupulous faithfulness t o th e score , an d hav e i n

20 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

turn airil y defende d th e takin g of individual interpretive libertie s with th e com poser's text. 7 Thi s ha s cause d a fai r amoun t o f confusio n amon g performers , teachers, an d student s an d ha s tended furthe r to usur p interpretiv e standard s i n the conductin g profession . Mostly the discussion s have bee n polarize d into tw o extreme an d opposin g viewpoints : i f you follo w an d respec t th e score , yo u ar e considered a n "academic, " " a cerebra l intellectual, " a n "unfeelin g conductin g mechanic"; i f you ar e fre e an d indulgen t i n you r interpretation , yo u ar e likel y to garne r prais e fo r you r "profoun d interpretiv e skills " an d "musica l insights. " Specifically, th e typica l argumen t goes : stric t reading s o f th e scor e inevitabl y equate wit h 'stiff, ' 'inexpressive, ' 'pedantic ' performances , whil e th e individual ized, highl y emotional, les s scrupulous reading o f the scor e i s seen a s an inher ently desirabl e idea l i n whic h th e conducto r (o r artist) ca n freel y expres s his o r her vie w of th e work . Such black-and-whit e either-o r formulation s of th e argu ment fal l fa r short o f recognizing th e tru e complexit y of the matter ; bu t unfortunately tha t i s how th e subjec t is generally treate d an d argued , almos t alway s on polemical, ideologica l rathe r tha n objectivel y artistic an d substantiv e grounds . The trut h i s infinitely mor e subtl e an d complex . In an y case , ca n w e reall y clai m tha t som e conductor' s versio n o f wha t a composer wrot e i s automatically, inherentl y bette r tha n th e original ? And wh o is to say it is better? Can on e logicall y assume and argu e that someone's interpreta tion an d 'translation ' o f a tex t i s preferabl e t o wha t wa s originall y created an d painstakingly writte n dow n b y th e composer ? Ca n w e rightfull y clai m tha t w e are 'improving ' th e music ? A n automati c 'yes ' t o thi s questio n woul d appea r rather ironi c and paradoxical , especially in th e cas e of those composer s t o whose acknowledged greatnes s we al l constantl y pa y lip service . Obviously, n o on e i n hi s righ t mind—leas t o f al l thi s writer—woul d wis h t o argue fo r mechanistic , inexpressive , inep t performance s o n th e on e han d o r indulgently permissiv e one s o n th e other . T o polariz e th e argumen t thu s i s to miss th e rea l poin t altogether . Th e bes t approach , a s usual, lie s somewher e be tween thes e extremes . Fo r ultimately, as suggested earlier , there i s no suc h thin g as th e absolut e 'definitive, ' 'correct, ' interpretation ; indee d an y piec e o f music , any phrase , an y musica l idea , ca n a t th e highes t level s o f performance b e 'cor rectly' rendere d i n severa l ways . However , th e difference s betwee n suc h several justifiable way s ar e ap t t o b e fairl y subtl e and , mor e important , mus t initiall y be base d o n a n objective , intelligent , enlightened , all-embracing readin g o f th e score. The difficult y i n this discussion lie s in the fac t tha t no huma n being , no artist, no conducto r ca n eve r be totall y objective in artistic/interpretiv e matters , or—t o put i t another way—ca n eve r avoid being subjectiv e t o some extent . Clearly , th e argument generall y mounte d b y th e opponent s o f textua l fidelity—t o wit , tha t 7. Th e mos t recen t collectio n o f suc h view s i s containe d i n Jeanin e Wagaf s Conversations with Conductors (Boston , 1991) , i n which a number o f famous maestri condone an d defen d th e purposeful disregar d o f tempo (especiall y metronome ) indication s and favo r libera l orchestrational re-touch ing o f scores .

A PHILOSOPH Y OF CONDUCTIN G 2

1

someone i s to o 'objective ' i n hi s performance , to o cold , to o intellectual , to o inexpressive, to o relian t o n th e scor e —is itsel f false an d specious , becaus e eve n that allege d 'objectivity ' i s boun d t o incorporat e a greate r o r lesse r degre e o f subjectivity. N o decisio n w e mak e a s performer s can eve r b e totall y objective, bound an d influence d a s w e ar e b y bot h th e limit s an d th e qualitie s o f ou r talents, b y ou r backgrounds , ou r training , an d ou r cumulativ e experience . A certain amoun t o f subjectivit y and th e predilection s o f ou r personalit y wil l al ways come int o ou r performin g and colo r it , characterize it , in subtl y distinctive ways. And tha t i s good an d no t t o b e deplored . We are, afte r all , what we are ; and conductor s ar e what they are. N o conduc tor i s purposely ba d o r purposel y good . Ever y conductor i s trying to evolv e ou t of his talents th e highes t and mos t persona l expression . Unfortunately, this often fails becaus e (a ) ther e i s amon g conductors ' view s o f themselve s a sizabl e ga p between perceptio n an d reality , that is , between thei r perceptio n o f themselve s and th e realit y as seen b y others; and (b ) conductor s no w increasingl y try 'to b e different' i n orde r t o carv e ou t fo r themselve s som e specia l caree r niche . I n today's highl y competitive musica l marketplace , monopolize d an d controlle d by 'charisma'-obsessed manager s an d agents a s well a s highly develope d marketin g and promotio n techniques , t o b e eccentricall y 'different ' i s virtuall y t o assur e popularity, fame, and th e concomitan t financial rewards . This alarmin g tren d ca n bes t b e see n an d hear d i n recording s (a s Part II I of this boo k wil l ampl y show) , i n tha t conductors , battlin g i t ou t i n th e fiercel y competitive recordin g market , hav e no w learne d tha t the y wil l stan d out , wil l be reviewe d and discusse d mor e readily , and wil l thu s attrac t mor e attentio n th e more they can interpret a work differently from the several dozen recordings of it tha t ar e alread y in th e marke t place . Thi s ha s becom e mor e tha n a tren d i n recent years : it ha s becom e a n obsessio n an d a specifi c skill , eagerl y supported by manager s and , o f course, mos t recor d companies . A t that poin t th e compos er's score becomes, alas , a total irrelevance , an annoyin g burden. I n this perverse view o f things, th e musi c become s fai r gam e t o be exploite d fo r whatever career gains i t can provide . Beyond the immediat e negativ e effect s o f specific persona l mis-, under- , o r over-interpretation s by conductors , ther e i s a n unfortunat e cu mulative effec t a s well: the varie d distinctiv e qualities and characteristic s of th e great symphoni c masterpiece s ar e submerge d i n on e generalized , (ironically) depersonalized, generic , amorphous , androgynou s performanc e style. Instead of the personalit y o f the composer —and th e tru e persona l an d specia l essenc e o f the wor k i n question—w e ge t th e personalit y o f th e conductor. Whe n severa l hundred conductor s impos e thei r interpretiv e whim s an d fancie s o n th e work s of, say , Beethoven, Brahms , Tchaikovsky, Schumann, or Dvorak, all those piece s begin t o soun d alike ; they ar e covere d b y a blanket of subverting interpretations, which mak e i t impossibl e t o hea r th e true , dramatic , ofte n startlin g difference s between an d amon g thos e composers . Beethove n sound s lik e Brahms ; Brahms sounds lik e Beethoven , an d bot h o f the m soun d lik e Tchaikovsky , and s o on . The extraordinar y discipline , economy , tersenes s o f constructio n — in a sense ,

22 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

even th e simplicit y and directness—o f Beethove n ar e los t an d mad e t o soun d like th e mor e luxuriant , effusive , romanti c emotionalit y o f Brahms or Tchaikov sky. H e wh o ha s no t hear d tha t intrinsi c differenc e betwee n Beethove n an d Brahms—their occasiona l similaritie s and clos e idiomati c relationshi p notwith standing—can probabl y not imagine th e considerabl e gul f between th e two . And that distinctiveness , the work , after all , o f two totally different personalitie s originating i n tw o totally differen t periods , ca n b e brough t t o lif e onl y throug h th e most scrupulous , admirin g an d respectfu l realization—no t interpretation—o f the text , th e score . The n th e tru e essenc e o f each composer' s musica l languag e will b e abl e t o sen d it s uniqu e an d distinctiv e message , an d th e listene r wil l then kno w that th e composers , especiall y the ver y great ones—th e giant s o f our tradition—knew best what they wanted an d ho w to put i t in a clea r and effectiv e notation. The excessiv e personalizin g o f interpretatio n (wit h utte r disregar d fo r th e score) ha s been allowe d t o fester under th e mistake n notio n tha t the conductor / performer i s mor e importan t tha n th e composer , tha t th e compose r an d hi s works ar e ther e t o serv e the career s of conductors, whe n i n fac t i t should b e th e other wa y around. Littl e recognitio n i s given to th e simpl e fac t that , i f it weren' t for composer s an d thei r creations , conductor s (an d performers ) woul d hav e nothing t o conduc t an d t o play . Th e immens e success—meanin g round s o f applause an d standin g ovations — many conductors garne r conductin g a Brahms or Beethove n symphon y woul d b e clearl y impossibl e i f Brahm s o r Beethove n hadn't compose d thos e symphonie s i n th e first place. Fortunately ther e ar e grea t conductor s wh o approac h eac h scor e an d eac h performance wit h a n innate , unswervin g respec t an d reverenc e fo r th e score , aided an d tempere d by musical intelligenc e an d a never-ending ques t fo r deeper knowledge, thereb y upholdin g th e highes t standard s o f th e ar t o f music . Bu t then th e business o f music , unabl e t o tolerat e tha t kin d o f artisti c an d profes sional integrity , dismisse s a Haitink , fo r example , a s "lackin g i n charisma, " a s "unexciting"—in m y estimatio n no t onl y a totall y inaccurate vie w but a n irrele vant point. Fo r 'exciting' i n suc h critics ' and audiences ' mind s (audience s bein g primarily swayed by the critic s in suc h matters ) usuall y means 'different, ' 'flashy, ' 'sensational,' 'eccentric, ' 'exhibitionistic'—an d wel l publicized . This sa d tren d ha s reache d suc h proportion s i n th e las t decad e o r tw o tha t even relativel y serious an d intelligen t conductor s ten d t o doub t a scor e mor e than the y trus t it . On e hear s mor e an d mor e fro m conductor s tha t Bartók' s metronome marking s "are al l wrong" ; Shostakovich' s temp o marking s ar e irrec oncilable wit h hi s metronom e indications , an d thu s "ar e quit e unreliable" ; "Schumann wa s a poo r orchestrato r an d hi s dynamic s ar e mostl y al l wrong " (this notio n had , o f course , alread y starte d i n Mahler' s an d eve n Wagner' s times); "composer s mak e mistake s i n thei r score"—th e implicatio n i s tha t al l composers d o an d d o s o most o f the time — an d therefor e thei r score s "ar e no t to be trusted" ; "musical notation is inexact" and canno t b e precise, and therefor e we mus t "reinterpret " and "improve " the scores ; and o n an d on . For Strauss' s an d Brahms' s music such notion s have ha d a disastrou s effect o n

A PHILOSOPH Y O F CONDUCTIN G 2

3

the performanc e o f their works . Both rarel y used metronom e markings and thei r music i s subject , therefore , t o a wid e rang e o f tempo interpretation s (misinter pretations). I n thi s sam e categor y fal l th e never-endin g argument s abou t an d widespread disregar d of Beethoven's metronom e markings . But i t isn' t jus t i n regar d t o temp o an d metronom e indication s tha t compos ers' score s ar e bein g challenge d o r ignored . Dynamics—tha t othe r preciou s ele ment throug h whic h composer s refin e an d clarif y thei r musica l message—ar e roundly ignored , rejected , mistrusted , an d subjecte d t o persona l revision . Eve n worse i s the rampan t disregar d o f phrasing and articulation , especiall y phrasing s (and therefor e bowings ) i n strin g sections , a situatio n sometime s merel y toler ated b y conductors , bu t mor e ofte n tha n no t induce d b y them. 8 Brahms' s sym phonies ar e a particula r victi m o f thi s trend , i n whic h twic e a s man y bows , producing, o f course, a bigger, louder, mor e 'exciting ' sound, ar e somehow auto matically considere d bette r tha n adherin g t o th e composer' s origina l dynamic s and conception. 9 In thi s an d man y othe r les s obviou s bu t equall y dangerou s ways , man y con ductors hav e cumulativel y an d collectivel y sprea d th e notion—wit h littl e resis tance, by the way , from orchestra l musicians—tha t the composer' s scor e i s to b e treated wit h considerabl e suspicion , that i t is quite al l righ t to ignor e th e salien t details o f a score , an d tha t conductor s usuall y kno w bette r wha t a compose r intended tha n th e compose r himself . Thi s arrogance , rampan t a s i t i s now , i s quite indefensibl e an d bring s a degradatio n t o th e ar t o f performin g that mus t be arreste d befor e w e los e al l sens e o f musical/artistic integrity . Add to thi s already chaotic situatio n ( 1 ) the recen t record-industry-promote d / hyped obsessio n wit h so-calle d authenti c instrument s an d allegedl y "historicall y informed" performances ; (2 ) th e fantasticall y enhance d an d powerfu l promo tional marketin g tool s employed toda y by most musica l institution s and manage ments (tool s whic h wer e generall y unavailabl e a s recentl y a s fifty years ago); 10 and finall y (3 ) th e gradual , year-by-year , imperceptibl e corruptio n o f ou r ear s 8. Concertmasters , responsible fo r the strings ' bowings i n mos t orchestras , are ofte n no t i n a positio n to questio n o r resis t a conductor' s interpretiv e wishe s an d quickl y accede t o hi s deman d t o 'pla y louder' mak e ' a bigge r sound ' o r a 'fatte r tone, ' b y usin g twice a s man y bow s as th e compose r ma y have indicated . Also , unfortunately , man y Concertmaster s decide thei r bowing s onl y linearly , i.e . merely o n th e basi s o f th e strin g parts , withou t lookin g a t th e scor e an d considerin g wha t els e i s going o n vertically , contrapuntally, and contextually . Incidentally, Concertmaster s (and othe r sectio n soloists ) need t o be constantl y reminde d nowaday s that not ever y passage marked "solo " is to be playe d loudly. (Solo in Italia n means 'alone, ' not 'loud.' ) This i s especially necessary i n passage s marked p.—an d ther e are thousands o f those —in whic h cas e perhaps th e conducto r ough t t o intercede , no t t o hav e th e concertmaste r pla y mor e loudly , bu t rather—God forbid!—t o as k that the accompanimen t b e playe d mor e softly . Wha t a nove l idea ! 9. I am quit e awar e of the fac t tha t phrasing s an d bowing s in man y composers ' work s do no t alway s coincide, an d intelligen t judiciou s bowin g choice s ar e therefor e necessary . Bu t surel y i t i s no t a defensible (o r the only ) solution t o disregard a priori th e composer' s phrasings/bowing s and automati cally 'upgrade ' the m t o louder , more excitabl e decibe l levels . 10. Bu t se e Josep h Horowitz , Understanding Toscanini (Ne w York, 1987) , fo r a bol d an d brillian t analysis o f ho w a majo r musicia n (Toscanini) was markete d an d promote d i n th e 1930 s and '40 s t o a culture-go d an d cul t figure .

24 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

by eve r louder , artificiall y produce d performin g levels , mad e possibl e b y th e microphone an d moder n electroni c technology , 11 an d i t becomes clea r tha t we have in music , but especiall y in th e fiel d o f conducting, wide-sprea d philosophical an d aestheti c chaos . Wha t sells i s what counts , an d i f the publi c want s th e music loude r o r faster , wel l wh y not giv e i t to them—an d t o hel l wit h what th e composer wrote . Nobod y i n th e en d give s a damn ! I shoul d lik e t o mak e clea r onc e agai n tha t I a m no t her e defending , le t alone advocating , some kin d o f pedantic, lifeless , rigid , mechanistic , technicall y 'accurate' performin g an d conducting . I hav e hear d to o man y suc h perfor mances i n m y lifetime, and I abho r them . The y serv e no usefu l purpose . Con ducting/performing withou t feeling , withou t expression , withou t imagination , without illuminatio n of the score , i s a completel y pointles s musical activity . The ideal conducto r i s one wh o combine s feelin g an d intellec t i n a symbiotic unity : when h e think s h e feels , an d whe n h e feel s h e thinks . Indeed , t o som e exten t the conductor' s personalit y must expres s itself in th e performance , no t onl y be cause tha t i s good an d a n importan t par t of music-making, but becaus e i t is—a s I hav e suggeste d earlier—inevitable , unavoidable . I t i s onl y a questio n o f ho w much an d wit h what effec t tha t personality will impose itsel f upon th e wor k and intervene i n it s re-creations . I t is , a s i n mos t thing s i n life , a matte r o f degree . The secre t o f great artistr y and tru e integrit y o f interpretatio n lie s i n th e abilit y to brin g t o lif e th e scor e fo r the listene r (an d th e orchestra ) throug h th e fulles t knowledge o f tha t score , s o tha t th e conductor' s personalit y expresse s itsel f within th e parameter s of the score . I t illuminates th e scor e t o the fullest ; i t does not alte r i t o r distor t it . An d th e conductor' s personalit y i s no t substitute d fo r that o f the composer . That i s clearly a muc h mor e difficul t challeng e tha n merel y indulgin g one' s musical whim s and predilections . T o know the scor e full y an d t o prob e it s inner essence i n the thoroug h manne r suggeste d her e i s a staggering task. It is a muc h easier (lazier? ) approach t o say : 'Oh, I think I'l l d o i t this way,' an d whe n aske d why, to respond : 'Well , I fee l i t that way. ' To work from within th e scor e towards a realizatio n is a formidabl e task . It takes tremendous disciplin e an d conscienc e to evolv e a n interpretatio n tha t i s faithfu l t o th e specific s of th e score , faithfu l especially to the dynamic s and t o th e tempos . I t takes considerable disciplin e to not mak e ritard s too early—o r to o much; to no t mak e crescendo s (o r diminuen dos) to o early—or too much; to hold t o the articulation s an d phrasing s the com poser ha s written ; t o respec t full y th e meanin g o f th e verba l annotation s th e composer ha s incorporated i n th e score ; an d t o know the sounds , th e sonorities, 11. Mos t recording s o f strin g quartet s today , fo r example , ar e electronicall y "enhanced " (a s th e industry euphemisticall y puts it ) and amplifie d so as to soun d a s big an d a s loud a s a ful l symphon y orchestra i n th e throe s o f th e mos t climacti c moment s o f Strauss' s Alpine Symphony o r Mahler' s Eighth. Wit h suc h abuses—alon g with the ear-splittin g dynamic level s of rock music, the eve r louder television commercials , th e eve r noisie r fil m soundtrack s (replete wit h eve r mor e ca r crashe s an d explosions, buildin g detonations etc.), an d othe r simila r modern acousti c plagues^we ar e wel l o n the wa y t o ruinin g ou r aura l sensibilitie s altogether. Indeed , t o som e exten t w e probabl y already have.

A PHILOSOPH Y O F CONDUCTIN G 2

5

the instrument s that th e compose r hear d i n hi s time an d fo r which h e wrot e his music.12 Most grea t composers , particularl y as on e move s int o th e mid-19t h centur y (let alon e earl y 20t h century ) repertory , wer e meticulous , precis e notator s o f their music, at least to the rathe r considerabl e exten t ou r notatio n allows . In th e scores o f the grea t masters—an d eve n th e mino r masters—ther e i s much mor e that i s precise, accurate , clear , an d objective , an d therefor e to b e trusted , tha n there i s vague an d undetermined . Consider, fo r example , Beethoven' s wid e rang e o f dynamics , fro m pp p through pp , p , mp, mf t o f , pi ù f , ff , an d finall y fff. Tha t sound s pretty precise and discriminatin g to me . An d ho w wel l Beethove n kne w huma n nature , hu man frailty ; hi s score s ar e peppere d wit h sempre pp's i n th e man y extende d passages during which th e musi c i s to remain quie t an d sof t throughout . Beetho ven kne w wel l tha t mos t musician s (an d conductors ) woul d b e unabl e t o resist the temptatio n t o increas e th e dynami c leve l afte r a fe w measures. An d h e was so right ! Beethoven's sempre p p marking s are generall y ignored , o r simpl y con sidered dispensabl e an d irrelevant . Beethoven ofte n structure d hi s form s i n enormou s soun d plateau s wit h a single dynamic. 13 Thes e tak e tremendou s disciplin e t o control , an d almos t inhu man energ y i n th e cas e o f th e f f plateaus , o r fastidiou s dynami c contro l i n th e case of the pp's. Mozar t and Beethove n composed muc h o f their music in bloc k structures, wher e entir e phrase s o r period s ar e se t i n on e dynamic , sa y p, an d then suddenl y followe d b y a contrastin g sectio n o f f . I t take s a discipline d or chestra an d conducto r t o no t anticipat e th e incomin g f wit h a crescendo. 14 Since Mozar t (i n hi s late r works ) an d Beethove n als o wrot e lon g crescend o passages, leadin g fro m a n initia l p , say , t o a resolvin g an d climaxin g f , i t be hooves on e t o observ e carefull y th e differenc e betwee n thes e tw o structura l ap12. T o accomplis h a truthfu l renditio n i t i s no t alway s necessar y t o resor t t o "perio d instruments, " as som e o f th e authenti c instrumen t propagandist s woul d lik e t o mak e u s believe . (Mor e o n tha t subject later. ) 13. See , fo r example, th e lon g p p platea u i n th e developmen t sectio n o f th e Pastorales firs t move ment; o r the almos t minute-long , relentles s f f i n th e developmen t sectio n o f the Eight h Symphony' s first movement, eventuall y toppe d b y a pi ù f an d a climacti c fff. 14. I have , fo r example , almos t neve r hear d th e fou r measure s befor e th e firs t f i n th e Marriage o f fígaro Overtur e playe d withou t a precedin g crescendo , especiall y i n th e horn s an d oboes . I f onc e heard withou t suc h a crescendo, tha t is, with a subito fin m.12 , the effec t i s dramatic and unforgettable. Similarly , I have seldo m hear d correctl y th e thre e dynami c step s that occur twic e in th e secon d movement o f Schubert' s Unfinished Symphony a t th e en d o f the tw o woodwind solo s (clarine t an d oboe), i n tha t wonderful sequence of two-bar phrases in p , pp, ppp successively—i n changin g instru mentation a s well—followed b y th e dramati c full-orchestra l f. B y way of example, i n a quit e recen t recording b y a world-famou s conducto r an d a n almos t a s famou s much-praise d orchestra , thes e particular tw o passage s wer e playe d no t onl y withou t Schubert' s p-pp-ppp dynamics , but wit h suc h a bold , arrogant , pushy , an d unvarie d m f tha t th e immediatel y ensuin g full-orchestr a fif, which i s supposed t o represen t a maximu m mood , dynami c an d structura l contrast , becam e completel y meaningless an d destructive , and woul d no t eve n hav e registere d a changin g effec t a t all , ha d no t an overl y lou d an d viciou s timpan i hit exaggeratedl y italicized th e moment . Thi s i s great interpretation?

26 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

proaches. The y ar e no t willy-nill y interchangeable. Sinc e thes e grea t masters— and man y other s i n th e classica l period—used dynamic s no t onl y a s mood an d character definin g devices, but a s a means o f delineating for m an d structure , w e do seriou s damage t o thei r wor k when w e ignor e thes e dynami c distinctions. 15 In short , a s a conducto r an d performe r I woul d muc h rathe r d o wit h dynam ics, i.e . a stric t and respectfu l attention t o dynamics , what most conductor s wan t to d o b y distortin g tempos . Th e flexibilit y an d mobilit y that , I suppose , the y wish t o brin g t o a performance—tha t i s usuall y thei r reason , whe n aske d —is better achieve d throug h observin g th e composer' s dynamics , whil e playin g around wit h th e temp o i n an y willful , arbitrar y or (a s s o often ) exaggerate d degree onl y doe s damag e t o th e music , t o it s form , it s flow , it s continuity , it s coherence. But dynamic s ar e no t onl y a composer' s majo r clu e a s t o structur e an d in tended mood ; the y als o allow the divers e instrumental color s o f the orchestr a t o shine forth . I n th e endles s noncommitta l mf o r th e (onl y slightly better ) stereo typical 'loud-medium-soft ' dynamic s o n whic h man y orchestra s toda y see m t o rely entirely—tolerate d o r actuall y encouraged b y their conductor s —instrumental color s an d th e whol e timbra i rang e wit h whic h grea t composer s invariabl y infuse thei r work s are simpl y no t realizable . Playin g with undifferentiate d loud or mediu m dynamic s —one perceptiv e criti c ha s calle d i t th e "moder n industrial-strength sound"—create s a kin d o f unremittin g timbra i gra y which , when i t becomes habituate d i n an orchestra , destroy s one o f the mos t importan t elements tha t make s orchestral musi c fascinatin g and wort h listening to. Indeed , it i s that elemen t that constitute s th e ver y raison d'être of writing for a n orches tra: it s multi-colore d timbra i palette . Moreover , whe n sonoric/timbra l refine ment o r variet y is suppressed , feelin g an d emotiona l conten t ar e als o quelled . As on e super b an d famou s jaz z musician , Mil t Jackson , onc e pu t it , "I f yo u don't ge t th e righ t sound , yo u ca n forge t abou t th e feeling. " Ho w profoundl y true —and ho w simpl y put! Also, whe n conductor s continuall y ignor e o r abus e th e dynami c marking s given by composers, conscientiou s orchestr a musicians—ther e are alway s at least a fe w i n an y orchestra—fee l defeate d an d eventuall y give u p tryin g to pla y th e true dynamics . They joi n the pack , a s it were, an d th e resul t is dynamic/timbral anonymity an d anarchy . It i s saddening t o observ e ho w man y America n orchestra s (wit h all their tech nical virtuosit y and rhythmi c vitality ) suffe r fro m th e diseas e o f dynamic paralysis. I n mos t case s i t i s not entirel y th e orchestr a musicians ' fault , however. I t is an abus e eithe r directl y engendere d b y the musi c directo r o r tolerate d b y him . It i s also, a s mentione d earlier , par t o f a large r proble m tha t i n recen t decade s has seriousl y corrupted ou r aura l sensibilitie s and criteria , a proble m produce d 15. On e o f the mos t brillian t uses o f dynamic/structural delineation occur s i n th e fina l phas e o f the development sectio n o f th e las t movemen t o f Schubert' s Octe t (m . 223) . Here th e pp p writte n by Schubert i s not som e accidenta l or arbitrary marking, but i n poin t of fact signal s quite unequivocally both th e dynami c low-point of the entir e allegro section o f the movemen t an d th e lon g developmen t section's clim b back t o th e recapitulation.

A PHILOSOPH Y OF CONDUCTIN G 2

7

by moder n electroni c technology , particularl y th e microphone , th e amplifier , and th e loudspeaker . Th e ver y name s o f thes e device s tel l th e story : a micro sound i s amplified an d sen t ove r a loudspeaking apparatus . While the technolog y exists i n recordings , radio , television , film , video s t o als o transmi t th e meres t whisper o f a sound , th e mos t delicat e pianissimo s and refine d dynami c nuances , the commerc e an d marketin g o f music us e the technolog y almos t exclusivel y to intensify listenin g level s a t th e highes t en d o f th e decibe l scale . I a m no t sur e what pervers e desir e i n th e huma n anima l compel s i t t o celebrat e shee r loud ness an d almos t unbearabl e nois e levels . I s i t som e crud e notio n tha t loude r (and bigger ) i s better? I s loudness a narcoti c t o whic h w e hav e no w becom e s o addicted tha t w e nee d eve r increasin g dose s o f it ? I s i t tha t w e ar e n o longe r content t o le t ou r ear s b e th e sol e recipient s o f musica l communication , bu t that th e res t o f ou r bod y need s literall y t o feel, t o experienc e physically , th e acoustic vibrations ? O r i s i t tha t w e ar e simpl y reactin g competitivel y an d i n self-defense agains t th e ever-risin g noise level s in th e materia l worl d around us ? I don' t reall y know the answer . Mayb e i t i s a combination o f all suc h manifes tations. I onl y kno w that , i n th e musica l performin g real m an d th e orchestra l realm i n particular , musician s are generall y enthusiasti c abou t playin g loudly — from mf o n up—an d mos t reluctan t (an d ofte n eve n unable ) t o pla y softly . Distinctions amon g p , pp , an d pp p hav e i n recen t decade s becom e a remote , esoteric rarity . I n m y ow n relativel y short life-tim e I hav e see n th e disciplin e o f observing dynamics gradually deteriorate t o th e poin t wher e toda y aura l sensitivity to dynami c differentiatio n and coloratio n i s virtually nonexistent. I t has t o b e rehabilitated an d nurture d almos t everywher e at ever y rehearsal, an d conductor s who insis t o n dynami c nuancin g ofte n hav e a difficul t tas k ahea d o f them . (I n extreme cases , wher e dynami c abuse s hav e hel d swa y fo r a lon g time , a gues t conductor's attemp t to elici t precis e an d refine d dynami c shadings , ma y even b e deeply resented—a t least b y some o f the musicians. ) A by-produc t o f th e tendenc y o f orchestra s t o pla y a t eve r higher , upward spiraling dynamic level s i s the ba d habi t amon g orchestra l strin g players of overbowing. I t seem s t o b e expecte d o f strin g player s t o us e th e ful l lengt h o f th e bow (usuall y at ful l bo w pressure ) regardles s o f the prescribe d dynami c leve l o r note duration . Thi s is , of course , no t a n entirel y ne w problem. 16 I recal l fro m my childhoo d m y father , a membe r o f the Ne w Yor k Philharmonic' s strin g section fo r forty-two years (1923-65), fumin g about som e o f his colleagues ' undisci plined bowing , neve r 'savin g th e bow, ' allowin g unsightl y crescendo s o n rela tively shor t up-bows , allowin g prematur e diminuendo s o n down-bows , usin g th e whole bo w indiscriminatel y from fro g t o ti p i n eve n shor t note durations , an d s o on. An d thi s was in th e day s of Toscanini (th e ultimat e orchestra l disciplinarian) and Barbirolli , when orchestra l discipline , bot h persona l an d musical , was generally a t a highe r leve l than i t i s today. Today, i n mos t American orchestra s —less so in Europea n ones—good , intelli 16. Richar d Wagne r complaine d as earl y a s 1869 , i n hi s Über da s Dirigieren, abou t th e careles s bowing habit s o f strin g player s i n th e Germa n orchestra s o f his time .

28 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

gent bo w distributio n is a virtually lost art. Probably it i s very little considere d o r seriously taught an y more i n ou r conservatories , music schools , and strin g studio teaching. I n an y case , bo w distribution—spee d o f th e bow , placemen t o f th e bow, weigh t o r lightnes s o f th e bow—seem s t o b e a n unknow n subject , burie d under careless , bad habits . This i s amazing sinc e anyone shoul d b e abl e t o hea r that, i f on a n up-bow , playing, say, a whole-not e a t a moderat e tempo , on e use s the whol e bo w wit h ful l norma l weight , movin g fro m th e ti p t o th e frog , th e result will inevitably be a rathe r considerabl e crescendo . I f the not e i n questio n is t o remai n a t on e dynami c level , then ther e i s a problem—bu t on e o f whic h most strin g players nowadays seem t o be unaware . Conversely, th e opposit e hap pens o n a down-bow , i n whic h case—wit h al l othe r condition s (above ) bein g equal—the resul t automaticall y wil l b e a diminuendo , a los s o f tone . Further more, th e relatio n between weigh t and spee d o f bow movement i s hardly understood an d certainl y rarel y applied; i.e. , i f one want s to us e a ful l bow—withou t a crescend o —one ca n lighte n th e weigh t o f th e bo w (a s in th e Frenc h o r Bel gian schoo l o f violi n playing) . Conversely , i f on e want s t o us e a heav y bo w weight—again withou t a crescendo—the n on e simpl y ha s t o us e les s bo w an d less bo w speed . Unfortunately, strin g playing in thes e respect s ha s deteriorate d s o much sinc e my father's days in th e Ne w Yor k Philharmonic , le t alon e sinc e Wagner' s da y in the nineteent h century . Paradoxically , while left-han d techniqu e ha s flourished, that is , mobility, accurac y and spee d o f left-hand movemen t o n th e fingerboar d has improve d dramatically over the las t three to five decades, bow distribution— intelligent contro l o f bow spee d an d bo w length—ha s reache d a leve l of negligence an d disregar d that i s very disturbin g and musicall y destructive. The pres ent inattentio n t o bo w distributio n has reache d epidemi c proportion s no t onl y in thi s country , bu t i n th e genera l cultura l Americanizatio n o f muc h o f th e world aroun d u s i t is becoming a serious problem eve n i n Europea n an d Asiatic musical circles . It seems a s if there wer e some kin d o f law that on e must , regard less o f the musica l context—long note, short note, loud note , sof t not e —use th e entire lengt h o f th e bow . Furthermore , strin g player s seem almos t completel y oblivious o f the fact—th e acoustic , technica l reality—tha t a too-swif t down-bo w will automaticall y mak e a diminuendo , whil e a too-swif t up-bo w wil l d o th e opposite, produc e a crescendo. Tha t can , o f course, b e controlle d b y intelligen t bow distribution , bow speed , bo w weigh t and , abov e all , b y careful , thoughtful listening. Bu t again , i t seems tha t fa r too man y string players no longe r liste n to the musical/dynami c result their bowin g produces. Take a tin y musica l example , on e o f severa l thousan d simila r one s tha t con stantly occu r i n music , suc h a s . the decisio

n ha

d bee

n mad

If , fo r instance , et

o bo

w th e phras

ea

s follows :

then, i f the playe r is not careful , tha t is , conscious of ho w th e bo w distributio n can negativel y (or positively ) affect th e resul t an d

A PHILOSOPH Y O F CONDUCTIN G 2

9

unthinkingly uses full-length bows (fro m fro g t o tip an d vic e versa), the dynami c result wil l b e . ferred bowin g ha d bee n , ing habits , the resul t wil l b e .

I f th e origina l dynami c an d pre then, with careles s bowSuch ba d habit s ar e

rampant no w i n America n orchestras , a proble m t o which , alas , man y conduc tors an d musi c director s ar e eithe r payin g n o attentio n o r t o whic h the y ar e actually contributin g b y encouragin g lou d full-bo w playing . I f no t attende d t o or i f allowe d t o deteriorat e further , i t wil l resul t i n th e fina l degradatio n o f quality an d tast e i n musi c performance . Inevitably, som e readers wil l question : 'What difference doe s it make, i f conductors start crescendos tw o or three bar s earlier than written ? Doesn't tha t mak e th e performances mor e exciting , mor e expressive , more human? ' or 'What differenc e does i t mak e i f conductors prepar e eac h climacti c momen t o r obviou s retur n of thematic materia l with a big ritardando? Isn't that a natural impulse ? Why i s that wrong?' 'What difference doe s i t make i f conductors conduc t piece s too slow—or for that matter, too fast? As long as the orchestr a i s playing all the notes , doesn't th e music stil l com e through? ' An d her e i s th e trickies t retor t o f all : Yo u say , Mr . Schuller, tha t tha t performanc e wa s all wrong: it didn't respect the score , i t didn't reflect the intention s o f the composer . Well , I don't know that score —I don't eve n read musi c —but I mus t tel l yo u tha t I though t i t wa s a terrific performance ; I thought i t was exciting an d that conductor—well, he's jus t tops i n m y book.' Ho w many times I have heard suc h question s and statements, particularl y the last one! The answe r to all those (ver y typical) questions is : Yes, it makes a big difference. And all those deviation s from th e scor e d o not necessarily make the performanc e 'more natural, ' 'mor e human. ' They ma y creat e tha t illusion—o r delusion ; the y may fool the unknowing , unwar y listener into thinking that i t was 'exciting,' 'moving,' 'authentic,' when i n realit y the excitemen t wa s superficial and th e wor k was grossly misrepresented. To paraphrase a famous saying about a surgeon and hi s patient—the conductor ma y have 'had a great personal success but the work he per formed o n died.' No, th e onl y acceptabl e answe r t o thos e question s is : The compose r an d hi s score have t o b e respected , especiall y whe n tha t compose r i s a Beethoven , a Tchaikovsky, a Wagner , a Brahms , a Stravinsky , o r an y o f th e othe r fift y t o a hundred composer s whos e masterpiece s mak e u p th e bul k o f our repertory . To answer th e questio n eve n mor e provocatively—an d t o answe r i t wit h anothe r question: Ar e conductor s X an d Y , both worl d famous and popular , really better musicians tha n Brahm s o r Beethoven ? Ar e the y suc h fantasti c musician s tha t they hav e th e righ t t o disregar d o r overrid e most o f th e basi c informatio n con -

30 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

tained i n a composer' s score ? The answe r is an unequivoca l no ; the y aren't; and they don' t hav e tha t right ! Let u s tak e thos e no t entirel y hypothetica l question s an d examin e the m on e by one . T o star t crescendo s tw o o r thre e bar s early—o r t o mak e crescendo s where ther e aren' t any—make s a bi g differenc e i n th e qualit y o f th e perfor mance, no t onl y fro m th e poin t o f view o f correctness , o f fidelit y t o th e score , but fro m th e poin t o f vie w o f expression , o f emotiona l response , o f musica l excitement. An y compariso n betwee n recordings , fo r example , tha t distor t an d deviate fro m th e score , say , o f th e Brahm s Firs t Symphon y (Bernstein) , an d those tha t re-creat e prett y faithfull y wha t Brahm s actuall y wrot e (Toscanin i o r Weingartner),17 wil l revea l tha t th e mor e faithfu l performanc e i s i n fac t th e more exciting , th e mor e rewarding , an d th e on e tha t wil l sta y i n you r memor y longer. And ho w coul d i t b e otherwise ? Brahm s certainl y kne w wha t h e wa s doing . The evidenc e o f hi s score s i s that the y ar e mos t meticulousl y notated ; virtuall y every detai l tha t ca n b e capture d i n notatio n i s accounte d for . And a s w e al l know, thi s wa s a compose r wh o too k nearl y twent y year s t o complet e hi s firs t symphony, goin g throug h endles s revision s an d rethinking s before presentin g t o the worl d hi s "Tent h Symphony, " a s Billo w calle d it , referrin g t o i t a s a worthy successor t o Beethoven' s nin e symphonies . Suc h a compose r i s obviousl y thoughtful, conscientious , mindfu l o f making the wor k as perfect an d a s clear to the performe r a s possible . N o on e i n hi s righ t min d wil l wan t t o argu e tha t Brahms was a careles s composer, give n to slopp y notation , casua l i n hi s musica l orthography. And the n ther e i s Brahms's sheer musical , creativ e talent, hi s fertile musical imagination , hi s infallibl e musical instincts . Ca n w e reall y casuall y ignore o r dar e t o questio n that , afte r muc h though t an d carefu l consideratio n o f all th e alternatives , Brahms put a crescend o i n measur e five of a phras e an d no t in measur e two ; tha t h e marke d a certai n passag e o r a give n instrumenta l par t pp rathe r tha n p ( a decisio n ove r whic h h e ma y hav e labore d a hal f hou r o r even severa l weeks o r months) , a p p whic h w e the n willy-nill y ignor e an d pla y as mf? No , Brahm s certainl y knew wha t h e wante d an d kne w ho w t o nótat e it . He kne w i t better tha n an y o f the highl y touted baton-wielder s o f today. Takin g his scores , say , of the fou r symphonie s o n fait h result s i n performance s tha t ar e infinitely mor e excitin g tha n th e approximation s an d deviation s tha t presentl y fill our recor d catalogues . But le t u s examin e th e questio n o f the 'earl y crescendo ' i n eve n mor e detail . What i s wron g wit h a prematur e crescend o i s tha t almos t alway s i t peak s to o early—it almos t ha s to , doesn' t it?—makin g th e arriva l point o f the crescendo , its 'resolution, ' s o to speak , whic h i s the whol e purpos e o f the crescendo , no t a high poin t bu t a n anti-clima x (o r shal l w e cal l i t a prematur e climax? ) More over, early , exaggerated crescendos—especiall y i f they ar e habitua l an d occu r a t every possibl e instanc e —distort th e for m an d continuit y o f th e musi c (mos t 17. Fo r a detaile d discussio n o f thes e (an d man y other ) conductors ' Brahm s Firs t Symphon y re cordings, se e Par t II I pp . 279-377 .

A PHILOSOPH Y O F CONDUCTIN G 3

1

likely unbeknownst t o th e casua l uninforme d listener) ; and i f done t o excess , as is usually the cas e with such self-indulgen t 'interpretations,' they tend t o become repetitiously tiresome, an d th e constan t exaggerate d an d overdraw n effects even tually cance l eac h othe r out . There i s anothe r aspec t t o crescendo s (an d diminuendos ) tha t i s fascinating and wort h seriou s consideration . I f on e studie s th e wa y composer s hav e use d crescendos i n th e las t tw o hundre d years, 18 an d als o studie s th e wa y the bes t performers an d conductor s hav e rendere d crescendos , on e wil l fin d tha t the y usually reflec t a geometri c rathe r tha n a n arithmeti c curve . Tha t i s t o say , a crescendo—the sam e principl e ca n b e applie d t o accelerando s —is usuall y best carried ou t when th e curve , th e incline , o f the crescend o increase s the longe r i t lasts; t o pu t i t anothe r way : very littl e a t first and graduall y increasingly more. 19 Graphically, on e ca n represen t th e righ t way , that is , the crescend o mos t ofte n called fo r a s i n Fig.la , an d th e wron g wa y (i n mos t cases ) a s i n Fig . Ib . Th e 'geometrically' shape d crescend o i s not onl y (i n mos t instances ) mor e elegant , more satisfying , but—l o an d behold—mor e excitin g (i f excitemen t i s wha t i s wanted), becaus e a s th e crescend o i s initially held bac k an d the n graduall y released t o ru n it s course, it s ultimate resolution , whe n i t finall y arrives , is all th e more exciting , dramatic, an d rewarding . But ther e i s another purel y practical, eve n mundane , sid e to thi s question . A premature crescendo—to o early and to o much—i s wrong from a technical poin t of view, on th e simpl e groun d tha t i f one ha s crescendoe d to o muc h to o early, it leave s n o roo m t o crescend o further . On e can't , afte r all , retrac t th e cre scendo, di p dow n dynamically , and star t over again . I f one ha s arrive d to o early at th e to p o f a crescend o curve , on e ha s n o choic e bu t t o remai n i n tha t dy namic platea u an d awai t th e poin t wher e th e crescend o reall y shoul d hav e peaked. Conversely , i f one husband s one' s crescend o curv e and feel s par t o f the way throug h tha t on e ha s perhap s falle n behind , i t i s always possible , an d quit e easy, to catc h up. 20 A goo d exercis e fo r musician s (includin g conductors ) woul d b e t o practic e "Rossini crescendos " fo r fiftee n minute s a da y fo r a fe w weeks . Th e pacin g o f 18. Crescendo s a s a specifi c notationa l devic e onl y cam e int o widesprea d us e i n th e lat e 1700s , although the y wer e surely employed i n music , especiall y impromptu , lon g befor e that time . 19. Thi s i s particularl y apt fo r th e markin g crees, poco a poco (a s distinc t fro m merel y cresc.), for here th e compose r reall y mean s t o indicat e a ver y gradual , well-pace d crescend o ove r a longe r stretch o f time . 20. B y analogy, the sam e problem s an d solution s exis t in respec t t o diminuendos, accelerandos , an d ritardandos. Mos t o f th e tim e diminuendos , whe n no t simpl y ignored , ar e don e to o muc h to o quickly; an d th e sam e wit h accelerando s an d ritardandos . Nor d o mos t performer s and conductor s pay muc h attentio n t o th e ver y carefu l annotation s o f certai n composer s (amon g the m Brahms , Ravel, Schönberg ) wh o distinguis h between , say , poco rit, rit, an d molto rit; o r betwee n poco stringendo an d molto stringendo an d othe r analogou s markings . Eve n les s consideratio n i s given t o the questio n o f whethe r a ritardando , for example , retards into a slowe r tempo o r whethe r i t slow s beyond th e ne w tempo . Admittedly , however , some composer s ar c ambiguou s o r inexplici t about this particula r temp o modification . Nonetheless , musica l intelligence ca n usuall y deduc e th e righ t approach fro m th e music' s structural context.

32

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Fig. l a

Fig. I b

these lon g crescendos—ofte n a s long a s sixtee n (o r more ) bars—woul d perhap s cure musician s o f making hast y crescendos an d prematur e climaxes . I d o no t kno w wha t physiologica l and psychologica l huma n impulse s caus e most musician s (and s o many conductors whos e wor k I have studied) to wan t to crescendo earl y and quickly , to rus h forwar d int o a crescend o withou t eve r con sidering ho w fa r tha t crescend o i s to g o (i n term s o f duration) an d ho w hig h i t is t o ai m (i n term s o f dynami c level) . I s i t som e deep-roote d huma n instinct , some uncontrollabl e emotiona l need , o r i s it jus t a lac k o f discipline , a for m o f carelessness? Perhap s i t i s a combination . Bu t I d o kno w tha t suc h impulses , such casua l treatment o f the matter , i s in direc t contradictio n t o ho w composer s have traditionall y used crescendos , an d tha t suc h erran t impulse s ca n wit h car e and attentio n b e controlled . Finally, there is the purel y phenomenological aspec t to this question . By what logic, b y wha t reasonin g ca n on e asser t tha t startin g a crescend o severa l (o r many) bar s befor e th e poin t indicate d b y th e compose r i s automatically, inher ently, bette r the n adherin g to th e composer' s indications ? By what logi c ca n w e assume tha t t o d o th e composer' s biddin g i s someho w les s good , is—a s I hav e heard man y conductor s an d critic s argu e (o r imply)—someho w pedantic , o r uninspired an d dull ? Th e answe r i s tha t ther e i s n o suc h logic : ther e i s n o rational argumentatio n tha t ca n establis h tha t th e takin g of unintended, unwar ranted libertie s wit h a piec e o f musi c i s inherently preferabl e t o no t doin g so . I also kno w that , wit h a littl e self-control , training, thoughtfulness—an d respec t for th e compose r an d th e scor e —one ca n easil y disciplin e onesel f t o rende r unto th e compose r hi s due , i.e., tha t whic h h e intende d an d calle d fo r i n hi s notation. If someon e i s now goin g t o argue , a s surel y some reader s an d critic s will do , that thi s i s a muc h to o intellectua l an d cerebra l approach , the n I ca n onl y respond tha t al l grea t art—al l superio r creativity, and b y extensio n al l superior re-creativity, i.e . i n ou r presen t context , performing/conducting—i s th e resul t of

A PHILOSOPH Y OF CONDUCTIN G 3

3

an exquisit e balanc e o f th e intellectua l (tha t is , o f th e mind ) an d o f th e emotional/ instinctua l (tha t is , of the heart , o f the soul , o f the spirit) . I know of no grea t wor k o f art—music , painting , poetry , cinema , choreography , what ever—that wa s no t create d ou t o f a symbioti c interactio n betwee n th e min d (intellect) an d th e hear t (emotion , feeling , intuition) . The proble m fo r the per forming art s i s tha t thi s balanc e o f min d an d sou l mus t als o b e faithfull y ren dered an d re-create d i n th e executio n o f th e work , a balanc e which , alas , i t i s given t o fe w interpreters to achieve . As fo r th e secon d o f m y quasi-hypothetica l questions—t o mak e a ritardando before ever y climactic momen t o r significan t retur n o f thematic material , espe cially i n th e earlie r Viennese classica l repertory—tha t i s also ultimatel y a distortion o f th e for m an d over-al l continuity , especiall y whe n overdone . Ther e ar e exceptions, whe n a subtl e relaxatio n o f the temp o befor e a recapitulation—em phasis her e o n th e wor d 'subtle ' —is appropriate . I n fact , anything , tha t i s don e subtly an d no t don e a t every possibl e opportunit y i s likel y t o b e acceptable . Furthermore, suc h decisions—t o ritar d o r no t t o ritard , fo r exampl e —ought t o be unde r constan t reconsideration , ough t t o b e handle d wit h a n open , flexible mind. Wha t I fin d objectionabl e i s whe n conductor s commi t thei r immens e tempo distortion s automatically , involuntarily , withou t thinking , withou t ques tioning. The y institutionaliz e thes e distortions , an d thereb y i n th e end , afte r endless repetitions , tur n the m int o meaningles s gestures , int o clichés , tha t ar e stripped o f all convictio n an d significance. It also makes a big difference i f conductors take pieces at wrong tempos. All good music i s conceived b y it s composer a t som e particula r basic tempo . I n fact , th e tempo o f a piece an d th e conten t o f that musi c ar e intrinsicall y interconnected; one canno t exis t without the other . A certain melod y or theme i s born of a certain tempo (an d no t an y other) , and conversel y a certain temp o feeling , a pulse , wil l generate i n a composer a spécifie melod y or theme. Th e tw o are at the momen t of inspiration creatively interlocked; they arise out of the same musical impulse, an d they are therefore inseparable once created. Of course, minor or subtle tempo deviations are no t onl y permissibl e an d desirabl e bu t probabl y inevitable . A passage marked at, say, J = 108 , is not particularly harmed b y being done a t J = 10 4 (or even 102 ) or J = 112 . Most musicians, indeed, ca n neither control no r hear such minute temp o variations . What is not permissible, is indeed unforgivable , is when the temp o take n i s twenty or thirty metronome point s off the mark ; when a n an dante is replaced by an adagio, an allegretto by a lento. It represents a serious distortion of the music , when a composer, like Brahms, writes andante, a s he does at the beginning of the second movement o f his First Symphony, and certain conductors, instead o f adopting a tempo o f J = 56-69 , conduc t a t a tempo o f J = 30—on e conductor (Bernstein ) even at J = 24 . Such a slow pulse amounts to one beat every two seconds, hardl y andante (whic h i n Italia n means walking , from th e ver b andaré); i t an d i s more lik e an adagississimo. A t such a slo w tempo, thirt y or mor e metronome point s away from th e intende d tempo , th e musi c loses all its original intended characte r an d meaning , an d become s i n fac t a kind o f deranged, overblown aberratio n of the original . In any case, when an interpretatio n undermines

34 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

and disrupt s (distorts) the construc t an d th e flo w o f the music , the n i t i s simply wrong, bad and self-indulgent. Beethoven's metronome marking s have been a particular target of attack by conductors (an d orchestr a musicians ) through th e man y years sinc e hi s symphonies and strin g quartets entered th e repertory . Various arguments have been (an d continue to be) presented t o invalidate Beethoven's metronomizations , rangin g from : (1) hi s use of a faulty metronome, (2 ) his deafness, (3) his belated assigning of th e metronomic timing s many years afte r th e fact, 21 (4 ) hi s determinatio n o f thes e tempo setting s at the pian o whe n alread y deaf for many years, all th e wa y (5) to their allege d 'unperformability ' an d 'impracticability' . On e ca n easil y dispose of most o f these objections by pointing out tha t the y are speculative , fallacious an d not based on documentable evidence . Indeed, some of the evidence, conveniently ignored b y those wh o would prefe r speculatio n t o evidence , clearl y supports the appropriateness o f Beethoven's metronomizations . Fo r example , th e evidenc e is that Beethoven's metronome was not faulty. I t still exists and it s accuracy has been tested and confirmed. 22 Second, if Beethoven's metronome ha d reall y been faulty , how i s it that it would have been onl y selectively faulty? Fo r the objection s raised about his 'too fast' tempo s ar e only in respect to certain movement s o r sections of his symphonies and quartets . Could th e metronom e hav e been functionin g properly fo r the las t movement o f the Fift h Symphon y and no t th e othe r three ? Or , since many conductors have considered the Fifth' s last movement 'too slow,' could Beethoven's metronom e hav e bee n wron g i n bot h directions , to o slow i n on e movement, too fast in another? As for Beethoven's deafness a s a reason for erroneous metronome markings , it is an argument even more ludicrous than the one about the faulty metronome. What makes anyone think that a composer who could create such masterpieces in deaf ness—Beethoven surely heard an d conceive d his music i n his inner ea r and obviously not at the piano, and didn't need to hear it at the piano—would need to hear them i n acoustical reality to determine what tempo designations they should bear? Second, h e coul d se e the metronome' s pendulu m swing s and oscillations . Third, even if Beethoven's metronome wer e malfunctioning, are we to believe that he did not know that ther e wer e sixty beats (pulses ) to a minute (a t metronome j = 60) and tha t he was unable to calculate an 8 0 or a 16 6 or a 13 2 from tha t knowledge? I will not be so foolish a s to argue that Beethoven could not have made a mistake in his metronomizations, but I seriously doubt that he coul d have erred by twenty or thirty (or even forty) points, as many conductors would have us believe. All composers hav e probabl y erred i n metronom e setting s a t som e tim e o r other—som e more than others (the case of Stravinsky is almost always cited as 'evidence' of composers' genera l vagrancy and inconsistenc y in settin g tempos an d themselve s adhering to them). One o f the mos t outrageousl y exaggerated pronouncements alon g thes e line s 21. B y th e tim e Beethove n sent hi s publishe r th e ne w metronom e markings , hi s firs t seve n sym phonies an d te n strin g quartet s ha d al l bee n created . 22. Se e Pete r Stadler , "Beethove n an d th e Metronome, " i n Musi c an d Letters 4 8 (1967) ; als o L . Talbot, " A Note o n Beethoven' s Metronome," Journal of Sound an d Vibration, Vol . 17, no. 3 (1971).

A PHILOSOPH Y O F CONDUCTIN G 3

5

was uttere d a fe w year s bac k b y Christop h vo n Dohnanyi , a s interviewe d an d quoted by Jeanine Wagar in her book Conductors i n Conversation, t o wit: "I'm ver y skeptical o f using the 'correct ' metronome markings in a stubborn way , especially since there is not one contemporary musician wh o writes the right metronome markings!' [italic s mine]. The metronom e wa s invented i n Beethoven's time , 15 0 years ago, an d composers still can't us e it correctly [italic s mine]. Stravinsk y never use d his ow n marking s literally , an d neithe r di d Schöenberg." 23 (Incidentally , on e might ask the maestro: "What about Berg and Webern?"—two of Dohnanyi's favor ite composers. Doe s h e ignor e their metronome marking s too?) Composers ar e capable o f errors in metronomization , workin g in th e isolatio n and abstractio n o f their studio , bu t I dare sa y not t o th e degre e (twent y to thirty points off ) or i n th e frequenc y (almos t al l the time ) a s so many conductor s (an d Dohnanyi) contend . S o it i s possible—although certainl y not proven—tha t Bee thoven, assignin g metronome marking s to a work written a decad e earlier , could have misjudged the tempo. But again, I would argue, hardly by the number of metronome point s b y which conductor s ar e won t t o deviate—selectively—fro m hi s tempo designations . As for some o f Beethoven's ver y fast metronom e setting s makin g the musi c un performable, that , too , i s nonsense. Th e judgmen t o f alleged unperformabilit y is the resul t of laziness, incompetence , an d lac k of musical imagination. A fair num ber o f conductor s (suc h a s Toscanini , Leibowitz ) an d performer s (th e Kolisc h Quartet) showe d man y year s ago tha t Beethoven' s metronom e marking s ar e al l technically realizable and expressivel y felicitous. So have a number o f conductors in mor e recen t times , especiall y among th e younge r bree d o f 'period-instrument authenticists,' althoug h no t man y o f them hav e manage d 'expressivel y felicitous ' performances. Many specifi c arguments , allegedl y demonstratin g Beethoven' s metronomi c incongruities an d discrepancies , hav e bee n mad e b y man y conductor s ove r th e years. T o examin e the m al l woul d g o beyon d th e scop e an d intention s o f thi s book—nor d o mos t o f them meri t seriou s rejoinders . Therefore, le t a few exam ples stan d fo r virtually all others . On e o f the favorit e metronomi c bêtes noires of many Germa n conductor s i s th e (t o them ) apparen t 'irreconcilability ' o f th e Allegro vivace i n th e firs t movemen t an d th e Allegro m a no n troppo o f the Fi nale o f Beethoven's Fourt h Symphony , th e forme r marke d ° = 80 , the latte r J = 80 . What irreconcilability ? Th e bea t i n bot h instance s i s 160 , t o th e half note i n th e alia breve openin g movement , t o th e quarter-not e i n th e Final e — all eminentl y playable , b y th e th e way . Beethoven' s vivace designatio n i s quit e appropriate i n vie w of the alia breve meter , a reminde r t o th e performe r that a very livel y temp o i s i n fac t intended . Th e m a no n troppo modificatio n i n th e last movemen t i s jus t a s logica l an d justifiable , give n th e 2/ 4 mete r wit h it s constant chatterin g sixteenth-notes . (Note , b y the way , that thes e sixteenth s ca n actually—and rathe r easily—b e playe d eve n faster ; ther e ar e man y passage s i n the orchestra l literature that ar e noticeabl y faster. ) Thu s th e eighth-note s in th e 23. Pag e 55 . Such broa d generalizations ar e unworth y of an intelligen t musician such a s Dohnanyi.

36 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

first movemen t ar e th e sam e spee d a s th e sixteenth s o f th e Finale . Wha t i s irreconcilable abou t that ? Another ofte n cite d exampl e come s fro m Beethoven' s Nint h Symphony , a work whose metronome marking s evidently irritate and offen d man y conductors . The particularl y vexatious passage i s the famou s cell o an d bas s recitativ e (m.8 ) in th e Ninth' s Final e —deemed unplayabl e an d allegedl y discrepant with it s vocal counterpar t (m.216) . Wha t discrepancy ? Beethoven's temp o markin g at th e beginning o f the movemen t i s presto (J . = 66) . A t the recitativ e entrance , th e score say s "selo n l e caractèr e d'u n Recitative , mai s i n tempo " (i n th e characte r [manner] o f a recitative , bu t i n tempo) . Th e implicatio n o f this annotation i s to play th e recitativ e passag e i n a 'freer ' declamator y way , a s i n fac t i n a vocal operatic recitative , an d Beethoven' s mais i n tempo i s merel y a n admonitio n t o maintain bot h th e relativ e rhythms o f the passag e and th e temp o tha t i s adopted for th e passage . Her e i n tempo doe s no t mea n i n th e tempo o f th e initial 'presto ' (J. = 66) . Th e voca l versio n of the passag e i s in fac t no t notate d differently . S o again, n o discrepancy. One migh t als o as k wh y eithe r recitativ e shoul d b e playe d an d sun g a t a mournful, lugubriou s slo w temp o of , say , J = 9 0 (J . = 30) , a temp o ofte n taken here . Th e text , " O Freunde , nich t dies e Töne! Sonder n lass t angenehmer e anstimmen un d freudenvollere " (O h friends , no t thes e sounds ! Rathe r le t u s sound mor e pleasan t an d joyfu l ones! ) i s no t a funera l oration , bu t a spirite d call, a n invocatio n t o celebrat e th e "joy s o f human brotherhood. " So , a slightly more relaxe d basi c tempo , relativ e to th e opening , i s in order—rathe r tha n th e ponderous distende d tempo s take n her e fo r generation s b y countles s 'interpret ers,' nor , incidentally , th e comicall y fas t tempo s take n recentl y b y certai n 'au thenticist' conductors . Such example s brin g u s directl y t o th e mai n issu e regardin g temp o an d Beethoven's s o ofte n misrepresente d view s o n temp o an d metronomization . I t is clea r fro m th e evidenc e o f hi s ow n statement s i n hi s letter s an d a s reporte d by hi s variou s biographers 24 tha t (a ) Beethove n wa s a n enthusiasti c supporte r of Mälzel' s metronomization ; an d (b ) tha t th e correctnes s o f tempo s i n per formance wa s a matte r o f primar y concer n t o him , becaus e h e fel t i t wa s in extricably connecte d t o th e ver y essenc e o f the wor k at th e momen t o f creation and t o th e essentia l characte r o f th e wor k a s realize d i n re-creativ e perfor mance. Beethoven wa s unequivocal i n hi s statements o n thes e matters . He considered tempo a n intrinsi c part o f his musica l conception , an d fel t tha t th e olde r 18th century simpl e temp o designations , wha t h e calle d "temp i ordinari, " wer e n o longer adequat e t o represen t hi s musica l idea s fully . I n a fascinatin g 181 7 lette r to Hofra t vo n Mosel , Beethove n write s that h e ha d "though t fo r a lon g tim e o f giving u p thes e nonsensica l term s allegro , andante , adagio , presto, " addin g fit24. Fo r example , Schindle r reporte d i n hi s The Life o f Beethoven (1840 ) tha t "whe n on e o f hi s pieces wa s performed, Beethoven' s first question was always: 'Ho w wer e the tempi? ' Everythin g else seemed o f secondary importance t o him. "

A PHILOSOPH Y O F CONDUCTIN G 3

7

tingly, caustically , tha t thes e "fou r principa l temp i d o no t posses s nearl y th e truth o r importanc e o f the fou r winds. " Beethoven goe s o n t o mak e a distinction between th e "body " an d th e "spirit " o f the work . "Tempo i s really more th e bod y of th e piece , whil e thos e term s tha t indicat e th e characte r o f th e piec e refer , actually t o it s spirit." 25 H e adds , incidentally , tha t Mälzel' s metronom e give s composers th e bes t opportunit y t o realize these ideas . Beethoven wa s thus articulatin g a relativel y new and , fro m th e poin t o f view of many more conservativ e late 18th - an d earl y 19th-centur y composers , perhap s radical ide a tha t temp o an d characte r shoul d b e expresse d independently of one another.26 I t is for this reason tha t Beethove n use d s o many modifiers of the fou r basic temp o designations , modifier s that becam e mor e an d mor e elaborat e i n his later years attempting t o be mor e an d mor e exactin g (remember hi s Andante con moto assai vivace quasi allegretto m a no n troppo) [fro m th e "Kyrie " in hi s Mass i n C minor] , an d which—a s I contend elsewher e i n thi s book 27 —confirm the metronom e marking s as much a s the metronom e marking s confirm the Ital ian temp o designations. 28 My cred o regardin g temp o an d temp o modification s (tempo rubato) com prises: (a ) respectfu l adherenc e t o temp o (includin g metronome ) markings ; (b) meeting th e inheren t challenge s rathe r tha n discardin g or rejecting them ou t of hand; and (c ) a subtle temp o flexibility that meet s th e varie d expressive demands of th e musi c a s i t change s moo d an d character , especiall y i n large r extende d forms. Th e emphasi s her e i s o n th e wor d 'subtle' ; i t i s a matte r o f degree . I n other words , temp o modification s mus t neve r destro y th e continuit y an d for m and thu s th e essentia l meanin g o f th e work , or , a s Brun o Walte r onc e pu t it , "noticeable change s i n temp o [speed ] tha t ar e no t demande d b y the compose r are, therefore , misrepresentations ; whethe r the y resul t fro m intellectua l pre sumption o r fro m shee r license , the y deviat e fro m th e composer' s intentions , and thu s fro m th e purpose s o f reproductive art." 29 Which brings me t o a related point . Conductors—an d musician s i n general — should lear n tha t motio n i n musi c an d temp o ar e no t (necessarily ) the sam e thing. Increase d rhythmi c activit y is often use d b y composer s t o creat e th e im 25. Beethoven's Sämtliche Briefe, ed . Alfre d Kalischer , Vol. 3 , (London, 1909) , p . 205. 26. Se e i n Par t I I o f thi s boo k ho w Wagne r too k of f o n thi s ide a i n hi s semina l Über Dirigieren (1869), Ludwi g Spohr , on e o f the mos t celebrate d composer s an d violinist s of the earl y nineteent h century—and als o on e o f th e firs t baton-usin g conductors—expresse d himsel f quit e firml y o n th e matter o f tempo an d metronomization . "Whe n on e hear s a wonderfu l musica l work diminishe d i n its effec t b y a wron g tempo , th e wis h arise s that , finally , th e practic e o f indicatin g tempo s i n th e manner o f Mälze l o r Webe r woul d becom e widel y used . Then , o f course , conductor s woul d hav e to conscientiousl y follow suc h instruction s and not , a s now, simpl y follow thei r ow n feelings. " 27. Se e discussio n o f the Italia n tempo designation s of the first two movements o f Beethoven's Fift h Symphony i n Par t III . (pp. 159-60 ) 28. Fo r more o n th e subjec t of Beethoven's metronomization s an d th e consistenc y with which the y relate t o specifi c characte r an d categor y type s i n Beethoven' s works , se e Rudol f Kolisch' s brillian t article "Temp o an d Characte r i n Beethoven' s Music, " Th e Musical Quarterly, Vol . XXIX , no . 2 (April 1943) . Reprinted i n a ne w translatio n in Musical Quarterly (Sprin g 1993). 29. Brun o Walter , Vo n de r Musik un d vo m Musizieren (Krankfurt , 1957) . O f Music an d MusicMaking, Englis h translation (London, 1961) , p . 32 .

38 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

pression, th e feeling , o f increased momentu m withou t actuall y speedin g u p th e basic tempo. Similarly , decreased rhythmi c activity can be used to give a feeling of slowing down the music. Performers should therefore not alter the tempo when th e composer ha s already composed th e acceleration (o r deceleration) int o the music , unless th e compose r himsel f ha s indicate d a chang e o f tempo. Fo r instance , i f a composer ha s slowed dow n th e rhythmi c activit y in the music , a s for example in :

the conducto r shoul d no t ritar d th e basi c temp o (unless , again , th e compose r has also called fo r that). I n suc h a n example , th e slowin g down—an d th e degre e of slowin g down—ha s alread y bee n give n b y th e composer , an d n o additiona l deceleration o f the temp o i s wanted o r required . Thi s seem s t o be a har d lesso n for conductor s t o learn . The las t hypothetical bu t al l to o typica l questio n I presented abov e i s at once the easies t t o answe r i n discussio n and th e mos t difficul t t o resolv e i n practice . The la y listener wh o doesn' t reall y know wha t th e compose r wrote—wh o can' t read music , an d wh o probabl y ha s neve r hear d a true , correc t performanc e o f the work—ha s a righ t t o hi s opinion , o f course , bu t hi s judgmen t i s ultimately invalid or , a s proof o f anything , irrelevant . Ther e i s reall y n o wa y tha t th e la y listener ca n kno w tha t th e performanc e th e conducto r jus t gav e wit h suc h con viction an d flai r wa s in fac t wrong, and t o som e exten t o r another a misrepresen tation o f the composer' s work . There i s little t o b e don e abou t suc h a situation , unless tha t listene r b y virtu e o f som e unusua l motivatio n o r outsid e influenc e (perhaps eve n a critic' s review ) would convinc e himsel f tha t onl y seriou s stud y of the wor k would enabl e hi m t o have a trustworthy opinion abou t th e relevanc e of tha t performance . Bu t tha t i s a Utopia n dream . Eve n th e vas t majorit y o f professional musicians neve r stud y an orchestra l score . Wh y shoul d w e expec t a lay listene r t o d o so? The poin t need s t o b e stressed . Th e sa d trut h i s that mos t peopl e wh o hav e anything t o d o wit h th e performanc e o f music , whethe r a s listener s o r a s per formers, hav e a t wors t absolutely n o ide a wha t i t actually say s i n a score , say , of a Beethove n o r Brahm s symphony , o r a t bes t hav e onl y th e mos t superficia l acquaintance wit h th e wor k an d it s score . Thi s applie s t o th e la y listener, th e music critic , managers , boar d member s o f musical organization s (wh o traditionally choose conductor s an d musica l directors) , the run-of-the-mil l orchestral mu sician, and, alas , the vas t majorit y o f conductors. Th e problem , therefore , i s that, since n o one reall y knows or, possibly, cares wha t the grea t masters have actuall y written i n thei r scores , th e performers—bu t especiall y th e 'dictator s o f th e ba ton'—can d o almos t anythin g the y wan t i n thei r 'interpretations, ' an d n o on e will b e an y th e wiser . Thus a conducto r an d a n orchestr a ca n pla y a passag e that i s marked pp a t a healthy mf, an d n o on e wil l kno w the differenc e o r object. Thus a conducto r an d hi s orchestr a can mak e a n accelerand o (o r a crescendo ) too earl y an d to o much—o r mak e on e wher e ther e shouldn' t b e any—an d hardly anyon e wil l kno w th e differenc e o r object . Thu s a conducto r an d hi s

A PHILOSOPH Y OF CONDUCTIN G 3

9

orchestra ca n pla y a piec e i n a wron g tempo , an d hardl y anyon e wil l b e th e wiser. I faul t especiall y th e critic s fo r thi s situation . I n ove r fift y year s o f readin g musical criticis m i n dail y paper s I hav e seldo m rea d a revie w tha t mention s specific conductoria l misdemeanors : a wron g dynami c i n suc h an d suc h a pas sage, a wron g tempo , a n unwante d o r exaggerate d accelerando , a n orchestra tional distortio n or deviation 30 —not offered , b y the way , as a mere opinio n ("th e conductor too k muc h broade r tha n usua l tempos" ) bu t a s a fact , unequivocall y represented i n th e score . (Writer s fo r professional journals , magazines, o r quar terlies ten d t o d o muc h bette r i n thi s respect. ) Review s o f concerts consis t usu ally of generalities, representin g on e performanc e ideolog y o r another, bu t rarel y are ther e specifics . N o wonde r conductor s fee l the y ca n d o mor e o r les s any thing the y wan t wit h a composer' s music . Musicians, a s a lot , ar e no t muc h better . Thos e relativel y few who hav e actu ally studie d a scor e carefull y an d kno w no t onl y what' s i n i t bu t ho w i t shoul d be performed , generall y ar e no t i n a positio n t o critiqu e th e conductor , excep t behind hi s back. Th e res t have neve r looke d a t a score , generall y don't kno w or care what' s in it, and are conten t to follow the biddin g of a conductor, especiall y a famou s one, throug h wron g or righ t tempos, disregar d of dynamics, distortions of rhythms , whatever—excep t agai n t o grumbl e abou t thei r lo t an d abou t con ductors, bu t neve r specificall y to challenge th e conducto r o n th e basis of what a composer's score actually prescribes. (In nearl y twenty-five years of playing professionally i n orchestras , I almos t never hear d a n orchestr a musicia n criticiz e a conductor o n a specifi c conductoria l misinterpretatio n o n th e basis o f information found i n th e score.) Musicians ' complaint s rarel y ris e abov e th e persona l level, a s fo r instanc e whe n a conductor' s wron g temp o (to o slo w o r to o fast ) makes i t technicall y difficul t t o pla y a give n passage ; i t i s neve r a complain t based o n th e fac t tha t th e conductor' s temp o wa s intrinsically wrong , i n direc t contradiction o f the informatio n containe d i n th e score . Various argument s hav e bee n presente d ove r th e year s on behal f o f the per former's righ t t o 'interpret ' th e musi c a s h e o r sh e bes t feel s o r understand s it . In thes e claim s al l th e argument s o f the 'inadequac y o f musica l notation, ' 'th e impossibility o f absolut e objectivit y in interpretation, ' an d 'th e impossibilit y of ruling ou t th e impac t o f the performer' s individua l predilections, capacitie s an d limitations,' ar e trotte d ou t a s i f the y wer e someho w incontestabl e scientifi c facts. I n truth , the y ar e usuall y just opinion s tha t ar e shape d int o certai n formu lations t o attai n a certai n polemica l goal . Ver y often argument s o n bot h side s — on behal f o f performers' libertie s o r o n behal f o f faithfulness to th e composer' s score—are carried onl y so far as to serve that arguer's purpose. Th e debat e rarel y takes plac e o n a leve l playin g field . M y ow n stanc e i s midway between th e tw o 30. Th e on e exceptio n tha t come s t o min d i s Scot t Cantrell , nowaday s criti c an d classical-musi c editor o f th e Kansas City Star, wh o ofte n expose s specifi c deviation s fro m dynami c an d temp o markings i n hi s reviews , a s wel l a s praisin g performer s wh o ar e mor e scrupulou s i n thes e mat ters.

40 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

opposing arguments , hopin g t o giv e both th e compose r an d th e performe r their equal due . I f I occasionall y lea n i n th e directio n o f th e composer , i t i s onl y because I fee l tha t th e composer' s right s hav e bee n mor e trample d upo n tha n the performer's . It seem s t o m e tha t that i s an almos t unarguabl e point , sinc e (a) ther e i s no practica l wa y of stoppin g performer s from interpretin g o r misin terpreting composers ' works ; and (b ) th e vas t majority o f writing and discussio n on thi s subjec t ha s bee n (an d stil l is ) primaril y i n defens e o f th e performer' s interpretive freedom , rarel y in defens e o f the composer . As I have tried to make clear earlier , polarized emotional argument s o n behalf of on e viewpoin t o r th e othe r no t onl y achiev e ver y littl e bu t ar e no t eve n particularly relevant , i n vie w of the fact—thi s ma y see m startlin g to man y read ers—that ultimatel y there i s no inheren t incompatibilit y betwee n th e perform er's an d th e composer' s right s an d purposes . Bot h ca n b e serve d adequatel y when th e interpretatio n derive s from th e scor e rathe r tha n apart fro m it . Fo r fidelity to th e score , th e work , and intelligent , respectfu l interpretation ar e no t incompatible. Withi n th e confine s o f fidelit y ther e i s considerabl e interpretiv e freedom an d roo m fo r multiple interpretations , bu t o f course, no t fo r interpretations tha t subver t th e rea l meanin g an d intentio n o f the composer . Suc h fidel ity— inspired b y the score—ultimatel y serve s all constituent s o f music: the com poser, th e conducto r (th e performer) , and th e listene r (th e audience) . T o put i t another way , intelligent , inspire d textua l fidelit y bes t serves , intellectuall y an d emotionally, th e wor k itself, th e performance , an d th e listener' s aestheti c experi ence. Let u s examin e mor e closel y th e mos t commo n historica l argument s tha t have bee n presente d o n bot h side s of the issu e over many years. One o f the first arguments presente d b y performer s (o r critic s defendin g performers ) is tha t a composer's notatio n i s limited , i s inadequate , i s incapabl e o f precisely , objectively definin g th e composer' s intentions . Th e assumptio n draw n therefro m i s that thi s gives the performe r a licens e t o interpre t personall y and freel y wha t th e composer ha s wrought . T o bolste r thi s argumen t man y writer s have pointe d t o the inconsistencie s foun d i n composers ' score s regarding , fo r example , temp o markings an d dynamics . A variety of historical informatio n is then trotte d ou t t o show—or a t leas t t o suggest—tha t eve n composer s d o no t agre e o n th e exac t meanings o f thei r notationa l practices . I n regar d t o temp o markings , for exam ple, i t is pointed ou t (a s the distinguishe d author-critic-historian Ernest Newma n does i n a fascinatin g article31 ) tha t Mozar t use d th e temp o indicatio n andante for bot h "L a c i darem " i n Do n Giovanni an d Papageno' s "De r Vogelfänge r bin ich ja " fro m Th e Magic Flute, bot h i n a 2/ 4 meter , makin g th e furthe r poin t that bot h piece s canno t possibl y b e sun g i n th e sam e tempo , tha t i n fac t th e latter song' s andante "call s for a pace somethin g lik e 75 percent faster " tha n th e former's. There ar e s o many things wron g with thi s argument , presente d a s some kin d 31. Ernes t Newman , "Interpretation, " The International Cyclopedia o f Music an d Musicians, cd . Oscar Thompson , Tent h Edition , (Ne w York, 1975) ; pp. 1076-79 .

A PHILOSOPH Y O F CONDUCTIN G 4

1

of 'evidence, ' tha t on e hardl y knows where t o begi n t o answe r it. 32 Fo r starters, I woul d b e intereste d t o kno w t o whos e performance s o f those tw o Mozart ex cerpts Newma n wa s referring . I mus t sa y tha t i n al l th e fiftee n year s I playe d both o f these opera s at the Metropolita n Oper a wit h conductor s suc h a s Busch, Walter, Szell , Reiner , Böhm , an d a hos t o f outstandin g Do n Giovanni s an d Papagenos, I never once heard interpretation s o f these "arias " that wer e so divergent i n temp o a s Newma n cites . I t woul d mea n that , i f Do n Giovann i wer e singing "L a c i darem " at , say , j = 60 , the n th e 7 5 percen t faste r temp o fo r Papageno's "De r Vogelfänger " would ha d t o hav e bee n J = 105 , which would be clearl y impossible . Conversely , i f the latte r piec e wer e sun g a t J = 8 0 (th e generally accepte d temp o o f thi s arietta) , the n "L a c i darem, " i f 7 5 percen t slower, would hav e to have bee n a t J = 20 . Both impossibilities , so that o n tha t score alon e Newman' s argumen t i s fantastically off the mark . The mos t divergen t tempos i n whic h thos e tw o Mozar t piece s ar e generall y sung/performed ar e approximately J = 8 0 for "Der Vogelfänger" an d J = 6 0 ± for "L a c i darem," giving the forme r a 33 g percen t faste r pacin g tha n th e latter , not 7 5 percent . An d i f the Do n Giovanni due t wer e sung , say , at J = 7 2 (an d the othe r remaine d a t J = 80) , the n th e temp o divergenc e woul d be mor e lik e 10 percent an d quit e acceptable . Eve n th e 33 J percent i s acceptable an d reason able, fo r le t i t b e state d tha t th e metronomi c rang e withi n whic h a particula r tempo markin g (adagio, andante, allegro etc. ) ca n vacillat e —and ha s don e s o since th e metronom e cam e int o us e i n th e earl y 19t h century—allow s fo r about twenty point s o n th e slowe r end o f the temp o scale , considerabl y more o n th e higher end , a s i s show n below . (Fig . 2 ) The temp o rang e within , fo r example , an andante — over 3 0 points on th e metronome—i s indee d dependent , a s almost everyone generall y agrees, upo n th e mood , the texture , th e densit y o f the musi c and, i n voca l music , upo n th e tex t used . Thu s i t i s quite possibl e for an y com poser, especiall y in th e 18t h an d 19t h centuries , t o hav e use d th e sam e Italia n tempo ter m fo r severa l differen t mood s an d rhythmi c textures . Which i s to say that b y itself the latitud e withi n which certai n composer s ma y have used a given term doe s no t invalidat e the us e o f tha t term , no r doe s i t necessaril y give per formers th e licens e essentiall y t o disregar d it. (Thi s i s th e poin t Kolisc h make s in a mor e comprehensiv e way ; see footnot e 28.) It i s als o interestin g t o recal l tha t th e ol d pre-electroni c pendulu m metro nomes ha d temp o identification s which equate d temp o term s (lik e allegro and adagio etc. ) wit h a rang e o f numbers simila r to thos e i n Fig . 2. Newman i n hi s postulatio n seem s als o t o hav e completel y ignore d th e fac t that i n Mozart' s cas e th e tw o differen t andantes ar e i n som e degre e influence d by th e interna l rhythmi c organizatio n o f th e music : "L a c i darem " contain s sixteenth-notes, whereas "De r Vogelfänger " does no t di p below eighth-note s (ex cept i n Papageno' s pan-pip e calls) . Such rhythmi c consideration s quite naturally 32. I f I concentrat e specificall y o n Newman' s articl e at thi s point, an d le t i t stan d fo r man y othe r such argumentations , I d o s o primaril y becaus e i t i s a s succinc t a summar y of th e variou s disputations o n th e subjec t a s an y I kno w of , an d i t i s cogently argued, at least , an d presente d i n a majo r widely rea d musi c encyclopedia and referenc e book .

42

Fig. 2

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

largo, largament e | bea adagio, lento , grav e l bea andante, andantin o | bea allegretto, allegro, allegramente bea presto, prestissim o ! bea

t= t= t= t= t=

40-6 0 48-6 6 56-9 0 88-14 4 132-18 0

will affec t a tempo , particularl y i n a voca l piece . Furthermore , i t seems clea r t o the poin t o f obviousness that i n th e Do n Giovanni piec e Mozar t use d andante in th e sens e o f 'moving/ 'flowing, ' i n a moderat e tempo , t o reflec t th e urgenc y of th e mood : Do n Giovanni' s passionat e pleadin g wit h Zerlina , an d Zerlina' s confused reaction , a s she i s torn betwee n resistin g the Do n an d succumbin g t o his advances . In th e Magic Flute excerp t Mozar t use d andante t o slow down th e motion o f th e music , whic h i n it s rhythmi c notatio n a t firs t glanc e look s lik e lively allegro material . In citin g the Mozar t example Newman seem s no t t o have realized tha t on e o f th e point s h e i s makin g abou t tempos , namely , tha t the y tend t o b e contextuall y influenced (which , o f course, i s true) i s not negate d b y his example, but actuall y neatly confirmed by it.33 In short, Newman's argument using th e tw o Mozar t andantes i s inaccurate , misguided , an d ultimatel y mean ingless.34 What Newma n als o neglect s t o mentio n i s that , i n contradistinctio n t o hi s point abou t Mozart' s andante , Mozar t was astonishingly precise and inventiv e i n modifying hi s generic tempo indications . For example, he use d b y my reckoning at leas t seve n differen t allegros (se e Fig. 3 below) , a whol e continuu m o f allegros, a s i t were , whic h a s a n interpreter , I mus t say , I hav e foun d no t onl y extremely helpfu l bu t withou t exceptio n i n thei r discret e meaning s unequivo cally clear , especiall y in a textua l context , a s in Mozart' s operas . Newman als o invoke s Car l Mari a vo n Weber' s well-know n listin g o f metro nome number s fo r eac h sectio n o f hi s oper a Ewyanthe, pointin g ou t wha t h e (Newman) regard s as the list' s man y metronomic inconsistencie s and discrepan 33. I t ma y b e tha t Newma n go t confuse d i n hi s mathematic s o r state d the m clumsily . I t i s possible that h e mean t t o sa y tha t "L a c i darem, " i f sun g a t a temp o o f J = 60 , woul d b e pace d a t 7 5 percent th e spee d o f "Der Vogelfänger," i f that wa s sung a t a temp o o f J = 80 , rathe r tha n "75% faster". 34. Hi s statemen t tha t "ther e i s no genera l agreemen t a s to whethe r andantino mean s rathe r faste r or rathe r slowe r tha n andante" i s equall y confused . Andantino bein g th e diminutiv e o f andante, clearly indicate s a slightl y faste r andante or , a s Davi d Fallow s i n Grove 6 put s it , " a slightl y mor e light hearte d andante". It is the case , however , tha t andantino i n th e 18t h and th e earl y 19t h century was regarde d generall y a s a temp o slowe r tha n andante (see , for example , Nei l Zaslaw' s "Mozart' s Tempo Conventions, " i n ÍMSC R (1972) , p . 770 . It i s also tru e tha t eve n Beethove n wa s confuse d by th e ambiguit y o f th e ter m i n hi s time , whe n i t wa s i n fac t stil l use d i n conflictin g ways , a s Beethoven pu t i t sometime s "clos e t o allegro an d o n anothe r [occasion ] almost lik e adagio" (fro m a letter t o Georg e Thomson , on e o f Beethoven's publishers , date d Februar y 19 , 1813). It was soon afte r Beethoven' s er a —and lon g befor e Newman' s writin g in th e 1970s—tha t the ter m andantino acquire d it s present unambiguou s meanin g a s stated above .

A PHILOSOPH Y O F CONDUCTIN G

Fig. 3

43

allegro moderat o allegro maestos o allegro spiritos o (allegro con spirito) allegro molt o (molt o allegro ) allegro d i molt o allegro vivace allegro assai (All terms differentiated fro m allegretto

and presto.)

cies. Weber , fo r example , mark s on e largo J = 84 , anothe r J = 50 ; andante con moto i s alternatel y 72 , 66 , an d 80 ; allegro i s 10 0 an d 16 0 a t on e extreme , 60 a t th e other , an d s o on . T o understan d thes e apparen t inconsistencie s w e must pu t thi s informatio n i n context . I t i s well know n tha t Webe r (unlik e Bee thoven) wa s ambivalent abou t metronomizatio n an d provide d th e marking s for Euryanthe mos t reluctantl y an d onl y unde r duress . Ho w seriousl y an d thor oughly h e though t abou t hi s metronom e suggestion s i n eac h instanc e i s thu s perhaps ope n t o question . Second , i f one look s at the specifi c context s i n whic h Weber's variabl e metronome marking s occur—context s o f mood, dramatic char acterization and continuity , rhythmic/metri c settings , etc.—on e can see that the y are no t a s vagran t an d a s inconsisten t a s the y appea r t o b e i n bal d numerica l abstraction, as Newman present s them . Other writers , historians , an d critic s hav e use d variou s othe r historica l ac counts relatin g to metronomizatio n t o poin t t o it s inadequacy and risks : (1 ) such as Brahms' s lifelon g adaman t rejectio n o f metronom e marks ; (2 ) suc h a s Wagner's resistanc e t o th e metronomizatio n o f hi s scores ; (3 ) suc h a s Beetho ven's irritate d disbelie f i n discoverin g that som e los t metronom e marking s ha d been replace d b y him wit h other s quit e differen t fro m th e origina l ones , an d s o on. Wha t Newman an d othe r historia n colleague s disregar d or suppres s in thei r disputations—this i s wha t I mean t earlie r b y curtailin g th e argumen t a t th e most propitiousl y self-servin g moment—i s th e fac t tha t composers , startin g i n Beethoven's tim e an d eve r sinc e then , hav e becom e increasingl y precis e an d consistent i n thei r notationa l habits , s o that th e furthe r on e proceed s alon g th e chronological/historical rout e t o th e present , th e mor e on e encounter s a n in creased amoun t o f detailed an d reliabl e notationa l information . I n effect , com posers hav e learne d t o defen d themselve s agains t th e vagarie s and indulgence s of performers; or at least they have tried t o do so, notwithstanding the occasiona l inconsistencies, contradictions , an d anomalie s on e ma y fin d occasionall y wit h certain composer s (e.g . Schönberg' s sometime s overwrough t fas t metronom e marks, particularl y in hi s earlie r years; Stravinsky's well-known temp o contradic tions, no t onl y i n hi s revision s o f his ow n work s bu t i n hi s ow n performance s of them). Suc h occasiona l anomalie s d o no t automaticall y invalidat e all metro nome markings . Th e fac t i s tha t composers , eve n grea t creativ e geniuses , ar e

44 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

fallible, an d occasionall y do make mistake s under variou s time an d energ y con straints, an d ar e no t necessaril y entirely consisten t i n certai n matter s ove r th e span o f a n entir e lifetime . Also, ther e i s n o doub t tha t som e composers , the n and now , are more careles s in notationa l matter s than others . Bu t all these facts , even whe n adde d together , ar e no t sufficien t justificatio n t o argu e tha t therefore metronome mark s an d temp o indication s ar e inherentl y unreliabl e an d irrele vant, t o b e regarde d eithe r wit h grea t suspicio n o r t o b e convenientl y ignored . Just becaus e a fe w composer s hav e no w an d the n displaye d some huma n fail ings, i t ca n hardl y justif y o r rationaliz e th e peculia r notion , fo r example , tha t certain (o f Beethoven's ) metronom e marking s ar e rejectable , whil e other s ar e seemingly acceptable . (Example s of this ru n lik e a constan t threa d throug h th e analysis o f recording s in Par t HI.) There i s no questio n tha t metronomizatio n i s not a n absolutel y reliabl e pro cess; o n th e othe r hand , i t can hardl y be prove n t o b e wholl y useless and falli ble. Metronom e marking s are , i n fact , takin g th e entir e literatur e i n accoun t (not jus t the allege d 'proble m days ' of the earl y 19th century) , mor e ofte n help ful an d reliabl e tha n not—b y far . As I hav e alread y mentioned , i t i s no t tha t they are to be rigidl y mechanicall y followe d —no performer/conductor can guar antee tha t anyway—bu t tha t the y offe r valuabl e clue s as to th e relativ e tempo t o be take n an d i n mos t case s direc t confirmatio n o f the verba l tempo indication s given b y composers . Tha t composer s i n genera l fo r almos t a centur y regar d tempo no t a s something rigidl y o r mechanicall y assume d an d maintained , bu t as somethin g subjec t t o variabl e interpretatio n i s show n b y th e fac t tha t mos t composers us e th e ter m "ca."—" J = ca . 120 " o r " J = approx . 120"—i n thei r metronomizations, seriousl y invalidating Dohnanyi's earlier-quote d accusation . Similar negativ e an d mostl y fallaciou s argument s hav e ofte n bee n presente d over th e year s in regar d t o dynamics . The sam e Ernes t Newman , fo r example, argued tha t composers ' varie d an d "inconsistent " us e o f dynamic s make s strict adherence t o the m b y performer s questionable , o r a t leas t ver y difficul t an d problematic. Admittedly , dynamics ar e no t 'precise ' i n th e strictes t sens e o f th e word, an d i n th e prevailin g system of notation cannot , i n fact , provid e a n abso lute, unequivocall y explici t representatio n o f dynami c levels . No r ca n huma n instrumentalists an d thei r instrument s reproduc e wit h total accurac y precise dynamic levels , eve n i f we had th e notationa l mean s t o prescribe them accurately . But t o procee d fro m tha t admissio n via a numbe r o f carefully selecte d example s by certai n famou s composers, wh o use d dynamic s i n idiosyncrati c or inconsis tent ways, to conclude that composers' dynamics , like tempos, ar e largely unreliable, an d thu s ough t t o b e regarde d freel y o r wit h suspicion—tha t the y creat e "insoluble problems " fo r th e performer—i s preposterous . Newma n cite s Verdi' s use o f pppp an d eve n ppppppp (i n Aida), implying , without quite darin g to say as much , tha t thi s rathe r negate s th e usefulnes s an d reliabilit y of Verdi's entire dynamic practice . H e rightl y points ou t tha t Verd i felt compelle d t o us e suc h extreme dynamic markings to shock hi s generally rather careless and , i n matters of notation , apatheti c Italia n orchestr a player s t o pla y a norma l p , suggestin g that a mer e p markin g would probabl y have resulte d i n " a heart y f." Unfortu -

A PHILOSOPH Y O F CONDUCTIN G 4

5

nately Newma n leave s th e poin t danglin g there , neglectin g t o mentio n tha t (a) the knowledg e alon e o f the reason s fo r thes e extrem e dynamic s shoul d alread y help i n understandin g ho w t o implemen t them , tha t is , t o tak e the m wit h a little grai n o f salt, bu t a t the sam e tim e no t entirel y ignor e them ; (b ) that Verdi, who wa s afte r al l no t a fly-by-night mediocrity an d wa s i n fac t a compose r wh o was, especiall y i n hi s late r work s suc h a s Aida (an d Do n Carlos, Othello, an d Falstaff) quit e concerne d wit h a s comprehensiv e an d precis e a notatio n o f hi s musical idea s a s he coul d muster , stil l use d p an d p p i n hi s scores , fro m whic h we ca n infe r tha t p an d p p als o stil l mean t somethin g relativel y spécifie to him , and tha t fou r p' s wer e intende d t o signif y a comparativel y softe r dynami c leve l in th e contex t o f that work—eve n i f we ma y hav e t o decid e tha t therefor e hi s p is slightly louder tha n i t i s with othe r composer s i n differen t land s an d a t differ ent epochs. 35 My poin t i s tha t th e fines t musician s (especiall y i n chambe r musi c o r sol o work) ca n differentiat e more tha n th e usua l eigh t dynamic s (fro m pp p t o fff) — or the eve n muc h mor e commo n thre e dynamics : 'soft , loud , an d i n between ' — and i n fac t d o s o instinctively al l th e tim e i n th e subtl e dynami c nuancin g tha t marks an y trul y fin e player' s performances . Newman return s t o a simila r point somewha t later , suggestin g "that a p or p p in a Wagne r oper a doe s no t mea n a t al l th e sam e thin g a s p o r p p in , say , [Mendelssohn's] Midsummer Night's Dream Overture. " I a m no t entirel y con vinced tha t thi s i s i n fac t true , fo r i t migh t b e nothin g mor e tha n Newman' s subjective perceptio n o f how Wagner an d Mendelssoh n shoul d soun d o r indee d were sometime s performe d durin g hi s lifetime . Fo r al l I know , a n exquisit e p p in Wagner's Tristan shoul d b e th e sam e dynami c leve l qu a dynamic a s in Men delssohn's Overture , whil e th e soni c an d acousti c amplitud e migh t vary . Bu t even i f one grant s Newman' s point , i t surel y does no t mea n tha t musician s an d conductors shoul d therefor e b e allowe d t o rende r Wagner' s p' s an d pp's a s mf's or f's — nor fo r tha t matte r t o ignor e dynamic s i n Mendelssohn' s works , wher e the man y subit o p' s an d pp's, i n hi s Hebrides Overture , fo r example , ar e als o almost universall y ignored o r compromise d —no t t o mentio n th e p par t i n thou sands o f fp's i n Wagner's operas , especiall y Der Ring an d Parsifal. Finally, I retur n t o th e poin t tha t Newma n an d like-minde d critic s an d hi s performer-colleagues almos t neve r pres s thei r argument s t o thei r ultimat e con 35. Similarly , a t th e othe r en d o f th e dynami c scale , Verdi' s score s ar e fille d wit h fiv e an d si x f's. The implicatio n ther e i s tha t hi s simpl e f i s softe r tha n i n mos t othe r composers ' scores . Thu s i t may ver y wel l be tha t Verd i made a virtue o f a painfu l necessit y and thereb y arrive d at a muc h mor e differentiated rang e o f dynamics. The sam e proble m i s to b e foun d i n Tchaikovsky' s Sixth Symphon y ( a brief discussio n o f which is found i n Par t III) . It is also wort h noting parentheticall y tha t Milto n Babbitt , an d othe r composer s such a s Pierr e Boulez , Georg e Perle , Mari o Davidovsky , an d Rober t DiDomenic a hav e als o fre quently resorte d t o highl y differentiate d dynamics—as man y a s twelve—i n certai n works , dynamics which ar c eminentl y playable b y conscientiou s performers, thoug h perhap s no t absolutely reliabl y and consistently . The iron y her e i s tha t mos t musician s ten d t o complai n bitterl y abou t moder n composers' us e o f such finel y differentiate d dynami c levels, but the y d o no t complai n abou t Tchai kovsky's us e o f virtually th e sam e concept—the y simpl y ignor e hi s dynami c gradations.

46 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

elusions, fo r eve n the y se e th e irrationalit y of that . Fo r i f on e begin s b y ques tioning th e reliabilit y of th e composer' s notatio n i n respec t t o tempo s an d dy namics an d a s a consequenc e suggest s tha t on e ough t t o permi t musician s t o take variou s liberties wit h the text , the n wher e i s one t o sto p compromising ? A t what poin t i n th e lin e o f tha t argumen t shoul d on e pu t a hal t t o it ? B y what criteria i s one t o know how fa r away fro m th e scor e on e ma y o r may no r depart ? If w e ar e entitle d someho w t o ignor e some o f a composer' s temp o an d dynami c markings, why not ignor e mor e —or finally all —of them ? Eve n th e mos t arden t defenders o f performers' privilege s do no t hav e th e courag e o f their conviction s to pus h th e argument s tha t far . They prefe r instea d t o rais e a fe w smokescree n questions, loade d wit h dir e implication s an d innuendo , an d havin g gotte n of f those initia l salvos, hastily retreat int o th e dar k night o f vestigial confusion, witnessing with pleasur e fro m a distanc e th e discomfor t of composers, who , i f they try t o defen d themselve s an d thei r notations , ar e summaril y regarde d a s bein g overly defensiv e and paranoid . Many conductor s an d thei r apologist s (critics , sleeve-note writers , publicists) have defende d conductors ' libertie s wit h regar d t o temp o an d dynami c modifi cations, the retouchin g and revisin g o f scores, by arguing that , in the main , such conductors ar e onl y tryin g t o hel p th e composer , t o clarif y hi s score s fo r th e listener, t o brin g out 'importan t details.' Suc h argument s are a s specious no w as they were whe n Billo w first made the m i n th e 1880s , especially those tha t tr y to justify th e bringin g ou t o f 'important details. ' There ar e severa l fallacie s hidde n in tha t benign-soundin g 'rationale. ' For what i t usually means i s that a conducto r wants t o brin g ou t thos e detail s tha t h e happens t o thin k ar e important , whic h may no t a t al l coincid e wit h wha t th e compose r though t important . Second , what i t unfortunatel y also to o ofte n mean s i s that suc h 'details ' ar e brough t ou t in a n exaggerate d an d overpersonalize d manner which , again, reflect s mor e th e conductor's conceptio n o f the wor k than th e composer's. Third , th e italicizin g of certain detail s may , unde r th e bes t circumstances , illuminat e som e significan t aspect o f th e wor k o r o f a give n passage , bu t a t th e sam e tim e ma y d o sever e damage t o anothe r 'detail, ' als o o f significance an d intrinsi c merit . Fourth , th e bringing ou t o f details almos t alway s seems t o mean—an d listenin g t o th e hun dreds o f records i n researchin g for this book ha s certainl y confirmed this—'play ing somethin g louder, ' or , i f i t i s a matte r o f a temp o consideration , playin g something 'muc h slower ' tha n indicate d o r 'muc h faster. ' I t seem s tha t i t rarel y occurs t o suc h conductor s an d thei r apologists , i f it i s a questio n o f balance o r dynamics, t o occasionall y mak e th e other parts play softer! The defens e o f bringing out detail s through dynami c exaggeratio n has o f late taken o n a curiousl y ironic twist . I t i s now argued , fo r example , tha t give n th e larger siz e o f today's orchestras , especiall y th e large r strin g sections , certai n 'de tails' in , say , the wind s need t o b e brough t t o th e fore , detail s which i n Beetho ven's o r Brahms' s smalle r orchestra s coul d readil y b e heard . (Th e sam e argu ment, b y the way , is used t o justif y th e doublin g o f wind instrument s in classica l symphonies.) Ha s i t neve r occurre d t o suc h conductor s tha t ther e ar e a t leas t two other solutions to the 'problem' ? On e i s to make those oversized , overstuffe d

A PHILOSOPH Y O F CONDUCTIN G 4

7

string section s play softer an d us e les s bow (an d fewer bowings) an d les s vibrato; the othe r i s to reduc e th e siz e o f the strin g section s t o wha t the y wer e i n th e 19th century . (O n tha t poin t Roge r Norringto n i s absolutely right. 36) In truth , 'th e bringin g out o f details'— a phras e tha t o n th e fac e o f it sound s so worthy , an d harmless—ca n hid e a multitud e o f sins . Th e proble m i s tha t unless i t i s done ver y subtly and judiciously , tempered b y a n innat e respec t fo r the scor e an d it s composer, i t i s likely to b e anythin g bu t 'harmless. ' I f it i s no t done wit h a concern fo r the over-al l coherenc e an d integrit y o f the entir e work , that is , considered an d balance d agains t man y othe r aspect s o f the work ; if it is instead merel y a personal , subjective , isolate d fanc y tha t happen s t o hav e at tracted th e attentio n o f th e conductor , the n i t i s likely to d o mor e har m tha n good an d eve n i f th e 'bringin g ou t o f a detail ' i s b y itsel f foun d t o b e helpfu l and correct , i t ca n b e th e case—an d s o ofte n is—tha t i t damage s o r obscure s some othe r equall y 'important detail. ' Since discussion s o n thes e matter s ar e almos t alway s couched i n ideologica l and polemica l generalities , essentiall y meaningless t o the la y reader—a senseles s bickering amon g opposin g camps— I woul d lik e to avoi d that pitfall , and , a t th e risk o f anticipating som e o f the comment s an d analyse s i n Par t II I o f the book , mention a fe w specific examples o f the danger s o f too subjectively , too thought lessly, 'bringin g out certai n details. ' Willem Mengelber g ha s ofte n bee n laudabl y describe d a s a conducto r wh o preferred isolatin g and emphasizin g detail s i n a score , a s oppose d t o an d eve n at the expens e o f preserving the consistenc y of the large r aspects an d gran d for m of th e work . W e shal l se e ho w tha t harmless-soundin g phrase—'isolatin g an d emphasizing details ' —can b e a euphemis m fo r distortio n an d willfu l arbitrar y misinterpretation. In th e firs t movemen t o f Brahms's Fourt h Symphony, 37 Mengelber g fel t tha t he neede d t o 'brin g out ' the first violins' lin e i n mm . 15-18 (a s if that lin e eve r needed furthe r 'bringin g out'). H e di d so by (1) having the violin s play considerably louder; an d (2 ) by stretching the temp o enormousl y i n thos e fou r bars . Th e damage don e b y this emphasizin g o f a certai n 'detail ' i s that th e obo e enterin g in m.1 7 wit h wha t i s in effec t a continuatio n o f the violins ' line—a n obo e pas sage whic h i s unde r th e bes t o f circumstance s difficul t t o hear—ha s no w be come virtuall y inaudible. Matter s wer e no t helpe d b y the fac t tha t Jaa p Stotein , the Concertgebouw' s obois t o f th e time , ha d a rathe r smal l tone , wherea s th e Concertgebouw violin s wer e famou s fo r thei r ful l ric h sound . B y bringing ou t one 'detail, ' Mengelber g completel y obscure d anothe r eve n mor e 'important ' one. Moreover , hi s exaggerated slowin g of the tempo , which Mengelber g proba bly fel t woul d hel p delineat e th e forma l outlines o f the symphony' s exposition , actually destroye d th e ver y clarit y an d congruit y o f for m h e wa s trying to eluci date. I n th e meantim e ther e ar e a hundre d othe r 'details'—o f balance , o f dy 36. Se e particularl y Norrington' s commentar y o n thi s and relate d performance practic e matters i n the sleeve-not e for his Brahm s First recordin g (EMI Classics) . 37. Hea r th e recen t re-issue o f Mengelberg's 193 8 Concertgebouw recording.

48 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

namics, of articulation, o f form—throughout th e wor k that needed Mengelberg' s attention, but tha t h e completel y ignore d o r misinterprete d o r was unaware of. In th e sam e symphony' s secon d movemen t recapitulatio n (beginnin g m.64) , after takin g an alread y intolerably slow tempo i n th e mai n them e (i n the violas), Mengelberg make s an enormou s ritar d in m.71 , followed by a horn an d bassoo n quartet playin g mfto f — Brahms's markin g i s pp (!)—whic h i s then intende d t o be followe d b y a ful l contrastin g f i n alternatin g win d an d strin g choirs . Mengelberg's variou s dynami c an d temp o distortion s ar e her e presumabl y in tended t o 'brin g out ' significan t 'details ' o f form , but , apar t fro m showin g a rather astonishin g contemp t fo r th e score , the y achiev e quit e th e opposit e re sults: the forma l outline, s o beautifully reflected i n Brahms' s score, is completely convoluted an d subverted . A third exampl e o f misguidedly 'makin g a point,' a very common on e favore d by many , many conductors—an d le t thes e thre e illustration s stand a s well as for hundreds i f no t thousand s o f others—ca n b e foun d i n th e las t movemen t o f Brahms's Firs t Symphony . Whe n th e beautifu l choral e i n trombones , horns , and bassoon s i n th e introductio n (mm.47-51 ) return s i n th e allegro coda, mos t conductors have , evidentl y fo r generations , slowe d dow n t o a temp o clos e t o that o f the chorale' s first appearance. Thi s i s done presumabl y t o poin t ou t an d emphasize tha t relationshi p for the listener , to produce a formal , expressive link between th e tw o occurrence s o f th e chorale . I t ma y hav e achieve d tha t goa l with listeners—on e can' t eve n b e sure , a t that—bu t i n th e meantim e i t ha s completely subverte d Brahms's intentions , hi s goal . I n tha t cod a Brahm s indi cates n o ritardatio n o f th e tempo , intendin g fo r th e 'chorale, ' thi s tim e i n a totally differen t musical , expressiv e (an d tempo ) context , t o b e a brillian t song of triumph , o f exultation . Thu s th e (perhap s eve n well-intentioned ) 'bringin g out' o f a formal , themati c detai l ca n b e see n t o b e i n th e en d a tota l distortio n and perversio n o f Brahms's intentions , s o clearl y expressed i n th e score . Are suc h 'interpretations ' th e resul t o f ignorance , malevolence , thought lessness? I don' t thin k so . I t i s a matte r o f ego, an d no t th e "selfles s ego " Brun o Walter ofte n spok e of . Earlie r I hav e writte n o f th e counterproductiv e conse quences o f a conductor' s eg o imposin g itsel f o n th e orchestra , o n hi s fello w musicians. But there i s another conductor' s ego , eve n mor e harmful : that whic h assumes i t ca n impos e it s ow n ideas , it s ow n fancie s an d whims , o n th e scor e and th e wor k o f th e composer . Conductor s wh o perpetrat e thes e imposition s really thin k the y kno w bette r tha n th e compose r wha t th e compose r 'ha d i n mind,' an d ho w th e compose r 'shoul d hav e notate d th e work. ' I n tha t sens e i t is thoughtless, als o insensitive to th e right s of the composer . An d wh o suffer s fro m all this ? The audience , dupe d b y the erran t conductor/interpreter , an d th e or chestra; although , sa d to say, many orchestr a musician s don' t know or no longe r care. The y hav e com e t o realiz e tha t complyin g wit h th e conductor' s whim s and distortion s is an unavoidabl e part o f their job. When w e spea k about exactitud e of interpretation and fidelit y t o th e score , it is wel l i f interpreter s (conductors , performers , players , musicians , singers , coaches) understan d tha t al l composing , bu t especiall y a t th e highes t inspira tional levels , involve s no t onl y th e creativ e facultie s o f th e compose r bu t hi s

A PHILOSOPH Y OF CONDUCTIN G 4

9

critical an d self-critica l facultie s a s well . Composin g consist s a s muc h o f re jecting—critiquing certai n ideas , certai n possibilities—a s i t doe s o f thinkin g of them, creatin g them , i n th e firs t place . A compose r i s always, at ever y ste p i n the creatio n o f a piece, makin g choices ou t o f an infinit e numbe r o f possibilities. This process involve s acceptance a s well as rejection of ideas. The greates t com posers hav e th e abilit y t o kno w instinctivel y whic h musica l idea s comin g t o them ar e suitable or acceptable t o the piec e (o r more precisel y to that particular moment i n tha t piece ) an d whic h ar e no t suitabl e o r acceptable, an d therefor e to b e rejected . Thi s applie s no t onl y t o th e large r concept s an d design s o f a piece, bu t eve n t o it s minutes t details . Ever y notationa l specificatio n i s sifte d through th e composer' s mind , ear , an d musica l instincts , ultimatel y leading to a final choice, whethe r i t be i n regar d t o a note , a rhythm , a dynamic , the place ment o f a crescend o o r an accelerando , o r whatever. What thi s mean s fo r u s performer s and conductor s i s that w e mus t conside r reliable (an d i n som e sens e perhap s eve n definitive ) wha t a composer , afte r much exactin g selfscrutin y o f hi s ideas , bot h larg e an d small , ofte n acceptin g some an d rejectin g others an d comin g t o a 'best' decision, ha s written unless we have overwhelmin g documentar y evidenc e t o th e contrary . T o pu t i t anothe r way, i f th e compose r ha s pondere d thes e thousand s o f question s an d decision s and resolve d the m i n a specifi c way , then w e conductor s an d performer s ough t to tak e the m o n faith , an d disciplin e ourselve s t o re-creat e thos e ideas , thos e conceptions an d thos e feelings , a s faithfull y a s possible . Fo r mysel f I canno t express adequately enough i n word s what a thrill i t is— a profoun d pleasure an d honor—to do exactl y what Brahms (or Beethoven o r Tchaikovsky or Schumann ) wants an d ha s notated . I a m awar e o f th e fac t tha t latel y i n Americ a i n man y circle s certai n terms , like 'discipline ' an d 'intellectual, ' ar e considere d t o b e dirt y words. To exercis e artistic, musical , persona l disciplin e i s considered b y some t o b e 'square' , 'dull, ' 'uninspired,' 'elitist,' and eve n somehow 'un-American. ' Suc h attitude s are unfortunate, becaus e the y ar e contradictor y t o th e ver y concep t o f ar t an d artisti c creation, whic h ar e unachievabl e withou t a high degre e o f discipline. Fo r let u s not los e sigh t o f the fac t tha t composin g a t th e highes t leve l i s also i n par t a n act o f discipline. And thi s aspect of discipline i n creativit y must be reflecte d an d manifested i n ou r interpretation s an d mad e audibl e fo r ou r audience s i n ou r performances. I n tha t respec t th e ac t o f re-creating , o f conducting, i s perhap s even mor e fraugh t with difficultie s tha n th e ac t o f creating . For , a s I hav e sug gested earlier , i f al l trul y great creativity—al l trul y grea t work s of art—embod y in perfec t balanc e th e highes t manifestation s of both emotio n (feeling ) and in tellect, o f individua l musica l instinct s an d techniqu e (o r craft) , then , b y an y reasonable standard s an d criteria , re-creation s (performances ) o f thos e work s ought als o fully t o reflect those twi n impulses. That, of course, i s easier said tha n done, fo r whil e w e ma y eventuall y b y virtu e o f painstakin g stud y thoroughl y comprehend a musica l composition, it i s still anothe r matte r t o reveal and brin g to life th e feeling s tha t li e behind th e bar e notes , behin d th e technica l structure, and t o connect th e intellectua l substanc e t o the emotiona l essence . It i s on tha t premise tha t m y philosoph y o f the ar t o f conducting i s ultimately

50 TH

E COMPLEAT CONDUCTOR

based. Bu t perhap s Weingartne r sai d i t best 38 i n speakin g o f the homogeneit y o f conception i n a grea t musical wor k and o f the relationshi p between feelin g an d intellect i n bot h th e creatio n an d th e re-creatio n o f music: "I f this feeling is not strong enough , the n th e intellec t take s it s place , assume s a predominan t role , and lead s t o a n excessivel y analytic approach . I n th e opposit e instance , feelin g takes ove r i n a n unhealth y wa y an d lead s t o unclearness , fals e sentimentalit y and emotiona l nonsens e [Stimmungsduselei]. I f neithe r feelin g no r intellec t i s strong enough , the n ther e results , accordin g t o th e prevailin g fashion , eithe r mere metronomi c time-beatin g o r a mindles s mani a fo r [contrived ] nuance s [Nuancierungswut]. Neither , however , has anything to do wit h art , whose lofties t expression i s th e attainmen t o f tha t delicate , mor e intuitiv e tha n calculated , balance betwee n feelin g an d intellect , whic h alon e ca n len d a performanc e it s vitality an d authenticity. " Very earl y i n thi s discours e I allude d briefl y t o th e conductor' s eg o an d it s place i n th e conductor' s arsena l o f 'talents. ' A s on e o f th e mos t controversia l and, ofte n i n th e past , mos t sensationa l an d mos t publicize d aspec t o f the con ductor's image , i t i s a subjec t to whic h w e nee d t o return—comple x a s i t is . I t is clea r tha t a certai n degre e o f conviction, based , on e woul d hope , o n compre hensive knowledg e an d talent , i s a necessar y par t o f a conductor' s equipment , so t o speak . I t i s necessar y i n orde r t o impos e a particula r poin t o f view , a particular 'interpretation, ' upo n a n orchestra , i n itsel f mad e u p o f a collectio n of distinc t individual s and artisti c egos. I us e th e wor d 'conviction ' deliberately , because I would lik e to distinguis h betwee n convictio n an d ego . I n fac t I would like t o mak e a furthe r distinctio n betwee n th e huma n eg o and th e huma n ego tist. A conductor's conviction s an d a health y ego—a s I referre d t o i t earl y on— can b e an d shoul d b e conveye d b y persuasion, no t b y domination. Th e abilit y to persuad e musician s i n tur n shoul d deriv e fro m a respec t fo r th e conducto r based o n hi s talent, hi s knowledge, an d hi s behavior towards them, especiall y in rehearsals. Such a conditio n i s obviousl y a fa r cr y fro m th e situatio n whic h pertaine d half a centur y ago , whe n conductors ' tempe r tantrums , thei r powe r t o hir e an d fire virtuall y a t will , thei r generall y dictatoria l attitude s dominate d th e field . I played a s a hornist in thos e year s with mos t o f those tyrants—Toscanini , Stokow ski, Reiner, Szell , Leinsdorf, Rodzinski, Dorati, Barzin , Morel39 —and ca n testif y first hand t o th e feeling s of fea r an d insecurit y (professiona l and financial ) wit h which w e musician s lived almos t ever y day. I als o playe d wit h man y fine , eve n great, conductors—lik e Monteux , Mitropoulos , Goossens , Perlea , Busch , Ru dolf, Kempe , Beecham—whos e behavior and attitud e towar d musicians can onl y be describe d a s benign, gentle , and courteous , wh o di d not hav e t o shout a t and terrorize u s t o ge t th e mos t wonderfu l musical results . Bu t wha t i s interesting i s that amon g th e conductor s o f both type s ther e i s no clea r correlatio n betwee n 38. Weingartner , Über da s Dirigieren 1905 , p.16; Englis h translation On Conducting, translate d b y Ernest Newman , 1906, p . 17. 39. I f the y wer e no t absolut e tyrants , the y wer e (lik e Leinsdorf , Dorati , Barzin ) a t leas t extremel y short-tempered, althoug h i n thei r later year s the y all mellowe d somewhat.

A PHILOSOPH Y O F CONDUCTIN G 5

1

their personalitie s o r behavio r an d th e qualit y o f thei r talent : i n bot h group s there wer e greate r an d lesse r conductors , som e wh o ha d inflated , domineerin g egos an d other s who m I woul d describ e a s havin g (i n Brun o Walter' s phrase ) "selfless egos. " A conductor's attitude—whethe r benig n o r autocrati c —is, o f course, counter balanced b y an orchestra' s collective attitude , whic h ma y likewise run th e gamu t from docilit y to hostilit y an d belligerence . Man y orchestr a musician s regar d al l conductors a s thei r 'natura l enemy, ' an d i n man y famou s orchestra s th e musi cians' ego s ma y b e a s highly develope d an d aggressiv e as the conductor's . I t i s a fact tha t virtuall y ever y conductor, eve n i f famous or generally respecte d o r pop ular, encounter s a t on e tim e o r anothe r a n orchestr a wit h whic h h e come s t o grief, i n whic h th e workin g relationshi p wit h th e orchestra , fo r ofte n inexplica ble reasons , simpl y turns sour . I t i s one o f the grea t mysterie s of the conductin g profession—as wel l a s one o f its realities—that a conductor ma y b e deepl y loved by on e orchestr a an d despise d b y another . One o f the mos t annoyin g mythologie s i n the real m o f conducting i s the notio n of 'specialists' in one field or another. Thu s we have 'Mozar t specialists,' 'Stravinsky specialists,' 'Bruckne r specialists, ' 'Janáce k specialists, ' 'Frenc h repertor y specialists,' 'Russia n repertor y specialists, ' 'Baroqu e specialists, ' etc. , etc. . Wha t thi s often means , alas , i s tha t th e 'specialist ' i n questio n i s (a ) mor e o r les s limite d in hi s repertor y t o tha t specialty ; an d (b ) allow s himsel f majo r interpretationa l liberties i n hi s 'specialty' by virtue of his assumptio n o f the mantl e o f 'authority.' And becaus e o f this assume d authorit y an d it s attendant renommé, othe r musi cians an d critic s accep t uncritically—an d eve n applaud—whateve r th e 'special ist' maestr o produces . I a m not , o f course , arguin g agains t conductor s havin g particula r passions, particular predilections , particula r stylisti c or historica l interests . Al l conductor s are likel y t o hav e these ; indee d i t i s to b e ferventl y hope d tha t the y hav e som e such passion s an d predilections . Bu t I woul d distinguis h thi s fro m th e sor t o f specialization mentione d above . Th e fac t i s tha t specializatio n i n conducting , like ba d tradition , i s usuall y base d mor e o n lack s an d limitation s —deficiencies (technical, aural , intellectual)—tha n o n an y presume d specia l insight s int o th e subject t o b e specialize d in . The trut h i s that i f conductors woul d reall y lear n an d full y respec t wha t i s in the score s o f th e grea t composers—al l composer s (no t jus t a selecte d few) , including b y th e wa y a wid e rang e o f contemporar y composers—the y coul d b e 'specialists' i n th e entir e availabl e repertory. 40 40. I suppose , give n th e limite d notationa l possibilitie s of th e mor e remot e repertor y of , say , Ba roque, Renaissance , an d Medieva l music , on e migh t excus e conductor s fro m becomin g 'expert ' i n those tradition s a s well . I t i s a moo t poin t i n an y case , sinc e th e earl y musi c repertor y hardl y eve r figures i n symphoni c concerts , an d i s now—especiall y lately—lef t t o th e no t alway s tende r car e o f the 'earl y musi c specialists. ' Bu t i n reality , wit h diligen t study, appropriat e researc h and reading , and healthy musica l intuitions , eve n tha t mor e 'remote ' literatur e could (can ) become a par t o f a con ductor's activ e repertory.

52 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

There i s not s o much vita l informatio n normally t o b e foun d outsid e a com poser's scor e tha t woul d vitiat e th e primar y knowledge tha t th e scor e itsel f already contains. To put i t another way , what a conductor need s t o know to reproduce a wor k faithfully is , especially in th e repertor y from th e earl y 19t h centur y to the present , generall y already contained i n tha t score . Additional useful infor mation ma y sometime s b e gleane d fro m supportiv e source s —letters t o an d b y the composer , contemporar y account s o f performances , an d such—bu t the y rarely ar e importan t enoug h t o supplan t th e informatio n already contained i n the composer' s notation s i n hi s scores. No r ar e suc h alternativ e source materials always reliable . The relianc e o n informatio n beyond th e scor e i s to o ofte n a n 'impressive' camouflag e with which 'specialist ' conductor s manag e t o hid e thei r limitations an d deficiencies . In thi s connection , i t i s necessary t o assai l th e eve n mor e widesprea d notio n that 'great conductors' generall y do not—and i n man y minds, shoul d not—nee d to dea l wit h contemporar y musi c o r th e mor e comple x musi c o f our time . Thi s is th e greatest myt h o f al l surroundin g th e conductin g profession . I t i s littl e understood an d appreciate d tha t a thorough knowledg e o f and versatilit y in con temporary musi c o n th e par t o f a conducto r wil l actuall y hel p him/he r gai n important insight s into—and a respect for—the olde r masters ' works (unless that conductor i s a 'contemporar y musi c specialist ' wit h n o affinit y fo r olde r styles , which is , alas, als o often th e case ; that kin d o f specialization is , i n m y view , as much t o be decrie d a s the othe r kinds) . The majo r lesso n t o b e learne d fro m th e conductin g o f contemporary score s (or, t o qualif y i t a little , th e best , th e masterpieces , o f contemporary music ) i s a greatly increase d awarenes s of the meticulou s car e an d extraordinar y notational refinements whic h 20th-centur y composer s generall y lavis h o n thei r scores . Through tha t awareness , an y conducto r i s bound t o becom e mor e scrupulou s in hi s respect for an earlie r composer' s notation . Eve r sinc e th e importan t early works o f Stravinsky, Schönberg, Berg , Webern, Bartók , Prokofiev, Szymanowski , Ravel (to name a few), 41 score s by 20th-century composers hav e become increas ingly precise , evermor e awar e o f ever y interpretationa l eventuality—an d there fore inten t a s best a s possible o n precludin g an y unwante d interpretiv e choices . In thi s respect , i n fact , 20th-centur y composer s hav e bee n quit e successfu l i n perfecting thei r notationa l skills , t o th e poin t tha t interpretatio n i n th e willful , deviant, undiscipline d wa y to whic h th e 19th-centur y repertor y i s so ofte n sub jected, i s virtually precluded . Ther e i s just too muc h detailed , precis e informa tion containe d i n a contemporar y scor e t o b e simpl y ignored . Indeed , mos t conductors, i t would appear, seein g suc h scores , become discouraged i n contem plating th e necessar y technica l contro l an d intellectua l disciplin e th e conduct ing o f suc h work s requires , an d quickly—an d forever—disassociat e themselve s from contemporar y music , returnin g t o th e 'relativ e safety ' an d interpretationa l liberties o f the 19th-centur y Romanti c repertory . 41. I t shoul d b e adde d here , however , tha t Brahm s too wa s a mos t meticulou s an d precis e notato r of hi s music , especially in hi s fou r symphonies , leaving very littl e t o doub t o r speculation . And ye t how shabbil y Brahms has bee n treate d i n matter s o f temp o an d dynamic s by mos t conductor s an d interpreters! (Se e Par t III.)

A PHILOSOPH Y O F CONDUCTIN G 5

3

In a long life of performing with and observin g famous (and not so famous) conductors occasionall y venturin g int o contemporar y musi c —by tha t I mea n trul y contemporary music , representin g ou r ow n time, say , the lat e 20t h centur y (an d not som e trendy , anachronistic , neo-Romanti c stylisti c pleasantry) —I hav e bee n startled to discover that eve n relativel y fine conductors ar e unable t o perform th e most elementar y function s i n conductin g a contemporary work , such a s holding and controllin g a tempo , accuratel y renderin g a metri c modulation , obtainin g rhythmic and dynami c accuracy, to cite but a few examples. It is impossible to conduct a work by, say, Elliott Carter, Milto n Babbitt , George Perle, Jacob Druckman, Donal d Martino , Pierr e Boulez, Hans Werner Henze, Oliver Knussen , an d dozen s o f othe r composer s withou t having , fo r example , th e technical/intellectual/emotional contro l t o kee p a n absolutel y stead y tempo , n o matter what the metric or rhythmic/durational or contrapuntal complexitie s of the music might be . T o conduct Carter' s Double Concerto for Harpsichord an d Piano or hi s Penthode fo r five instrumental quartets , fo r example, o r Perle' s Short Symphony require s the abilit y to maintain thorough temp o contro l at (or very close to) the state d metronom e indications : her e ther e i s no saying , 'Oh, well, he couldn' t have mean t tha t metronom e marking ; s o let's jus t d o i t a little slower'—whic h is what most conductors do with Beethoven's metronom e o r Brahms's tempo indica tions. Moreover , sinc e i n these Carte r an d Perl e work s all other temp o variations are determine d an d controlle d throug h metri c modulations , ever y on e o f suc h tempo change s mus t als o b e rendere d precisely , les t th e whol e continuit y o f the piece be subverted and annulled . Le t me emphasiz e that this is, in the cas e o f the Carter an d Perl e works mentioned—and, needless t o say, hundreds o f other simi larly structured works by many other fin e composer s — not merel y a matter of'get ting prett y close ' to the temp o o r 'mor e o r less' managin g thos e metri c modula tions. Sinc e th e whol e wor k i s structure d i n term s o f thes e myria d temp o relationships—nay, is composed through them , and represents the very content an d essence o f the work—an y deviatio n fro m th e basi c called-fo r tempo s o r from th e metric modulation s tha t constantl y modif y the m destroy s th e ver y essenc e an d structure of the work, rendering the performance not only wrong but pointless . Similarly, i n singl e temp o work s lik e thos e o f Babbitt's— Composition fo r Twelve Instruments o r Relata I come to mind—wher e al l rhythmi c variatio n an d complexity ar e alread y compose d int o th e wor k an d constitut e it s very essenc e (at leas t on e crucia l elemen t o f it s essence) , wher e ever y rhythmi c detai l i s precisely calibrated an d controlled , an d thu s constitute s th e rhythmi c continuit y and flo w an d lin e o f the work , th e conducto r canno t deviat e fro m o r abando n the basi c tempo . Thi s happen s t o require considerabl e conductoria l temp o con trol, but i s not b y any mean s impossibl e t o achieve. 42 42. I t should no t b e though t tha t suc h example s a s cited her e ar e a peculiarit y of the 20t h century , a resul t (as some woul d hav e u s believe) o f the 'mathematicization ' and 'excessiv e intellectualization ' of moder n music . Precis e tempo relationship s and interrelationship s betwee n movements , sections , set piece s o f opera s ar c a s muc h a par t o f Mozart' s Marriage o f Figaro an d Debussy' s Pelléas e t Melisande o r an y numbe r o f classica l symphonie s as an y contemporar y 20th-century work. An d a s for 'metri c modulations, ' the y g o al l th e wa y back t o th e Ar s Nova o f th e 14t h an d 15t h centuries, not t o mentio n Beethoven' s symphonies , string quartets , an d pian o sonatas.

54 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

In a quit e differen t way , the matur e work s o f Webern ar e base d o n th e strict est, mos t precise , tempo s an d temp o relationships , whic h includ e eve n suc h sophisticated concept s as , for example, notatin g an d definin g rubatos, or execut ing ritardando s durin g pause s an d measure s o f rest , thu s eve n determinin g th e durations o f silences i n th e music . Again , thes e subtletie s o f tempo contro l ar e so built int o th e ver y structure an d essenc e of the musi c tha t an y tampering wit h them—or failur e t o execut e them—lead s automaticall y to a seriou s distortion o f the music . What ha s bee n sai d her e regardin g a conductor' s obligation s i n respec t t o tempo an d rhyth m i n moder n work s could , b y analogy , b e claime d a s wel l i n the real m o f dynamics, where agai n man y of our greates t composers—fro m Stra vinsky an d Schönber g t o th e present—nótat e dynamic s wit h a previousl y un known subtlet y o f differentiatio n an d precision , dynamic s ofte n functionin g structurally, no t merel y decorativel y o r expressively , an d whic h mus t thu s b e respected absolutel y i n a wa y that perhap s i n th e performanc e o f 19th-centur y music, i f ignored, i s not quit e a s structurally damaging . The health y disciplinin g o f one's conductoria l craf t throug h th e performanc e of ne w musi c i s no t onl y a n intrinsicall y worth y pursuit , bu t ca n be , a s sug gested, a n ey e and ea r opene r fo r the conducto r i n term s o f the 18th - an d 19th century repertor y a s well . I t i s sa d t o realiz e tha t mos t conductor s avoi d th e more challengin g moder n repertor y lik e th e plague , and , o f course , ar e eve n further dissuade d fro m touchin g i t b y thei r manager s an d handlers . An d onc e again, a doubl e standar d i s applied a s between conductor s an d musicians . Con ductors ar e permitted , eve n encouraged , t o avoi d th e contemporar y repertory , are quickl y forgiven if , when the y d o i t at all , the y hav e don e i t badly . (Indeed , who generally , excep t fo r th e musician s an d th e composer , eve n know s tha t a contemporary wor k was inadequately rendere d b y the conductor? ) O n th e othe r hand, musician s ar e no t permitte d t o avoi d contemporar y music , fo r whe n i t is programmed, th e musician s simpl y have t o perfor m it ; the y hav e n o choic e i n the matter . Moreover , the y ar e expecte d t o pla y thei r part s perfectly . And wha t they play—o r b y chanc e fai l t o play—ca n b e clearl y heard , while , o f course , what th e conducto r doe s ca n b e heard , an d thu s b e assessed , onl y b y the mos t sophisticated, mos t knowledgeabl e o f observers ; t o th e res t i t wil l g o b y unno ticed. To pursu e thi s trai n o f thought further , i t i s rarely brought ou t tha t ther e i s a kind o f injustic e i n a situatio n whic h allow s conductor s virtuall y an y kin d o f liberty of interpretation, whil e orchestra l musician s ar e expecte d t o perform wit h absolute precisio n an d accuracy , allowin g fo r n o deviation s fro m th e tex t al lowed—except fo r those impose d o n the m b y the conductor . Th e iron y here is that musician s ar e expecte d t o perfor m 'perfectly ' eve n withi n th e relativel y (or totally) distorte d interpretation s i n whic h s o man y conductor s indulge . Mor e than that , musician s are not onl y expected t o be technically precis e an d accurat e in thei r performing , but pla y with grea t expression , warmth , interpretiv e insight, particularly, o f course , i n sol o passages , whilst bein g locke d int o a renditio n — too fast , to o slow , to o loud , to o soft , to o something—whic h doe s no t correspon d

A PHILOSOPH Y O F CONDUCTIN G 5

5

to th e scor e t o begi n with . I t i s amazing t o m e tha t thi s doubl e standard—on e for conductor s (an d singers , by the way) , another fo r orchestral musician s —is a n accepted norm , i s maintaine d throughou t th e musica l world , tacitl y justified , and rarel y questioned—sad t o say , even b y musician s themselves. I ca n testif y t o th e virulenc e an d widesprea d acceptanc e o f this doubl e stan dard i n orchestra l performanc e mos t personally . For , i n m y earlier career o f over twenty year s a s a hor n playe r i n a numbe r o f majo r America n orchestras, 43 in most instance s a s principa l horn , I wa s expecte d t o perfor m flawlessly , bot h technically an d expressively , ofte n enoug h withi n conductors ' interpretation s that wer e severel y at odd s wit h th e informatio n i n th e respectiv e scores . An y number o f musicians , the n an d now , ca n testif y t o th e sam e experience . Mor e than now , w e musician s o f the 1930 s throug h th e 1960 s wer e i n n o positio n t o protest thes e waywar d interpretation s i n whic h w e wer e s o ofte n imprisoned , because on e coul d ge t fired by the conducto r durin g a rehearsal, a t the en d o f a concert, no t a t the en d o f a season wit h recourse t o appeals, defens e by orchestra committees, arbitration , and s o on. I t was simply understood—and i s still largely accepted t o thi s day—tha t a musicia n wa s (is ) to perfor m more o r les s flawlessly in respec t t o rhythm , tempo , attac k (an d release ) o f notes, dynamics , ensembl e blending a s ordained by the conductor , whethe r hi s interpretation corresponde d to th e informatio n i n th e scor e o r not . I n addition , a s alread y mentioned, w e were (are ) expecte d t o pla y wit h grea t feeling , wit h interpretiv e flexibility—no t beyond th e limits , se t by the conductor , o f course—and t o contribut e someho w meaningfully t o hi s interpretation . An d ho w w e sweate d an d worried , torture d ourselves, t o achiev e thes e ofte n artisticall y dubious results . I now marve l at th e skill an d chameleon-lik e adaptabilit y with whic h th e bes t musicians—the n an d now—walk thi s precariou s musica l tightrope . If a rendition deviatin g from th e tex t i s allowable for conductors , wh y i s it no t also, permissibl e fo r orchestra l musicians ? Why can' t a musicia n pla y in wron g tempos, inser t rubatos, ignor e dynamics , mak e crescendo s to o early , arbitrarily accelerate th e temp o durin g crescendos , whe n conductor s see m t o asser t suc h privileges unquestioningly , automatically? Not tha t musician s are entirel y free o f such musica l misconduct . Mos t are similarl y inclined t o take unwante d liberties with th e musi c whe n lef t t o their ow n devices (a s in chambe r music) . But none theless a different , muc h toughe r standar d pertains for them whe n they are in a n orchestral situation , where the y ar e forced t o adhere precisel y to the conductor' s interpretations an d whims , n o matte r ho w aberrant. I believ e tha t conductor s wh o hav e com e ou t o f fin e orchestras , wh o hav e had t o perfor m a t a hig h leve l i n th e kin d o f discipline d ensembl e I hav e de scribed, are ofte n thos e whos e interpretations are least willful , least arbitrar y an d self-indulgent. Conductor s wh o hav e been first-rate orchestral instrumentalist s — cellist (Toscanini) , violis t (Monteux) , obois t (Mackerras) , violinis t (Munch ) — 43. Th e Cincinnat i Symphon y Orchestra , th e Ne w Yor k Philharmonic , th e Metropolita n Oper a Orchestra, a s wel l a s numerou s other permanen t o r free-lanc e orchestra s and recording s (wit h con ductors suc h a s Reiner , Stokowski, Walter , Leinsdorf , etc.).

56 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

tend t o b e thos e wh o trea t composers ' score s wit h a n innat e lov e an d respec t and understanding . O n th e othe r hand , i n mos t case s conductor s wh o neve r played a n orchestra l instrumen t professionally o r wh o ar e (were ) pianists—thus rarely, performin g in ensemble , generall y limite d t o performin g soloistically, independent of any outside contro l —seldom posses s those skills and feelings . That is wh y I d o no t necessaril y subscrib e t o th e widesprea d notion , propagate d b y many piano-playing conductors, tha t the pian o i s the preferre d —or eve n manda tory—instrument fo r conductor s t o learn . I t i s obvious , o f course , tha t skill s at the keyboar d wil l facilitat e score readin g a t th e piano , learnin g score s throug h piano transcription s and pian o reductions . Th e pian o i s also, obviously , a useful instrument t o maste r i n th e long-standin g Europea n traditio n o f trainin g con ductors i n th e oper a houses , startin g as Chorrepetitors (coaches) , working up t o substitute an d assistan t conducto r positions , an d eventually , i n som e cases , t o the positio n o f Erster Kapellmeister o r Generalmusikdirecktor. Ye t all thos e obvi ous advantages of being a proficient pianist and sight-readin g score reader—Solt i and Szel l com e t o min d a s outstanding master s o f these skills—ar e outweighe d by the muc h harde r to obtain experience s i n ensemble discipline s that the pian o almost preclude s an d basi c orchestra l instrument s offer . Be tha t a s i t may , th e fac t remain s tha t th e ofte n low-leve l imprecisio n an d willfulness o f mos t conductin g i s i n drasti c contras t t o wha t i s expecte d o f or chestral musicians : absolute precisio n an d adherenc e t o the scor e (th e part ) and the conductor . Another much-discussed—eve n much-belabore d — issue i s th e questio n o f whether t o conduc t fro m memor y o r not . Thi s shoul d b e a matte r o f secondary importance, bu t unfortunatel y i t ha s bee n mad e int o a majo r issu e b y som e critics, writers , conductors (obsesse d wit h th e fetis h o f conductin g fro m mem ory) an d thei r publicists . In m y view it is very much a matte r o f personal choice ; so I d o no t se e an y particula r virtue attache d t o conductin g fro m memory . As someone onc e put it , a great performance from a score is better tha n a mediocr e one don e fro m memory . I t i s als o axiomati c tha t a grea t performanc e i s grea t whether i t is conducted fro m memor y o r not. And there have been i n m y experience very , very fe w conductor s wh o ha d o r have , whil e conductin g fro m mem ory, mor e tha n a superficia l knowledg e o f the score . Virtually all 'fro m memory ' conductors who m I hav e observed , o r whos e recording s I hav e studied , kno w only th e mos t obviou s surface o f the musi c an d a fe w inner detail s that happe n to b e o f particular interes t t o them . Tha t complet e intimat e knowledg e tha t I uphold a s th e idea l —that understanding, no t necessaril y th e memorization, o f every minuscul e detai l o f a scor e — I hav e see n i n onl y a ver y fe w score-les s conductors, an d the n onl y amon g thos e wh o hav e (had ) a limite d repertor y or specialize(d) i n a certai n repertor y which the y conduct(ed ) dozen s o r hundred s of times. Bu t even so , they als o sometimes overlook(ed ) important compositiona l and performanc e details. The vas t majorit y o f conductor s whe n conductin g fro m memor y primarily conduct th e obviou s melodic o r thematic line s (mostl y those i n th e uppe r register), som e o f the dynamic s (at least the bes t amon g the m do) , but ar e rarel y o r

A PHILOSOPH Y OF CONDUCTIN G 5

7

only intermittentl y aware of harmonic o r tonal-functiona l aspects, structura l features, interestin g countermelodie s o r motives , timbra i balances , intonation , un usual orchestrationa l details . I n othe r words , I hav e no t see n i n th e majorit y of memorizin g conductor s a clos e correspondenc e betwee n memor y an d tru e knowledge. Nor a m I particularly impressed b y someone conducting th e Beetho ven Sevent h Symphon y fo r th e ninety-fift h tim e an d conductin g i t withou t a score. I f that conducto r doesn' t kno w the scor e b y then—at least superficially — he o r she ha s n o righ t to ste p ont o a podiu m an d stan d i n fron t o f an orchestr a and a n audience . Audiences, o f course, ten d t o b e impresse d b y conductors wh o conduc t fro m memory, littl e realizin g that fo r som e peopl e memorizatio n come s ver y easily, especially whe n i t i s mere surfac e memorization . Th e fac t i s that som e peopl e have a n innatel y good an d reliabl e memory , whil e other s simpl y do not . Som e people ar e capabl e o f quic k memorization , bu t als o forge t ver y quickly . Audiences als o d o no t realiz e ho w muc h o f wha t i s i n th e composer' s scor e suc h conductors ar e i n fac t missing . Som e o f th e bes t conductors—lik e Monteux , Reiner, Solti—knew/kno w thei r score s ver y well , bu t nonetheles s alway s work(ed) with the score . Other s claim the y have to memorize an d conduc t with out a score 44 becaus e the y fin d workin g with a score , includin g turnin g pages , a hindrance , eve n a distraction. Stil l others—fa r to o many in m y view—conduct without a scor e ou t o f vanity and t o impres s th e audienc e (an d th e critic s an d the musicians). There i s also th e fac t tha t conductor s workin g without a scor e d o mak e mis takes, some mor e tha n others , eve n Ozawa , whos e memory i s the mos t phenomenal (an d inexplicable ) i n th e recen t histor y o f conducting , eve n fa r beyon d Toscanini's o r Mitropoulos's . Bu t Ozawa' s memor y is also no t infallible , and hi s knowledge o f many score s i s often o f the across-the-surface-of-the-musi c superfi ciality I referre d t o earlier. One o f th e rea l problem s wit h conductin g fro m memory , especiall y i n th e case o f conductors wh o fee l the y hav e t o conduc t everything—entir e programs , entire seasons—fro m memory , is that the y ten d t o be s o busy remembering wha t comes nex t i n a piece o f music tha t the y d o no t full y hea r wha t i s being playe d at tha t momen t b y th e orchestra , o r t o pu t i t mor e precisely , ho w i t i s bein g played. Th e huma n brai n ca n onl y dea l wit h on e menta l activit y at a time ; some specia l mind s perhap s wit h one-and-a-hal f o r two . Wha t thi s mean s i n point o f fact i s that, i f the brai n i s concentrating, a s perforce it must do , i n split second timing s o n th e nex t upcomin g moment s o f music—le t u s cal l the m point B — it canno t als o concentrat e wit h absolut e clarit y on wher e th e musi c actually i s at th e moment—poin t A . The reaso n fo r this i s that musi c bein g o n the on e han d a n aural , auditor y ar t an d bein g onl y trul y appreciabl e throug h the ear , bu t o n th e othe r han d th e ea r bein g connecte d t o th e brai n an d it s 44. I fin d mysel f compelled t o poin t ou t tha t 'conductin g fro m memory ' an d 'conductin g without a score ' are no t necessaril y the same . The latte r ma y mean—and , alas , ofte n enoug h does—tha t th e conductor i n question , far fro m havin g memorized th e score , especially in al l it s fullness , i s simply conducting 'withou t a score. '

58 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

receptivity bein g governe d b y the brai n (tha t is , the brai n provide s what i t i s to hear), i f the brai n i s at point B , it can hardl y direct the ea r t o hea r what i s going on a t poin t A . I n othe r words , thi s ineluctabl e fac t prevent s th e conductors , intent o n rememberin g wha t comes nex t in a piec e o f music, from payin g atten tion t o and conductin g i n detai l that which i s being playe d a t that very moment . This i s ho w an d wh y man y memorizin g conductor s fai l t o conduct , o r the y overlook, o r simpl y ar e no t awar e of , importan t aspect s o f th e musi c a t tha t precise moment . Thi s als o explain s wh y a conducto r lik e Ozaw a conduct s a performance i n a pre-programme d (i.e . memorized ) way , including memoriza tion o f the planne d conductoria l gestures , and ca n therefor e not mak e instanta neous adjustment s o r change s o f gestur e t o correc t o r balanc e something , o r influence th e performanc e correctivel y at an y specifi c moment . Indeed , Ozaw a has develope d an d propounde d a whole theor y of conducting whic h i s based o n the notio n tha t th e conducto r nee d not , should not, i n a performanc e adjus t dynamics o r dynami c imbalance s beyon d wha t ma y hav e bee n rehearsed . I t i s a theory o f conductin g whic h avoid s confrontatio n wit h th e actua l realit y o f a performance i n progress . I n thi s wa y o f conducting , th e performanc e an d th e conducting constantl y pas s eac h othe r by , never reall y becoming one , neve r th e one influencin g th e other , eac h goin g it s rehearse d pre-programme d way . I n such conductin g i t woul d see m ver y difficul t o r downrigh t impossibl e t o really 'get inside ' th e music , t o achiev e th e kin d o f spontaneit y tha t result s fro m th e conductor an d orchestr a creatin g th e performanc e together i n a continuou s se ries o f subtl e give-and-tak e interactions . I n suc h pre-programme d conducting , the conducto r canno t suddenl y adjus t t o brin g ou t spontaneousl y a not e tha t is being playe d to o softly—say , th e E thir d i n a pp C majo r chord—o r t o subdu e an overl y loud trumpe t i n a n ensemble , o r to bring out a bass line tha t need s t o be hear d mor e prominently . Conducting wit h a scor e doe s not , o f course, i n an d o f itself guarantee tha t a conductor wil l b e abl e t o mak e suc h instantaneou s adjustments ; th e ea r ha s to hear such imbalance s before the min d ca n tel l it s conductor t o make the correc tive gestures . Bu t i t i s my experienc e tha t mos t score-les s conductor s ar e muc h less likely to hea r suc h momentar y deviations , becaus e al l thei r concentratio n i s absorbed b y the ac t o f remembering . Obviously I fee l ther e ar e som e risks—a t th e ver y least , potentia l risks—an d some seriou s disadvantages to conductin g fro m memory . At worst, its practice i s designed t o impress gullible audiences , managers , agents, board s of trustees, an d perhaps eve n som e critics . A t best , i n th e hand s o f a fe w highl y exceptiona l musician conductors , i t may b e effectiv e bu t stil l no t withou t risks . M y persona l best suggestio n i s to kno w th e scor e completel y dow n t o it s minutest detai l —in essence t o kno w i t 'fro m memory'—bu t nonetheles s t o hav e th e scor e o n th e stand, a s a potential refreshe r o f the memory , a s a support element tha t i s there, 45. I recal l a t time s experiencin g th e sam e kin d o f locked-in, ' unyieldin g feeling a s a n orchestra l musician playin g unde r Toscanin i i n th e 1940 s an d 50s , a feelin g I neve r experience d with Reiner or Busc h o r Monteux , fo r example , wh o alway s use d a score , althoug h they kne w th e musi c com pletely an d thoroughly.

A PHILOSOPH Y O F CONDUCTIN G 5

9

should i t suddenly b e needed . Th e idea l i s to b e fre e fro m th e page , bu t stil l t o have i t ther e a s a comfort . T o m e a scor e b y Brahm s o r Beethove n o r Wagne r or Rave l i s a thin g o f beaut y i n itself . T o see , eve n i f onl y i n a split-secon d glance, tha t inspire d (an d inspiring ) document , tha t lovingly , painstakingl y defined text , directl y a t hand—no t jus t i n th e mind' s eye—communicatin g it s beauties t o us , i s a n exquisit e experienc e al l b y itself , an d a marvelou s emo tional/intellectual confirmatio n o f one' s gras p o f th e score . I t i s lik e havin g a close, intimate , truste d frien d a t one' s side . That , I believe , i s the mos t honest , unpretentious, unostentatiou s approac h t o conducting . I hav e no t thu s fa r discussed th e manual-technica l aspect s o f conducting, th e so called bato n technique . An d I d o no t inten d t o d o s o now, 46 excep t t o examin e two specifi c technical questions : (1 ) th e respectiv e functio n o r function s o f th e two hands, an d (2 ) the widesprea d habi t o f conducting continuall y wit h upwar d motions. Regardin g th e firs t question , ther e appea r t o b e tw o basi c bu t quit e divergent theories . State d i n it s simples t form , th e on e theor y propound s th e notion tha t th e time-beatin g functio n i s directe d b y th e righ t hand , whil e the expressio n of the musi c an d th e contro l o f dynamics li e in th e lef t hand ; th e other theor y hold s tha t bot h hand s ma y be involve d i n bot h functions , bu t tha t the righ t hand mus t i n an y case conve y the entir e characte r an d meanin g o f the music a s wel l a s th e bea t an d tempo . Th e latte r theor y suggest s tha t a goo d conductor o f that metho d coul d conduc t wit h onl y th e righ t hand , expressin g by the siz e and characte r o f the bea t al l tha t i s contained i n th e music . I ver y muc h recommen d an d suppor t th e secon d approach , no t onl y becaus e it seem s t o offe r th e mor e complete , th e mor e flexible , th e mor e expressiv e possibilities, bu t becaus e mos t o f the bes t conductor s I either playe d for or hav e observed throug h th e year s were (o r are) o f the latte r school. Th e beaut y of this concept lie s fo r m e i n th e fac t tha t th e righ t han d expresse s and embodie s al l that i s essentia l t o th e music' s correc t characterization , leavin g th e lef t han d free t o confirm , t o highlight , t o mak e mor e specific , t o isolat e som e musical compositional detail , t o 'decorate ' an d refine , as it were , th e basi c conductoria l gestures o f the righ t hand . Thi s ca n rang e al l th e wa y from bot h hand s locke d in identical , symmetrica l (confirming ) gesture s throug h separat e an d divers e (highlighting, decorating ) gesture s t o tota l inactivit y of the lef t hand. 47 The reade r ma y hav e note d tha t I di d no t mentio n th e contro l o f dynamics as par t o f th e lef t hand' s duties . Th e reaso n i s tha t tha t mus t b e alread y con 46. Fo r detailed informatio n on thes e matters , I refe r th e reade r an d th e conductin g studen t t o any of th e followin g instructiona l books, al l o f superio r qualit y and fille d wit h highl y usefu l (althoug h not necessaril y alway s concurring ) information : Ma x Rudolf , Th e Grammar o f Conducting (Ne w York, 1950 , 1980) ; Frederic k Prausnitz , Score and Podium (Ne w York, 1983) ; Herman n Scherchen , Lehrbuch de s Dirigierens (Leipzig , 1929), an d i n Englis h translation , Handbook o f Conducting (Lon don, 1933,1989) . 47. I a m wel l awar e o f the fac t tha t th e eyes , th e facia l expression , indee d th e whol e demeano r o f the body , ar e important , eve n crucia l expressiv e element s o f th e ar t o f conducting . However , they are beyon d the scop e o f this discussion, being fa r to o personal , too subtle , too diverse , t o permi t an y coherent generalization s o r suggestions.

60 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

tained i n th e functionin g o f th e righ t hand . I n fact , i t i s a crucia l elemen t o f fine conducting , eve n o f merel y technicall y competen t conducting . For , i f th e right hand is , for example, rigorously , abstractly beating time 48 —especially with, say, overl y large beats—the n al l th e attempt s a t nuancin g o f dynamics with th e left han d wil l be o f no avail . A very commo n failing , fo r example, amon g youn g or inexperience d conductor s i s to conduc t a p passag e wit h hug e uncontrolle d right-hand beat s while irritatedly shushing the musician s with the lef t hand . Th e two hand s can , i n additio n t o confirming , discriminate an d subtl y differentiate , but the y mus t no t contradic t eac h other . A n orchestr a wil l the n mechanicall y follow th e righ t han d or—mor e likely—ignor e th e conducto r altogether . The secon d questio n —conducting continuall y wit h upwar d vertica l ar m mo tions—is perhap s eve n mor e problemati c i n tha t i t i s a habi t whic h i s very eas y to sli p int o an d ver y difficul t t o ge t ou t of ; an d a s mentioned , i t i s very widespread amon g conductors , especiall y amon g Germa n o r German-traine d con ductors. Technically, i t consist s o f pulling the hand s an d arm s precipitousl y up ward o n th e beat—i n it s worst form o n each bea t (whethe r in 4/4 o r 3/ 4 or 5/ 4 or any othe r pattern ) — instead o f delineatin g th e bea t wit h downwar d o r sideward movements. Graphically , th e incorrec t an d correc t movement s coul d b e show n as follows : say , in 4/4 , (se e Fig . 4a , b , c ) (a ) repeate d fou r time s mor e o r les s i n the cente r o f the beatin g zon e wit h fou r fas t vigorou s upward thrust s (d indi cates the bato n stoppin g abruptly) instead o f (b), or much better , (c) . The incor rect movements , a s i n (4a) , ar e wron g fo r tw o basi c reasons : First , the y inher ently prevent the us e o f any lateral , horizontal han d movement s (lef t t o right , as in (4b ) and (4c)) ; second , becaus e the y d o so , they mak e i t impossibl e to creat e any musica l line . Eac h motion , especiall y if beat vigorousl y (as i n a f passage) , produces a punch y staccat o gestur e whic h emphasize s an d isolate s eac h beat . There i s no orchestr a i n th e worl d tha t ca n pla y a musica l line , a phrase , with such a flailing , upward-thrustin g beat. Th e orchestr a i s virtually forced t o pla y a series o f hard-hittin g beats, rathe r tha n a sustaine d directiona l line — unless, o f course, i n self-defens e i t were no t t o loo k a t the conducto r ( a recourse t o whic h many musician s resort). The disus e of lateral beat-patter n movements , i.e . th e avoidanc e o f using th e entire arms'-lengt h widt h o f th e conductin g zone , i s probably th e mos t seriou s and widesprea d proble m amon g conductor s fro m a technica l poin t o f view. If it were merel y 'technical,' i t might b e tolerable , bu t unfortunatel y it produces th e most unmusical , inexpressive , mechanical results . It i s bad enoug h tha t meter s suc h a s 2/4, 2/2 , 2/8—and eve n worse , 1/4—allow 48. I f Toscanini's bato n techniqu e ha d a flaw, it wa s that i n hi s desir e t o obtai n absolut e rhythmi c control i n hi s musicians ' performances , hi s righ t han d becam e a n inexorabl e dominatin g time beating an d tempo-controllin g device , whic h sometime s coul d become—especiall y i n fas t tempo s and lou d passages—constrictin g an d stiflin g o f expression. Of course , lik e man y grea t conductors , Toscanin i conducte d mor e wit h hi s eye s tha n wit h hi s hands, hi s eye s ofte n offsettin g th e occasiona l rigidit y an d unyieldin g sternness o f hi s beat . Fo r Toscanini's eye s wer e lik e burnin g coals , holdin g hi s musician s totally i n thei r swa y and , throug h their intens e concentration , energizing the musi c in a wa y that I never felt quit e s o powerfully wit h anyone else , except perhap s with Mitropoulos .

A PHILOSOPHY OF CONDUCTING

61

Fig. 4 a

for littl e o r no latera l beat movement . Th e hand s are relegate d simpl y to movin g vertically dow n an d up . A t least i n an y bea t patter n o f three o r more , th e hand s can mov e laterally , expressing through th e shap e o f the curve d horizonta l move ments th e mood , th e character , th e motio n an d directio n o f the music . I n thi s context i t i s wel l t o remin d ourselve s tha t th e mos t importan t thing , fro m a technical poin t o f view , i s wha t a conducto r doe s between th e beats . Beatin g time i s somethin g tha t almos t anybod y ca n do—an d unfortunatel y too man y conductors ar e merel y 'time-beaters'—bu t th e rea l ar t o f conductin g reside s i n how yo u shap e th e music , giv e i t it s appropriat e characte r an d moo d an d es sence b y how you mov e fro m bea t t o beat , wha t you d o between th e beats . And finally , a word abou t tradition s is perhaps als o i n order . Traditions are , t o be sure, a complex subject , for there ar e bad tradition s (especially in the operati c world) an d ther e ar e goo d traditions . T o kno w whic h ar e goo d an d whic h ar e bad, whic h t o follo w an d whic h no t t o follow , i n itsel f takes almost a lifetim e of study. Bu t knowledg e o f the tradition s i s a mos t importan t par t o f a conductor' s training an d study , eve n i f onl y i n th e en d t o rejec t som e (o r most ) o f them . The stud y o f performin g tradition s mus t b e tempere d b y stud y o f th e score , although conversel y th e stud y o f the scor e ma y als o b e informe d b y a stud y of the accumulate d attendan t traditions . Ther e i s n o eas y solutio n t o thi s vexin g problem, fo r i n th e en d intelligence , commo n sense , a stud y of prevailing per formance style s an d practice s a s wel l a s reliabl e sourc e material s ar e th e onl y solution, o n th e basi s o f whic h th e conducto r mus t the n simpl y us e hi s bes t judgment. I n an y case , t o conduc t a Brahm s o r a Beethove n symphon y o r a Wagner o r Debuss y wor k withou t a n awarenes s of the respectiv e receive d tradi tions associate d wit h suc h works , is almost t o forfei t one' s righ t to conduc t thes e works, eve n if—a s I say—fo r goo d an d prope r reason s on e decide s ultimatel y to reject som e o f those tradition s o r som e aspect s o f them . Tradition i s sometimes nothin g mor e tha n ba d habit s o r technical limitation s ossified int o permanence . Bu t ther e ar e als o goo d traditions , importan t tradi tions, whic h som e superio r musicia n o r grou p o f musician s evolve d ou t o f re peated experience s wit h a give n piec e o f musi c o r a give n phrase . I n year s o f studying variou s tradition s —historical, regional , nationa l —I hav e realize d tha t those tradition s that w e conside r valid and usefu l ar e usuall y one s tha t aros e ou t of th e demand s o f the score , the musi c itself , no t ou t o f the demand s o r limita-

62 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

tions o f a particula r performe r o r grou p o f performers . In an y case , t o lear n t o distinguish betwee n ba d an d goo d tradition s i s another importan t obligatio n a conductor mus t assume, regardles s of how arduou s tha t tas k may be. M y advic e would b e t o initiall y consider al l tradition s wit h grea t suspicion , n o matte r ho w venerable o r highl y championed, tha t i s to say , not t o accep t automaticall y any of them, bu t t o study and researc h the m a s to thei r origin—whe n an d b y whom they wer e initiated—an d apprais e them, especiall y as to how , why , and t o wha t extent the y deviat e fro m th e composer' s score . Wit h tha t an y reasonabl y intelligent conducto r ca n asses s which tradition s ar e vali d an d whic h ar e groundles s falsifications. The reade r wil l b y now , i t i s hope d agre e wit h m e tha t conductin g i s a mos t demanding and challengin g artisti c discipline, particularly , a s an interpretiv e recreative art , an d tha t i t doe s no t permi t o f th e kin d o f casua l flirtatio n and/o r egocentric involvemen t whic h mos t conductor s giv e t o th e task . I t wil l also , I hope, hav e becom e clea r tha t bato n technique—ba d o r goo d —is no t th e mos t important facto r i n producin g a performance , le t alone a 'great ' o r recognizably 'authentic' performance. A good, clean, sensible technique does help—it is especially helpfu l t o orchestra l musician s an d make s thei r lif e a littl e easier—bu t hundreds o f conductor s (ove r mor e tha n a centur y an d a half ) wit h poo r o r problematic technique s hav e prove n tha t performanc s ar e no t thereb y com pletely hindered , no r doe s tha t facto r i n an d o f itself predetermine th e typ e an d quality o f interpretation/realizatio n o f a give n work . The fac t i s that conductor s with poo r techniques hav e given great, profoundly moving interpretations , while conversely, conductor s wit h excellen t (clear , clean ) technique s hav e give n empty-headed (o r wrong-headed), willfull y waywar d performances . That i s why I have hardl y dwelt a t all o n conductin g technique s i n thi s book , concentrating muc h mor e o n conductin g a s a n interpretiv e art . I n summary , much o f wha t I hav e thu s fa r writte n abou t an d postulate d a s a basi c require ment o f goo d o r grea t conductin g amount s t o scor e analysis , although I hav e avoided tha t particula r ter m sinc e i t can , i n th e wron g hand s an d minds , b e construed a s 'academic' an d 'overl y intellectual. ' Analysis t o m e i s simply the thoroug h stud y of the score , o f it s specific nota tion i n al l it s elements : melodic/thematic , harmonic , rhythmic/metric , struc tural, textural , orchestrational , formal , etc . Analysi s i n tha t sens e i s a n all encompassing retracin g of the step s o f composition, yieldin g the fulles t possibl e understanding o f what wen t int o th e piec e i n th e first instance an d wha t there fore need s t o b e 'realized ' i n performing/re-creatin g it . Analysi s ca n als o fre quently tell th e performe r what no t t o do. Analysis i n tha t ful l sens e wil l inform the conducto r no t to emphasiz e on e thin g onl y t o obscur e another ; no t to exaggerate th e mos t obviou s and commonplace ; no t t o impai r th e expressio n of the spirit and essenc e o f a piece which , be h e reminded , shoul d b e th e su m tota l of all th e aforementione d interrelated element s an d parts ; not t o overstres s what is secondary or tertiar y i n structura l importance, especiall y at the expens e o f something primary , and thereb y destroying or subvertin g the composer's vie w o f these balances and interrelationships.

A PHILOSOPH Y O F CONDUCTIN G 6

3

I hav e emphasize d question s o f tempo, o f dynamics , an d o f articulation , be cause thes e thre e realm s ar e amon g the mos t basi c requirement s o f a balanced , correct interpretatio n an d becaus e the y ar e th e thre e area s tha t ar e th e mos t abused, ignored , an d falsel y rendered . Temp o question s relat e no t onl y t o basi c or openin g tempo s (o f movements) give n b y the compose r bu t t o temp o modi fications within movement s o r pieces no t necessaril y indicated b y the composer . I ca n onl y reiterat e b y wa y o f summar y t o al l tha t ha s bee n sai d abov e tha t tempo consideration s o f all kinds , includin g basic initiating tempos, requir e ful l respect fo r the score , thoroug h study of the wor k and it s (possibly) varying tempo modifications; fo r the elemen t of tempo bears mos t profoundl y and criticall y on the shape , continuity , an d characte r o f the work . The fac t tha t a few, rare, sensitive, an d experience d performer s (conductors) ca n intui t a righ t temp o b y 'feel ing', a s wonderfu l a s tha t ma y be , i s stil l insufficien t a s a basi c approach , be cause i t leave s a margi n o f uncertainty whic h ca n onl y b e resolve d an d uphel d to scrutin y by study and analysis. No les s critica l an d decisiv e ar e dynamics , fo r her e th e conductor's/perform er's careles s o r willfu l intervention , alterin g th e dynamics , ca n b e severel y damaging t o the characte r an d essence o f the work—unbeknowns t t o the audience , mind you . Th e sam e ca n b e sai d for articulation, phrasings , bowings etc . My having emphasized thes e thre e performanc e elements shoul d no t lead th e reader t o believ e tha t th e othe r elements—structure , texture ; orchestratio n (i.e . timbre, tonecolor , sonority) , form , an d continuity—ar e o f littl e o r n o conse quence i n th e re-creatio n o f a work . Indeed , th e ultimat e achievemen t o f a performance ough t t o b e th e reproductio n o f a wor k i n it s totality, tha t is , a s I have postulate d it , th e retracin g o f al l th e compositiona l step s an d bringin g t o acoustic lif e th e myria d interrelated , bot h smal l an d large , decision s a compose r makes i n creatin g a work . Eve n th e smalles t interpretiv e decisio n mus t b e in formed an d illuminate d b y a n intelligen t an d supportable , clearl y articulate d concept o f the large r frame ; th e smal l event s mus t hav e thei r correc t plac e i n the concep t o f th e whole . An d i n term s o f harmonic/melodi c understanding , the conductor—an d i t i s hoped throug h him—th e player s must hav e a n aware ness o f the distinctio n betwee n primar y tona l element s i n th e harmoni c fram e of referenc e an d th e mor e secondary , perhap s decorativ e o r elaborative , ele ments. To o man y conductor s concentrat e onl y on , eve n exaggerate , thes e pri mary tonal elements , which ar e already all too obvious—havin g their own inher ent prominenc e an d needin g n o furthe r 'bringin g out,'—thereb y ignorin g les s obvious tona l deviation s (chromaticism , dissonance , suspension ) tha t ar e ofte n the mos t origina l an d darin g inspiration s of a compose r and , i n m y view, therefore requir e specia l intercedenc e b y th e conducto r an d performers. 49 A s I hav e said earlier , i t i s tha t strange ne w note , o r unusual voic e leading , o r daringly original orchestratio n b y a Beethove n o r a Brahm s tha t ma y requir e ou r specia l attention, rathe r tha n conductin g th e alread y obvious. When al l o f these interrelate d elements ar e i n thei r righ t place, meanin g th e 49. Thi s ma y no t b e tru e i n certai n types o f atonal contemporar y works (b y say Babbitt or Carter), where the intentio n and assumptio n of the compose r ar e tha t al l elements , al l voices, are t o be seen and hear d a s having equa l prominence an d relevanc e i n th e totalit y o f the work .

64 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

composer's 'right ' place , then—an d onl y the n —can ther e b e a trul y moving , illumined an d illuminatin g performance . Fo r there come s a moment—ver y rare though i t ma y be—wher e pur e feeling , base d o n a complete understandin g o f the text , take s over . Th e whol e ensembl e i s sustaine d an d transporte d b y no t even th e conductor , bu t b y the inheren t conten t o f the musi c a s committed t o notation b y th e composer , speakin g directl y t o us . I t i s suc h a performanc e which, mor e tha n merel y 'correct,' i s inspired b y the correc t reading , an d whic h can the n reac h height s o f sublimity, and b e a trul y revelatory experience fo r al l concerned: conductor , orchestra , an d audience . Having herei n state d m y ow n philosoph y o f the ar t o f conducting, bot h a s a prescription an d a définition, i t will be interestin g t o see i n Par t II what conduc tors, composer-conductors , an d othe r writer s have writte n o n thes e matter s ove r the severa l centuries since conductin g develope d a s a distinct musical discipline.

Part II

This page intentionally left blank

A History of Conducting Imperfection ca n spoi l muc h mor e than perfectio n ca n create . —Arnold Schönber g A ma n paint s wit h hi s brain s an d not wit h hi s hands . — Michelangel o Art hat h a n enem y calle d ignorance . — Ben Jonso n

It i s instructive and fascinatin g to stud y the variou s treatises, pamphlets , articles , books, an d writing s o n conductin g tha t hav e appeare d throug h th e year s sinc e Johann Mattheso n publishe d hi s Der Volkommene Capellmeister i n 1739 , a time when th e ar t o f conducting wa s still in it s relative infancy. Wha t i s fascinating is how perspective s o n conductin g shifte d ove r th e year s an d wit h variou s au thors—like Weber , Berlioz , Wagner , Strauss , Weingartner , Furtwängler , Scherchen, Walter , an d mos t recentl y Ma x Rudolf , Frederic k Prausnitz , an d Kyrill Kondraschin—bu t also how certai n fundamental s of the ar t o f conductin g have bee n perceive d a s constant an d inviolate . Mattheson (1681-1764 ) di d no t tak e th e titl e o f hi s boo k (Th e Complet e Capellmeister, wit h emphasi s o n th e wor d "complete" ) lightly . Indee d th e titl e page announce s tha t th e boo k wil l "giv e thoroug h notic e o f al l thos e thing s which h e wh o woul d presid e ove r a n orchestr a wit h hono r an d efficienc y mus t know an d mus t kno w completely. " Mattheso n characterize d th e conducto r o f his tim e —at leas t the idea l conductor—a s a broadl y educated artist , who wa s as knowledgeable i n literature , poetry , painting , philosophy , an d language s a s i n the variou s realms of music: harmony, counterpoint, orchestration , composition, and th e ar t o f singing . I n wha t I thin k convey s remarkabl y modern insight s into th e aestheti c an d psychologica l aspect s o f conducting—fo r example , th e 67

68 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

conductor's relationshi p wit h hi s musicians , dee p commitmen t t o th e musi c o f his time , an d eve n th e ethic s an d moralit y o f th e profession—Mattheso n pre sented a n all-embracin g view of the ar t and professio n of conducting that , to m y knowledge, ha s rarel y been expresse d quit e s o comprehensively an d s o penetratingly. In it s encyclopedic proportion s (nearl y one thousan d page s in the Englis h translation),1 thi s remarkabl e tom e deal s wit h virtuall y all practical , theoretica l and aestheti c precept s which , accordin g t o Mattheson , th e 18th-centur y Capellmeister neede d t o understan d an d command . Perhaps Mattheson' s loft y vie w o f conductin g wa s expresse d mos t challeng ingly an d mos t succinctl y i n hi s dictum : "Al l sciences [an d arts] 2 ar e linke d together chain-lik e i n a circle . H e wh o know s onl y hi s [one ] craft , know s nothing, fo r h e i s bu t a pedant , eve n wer e h e a general. " ("All e Wissenschafte n hängen Ketten - ode r Glieder-weis e i n eine m Kreis e aneinander. We r nu r allei n sein Handwer k weiss , de r weis s nichts , sonder n is t ei n Pedant , wär e e r auc h gleich ei n Feldherr"). 3 Thes e sam e thought s wer e echoe d nearl y a hundre d years late r b y Rober t Schuman n when , i n hi s "Übe r Dirigieren " h e wrote : "What th e compose r create d ou t o f hi s inne r sel f mus t b e recognize d b y th e conductor, wh o ca n onl y achiev e understandin g throug h vas t knowledge . Th e spiritual greatnes s o f musi c canno t b e apprehende d solel y by learnin g th e fig ured bass , or by studying and servin g an apprenticeship , bu t b y diligent stud y of every scienc e connecte d wit h music." 4 In contras t t o Mattheson' s immens e tome , a muc h slimme r volum e b y Car l Ludwig Junke r —onl y som e forty-eigh t page s i n th e origina l German—pub lished i n 1782 , som e fort y year s later tha n Mattheson' s work , concentrates spe cifically o n th e conducto r a s conductor , separat e fro m th e composer . I n fou r chapters, Junker deals brilliantly and succinctl y with fou r aspect s o f conducting: (1) tunin g a n orchestr a (evidentl y in th e lat e 18th-centur y stil l a ne w practice , much i n nee d o f instruction an d training) ; (2 ) the placemen t an d dispositio n of the orchestr a o n stage ; (3 ) tempo ("Vo n de r Bewegung") , an d (4 ) the politic s of conducting (! ) ("Vo n de r Politi k de s Kapellmeisters")—th e las t a subjec t which Mattheson ha d als o explored . Junker' s mos t importan t chapter—an d a subjec t of centra l concer n t o hi m (an d us ) —deals wit h question s o f tempo , bot h th e establishment o f tempos an d th e flexibility within tempos . But , lik e Mattheson , Junker als o deal s wit h th e philosophy , the moralit y of conducting, an d th e con ductor's relationshi p wit h hi s players . H e vigorousl y upholds th e ar t o f musi c and o f conducting , deplorin g al l commercialism : makin g music , playing , con ducting merel y "fo r money " ("Überhaup t sol l di e Kuns t nich t nac h Bro d

1. A ver y crampe d 50 0 page s i n Germa n Steilschrift i n th e origina l publication . De r Volkommene Capellmeister (Hamburg , 1739) ; i n Englis h translation , (An n Arbor , 1981) . 2. I n 18th-centur y terminolog y th e science s (Wissenschaften) include d th e arts . 3. De r Vollkommene Capellmeister p.103 . Englis h translatio n p. 253. 4. Rober t Schumann , "Obe r Dirigieren, " Neue Zeitschrift fü r Musik, 1836 . 5. Car l Ludwi g Junker , Einige de r vornehmsten Pflichten eines Capellmeisters oder Musikdirektors (Winterthur, 1782) .

A HISTOR Y OF CONDUCTIN G 6

9

gehen") 6 —and i n severa l amazin g passage s w e fin d ou t tha t certai n aspect s o f musical lif e an d musicians ' behavio r haven' t change d a n iota. 7 While Berlio z an d Wagne r als o sa w the ar t o f conductin g a s a sacre d trust , presupposing th e broades t contact s wit h othe r arts , the y bot h expresse d thei r views i n mor e specificall y stylistic, interpretationa l an d technical , eve n polemi cal an d criticall y negative , terms . Berlioz' s occasiona l diatribe s agains t Habe neck 8 an d Wagner' s mor e tha n occasiona l fulmination s agains t Mendelssohn , while t o som e exten t possibl y justified , rathe r narrowe d th e discussio n fro m where Mattheso n an d Junke r had lef t i t a centur y earlier . O f course , Mattheso n was no t speakin g o f conductors i n th e narrowe r sense, bu t o f the Capellmeister as composer , conductor , all-roun d Musicus an d artist/scientist/philosopher . B y the earl y 1800 s man y o f th e social , professional , aesthetic condition s o f music making, th e statu s of composers an d performers , ha d change d dramatically . Per formers, composer s an d thei r musi c ha d bee n largel y liberated fro m servitud e to aristocratic (an d ecclesiastical ) establishments . A new professionalis m an d artis tic autonom y wer e developing , wit h eve r greater , mor e specific , mor e comple x demands o n performer s an d composer s (especiall y the former) . As a result , th e composer-conductor a s philosopher-scientist—whic h Mattheso n an d othe r ear lier writer s and theorist s ha d proclaime d a s the ideal—wa s givin g way gradually to th e mor e specialized , mor e narrowl y focused artist/professional . Both Berlio z and Wagne r emphasize d th e interpretationa l aspect s o f conducting fro m a later, particularly 19th-centur y 'Romantic ' poin t o f view, i n which , oddl y enough, lit erary an d poeti c inspiratio n n o longe r claime d a s primar y a rol e a s i n Matthe son's writing . The bul k o f their discours e deal t wit h specifi c technical problem s (often i n relatio n t o specifi c works), conductorial misdemeanor s an d ba d habit s of variou s kinds, an d abov e al l wit h question s o f temp o an d temp o libertie s — justified an d unjustified . Th e las t subject , i n fact , run s lik e a constan t refrai n through virtuall y all writin g o n conducting , fro m Mattheson , Junker , Berlioz , and Wagne r throug h Weingartner , Strauss , Walter , Toscanini , Jochum , eve n Bernstein. I t i s the on e subjec t tha t almos t al l writin g on conducting , whethe r prescriptive, analytical , didacti c o r critical , focuse s on—an d a subjec t which t o this da y stil l provoke s lively debate, especiall y i n regar d t o Toscanini' s legac y a s well a s th e mor e recen t effusion s o f th e 'earl y musi c authenticists, ' wh o hav e 6. "I n n o wa y may ar t b e determine d b y the pursui t o f bread," i.e . o f money . 7. On e o f the mor e fascinatin g and priceles s o f these commentarie s pertain s t o th e careless , nois y tuning o f an orchestra , evidentl y a s much a ban e i n th e lat e 18t h centur y as in ou r ow n time. "Very annoying i s th e abuse, " Junke r writes , "s o commo n wit h man y orchestras , o f no t maintainin g th e necessary peac e an d quie t i n tuning . Everybod y argues , make s noise s an d run s around ; an d many , who ough t t o produce onl y a single, simple ton e fo r purposes o f tuning, indulg e at that very momen t in al l sort s o f leap s an d cadenza s o n thei r instrument " ("Ärgerlic h is t noc h de r be y s o manche r Kappelle gewöhnlich e Misbrauch : Da ß di e be y de m Stimme n schlechterding s nötig e Ruh e un d Stille nich t z u finde n ist , daß alle s räsoniert , un d lauft , und manche r de r blo s de n simple n To n der Zusammenstimmung angebe n sollte , sic h z u ebe n de r Zeit , allerle y Sprüng e un d Cadenzc n au f seinem Instrumen t erlaubt"). Plus ç a change! 8. Françoi s Antoine Habeneck , Frenc h conductor , th e firs t t o conduc t Beethoven' s symphonie s in France.

70 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

now gon e wa y beyond th e lat e Baroqu e an d earl y classic literatur e t o invad e th e Romantic Beethoven , Schumann , an d Brahm s repertory. It i s illuminating—and ough t t o provid e persuasive instructio n t o conductor s of ou r time—tha t there i s in almos t al l o f the earlie r writing a remarkabl e con sensus o n th e subjec t of tempo flexibility , wha t Beethove n earl y on calle d "elas tischer Takt" ("elasti c time " or "elasti c beat") . Thi s consensu s i s in strikin g contrast t o th e mostl y oversimplifie d and polarize d discussion s on e encounter s i n many quarter s nowadays . Moreover , i t i s ofte n confuse d wit h anothe r conten tious subject , the questio n o f textual fidelity. Th e proponent s o f faithfulnes s t o the score— a philosoph y Toscanin i epitomize d i n thre e words : "com e è scritto " ("as written")—ten d t o equat e rigorou s adherenc e t o th e scor e wit h relentles s steadiness o f tempo , whe n i n fac t th e tw o approache s d o no t necessaril y have anything to do with eac h other . Textua l fidelity does not imply , let alone dictate , rhythmic rigidity—eve n though , o f course , som e misguide d conductors , per formers, an d critic s may make tha t assumption . Let us examine the questio n mor e extensively , and tr y to establish once an d for all what exactly is meant b y 'flexible tempo,' 'textual fidelity,' what the originators of these concepts actually ha d in mind and what, therefore, w e ought to use as our guidelines a s interpreters of 19th-centur y orchestra l literature . But first let u s dispose o f the simplisti c and polarize d arguments on e ha s encountered s o often, in which on e sid e i s accused o f being pedanticall y rigid in temp o continuity , whil e the othe r side is counter-accused o f being willfully free . Epithet s are flung around to bolster each side' s arguments: 'intellectual, ' 'cold,' and 'unfeeling ' fo r the one ; 'indulgent,' 'permissive, ' 'overl y emotional ' fo r the other . Partie s on bot h side s of the debate set up straw men—most commonly Toscanin i on one side, Furtwängler on the other—wh o become eas y targets for polemical attacks . Leaving aside the two major types of conductorial mediocrities , (1) those whose lack o f talent prevent s the m fro m realizin g a flexibl e 'tempo o f feeling,' an d (2 ) those who cannot maintain any semblance o f a coherent tempo control (citin g the worst example s neve r gets a debat e anywhere) , we fin d whe n w e liste n carefull y and without prejudice to the best conductors representing each side, say, Toscanini and Furtwängler , tha t th e forme r wa s neve r a s inflexibl e a s hi s detractor s con tend(ed) o r as textually faithful a s his admirers maintain(ed), while the latte r was not alway s as freel y indulgen t a s the anti-Furtwängle r factio n would hav e u s be lieve, or as profoundly expressive as his adoring public claim(ed). Both conductor s had to o muc h respec t fo r composers an d thei r scores either to rigidif y th e flow of the musi c o r sacrific e al l structura l coherence. Wha t the y actuall y did interpre tively depended a great deal o n the repertor y being conducted . Bot h ha d remark able strengths and weaknesses, and stron g and wea k areas of repertory. Sometimes simila r argument s o f pro-fre e an d pro-stric t temp o ar e cas t i n terms o f earlie r conducto r generation s (usuall y meaning Germa n 'Romantics ' such a s Muck , Nikisch , Mahler , Mengelberg , Pfitzner ) vis-à-vi s younge r post Toscanini generation s (Reiner , Szell , Leinsdorf , Steinberg, Rodzinski) . Th e as sumption i s usually tha t thos e Germa n idealists , in th e traditio n of Wagner an d Billow, indulge d i n excessivel y subjectiv e tempo liberties , a s well a s slow , slug gish, heav y basic tempos, whil e the younge r mid-centur y conductors, much in -

A HISTOR Y O F CONDUCTIN G 7

1

fluenced b y Toscanini an d hi s phenomenal success , wer e th e exponent s o f con trolled, objectiv e literalism , absolute precision , an d streamline d brigh t tempos . But thes e are , again , facil e oversimplifie d generalizations tha t d o no t alway s stand u p t o closer scrutiny . The actua l evidenc e o f performances an d recording s suggests tha t placin g th e above-mentione d conductor s i n tw o opposin g camp s turns ou t t o b e mostl y inaccurate , misleading , an d unfair . Th e evidenc e rathe r suggests that ther e wa s considerable variability and diversit y of approach o n both sides, an d tha t a truer pictur e ca n onl y b e gaine d i n a case-by-cas e analysis, i.e. conductor-by-conductor, eve n work-by-work . The assertio n tha t ther e wer e tw o monolithic, lock-ste p school s o f conducting i s simply not tenable . Jus t as Tosca nini's performance s revea l countles s example s o f subtl e temp o modification s (largely informe d b y hi s Italianate , opera-influence d 'singing ' conception) , s o also man y o f hi s bes t disciple s were skillfu l practitioner s o f a judiciou s tempo rubato. O n th e othe r hand , listenin g t o a broa d samplin g o f performances an d recordings b y th e 'Germa n Romantic ' schoo l o f conductors , on e wil l find — surprising, I a m sure , t o man y a reader—plentifu l example s o f stric t temp o maintenance a s well a s astonishingly lively basic tempos . No, th e argument s ove r fre e temp o versu s stric t tempo , whe n reduce d t o the twi n polarization s of an older , earlie r (subjective ) vis-à-vis a younger , newe r (objective) generatio n ar e simpl y no t tenable . No r ar e th e simila r argument s when cas t i n Ol d Worl d versu s New Worl d terms . Fo r who conduct s i n slower , stretched-to-the-breaking poin t tempo s nowaday s than Giulini ; o r who was given to mor e rubato excesse s than Bernstein ; o r wh o ha s s o consistently twisted Furt wängler's elastischer Takt int o trivializin g mannerisms tha n Barenboim ? An d who was , o n th e othe r hand , mor e 'classically ' consisten t i n matter s o f temp o and puls e tha n Monteu x o r Eric h Kleibe r or eve n Weingartner ? Perhaps i t i s tim e t o examin e wha t exactl y th e origina l mentor s o f thes e tw o (allegedly) opposin g philosophie s o f temp o conceptio n expressed . T o a larg e extent i t reall y al l starte d wit h Beethoven , wh o wa s on e o f the firs t t o us e th e terms "elastische r Takt " an d "Gefühlstempo"(temp o o f feeling). But eve n befor e Beethoven's time , w e hav e indication s tha t temp o fluctuation s withi n move ments wer e beginnin g t o b e considere d a sine qu a no n o f goo d performance . Even Mattheson , writin g as earl y as 1739 , dwell s o n th e subjec t (althoug h les s copiously tha n late r writers) , presumably becaus e i n hi s time—th e earl y 18t h century—tempo modifications were not ye t a consistent practic e (excep t perhap s in voca l music) . Thi s i s t o som e exten t confirme d b y th e fac t tha t orchestra s were the n preside d ove r b y eithe r th e leade r o f th e firs t violin s or th e residen t harpsichordist (o r both) . I t was , i n fact , th e earl y 19t h century' s liberatio n fro m the previou s classic and pre-classi c form s an d temp o conception s tha t le d t o th e decisive establishmen t an d absolut e nee d o f baton conducting , b y a conducto r not sittin g i n th e orchestra . Indeed , Baroqu e music , mos t importantl y Johan n Sebastian Bach's , wa s stil l s o closel y tied t o popula r danc e form s se t i n steady , virtually danceabl e tempo s that , again , ther e wa s n o tremendou s nee d fo r a separate conducto r an d time-keeper . Nonetheless, Mattheso n doe s allud e briefl y t o th e subjec t o f temp o an d

72 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

tempo flexibility . Afte r establishin g th e differenc e betwee n th e "measure " an d the "beat " within a measure, o n th e on e hand , an d "movement, " tha t is , tempo, on th e othe r hand , h e point s ou t tha t th e latte r i s commonly modifie d by adjectives lik e affettuoso, co n spirito, addin g somewha t cryptically , bu t nevertheles s sagely, that "ther e would b e mor e t o understan d through suc h description s tha n is written." 9 Moreover , movemen t (tempo)—wha t Junke r some fort y year s later would cal l Bewegung (motion ) —to quot e Mattheso n again , "ca n hardl y be con tained i n precept s an d prohibitions : because suc h depen d primaril y on th e feel ing an d emotio n o f eac h composer , an d secondaril y on goo d executio n o r th e sensitive expressio n of the performer. " Mattheson explain s that th e mer e indica tions o f allegro, lento, adagio, vivace are to o genera l t o giv e precis e temp o defi nitions. "Her e eac h on e mus t reac h int o hi s ow n sou l an d fee l wha t i s i n hi s heart, sinc e the n . . our performin g will to a degre e acquir e a n extraordinar y or uncommon movement , whic h neithe r th e actua l mensuratio n [meter ] i n an d of itself no r it s perceptibl e holdin g bac k o r acceleratin g ca n impart , bu t whic h stems from a n imperceptible impetus " (italic s Mattheson's). "Th e effec t i s observable, bu t withou t knowin g how i t happened." Mattheson continues: "I say observable because essentially th e melod y will b e more o r les s altere d i n it s subtl e movemen t [tempo] , appearin g t o b e eithe r faster o r slower . Bu t nothin g appreciabl e wil l b e take n awa y o r adde d t o th e mensuration o r the not e values." 10 Mattheson the n praise s and cites Jea n Rousseau' s ' 'Methode claire, certain et facile pour apprendre à chanter l a musique ( A clear, sure , an d eas y metho d t o learn t o sin g music) , published i n 1678 . Reiteratin g an d confirmin g his notio n of tempo flexibility, Mattheson quote s Rousseau: "Within the sam e mensuration , the temp o ma y tur n ou t quit e differently : fo r i t i s sometimes mor e lively , sometimes mor e languid , accordin g t o th e variou s passions which on e i s to express . Thus i t i s not enoug h fo r the performanc e o f a piec e o f music t o giv e th e bea t and maintai n i t according to the prescribe d temp o indications , bu t th e conduc tor mus t also gues s th e meanin g o f th e composer , tha t is , h e mus t fee l th e various impulse s whic h th e piec e i s intended t o express." I2 Mattheson's ow n last word on th e matter—i n chapte r 26 , his final chapter—is: "Giving the beat is the main function of the conductor i n performance. Such beat giving must not only be done precisely, but as circumstances may require . . . the conductor can and should make little changes in the tempo, delay the pulse, yield, or i n consideratio n o f a certain specifi c feelin g [Gemiithsneigung] an d othe r rea sons, accelerate th e beat somewhat and drive it harder than previously." 13 From bot h Mattheson' s an d Rousseau' s statement s i t can b e seen that Beetho 9. Mattheson , De r Vollkommene Capellmeister, p . 171 ; Englis h edition , p . 365 . 10. Ibid. , p . 18 3 (p . 367) . 11. Th e Jea n Roussea u referre d t o b y Mattheso n i s no t th e mor e famou s composer-encyclopedistauthor-philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, but a n earlie r Jean Rousseau, the foremos t Frenc h gam bist o f th e lat e 17t h century , whos e her e mentione d Methode, republishe d n o les s tha n si x times (the las t i n 1707) , was of considerable influence o n th e Europea n continent. 12. Ibid. , p.17 3 (p.368). 13. Ibid. , pp . 481-82 (p . 866) .

A HISTOR Y OF CONDUCTIN G 7

3

ven's "tempo o f feeling" an d "elasti c beat"(tempo rubato) wer e no t entirel y un known eve n a s early as the secon d quarte r o f the 18t h century , that is , in Bach' s and Handel' s time . Bu t by the en d o f the 18t h centur y we begin t o hav e indications tha t temp o conception s wer e loosene d eve n mor e t o allo w fo r a greate r degree o f tempo modification . Suc h tendencie s centere d o n th e so-calle d Affektenlehre (literally , the teachin g o f affections), 14 whic h b y th e lat e 18t h centur y developed int o a musica l aestheti c wit h a far-rangin g influenc e o n interpretiv e practices. Eighteenth-centur y theorists , suc h a s Johan n Samue l Petr i an d Friedrich Wilhel m Marpurg , bega n t o spea k o f th e expressio n o f 'affections ' affecting th e temp o during th e cours e o f a compositio n o r movement , o n th e assumption that , sinc e musi c shoul d closel y reflec t it s emotional content , an d since n o two emotions o r passions can b e alike, the temp o canno t b e metronom ically consisten t throughou t a work . Accordingly, the temp o mus t b e modifie d to reflec t the variou s contrasting 'affections ' o r moods : sad , melancholy , angry , energetic, joyous , and merry . Both Johan n Joachi m Quant z an d Leopol d Mozart , bot h highl y influentia l composer/theorist/teachers i n thei r time , als o proclaime d th e ne w temp o af fections. Th e elde r Mozar t writes : "Jede s Tempo , langsa m ode r schnell , ha t seine Schattierungen" 15 ('Each tempo , slo w or fast , ha s it s gradations'). Quant z went s o fa r a s t o stat e tha t "a n absolutel y consisten t temp o i s nonsensical." 16 Daniel Gottlo b Turk , too , i n hi s Clavierschule (1789) , write s extensively about tempo modifications. Unfortunately w e hav e littl e detaile d evidenc e o f ho w Hayd n an d Mozar t conducted or—mor e precisely—how , i n thei r conducting 17 an d interpretation s 14. Th e Germa n wor d Affekt combine s int o a singl e concep t th e term s "affecting " and "emotion" . 15. Leopol d Mozart , Versuch einer gründlichen Violinschule (Augsburg , 1756), p.30; English editio n translated b y Edith a Knocker , A Treatise on th e Fundamental Principles of Violin Playing (London , 1948), p . 33 . 16. Johan n Joachi m Quantz , Versuch einer Anweisung di e Flöte traversiere z u spielen (Breslau , 1752), p.261 . Th e officia l Englis h translatio n read s "absur d an d impossible. " "Ic h verlang e nicht , daß ma n ei n ganze s Stüc k nac h de m Pulsschla g abmesse n sollte ; den n diese s wäre ungereim t un d unmöglich." Quantz, surprisingly , wrote relativel y littl e abou t tempo rubato— he actuall y mention s th e ter m only onc e (p . 146)—but muc h o f wha t h e teache s i n hi s Versuch einer Anweisung carrie s such a n implication, i n a n attemp t t o arriv e i n performanc e at the tru e expression and 'affect ' (Leydenschaft) of the music . Perhaps , becaus e o f an increas e in temp o an d expressiv e liberties by performers in hi s time, and, conversely , a worrisome tendency among younge r musicians as well as professionals bein g unable t o maintain a good tempo , Quant z spend s muc h mor e tim e an d effort s o n thos e concerns . 17. Hayd n an d Mozar t 'conducted ' mostly , if not entirely , from th e keyboar d or th e Konzertmeister position. As Adam Cars e pointe d ou t i n hi s splendid stud y The Orchestra in th e 18th Century (Cam bridge, 1940) , "conducting a n orchestra , as we understand i t now, was unknown i n th e 18t h century. Misunderstanding easil y arises whe n th e wor d 'conducting ' i n 18t h centur y literature is interpreted in it s present-day sense, an d i s associated wit h th e us e o f the baton. " Mozart , Cars e adds , "di d no t hand ove r th e bato n t o anothe r conductor, " a s som e 20th-centur y writer s hav e suggeste d (see , fo r example, Annett e Kolb , Mozart [Chicago , 1956] , p . 340) , fo r "h e ha d non e t o han d over " i n tha t he wa s leading from th e harpsichor d or th e pianoforte . Carse als o cite s a lette r b y Mozart, dated Octobe r 19,1782 , i n whic h h e write s tha t when h e fel t the orchestr a i n Vienn a i n hi s Entführung wa s getting a bi t sleepy , h e decide d t o resum e his place "at th e Klavie r an d conduc t it."

74 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

of thei r own works , they dealt wit h th e questio n o f tempo modification . But w e do hav e clea r indication s fro m Mozar t i n hi s letter s tha t h e feature d a pro nounced tempo rubato i n hi s pian o playing , a rubato which , i t turns out, i s th e same on e w e associate with Chopin. 18 In a letter to his father date d Octobe r 24 , 1777, Mozar t writes: "In tempo rubato in a n adagio, the lef t han d shoul d go o n playing i n stric t time , wher e th e lef t doesn' t kno w anything about it " ("das s di e linke Han d nicht s daru m weiss") , th e implicatio n bein g i t wa s fo r th e sak e of expression. It i s clear fro m thi s and othe r evidenc e tha t th e Tempo de s Gefühls wa s not a 19th-century inventio n bu t a fairl y well-establishe d interpretativ e practice lon g before that . Junker's aforementione d handbook o n conducting , i n a chapter entitle d "Vo n der Bewegung " ("Abou t Tempo"), 19 als o make s i t quit e clea r tha t earlie r pracAs for Haydn, w e have Johan n Nicolaus Forkel' s wor d (i n hi s Musikalischer Almanack) tha t Haydn at Esterhazy "spiel t zugleic h di e erste Violine" ("a t th e sam e tim e h e play s the first violin"), meaning that h e le d hi s symphonie s wit h th e violin ; whil e a t Salomon' s concert s i n London , w e kno w tha t Haydn wa s engaged t o "presid e a t th e pian o fo r hi s ne w symphonies. " 18. Chopi n characterize d hi s concep t o f tempo rubato a s follows : "Th e singin g han d ma y deviate , [but] th e accompanimen t mus t kee p time . . . The grace s ar e par t o f the text , an d therefor e par t of the time . . . Imagin e a tre e wit h it s branches swaye d b y th e wind ; th e ste m represent s th e stead y time, th e movin g leave s ar e th e melodi c inflections . Tha t i s wha t i s mean t b y tempo an d tempo rubato" (cite d b y Edward Dannreuthe r i n hi s Musical Ornamentation, II, London , 1895 , p.161) . 19. Junker , Einige de r vornehmsten Pflichten eines Cappellmeisters oder Musikdirectors, pp . 20-43 . Junker was , lik e Mattheson , versatil e an d broadl y trained , a prolifi c write r an d composer . Althoug h a minor figur e i n the latte r realm , h e wa s otherwise extraordinaril y versed i n a wide range o f subjects, including theory , aesthetics , philosophy , th e visua l art s an d iconography , belles-lettres, world popula tions, a s wel l a s bein g a n avi d chronicle r o f musi c an d music-makin g i n hi s time . Thaye r i n hi s biography o f Beethoven include s a n importan t accoun t written b y Carl Junke r o f the youn g Beethoven i n a 179 1 performanc e wit h th e cour t orchestr a o f the Electo r o f Cologne. I n a communicatio n to Bossler' s Musikalische Correspondenz, date d Novembe r 23 , 1791 , Junke r wrot e (excerpte d here) : "I als o hear d on e o f th e greates t o f pianists—th e dear , goo d Bethofen . I hear d hi m improvis e i n private; yes , I wa s even invite d t o propos e a them e fo r hi m t o vary . The greatnes s o f thi s amiable , light-hearted man , a s a virtuoso , ma y i n m y opinio n b e safel y estimate d fro m hi s almos t inexhaust ible wealt h o f ideas , th e altogethe r characteristi c styl e o f expressio n i n hi s playing , an d th e grea t execution tha t h e displays . I know , therefore , no t on e thin g tha t h e lack s tha t conduce s t o th e greatness o f a n artist . Bethofen , i n additio n t o th e execution , ha s [great ] clearnes s an d weigh t o f idea, an d [much ] expression . I n short , h e i s mor e fo r th e heart—equall y great , therefore , a s a n adagio o r allegro player. Hi s styl e of treating hi s instrumen t i s so differen t fro m tha t usuall y adopted , that i t impresse s on e wit h th e ide a that , b y a path o f his ow n discovery , he ha s attaine d tha t heigh t of excellenc e whereo n h e no w stands " (cite d i n Thayer' s Life o f Beethoven [Princeton , 1964] , pp.104-5). I first came upo n Junker' s splendid littl e volum e i n th e Librar y of Congress i n th e lat e 1940s . No t as yet involve d wit h conducting, much o f Junker's boo k seeme d t o me a t the time , although fascinat ing, o f little practica l relevance . Mor e recentl y I have, however , com e t o cheris h thi s rar e an d earl y documentation o f conducting practices , an d wa s particularly pleased t o not e tha t Richar d Taruski n a fe w years ago quote d Junke r extensively ("Resistin g th e Ninth, " 19th Century Music, Sprin g 1989) , pp. 252-54) , a t th e sam e tim e correctin g Paul Henr y Lang' s earlie r misquotes and/or out-of-contex t citations o f Junke r o n th e subjec t o f stead y tempo s i n a n articl e o n Beethove n symphonies . (A n English translatio n o f Junker' s handboo k i s bein g prepare d an d wil l soo n b e publishe d i n thi s country.)

A HISTOR Y OF CONDUCTIN G 7

5

tices o f regular, steady tempos, t o the exten t the y existed , were bein g questione d and challenged . Indeed , Junke r gives the subjec t of tempo flexibility a thoroug h treatment, wit h thought s tha t are—an d therei n li e thei r importanc e —echoed decades an d eve n centurie s late r by, among others , Beethoven , Wagner , Strauss , Weingartner, an d Walter . Junke r initiate s th e subjec t o f temp o b y th e obviou s suggestion tha t i t i s th e compose r wh o determine s th e temp o o f a wor k o r a movement: "whethe r i t is lively or slow " ("in s o ferne[die Bewegung] geschwin d oder langsa m ist"). 20 "Bu t eve n i f the composer, " s o writes Junker, "can indicat e various temp o gradation s withi n thes e basi c livel y or slow tempos , ho w man y modifications li e nonetheles s betwee n th e tw o whic h h e canno t indicat e be cause h e ha s as yet no notatio n (Charaktere) fo r them."21 Junker continues: "Fo r the conductor . . . an allegro cannot b e tied t o a single all-embracing fas t temp o concept (Begriff vo n Geschwindigkeit), jus t a s a n adagio canno t b e tie d t o a [single] slow one. Th e precis e determinatio n o f tempo rest s finally on goo d taste , rests on it s own feeling of Tightness" (literally truth [Wahrheit]), "whic h ca n onl y be fixe d (fixirt) throug h previou s study of the score." 22 After urgentl y recommending th e us e o f the score , a stil l very rar e practice i n the day s when performance s wer e mor e ofte n tha n no t le d by the concertmaste r or harpsichordist , readin g respectivel y fro m a violi n o r continu o part , Junke r characterizes on e "wh o woul d conduc t fro m a scor e withou t knowin g i t well , which h e ha s no t studied , whic h h e ha s no t rea d throug h thoroughly, " i s a "windbag (Windbeutel)." 2^ A t anothe r poin t Junke r put s th e questio n thi s way: "Must ever y piec e b e performe d throug h t o th e ver y en d a t th e state d tempo , never eve n approachin g greate r spee d o r slowness ? O r migh t thi s tempo , eve n in th e middl e o f a piece , b e slightl y modified, might i t b e accelerated , migh t i t be hel d back?" 24 Junker i s not satisfie d t o have these concept s remai n a s questions. H e answers, it seems t o me, wit h remarkabl e precision an d succinctness . "T o answer the first of the tw o questions positivel y without qualificatio n would mea n t o depriv e th e art o f music o f one o f its most powerfu l mean s o f expression and emotio n (Rührung); an d woul d remov e fro m he r [th e ar t o f music ] al l possibilit y of differen t gradations an d modification s o f expressiv e movemen t (tempo , Bewegung). T o answer the secon d questio n positivel y without qualificatio n would hav e th e rive r overflow it s banks, would caus e a thousand disorderlinesse s (Unordnungen), an d would depriv e musi c o f it s truth . Bu t a s soo n a s th e las t sentence " —meaning Junker's secon d question—"i s qualifie d an d limited , i t ca n b e answere d i n th e positive."25 20. Junker , Einige de r vornehmsten Pflichten . . ., p . 20 . 21. Ibid. , p. 21 . 22. Ibid. , p . 21 . 23. Ibid. , p . 22 . 24. Ibid. , p . 36 . "Muss jede s Stück , gan z bi s z u Ende , i n de r nemliche n Bewegung , di e sic h nie mals, wede r eine r grösser n Geschwindigkei t noch Langsamkei t nähert , vorgetrage n werden? Ode r darf diese Bewegung, selbst in de r Mitt e de s Tonstücks, etwas abgeändert, darf si e beschleunigt , darf sie zurüc k gehalten, werden?" 25. Ibid. , pp.36-37.

76 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Junker nail s hi s poin t dow n b y statin g tha t "bot h compose r an d performe r [conductor] mus t wor k han d i n hand , an d tha t modificatio n o f tempo a s a sec ond ar t remain s absolutel y necessary." 25 Finally , h e adds : "Furthermore, a s little as I hol d wit h th e us e o f a n unqualifie d tempo mbato (becaus e i t i s s o ofte n misused t o produc e a n ea r splittin g racke t [literall y "clanking," halsbrechendem Geklirr], I nonetheles s insis t tha t i n a goo d orchestr a tastefu l temp o variation s are i n orde r wher e appropriate , an d wher e unde r certai n circumstance s the y can hav e a goo d effect." 26 Refining hi s point eve n further , Junker writes: "We admit tha t ther e i s in thes e matters muc h opportunit y fo r misuse . Bu t w e hav e mad e thes e suggestion s o f tempo flexibilit y onl y wit h th e mos t appropriate an d scrupulous qualifications and limitations (italic s added). We say it again: onl y to him wh o i s in al l respect s a reliabl e virtuos o can suc h imperceptible modification s o f musica l progressio n be entrusted ; tha t suc h modification s ar e permissibl e only a s a requisite o f th e composition, no t a s a need o f th e performer" (agai n italic s added ) (als Bedürfnis des Stücks selbst, nicht al s Bedürfnis de s Spielers). Junke r add s ver y wisel y tha t "just a s slight expressiv e nuances ca n neve r b e applicabl e t o th e sam e degre e i n an allegro as they migh t b e i n a n adagio, s o too the temp o rubato i s less applicable an d tru e i n a n allegro than a n adagio. A n adagio," Junke r reasons , "offer s the performe r more beautie s i n detai l (Schönheiten de s Detail), mor e nuances , than a n allegro." 27 T o bolste r hi s argument s Junke r suggest s tha t "ther e i s n o passion [feeling ] whos e movemen t woul d b e s o circumscribe d a s t o b e abso lutely regula r [uniform] ; i t constantl y range s throug h variou s modification s o f tempo" 28 — echoes o f Petri an d Marpurg . Thus, apar t fro m bein g on e o f th e earlies t ful l discussion s o f th e subjec t of tempo rubato, i t is also one o f the cleares t an d mos t detailed . I n s o far as Beetho ven an d Wagne r (a s well a s later conductors ) echoe d Junker' s thoughts , includ ing hi s warning s agains t excesse s an d abuse s o f tempo modifications , on e won ders whethe r thes e composer-conductor s kne w Junker' s writings . Perhap s not ; but i n an y case, th e late r author s confirm , bot h i n conceptio n an d detail , wha t is one o f the mos t importan t aesthetic-philosophica l tenet s o f the ar t o f conduct ing, on e whic h is , alas, nowaday s widely misunderstood and/o r abused . The publicatio n dat e 178 2 o f Junker's pamphle t i s the sam e yea r th e twenty six-year-old Mozar t compose d his Die Entführung aus dem Serail, as wel l as three o f his five early pian o concertos , an d th e sam e yea r Hayd n compose d hi s six Op . 3 3 string quartet s an d symphonie s N ° 7 6 throug h 78 . On e wonder s t o what exten t Junke r was influenced i n hi s writing s b y observin g th e performin g practices o f Mozar t o r Hayd n i n Vienna , o r Car l Phili p Emmanue l Bac h i n Berlin, o r indeed , Stamit z an d compan y i n Mannhei m —jus t a s h e observe d Beethoven a s a pianist. Interestingly—and seemingl y contradictorily—Wagner , nearl y ninet y year s 26. Ibid. , p. 38 . 27. Ibid. , pp . 39-40 . 28. Ibid. , p. 37 . "Es gibt keine Leydenschaft , dere n Bewegung , sich selbs t immer gleichartig , abgezirkelt sey n sollte; si e walzt sich durc h verschieden e Modifikatione n der Bewegun g hindurch. "

A HISTOR Y OF CONDUCTIN G 7

7

after th e publicatio n o f Junker's pamphlet, wrot e i n hi s O n Conducting abou t Mozart's "naiv e allegro" (or at othe r time s "absolut e allegro"), contrasting i t with Beethoven's newer , expande d allegro concept, whic h Wagne r calle d "sentimen tal." (Wagne r explaine d tha t hi s term s "naive " an d "sentimental " wer e adopte d from a well-know n essa y b y Gottfrie d Schille r abou t "naiv e an d sentimenta l poetry," th e term s equatin g i n 20th-centur y Englis h mor e wit h 'simple ' an d 'ex pressive' respectively). 29 Wagne r wa s obviousl y under th e impressio n tha t Mo zart's (an d presumabl y Haydn's ) allegro movements , includin g hi s oper a over tures—Wagner especiall y mention s th e Figaro an d Do n Giovanni overtures were performe d i n on e steady , relentless tempo , an d ver y fast. H e cite s Mozart' s remark tha t thes e overture s "canno t b e playe d fas t enough, " corroboratin g th e point furthe r wit h th e well-know n anecdot e abou t Mozart , i n rehearsa l o f th e Figaro Overture , havin g finall y drive n hi s desperat e musician s t o achiev e th e full desire d presto, then commende d the m encouragingly : "That wa s beautiful ! But thi s evenin g stil l a littl e faster!" We shall retur n momentaril y to Wagner's pronounce d view s on tempo rubato, only t o not e no w i n passin g tha t h e clearl y ascribe d thi s concep t t o Beethove n and hi s innovativ e symphoni c masterpieces , whic h h e fel t coul d n o longe r b e played i n on e temp o pe r movement , i n th e manne r o f what h e somewha t pejo ratively calle d Mozart' s "naiv e allegro" and wha t Beethove n ha d alread y called the "temp i ordinari " o f the "barbarou s period o f music. " As fo r Beethoven himself , there i s abundant evidenc e tha t h e considere d th e tempo rubato a sine qu a no n o f high-level music-makin g in hi s time. An d man y contemporaries of Beethoven have testified to the notion that for Beethoven metronome marking s wer e vali d "nu r fü r di e erste n Takte , wei l Gefühl e ih r eigene s Tempo haben" (only for the first measures, as feelings have their own tempo). The musi c directo r o f Vienna' s Theate r a n de r Wien , Igna z vo n Seyfried , testified tha t Beethove n "wa s ver y particula r abou t expression , th e delicat e nu ances, th e equabl e distributio n o f light an d shad e a s well a s an effectiv e temp o rubato. . . ." 30 Beethoven' s frien d an d biographe r Anto n Schindle r i n hi s Life of Beethoven^ 1 wen t s o far as to annotat e a 21-ba r sectio n o f the secon d move ment o f Beethoven' s Secon d Symphon y wit h variou s poco accelerandos, poco lentos, tempo l's, an d additiona l crescendos , reflectin g what he claime d th e mas ter di d whe n h e conducte d th e wor k himself . I f wha t Schindle r recalle d o f Beethoven's performanc e i s accurate —and w e kno w tha t Schindle r wa s no t al ways a reliabl e witness—then Beethove n di d indee d appl y the 'temp o o f feeling' to hi s ow n works . Bu t befor e w e allo w ourselve s t o indulg e i n ever y arbitrar y tempo whim , justifie d an d vindicate d b y n o les s tha n a Beethoven , le t u s not e the subtlet y o f Schindler' s annotation s an d ho w frequentl y poco occur s i n hi s transcription—a poin t t o whic h I will have reaso n t o retur n agai n an d again . Carl Mari a vo n Webe r wa s one o f the mos t brillian t of the earl y conductors , 29. Wagner , Über da s Dirigieren (Leipzig , 1869), p . 31 . 30. Igna z von Seyfried , Beethoven Studien (1832) , cited i n Sonneck , Beethoven Impressions of Contemporaries (Ne w York, 1926) , p. 41 . 31. Anto n Schindler , Life o f Beethoven (Münster , 1840) , p.164-65 .

78 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

and als o one o f the first, along with Spoh r an d Spontini , t o us e the baton. 32 H e was ver y muc h a n advocat e o f flexibl e temp o an d th e flexibl e beat , no t onl y clearly implied i n his operas and chambe r musi c works , but als o lucidly revealed in a lette r t o th e violi n virtuoso-composer-conducto r Heinric h Aloy s Präger . As quoted b y Feli x Weingartne r i n hi s Über da s Dirigieren, Webe r wrot e t o Präger: "Th e bea t (th e tempo ) mus t no t b e a tyrannically impeding o r driving hammer [Mühlenhammer], bu t rathe r [shoul d be ] t o a piece o f music wha t th e pulse-beat i s to th e lif e o f man . Ther e i s n o slo w tempo i n whic h ther e aren' t passages tha t deman d a quicke r motion , i n orde r t o preven t a feelin g o f drag ging. Conversely , ther e i s no presto that doe s no t nee d a t som e point s a quiete r delivery, s o as not t o preclude , throug h rushing , th e mean s o f expressiveness." "What I hav e her e sai d shoul d not , fo r Heaven' s sake , giv e an y singer"—t o which Weingartne r append s a footnot e t o sa y "th e same , o f course , goe s fo r conductors"—"the right to the performanc e lunacy of willfully distortin g individual measure s an d thereb y produc e i n th e listene r th e unbearabl e sensatio n aki n to seein g a contortionis t forcibl y contor t al l hi s limbs . Th e forwar d movemen t of temp o a s wel l a s th e holdin g bac k o f tempo , bot h shoul d neve r produc e a feeling o f jerking th e temp o around , o f moving abruptl y and forcibl y b y fits and starts [das Gefühl de s Ruckenden, Stoßweisen oder Gewaltsamen erzeugen]. I n other words , [temp o modification ] in a musical-poeti c sens e ca n onl y occu r i n terms o f phrases an d periods , informe d b y the particula r expressions o f passio n and emotio n [Leidenschaftlichkeit]." "For al l o f thi s w e hav e i n musi c n o mean s o f notation . Thes e li e solel y i n the feeling s of man's hear t [Menschenbrust]: an d i f they canno t be foun d there , then neithe r th e metronome , whic h ca n onl y preven t th e crudes t o f blunders, will hel p no r wil l such a t best incomplet e indication s as I migh t b e prepare d t o incorporate t o enric h m y materia l [m y notation], wer e I not warne d agains t this by man y experience s a s a resul t o f which I a m force d to conside r thes e already as superfluou s an d useless , an d fea r the m a s bein g misrepresentative. " Fo r al l that, Car l Mari a vo n Webe r di d ver y muc h advocat e th e us e o f metronom e markings. I n speakin g o f th e T e Deum o f hi s composer-theoreticia n colleagu e Gottfried Weber 34 (n o relation) , h e wrot e "I t i s ver y muc h hope d tha t othe r composers wil l follo w Her r Weber's lea d i n thi s matter." 35 32. Th e us e o f a baton i n conductin g di d no t tak e hol d a s a consistent , commo n practic e unti l th e third decad e o f th e 19t h century . Befor e that , performance s wer e le d b y musicians—mor e ofte n than no t th e compose r o f the wor k being performed—either fro m th e keyboar d or the concertmaste r position (sometime s bot h simultaneously) , or wit h th e directo r o r Kapellmeister usin g a variet y of methods, implements , devices , tool s an d instruments : violi n bows ; three - o r four-foot-lon g batons , used t o kee p tim e b y stampin g the m loudl y o n th e floor ; roll s o f pape r (silentl y or , whe n struc k together, audibly) ; various-size d pieces o f wood ; divers e vocal sound s (grunts , hisses , etc.) ; rappin g on th e musi c stand ; and , o f course, foo t stamping . 33. Feli x Weingartner, Über da s Dirigieren (Leipzig , 1895) , p.80-89; (1905) , p.43 . 34. Gottfrie d Weber's T e Deum (1814 ) seem s t o hav e bee n th e firs t publishe d score t o us e metro nome temp o markings ; an d i n 181 7 h e publishe d a n article , "Übe r chronometrisch e Tempo Be zeichnung" (O n chronornetri c temp o indications) . 35. Car l Mari a von Weber , Writings o n Music, Englis h edition , Marti n Cooper , ed . Joh n Warrack (Cambridge, 1981 ) p. 128 .

A HISTOR Y OF CONDUCTIN G 7

9

Weber her e i s anticipatin g th e sam e concern s expresse d b y Wagne r a fe w decades late r i n hi s Über da s Dirigieren (se e below) , i n whic h h e repeatedl y warns agains t th e excesse s o f arbitrar y and unfounded , egotisticall y motivate d distortions of tempo, thereby i n tim e "totall y mutilatin g our grea t classical music beyond recognition," 36—a predictio n which , alas , cam e tru e i n th e Billo w an d post-Billow era . While Berlio z mentione d matter s o f temp o onl y briefl y i n hi s L'Art d u chef d'orchestre, Wagner, a s we shall see, dwel t on th e subjec t at considerable length . Berlioz wa s greatly intereste d i n composers ' adherin g t o metronom e markings , and urgentl y recommended tha t conductors "consul t th e metronom e indication s and stud y them thoroughly. " Bu t the n h e adde d quit e judiciously : "Naturally I do no t mea n t o sa y by this tha t on e shoul d imitat e th e mathematica l regularit y of th e metronome ; al l musi c execute d i n suc h a manne r woul d hav e a n ic y frigidity an d stiffness" ; an d eve n mor e wisely : "I eve n doub t whethe r i t woul d be possible t o maintain suc h empt y uniformit y for more tha n a few measures.' And finally , an d perhap s mos t important : "Th e metronom e i s nevertheles s a n excellent ai d i n determinin g th e initia l tempo o f a piece an d it s main shadings" (italics added). 38 Wagner echoe d the sam e thoughts, bu t pu t them eve n more forcefully . (Sinc e Wagner's thought s i n Über da s Dirigieren hav e been frequentl y misread, misun derstood, an d eve n mistranslated , I inten d t o dea l extensively—no t selectively , as ha s ofte n bee n done—wit h th e fullnes s o f hi s comment s o n question s o f tempo an d temp o modification. ) After dealin g wit h th e genera l questio n o f "th e right tempo " at som e length , declarin g tha t thi s questio n "i s the poin t a t whic h it become s clea r whethe r a conducto r i s suite d o r unsuite d t o th e task," 39 h e moves o n t o th e subjec t o f tempo rubato, declarin g tha t temp o modificatio n is "of immeasurable importance fo r the prope r renderin g of our classica l music". 40 Wagner the n cite s a numbe r o f works—the first and las t movement s o f Beetho ven's Eroica, th e Egmont Overture , Weber' s Freischütz Overture , hi s ow n Meist36. Wagner , Über da s Dirigieren, p . 54 . 37. Hecto r Berlioz , L'Art d u chef d'orchestre (Paris, 1844). Englis h edition , Th e Orchestral Conductor. Theory o f hi s Art, Mar y Clarke, (London , 1856) . 38. Ibid . Berlioz wrote abou t conducting in generall y broader terms. How thoroughly he understoo d the ne w aesthetic s o f conducting—ne w a s oppose d t o th e older , merel y time-beatin g functiona l approach—can b e gleane d fro m hi s Mémoires, (1869 ) i n whic h h e liste d th e "qualitie s necessar y to produce a goo d conductor " a s "precision , flexibility, passion, sensitivenes s and coolnes s combined , together wit h a n indefinabl e subtl e instinct " (Hecto r Berlioz , Mémoires d e Hector Berlioz, Paris , (1869); Englis h translatio n by Rachel an d Eleano r Holmes , Ne w York , (1932) , p. 199) . Berlio z was one o f th e firs t t o emphasiz e i n writin g that th e bea t i n conductin g ha d t o acquire , apar t fro m it s time-beating function , an expressive/aestheti c significance, combining th e technica l wit h the expressive. 39. Wagner , Über da s Dirigieren, p . 28 . Indeed , Wagner' s boo k ha s becom e a polemicist' s football, 'interpreted' t o suppor t whateve r theorie s o r practice s o f conductin g a particula r write r want s (wanted) t o defend . This become s al l th e mor e possibl e in th e absence , obviously , o f no t onl y an y recordings b y Wagner bu t als o surprisingl y fe w account s of hi s conductin g and interpretations . I t is only throug h a stric t an d correc t readin g of hi s tex t tha t Wagner' s ver y detaile d writing s ca n b e properly understoo d and appreciated. 40. Ibid. , p.3 9

80 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

ersinger Overtur e (the n onl y a fe w year s old) , a s wel l a s several o f Beethoven' s string quartet s an d sonatas—detailin g ho w temp o modification s can b e applie d to thes e works , and are , i n hi s view, absolutely essential to thei r correc t interpre tation. Severa l o f these ar e especiall y interesting fo r our purpose s here . Fo r on e thing, sinc e Wagner' s conductin g an d temp o conception s have , a s mentioned , often bee n misunderstoo d o r misinterprete d i n orde r usuall y to support o r attack one theor y o f conducting o r another , i t will b e usefu l t o conside r ver y carefully what precisel y h e di d say . Fo r another , th e particula r work s I hav e chose n t o single out here—Weber's Freischütz an d Wagner's ow n Meistersinger overtureswill giv e u s specifi c an d detaile d insight s no t onl y int o Wagner' s concep t o f tempo rubato but , i n th e cas e o f the Meistersinger Overture , int o th e ver y con struction o f the work , and thu s ho w h e intende d i t t o b e performe d i n respec t to tempo considerations . Taking of f fro m hi s earlie r point , tha t is , o f differentiatin g between Mozart' s "naive allegro" an d Beethoven' s "sentimental allegro," an d ascribin g t o these two types o f inherentl y differen t expressiv e characteristic s and , therefore , o f perfor mance needs , Wagne r details , amon g othe r things , ho w in particula r the allegro section o f Weber's Freischütz Overtur e ough t t o be paced . Usin g one o f his own performances (i n Vienn a i n 1864 ) a s a mode l for , as h e claimed , th e "correc t interpretation" o f the work , Wagner state s that, "afte r thus restorin g to th e intro ductory adagio it s frighteningly mysterious dignity, 1 was abl e t o allo w th e wil d allegro temp o t o ru n it s passionate course , withou t bein g boun d i n an y wa y to consider th e mor e delicat e expressio n o f th e [later ] softe r secon d subject ; fo r I had ful l confidenc e tha t I woul d b e abl e a t th e appropriat e momen t t o slacken [modify] th e pac e jus t enoug h t o arriv e imperceptibl y a t th e righ t temp o fo r this theme." 41 Le t u s tak e specia l not e i n passin g o f the wor d "imperceptibly " (unmerklich). Wagne r no w digresses slightly to point ou t tha t "i t should b e quit e evident, tha t th e newe r typ e o f allegro movement consist s o f a combinatio n o f two essentially different parts . In contras t to the olde r naiv e or pure allegro structuring, i t i s this combinin g o f the pur e allegro with th e themati c uniquenes s o f the songfu l adagio, i n al l it s possible gradations , tha t so enriches our ne w mod ern allegro."* 2 Wagne r cite s anothe r Webe r excerpt , th e secon d subjec t i n th e allegro—the clarine t them e (Ex . 1 ) —of th e Oberon Overtur e a s a prototypica l Ex. 1

example o f a passag e tha t n o longe r fit s int o th e earlie r allegro typ e nor , b y implication, allegro tempo. H e elaborate s further : "O n th e surfac e thi s songfu l theme notationall y appear s to fit neatly int o the allegro scheme; but a s soon as its tru e characte r i s identified , i t become s apparen t t o wha t exten t thi s schem e is capable o f modification in orde r to accommodate th e composer's desire t o have 41. Ibid. , p . 43 . Translation s of excerpts from Wagner' s Über da s Dirigieren ar e b y thi s author. 42. Ibid. , p.43 .

A HISTOR Y OF CONDUCTIN G 8

1

both main characteristics equally represented" 4J (th e emphasisis i s Wagner's). I t should b e note d that , her e again , Wagne r expresse s himsel f ver y carefull y an d precisely. Hi s phras e "Welche r Modifikatione n diese s Schema s ebe n fähi g gedacht sei n mußte " i s s o cautiousl y worde d a s t o b e almos t convoluted ; simi larly, th e phras e "beid e Hauptcharacter e gleichmässi g verwendba r dünke n z u können." Wagne r i s tryin g t o mak e i t clea r that , give n al l hi s qualifiers , th e tempo modificatio n he suggest s are t o be slight , modest , s o as not t o impai r th e balance betwee n th e tw o "main characteristics. " Th e implicatio n her e i s clearly that exaggerate d alteration s o f tempo no t onl y ar e no t neede d bu t clearl y no t wanted. Returning t o his Freischütz performanc e i n Vienna, Wagner report s that "afte r the utmos t excitatio n o f th e [initia l allegro] tempo , I use d th e czc/dgz'o-derive d long-sustained son g o f the clarine t (Ex . 2) imperceptibly to hold bac k the temp o here, wher e al l figurativ e movemen t i s dissolve d int o sustaine d (o r trembling ) [zitternden] sounds , so that, despite th e renewe d motio n o f the connectin g figur e

Ex. 2

(Ex.3) whic h s o beautifull y prepares th e cantilena i n El> , th e arrived-a t temp o

Ex. 3 was onl y th e slightes t nuanc e remove d fro m th e basicall y never-relinquishe d main tempo . . . . The succes s o f this rendition wa s immediately s o apparent t o the excellen t musicians [i n the orchestra ] tha t fo r the, once again , imperceptibl e reanimation o f the temp o with its pulsating figur e [Ex. 4] , it took only the slight est indicatio n o f th e pac e t o fin d th e orchestr a enthusiasticall y read y fo r th e return o f the energeti c driv e of the mai n temp o wit h it s succeeding fortissimo."^

Ex.4

Notice agai n th e us e twic e o f the wor d "imperceptible, " as well a s the term s "slightest nuances " an d "basicall y never-relinquishe d mai n tempo, " and th e en tire sens e o f th e passag e t o indicat e tha t bot h th e mai n allegro temp o an d it s imperceptibly mor e relaxe d secon d subjec t counterpar t ar e nothin g mor e tha n slight variant s o f essentiall y th e sam e tempo . I t i s a s i f Wagne r imagine s th e conductor t o si t on th e fulcru m o f a tempo seesaw , and wit h th e slightes t til t to 43. Ibid. , pp . 43-44 . 44. Ibid. , pp. 44-45.

82 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

one sid e brin g fort h th e ful l energeti c allegro, and wit h a n equall y sligh t til t t o the othe r sid e relax the temp o enoug h t o accommodate th e songfu l cantilena o f the secon d subject , withou t losin g th e fundamenta l essenc e an d feelin g of th e basic allegro. This is , of course, wha t Beethoven mean t b y "tempo o f feeling." It is als o wha t others , includin g Wagner , hav e calle d reflectin g th e spirit—no t merely th e letter—o f th e music . In som e ways , Wagner's performanc e suggestion s fo r hi s ow n Meistersinger Overture ar e eve n mor e interestin g an d instructiv e tha n hi s Freischütz exegesis . For here w e see no t onl y a splendid exampl e o f how Wagner's concep t of tempo modification wa s meant t o function i n performance, but als o how Wagner, espe cially in th e late r operas, built this concept right into th e compositional , creativ e process; i n othe r words , temp o rubat o i s compose d int o th e ver y fabri c an d structure o f th e music . Nowher e i s thi s mor e apparen t an d crucia l tha n i n Wagner's las t opera , Parsifal, i n which , i n hi s ow n performanc e annotation s i n reference t o temp o change s an d modifications , h e consistentl y use s th e word s "nicht auffallend " (hardl y noticeable) an d "unmerklich " (unnoticeable) . Wagner begin s b y explainin g that th e basi c temp o o f the Meistersinger Over ture i s marked "Seh r massi g bewegt, " translate d int o th e olde r (Italian ) nomen clature: allegro moderato. H e continues : "N o temp o i s more i n nee d o f modifi cation, especiall y in longer tim e span s and whe n th e themati c materia l i s treated in a strongl y episodic manner . I t i s a temp o ofte n chose n fo r th e expressio n o f diverse motive s in manifol d combinations, becaus e it s broad structur e i n a regu lar 4/ 4 mete r easil y support s suc h expressio n throug h th e meres t suggestio n o f tempo modification. 45 I n addition , thi s moderatel y movin g 4/ 4 mete r i s cer tainly the mos t multidimensional . When beat i n strongly animated quarter-notes , it ca n expres s a rea l livel y allegro such a s m y here-use d mai n tempo , whic h i s presented i n it s livelies t for m i n th e transitiona l eigh t bar s [Ex.5] , leadin g

Ex.5 from th e basi c marc h them e t o th e E majo r section . Bu t on e ca n als o thin k of it as a half period, combined ou t o f two 2/4 bars, thus allowin g for the introduc tion o f a livel y scherzando a t th e entr y o f th e shortene d them e [Ex.6] . I t ca n

45. Wagner' s mid-19th-centur y Germa n i s quite dens e an d grammaticall y convoluted , an d thu s no t easily translated. In m y translations here I have retaine d a s much o f Wagner's prolixit y and complex ity o f thought a s possible —difficult thoug h i t ma y b e t o rea d —on th e ground s that inherentl y com plex thought s cannot b e reduce d t o elementar y simplicities, and als o t o preserv e in it s purest for m and greates t precisio n Wagner's actua l thought.

A HISTOR Y O F CONDUCTIN G

83

even b e interprete d a s a n alia breve (2/2 measure) , wher e i t ca n expres s th e older, rea l gemächlich tempo andante (mainl y associated wit h churc h music) , which i s conducte d wit h tw o moderatel y slo w beats . I t i s i n thi s sens e tha t I used th e latte r tempo , starting in the eight h measur e afte r th e retur n o f C major, to combin e th e mai n marc h theme , carrie d b y th e basses , wit h th e broadl y intoned o r sun g secon d subject , no w state d i n rhythmi c diminutio n i n th e vio lins an d cello s [Ex . 7]."

Ex. 7

"I introduce d thi s secon d subjec t initiall y in a reduce d for m i n a simpl e 4/ 4 meter [Ex.8] . Whe n playe d no w wit h th e utmos t gentlenes s [Zartheit], thi s

Ex. 8

theme take s o n a hast e tha t i s almost passionat e (somethin g lik e a n intimatel y whispered declaratio n o f love). T o retai n tha t mai n characteristi c o f gentleness , the temp o mus t be hel d bac k by a little [u m Etwas], since th e theme' s passionat e haste i s already decidedly enoug h expresse d i n it s moving figurations , thus per mitting i t t o b e pushe d t o th e farthes t varian t withi n th e mai n temp o i n th e direction o f the maestoso of the 4/ 4 marc h theme ; and i n orde r t o carr y this ou t imperceptibly (tha t is , without distortin g th e mai n characte r o f the underlyin g basic tempo) , thi s chang e o f characte r i s initiated wit h a measur e marke d poco rallentando. Wit h th e increasingl y restles s feelin g o f thi s them e [Ex.9] , i t wa s easy t o lea d th e temp o bac k t o it s origina l livelie r direction , i n whic h finall y

Ex. 9

it coul d len d itsel f t o functio n a s th e above-mentione d andante alia breve, whereby I onl y ha d t o tak e u p ane w a varian t of the mai n temp o alread y previously develope d i n th e expositio n o f th e piece . I ha d cause d th e initia l state ment o f the majesti c marc h them e t o evolv e int o a broade r cod a o f cantabile character, whic h ca n onl y b e correctl y interprete d whe n se t i n th e aforemen tioned andante alia breve. Since th e them e precedin g thi s full-bodie d cantabile [Ex. 10 ] i s the fanfar e [Ex . 11] , t o b e performe d in powerfu l quarter-notes , this

84

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Ex. 1 0

Ex. 1 1

tempo conversio n mus t obviousl y occur a t th e en d o f th e quarter-not e move ment whic h coincide s wit h th e mor e sustaine d lin e o f th e cantabile o n th e dominant chord . Now , since this broader tempo i n half-note s undergoes during its considerabl e duratio n a livel y intensificatio n [Steigerung] a s wel l a s a tona l modulation, I felt I could leav e th e movemen t o f the temp o al l the mor e t o th e discretion o f th e conductor , withou t drawin g particula r attentio n t o it , i n a s much a s the interpretatio n o f such passages , i f left t o th e natura l instincts of th e performing musicians , lead s all b y itsel f to a n enlivenmen t o f th e temp o [ganz von selbst zu r Befeuerung de s Tempos hinführt}. Relyin g o n this , I felt , a s a n experienced conductor , n o nee d t o indicat e an y plac e othe r tha n wher e th e tempo i s t o retur n t o th e origina l pur e 4/ 4 meter , whic h shoul d b e clea r t o anyone wit h trul y musica l feelings , becaus e o f th e additio n o f th e harmoni c progression's quarter-not e movement . I n th e conclusio n o f th e Overtur e thi s broader 4/ 4 tim e clearl y returns wit h a recapitulatio n o f the above-mentioned , powerfully sustained , march-like fanfare , t o whic h ar e adde d th e decorativ e figurations i n double-time , thereb y bringin g th e temp o ful l circl e bac k whenc e i t began." It shoul d b e abundantl y obviou s t o "anyon e wit h trul y musical feelings " —I might ad d and o f musical understanding—-tha t Wagner i s here dealing wit h sub tle variations and nuance s of tempo (hi s constantly reiterated wor d is "imperceptible") whic h shoul d neve r distor t o r g o beyon d th e music' s basic , inheren t tempo. I n effec t Wagner rule s out , an d forcefull y opposes , an y excessiv e alter ation o f th e tempo , a lesso n whic h unfortunatel y many conductors , includin g Wagner's ow n pupil and discipl e Biilow, as well as many famous conductors past and present , seem(ed ) unabl e t o comprehend . I hav e dwel t o n Wagner' s centra l idea s i n regar d t o tempo an d temp o inflec tions becaus e h e ha s s o ofte n bee n blame d fo r the excesse s an d temp o distor tions o f other conductors , includin g almost the entir e win g of German-tradition conductors. Thi s becam e a reall y contentious issu e i n th e Toscanin i era , whe n that conductor' s widel y acclaimed objectivit y an d textua l fidelity wer e constantly being pitted agains t Furtwängler's approach, perceive d a s much mor e subjective, fluid, almos t improvisational . (As already mentioned , thes e oversimplifie d descriptions o f the tw o famou s conductin g rival s ar e largel y invalid , since , fo r example, Toscanini' s 'textua l fidelity ' di d no t absolutel y preclude, a s man y o f hi s better recording s attest , hi s adoptin g a mor e flui d pacing , while , conversely, Furtwängler wa s quite capabl e o f highl y rhythmic , precise , clear-heade d inter -

A HISTOR Y OF CONDUCTIN G 8

5

pretations, as , for example, hi s superbl y played recording of Tchaikowsky's Sixt h Symphony, especiall y its Scherzo. ) For a wide range of reasons, including many extra-musical, personal and political ones, the two conductors were constantly being contrasted in America—Toscanini favorably , Furtwängle r negatively—al l o f this brilliantl y documented i n Jo seph Horowitz' s excellen t Understanding Toscanini. 46 A s promulgate d ove r a period o f many decades by those wh o sa w in Toscanini "th e greates t conductor of all time," the genera l impressio n wa s fostered that the Germa n conductin g tradi tion, as represented primarily by Furtwängler and Nikisch— a tradition which Toscanini wa s avowedly determined t o eradicate—wen t bac k to an d wa s first articulated b y Wagner. 47 (Ther e was , incidentally , a particula r iron y i n thi s sinc e Toscanini was one of the finest and mos t respectful interpreters of Wagner.) The lesso n t o b e draw n fro m Wagner' s writin g on temp o rubat o i n Über da s Dirigieren i s that a composer' s scor e mus t b e inherentl y respecte d i n al l it s de tails; tha t suc h fidelit y t o th e scor e ough t no t necessaril y t o resul t i n stiff , accurate-to-the-letter, rigidly metronomic renditions , bu t ca n instead , as dictated by th e spiri t an d feelin g o f th e music , incorporat e th e concep t o f a flexibl e tempo, o f subtle inflection s and nuances ; an d tha t suc h temp o variation s ought never t o g o beyon d th e bound s o f th e basi c tempo , ough t neve r t o lea d t o distortions and exaggeration s of tempo. Rathe r than suggestin g arbitrary interpre tational license , Wagner's numerou s an d constan t reminder s of restrained temp o behavior ar e embodie d an d italicize d i n hi s frequentl y reiterate d term s an d phrases "imperceptible " ("unmerklich") , " a little " ("etwas") , "t o hol d bac k onl y as far " ("nu r s o wei t zurückhalten") , "th e leas t indication " ("leisest e Andeu tung"), "withou t drawin g muc h attentio n t o it " ("ohn e besonder s hierau f aufmerksam z u machen") , an d s o on. Perhaps th e proble m i s that , a s i s s o ofte n th e cas e i n th e histor y o f hu mankind, a prophet' s o r leader' s disciple s ar e hi s wors t enemies , th e wors t cor rupters o f his thoughts . Certainl y thi s seem s t o hav e bee n th e cas e wit h Billow , Wagner's one-tim e favorit e protégé , wh o b y th e en d o f hi s caree r wit h th e re nowned Meininge n Orchestra , becam e famou s for indulgin g i n ever y conduct ing exces s imaginable , including , o f course, th e wildl y emotiona l manipulatio n of tempos . Takin g inordinat e licens e wit h Wagner's (an d Beethoven's ) concep t of temp o inflections , Billo w develope d a conductin g styl e whic h justifie d it s excesses unde r th e headin g o f "Lisztian license, " podiu m charisma , and authori tarianism. Wherea s Wagner' s subjectiv e approach , a s originall y postulated, de rived fro m wha t h e sa w (an d heard ) a s a kin d o f "dee p structure " i n al l grea t music, tha t is , th e underlyin g eb b an d flo w o f long-ter m harmoni c rhythms , 46. Josep h Horwitz , Understanding Toscanini (Ne w York, 1987) . 47. I t ca n no w b e clearl y seen i n retrospec t tha t thi s pejorativ e assessmen t o f Wagner's influenc e was inaccurate an d unjus t since , fo r one thing , Wagner dre w his interpretationa l theorie s fro m non e other tha n Beethoven , not onl y i n th e master' s ow n conductin g and hi s comment s o n th e subject , but hi s composition s a s well , an d since , fo r anothe r thing , th e concep t o f temp o rubat o an d a subjective, spiritua l approac h t o interpretatio n goes eve n furthe r bac k t o Mozar t an d Hayd n an d even earlier , a s Junker's an d th e othe r aforementione d theorists ' writings s o clearl y attest.

86 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

Billow, b y al l accounts , took ever y short-term harmoni c mov e a s a n excus e t o stretch, o r contract, tempo s t o the virtua l breaking point. While Wagner's temp o inflections wer e governe d (an d restrained ) b y phras e structure s an d characte r contrasts o f themes, a s well a s vertical (tha t i s to say , harmonic) tensions , Billo w took such structura l signposts a s justification fo r enormous liberties , "to the poin t of caricature, " a s Feli x Weingartner onc e pu t it . I suspect—an d indee d ther e is much evidenc e t o thi s effect—tha t ther e wa s a certai n arroganc e an d conde scension toward s the publi c i n Billow' s late work, as well as (according to Weing artner) " a mani a fo r notoriety." Billow' s exaggeration s wer e i n par t motivate d b y a desir e t o teac h wha t h e considere d th e unsophisticate d publi c somethin g about music , abou t for m an d structure . A n exampl e cite d b y Weingartner i n hi s 1895 Über da s Dirigieren i s probabl y typica l o f Billow' s lat e work . "Wher e a modification o f the temp o wa s necessary t o ge t expressiv e phrasing, i t happene d that i n orde r t o mak e thi s modificatio n quit e clea r t o hi s audience , h e exaggerated i t [Weingartner' s italics] ; indeed , h e fel l int o a quit e ne w temp o that was a negation o f the mai n one . Th e Egmont Overtur e wa s a cas e i n point . Wagne r tells u s [i n hi s Über da s Dirigieren]," s o Weingartne r write s a propos o f thi s passage (Ex . 12 ) —"which, a s he [Wagner ] says , 'combines i n a drasticall y con -

Ex. 1 2

densed wa y a fearfu l severit y with seren e self-confidence ' ["diese s au s schreck lichem Ernst e un d wohlige m Selbstgefüh l s o drastisc h enggeschürzt e Motiv"] , and which , a s a rul e 'i n th e headlon g rus h o f allegro was washe d awa y like a withered lea f ["wi e ei n welke s Blatt hinweggespült"]—tha t h e induce d Bülo w to pla y it i n th e tru e sens e o f the composer , modifyin g 'wit h onl y a hint ' ("nu r andeutungsweise") [agai n Wagner's cautio n o f moderation] the hithert o 'passion ate' tempo , s o tha t th e orchestr a migh t hav e th e opportunit y t o differentiat e this themati c combination , wit h it s rapid fluctuatio n betwee n grea t energ y an d thoughtful self-content. ' Al l wh o hav e hear d thi s overtur e unde r Bülo w mus t agree wit h m e tha t a t the plac e i n questio n h e b y no mean s mad e 'onl y a hint' of a modification , but leape d a t onc e fro m th e allegro int o a n andante grave, thereby destroyin g the unifor m tempo tha t shoul d b e preserve d i n th e allegro of that overture, " addin g "a s in genera l i n ever y piece o f music tha t ha s a uniform tempo mar k at the beginning." 48 Other writer s and conductor s hav e take n Bülo w t o tas k fo r hi s exaggerate d 48. Weingartner , (1895) p. 18 ; (1905), p. 13 . We als o hav e the wor d o f Brahms in commentin g o n Billow's conducting , tha y was "alway s calculate d fo r effect . Immediatel y a ne w musica l phrase be gins, h e make s a small pause, an d like s t o als o change th e temp o a little." Brahm s goes o n t o sa y "I have deliberatel y denie d myself thi s i n m y symphonies . If I ha d wante d it , I woul d have writte n it

A HISTOR Y OF CONDUCTIN G 8

7

tempo fluctuation s an d othe r effec t excesses , although h e als o had hi s defenders, such a s the eminen t musicologist/historia n an d edito r Heinric h Reimann . Bu t perhaps n o on e too k mor e deadl y ai m a t Billo w tha n th e America n autho r an d "serious music " popularizer , David Ewen . On e o f the majo r Toscanini apologist s in th e 1930 s and '40s , and therefor e someone b y predilection incline d t o depre cate th e whol e Germa n Romanti c schoo l o f conductors , Ewe n nonetheles s came a s close a s anyone t o characterizing Billow' s conductin g style . Ewen casti gated Billo w fo r bein g " a perniciou s influence " wh o too k "amazin g liberties " with temp o an d phrasing , wh o wa s given t o "exaggeratio n an d over-statement, " who "tampere d wit h th e scores" 49 an d influence d man y o f his Germa n succes sors lik e Mahler , Richter , Levi , an d Nikisc h t o tampe r furthe r wit h th e earl y Romantic repertor y (especially Beethoven an d Schuman n symphonies) . One wh o trie d t o ste m th e tid e agains t excessiv e subjectivism in interpreta tion, especiall y that o f conductors, wa s Felix Weingartner. I n hi s Über da s Dirigieren—interestingly th e sam e titl e a s Wagner's book—h e present s a s balance d a pictur e o f Bulow' s impac t o n th e evolutio n o f conductin g a s seem s possible , praising him fo r his landmark contributions i n eradicatin g the earl y 19th-centur y manner o f mer e elegan t time-beating , a t th e sam e tim e pointin g ou t hi s late r harmful influence . Weingartne r allowe d tha t th e guil t fo r thes e misdemeanor s lay "bot h wit h [Billow] himsel f an d a numbe r o f hi s followers ; and t o expos e these an d attac k them i s as much a duty of sincerity as to acknowledge the gain s with fran k delight . I t canno t b e denie d that , eve n whil e h e wa s leade r o f th e Meiningen Orchestra , ther e wa s ofte n a pedagogic element i n Bulow' s render ings. I t was clear tha t h e wishe d t o dea l a blo w o n th e on e han d t o philistine , metronomic time-beating , o n th e othe r han d t o a certain elegan t off-handednes s and superficiality . Bu t i n hi s effor t t o b e excessivel y clear, [Bulow ] wen t to o far. [Forgetting] tha t work s of ar t an d ar t performance s exis t fo r th e sak e o f them selves an d thei r ow n beauty, " Billow' s "tendency " t o "tendentiousness " mad e him pron e "t o mak e detail s excessively prominent. " I n s o doing , Weingartne r felt, Billo w ha d los t touc h wit h th e notio n tha t eac h detai l i n a compositio n "has it s ful l raison d'être, bu t onl y i n s o fa r a s i t i s subordinate d t o a homoge neous conceptio n o f the essentia l natur e o f the whol e work— a continuou s con ception tha t dominate s al l detail." 50 Weingartner illustrate s hi s concern s abou t exaggerate d interpretation s an d tempo distortion s most cogentl y i n a passag e regardin g Mendelssohn' s Hebrides Overture.51 Weingartne r describe s a performanc e i n whic h literall y no t on e in." W e kno w als o fro m man y contemporar y reports , includin g thos e o f man y o f Brahms' s ow n pianist students , tha t h e wa s much free r i n respec t t o rubat o i n hi s piano playin g and tha t there was to b e les s tempo nuancin g i n orchestra l performanc e than i n performance s on th e piano . 49. Davi d Ewen , Dictators o f th e Baton (Chicago , 1943) , pp.23 , 27 . 50. Ibid. , (1895) , p. 17, 23; (1905) , p.12; 16 . 51. Ibid . (1895) , p.46 ; (1905 ) p.30 . Ho w fascinatin g i t woul d be—especiall y i n vie w o f Wagner' s uncomplimentary view s o f Mendelssohn's conducting—t o kno w how h e (Mendelssohn ) conducted his ow n Hebrides Overture , a wor k tha t i s mor e ton e poe m tha n straigh t classica l overture, indeed more i n th e moul d o f Webe r overtures , which Wagne r s o admire d an d whos e appropriate perfor -

88

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

measure wa s playe d i n th e sam e temp o a s another . "Th e secon d an d fourt h bars, repetition s o f the firs t (Ex . 13 ) and thir d bar s (Ex . 14) , were rendere d i n a noticeably differen t tempo ; an d s o i t wen t i n a simila r vein t o th e en d o f th e

piece. Th e humanl y utmos t i n unnaturalnes s (Unnatur) wa s achieved, s o tha t this beautifu l wor k wa s distorte d an d it s tru e characte r obscure d (literally : verwischt, wipe d away)." Weingartner goe s o n t o describ e the opposit e performanc e approach , th e on e Wagner oppose d s o vehemently . "O f cours e i t woul d b e jus t a s wron g t o ru n through ["abzuspielen" ] th e piec e i n a metronomi c quarte r t o quarter . Bu t th e modifications o f tempo, a fe w o f which Mendelssoh n himsel f prescribed , mus t occur i n suc h a way that th e uniformit y and coherenc e o f the wor k . .. are not dissevered ["zerstückelt"] . A t time s th e se a aroun d Fingal' s Cav e i s calm ; a t other time s a stronge r win d cause s higher wave s and th e whit e foam o f the sur f breaks mor e violentl y against the shore , bu t th e picture o f th e landscape remains the same [italic s ar e Weingartner's] ; an d a rea l terrifyin g ocea n storm , whic h would giv e th e whol e scen e a totall y differen t character , neve r occur s i n Men delssohn's overture . A tone o f gentle, noble melancholy , whic h lend s th e Hebri des Island s their peculia r charm , i s preserved throughout i n th e music . Doe s i t not warrant the sharpes t condemnation whe n tha t whic h a master ha s genuinely experienced ["empfunden"] ) an d expresse d i n consummatel y beautiful tones , is distorted b y a conducto r wit h al l sort s of intrusions [Zutaten]?" " 'An d wh y all this? ' I have aske d mysel f on man y occasions . Wh y thi s mani a manee conceptio n h e too k such pains to describe in hi s writings. Alas, there seem s t o be n o accoun t of Mendelssohn' s conductin g of hi s Fingal's Cave; an d s o w e ar e lef t wit h th e tantalizin g questio n of whether, as Wagner implies , hi s renditio n woul d i n fac t hav e bee n i n th e "elegant " bu t emotion ally uninvolved , mer e "time-beating " manner . One als o wonder s jus t ho w Mendelssoh n performe d Bach' s St . Matthew Passion i n tha t work' s celebrated reviva l in Berli n in 1829—whe n h e wa s only twenty years old. Again, no specific , detaile d account o f Mendelssohn' s approac h t o th e wor k seem s t o exist , possibly for th e ver y goo d reaso n that Bach' s grea t masterpiec e ha d no t bee n performe d fo r nearl y on e hundre d years , so n o on e i n 1829 coul d hav e properl y assesse d it s performance i n term s o f accurac y an d stylisti c authenticity. On th e othe r hand , w e d o kno w tha t th e wor k create d suc h a sensatio n tha t i t ha d t o b e repeate d twice, an d tha t thes e performance s starte d th e reviva l of popular interest i n Bach' s music . W e als o know fro m man y accounts, includin g his own letters (fo r example, t o his sister Fanny and hi s teache r Karl Friedric h Zelter) , tha t hi s conductin g wa s informed by a basic fidelit y t o th e scor e an d histori cal, stylistic authenticity. Mendelssohn b y all accounts—and Wagner's diatribe s against Mendelssoh n and hi s school peculiarl y confirm this—becam e a symbol o f objective music-making , exposing classical clarit y an d unit y in performance , regularity an d fluenc y (meanin g liveliness) o f tempo. Although as a compose r h e portraye d th e Romanti c theme s o f hi s era , a s a conducto r h e wa s a classica l traditionalist, inten t o n preservin g the ideal s o f classica l forms an d thei r interpretativ e purity—per haps a Toscauini o f hi s clay .

A HISTOR Y OF CONDUCTIN G 8

9

of som e conductor s t o mak e ou t o f musica l work s somethin g othe r tha n wha t they reall y are ? Wh y thi s fea r o f maintainin g a unifor m temp o fo r a certai n amount o f time ? Wh y thi s rag e t o superimpos e nuance s an d expression s o f which th e compose r neve r dreamt? " "The reaso n fo r thes e strang e spectacle s [Erscheinungen] lie s i n a kin d o f personal vanit y an d egotis m tha t i s no t satisfie d t o perfor m a wor k i n th e tru e sense an d conceptio n o f its creator, bu t instea d want s to show the publi c wha t it 'can make ' out o f the work . The conductor' s mani a t o please an d t o be adulated [Gefallsucht] i s thu s pu t abov e th e requisite s an d spiri t [Gez'sf ] o f th e com poser." 5Z As alread y mentioned, alon g wit h Weingartne r who , bot h i n hi s writing s and conducting, trie d t o stem th e tid e o f excessive interpretiv e licens e an d conduct orial self-indulgence , an d mor e o r less contemporaneou s t o him , ther e wa s Arturo Toscanini . Althoug h no t generall y give n t o expressin g himsel f i n writin g on conducting—neithe r i n Italia n no r i n English—Toscanin i di d occasionall y unburden himself , mostly i n rehearsal s o r interview s and mostl y critically/nega tively, o n interpretationa l matters . O n temp o an d temp o modificatio n h e onc e said: "The correc t tempi ; that' s th e importan t thing : th e righ t tempi! Th e temp o must change , weavin g i n an d out , bu t always close an d always returning" (italics added) "Yes , in musi c jus t t o hav e th e correc t tempo , wit h al l tha t goe s wit h it , means nothing . Niente! " On anothe r occasion , h e unleashe d thi s blisterin g cannonade agains t conduc tors: "Wh o d o the y thin k the y are , those musica l assassins , changing, distorting ? They think the y ar e greater tha n God!" 53 We shal l retur n agai n t o Weingartner' s writings , amon g th e mos t insightful , intelligently balanced , an d self-effacin g i n th e entir e histor y of conducting. Bu t for no w I woul d lik e t o sta y wit h ou r them e o f th e moment : temp o —or mor e precisely—tempo modificatio n an d textua l fidelity. Richard Strauss' s writings on conducting, containe d i n Recollections an d Reflections, ar e no t a s comprehen sive a s those o f some o f the othe r famou s composer-conductors . The y als o ten d towards th e anecdota l an d glib , eve n occasionall y th e cynical . Straus s di d no t offer ver y much advic e o n question s o f tempo an d temp o modification , but h e 52. Gefallsucht, althoug h generall y construe d t o mea n ' a desir e t o please, ' actuall y ca n als o signif y 'the nee d t o b e admired. ' Ibid . (1895) , pp.47-49; (1905) , pp.31-32 . Although initiall y writte n i n 1895 , thi s i s a s ap t a descriptio n o f Leopol d Stokowsk i and Leonar d Bernstein a t their leas t and wors t as can b e found . Bernstein, on e o f the mos t overrated an d adulate d conductors o f recent times , rarel y practised wha t h e preached— a sa d fact give n hi s enormou s basi c natural talent , musica l an d conductorial/gestural . I n hi s Jo y of Music, h e wrote , fo r example , "Per haps th e chie f requiremen t o f al l i s that [th e conductor ] b e humbl e befor e th e composer ; tha t h e never interpos e himsel f between th e musi c an d th e audience ; tha t al l his efforts , howeve r strenuou s or glamorous , b e mad e i n th e servic e o f the composer' s meaning—th e musi c itself , which , afte r all , is th e whol e reaso n fo r th e conductor' s existence " (The Jo y of Music, Ne w York , 1954 , p . 156) . I t is as perfect an d beautifu l a statement abou t the ar t an d philosoph y of music a s can b e found . I t i s all the mor e saddenin g and perplexin g that Bernstein rarel y followe d hi s ow n credo . 53. A s cited i n Samue l Antek' s This Wa s Toscanini (Ne w York, 1963) . 54. Richar d Strauss, Recollections an d Reflections (Zurich , 1949) .

90 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

did war n against som e o f the (i n hi s mind ) mor e notoriou s ba d habit s an d vul garisms perpetuated b y certain conductors . H e i n particula r deplored th e al l too common "slackenin g o f pac e jus t befor e a grea t fortissimo " which, "fo r al l it s popularity," h e calle d "quit e unbearable " an d "amateurish." 55 Similarly , Strauss decried slowin g dow n th e las t ba r i n th e developmen t i n Beethoven' s Thir d Leonore Overtur e before the entr y of the trumpe t o n th e stage . "O n th e contrary this whol e passag e i s to b e playe d accelerando; after al l Pizzaro , a s h e rushe s at Leonore, know s nothin g o f th e B-fla t o f th e trumpet." 56 Well , I don' t kno w about the accelerando , bu t i t certainly does not mak e sense to mak e a big ritard, as almos t al l conductor s insis t o n doing . One o f Strauss' s wises t admonitions concern s "subject s whic h th e compose r himself has already drawn out, whic h shoul d no t b e draw n out further." 57 Lastly he terme d "dreadful " th e ritardand i i n th e bar s leadin g to th e secon d subject s in Weber' s overtures , thereby possibl y disagreeing with Wagner . W e canno t b e sure becaus e Straus s mention s n o names , an d i t i s possible, indee d likely , that the ritardand i he refer s t o wer e of the excessiv e kind, as practiced b y Biilow an d some o f his disciples , whom Straus s heard i n hi s younge r years. Bruno Walter's writing s o n conductin g ar e amongs t th e fines t an d mos t com prehensive i n th e entir e literatur e o n th e subject. 58 O f a mor e philosophica l turn o f mind than th e ver y pragmatic-minded Strauss, Walter bring s together th e most cogentl y technica l advic e wit h profoun d philosophical , aesthetical , mora l principles involve d no t onl y i n conductin g bu t i n al l re-creative , reproductive , interpretive music-making . Hi s chapte r entitle d "O f Tempo " examine s th e subject brilliantl y and exhaustively , recapitulating an d expandin g upo n a num ber o f the mor e salien t point s about temp o rubat o mad e b y Beethoven, Wagner , and Weingartner . Referring hi s reader s first to Wagner' s essa y Über da s Dirigieren and hi s cen sure o f undifferentiated tempos , Walter then point s ou t ho w Wagner's teaching s "were perverte d and exaggerated " b y a considerabl e numbe r o f conductors wh o "fell int o the opposit e error" : an exaggerated , arbitrary , meaningles s modification of tempo . Th e deficiencie s of the erstwhil e time-beaters ha d bee n replace d fo r the mos t part by virtuosos "who, no t conten t wit h the autonomou s lif e o f a piec e of music, " though t the y mus t "enhanc e i t b y a n over-differentiatio n o f temp o and delivery ; too littl e wa s followed b y to o much." 60 Accordin g t o Walte r "th e right tempo " i s one tha t "permit s th e musica l meanin g an d th e emotiona l sig nificance o f a phras e to show to bes t effect, " addin g mos t significantly , "and tha t allows fo r technica l exactness." 61 Walte r i n thi s sentenc e wa s th e firs t t o ti e 55. Ibid. , p.5 4 56. Ibid. , p.60

57. Ibid. , p.61 58. Brun o Walter, Von de r Musik un d vo m Musizieren (Frankfurt, 1957) . English edition, O f Music and Music-Making (London , 1961). 59. Ibid. , Englis h edition , pp . 29-45 . 60. Ibid. , Englis h edition , p . 30. 61. Ibid. , Englis h edition , p.30 .

A HISTOR Y OF CONDUCTIN G 9

1

together, a s a working principle of what constitute s "th e righ t tempo," th e notio n of emotiona l significance/expressio n an d technica l exactitude , b y whic h h e means, I am sure , no t onl y a tempo tha t permit s a passage to be playe d securely, accurately, technically correctly , but on e tha t represent s a high degre e o f textual fidelity. Probing stil l further , h e state s that , sinc e "i n th e cours e o f a piec e o f music it s content , moo d an d technica l requirement s chang e incessantly , th e tempo ha s t o b e adapted " t o thes e change s "t o remai n alway s right. Th e righ t tempo fo r a piec e i s relative." 62 Walter, sensin g tha t thi s i s still to o general , to o imprecis e a formulation , on e that stil l allow s for som e o f the excesse s o f tempo modificatio n that h e i s trying to war n against, add s mos t tellingly : "Our proble m [is ] that o f tempo, no t tempi. For th e well-constructe d piec e o f music i n organi c for m i s defined b y one mai n tempo which , thoug h i t ma y chang e i n th e cours e o f th e composition , main tains a continuit y tha t accord s wit h th e symphoni c continuit y o f th e composi tion. Fro m thi s th e conclusio n ca n b e draw n that w e mus t remai n a t th e sam e speed unti l a chang e i n th e desig n o f th e musi c force s u s t o modif y it. " Th e concept of a right tempo "demand s a flexible continuity for tempo," what Walter then call s "apparent continuity." 63 Even mor e specifically—an d I think mos t important—Walte r stresse s that th e fact tha t composer s indicat e "noticeabl e change s i n speed " with direction s suc h as ritardando, accelerando, più mosso etc., shoul d prov e that "noticeabl e change s in speed , other than those marked b y th e composer, will offend against hi s intentions" (italic s added). Drivin g the poin t hom e further , Walter says , "Thi s mean s that all othe r modification s of tempo, a s they correspon d t o th e eb b an d flow of the music , mus t b e o f the unnoticeabl e kind." 64 "I shoul d lik e t o poin t out, " Walte r continues , tha t th e conducto r "wh o per mits himsel f unwarrante d changes o f tempo" i s implying "a re-evaluatio n of th e meaning o f those passage s that wer e intende d b y the compose r t o hav e a n eve n tempo. Fo r ritardando an d accelerando ar e no t merel y indication s o f motion ; they also have the emotiona l significanc e of hesitating and urging. " The sudde n unwarranted chang e o f tempo "give s th e impressio n o f a forma l paragraph , of a division i n th e cours e o f the music . I t i s scarcely necessary for m e t o stres s that we reproductiv e artist s mus t no t indulg e i n suc h arbitrary , disruptiv e acts, affect ing th e sou l a s well a s th e for m o f a work. 6 Noticeabl e change s i n spee d tha t are no t demande d b y the compose r are , therefore , misrepresentations ; whethe r they resul t fro m intellectua l presumptio n o r fro m shee r license , the y deviat e 62. Ibid. , Englis h edition , pp. 30-31 . 63. Ibid. , Englis h edition , p.31. 64. Ibid. , Englis h edition , p.31 . 65. Ibid. , Englis h edition , p . 32 . I n thi s regar d Walte r wa s wrong, for i t wa s an d i s quite necessary to stres s that conductor s ough t no t t o indulg e i n "suc h arbitrary , disruptive " liberties.lt i s also sad t o report tha t Walte r himsel f ofte n i n hi s performances , especiall y o f Brahms , di d no t follo w hi s ow n advice. Althoug h he cam e a s clos e a s anyone to givin g a precis e formulation o f the twi n notion s of tempo an d temp o modification , h e evidentl y either fel t h e wa s no t oblige d to follo w hi s ow n rule s or h e wa s no t awar e o f breakin g them. Havin g worke d wit h Walte r ofte n i n th e 1950s and '60s , I can repor t that i t wa s most ofte n th e latter .

92 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

from th e composer' s intentions , an d thu s fro m th e purpos e o f reproductiv e art."66 Just a s I hav e don e earlie r i n thi s book , Walte r present s th e usua l counter argument t o hi s strictures . " 'What pedantry! ' I ca n hea r man y a musicia n ex claim: 'Shoul d no t a performanc e hav e spontaneit y an d th e flai r o f improvisa tion? I f we sta y strictl y in tempo , excep t wher e th e compose r himsel f interrupt s the continuity , th e restrain t impose d o n u s wil l ro b ou r interpretatio n o f al l immediateness. Why , shoul d I not obe y m y heart, i f it prompts m e t o hold bac k here, t o pres s on there , t o ritar d one phras e an d accelerat e th e next ? My performance wil l soun d spontaneou s sinc e I a m playin g the musi c i n th e wa y I fee l it, and no t a s the compose r compel s m e t o play it.' "67 Walter's answe r t o tha t i s "that th e temp o direction s o f th e compose r ar e a n integral par t o f th e notatio n o f the work ; the change s i n temp o demande d b y him ar e par t an d parce l o f the composition." 68 T o whic h I woul d ad d tha t th e absence o f indicate d change s o f tempo b y a compose r ar e als o par t an d parce l of th e composition . Walte r say s a s much a fe w paragraphs later: "W e shoul d b e aware o f changin g th e spee d i n th e absenc e o f th e composer' s directio n jus t because ou r persona l tast e o r th e leaning s o f ou r hear t woul d hav e i t so . Th e introduction o f tempo change s wher e the y ar e no t prescribe d b y the compose r is i n th e natur e o f an encroachmen t o n th e compositio n a s such." 69 "And wher e woul d b e th e limi t t o suc h encroachments ? Onc e w e depriv e a phrase o f th e sens e give n i t b y th e author' s directions—o r giv e i t a sens e no t asked fo r b y him—wh y shoul d w e no t g o furthe r an d boldl y obey th e biddin g of our 'heart' , when i n som e passage s it wishes to chang e th e note s and rhythm s prescribed b y the author?" 70 Walter's sternes t reproac h o f thos e wh o woul d tampe r wit h th e composer' s score come s a few sentences late r when h e state s that "w e must fee l free " in th e rendering o f a work , "bu t fre e withi n th e law s whos e bindin g forc e w e hav e recognized whe n w e chos e t o b e musica l interpreters . I f we shoul d chaf e unde r the immanen t law s of a work of music a s under a compulsion , w e ar e no t mad e to b e it s interpreter." 71 In a profoun d an d beautifu l summatio n o f th e subject , Walte r concludes : "For th e criterio n o f ou r talen t a s reproductiv e musician s lie s exactl y i n ou r capacity fo r assimilatin g the intention s o f anothe r s o completel y tha t no t onl y are th e demand s of the wor k no burde n t o us , but tha t w e fee l the m t o b e ou r own demands . Only thu s shall we feel fre e withi n th e limit s of the law s imposed on th e wor k by the author , an d onl y thu s wil l our music-makin g soun d sponta neous, sinc e w e no w ar e fre e t o follo w th e ben t o f ou r ow n hear t whic h ha s learnt t o beat i n uniso n wit h tha t o f the composer. " 72 66. Ibid. , Englis h edition , p. 32. 67. Ibid. , Englis h edition , p.32. 68. Ibid. , Englis h edition , p.32 . 69. Ibid. , Englis h edition , p.33. 70. Ibid. , Englis h edition , pp.33-34. 71. Ibid. , Englis h edition, p.34. 72. Ibid. , Englis h edition, p.34 .

A HISTOR Y OF CONDUCTIN G 9

3

In a somewhat confessiona l mood, Walte r admit s tha t i n hi s younger year s he also committe d "th e sin s o f willful interference s with, o r capriciou s misinterpre tations of , the composer' s clea r intentions. " H e ascribe s these t o a certai n youth ful artisti c immaturity, notin g tha t "i t wa s m y natur e t o fal l i n lov e wit h ever y beautiful detai l o f a composition an d tr y to reproduc e the m wit h al l the intensit y of expressio n o f which I wa s capable , an d thu s neglec t th e synthesi s an d unit y of conceptio n whic h ar e th e mai n poin t o f a n authenti c interpretation . M y enthusiasm fo r details was stronger than m y capacity fo r subsuming them under a highe r order." 73 Eventuall y realizin g tha t wha t wa s missin g i n hi s perfor mances "wa s a regar d fo r th e wor k i n it s entirety , withou t whic h it s greatness , seriousness, an d unit y will no t revea l itself, " and tha t thereb y " I had don e dam age t o th e musica l form, " Walte r say s h e eventuall y learne d tha t ther e wa s "a method o f interpretatio n higher , nobler , mor e i n accor d wit h th e greatnes s o f the work , than i s indulgenc e i n th e swa y o f one' s feelings." 74 Oh , tha t certai n famous conductor s o f today would hav e learne d tha t lesson ! Walter correctl y relate s temp o questio n t o continuity : "Th e concep t o f temp o is invali d without th e correlativ e on e o f continuity. Th e cleares t proo f o f this is in thos e ver y changes o f tempo tha t ar e indicate d b y the composer . Wha t coul d his ritenuto mea n i f the temp o itsel f were irregular ? Only th e fac t tha t continu ity, tha t is , regula r flow , i s an essentia l attribut e o f th e concep t o f tempo , give s proper significanc e t o ever y ritenuto an d accelerando, ever y meno an d pi ù mosso."75 Walter close s th e subjec t of tempo wit h a n excellen t summar y paragraph . "At all events , th e concep t o f the right tempo stand s an d fall s b y the recognitio n o f the principl e o f [wha t h e calls ] apparent continuity . I f w e deliberatel y deviat e from [ a tempo], obeyin g o r disregarding the direction s of the autho r a s our fanc y bids us , then anarch y will destructively descend o n a domain o f lofty order . And in th e resultin g distortion there wil l hardl y b e foun d a trace o f the work , whic h was create d accordin g t o a profoundl y meaningfu l design , an d shoul d onl y b e re-created i n th e sam e spirit". 76 In anothe r chapter , entitle d "O f Correctness, " Walte r return s to the subjec t of tempo i n a mor e general , oblique , bu t nonetheles s extremel y insightfu l way. Speaking o f "correctness " a s th e "indispensabl e conditio n an d prerequisit e fo r any musica l interpretatio n tha t doe s justic e to th e spiri t and sou l o f the work, " he the n define s this "correctness " a s including th e "rightnes s . . . o f time" an d "compliance . . . wit h temp o indications, " significantl y adding tha t "i t i s onl y from suc h a basi s that meaningfu l music-makin g ca n evolve." 77 On th e broade r subjec t o f textua l fidelity , Walte r di d no t fee l tha t a certai n non-excessive degre e o f interpretational freedo m wa s incompatible wit h faithfu l adherence t o th e score . H e rightl y believed tha t " a wor k i s capabl e o f differen t interpretations an d that , moreover , ou r ow n repeate d performance s o f i t nee d 73. Ibid. , Englis h edition , p.38 . 74. Ibid. , Englis h edition , p.36. 75. Ibid. , Englis h edition, p.43. 76. Ibid. , Englis h edition, p.45. 77. Ibid. , Englis h edition , p.84.

94 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

not, whe n allowanc e i s mad e fo r spontaneity , entirel y agre e wit h eac h other . Faithfulness t o th e spiri t know s o f n o rigidity ; th e spiri t o f th e wor k o f ar t i s flexible, elastic [itali c Walter's], hovering." 78 The las t voice t o b e hear d her e o n th e subjec t of tempo an d temp o fluctua tions i s tha t o f th e lat e Euge n Jochum , a discipl e o f Furtwängle r an d a fin e conductor i n hi s ow n right , wit h a specia l affinit y fo r Beethove n an d Bruckner . Echoing Wagner' s theorie s o n temp o variations , Jochu m wrote , "Th e layma n generally doe s no t realiz e ho w grea t th e variation s can an d mus t ofte n b e i n a steady temp o withi n on e movemen t i n orde r t o brin g ou t th e vitalit y of th e musical flow. Yet the listene r mus t alway s have th e impressio n tha t th e temp o does remai n steady." 79 A s Wagner ha d alread y explained i n hi s Über da s Dirigieren, Jochum cite d th e firs t movemen t o f Beethoven's Eroica a s "a particularly interesting example , whic h wit h it s might y proportion s canno t b e playe d through i n th e sam e unbendin g tempo , an d ca n stan d —even demands—exten sive modifications . Bu t thes e mus t hav e th e righ t balanc e an d no t g o t o ex tremes: thi s i s precisely th e ar t o f the interpreter , which, " Jochu m add s with a n underlying touc h o f hopefulness , "presuppose s a highl y refine d awarenes s o f tempo."80 In summary , o n th e subjec t o f temp o fluctuation s — a subjec t s o sorel y i n need o f objectiv e consideration—w e hav e hear d th e thought s o f som e o f th e greatest conductor s an d composer-conductors , al l pointin g t o th e sam e basi c central notion : "D o it , bu t don' t d o i t t o excess. " I n ou r da y whe n w e hav e either conductor s wh o pla y th e Romanti c literatur e wit h metronomi c rigidit y (even a s they ignor e th e actua l metronom e markings ) o r conductor s wh o tak e such "amazin g liberties " tha t th e musi c lose s al l meaning , al l sens e o f balanc e and proportion , an d become s a willfu l eg o display , the grea t conductors ' view s cited her e ough t t o offe r som e soberin g advice . Youn g conductor s especially , whether stil l studyin g or coming u p i n th e professiona l ranks, ought t o heed th e advice her e give n and no t b e misle d b y whatever some famou s 'maestro,' whose records ma y be sellin g in th e ten s o f thousands, di d o r di d no t do . Another subjec t I hav e dwel t upo n i n Par t I , whic h i t wil l b e usefu l t o explor e further throug h th e writing s o f som e o f th e grea t conductor s an d composer conductors o f the past , i s the matte r o f following composer's indication s regard ing crescendo s an d diminuendos , no t onl y wher e the y ar e place d bu t o f wha t duration an d ho w fa r the y shoul d exten d i n dynami c range . Again , th e advic e of three majo r historica l conductor figure s i s instructive, especially as their views on th e matte r ar e virtuall y unanimous. We all know that crescend o an d diminuend o wer e first prominently developed under Johan n Stamitz' s directio n i n Mannheim . I t was a ne w manne r o f featur ing dynamics—soo n t o b e dubbe d a "mannerism " b y none othe r tha n Leopol d 78. Ibid. , Englis h edition , p.12 5 79. Euge n Jochum , "Abou t th e Phenomenolog y o f Conducting " (Hamburg , lat e 1930s) , i n Th e Conductor's Art, ed . Car l Bamberge r (Ne w York , 1965 , 1989) , p . 261 . 80. Ibid .

A HISTOR Y O F CONDUCTIN G 9

5

Mozart81 —in whic h al l too soo n dramati c increase s an d decrease s o f amplitude often becam e a n effec t fo r it s own sake . It was Beethoven wh o rescue d th e crescendo/diminuend o manne r fro m mer e Effekthascherei (sensationa l effects ) an d turne d i t throug h hi s innovativ e geniu s into a powerful , moving mean s o f expression. This alon g wit h hi s introductio n of daring rhythmic innovation s (especiall y his dramatic us e o f syncopations) an d a radicall y new declamator y style , a s well a s expandin g th e classica l orchestra' s dynamic an d sonori c range , al l require d a whole ne w kin d o f conductorial lead ership. Orchestra l player s became involve d in a more diversel y demanding individual role , th e collectivit y o f whic h produce d a n intellectua l an d emotiona l complexity—for th e playe r a s wel l a s th e listener—whic h fa r transcende d th e ordinary standard s of his time . Whether i n hi s ow n conductin g Beethove n wa s able t o contro l al l aspect s of this radical kind o f new music-makin g is debatable. Ther e ar e man y accounts of his conducting—perhap s no t al l absolutel y reliable—tha t describ e Beethoven' s conducting a s "violent " i n it s gestures , an d "frequentl y misguiding." 82 Anto n Schindler, Beethoven' s frien d an d biographer , suggeste d tha t a s a conducto r "the Maste r wa s neithe r goo d no r bad . Hi s impetuosit y di d no t permi t hi m t o arrive a t the requisit e tranquilit y and self-command. " H e woul d los e "himsel f i n gesticulations whic h cause d a waverin g in th e orchestra." 83 Ludwig Spohr , wh o saw and hear d Beethove n conductin g o n severa l occasions, recalle d i n hi s Autobiography tha t Beethove n wa s "in hi s manne r o f conducting ver y awkwar d and helpless, an d hi s movement s lacke d al l grace", 84 bu t suggeste d tha t hi s ineffi ciency a s a conducto r wa s primaril y due t o hi s deafness . Speakin g o f Beetho ven's conductin g o f the Sevent h Symphon y premiere , Spoh r describe d th e per formance a s "quite masterly , in spit e o f th e uncertai n an d frequentl y laughable direction o f Beethoven." 85 On th e othe r hand , Seyfrie d recall s tha t Beethove n was "very meticulous wit h regar d to expression , the mor e delicat e shadings , and equalized distributio n of light an d shade , an d a n effectiv e temp o rubato". 86 Beethoven wa s also quite unequivoca l and painstakin g in hi s dynami c indications. Havin g note d musicians ' tendenc y t o crescend o to o muc h to o earl y and , worse, t o automaticall y associat e ascendin g passage s wit h a n increas e i n dy namic, an d descendin g one s wit h a decrease , Beethove n sprinkle d hi s score s with cautionary , reminding markings of sempre pp an d sempre f. What i s remark81. Leopol d Mozar t mad e frequen t references to dynamic s and musicians ' us e o f them, no t onl y in letters t o hi s so n bu t i n hi s 175 6 Versuch einer gründlichen Violinschule (Englis h edition , Violin Playing, 1948) . I n th e latter , fo r example , h e write s (p.218) : "I t follow s tha t th e prescribe d piano and forte mus t b e observe d mos t exactly , an d tha t on e mus t no t g o o n playin g i n on e ton e lik e a hurdy gurdy . On e mus t kno w how t o chang e fro m p t o f . . .eac h a t the righ t time; fo r this means , in th e well-know n phraseology o f the painters : Light an d Shade. " 82. Igna z vo n Seyfried , Beethoven Studien (1832) , cited i n Sonneck , Beethoven: Impressions o f Contemporaries (Ne w York, 1926) , p.40 . 83. Anto n Schindler , Ludwig va n Beethoven (Münster , 1840) , p. 44 . 84. Loui s Spohr, Autobiography (London , 1865) , p. 188 . 85. Ibid. , p.187 . 86. Seyfried , Beethoven Studien, p . 42 .

96

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

able, eve n uncanny , abou t thes e reminder s i s that they ar e almos t alway s place d in exactl y the righ t spot, namel y tha t momen t when mos t musician s will i n fac t wish t o anticipat e a crescend o o r diminuendo . A carefu l stud y o f Beethoven' s scores wil l revea l tha t i n matter s o f dynamic s h e wa s a mos t meticulou s an d demanding notator , undoubtedl y i n larg e par t t o counterac t th e ba d habit s of musicians an d futur e conductors , a s well a s the after-effect s o f the late r excesse s of the Mannhei m school . Wagner ha d muc h t o sa y o n th e matte r o f dynamics , especiall y th e prope r realization o f crescendo s an d diminuendos , n o doub t inspire d b y Beethoven' s works. Agai n Wagner 87 pick s som e excellen t (an d problematic ) example s t o make hi s points . On e o f thes e concern s a certai n chromati c "ascendin g pas sage"in th e firs t movemen t o f Beethoven' s Nint h Symphon y (Ex . 15) , con -

Ex. 1 5

trasting a certai n "masterful " performanc e i n 183 9 b y the orchestr a o f the Pari s Conservatoire (conducte d b y Habeneck) 88 wit h hi s ow n man y vai n attempt s with variou s orchestras—h e mention s i n particula r Dresde n an d London—t o achieve thi s passag e correctly . "Neve r wa s I able, " write s Wagner, i n a remark able instanc e o f modesty , "t o mak e th e bow—an d string—change s i n thi s se quential ascendin g passag e totally unnoticeable; no r wa s I able t o avoid involuntary accentuations , becaus e th e ordinar y musicia n ha s a tendenc y t o becom e louder i n ascendin g figure s an d conversel y become softe r i n descendin g ones. " That Wagner wa s equally worrie d abou t musicians ' convers e tendency , t o mak e accelerandos wit h crescendoin g and/o r ascendin g figures , w e kno w fro m man y instances i n hi s scores, mos t notably his "Nicht Eilen!" i n th e Prelud e to Tristan und Isolde a s the musi c near s it s orgiastic climax—a n admonition , alas , ignored since 185 7 b y hundred s o f conductor s wh o eithe r thin k the y kno w bette r tha n Wagner o r who haven' t th e technica l contro l t o restrai n the orchestra. 89 "By the 87. Wagner , Über da s Dirigieren, p . 13. 88. O n th e matte r o f the excellenc e o f the Conservatoir e orchestr a under Habeneck , Mendelssoh n and Wagne r decidedl y agree . Mendelssohn , i n a lon g detaile d lette r abou t musica l lif e i n Pari s (dated Februar y 15 , 1832), called th e performance s of the Conservatoir e orchestr a "th e mos t accom plished performance s t o b e hear d anywhere. " I t i s "the bes t I hav e eve r heard. " Mendelssoh n als o offers th e statement , amazin g t o 20th-centur y minds , tha t the y "rehearse d fo r tw o year s (sic) before venturing a performance until there could b e no questio n o f a wrong note an y longer" (see Mendelssohn, A Life in Letters, ed . Rudol f Evers (Ne w York, 1990) , p . 176). 89. On e o f th e mor e flagran t ignoring « i n recen t year s o f this "Nich t Eilen! " i n Wagner' s Tristan Prelude occurre d durin g an arrogantl y indulgent , but unfortunatel y widel y praised , performance in New Yor k b y Sergi u Cclibidach e an d th e (wonderfull y playing ) Curti s Institut e Orchestra.

A HISTOR Y OF CONDUCTIN G 9

7

fourth ba r o f th e quote d [Beethoven ] passage, " Wagne r recalls , "w e invariably got into a crescendo, s o that th e sustaine d G\> in th e fift h ba r wa s involuntarily— yea, necessarily—playe d wit h a heft y accent , enoug h t o detrac t greatl y from th e unique tona l significanc e o f thi s note . Wha t expressio n thi s passag e receive s when performe d i n thi s ordinar y manner, contrar y to the master' s clea r enough , expressively designate d intentions , i s difficul t t o mak e clea r t o a n unrefine d ("grobfühligen," literally , crude-feeling) ear an d listener . Undoubtedl y i t will express a certai n sens e o f dissatisfaction , restlessness , an d frustration , bu t o f pre cisely what kind, we ca n onl y learn whe n thi s passage i s played th e wa y Beetho ven intende d an d th e wa y I have hear d i t realized onl y by the Parisia n musicians in 1839." 90 Notic e th e wor d "realized " (verwirklicht), Wagne r hereb y rejectin g the "ordinar y manner " an d interpretatio n (o r misinterpretation ) an d acceptin g only a "realization " o f Beethoven' s clearl y indicated intentions . Not e als o Bee thoven's tw o "sempre pp's" — in a five-bar span(!) —which, alas, then a s now see m to be ther e t o b e ignored . Wagner drive s his point home , correctly connecting dynami c contro l an d sen sitivity with the tru e expressio n and spiri t of the music , b y implication eve n wit h tone colo r an d timbre . H e writes : "I recal l ho w clearl y an d directl y th e impres sion o f dynami c monoton y (pleas e forgiv e thi s apparentl y senseles s expressio n for a difficult-to-describ e phenomenon! ) spok e t o m e i n th e unusually , eve n eccentrically, varie d interva l progressio n i n thi s ascendin g figure , flowin g int o the infinitely , delicatel y sung , prolonge d Gl > which , i n turn , i s answered b y th e similarly sung Gk, and almos t magicall y initiated m e int o the incomparabl e mys teries o f the spirit." 91 Wagner the n ask s th e onl y partl y rhetorical question : Ho w di d the Pari s musicians "achiev e th e solutio n t o thi s mos t difficul t problem, " an d provide s th e perhaps obviou s answer : "throug h th e mos t conscientiou s diligence , whic h i s only give n t o suc h musician s a s are no t satisfie d t o constantl y complimen t eac h other, imagin e tha t the y kno w and understan d everything , but rathe r who stan d before th e initiall y incomprehensibl e wit h a degre e o f humilit y an d concern , and wh o tr y t o solv e wha t i s difficul t i n tha t real m i n whic h the y excel : tech nique."92 Wagne r end s thi s particula r discussio n wit h a referenc e t o ou r ol d friend 'tempo, ' specificall y the Pari s performance' s "righ t tempo. " "Ol d Habe neck certainl y di d no t hav e i n thi s regar d an y special , abstract-aestheti c intu itions—he wa s no t a ma n o f geniu s ("e r wa r ohn e all e 'Genialität'") ; bu t h e found th e righ t tempo , i n tha t he , throug h persisten t effort , le d th e orchestr a t o comprehend th e tru e melos o f the symphony." 93 By "Melos " Wagner mean t a singin g quality, a linea r expression , a continuit y of line, whic h h e fel t wa s the tru e essenc e o f all great music , an d withou t which music wa s meaningless , soulless , abstrac t an d stiff—a s h e onc e als o pu t it : "something betwee n grammar , arithmeti c an d gymnastic." 94 Wagne r fel t tha t i t 90. Wagner , Ober da s Dirigieren, p . 14 . 91. Ibid. , p.14 . 92. Ibid. , p.15 . 93. Ibid. , p.15. 94. Ibid. , p.15.

98 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

was th e specifi c characte r o f a melod y ( o r theme) , th e melodi c conten t o f a piece, which t o a large extent, along with the all-importan t harmonic considerations, generate d a movement' s temp o eb b an d flow . Th e singin g qualit y of a performance—he sai d o f th e Pari s Conservatoir e orchestr a "tha t wonderfu l orchestra san g tha t symphony" 95 —was al l importan t t o him . Interestingly—re turning for a moment t o our earlie r discussion of tempo elasticity , textual fidelity and th e relate d Toscanini-Furtwängle r feu d o f fift y year s ago—Toscanin i an d Furtwängler excelle d i n makin g thei r orchestra s sing : Toscanini i n a mor e simply lyric Italianat e manner , where the song , the melod y itself , wa s italicized an d valued; Furtwängle r i n a mor e deepl y expressiv e German way , with enormou s stretch i n hi s melodic lines , where the melod y was always rooted t o the underlying infrastructur e and it s harmonic tensions . Wagner relate d th e contro l o f crescendos an d diminuendo s ver y muc h t o th e delicate contro l o f tempo gradations . That i s to say , he foun d a correlatio n be tween th e need s o f both temp o an d dynamic s and thei r virtuall y infinit e variety of shadings, which aris e ou t o f the variabl e meanings an d feeling s o f the music , but whic h mus t no t overste p th e bound s o f their basi c order , an d mus t i n an y case b e hel d i n chec k t o reflec t the intention s o f the composer . Tha t i s not t o say tha t crescendo s shoul d b e accompanie d b y accelerando s o r vic e versa . Wagner make s these distinction s abundantly clear tim e an d tim e again , bot h i n his writing s an d hi s scores. One specifi c an d ver y telling commen t i n thi s regar d i s his referenc e to th e relationship betwee n th e olde r form s an d thei r inheren t dynami c structure. H e writes that until the Mannhei m Orchestr a discovere d the crescend o and diminu endo, "th e instrumentatio n o f the ol d masters " (meanin g primarily Mozart an d Haydn) "reveal s th e fac t tha t nothin g whic h woul d effec t a trul y emotional / expressive interpretatio n wa s allowed t o b e interpolate d betwee n th e forte an d piano section s o f th e [ol d naive ] Allegros." 96 B y implication Wagne r i s saying that th e ne w "sentimental " Beethovenia n allegro, as i n th e firs t movemen t o f the Eroica, als o require d a dynami c flexibilit y an d sensitivit y analogous t o th e structural an d (thus ) tempo fluctuations . I t i s also true, o f course , tha t compos ers, a t leas t in th e 19t h century , had mor e notationa l mean s a t thei r disposa l to indicate dynamic s than the y ha d t o indicat e subtl e temp o fluctuations . More over, composer s could—an d mostl y did (se e an y numbe r o f Brahm s symphony movements) —call fo r enormou s dynamic s fluctuation s bu t a t th e sam e tim e very modes t (i f any) tempo fluctuations . That Wagner wa s not unawar e o f the subtl e bu t crucia l relationshi p betwee n dynamics an d ton e color , fundamenta l t o al l full y expressiv e music making — and b y expressiv e I don' t mea n onl y lou d an d exciting—i s show n i n a passage of special interes t to m e a s an ex-hor n player, when Wagne r speak s of his performance i n Vienn a o f th e Freischütz Overture . Abou t th e openin g hor n quarte t he writes : "The hor n players , under th e sensitiv e artistic leadership of [th e prin95. Ibid , p.15 . 96. Ibid , p.33 .

A HISTOR Y O F CONDUCTIN G 9

9

cipal horn ] R . Lew i totall y change d thei r approac h [Ansatz, literally , attack ] in th e introductio n fro m thei r previousl y accustomed renditio n a s a pompous , swaggering sho w piec e t o a sof t woods y fantas y [Waldphantasie], blendin g wit h the indicate d pianissim o o f the strin g accompaniment and , i n a totall y differen t [new] way , distillin g a magica l perfum e [zauberischen Duft] ove r thei r songfu l melody." A momen t late r Wagne r speak s o f th e horns ' "delicatel y inflected " phrase rathe r tha n th e "usua l sforzando" (Ex . 16 ) an d stil l late r th e cellos' , a s intended, "softes t sigh " (Ex . 17) ,

Ex. 1 6 Ex

.17

rather tha n "th e no w s o customary heavil y accented attac k [Anstoss]." 97 As w e ca n see , th e disregar d o f dynamics , prematur e o r exaggerate d crescen dos and diminuendos , accelerando s an d ritardos , is not jus t a modern-da y mani festation; i t goe s bac k throug h th e centuries , elicitin g frustrate d warning s an d implorings fro m Wagne r al l th e wa y back t o Gluc k (amon g man y others) . Gus tav Mahler , too , wa s not silen t o n thes e matters . A s cited b y on e o f his biogra phers,98 speaking o f orchestra musicians ' ba d habits , he said : "There are frightfu l habits, o r rathe r inadequacies , whic h I hav e encountere d i n ever y orchestra ; they . . . sin against th e hol y law s o f dynamics an d o f the hidde n inne r rhyth m of a work . When the y se e a crescendo , the y immediatel y pla y f an d spee d up ; at a diminuend o the y becom e p an d retar d th e tempo . On e look s i n vai n fo r gradations, fo r th e mf, f , ff, o r th e p , pp , ppp. An d th e sf's, fp's, shortenin g o r extending o f notes, ar e eve n les s i n evidence. " One wonders , however , give n wha t on e know s abou t Mahler' s conductin g and interpretation s a s rathe r willfu l an d 'spontaneous, ' especiall y i n th e earlie r half of his career , whethe r Mahle r wa s always as disciplined i n respec t t o dynam ics and tempo s a s he woul d hav e u s believe fro m som e o f his statement s o n th e matter. The sam e customar y carelessness , ofte n destroyin g the rea l essenc e an d mean ing o f th e music , i s a s wide-sprea d toda y a s i t seem s t o hav e bee n i n Wagner' s and Berlioz' s day . Som e things , I guess , neve r change . Th e abuse , an d misuse , of dynamics i s perhaps th e mos t commo n evi l i n orchestra l playin g today, (espe cially i n th e Unite d States) , bein g eithe r tolerate d o r generate d b y ou r conduc tors. Thi s i s particularly ironic , sinc e th e technica l abilitie s o f moder n player s are s o hig h tha t n o clai m coul d eve r b e mad e tha t subtl e dynami c contro l i s beyond thei r capacities . An d to excus e thi s dynami c lazines s by saying "it's mor e fun t o pla y loud" o r "i t make s a bigge r effect " o r "it' s mor e exciting " or—mor e philosophically resigned—"it' s jus t huma n nature, " i s insufficien t reason , an d just plai n laziness , carelessness . 97. Ibid. , p.42. 98. Natali e Bauer-Lechner , Erinnerungen a n Gustav Mahler (Leipzig , 1923) , p.78 .

100 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

It obviousl y i s "huma n nature, " sinc e i t ha s bee n a performanc e proble m since tim e immemorial . Fo r example , Gluck , th e creato r o f opera s tha t calle d for greate r dramatic a s well as musical coherence , made demand s o n performers that wer e wholl y ne w a t th e tim e (18t h century ) an d foreshadowe d muc h o f modern performance . Gluck , evidentl y a tough-minde d taskmaster , insiste d o n the prope r dynamics , o n rea l pianos, pianissimos, fortes, an d fortissimos, de nouncing th e "lazy " omnipresen t mezzofortissimo. Weingartner's writing s remind u s that the abus e o f dynamics, both inadverten t and conscious , was still very common i n the lat e 19t h an d earl y 20th century . In 1905 Weingartner , i n th e secon d editio n o f his book , wa s compelled t o remin d conductors (an d musicians ) "to observe most precisel y whether a n accen t come s in a forte o r i n a piano passage , whic h wil l determin e quit e differen t grade s of strength an d expressio n fo r it. " I t i s also o f the utmos t importanc e whethe r a succession o f accent s occur s i n a passag e proceedin g i n unifor m loudnes s o r during a crescend o o r diminuendo ; i n th e latte r cas e th e accent s als o must , o f course, hav e thei r ow n gradua l increas e o r decrease. " 10° Strauss echoe d thes e thought s mor e succinctl y whe n h e said , flatly . "On e should differentiat e carefull y betwee n sfz's i n Mozar t an d i n Beethoven, " im plying tha t th e forme r shoul d neve r b e playe d roughly , observin g mor e thei r function i n par t as "architectonic pillars" ; while Beethoven' s sforzatos "represen t explosions o f wildes t despair an d o f defian t energy." H e i s speaking o f sfz's, no t fp's. Straus s points ou t tha t Mozar t use d ff onl y o n rar e occasions , tha t hi s f s should neve r b e treate d roughl y an d shoul d alway s retain a certai n "beaut y o f sound."101 Straus s her e i s remindin g u s tha t ther e ar e indee d man y kind s of f , as differen t betwee n Debuss y an d Tchaikovsky , o r Wagne r an d Mahler , a s be tween Mozar t and Beethoven . Echoing Weingartner' s admonitio n abou t sforzandos o r sforzando pianos i n the contex t o f the prevailin g dynamic, Straus s singles ou t on e o f m y ow n bêtes noires: ho w man y time s hav e I witnesse d th e astonishe d face s o f musician s i n rehearsals afte r correctin g th e dynamic s i n th e transitiona l passag e (Ex.18 ) t o the E majo r cadenc e i n th e first Allegro o f Beethoven's Thir d Leonore Overture !

Ex.18

99. Weingartner , Über da s Dirigieren (1905) , p.30. I would be a millionaire if I had a dollar for every time I have, even in my modest career as a conductor, had t o point out in rehearsals that an accent or a sf i s not alway s necessarily the loudes t accen t producible , tha t in fact it may be a sf in p . 100. Ibid . (1905) , p.30. Tw o importan t an d famou s passage s t o whic h thi s admonitio n applie s i n particular—an admonitio n mostl y ignored b y orchestras an d conductors—ar e i n th e firs t movemen t of Beethoven' s Fift h Symphony , mm.38-4 3 (se e als o p . 12 9 i n Par t III) , an d Beethoven' s Eighth Symphony, agai n i n th e first movement, mm.60-6 5 (an d it s recapitulation, mm.257-62). 101. Recollections an d Reflections, p . 5 7

A HISTOR Y O F CONDUCTIN G 10

1

As Strauss puts it, the sfp's her e "shoul d b e kep t piano fo r four bars , until forte is reall y marke d i n th e score," 102 tha t is , moderat e sfp's, hardl y mor e tha n > accents (whic h Beethove n wa s not usin g because the y wer e no t ye t in commo n notational use) , so as not t o distur b the basi c dynami c o f p. What s o man y o f thes e falsifyin g interpretiv e problem s com e dow n t o i s th e intrusion upo n th e musi c o f the conductor's/performer' s ego . I hav e alread y addressed thi s issue, but i t will be importan t an d usefu l t o hea r wha t some famous conductors and/o r writer s hav e ha d t o sa y on tha t subject . Mattheson expresse d his concern s o n th e subjec t agai n i n De r vollkommene Capellmeister. Afte r speaking quit e excitedl y about ba d conductors/director s —"unpracticed," "ineffi cient . . . swine " an d "th e lew d nature " o f ba d directing , h e argues—mor e calmly—that " a directo r . . . mus t no t b e laz y wit h unconstraine d word s o f praise, bu t mus t copiousl y emplo y them . Bu t i f h e .. . mus t admonis h an d contradict someone , the n h e shoul d d o s o quit e seriously , ye t a s gentl y an d politely a s possible." (Toscanin i migh t hav e benefite d fro m readin g this advice.) In th e las t chapter Mattheso n list s "among th e fundamental s of a musica l direc tor" tha t h e "no t completel y rejec t th e praiseworth y wor k o f othe r peopl e an d be only enamored o f hi s own working" [itali c emphasis mine]! 103 H e the n quote s the Lati n prover b "Vot o no n vivitu r uno " (I t i s not don e wit h one) . On th e subjec t o f the conductor' s eg o vis-à-vi s th e compose r an d hi s works , Mattheson's fina l word s (they literally constitute th e fina l paragrap h of his mon umental tome ) ar e " a shar p powe r o f discernmen t i s require d t o succee d i n divining th e sens e an d meanin g o f another' s [meanin g composer's ] thoughts . For, anyon e wh o ha s neve r learne d ho w th e compose r migh t prefe r to hav e i t himself will scarcely be abl e t o perfor m it well, but wil l ofte n depriv e the thin g of it s true forc e an d char m s o tha t th e composer , i f he shoul d hea r i t himself, would hardl y know his ow n work." 104 Junker, while no t dwellin g i n particula r on th e subjec t of the conductor' s eg o and it s possible beneficen t o r negativ e impact , di d make i t clea r that h e consid ered a goo d conducto r o n a pa r wit h th e compose r i n matter s interpretational. While acknowledgin g tha t th e composer , throug h hi s ow n individua l notatio n and "th e variou s types o f colorations " availabl e t o him , ca n "bette r an d mor e completely expres s these temp o modification s tha n th e conductor, " he add s tha t "it i s equally tru e tha t th e tw o o f them, compose r an d performer, " creato r an d re-creator, "mus t wor k hand i n hand , an d tha t varyin g a tempo , a s an auxiliary art, remain s indispensable." 105 Beethoven, Berlioz , an d Wagner , a s creative , innovativ e composer-conduc tors, neve r questione d thei r inheren t right—a t leas t no t i n writing—t o prescribe what the y though t wer e th e basi c conductoria l rule s o f behavior i n interpretin g 102. Ibid. , p.60 . 103. Mattheson , De r vollkommene Capellmeister, pp.480 , 484 ; Englis h edition , pp.864 , 871 . 104. Ibid. , p . 484 ; Englis h edition , p.871. 105. Junker , Einige de r vornehmsten Pflichten, p.37 .

102 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

their ow n an d (b y extension i n th e cas e o f Wagner) others ' work. 106 Bu t b y th e time thei r progen y ha d ha d it s way with a n eve r wide r an d stil l growin g reper tory, entailin g eve r broader , deeper , an d mor e comple x demands , th e whol e issue o f mediocr e conductor s and/o r intrusiv e ego s ha d becom e a majo r prob lem whic h som e fel t honor-boun d t o commen t upon . Weingartner's comment s o n thi s subjec t ar e amon g th e mos t tellin g i n tha t he tackle d i t fro m severa l importan t angles . H e ease s int o th e subjec t a bi t obliquely, generousl y giving his conducto r target s a benefi t o f doubt . "I f man y of the errors " — elsewhere he referre d to them a s "perversions o f style"—committed b y conductors "coul d b e suppose d t o b e 'proof s o f ardor' an d o f good inten tions, i t was in th e en d regrettabl e tha t b y the behavior , artistic an d personal , o f some 'new-modis h Billows ' s o much attentio n wa s directed t o th e perso n o f th e conductor tha t th e audienc e eve n cam e t o regar d th e composer s a s creatures of their interpreters , an d i n conjunctio n wit h th e nam e o f a conducto r peopl e spoke o f 'his' Beethoven , 'his ' Brahms , or 'his ' Wagner." 107 How contemporar y thi s al l sounds! Bac k to Weingartner: "Th e saddes t part of this busines s was that th e chie f aren a chose n fo r all these deviation s and experi ments wa s our gloriou s classical music, especiall y the holies t o f all, tha t o f Beethoven, sinc e Billo w ha d acquire d th e reputatio n o f a master-conducto r o f Beethoven, an d hi s followers wante d t o outbi d hi m eve n there". 108 Elsewhere, i n a slightly more philosophica l vein , Weingartner speak s the grea t truth, s o littl e remembere d today : "T o hav e give n a fin e performanc e o f a fin e work shoul d b e hi s [th e conductor's ] greates t triumph , an d th e legitimat e suc cesses o f the compose r hi s own. " 10 9 Amen t o that ! 106. Wagner' s eg o wa s certainly boundless , bu t i t i s clear that i n Über da s Dirigieren an d hi s othe r writings h e wa s more concerne d wit h th e preservatio n o f the ar t o f music (whos e mos t recen t hea d he considere d t o b e Beethoven ) an d th e highes t possibl e performanc e practice , tha n wit h asserting his ow n eg o o r hi s ow n conductoria l skills . H e wa s very deprecating abou t th e conductin g o f Men delssohn, who m h e characterize d a s a talented, elegan t bu t rathe r slic k an d entertainin g conducto r ("glatt un d unterhaltend") . H e sa w i n him—a s a conductor—someon e essentiall y superficia l an d empty, and blame d th e miserabl e state of German musi c (a s he sa w it) on Mendelssohn' s conductin g and tha t o f his school : Ferdinan d Kille r (1811-85) , Feli x Otto Dessof f (1835-92) , Wilhel m Kalli woda (1827-93) , Ernst Methfessel (1811-86), Carl Reinecke (1824-1910) , Julius Rietz (1812-1877) , and Fran z Lachne r (1803-1901) , amon g others . (Th e onl y conductors Wagne r fel t h e coul d prais e were Lisz t an d hi s studen t Bülow. ) Bu t i n al l o f Wagner's diatribe s agains t Mendelssoh n an d hi s school o f "time-beaters, " ther e shine s throug h a dee p concer n t o protec t th e integrit y o f Germa n music i n the lineag e of Beethoven and , beyon d that, to advance the ar t of music and it s performance practices—needless t o say in th e directio n o f a styl e o f interpretation and conductin g appropriat e t o his ow n musica l vision , i n particula r hi s musi c dramas . Wha t h e particularl y resented abou t Men delssohn an d hi s follower s wa s their layin g claim (unjustifiably , h e thought ) t o Beethoven' s legacy , corrupting i t and, t o ad d insul t to injury , idealizin g their 'objective, ' 'antiseptic ' aestheti c a s Beethovenian classicism . Wagner sa w that as a particularly loathsome subversio n of Beethoven's tru e legacy, that is , to reduc e Beethoven' s musi c an d aestheti c t o th e naive , neatl y packaged form s an d expres sions o f Mozart's tim e seeme d t o Wagner al l th e mor e outrageou s i n tha t i t was widely accepted b y a gullibl e public. 107. Weingartner , Über da s Dirigieren (1905) , p.30 ; Englis h edition, p.29. 108. Ibid . (1895) , p.55 ; (1905) , p.36; Englis h edition , p.3 5 109. Ibid . (1895) , p.78 ; (1905) , p.43 ; (1913) , p.58 ; Englis h edition, p.41.

A HISTOR Y O F CONDUCTIN G 10

3

Bruno Walter an d Joh n Barbiroll i echoed thes e thought s i n a slightl y differen t manner. Walter , fo r example , i n hi s benig n an d elderly-wis e writin g o n th e whole relationshi p o f conductor t o his musicians, t o the musi c h e performs , and to hi s audience , point s ou t tha t musi c ha s on e "curiou s propensity, " i n tha t i n its "acousti c representatio n musi c become s a transmitte r o f personality: i t transmits th e eg o o f the performe r mor e directl y t o th e listene r tha n ca n an y othe r medium o f direct communicatio n fro m on e huma n bein g t o another." 110 (Danc ers and actor s migh t take issu e with tha t singlin g ou t o f music performance , bu t the poin t i s otherwis e wel l taken. ) Walte r goe s o n t o say : "Thi s explain s th e unequaled persona l succes s o f executan t musician s o f stron g individuality , and their breathtakin g though transitor y impact, whic h successe s o f certain interpret ers are i n n o wis e a yardstick of true musica l culture , a s a misled publi c opinio n often believe s they are . Not o n successe s bu t o n achievement s depend s th e stan dard o f th e publi c cultivatio n o f th e arts . I n proportio n a s th e conducto r at tempts, an d i s capable of , satisfying th e tru e purpos e an d ai m o f re-creation, h e has prove d himsel f the chose n apostl e o f creative geniu s an d th e faithful servant of hi s ar t [italic s added]." 111 Even mor e profoun d ar e Walter's furthe r admonitions: "Th e contras t betwee n the tw o extremes o f the re-creativ e character i s shown b y the egotistica l tendenc y in th e on e case , an d th e selfles s manner , i n th e other , i n whic h th e eg o i s affirmed. Th e egotis t strives , consciousl y o r instinctively , t o conquer , t o domi nate, t o triumph , [t o achieve] unlimite d artisti c aggrandizement , [t o attain] hi s ends wit h ruthles s energy . Unde r th e egotist' s directio n a certai n sameness (italics Walter's ) wil l descen d o n al l works , on e tha t wil l detrac t fro m th e wealt h and variet y of their creativ e content , but on e whic h a t the sam e tim e i s capabl e of giving a strong , nay , overwhelming, impressio n o f personality. "Selflessness, o n th e othe r hand , wit h a n equa l investmen t o f personal dyna mism wishe s t o convince , help , advise , an d teach . Suc h a n eg o doe s no t pre y upon others , bu t seek s t o giv e o f itsel f t o .. . th e compose r an d . . . t o the players, an d thu s wiel d th e influenc e o f a n educator . Th e selfles s eg o strive s t o extend it s power ove r others , th e self-centere d eg o strive s to incorporat e other s into itself . Betwee n thes e tw o extreme s i n th e real m o f reproductive art—le t u s call the m th e conquero r an d th e guardian"—brilliant , that!—"ther e is , o f course, ever y possible kin d of gradation an d mixture , and th e resultin g differenti ation betwee n th e variou s types of musician serve s to enrich ou r musica l life." 112 Beautifully said . T o whic h on e ca n onl y ad d Si r Joh n Barbirolli' s wonderful admonition t o young conductors: "Mak e your watchwords integrity an d sincerity to yoursel f an d loyalt y t o th e ma n whos e musi c yo u ar e seekin g t o interpret . Never thin k 'Wha t ca n I make o f this piece?, ' bu t tr y to discove r wha t th e com 110. Walter , Vo n de r Musik un d vo m Musizieren, Englis h edition , p.122 . Walter' s brillian t analysi s of th e ultimat e ineffectivenes s o f tyrannica l conductin g practices—clearl y h e ha d Toscanin i an d some o f hi s German-Hungaria n colleague s i n min d —should b e rea d b y ever y aspirin g would-b e conductor whos e inclinatio n i t i s to lor d i t over musicians . 111. Ibid. , Englis h edition , p.123 . 112. Ibid. , Englis h edition , p.12 4

104 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

poser mean t t o say . The goa l fo r al l tru e musician s should be : servic e t o tha t great ar t whic h i t is our privileg e to practice." 113 But let Feli x Weingartner, tha t mos t eloquen t an d humbl e defende r of the ar t of conducting—eve n thoug h h e didn' t alway s practic e wha t h e preached—su m up thi s chapter . I n hi s Über da s Dirigieren h e offer s a brilliant—and , I believe , up t o tha t tim e (1905 ) unprecedented—aesthetic/professiona l cred o tha t deal s directly with th e relationshi p o f the conducto r t o th e compose r an d th e compo sition. H e writes: 114 "I t i s impossible for a conductor t o improv e th e valu e o f a work; h e ca n onl y fro m tim e t o tim e lowe r it . Fo r th e best that h e ca n d o i s to perform th e wor k at a level equivalent t o th e value , its quality. If the performer's work i s congenial t o th e composition , the n tha t performe r has fulfille d hi s task to the highes t possible extent. To do 'more' tha n tha t i s not possibl e [Ein 'Mehr' gibt es nicht], fo r there i s no conducto r i n th e worl d who ca n tur n a bad compo sition int o a goo d on e throug h hi s interpretation . Wha t i s bad remains bad , n o matter ho w wel l i t i s played." ( I migh t ad d thi s goe s fo r a ba d interpretatio n as well.) "Indeed , a n especiall y good performanc e wil l mak e th e weakness o f th e work stan d ou t eve n mor e tha n a mediocre one . Th e sentenc e 'Th e wor k owed its success t o it s excellent performance ' contain s a half-truth , for th e performer has th e righ t t o expec t ful l recognitio n fo r hi s contributio n t o th e work , but a still highe r recognitio n i s du e th e composer , sinc e i t i s h e wh o ha s give n th e performer i n th e first place th e possibility to hav e a success with his work."

113. Si r Joh n Barbirolli , "The Ar t o f Conducting, " Th e Penguin Music Magazine (London , 1947) , p. 19. 114. Weingartne r (1905) , p.17; (1913) , (pp.37-38) .

Part III Schwerere Verstöß e sin d kaum z u denken . — Heinrich Schenker 1 God i s in th e details . —Mies van de r Roh e Never trus t th e teller ; trust the tale . — D. H . Lawrenc e We hav e no w com e t o tha t par t o f th e boo k i n whic h th e idea s an d concept s discussed an d propose d earlie r by wa y of m y ow n philosoph y o f the ar t o f con ducting (Par t I) , a s well a s the writing s of many legendary historica l conductorcomposer figure s (Par t II) , will be pu t t o th e tes t o f actual practice , a s exempli fied i n hundred s o f recorded performance s of eight selecte d majo r work s o f th e repertory. Conversely , pu t t o th e tes t as well will be th e effort s o f a multitud e o f conductors, pas t an d present , dispassionately , objectively, measuring th e qualit y of thei r performances , thei r 'interpretations, ' agains t the actua l informatio n and content o f the scores , a s left t o u s by the grea t composers . A s mentioned earlier , this discussio n wil l no t i n th e mai n dea l wit h thos e mos t refine d subtletie s of interpretation tha t mar k the greates t performances, those rarefied , sublime, tran scendent moment s i n whic h th e performanc e reache s spiritua l height s whic h words ca n n o longe r express—onl y th e musi c itsel f ca n d o so—an d which , in deed, eve n ou r mos t sophisticate d musica l notation s ca n neithe r captur e no r elicit. Such subtletie s of interpretation reside in that final highest real m o f reproductive performanc e wher e inexplicable , indefinabl e —and unteachabl e —instincts an d intuition s tak e over , givin g a personal , inimitabl e touch t o a performance (o r a momen t i n a performance ) whic h goe s beyon d th e musica l notation, beyon d th e text , an d capture s tha t essence , a s Mahle r onc e pu t it , 1. "Mor e seriou s offence s ar e hardl y imaginable. " Heinric h Schenker , Beethoven: Fifth Symphony (Vienna, 1925) .

105

106 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

which lie s behin d th e notes. 2 I t i s i n thi s ultimat e realm—tha t fina l highes t 'percentage' of an interpretatio n —in which performances can legitimately differ , although onl y i n minut e an d subtl e variables . This i s precisel y s o because , a s just stated, performanc e a t that realm goe s beyon d th e limitation s and fmitenes s of musical notatio n t o where musica l instinct s and intuitions , to where tast e an d intelligence, mus t perforc e tak e over , wher e th e notatio n ca n n o longe r prov e something 'right ' o r 'wrong. ' Thi s is , o f course , tha t fina l real m wher e th e 'truth'—the essenc e —of a piec e o f music lies , an d wher e th e greates t musician s can pu t thei r personal , uniqu e imprin t o n a performance—tha t real m tha t gives ultimate meanin g t o th e notio n o f 'interpretation. ' Th e grea t cautio n here , o f course, i s —or shoul d be—tha t thi s notation-surpassin g interpretatio n mus t i n the first instance b e derive d from within that sam e notation , mus t be buil t upo n all th e inherentl y valuable information which is i n th e score . I f it surpasse s the score, i t must no t hav e bypassed it . To pu t i t anothe r way , thos e aspect s o f a performanc e tha t transcen d th e limitations o f the score , tha t explor e region s beyon d th e scop e o f musical nota tion, shoul d represen t th e fina l stage s o f a n interpretatio n whic h i n al l other respects an d a t al l other levels i s wrun g fro m a faithful , rigorous , intelligent , disciplined readin g of the text . I f an interpretatio n — no matte r ho w compelling , how exciting , n o matte r ho w sublim e a t certai n moment s —is achieve d fro m outside th e score' s basi c information , to th e exten t tha t i t ignores th e score , i t is to tha t exten t invalid . Ignorin g th e fundamentals , th e har d facts , o f the text tempos, dynamics , phrasings , articulations , for m an d structure , th e balanc e o f primary an d secondar y voices, etc.—wil l largel y (perhaps completely) invalidate whatever momentar y individua l felicities th e performanc e ma y offer . So w e ar e lef t wit h thos e aspect s o f performance—an d musica l notatio n — which ar e fundamental , which ar e precis e an d unequivocal , whic h ar e measur able, an d whic h i n tur n permi t u s t o evaluat e a performanc e i n relatio n t o a t least thos e fundamentals . Bu t tha t 'a t least ' i s a grea t deal ; i t i s i n fact , i n th e repertory discusse d an d analyze d here , mos t o f what on e need s t o kno w and d o as a conductor . I t i s not al l that mysterious , as some woul d hav e u s believe; an d thus, measurin g the evidenc e o f a performance against the evidenc e o f the scor e is also not a particularly mysterious process. A recording does no t lie ; but neithe r does a scor e b y Beethove n o r Brahms . Tw o solid , objectivel y assessable enti ties—a recorde d performanc e an d a musica l scor e —stand i n reciproca l depen dence upo n eac h other , unadorned , unenhance d b y th e visual , choreographi c aspects o f conducting an d th e fantasie s o f hermeneutic interpretations , and thus , in thi s nake d condition , ar e objectivel y comparable an d quantifiable . Staying wit h thes e criteri a an d principles , I will—t o borro w a quot e fro m 2. Wha t Mahler i s actually reported t o have said is "What i s best i n musi c i s not t o b e foun d in th e notes," quote d b y Brun o Walte r i n hi s Erinnerungen a n Gustav Mahler (Leipzig , 1923) . ( I a m certain tha t Mahle r di d no t mea n thereb y to impl y tha t wha t i s foun d "i n th e notes " shoul d b e ignored.) Weingartnc r put i t similarl y i n hi s Über da s Dirigieren (Leipzig , 1895) , urging conductors to "see what i s behind th e notes."

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R 10

7

Furtwängler's 195 1 articl e "Beethove n un d Wir " (Beethove n an d Us) 3 —"do my best to avoid the expressio n of (mere) opinions , impressions , perceptions, t o dea l instead, a s much a s this i s possible i n th e fiel d o f music , entirel y with th e fact s contained i n th e score , as I am abl e t o glea n the m fro m th e score. " The conclusio n o f thes e analyse s are , unfortunately , rathe r depressing . S o many performances—s o man y conductor s fai l t o sho w eve n th e mos t rudimen tary respec t fo r th e informatio n containe d i n th e scores . I t i s as i f the majorit y of conductors lear n th e musi c the y are conductin g outsid e th e score , on e coul d say i n disregard , in defiance , o f it. Eve n thos e conductor s wh o ar e mor e knowl edgeable an d respectfu l of what the scor e contain s ten d a t on e poin t o r anothe r to laps e int o som e arbitrary , idiosyncratic interpretational foible : a ba d tradition , or a n eas y way out o f a difficul t performanc e problem , o r a performanc e clich é or stereotype contradictor y to th e scor e bu t lef t unquestioned—o r simpl y a plain misreading o f th e score . Happily , a fe w conductor s —Carlos Kleiber , Bernar d Haitink, Stanisla v Skrowaczewski , Otmar Suitner , Jame s Levine , occasionall y Christoph vo n Dohnanyi , Claudi o Abbado , an d Joh n Elio t Gardine r (amon g the presen t matur e generation) ; Toscanini , Reiner , Dorati , Alber t Coates , Wein gartner, and Eric h Kleibe r o f an earlie r perio d —do surviv e thi s admittedl y stringent tes t quit e well . T o m e the y ar e th e tru e keeper s o f th e flam e o f musical , artistic integrity , without sacrificing on e iot a o f the drama , excitement , an d emo tion tha t al l great musi c contain s an d seek s to communicate .

3. In : Wilhel m Furtwängler , To n un d Wort (Wiesbaden , 1955) , p.223 .

This page intentionally left blank

Beethoven: Fifth Symphony

There i s no wor k in th e entir e literatur e which i s more popula r an d mor e ofte n recorded—some 16 0 recording s t o date—tha n th e Fift h Symphon y o f Beetho ven. I t i s also, alas , on e o f the leas t understoo d an d mos t consistentl y misinter preted.1 I t has become s o popular and , therefore , such a mandator y componen t of an y conductor' s repertory , that i t i s virtuall y take n fo r granted , bot h b y con ductors (an d orchestras ) and audiences , too ofte n hear d an d performe d perfunctorily i f no t mechanically , an d worse , i n self-indulgen t distorte d version s tha t bear littl e o r n o relatio n t o th e realit y o f th e score . Th e Beethove n Fift h ha s become a musica l commodity , a musica l platitude , whic h hardl y anyone hear s with fres h ears , whic h hardl y anyon e perform s wit h a sens e o f discovery , an d which hardl y anyon e treat s wit h th e respec t thi s monumenta l masterpiec e de serves—although everyone , o f course, claim s to d o so . It i s thu s doubl y ironi c tha t th e Beethove n Fift h i s on e o f th e mos t difficul t works t o conduct , on e o f th e mos t problemati c t o perfor m an d fulfil l al l o f its creative aspirations . The difficultie s begi n i n multipl e fashio n i n th e ver y first measure, an d b y th e sixt h measur e th e conducto r an d orchestr a hav e encoun tered problem s that , certainl y unprecedented i n 1808 , presen t formidabl e technical an d interpretiv e performanc e issue s to thi s day. Any conducto r wh o lunge s unthinkingl y int o th e firs t fe w measures—proba bly th e mos t universall y familiar four-not e motiv e eve r create d i n al l o f mu sic — is alread y in trouble . For , i n orde r t o know ho w properl y t o declai m tha t famou s opening , on e need s t o understan d its agogi c placemen t b y Beethove n i n th e over-al l structurin g of th e wor k and , therefore, it s correct rhythmi c and gestura l feeling . There ar e man y ways to play this zYzcorrectly . Th e firs t questio n tha t arise s —or shoul d aris e (s o ofte n i n th e 1. It s closes t contender, on bot h counts , i s undoubtedly Gershwin' s Rhapsody i n Blue, fo r certainl y no famou s wor k has bee n mor e mishandled , bowdlcri/ed, dismembere d an d misinterpreted.

109

110

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

numerous recording s I sample d i t neve r does ) —is whethe r th e firs t thre e note s represent som e sor t o f upbeat (anacrusis ) gesture o r a mor e downbeat-weighte d figure. Th e answe r t o tha t questio n i s no t entirel y obviou s no r i s the questio n all tha t eas y t o resolve , primaril y because Beethove n chos e t o nótat e th e firs t movement o f hi s symphony , marke d Allegro co n brio, i n a fas t 2/ 4 mete r (a t J = 108) . This mean s tha t eac h puls e bea t o f the musi c i s contained i n a single measure, i n turn requirin g the movemen t t o be conducte d i n 'one. ' Conductin g the movemen t i n 'two ' ha s t o b e rule d ou t despit e th e 2/ 4 tim e signature , because (a ) i t i s virtuall y physically impossible , a t th e ver y least incredibl y ex hausting, t o conduc t a six-minut e movemen t wit h a fas t bea t o f J = 216 ; an d (b) — more significantly—th e musi c i s simply not compose d i n tw o beats pe r bar . The openin g fanfar e motiv e o f three shor t note s followe d by on e longe r not e (twice)—a four-ba r motiv e o n whic h virtuall y the whol e movemen t i s rigorously built—is gesturall y expresse d i n singl e beats : on e fo r the three-not e groups , another fo r th e singl e longe r notes . Beethove n shoul d properl y hav e give n th e music a 1/ 2 time signatur e (mos t 20th-centur y composer s woul d hav e don e so) , but 1/ 2 was a virtuall y unknown tim e designatio n i n th e 19t h century . Beetho ven woul d hav e mad e i t a lo t easie r fo r u s t o understan d th e structurin g of th e piece, ha d h e writte n i t i n 4/ 4 time , tha t is , instead o f the mai n them e (mm.6 10) bein g writte n a s i n Ex . 1 , writing it (i n metri c reduction ) a s i n Ex . 2 .

Ex. 1

Ex. 2

In th e Ex . 2 version, given the generall y accepte d concep t o f an hierarchica l division i n a 4/ 4 measur e o f th e fou r beat s int o 'strong ' an d 'weak ' beat s (th e first bein g th e strongest , th e thir d th e nex t strongest , th e secon d an d fourt h significantly weaker) , i t woul d hav e bee n immediatel y clea r wher e th e mai n pulses o f the musi c lay . I t would als o hav e mad e i t clea r tha t the fiv e measure s 6-10 (correspondin g to th e fiv e quarter-not e beats represente d in Ex . 2 ) com prise a four-ba r phras e (mm.6-9) , i.e . a four-ba r theme , i n whic h m. 6 (th e sixteenth-note gestur e ; i n Ex . 2 ) i s in a n anacrusi s (upbeat) position . As Beethove n finally notated th e them e (i n singl e one-beat measures) , the four -

BEETHOVEN: FIFTH SYMPHON Y

111

bar structurin g does no t becom e immediatel y apparent ; afte r all , th e measure s all loo k alik e o n th e fac e o f it . Someon e might , fo r example , rea d th e phras e structuring as in Ex . 3 a (•> representin g strong, (j) les s strong, an d ^ wea k beats) rather tha n a s in Ex . 3b . Indeed, thousand s o f conductors hav e i n fac t (mis)rea d the musi c tha t wa y (a s i n Ex . 3a ) o r a s i n Ex.3c , eve r sinc e i t wa s written 19 0 years ago and performe d many thousands o f times sinc e then. 2

Ex. 3 a

Ex.3b Ex. 3 c

Example 3 b represents the on e an d onl y correct phrasing o f the theme . Igno rance o f thi s fac t o r failur e o n th e par t o f th e conducto r an d th e musician s of the orchestr a t o recogniz e thi s ca n onl y lea d t o a wron g and inaccurat e perfor mance, particularl y since virtuall y the entir e movemen t i s rigorousl y based o n this four-not e motive an d th e ensuin g four-ba r periodizations. Now, wh y i s Ex . 3b th e onl y 'correct ' phrasin g o f th e theme ? T o answe r tha t question an d t o confir m th e accurac y o f thi s statement , on e ha s t o analyz e almost th e entir e structur e o f th e firs t movement , o r a t leas t a numbe r o f key structural points . I t will become clea r i n suc h a n analysi s that th e entir e move ment, wit h a handfu l o f notabl e exceptions , i s composed (structured ) i n four bar entities . This, b y the way , should no t com e a s a surprise to anyon e sinc e th e vast majorit y o f all classica l and Romanti c musi c i s composed i n four- , eight- , o r sixteen-bar phrases , i n shor t i n binar y o r quaternar y structuring—three-bar (ter nary) structuring s bein g quit e rare . Wha t wa s surprising—an d new—wa s tha t Beethoven chos e i n thi s cas e t o nótat e hi s four-ba r phrase s i n a single-measure per-beat meter . Beethoven had , o f course , experimente d wit h suc h idea s befor e in , amon g other instances , th e Scherzo s o f his first four symphonies , all i n 3/ 4 time, ye t i n two-, four- , o r eight-ba r one-beat-per-ba r periodizations . Bu t thos e wer e Scher zos, set in very bright tempos: on e woul d have expecte d the m t o be i n 'one. ' O n the othe r hand , writin g a Sonata-Allegr o first movement o f a symphony i n 'one ' was a radica l break-through. I t was an earl y example o f Beethoven's penchant— 2. Example s o f misreadings abound i n bot h th e analytica l literatur e o n th e symphon y and it s perfor mance history , includin g eve n thos e o f ver y famou s musicologist s an d conductor s (suc h a s Hug o Riemann, Si r Georg e Grove , Theodo r Müller-Reuter , Han s vo n Billow , Feli x Weingartner) , a s bril liantly recounted , fo r example , b y Heinric h Schenke r i n hi s Beethoven: Fifth Symphony (Vienna , 1925), pp . 22-35 . Th e mos t recen t misreading s (misinterpretations ) ar e thos e o f Norma n de l Ma r in hi s Conducting Beethoven, (Oxford , 1992) .

112 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

by th e en d o f hi s lif e almos t a n obsession—fo r notatin g hi s musi c i n metric / rhythmic extremes : fas t tempo s i n larg e rhythmi c unit s (whol e note s t o eighth notes), slo w tempos i n smal l unit s (eight h o r sixteenths t o sixty-fourths , reaching even 128th-notes) . I n bot h directions—fas t an d slow—Beethoven' s tempos were , in addition , th e fastes t an d slowest , respectively, that ha d eve r bee n attempted . This is not the place to engage i n a complete structura l analysis of the Fift h Symphony's first movement. Suffic e i t to say—the reader may wish to trace the quater nary structuring in detail fro m beginnin g t o end (conductor s an d instrumentalists are certainly urged to do so)—that the entir e movement i s constructed ou t of fourbar phrase s with th e followin g exceptions: (1 ) mm.224—28 an d mm.386—90 , two five-bar phrases (more ofthat later) ; (2) the fermat a measures 5 , 24, 252, 482; an d a numbe r o f six-ba r phrases which , however , ar e merel y two-ba r extension s o r stretchings of four-bar phrases, still inherently binary. It i s essentia l t o kno w an d accep t thi s fact , a t least i n principle—o n som e minor o r comple x phras e detail s intelligen t mind s ma y differ , a s we shal l se e — for withou t thi s knowledg e i t i s literall y impossibl e t o perfor m th e movemen t correctly, nay , to eve n star t i t correctly , fo r i n tur n i t i s impossible t o kno w ho w the famou s openin g bar s ar e structure d agogically . The openin g 'motto ' phrase , after all , appear s t o b e a five-bar phrase. Bu t i s it? The answe r t o thi s an d al l simila r question s i s to b e foun d i n th e tex t itself , in th e score ; an d Beethove n supplie s u s with man y clues . I f we accept th e fact , based o n th e previou s supposition , tha t m. 6 (se e Ex . 1 ) represents a n anacrusi s measure, a n upbea t gesture , the n i t migh t b e logica l t o assum e th e sam e fo r m.l. Bu t i f m.l i s an upbea t measur e —a fourt h bea t i n a four-bea t structur e — and m. 2 i s a downbea t measure , the n wh y ar e ther e three mor e bar s befor e w e get t o th e nex t upbea t measure , m.6 ? Th e four-ba r structurin g woul d see m t o be destroye d righ t a t th e outset ! Th e answe r i s tha t m.5 , th e secon d fermat a measure, i s a sustainin g extensio n o f m. 4 (whic h represent s th e thir d bea t i n a 3. Suc h a n analysi s would g o beyon d th e scop e an d purpos e o f this study . Onl y thos e feature s o f a score tha t ar e absolutel y vita l t o a conductor' s understandin g o f th e wor k wil l b e deal t wit h here . While makin g a complet e detaile d bar-by-ba r harmonic analysi s o f a work—emphasi s o n th e wor d 'complete'—is a mos t desirabl e undertaking , I canno t i n goo d conscienc e clai m tha t i t i s 'absolutely vital' i n orde r fo r a conducto r t o effectivel y discharg e hi s dutie s a s an interpreter . On e cannot , afte r all, conduc t a n F mino r chord—al l othe r thing s (dynamics , instrumentation , rhythms , metri c place ment etc. ) bein g equal—differentl y fro m a G mino r chord . Majo r harmoni c station s i n tona l musi c are, o f course , importan t t o kno w an d t o hear ; s o i s th e feeling o f th e harmonies , no t jus t thei r theoretical/intellectual substance ; an d t o tha t exten t m y analyse s wil l dea l wit h suc h matter s whe n applicable. Still , it is the musician s who produce th e actua l pitche s (harmonies) , no t th e conductor . The conducto r does , o n th e othe r hand , cruciall y affec t an d determin e th e renditio n o f a wor k in respect to tempo, rhythm , over-all continuity, and dynamics . To put i t another way , only a conducto r can se t th e tempo , star t a piec e of f o n it s particula r rhythmi c an d temp o course , th e harmonie s simply comin g along , a s i t were, supplie d automaticall y by the musicians . A mor e detaile d harmonic/structura l analysi s of the Beethove n Fift h ca n b e foun d i n Schenker' s Beethoven: Fifth Symphony. Schenke r wa s undoubtedl y th e first—a t leas t i n writing—t o analyz e correctly th e structur e of the firs t movement , bot h i n it s long-term harmoni c and melodi c progres sion an d it s metric/rhythmic structuring. He wa s also th e firs t t o mak e a thoroug h stud y o f Beetho ven's autograp h score an d th e first to provid e a critica l compariso n wit h the firs t publishe d edition.

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 11

3

four-beat phrase) . Bu t wh y the extr a measure (m.5) ? The answe r i s that Beetho ven wante d th e secon d fermat a t o be longe r tha n th e first one, an d thi s wa s the only way available to hi m t o indicat e thi s i n th e musica l notatio n o f his time. 4 Again, i f Beethoven ha d chose n t o cas t th e wor k in 4/4 an d writte n the open ing a s i n Ex . 4 , it s phrasing an d structurin g a s wel l a s the relativ e duration s o f the fermata s woul d hav e bee n instantl y clear . Beethoven' s origina l manuscrip t score (se e Plat e I ) reveal s that h e initiall y cast th e openin g phras e i n fou r bars , but a year or so later—probably i n 1809 , an d lon g befor e the first printed editio n of the symphony—adde d a n extr a measur e (a s well a s at tw o similar places, th e present m.25 2 an d m.482) .

Ex.4 That thi s conceptio n o f the structur e o f Beethoven's openin g mott o (an d there fore th e periodizatio n o f th e entir e movement ) wa s no t alway s understoo d o r agreed upo n i s eviden t fro m som e o f th e earlie r writin g on th e subject . Eve n Weingartner, i n hi s Suggestions fo r th e Performance o f Beethoven's Symphonies,^ fails t o se e th e logi c an d simplicit y of the extr a fermat a ba r bein g a n extensio n of th e previou s measure . Instead , h e invent s a n elaborat e an d complicate d the ory o f explication, whic h als o attempt s t o explai n an d rationaliz e th e tw o afore mentioned late r five-bar phrases, bu t a t the sam e tim e unfortunatel y completel y and mistakenl y reorganize s th e structurin g an d periodizatio n of the entir e move ment.6 Weingartne r als o doe s no t see m t o hav e know n o f Beethoven' s origina l four-bar dispositio n o f th e openin g motto , writin g hi s exegesi s befor e th e tim e when th e facsimil e reproductio n o f th e Fift h Symphon y autograp h becam e widely available . (However , h e coul d hav e studie d th e origina l manuscrip t i n the Prussia n Stat e Librar y i n Berlin , whic h acquire d th e autograp h i n 1878 , having been bequeathe d t o i t by the estat e o f Felix Mendelssohn. ) Writing som e sixt y year s later , Wilhel m Furtwängle r get s i t righ t whe n h e points ou t tha t Beethove n "intende d nothin g mor e no r les s than t o indicat e tha t the secon d fermat a shoul d b e hel d longe r tha n th e first". 7 I suspec t tha t Furt wängler kne w thi s lon g befor e 1951 , judgin g by his earlie r performances o f th e Fifth Symphony , includin g hi s fin e recordin g o f the lat e 1930 s wit h th e Berli n Philharmonic. Bu t then , som e paragraph s later , Furtwängle r als o misse s th e point whe n h e bracket s th e mai n themati c materia l startin g i n m. 6 a s follow s (see Ex . 5) , thu s misrepresentin g Beethoven' s tru e phras e structure . Thi s mis 4. Toda y we hav e several ways o f showing differing duration s of pauses an d fermatas , ranging fro m i—51 _ _ f^ the shortes t t o th e longest : 5 5 " " , a s wel l a s th e b y no w well L L I - i _ j corta j dlunga established ^ an ¿£ . 5. Feli x Weingartner , Ratschläge fü r Aufführungen de r Symphonien Beethovens (Leipzig , 1890) , pp.64, 69 . 6. Se e Schenker' s devastating derogation of Weingartner's analysi s i n hi s Beethoven: Fifth Symphony, pp.31-35. 7. Furtwängler , "Beethove n und Wir, " i n To n un d Wort, (Wiesbaden , 1955) ; p.225 .

Plate I Autograp h manuscrip t o f the openin g o f the first movement o f Beethoven's Fift h Symphon y

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y

115

marking creates a five-bar phrase a t the en d o f the example , whic h Furtwängle r neglects t o explain. 8

Ex. 5

To return to Beethoven's text , if further confirmatio n be neede d tha t m.l i s an upbeat measure , i t can b e foun d mos t compellingl y in the tw o empty measures, mm.123-24 (Plat e II ) and eve n mor e emphaticall y in th e las t three measure s of the movement , representin g mm. 1-3 i n a four-bar structure , meaning, o f course, that th e fina l chor d i s a 'three ' (no t a 'one' ) (Plat e III) . This mean s furthe r that , since i n th e notationa l convention s of the 18t h an d 19t h centurie s las t and first measures of a piece had to complete the tota l structure—full circl e as it were—the 'three' of the final bar here tells us that m.l is a 'four,' i.e. an upbeat measure. Mea sures 123-24 confirm the same idea —otherwise why would Beethoven have structured i n thes e tw o measure s o f rest—indicatin g unequivocall y (a) tha t h e wa s thinking in four-bar phrasings, and (b ) that, m.l22 being a 'one,' m.l i n the repea t (and, of course, also m.125) ar e 'fours. ' Beyon d these ver y telling structural signs, many additiona l confirmation s ar e scattere d throughou t th e movement. 9 An d there i s still further confirmatio n in the fac t that all the stron g harmonic structural points are in the 'one' position; that is to say, the various tonic positions in the overall harmonic/tona l schem e and/o r othe r majo r architectoni c tonality-confirming structural points are also all 'ones.'10 What i s fascinatin g abou t th e openin g mott o i n term s o f harmoni c implica 8. I t i s possibl e tha t th e bracketin g i n Ex . 5 wa s a printin g error , fo r i n th e succeedin g musica l example o f a slightl y late r passag e fro m th e firs t movement , Furtwängler' s bracketin g i s correct. O n the othe r hand , i t seem s t o m e fro m listenin g carefull y t o Furtwängler' s 1930 s recordin g tha t h e interprets m. l no t a s a n anacrusi s bu t a downbea t gesture . I mus t admi t i t i s har d t o tel l wit h certainty because , bein g th e firs t measur e an d th e firs t soun d produced , ther e i s n o rhythmi c o r metric referenc e poin t to clin g to . 9. Th e three-not e mott o i s foun d i n mm.18 , 22 , 5 9 (horns) ; 17 9 (violins) ; 19 5 (wood-winds) ; 248 , 303, 47 8 (trumpet s an d timpani) , 491 . 10. O n th e C mino r toni c —mm.19, 25 4 (recapitulation) , 304, 374 , 423 , 439, 484 ; o n th e dominan t (V) positions , as , for example , mm.26 , 346 , 399 , o r 471 ; i n th e E t majo r 'secon d subject ' episod e — mm.60, 110 , 118 , 122 ; an d variou s V mino r subdominan t (IV ) episodes—mm.130 , 196 , 241 .

Plate I I Autograp h manuscrip t o f mm. 118-124 of the firs t movemen t o f Beethoven's Fift h Symphon y

Plate II I Beethoven , Fift h Symphony , m.47 2 t o en d o f first movement

118 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

tions i s tha t i t i s actuall y harmonicall y ambiguous . Ther e ar e i n th e firs t fiv e bars n o unequivocall y clear, explicitl y stated harmoni c specifications—t o pu t i t another way , no clarifyin g chords . We se e simpl y unison octave s whic h theoreti cally coul d hav e an y number o f harmonic associations . The first pitches, G an d El>, coul d fo r example b e hear d i n th e ke y o f El> , an d indee d ar e ap t t o be hear d that way , since, again , ther e i s no previou s clear-cu t harmoni c referenc e point . I ca n wel l imagin e tha t someon e hearin g thos e firs t tw o measure s fo r th e ver y first time coul d ver y likely think and hea r the ke y of Ek Bu t we know, of course, that Beethoven' s Fift h i s in C minor ; an d afte r havin g hear d th e piec e dozen s or hundred s o f times , w e ten d t o hea r thos e openin g measure s i n tha t key , simply b y prio r association , b y previou s referenc e an d memory . Th e nex t tw o pitches, F an d D , ar e als o harmonicall y ambiguou s becaus e the y coul d b e heard, fo r example , a s belongin g t o th e ke y o f B\>, especiall y i f on e ha s hear d the firs t tw o pitche s ( G an d Et ) i n El > major . I f Beethove n ha d o n th e othe r hand writte n F an d B t i n mm . 3-5 ,

tha t

would hav e confirme d fo r u s th e Et-nes s o f th e firs t tw o bars . Th e F an d D , however, strongly imply by prior association a dominan t (G) , wit h F it s seventh, D it s fifth , an d thu s se t thing s u p fo r th e rea l beginnin g o f th e bod y o f th e movement i n mm. 6 an d 7 i n a ver y clear , unmistakabl e C minor . I fin d i t curious that Beethove n use d onl y clarinets in the winds—n o bassoons and horns . Give n th e thunderou s ff dynami c wit h whic h h e hear d thi s motto , he migh t hav e considere d th e horn s an d bassoon s a s logical instrument s t o in crease th e powe r o f th e openin g statement . Bu t I suspec t tha t h e omitte d th e horns becaus e th e D i n mm. 4 an d 5 i s no t a 'natural ' not e o n th e El > hand horn—it woul d b e a 'stopped ' note , B —eve

n thoug h i t wa s a rela -

tively accessibl e not e an d wa s frequently called fo r i n th e work s of Mozart an d Haydn an d man y other composer s o f the period . Beethove n use d th e horn s very conservatively i n hi s Fift h Symphony , resortin g t o altere d note s onl y i n thre e places: one note i n the first, one passage in the third, an d one in the fourth move ment.11 In any case, it is devilishly hard to make the tw o clarinets heard, especially with th e larg e strin g sections of today. All one ca n as k is that th e clarine t players give their all and i n good acoustics their instrumental colo r might be heard—or at least sensed . (I n recordings , with availabl e microphone techniques , I d o no t se e why the clarinet s cannot b e mad e audible . Yet on onl y one o f the nearl y seventy recordings analyzed here [Norrington's ] were the clarinet s discernible—and the n only because the y held thei r note longer than the strings!) There ar e tw o additional performance problems i n th e first six bars that mus t 11. Her e Weingartne r err s grievousl y whe n h e state s (i n hi s Suggestions p.6 5 ) tha t Beethoven "makes, especiall y in thi s symphony , mor e frequen t us e o f stoppe d note s ["Stopftöne" ] tha n else where." On th e othe r hand, Weingartner does suggest another — and reasonabl e —possibility fo r Beethoven's no t usin g the horn s in mm . 1-5: i n hi s words, "tha t h e save d the m fo r the late r dynamicall y amplified appearanc e of this theme. "

BEETHOVEN FIFTH : SYMPHON Y 11

9

still b e resolved . On e i s the proble m o f no t havin g the firs t thre e note s soun d like a triplet / | $h . They surel y wil l soun d thu s i f t he f i r st note is played with a n excessiv e attack o r accent . The wa y to avoi d this i s for al l th e musicians t o thin k an d t o fee l a sligh t weight on th e secon d note . Fo r jus t a s in the hierarch y of a 4/4 bar, 'one' and 'three ' have a greater weight tha n 'two ' an d 'four,' s o i n a four-not e group o f eighth-notes , 'one ' an d 'three ' als o carr y mor e weight tha n 'two ' an d 'four'—excep t that , o f course , i n thi s cas e Beethove n doesn't giv e us the 'one. ' The secon d problem—an d i t i s on e o f th e mor e difficul t baton-technica l problems i n th e symphoni c repertory—i s th e nee d t o g o directl y from m. 2 int o m.3 an d fro m m. 5 int o m.6 . Unde r n o circumstance s must the conducto r allow extra empt y bar s o r pause s here . W e alread y know tha t Beethove n wa s quit e capable o f writing empty measure s when h e neede d o r wanted them, especially when i t mean t preservin g structura l integrit y an d logi c (a s i n mm.123—2 4 or m.30 1 an d m.389) . Ha d Beethove n wante d a ba r res t betwee n th e en d of th e fift h ba r D an d th e entranc e o f the secon d violin s in m.6 , fo r example, he woul d hav e writte n a s much . Th e fac t tha t h e didn' t shoul d tel l u s ver y clearly that any extr a measure o r extra pause o f any kind i s not permissibl e here, because i t violate s th e interna l structur e an d rigorou s logic o f th e firs t move ment's architecture . Technically thi s mean s tha t here—an d i n al l simila r place s i n th e move ment 12 —the conducto r mus t releas e th e /ffermat a not e i n m. 5 simultaneously with th e downbea t o f th e nex t bar . Bu t sinc e thi s 'nex t bar ' i s i n al l instance s marked p an d is , as we hav e seen, a n upbea t gesture , the conductor' s bea t her e must als o represen t tha t f> — in othe r word s wit h a smal l ligh t beat—an d i t should expres s the upbea t feelin g of the measur e a s well. An upbea t gesture , as in th e fourt h bea t o f a 4/ 4 conductin g pattern , work s ver y wel l here . Al l thi s is not eas y an d th e mai n reaso n wh y th e openin g o f Beethoven' s Fift h i s consid ered t o b e on e o f the mos t feare d conductin g challenge s i n th e entir e classical literature. It i s sad t o repor t tha t ver y fe w conductor s i n ou r recorde d sampling—som e ninety-odd recordings—passe d th e tes t o f thes e openin g measures . Arthur Nikisch i n th e firs t complet e recordin g eve r mad e o f th e Beethove n Fift h —as a matter o f fac t th e firs t complet e recordin g of any symphony—recorde d i n 191 3 with th e Berli n Philharmonic , manage s th e firs t measur e quit e well , but hold s the fermata s much to o long 13 an d a t equa l duration , thus ignorin g Beethoven's 12. Measure s 21-22 , 24-25 , mm.128-29 , mm.249-50 , 252-53 , etc. ; th e reade r ma y wis h t o refe r to th e scor e fo r these examples . 13. Nikisc h was here undoubtedl y following Wagner's advic e who, in hi s Über da s Dirigieren (p.25 ) fantasizes tha t th e voic e o f Beethove n crie s ou t t o conductor s fro m hi s grave : "Make m y fermata s long and terrifying ! I did no t us e thes e fermatas lightl y or a s a momen t o f hesitation, before thinkin g what t o d o next ; rather . . . t o thro w into th e violen t and fas t allegro figurations, when necessary , a pleasurable o r terrifyin g holdin g back. " (Wagne r actuall y use s th e word s "anhaltende n Krampf, " literally translate d a n "impedin g [or holding back] spasm [o r constriction]"—surel y a strikin g example o f Wagner's sometime penchant for hyperbole.) "Thus shal l th e lif e o f these notes be draine d t o

120 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

added measur e and it s meaning. Worse yet, he insert s a ful l tw o extra measures between m. 5 an d m.6 . (I t i s wel l t o ad d tha t afte r thi s somewha t erratic start , Nikisch settle s down to wha t is i n man y ways a ver y respectable , at time s even remarkable, renditio n o f the symphony. ) His performanc e raise s th e questio n o f th e lengt h o f th e tw o fermatas . N o one can , of course, prescribe their length precisel y an d wit h certainty ; it is , like all suc h things , t o som e extent a matter of taste and feeling . Bu t I would like t o suggest tw o guidin g principles: First, contrar y t o Wagner' s fancifu l suggestio n and t o Nikisch' s implementatio n of that suggestion , the fermata s shoul d not b e very long—th e second , o f course , slightl y longe r tha n th e first—s o a s no t t o impede th e intende d flow and energ y o f the openin g statement. Let u s remember tha t Beethoven' s tempo markin g i s allegro co n brio. I t seem s a littl e ridicu lous t o brin g th e motio n o f th e musi c t o a virtua l standstil l (a s i n Nikisch' s performance) whe n th e musi c ha s jus t barel y gotte n started . Relativel y shor t fermatas, whic h kee p th e tremendou s energ y o f th e openin g gestur e full y charged, ar e recommended . Second , I strongl y urg e tha t th e fermata s no t b e their las t dro p o f blood ; thu s d o I hol d bac k th e wave s o f m y se a an d loo k int o th e abyss , o r slo w the passag e o f the clouds , scatter th e trail s o f mist and loo k int o th e pur e blu e ether , int o th e radian t eye o f th e sun.That i s wh y I us e fermatas , a s suddenl y intervening , lon g sustaine d note s i n m y allegros." For al l o f Wagner's abjec t admiratio n an d genera l understandin g o f Beethoven' s symphonies , i n this instanc e hi s imaginatio n ra n wil d i n a frenzie d hermeneuti c fantas y tha t bear s n o relationshi p to th e substanc e o f the writte n score . A s Schenke r i n hi s bitin g commen t o n Wagner' s poeti c effu sion put s it , referrin g as wel l t o Schindler' s oft-cite d bu t dubiou s clai m tha t Beethove n considere d the openin g motiv e o f th e Fift h Symphon y t o represen t 'fat e knockin g o n th e door, ' "eve n i f we would lik e t o thin k o f Beethoven wrestlin g with fat e throughou t th e [first ] movement , the n no t onl y fate woul d b e involve d i n thi s wrestling , bu t Beethove n himself , an d no t jus t Beethove n th e ma n but, muc h more , Beethove n th e musician . I f Beethove n wa s reall y wrestlin g wit h notes , the n n o legends an d n o hermeneuti c interpretation s t o explai n thi s tona l worl d wil l suffice , i f on e fail s t o think an d fee l thes e note s a s the y themselve s thin k [an d feel]. " (Schenker , Beethoven: Fifth Symphony, p.7 ) Parts o f the Beethove n Fift h ha d bee n recorde d befor e 1920 , mostl y th e Andante co n moto, at th e time th e mos t popula r o f the fou r movements . Thes e recordings , datin g fro m a s early as 1911 , wer e made b y recordin g compan y 'house ' o r 'resident ' orchestra s (Victo r Concer t Orchestra ) an d all purpose group s suc h a s Prince' s Orchestra , bu t als o b y th e Ne w Yor k Philharmonic , le d b y Jose f Stransky. The y sho w tha t thes e performance s wer e innocen t o f an y imaginatio n o r respec t fo r th e score, usuall y severely cut an d mutilate d t o fi t ont o th e single-side d wax discs o f those days . Instea d of strin g basses, tuba s wer e used , an d i t i s rather comica l t o hea r the m strugglin g wit h th e famou s thirty-second-note cello/bas s passag e a t m . 114 i n th e Andante movement . O n som e recording s i t sounds lik e only tw o or three violin s and on e cell o wer e used . The onl y performe r wh o sounds truly professional b y today's standards , indeed beautiful , i s the then-youn g principa l bassoonist of the Ne w York Philharmoni c a t th e time , Benjami n Koho n (i n th e Stransk y recording) . Intonatio n i n thes e earliest recording s wa s usually prett y execrable , an d th e whol e purpos e o f these recording s seem s t o have bee n t o presen t Beethove n a s a goo d 'tune ' compose r wh o coul d compet e wit h th e popula r songs o f the da y and wit h Caruso' s super-popula r recordings . It i s most enlightenin g to compar e thes e performance s with 'Ibscanini' s 192 1 recordin g o f the las t movement o f Beethoven' s Firs t Symphon y wit h th e L a Scal a Orchestra , a stunnin g rendition , bot h interprctively an d technically . How Ibscanin i mus t hav e worke d thos e poo r oper a musician s over t o achieve suc h a n excellen t rendition!

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 12

1

timed ou t i n exac t multiple s o f a measure' s tempo , tha t i s to say , for example , an exac t three measure s on th e first fermata, four o n th e second. 14 The fermatas should b e fre e i n time , unpredictabl e i n length , spontaneousl y an d intuitivel y generated, s o that m. 3 an d m. 6 com e somewha t a s a surpris e —perhaps eve n t o the conductor . A predetermined , calculate d duratio n o f thes e fermata s under mines th e spontaneou s energ y an d dram a o f the music , an d make s the openin g motto soun d ordinary. If w e hav e take n thi s muc h tim e an d spac e t o understan d onl y th e first five measures o f th e symphony , i t reflect s accuratel y th e importanc e an d difficult y of performanc e o f thi s mos t famou s of symphoni c openings . An d a s previously indicated, ou r conductor s di d no t fo r the mos t par t stan d th e performanc e test very well. 15 (Se e Fig.l ) As fo r tempo , n o on e adhere s t o Beethoven' s markin g o f J = 108 , excep t Norrington, Brüggen , Gardiner. The closes t are Karajan and Dohnanyi (J = 104) ; Toscanini, Reiner , Steinberg , Carlo s Kleiber , an d Giulin i ( a surprise ) wit h j = 100 . Furtwängler—anothe r surprise—come s next , clockin g i n a t 98, with Böhm, Klemperer, Kubelik, and Krip s bringing up th e rea r with ponderous tem pos o f J = 8 0 o r below . A char t o f th e tempo s take n b y al l th e conductor s whose recording s were sample d i s shown i n Fig . 2. Resistance t o Beethoven' s metronom e marking s is , o f course , o f lon g stand ing—virtually a venerable tradition—going back to Schindler' s an d Nottebohm' s days, Schindle r goin g s o far a s t o mak e th e dubiou s an d unsubstantiate d clai m that Beethove n wante d th e firs t fiv e measure s performe d a t a muc h slowe r tempo than th e res t o f the movement—he suggeste d j = 12 6 (i.e., j = 63 ) — beginning th e rea l allegro onl y i n m.6 ; whil e Nottebohm , mor e cautious , thought tha t Beethoven' s "to o fas t metronomization " wa s "probably " th e resul t of hi s havin g "determined th e metronomi c indication s at th e piano, " thu s arriv ing a t marking s "whic h h e [Beethoven ] coul d hardl y hav e advocate d fo r th e 14. Bülo w did something like this, we are told, calculating and maintaining an exact predetermine d duration o f multiple measure s fo r the fermata s throughout th e movement . Unfortunately , Igor Mar kevitch als o suggest s suc h a n approac h i n hi s Di e Sinfonien vo n Ludwig va n Beethoven (Leipzig , 1983). Worse yet, he develop s a whole ne w metric/structura l analysis for the entir e movement base d on hi s strictl y measure d fermatas . Making th e firs t fermat a exactl y three measure s long, th e secon d four measure s long , h e the n reason s tha t thes e measur e duration s ad d u p precisel y to mak e nea t four- an d six-ba r phrases, as follows (Ex. 6). This conceptio n i s based, however , on tw o quite errone ous premises : (1 ) it completely disregards the fac t that the eighth-not e figures are upbeat measures , not 'ones ' (althoug h Markevitc h i s eve n inconsisten t o n tha t point , becaus e h e position s the thir d group o f eighth-notes i n th e las t measur e o f a six-ba r structure , whic h make s i t a n upbea t figure) ; (2) i t make s th e assumptio n b y implicatio n tha t fermata s should alway s b e measure d an d strictl y calculated—a totall y untenable theory . Or di d h e mea n tha t fermata s should b e s o controlled onl y in th e firs t movemen t o f the Fift h Symphony ?

Ex.6

15. Fo r discographica l detail s regarding all th e recording s herein, see Discography , p. 549 .

Fig. l positive

negative

positive

negative

positive

M.I no t tripletized

Fermatas same length

Fermatas differentiated

Extra mm . (mm . 2-3 and/or mm . 5-6)

No extr a mm . added

Dorati

Ansermet Boult Brüggen Gardiner Giulini Harnoncourt Hickox E. Kleibe r Klemperer l Koussevitsky Kubelik Leibowitz Masur Mengelberg Mitropoulos Norrington 6 Schalk Stokowski Thomas Van Otterlo o Wand Weingartner

Abbado Ashkenazy Bernstein Böhm C. Davi s DeSabata Dohnanyi Dorati Furtwängler Haitink Jochum Karajan Kempe C. Kleibe r Kletzki Knappertsbusch Krips Maazel Mehta Munch Muti Nikisch Ormandy Ozawa Sawallisch Schuricht Schwarz Strauss Suitner Szell Toscanini Walter Weingartner2

Bernstein 3>4 Böhm Boult Brüggen 5 DeSabata Dorati Furtwängler Jochum Knappertsbusch Mitropoulos Norrington Nikisch Ormandy Reiner Schuricht Solti Stokowski Strauss Szell Toscanini Wand

Ansermet Ashkenazy C. Davi s Dohnanyi Haitink C. Kleibe r Kletzki Kubelik Leibowitz Mehta Mengelberg Muti Ozawa Sawallisch Steinberg Suitner Szell Thomas Weingartner

Harnoncourt Karajan Markevitch Masur Scherchen Suitner Szell Van Otterlo o

1. Klemperer' s undifferentiated fermata s appea r t o b e o f th e Billo w type : exactl y measure d an d predetermined. 2. Onl y in th e repeat. 3. B y adding the extr a measure(s) , these conductors completely destroy the four-bar-nes s (Viertaktigkeit) o f the motive . 4. Bernstein' s insertion o f these extr a empty measures is more surprisin g than Toscanini's. Toscanin i was, afte r all , no t a n 'intellect, ' someon e wit h a remarkabl y analyti c mind ; he wa s a musicia n wit h superior instinct s an d a n uncomplicated , nnegotistica l vie w o f music . Bu t Bernstei n wa s a kin d o f intellect wh o frequentl y though t i n deepl y analyti c ways , an d wh o knew , a s hi s variou s televisio n explications o f Beethoven's wor k demonstrated , how tightly , ho w perfectly, ho w rigorousl y Beethove n constructed th e firs t movemen t o f the C mino r symphony . An d ye t h e seem s to hav e bee n totall y unaware o f adding , willy-nilly , unwante d measure s t o Beethoven' s stric t form . 5. Onl y i n m.480 . 6. Norrington' s secon d fermata i s shorter (sic) tha n the firs t one .

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 12

3

Fig. 2 . d=\08 Brüggen , Gardiner , Norringto n «1=104 Dohnanyi , Hickox , Karaja n (198 4 recording) , Toscanin i J = 100 Giulini , Carlo s Kleiber , Steinberg , Solti , Scherche n J = 98 Furtwängler , Karaja n (196 2 recording) , Reine r (late r to J= 108 ) «j = 96 Ansermet , Harnoncourt , Hogwood , Leibowitz , Mitropoulos, Muti , Ozawa, Strauss , Suitner , Wand , Va n Otterloo J = 94 DeSabata , Haitink , Eric h Kleiber , Weingartne r J = 92 Ashkenazy , Hanover, Maazel , Munch , Stokowski , Walter, Rodzinsky J = 90 Jochu m (Concertgebouw) , Mehta , Solt i d = 88 Abbado , Boult , Dorati , Kempe , Kletzki , Koussevitzky, Nikisch, Sawal lisch, Schalk , Schwarz , Szell , Schurich t J = 86 Thoma s J = 84 Coli n Davis , Knappertsbusch , Masur , Mengelberg , Ormand y J = 82 Bernstei n J = 80 Böhm , Klemperer , Kubeli k a = 78 Leinsdor f à = 76 Krip s J = 74 Boule z J = 40 Stokowsk i ( 1940) ; m. 7 J = 86

concert hall. " Billow , on e gathers , mus t hav e als o take n ver y deliberat e tempo s in thi s movement , becaus e i t i s known tha t h e rearrange d th e whol e move ment i n a 2/ 2 alia breve, thusl y (Ex . 7) , a tacti c whic h almos t certainl y mus t have le d t o a slowe r temp o conception .

Ex. 7 a

Having navigated the cragg y reefs o f Beethoven's openin g signatur e motive, we can no w continu e ou r exploratio n o f the firs t movemen t wit h th e actua l mai n theme at m.6. But immediately new performance/interpretive problems arise. For, on the assumptio n that we are now going to be dealin g with four-bar phrase s with a definit e hierarchica l division of each fou r bar s into strong, less strong, and weak beats, i t becomes imperativ e for the conductor , bu t mor e cruciall y the musicians , to know on which beat of a four-bar entity they find themselves. The theor y ha s ofte n bee n advance d tha t th e Fift h Symphony' s firs t move ment shoul d b e fel t an d performe d i n two-ba r structuring . Four-ba r entities , o f course, divid e easil y int o two-ba r unit s and , th e trut h b e told , i t would i n man y 16. S o describe d ¡ n Theodor Müller-Reuter' s stud y "O n th e Rhythmic Meaning o f th e Main Motive in th e First Movement o f Beethoven's C minor Symphony," a n articl e i n a n 189 8 issu e of Musikalisches Wochenblatt.

124 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

instances b e impossibl e t o tel l whethe r a performanc e i s bein g interprete d i n fours o r twos . Also , ther e ar e passages , suc h a s mm.34-43 , tha t perhap s reall y should b e fel t i n group s o f 'twos ' (mm.34-37 ) an d the n i n 'ones ' (mm.38-43) ; similarly i n mm . 158-67 (al l 'twos'). Bu t the grea t dange r i n conceivin g th e per formance o f the first movement entirel y i n two-ba r unit s is that i t can easil y lead to accentuation s ever y alternat e bar , whic h ove r th e lon g hau l become s no t only borin g bu t destructiv e o f th e longe r periodizatio n spans , as , fo r example , Koussevitzky's recordin g demonstrates . I woul d als o sugges t tha t a two-ba r structuring woul d severel y undermine th e basic architectur e an d th e ver y conceptio n o f th e piec e a t th e outset , fo r i t would b e incompatibl e wit h th e four-bar-nes s (the "Viertaktigkeit" , a s Schenke r called it ) o f Beethoven's openin g signatur e motive , whic h surel y must b e hear d as a four-ba r entity. I n principl e i t i s better t o thin k o f the movemen t a s bein g in quarternar y structuring, wit h th e obviou s binar y phrasing s (suc h a s mm . 3437) comin g quit e naturally , and ye t fitting into th e four-ba r periodization. Certain i s that the movement cannot—shoul d not—be performed as an endles s series o f undifferentiate d 'ones.' Eve n Beethoven' s ingeniou s motivi c concisio n and almos t endless inventiveness in varying and shiftin g hi s little four-note motive around, cannot survive such cavalier and insensitiv e treatment. Bu t how often th e work has been performe d exactly in such a careless, perfunctory fashion! While th e secon d violin s ma y b y no w hav e bee n told , shoul d the y no t hav e understood i t tha t way , that thei r thre e G' s i n m. 6 hav e a n upbea t character , i t is equall y importan t fo r th e viola s t o kno w tha t the y ar e comin g of f a stron g downbeat 'one ' (confirme d b y the clea r establishment of the mai n tonalit y o f C minor), an d tha t th e firs t violin s ar e i n a 'two ' position , a wea k beat , leadin g towards th e C , a 'third ' bea t i n th e four-ba r phrase . Suc h a n understandin g i s not onl y applicabl e here , however , bu t throughout th e entire movement. Bu t since n o orchestr a o f sixt y t o eight y musician s i s likel y t o remembe r a t ever y moment wher e the y ar e i n th e four-ba r structurin g an d since , a s jus t noted , Beethoven constantl y move s hi s motivi c material s around , shiftin g the m int o unexpected place s (beats) , i t i s ver y usefu l t o mar k th e orchestra l part s wit h tiny bu t clearl y visible bracket s ( | ) ever y fou r bars , thu s clearly , visually delineating th e architectura l design , including , o f course, th e alread y mentione d deviations fro m th e four-ba r groupings. It may be interestin g an d instructiv e fo r the reade r t o see what suc h a n instrumental par t would look like. Herewith thre e brief examples, all from the first movement: the first violins' mm.7-23, the cellos' and basses', mm.26-43 and mm.44-67.

Ex.7b

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y

125

Ex.7c

Ex.7d

I hav e also , when conductin g thi s symphony , resorted t o subtly beating a four beat patter n (a s in a 4/4 measure)—no t all the time , bu t intermittentl y at certai n points—to give the musician s another visua l indication a t a glance— a confirmation, perhap s — of where phrase-wis e i n th e relentles s flo w o f bar s they happe n to b e a t th e moment . I emphasiz e th e word s "subtly " an d "intermittently, " fo r ultimately w e mus t no t subver t Beethoven' s conceptio n o f th e musi c o f thi s movement o n on e structura l leve l a s being, essentially , in 'one. ' T o deprive i t of that 'oneness ' entirel y woul d b e t o d o sever e damag e t o th e feelin g and expres sion o f th e music . I t mus t retai n tha t inexorable , relentless , t o som e exten t 'driven' feeling and pacin g whic h ca n onl y be achieve d b y beating i n 'one.' Th e fact tha t conductin g i n 'one ' i s th e mos t restrictiv e o f al l th e bea t pattern s — obviously so , becaus e th e conducto r ca n onl y sho w a constan t serie s o f down beats (no t eve n a 'two, ' i n tur n necessitatin g a quic k reboundin g upwar d fro m the botto m o f th e downwar d bea t t o b e abl e t o descen d agai n fo r th e nex t downbeat) — is in itsel f a visual representation o f the relentlessnes s of the music' s motion. Thi s then confirm s for me ho w wondrous an d correc t Beethoven' s con ception o f the firs t movemen t i s in notatin g i t in a fas t 2/4 , fel t (an d conducted ) in one . Following through o n ou r establishe d four-bar patterning, w e arrive at anothe r 'one' i n m.19—i t i s well fo r the winds , timpani, an d basse s t o know tha t i n m.1 8 they ar e i n a n upbea t position—an d thu s a 'three ' i n m.21 , th e firs t violins ' sustained fermata . (Thi s i s hopefull y again no t to o long , i n fact , on e well-hel d bow.) Thi s i n tur n put s u s o n a 'four ' (upbeat ) i n m.2 2 an d anothe r 'one ' i n m.23. Some ma y scof f a t th e nex t ide a o r conside r i t naive , bu t i f the musician s al l hear th e Al > i n m.2 2 a s the mino r nint h o f the dominan t G , an d th e F i n m.2 3 as th e seventh , i t wil l mak e a tremendou s differenc e i n th e Tightnes s o f th e sound o f thes e measures , no t onl y i n term s o f intonation , bu t on e wil l clearly be abl e t o hea r (an d transmi t t o th e listener , th e audience ) th e feeling o f th e dominant i n th e basi c tonality. Here, however , we hav e a structura l anomaly. I f m.23 i s a 'one' and , b y anal -

126 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

ogy t o mm.6-9, m.2 5 i s a 'four ' an d m.2 6 anothe r 'one, ' the n Beethove n ende d up on e ba r shor t in completin g a four-ba r phrase . Was he simpl y compensatin g for th e 'extra ' measur e i n m. 4 b y no w subtractin g one? Perhaps ; bu t i t i s muc h more likel y that m.2 4 an d it s fermata ar e intende d t o compris e bot h th e 'two ' and 'three ' o f the presen t four-ba r phrase , an d tha t Beethove n wa s reluctant t o expand th e F t o three bar s .

Several possible

reasons com e t o mind : (1 ) h e di d no t wan t tha t fermat a t o b e longer—an d longer looking—tha n th e previou s one (mm.4-5) ; (2 ) i t woul d hav e bee n th e only suc h phras e an d duratio n i n th e entir e movement ; (3 ) perhaps h e sa w the three measure s (above ) a s a visuall y disturbin g an d ill-fittin g deviatio n i n th e otherwise s o consistently binar y an d binary-lookin g design ; (4 ) perhaps h e sim ply neglecte d (o r forgot) t o mak e suc h a change . The approac h t o thi s first expressive and structura l clima x i n th e movemen t has le d t o man y differen t (bu t mostl y misguided ) interpretations , rangin g fro m holding the violins' sustained G excessively long (Karaja n an d Munch , for example) t o makin g a noticeable , eve n huge , ritar d i n mm . 19-20 int o m.2 1 (Walter , Karajan, Jochum) ; or—conversely—actually rushin g int o m.21 (a s Strauss does), and the n slowin g u p m.2 2 (man y conductors ) and/o r addin g a n extr a empt y measure betwee n m.2 1 an d m.2 2 (Nikisch , Furtwängler , Strauss , Reiner, Kous sevitsky, Toscanini , Munch , Bernstein ) an d betwee n mm.2 4 an d 2 5 (Furtwän gler, Jochum) , or , a s Brügge n an d Harnoncour t an d som e o f the othe r 'perio d instrument' conductor s do , mak e a bi g diminuend o o n th e /-sustaine d G an d many o f the othe r firs t movemen t fermatas . In man y recordings , th e te n wind s now additionall y playing i n m.2 2 ar e barel y audible—i n Giulini' s recordin g totally inaudible—thu s subvertin g Beethoven' s ide a o f timbrall y an d dynamicall y reinforcing th e strings . In an y case , b y m.26 w e ar e onc e agai n o n structura l terra firma , stil l o n th e dominant (G) , th e A b's i n th e first violins and viola s having, apart from bein g o n weak beats , a melanchol y minore feeling. 17 I no w point t o the cello s an d basse s i n m.28- 9 to remin d u s that thi s motivic figure, derive d fro m th e mai n theme , o f course , i s situate d o n a 'three ' and 'four ' o f th e 4-ba r phrasin g (transcribe d i n metri c reductio n a s ). I t reall y does mak e a tremendou s differ ence i n th e soun d an d feelin g of the music , i f the cellist s and bassist s know that they ar e t o pla y thos e fou r note s i n tha t metri c fram e o f reference , no t merel y some isolated , unrelate d note s flyin g b y a t abou t a hal f a secon d pe r bar . I t makes a tremendou s difference—a s i t doe s fo r an y instrumen t (se e l.oboe , 1.clarinet, two horns i n mm.32-33) whethe r on e i s playing the motiv e o n 'three ' or 'four ' o r 'one' o r 'two', for the simpl e reaso n tha t eac h o f these fou r beat s ha s 17. Fo r thos e wh o assume , o r presum e t o know , tha t Furtwängle r wa s constantl y draw n t o overl y slow tempos— a myt h which on clos e inspectio n is not entirel y tenabl e —it migh t b e wel l t o realiz e that h e i s on e o f th e ver y fe w conductor s i n m y entir e samplin g wh o i s virtuall y o n Beethoven' s metronome mar k i n m.2 6 (Furtwängle r J = 10 4 to Beethoven' s 108).

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 12

7

its own 'personality,' as it were, it s own function (an d feeling ) i n th e hierarchica l scheme. Translate d (again ) int o a 4/ 4 mete r fo r easie r accessibility , th e fou r (

a

)

v

a

r

i

a

n

t s , shoul d a l l be playe d differently , espe cially i n term s o f directionality , (a ) reboundin g ( b ) f r o m a stron g beat , endin g o n a wea k beat ; ( b) starting o n a wea k beat , headin g fo r a stronge r c ( ) b e a t ; ( c ) somewhat lik e (a) , b ut slightly 'weaker' ; and (d ) somewha t lik e (b) , bu t thrustin g towards (d) a n eve n stronger , indee d th e stronges t (ofte n to nality-confirming) o f the fou r beats , a 'one. ' I f this kin d o f structura l conscien tiousness i s maintained b y th e entir e orchestr a (and , o f course, th e conductor) , Beethoven's firs t movemen t musi c wil l hav e a wonderfu l spontaneity an d flexibility o f feeling, a variet y in puls e an d flow , whil e th e merel y routine , unknow ing, undifferentiatedl y mechanica l renditio n wil l tur n i t int o deadl y boredom . This sor t o f awareness ma y b e a lo t t o as k of musicians , bu t the n Beethove n i n all hi s grea t musi c alway s asks a lot , indee d pushe s ou r huma n talent s t o thei r limits, a s he pushe d hi s own. I mus t her e spea k o f anothe r performanc e practic e questio n tha t on e con stantly encounter s i n th e work s of Beethoven, Mozart , Haydn , an d man y othe r composers o f th e 'classic ' period , namely , th e ambiguou s notatio n o f phrase ending fina l notes , almos t alway s written a s quarter-note s (a s those i n m.2 9 i n the lowe r strings , or th e wind s i n m.33 , th e horn s i n m.35 , th e oboe s an d bas soons i n m.37 , an d hundred s o f simila r place s i n thi s symphon y alone) . I n al most al l case s thes e wer e t o b e playe d a s eighth-notes . Th e fac t i s that, a s an y reasonably comprehensiv e stud y and analysi s of scores (printe d an d manuscript ) of the perio d wil l show , it was at the tim e a notatio n an d printin g conventio n t o place quarter-note s a t th e downbea t ending s o f phrases—or, t o pu t i t mor e pre cisely, t o us e tha t rhythmi c uni t whic h wa s containe d i n th e tim e signature , therefore eighth-notes , no t sixteenths , whe n th e mete r wa s define d i n eighths ; quarter-notes whe n thes e wer e specifie d i n a tim e signature . Furthermore , th e musicians o f the tim e understood—an d wer e expecte d t o understan d —this par ticular convention , an d tha t the y wer e t o fi t suc h releas e note s t o th e duratio n of th e prevailin g primary voic e o r melody . Thus , fo r example , th e quarter-not e in m.2 9 o f the Beethove n Fifth' s first movement i s to b e playe d b y th e secon d violins, violas , cellos an d basse s a s a n eighth-note , no t a s a full-lengt h quarter note (whic h a pedanticall y stric t readin g migh t indicate) , i f fo r n o othe r rea son— quite apar t fro m th e notatio n an d performin g convention s jus t men tioned—that th e firs t violins ' A\> woul d conflic t disturbingl y wit h th e C mino r chord o f the lowe r strings. I shoul d not e i n passin g tha t man y phrasing s an d bowing s i n th e widel y use d Breitkopf an d Härte l editio n nee d som e revisio n o r adjustment , sinc e the y ar e in discrepanc y with Beethoven' s manuscrip t (a s Schenke r pointe d ou t a s early as 1925. ) I will cit e her e onl y a fe w and le t the m stan d for a host of others, thes e omission o r error s being mostly a resul t of a combinatio n of hasty engraving an d

128

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

inadequate proofreadin g on th e par t of the origina l editor an d publishe r (Ex . 8a, b, and c) . The paralle l passage (mm. 138-42) ha s the slu r in the bassoons . Other parallel passage s of these phrasing s (mm . 138-42) als o contai n th e slurs . Ex. 8 a (mm . 15-18) Bassoons an d Cellos

Ex. 8 b (mm.28-29 , 32-33 ) 1st and 2n d Violin s

Ex. 8 c (m.34-38 , 278-82 ) 1st Violins

Since mm . 3 4 and 3 8 are 'ones, ' structurall y speaking, i t follows , i f we main tain a stric t sequentia l four-ba r readin g o f th e score , tha t m.4 2 wil l b e anothe r 'one.' Bu t clearl y i t isn't ; instea d m.4 4 i s (Ex . 9) . Thi s i s confirme d b y a t leas t two facts : first , m.4 4 represent s th e arriva l point , th e peak , o f th e crescend o which bega n i n m.34 ; second , m.4 4 clearl y marks th e unequivoca l arriva l an d confirmation o f th e basi c tonalit y o f C minor , furthe r confirme d b y th e nex t twelve bars ' obviou s divisio n into thre e four-ba r phrase units . I f m.44 i s a 'one, ' then mm.4 2 an d 4 3 ar e extraneou s t o th e previousl y ongoin g four-bar - pat terning. The y ar e therefor e a n extension , a stretching , o f th e four-ba r phras e starting a t m.3 8 t o si x bars, a devic e Beethove n use s man y time s i n thi s move ment (an d i n numerou s othe r works , of course). Obviously, however , this six-bar phrase i s still divisibl e int o a binary format (three time s two) .

I cal l mm. 34-43 a six-bar phrasing. But there ar e severa l other way s of looking at thi s passage , on e o f which i s cited b y Furtwängler 18 an d wa s alluded t o ear lier: two four-bar phrases , then compresse d motivicall y to two two-bar and finall y further t o six one-bar unit s (se e th e phras e bracketin g in Ex . 9). In thi s passag e i t i s most importan t t o observ e Beethoven' s dynamics , alas, so often totall y ignored (especiall y b y Bernstein, and eve n Toscanini , both o f whom 18. Furtwängler , "Beethoven un d Wir, " p.228 .

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 12

9

crescendo her e to o muc h to o early) . Measur e 34 19 mus t star t p— with n o pre ceding prematur e crescendo—an d lea d throug h si x successive sf's t o onl y on e f , which i s followed by a (subito) f f nin e bar s later. Th e sf's mus t b e playe d i n th e context o f th e risin g over-al l dynami c level , rathe r than , a s i s fa r to o ofte n th e case, a s si x hard-hitting equall y lou d sf's. (Fo r mos t musicians , unfortunately , sf means a loud—o r loudest—aggressiv e attack , regardles s o f th e prevailin g dynamic level ; an d man y conductors , ou t o f ignorance o r timidity, fai l t o teach th e orchestra otherwise. ) M y suggestio n i s t o mar k th e firs t s f (m.38 ) a s mpsf, th e fourth on e (m.41 ) as mfsf. Ther e i s nothing wors e than a premature an d exagger ated crescendo , for—a s mentione d earlier—whe n i t climaxe s to o early , the tru e arrival point , whic h shoul d b e th e rea l climax , become s a mer e anti-climax . Furthermore, i n this particular passage (mm.38-43) Beethove n achieve s the bit e and increasin g tensio n primaril y harmonically—if onl y performer s woul d b e aware o f thi s miraculousl y dissonan t progressio n (se e Ex . 10) , representin g th e sf downbeat s i n mm.38-43) . On e wa y to mak e a n orchestr a appreciat e th e re markable harmoni c darin g o f this passage , i s t o pla y th e chord s (a s i n Ex . 10 ) very slowl y an d wel l sustained . I t i s a startlin g ear - an d mind-openin g experi ence. I f instea d o f th e lou d undiscipline d bashin g awa y a t th e si x downbeat s which on e usuall y encounter s i n thi s passage , player s (an d conductors ) woul d hear thes e extraordinar y clashing dissonance s an d hea r the m a s an intensifyin g progression, Beethoven' s intention s woul d b e muc h bette r served !

Ex. 1 0

Speaking o f dynamics , i t shoul d b e n o longe r necessar y t o poin t ou t tha t i n Beethoven symphonie s —Mozart an d Hayd n a s well—trumpet s an d timpani , and sometime s eve n horns , hav e t o pla y a t modified , tha t i s t o say , lesse r dy 19. Beethoven' s origina l scor e indicate s a crescend o i n th e horn s i n m.3 4 no t t o b e foun d i n th e first edition scor e an d parts . Unfortunately , on quit e a fe w recording s (notabl y thos e o f Toscanini , Muti, Mehta , Coli n Davis , Gardiner , Leibowitz , Giulini , Krips , Norrington , Hogwood , Harnon court, an d Carlo s Kleiber ) th e horn s her e mak e a n unpleasan t out-of-contex t crescend o swoop : Seeing th e "cresc. " i n m.34 , followe d b y seve n bar s o f rest , player s evidently di d no t realiz e that Beethoven' s crescend o onl y begins her e an d the n take s a whol e te n bar s to reac h f . Tha t th e conductor s i n questio n di d no t hea r thi s dynami c exaggeration , probabl y even encouraged it , i s astounding to me . Brüggen avoid s th e horns ' cresc. i n m.34 , bu t ha s th e oboe s an d bassoon s mak e a n eve n wors e completely out-of-contex t crescendo swoop.

130 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

namic level s tha n marked . Sinc e Beethoven , unlik e late r composer s suc h a s Strauss an d Mahler , eve n Schumann , use d undifferentiated , vertically uniform dynamics, trumpet parts , if played a t the absolut e dynamic levels notated, woul d constantly predominate , overbalancin g such les s projecting instruments a s flutes and clarinets . When this occur s i t is especially deplorable, sinc e th e trumpet s of Beethoven's da y wer e b y thei r natur e limite d t o a fe w 'natural ' tones , whic h rarely permitte d the m t o participat e i n melodi c line s o r chromati c alterations , and thu s relegate d them to sustaining tonic and dominan t pitche s (a n occasiona l third coul d sometime s b e sneake d in) . These, of course, whe n playe d too loudly are no t onl y boring to hear , bu t severel y distort the tru e pictur e o f the music . It is distressin g to hea r i n th e dozen s o f sample d recording s herei n analyze d ho w many, many times Beethoven's musi c i s devastated by loud, overbearin g trumpet and timpan i playing , and—worse yet—tolerate d no t onl y by conductors bu t als o by recordin g producers an d engineers. 20 While o n th e subjec t of balances and instrumenta l ensemble , we should not e in mm.44-5 1 th e somewha t unusua l low-lyin g thirds of the tw o bassoons, thre e octaves belo w th e flutes , a sonoric/harmoni c touc h whic h a conducto r shoul d try t o brin g out , o r a t leas t t o no t le t i t b e burie d an d totall y ignored . I n thos e same measure s car e mus t b e take n tha t th e firs t violins , fo r th e momen t th e only instrument s playin g Beethoven' s mai n motive , b e clearl y heard. Thi s ca n be easil y accomplished i f the woodwind s and horn s hol d t o a f (no t th e usua l ff), an d i f the violin s make a sligh t compensatin g crescend o i n mm.46—4 7 an d 50-51, sinc e o n thei r lowe r string s the y los e a certai n degre e o f projection. 21 Even so , none o f these balancin g effort s shoul d o n th e on e han d diminis h th e 20. I t i s a sa d fac t tha t mor e ofte n tha n not , whe n dynami c imbalances occur , th e automati c solution i s presumed t o b e tha t th e 'weaker ' instrument s simpl y play louder. I t seem s rarel y to occu r t o anyone tha t perhap s th e 'louder ' instrument s should play softer! Thi s kin d o f misguide d thinking seems als o t o b e behin d th e widesprea d penchant fo r doublin g instruments , especiall y th e wood winds, i n classica l symphonies . Instead o f th e bras s playin g lou d an d conductor s usin g larg e (o r augmenting their ) string sections a s well a s doubling th e woodwinds , might i t not b e bette r t o scal e down th e resultan t inordinat e volume level s by reducing th e outpu t o f the bras s and timpani , main taining th e woodwind s at their norma l siz e and dynami c levels, and keepin g th e strin g sections a t a size mor e commo n i n Beethoven' s time ? I t shoul d b e remembere d tha t i n additio n t o thei r pitc h limitations, th e trumpet s o f Beethoven' s da y produce d a n intrinsicall y softer, mellower , les s proj ecting soun d tha n th e trumpet s of today. They blended muc h mor e readil y int o th e over-al l texture. Similarly, th e calfski n head s o f classica l timpani di d no t hav e th e brillianc e and impac t o f today's plastic heads , an d therefor e were not a s obtrusive as they tend t o be nowaday s in classica l symphonies. Suc h approache s would , b y the way , come very close t o 'perio d authenticity ' without the neces sity o f resorting to actua l period instruments . The mos t grievou s example o f distorting Beethoven's musi c b y way of uncalled fo r doubling s and enlargement o f orchestra l force s tha t I eve r ha d th e displeasur e t o hear , occurre d som e year s ago when Karaja n visite d Bosto n wit h th e Berli n Philharmonic , performin g the Eroica i n tha t city' s wonderfully responsiv e and sensitiv e Symphony Hall acoustics , using six trumpets, eigh t horns, enormous number s o f woodwinds, and , o f course , th e Philharmonic' s entir e strin g sectio n (18-16-14 12-10). I t wa s a trul y painfu l an d revoltin g aura l experience ! (Karaja n als o recorde d Mussorgsky' s Pictures a t a n Exhibition wit h twelv e trumpets , ten trombones , and eigh t horns!) 21. I t i s remarkabl e —and a welcom e surprise—tha t Schenker , wh o was , after all , no t a conductor or a practicin g musician, in hi s Fift h Symphon y tract, offer s exactl y that advice (p. 17).

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 1

31

energetic effec t o f mm.44-51 by the wind s playing too softly , lackin g i n energy , or o n th e othe r han d preclud e th e possibilit y of a dramati c sudde n dynami c increase t o ff (m.52 ) b y playing mm.44-51 to o loud . Th e tw o problem s i n thi s passage ar e demonstrated , ala s negatively , b y a numbe r o f conductor s (Kletzki , Kubelik, Mengelberg , Dorati , Wand ) includin g tw o world-famou s conductors , Toscanini an d Bernstein . Toscanin i who , a s I hav e mentione d earlier , allow s a runaway crescend o startin g at m.3 4 to peak muc h to o early , the n allow s the first violins i n m.44—an d eve n mor e i n m.52—t o be quit e overbalance d b y the wind s and timpani , almos t t o the poin t o f inaudibility in mm.52-55 . Bernstein' s prob lem i s that h e i s already so loud a t m.4 4 that ther e i s no roo m lef t t o creat e th e real clima x (ff) a t m.52 . Conductor s wh o solve d th e performanc e problems o f this entir e passag e brilliantl y are Eric h Kleiber , Weingartner, Nikisch , Jochum , Karajan, Mehta , Schuricht , an d Reiner . It i s o f paramoun t importanc e t o understan d tha t Beethove n i n hi s auto graph consistentl y use d th e notatio n fo

r hi s mai n motivi c cell ,

not o r . Obviousl y thi s wa s meant t o preserv e th e rhythmic / gestural integrit y o f th e motive , eve n whe n severa l o f thes e cell s ar e linke d together chain-lik e (as , fo r example , i n mm.44-55) . Th e Breitkop f an d Härte l editor i n th e firs t edition , however , change d man y o f thes e measure s t o read (se e mm.4 4 an d 47 , firs t violins , als o mm.49-50) . Bee thoven trie d t o sho w th e distinctio n betwee n th e mai n cel l or o

n th e on e han d an d a mor e linea r variant , suc h a s (m.38 ) or

(mm. 102 -

104). I t i s important, therefore , tha t conducto r an d musician s b e awar e of thes e two distinc t way s o f phrasing , an d kee p the m discrete , a no t s o eas y tas k ove r the lon g hau l o f the entir e firs t movement . How terrifying an d startlin g Beethoven's diminishe d chor d i n mm.52-5 5, with its cascading violin motives and thunderin g timpani , mus t hav e sounde d t o Bee thoven's audience s i n 1808 ! I t still pack s a terrifi c wallo p nowaday s when playe d correctly, bu t playin g it 'correctly ' doe s no t includ e th e timpani' s drownin g ou t the res t o f th e orchestra , which , unfortunately , i s th e cas e i n Carlo s Kleiber' s generally excellen t recording , i n whic h th e violin s are virtuall y inaudibl e unde r the murderou s f f o f the Vienn a Philharmonic' s over-enthusiasti c timpanist . O n the othe r hand , Carlos' s father , Erich , achieve s th e bes t balanc e i n thi s entir e passage (mm.44—56) , wit h th e marvelousl y calibrate d sonoritie s o f th e Con certgebouw Orchestra . Many conductor s inadvertentl y (o r perhap s consciously—i f so , mistakenly ) make o r allo w an accelerand o wit h th e crescend o startin g at m.34 . Brun o Wal ter, wh o starte d hi s recordin g o f th e Fift h Symphon y wit h a sedat e J = 8 8 accelerated t o a healthy J = 9 6 by m.44 . The diminished-sevent h chord i n m.5 2 allow s Beethove n t o move t o the mos t closely relate d ke y to C minor , namel y & major , and , havin g thereby signaled

132 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

the en d o f the exposition , t o mov e a s well t o hi s 'secon d subject. ' Beethoven' s transition t o thi s point i s as dramatic as it is consequent an d succinct : two horn s proclaiming a n intervallicall y expande d varian t o f th e movement' s openin g motto (mm . 59-62). Instea d o f th e pitche s ,

h e no w

gives u s i n a for m rhythmicall y directl y relate d t o th e movement's openin g measure s (Ex . 11) . Thi s momen t represents , o f course , a crucial junctur e in th e over-al l form an d continuit y of the movement , an d i t has led man y conductor s t o a variet y o f 'personal ' bu t willfu l form-damagin g

Ex. 1 1

interpretations. I t goes without saying that th e secon d subjec t (starting at m.63 ) will wan t t o b e performe d i n recognitio n o f Beethoven' s ow n ofte n articulate d concept o f "flexible tempo" o r "temp o o f feeling." Surel y a degre e o f relaxation in th e temp o i s wanted here , o r i s a t leas t possible . An d ye t th e transitio n t o such a temp o mus t b e accomplishe d wit h subtlety—t o com e bac k t o Wagner's cautionary word—"imperceptibly." For all it s dolce amiability , the violins ' motive or theme , soo n answere d i n th e clarinet , i s still par t o f Beethoven' s allegro con brio, wit h it s connotatio n o f a certai n bristlin g energ y an d restlessness . Moreover, th e relationshi p o f thi s secon d subjec t to th e mai n them e vi a th e transi tional lin k of the precedin g hor n cal l (mm . 59-62) mus t be preserve d and mad e audible, despit e th e dramati c difference s betwee n th e horn s an d th e violin s i n dynamic, i n sonority , in articulation—e.g . ff t o p , stron g brass to gentl e strings, marcato t o legato. And thi s can bes t be achieve d whe n bot h part s are expressed in no t necessaril y an identica l temp o bu t a closely related one . But ho w does th e violins ' them e relat e t o th e hor n fanfare ? Clearly , i n tha t the forme r is an elegantl y embellishe d varian t of the latter : the one , th e horns' : brash, eruptive , and vertical/harmonic/declamatory ; the other , th e violins' : calm, conciliatory, horizontal/melodic/lyri c (Ex . 1 2 a an d Ex . 1 2 b), bot h lastin g fou r bars an d beginnin g on a n 'upbeat ' measure/gesture . Helpin g t o make th e transition fro m on e them e t o the other , the 'hamme r blows' of the horn s ar e softened by th e quietin g effec t o f the underlyin g 6/4 chor d i n m.63 . Th e temp o modifi -

Ex. 12 a Ex

. 12 b (The violins ' notes marke d with an x are thos e that ar e commo n to th e horns ' notes.)

cation calle d fo r i n th e transitio n fro m th e hor n 'fanfare ' t o th e violins ' second subject mus t b e don e subtly . M y ow n experienc e i n conductin g th e wor k has convinced me , that , i f one hold s t o Beethoven' s J = 10 8 in th e exposition , a

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 13

3

subtle slowin g to 100-04 , possibly even t o J = 96 , gets th e desire d result s without an y wrenchin g a t th e structura l seams . Man y conductor s slo w dow n to o much here , causin g th e secon d subjec t t o see m t o belon g t o a totall y differen t work. Suc h wa s evidentl y a well-establishe d tradition , probabl y fostere d b y Bü low, an d stil l adhere d t o b y Nikisc h i n 1913—h e slow s to J = 8 0 a t m.63—bu t even b y a 'modern ' conducto r lik e Carlo s Kleibe r who , strangel y enough , slow s down durin g th e tw o incisiv e chord s (mm.56-58 ) befor e th e horns ' entrance — a ver y peculia r effect . Bu t th e strangest , mos t unnatura l interpretatio n come s from th e bato n o f Richar d Strauss , wh o precipitousl y drop s abou t te n metro nome point s righ t a t m.63. Karajan , oddl y enough , increases the temp o (t o J = 104) i n hi s 196 2 recording , bu t hew s mor e t o th e olde r traditio n o f relaxing th e tempo (t o J = 94 ) in hi s 198 2 recording . The secon d subjec t carrie s wit h i t certai n ver y interestin g performanc e an d interpretational problems . On e pertain s t o the lon g archin g lin e o f this passag e which culminate s i n anothe r secondar y clima x a t m.94 . I n effect , mm.63—7 3 is a singl e lin e — a Klangfarbenmelodie —shared b y thre e instrumenta l color s (tim bres): violin , clarine t (mm.67-70) , flut e (plu s violin ) (mm.71-74) . Th e thre e segments of this twelve-bar melod y mus t be linke d together i n performanc e int o a singl e line , whic h mean s tha t th e player s involved i n thes e exchange s mus t b e aware o f thi s need—o r mus t b e mad e awar e o f i t b y th e conductor . Bu t mer e awareness o f the proces s ma y no t b e sufficien t t o achiev e th e desire d result , for the violin s mus t literall y han d thei r four-ba r segmen t ove r t o th e clarinet ; th e clarinet mus t i n tur n pic k i t u p fro m th e violin s an d han d i t back t o the m an d the flute—al l thi s ver y muc h a s i n a rela y rac e whe n th e bato n i s smoothl y transferred fro m on e runne r t o another . Th e proble m her e i s that, fo r reason s beyond m y comprehension , musician s generall y ten d t o shorte n —chop off final note s i n phrase s i f the y ar e followe d b y a rest . Thi s i s a world-wid e ba d habit, a disease mos t prevalen t among strin g players, particularly violinists—who, of course, ar e thos e ver y players mos t likel y to hav e t o carr y a tune o r a melod y in th e classical/romanti c literature . I ca n predic t wit h certaint y that , unles s a violin section wil l have been trained otherwise , i t will in any orchestra pla y m.66 not a s ,

bu t a s o

r,

especiall y if

played wit h a downbow . Wha t i s curious—an d distressing—abou t thi s careles s habit i s that, whe n suc h a fina l phras e not e i s not followe d by a rest , a s in m.74 , for example , thi s rhythmic/dynami c note-droppin g wil l no t occur. 22 On e ask s oneself, wha t i s the differenc e betwee n m.6 6 an d m.74—musically , structurally? 22. I hereb y cit e severa l suc h simila r place s i n th e literatur e wher e almos t withou t fai l player s wil l unceremoniously, unthinkingly , befor e a rest , dro p th e las t not e o f their phrase : Dvora k Ne w World Symphony, firs t movement , mm.111-13 , thir d movement , m.160 , 170 ; Schuman n Secon d Sym phony, las t movement , mm.65 , 73 , 77 , 213 , 225 , 50 9 etc. ; Berlio z Corsaire Overture , mm.31 , 69 71 (woodwinds), 15 3 (flute , 1.violins) ; Brahm s Firs t Symphony , firs t movement , m.252-58 ; secon d movement, mm.61-62 ; thir d movement , m.5 8 (woodwinds) ; Brahms Fourt h Symphony , first movement, mm.157-16 4 (winds) , mm.227-41; secon d movement , m.39 ; Mozar t "Lin/ " Symphony , first movement, mm.109-10 ; las t movement , mm.73-9 2 (strgs) , mm.104-15 ; Mozart , "Jupiter " Sym phony, first movement, m.5 , 8 ; Menuetto, mm.4,8 ; an d hundred s more .

134

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

None. Indeed , th e nee d t o giv e th e secon d quarter-not e i n m.6 6 it s appropriate full lengt h i s perhap s eve n greate r ther e tha n i n m.7 4 becaus e th e violins ' B I» has t o b e connecte d u p wit h th e clarinet' s B I» i n m.67 . It shoul d g o withou t sayin g tha t th e three-phras e segment s involve d i n thi s tripartite melodi c exchang e shoul d b e playe d wit h th e sam e (/> ) dynamic . O f the innumerabl e recording s I hav e sampled , mos t fai l t o achiev e thes e phras e link-ups, mos t notabl y Bernstein , Koussevitzky , Gardiner, Harnoncourt , Tosca nini, Ashkenazy, Böhm, Thomas, and Szell . They lose the lon g line, and instea d of on e lon g twelve-ba r phrase , w e ar e give n thre e shor t four-ba r phrases. Her e again Eric h Kleibe r excel s i n hi s recording , als o Furtwängler , Knappertsbusch , Schuricht, Mitropoulos , Jochum , Dorati , Brugge n i n their s (althoug h Brugge n loses th e lon g lin e completel y i n th e recapitulatio n (mm.307-30) . The secon d typica l proble m i n thi s passag e —including no w mm.75-9 3 a s well —has t o d o wit h bowing s (an d slurrings). 23 Many differen t righ t an d wron g bowings have been tried here ove r the man y years of the existenc e o f this work. In mm.63-66, Beethoven write s i

n the first

violins. (Note , b y the way , the absenc e o f any dynami c nuancin g excep t fo r th e initial p. ) A few bars later (m.75) , Beethoven begin s fou r two-ba r bowings in th e first violins, in m.83 (now also incorporating the second violins and cellos ) a threebar bowing, then tw o more two-bar-ers , and then—surprisingly— a four-bar entit y on a single bo w (se e Ex . 13) . On e i s bound t o ask , why the three-ba r bowin g i n m.83-85, and indee d i n mm.63-65 for that matter? And why the four-ba r bowing at the en d o f the entir e passage, just when, with th e ongoin g crescendo, a strin g player will almost have to use more bow to achieve the desire d crescendo ?

Ex.13

(Beethoven's phrasing / bowing)

Schenker (p . 10) make s a s goo d a cas e fo r preservin g Beethoven's designate d bowings, at least i n mm.83-93, as anyone t o m y knowledge ha s ever made. Afte r comparing Beethoven' s first bowing/phrasing version wit h hi s secon d 'corrected ' 23 'Th n is of necessit y somewhat technical i n natur e and i s best understoo d b y " • * ^e ensuin t g idiscussio j reference eithe r to th e scor e o r a t leas t to musica l Exx. 1 3 an d 14 .

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 13

5

one (bot h i n th e autograph ) i n whic h th e si x measures o f mm.88-93 ar e com bined i n on e bo w (no t a s in som e editions , tw o and four) , Schenke r document s the reasons—tha t is , hi s rational e fo r Beethoven' s reasons—fo r thi s unusua l phrasing/bowing. I t i s deservin g o f seriou s consideration , eve n i f in th e en d w e may wish to diffe r wit h it . Schenke r begin s b y noting tha t Beethove n retain s th e basic four-ba r structurin g throughou t thi s 'secon d subject ' episode , bu t untypi cally shift s th e phrasin g (an d therefor e th e bowing ) awa y fro m th e four-ba r periodization t o th e upbea t par t o f th e structure—remembe r tha t m.6 4 i s a 'one'—maintaining thi s cross-bowin g until m.83 . Schenke r the n suggest s that, i n orde r t o prepare an d anticipat e the reconciliatio n o f th e phrasin g wit h the underlying structure at the climacti c ff o f m.94—a s h e put s it , t o achiev e "th e metri c readjustment " [Ausgleich de s Metrums]— "i t finally could b e riske d to no t onl y mov e th e hea d o f the motive , G\>, t o relativel y strong measure s i n th e grouping , lik e mm.86 , 88 , 9 0 an d 92 , but als o t o begi n th e bow s o n Gl > an d thu s reconcilin g the m wit h th e motivi c kernel [Motivkem]. On e ca n se e fro m thi s that , t o achiev e thi s bowing , th e combining o f th e firs t thre e bar s 83—8 5 a s a transitio n t o th e earlie r bowin g (mm.75-82) becam e necessary . Bu t t o d o thi s fou r time s i n a row , i n mm.86 , 88, 90 and 92 , certainly seemed disturbin g to the maste r [Beethoven] ; and there fore h e fel t compelle d t o indicat e on e bo w [pe r bar] fo r the tw o bars mm.86-87 and then , fro m th e middl e o f th e [phrase ] group, thereb y als o maintainin g it s equilibrium, the remainin g si x bars (mm.88-93) unde r on e singl e bow . In order , on th e othe r hand , no t t o jeopardiz e the crescend o effec t becaus e o f a too-lon g bow, [Beethoven ] divide s the sam e lin e i n th e cello s int o a two-bar an d four-ba r bowing and , additionally , adds the flut e i n m.9 1 [t o the violins] , joining the las t three bar s [o f the phrase ] under on e slur . The irregula r ten-bar-ness [Zehntaktigkeit] o f thi s phras e stretching " —Beethoven's fina l phras e befor e m.9 4 i s indee d another on e o f hi s stretchin g extension s o f fou r bar s int o six—"a s wel l a s it s strange bowin g gam e [seltsame Spiel de r Bogenführung] len d thi s passag e a n indescribably irresistibl e magic." There i s on e sligh t flaw in Schenker' s analysis , the resul t o f overlookin g on e important point , namely , tha t wha t h e calle d th e "hea d o f the motive " not e (G! > in mm . 84, 86 , 88 , an d 90 ) ha d alread y occurred earlie r i n th e analogou s D! > o f m.76 an d th e F o f m.80 . Sinc e thes e tw o note s ar e als o situate d o n a 'one, ' a strong beat, Schenker' s suggestio n tha t Beethove n fel t th e nee d t o shift th e hea d note "t o relativel y strong measures " i s misleading . N o suc h shif t wa s necessary, since th e earlie r hea d note s wer e als o place d o n 'stron g measures. ' Schenke r was, o f course , righ t t o not e Beethoven' s shiftin g o f th e bowin g i n mm.83-89 . But h e probabl y shoul d hav e questione d Beethoven' s six-ba r one-bow phrasin g in mm.88—93 , especiall y sinc e h e note s th e differen t (an d mor e logical ) two and-four-bowing o f th e cello s i n th e sam e phrase . (Al l edition s afte r th e firs t edition adopte d thi s latte r bowin g fo r th e violin s a s well. ) Bu t eve n th e latte r bowing—taking int o accoun t Beethoven' s flut e doublin g a n octav e highe r —

136 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

seems a n od d wa y t o dea l wit h a crescendo , especiall y th e las t stage s o f a cre scendo whic h i s to reac h no t f bu t ff . I do no t se e ho w th e resul t o f Beethoven' s bowing coul d len d thi s passag e an "irresistibl e magic." I t could, i n m y view and experience, onl y lead t o a most ineffectiv e crescendo, fo r I doubt tha t an y violinist or cellis t i n th e worl d ca n produc e a crescend o i n a four-ba r single bo w fro m f (fo r that woul d b e th e dynami c fo r m.90 ) t o ff . In orde r t o determin e th e bes t bowin g fo r the entir e secon d subjec t passage , one canno t star t wit h it s tail end ; on e mus t g o bac k t o it s beginning, m.63 . A good bowin g I hav e foun d —many years ago—for thi s passag e (goo d i n term s o f satisfying al l o f it s multipl e demand s an d implications ) i s th e followin g (Ex. 14a). Th e assumptio n her e i s i n par t tha t th e violin s wil l us e relativel y short, light bow s i n mi d o r uppe r position, no t th e usua l full-lengt h (an d therefor e much to o loud ) bows 24 tha t hav e becom e th e maddenin g nor m i n s o man y orchestras, especiall y i n th e Unite d States . Bu t a simple r bowing , a s in Ex . 14b , works jus t as well a s long a s the violinist s don't dro p th e las t B k

The reasonin g behin d dividin g th e four-ba r phras e mm.63—6 6 int o thre e bows—perhaps a t firs t glanc e a n od d choic e —is tha t suc h a bowin g satisfie s three performanc e conditions: (1 ) that the phras e begin s wit h a n upbea t feelin g (because o f its 'weak' fourth-bea t placing)—this i s best achieve d wit h a n upbow ; (2) tha t th e strong-bea t characte r o f m.64 be preserve d (bes t achieved b y a gentl e downbow); an d (3 ) that th e las t measur e (m.66 ) connect s t o th e enterin g clari net (bes t achieve d b y an upbow) . I f on th e othe r han d on e i s intent o n preserv ing Beethoven' s three-and-on e phrasing, 2 on e obviousl y ha s onl y tw o choices : down-up o r up-down . Bot h carr y risks , a s an y uneve n bowin g (i n thi s cas e six beats t o tw o beats ) does—althoug h no t insurmountabl e ones—bein g mor e dif ficult t o balanc e ou t evenly . Th e forme r bowin g (down-up ) carrie s th e ris k o f the entranc e a t m.6 3 bein g to o heav y an d losin g it s upbeat character , whil e i t does wor k wel l fo r m.66 . Th e othe r bowin g (up-down ) carrie s a differen t risk , 24. I do no t kno w what bowing s Karaja n use d i n hi s variou s recordings , but suffic e i t to sa y that h e never achieve d a rea l p, Beethoven' s ver y special ' p dolce.' Bu t i t is not onl y a matter o f the dynami c level per se; what really matters is the tone color, the sonority—a warm, relaxed, quietly singing, unedgy sound—that can mak e the differenc e betwee n makin g this passage sound magica l o r ordinary. This is best achieved by using a light, gliding—very little vertical pressure—bowing. The entir e passage should offer a maximum i n sonori c contrast t o all the previou s vigorous, eruptive, bursting sounds—as Furt wängler onc e put it : "like the turnin g o f a gigantic hinge. " I have alread y mentioned Bernstein's an d Toscanini's problems here . Günther Wand, i n addition t o allowing the player s to drop their last notes, thus annulling Beethoven's long-line Klangfarben exchange , also never achieves the rea l p an d lovely sound needed here . But two conductors who do are Erich Kleibe r and Furtwängler . 25. Fo r al l w e know , Beethove n wa s persuade d t o us e th e three-and-on e bowin g becaus e o f th e repeated C' s i n mm.65-66 , perhap s really preferrin g a singl e bo w fo r th e entir e fou r bars .

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 13

7

namely, while i t satisfies th e anacrusi s characte r o f the phras e entrance , i t makes m.66 much to o heavy . And thi s i s not desirabl e sinc e bot h m.6 6 an d it s parallel m.74 ar e 'threes ' and shoul d hav e onl y a moderate weight , les s tha n a 'one.' An upbow achieve s thi s resul t mor e naturally . But ultimatel y an y on e o f th e thre e bowing s suggeste d her e ca n b e mad e to wor k well , a s lon g a s th e player s approac h i t wit h intelligenc e an d sensi tivity, makin g sur e tha t th e entir e phras e i s evenly balance d an d preserve s th e integrity o f it s particular four-ba r structurin g ('four-one-two-three') . I n thi s con nection, w e shoul d observ e tha t th e entir e 'secon d subject ' episod e ha s n o dy namic nuancing ; i t i s p dolce fro m m.6 3 unti l th e crescend o o f m.84 . Tha t doesn't mean , o f course , tha t th e passag e shoul d b e playe d i n som e cold , me chanical, abstract , dynamicall y 'flat' manner ; bu t i t does sugges t that the exagger ated heaving s an d roller-coaste r dynamic s on e ofte n hear s her e i n performanc e as, fo r example , or ar

e quit e unnecessar y and , i n peaking

on a 'two,' quit e ou t o f place . To coordinate wit h th e melodi c lines , th e secon d violin s an d violas 26, starting in m.63 , an d bassoons , startin g a t m.67 , shoul d als o hav e four-ba r phrasings / bowings, a s Beethoven's autograp h clearl y shows. Similarl y the clarine t an d flut e should b e awar e o f th e upbea t characte r o f th e firs t measure s o f thei r phras e (m.67 an d m.7 1 respectively) , tha t is , that th e phras e doe s no t star t o n a 'one' , but rathe r straddle s the underlyin g four-bar structurin g by being shifte d on e ba r early. (Ho w man y time s I hav e hear d clarinetist s an d flutist s pla y thi s phras e incorrectly, withou t an y awarenes s of its true placement!) . Th e sam e applies , of course, t o th e bassoon s who , jus t lookin g a t thei r bar e part , hav e littl e wa y of knowing tha t thei r entranc e i n m.6 7 i s i n fac t o n a 'weak ' upbea t par t o f th e structure. Likewise , cello s an d basse s mus t pla y their motiv e goin g fro m a 'two ' to a 'three, ' whic h i s quit e differen t fro m th e las t tim e the y playe d i t i n th e mm.28-38 section . At m.9 3 a terribl e habit— a ba d traditio n an d misguide d interpretation—ha s crept into th e performanc e o f innumerable conductors : holdin g up th e tempo for this on e ba r (wha t the German s cal l ausholen), an d a t th e sam e tim e staccato shortening the final quarter-note, th e A in the violins— a spurious addition no t to be foun d i n Beethoven' s autograp h o r th e firs t edition . Walter , Kubelik , Böhm , Szell, Mehta, and Carlo s Kleiber , among others , are the conductor s mos t guilty of this temp o distortion . Th e effec t i s ludicrous i n al l respects , fo r i t interrupt s th e flow, the inexorable drive of the previous ten bars to the B b summit at m.64, manifested no t only by the mountin g crescendo an d the insisten t impetuousness of the 26. Th e vulga r swoopin g crescendo s on e hear s o n Briiggen' s Harnoncourt' s an d Gardiner' s re cording (i n mm.75 and 77 , for example) are totally gratuitous additions , no t indicate d in Beethoven' s autograph, no r i n th e commonl y availabl e scor e an d parts .

138 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

melodic line, but th e powerfu l harmonic progression (A dim. — El> minor—Cl> ma jor— C dim.). The ineptnes s and banalit y of this idea can also be measured by the presence o f the tw o eighth-notes i n th e viola s and basses , whic h clearl y signify a driving forward, no t a holding back. Conductors wh o make this ritenuto probably think they are helping to clarify th e for m a t this juncture (as if everything Beetho ven doe s her e harmonically , melodically , dynamically , structurall y isn't alread y clear enough), little realizing that they are instead ravaging the form. It is a Bülowian arrogance, which assumes that a conductor know s better what Beethoven actu ally wanted, and that the (presumably ) ignorant public needs to have these formal aspects blatantly pointed ou t to them. In m.9 4 Beethove n reassert s the ful l four-ba r structuring—Weingartner sa w it as re-establishing the "unequivoca l priorit y of the four-ba r phrasing " —in blazing ff orchestra l colors , constantl y playin g with th e succinc t motivi c material , keep ing i t fres h an d unpredictable , finall y reachin g a might y E b majo r cadenc e i n m.122. Contrar y to what the Viennes e novelis t and compose r E . T . A. Hoffma n wrote i n 181 0 abou t Beethoven' s Fifth , hearin g i n th e firs t movemen t onl y a kind o f "mechanical repetitio n o f a four-note motivic cell," we can se e the man y fascinating way s Beethove n use s hi s mai n theme , whic h g o fa r beyon d mer e repetition. Th e them e i s constantly varied , in registe r an d orchestration , an d b y continually shiftin g i t around withi n th e four-ba r structuring , we hea r an d se e it always i n differen t context s an d juxtapositions . Equall y astonishin g i s it s se quencing, tha t is , the manner i n whic h eac h motivic/themati c varian t develops out o f it s predecessor . I n eac h instanc e w e sens e tha t n o othe r sequenc e o f events seem s t o hav e bee n possible ; an d i t i s the utte r naturalness , the organi c inevitableness o f thi s continuit y whic h arouse s ou r wonder . I t i s a s i f i n eac h new motivi c varian t all it s previous appearances ar e echoed . I t i s this extraordinary sens e o f inevitability—th e feelin g o n ou r par t a s listener s that ever y mo ment o f the musi c i s the resul t of a natural , utterly logical progressio n to whic h there simpl y are n o bette r alternatives—tha t w e registe r with awe . As Bernstein once said , speakin g o f th e firs t movemen t o n on e o f hi s telecasts , i t i s musi c "that follow s it s own laws . And w e can' t resis t it." The El > cadence , a t onc e powerfu l an d stabilizing , provide s th e springboar d for th e musi c t o retur n t o th e ver y beginnin g fo r a might y 124-ba r repetition , a repetition whic h i s fortunately traditional nowaday s but i n earlie r time s wa s often omitted . Nikisc h an d Straus s and eve n Walte r (recordin g i n th e lat e 1950s ) forgo thi s important repetition. T o disregard it is to destro y the intende d propor tions o f Beethoven' s flawles s forma l design . Becaus e th e movement' s fou r sec tions—exposition, development , recapitulation , an d cod a —are virtuall y identi cal i n length , th e weigh t an d themati c centralit y o f the expositio n ar e seriously undercut whe n th e movemen t i s presente d i n fou r equa l parts , ABA^ . Re peating the exposition , thus strengthenin g it s role a s the fountainhea d o f all that follows, give s the movemen t it s final needed balanc e and proportio n (AAB A C) . One migh t als o add tha t the exposition , with its 12 4 bars lastin g little more than a minut e —played a t th e co n brio tempo, o f cours e —is s o shor t that ther e i s n o excuse fo r eliminatin g it s repetition . And whe n i t i s don e a t a brigh t co n brio tempo, i t is a welcome return , no t a boring repetition as when don e to o slow .

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 13

9

Proceeding no w to the developmen t section , w e have already seen tha t m.12 5 is a 'four, ' a n upbea t gesture . Bu t not e tha t th e strings ' four-not e respons e bounces, a s i t were , of f o f a 'one, ' descendin g t o a ('weak' ) 'two. ' Thi s strin g response t o th e wind s ha s severa l functions ; i t expands , enlarges , th e origina l motto, no t onl y durationall y bu t harmonically . Th e D t an d C (alon g wit h th e winds' fi t an d G ) relat e bac k t o th e previou s & cadenc e an d a t the sam e tim e serve to prepare an d se t up th e ne w temporary tonality of F mino r (m.130) . This ingenious modulatio n ca n b e capsulize d a s follow s (Ex . 15) . Although ther e i s no E N i n mm . 127-28, on e clearl y hears th e C dominan t functio n here , makin g the F mino r o f m. 130 inevitable.

Ex. 1 5

Note to o tha t b y expandin g th e origina l motiv e b y on e ba r b y virtu e o f th e strings' response , Beethove n doe s no t hav e t o tampe r wit h th e four-ba r structur ing; everythin g is in place , th e mm . 127-28 representin g 'two ' and 'three. ' These also relat e bac k t o mm . 3-4, implyin g tha t th e fermat a mus t b e hel d a s long a s the secon d fermat a o f the openin g mott o an d perhap s even , becaus e o f the one bar extensio n an d th e harmoni c implication s here , a touc h longer—still , how ever, no t s o muc h a s t o interrup t th e flow , th e rhythmi c undercurrent , o f th e music. The developmen t sectio n begin s innocentl y enoug h b y restatin g th e mai n thematic material , onl y now in F mino r an d subtl y reorchestrated, addin g clarinets t o th e earlie r instrumentation . Tw o three-ba r crescendo s a littl e late r ar e both followe d b y a p subito. Wha t i s unusua l abou t that—an d ver y excitin g when performer s are awar e o f it—i s tha t thes e p' s com e o n a 'four, ' th e fourt h beat o f the four-ba r phrase , no t a s a mor e ordinar y composer migh t hav e done , on a 'one ' (Plat e IV , p . 141) . I t i s curiou s tha t i n almos t al l performance s th e second o f thes e p' s (m.153 ) i s neve r playe d a s softl y a s th e firs t on e (m.145) . While mos t conductors d o observe the p subito, the flut e an d obo e ten d to ente r too loudly. The reason , I suspect, i s that their entranc e i s preceded b y thirty bars of rest . I n m.153 , al l tha t thes e player s see i n thei r part s i s p. Bu t wha t kind o f p? I n relatio n t o what ? Sinc e the y don' t participat e i n th e previou s three-ba r crescendo, the y ar e enterin g cold , a s it were , ou t o f the blue , ou t o f context. A conductor mus t kee p a shar p ea r ope n t o mak e sur e tha t th e flut e i n m.15 3 b e no loude r tha n th e viola s and cello s wer e i n m.14 5 (th e sam e note s transpose d up a fifth). The nex t performance pitfal l lurk s between m.15 8 and m . 168—which, by the way, includes anothe r on e o f Beethoven's six-ba r add-ons. The temptatio n her e is to make the crescend o to o early. Beethoven indicate s a crescendo onl y in m.166, but man y conductors and orchestra s start i t half a dozen bar s earlier . What differ ence doe s it make? All the differenc e i n th e world ! When th e passag e is played as Beethoven wrote it, the sudde n two-bar crescendo in mm . 166-67 comes a s a terrific surprise —taking us all the wa y from p or pp t o a full orchestr a fin a mere two

140 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

bars. The effec t i s startling and trul y Beethovenian. Makin g a gradual crescend o starting, say, in m.160, reduces the whol e passage to something quit e ordinary. So does not maintainin g a real p (p p i n th e trumpet s and timpani ) in m . 158, a carelessness of which a host o f conductors i s guilty. A tally of how variou s conductors fared o n thi s passage breaks down a s follows: thos e wh o held th e crescend o bac k are Toscanini, Furtwängler , Klemperer, Jochum, Reiner , Muti, Haitink , Van Otterloo, Kempe , Ansermet , Ashkenazy, Dohnanyi, Böhm , Coli n Davi s an d bot h Kleibers (fathe r an d son) , Brüggen, and Gardiner ; thos e wh o made (o r allowed) a runaway crescendo ar e Nikisch, Weingartner, Mengelberg, Wand, Bernstein, Walter, Ormandy, Masur, Harnoncourt, and three of the 'early music' specialists, Norrington, Hogwood and the Hanover Band. Measures 168 , 172 , 176 , an d 18 0 are al l 'ones ' i n th e four-ba r structure , th e eighth-note figur e alway s o n 'four. ' Her e Beethoven' s dynami c indication s ar e wonderfully explicit : f— but onl y //—at m.168 , più f a t m.17 5 an d a dotte d lin e indicating a crescendo, 27 i.e . eve r mor e pi ù f (m. 176-77), and finally arriving at a ff. The proble m ofte n i s that the f a t m.17 6 is too loud, thus makin g i t virtually impossible to carr y out Beethoven' s graduate d dynami c increase i n mm . 175-79. The 'hor n call ' o f mm. 59-62 i s now heard i n th e violin s (i n G major) , an d nine bar s late r i n C major . A t m.182 an d m.19 0 ne w generall y ignore d perfor mance problem s arise . The vas t majority o f conductors pa y inordinate attentio n here t o th e violin s and th e descendin g figur e i n th e lowe r strings , while payin g no attentio n t o th e remarkabl e thing s Beethove n i s doing i n th e winds . O n 9 0 percent o f th e recording s sampled , thes e win d interjection s ar e eithe r totall y inaudible, jus t barel y audible, o r unevenl y audible . An d ye t thi s i s one o f Bee thoven's mos t darin g an d 'modern ' idea s i n th e whol e movement , th e wind s clambering u p th e rang e ladde r i n diminishe d fifths(!) (Ex. 16) ; moreove r i n a slightly truncate d for m o f th e origina l motive , reduce d no w fro m thre e

Ex. 1 6

eighth-notes to two.We can see here, as I mentioned earlier , how each new musical thought flows out o f some previous , sometimes immediatel y prior, idea. The first time thi s anapestic varian t is used occurs a few bars earlier in mm. 177-78. It suggests that Beethoven ma y have felt that, after nearl y one hundred reiteration s of the original three-note cell , i t was perhaps time to vary it and tr y something different . In an y case , th e proble m her e (mm . 182-94) i s (a ) t o mak e th e wind s audibl e against the strings and (b) to match up the five wind groups dynamically: trumpets, bassoons, clarinets , oboes , flute s (bassoons , horns , clarinets , oboes , flute s i n mm. 190-94). Balance problems are exacerbated by the fact that these two passages 27. Beethoven' s frequentl y use d markin g più f i s nowadays often misunderstood . It doe s not signif y a sudde n increas e i n dynami c bu t is , rather , Beethoven' s wa y o f indicatin g a gradua l crescendo , usually fro m f t o eventuall y ff .

Plate I V Mm.145-16 8 o f the firs t movemen t o f Beethoven's Fift h Symphon y

142 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

are lackin g any specific dynamic indications , eithe r i n Beethoven' s autograp h o r the tw o early editions (Breitkopf & Härtel, and Peters) . Did Beethove n simpl y forget? Possibly; we'll neve r know. My suggested dynamic s are /fin th e woodwinds , f in the brass . (Woodwind doublings are not the answer—althoug h I suppose i t represents an easy , lazy way out o f the problem. ) All it takes to clarify thi s remarkable passage is (1) to rehearse the wind s once alone, makin g them aware of the impor tance—and novelty—of the passage, and (2 ) to restrain the strings from playin g too monstrously loud . Suddenl y everythin g Beethove n wrot e ca n b e wonderfull y heard. Th e onl y recording s o n whic h thi s passag e i s fully mastere d ar e thos e o f Nikisch, Toscanini , Reiner , Szell , Mitropoulos , Krips , Ozawa, Mehta , an d Har noncourt. Som e conductor s o n th e othe r han d —Karajan, Furtwängler , Wand , Masur, Brüggen, Gardiner an d Carlos Kleiber—seem to be unaware that there are any winds participating in these measure s at all! At m.196 begins on e o f the mos t remarkabl e passages in al l of music. Startin g in F mino r wit h a varian t o f the mm.59-6 2 'hor n call, ' alternatin g wind s an d

strings i n heav y sustained chord s (not e th e clas h o f the trumpets ' C agains t th e bassoons' Dl > i n th e secon d measure , rarel y brought ou t i n th e sevent y or so sampled recordings) , Beethoven modulate s hi s way through a n amazin g series of harmonies: F minor , G ^ major, F seventh , B I» minor , Cl > major, Dl > major, F t minor , D major—stil l later , afte r a ff main-motiv e interruption— D diminished sevenths . If that were all, it would already suffice t o call the passage 'astonishing,' 'ingenious,' 'miraculous.' But there i s much more ; i n these thirty-tw o bars Beethoven no t only manages t o incorporate, halfway through , a long fourteen-bar diminuendo fro m f f to pp, changin g a t the sam e time from two-ba r alternations of winds and string s to one-bar alternations , bu t als o manage s t o includ e a n out-of-syn c five-bar phrase. This five-bar phrase still comes a s a surprise and a shock to listeners and performers,28 eve n t o thi s da y when, afte r nearl y two hundre d year s of hearing an d per forming this piece, on e migh t have expected th e surpris e to have worn off. But exactl y where i s this five-bar phrase? O n tha t subjec t man y grea t mind s have disagree d ove r th e years , and possibl y there ar e tw o equall y vali d answers to th e question . Le t u s examin e th e score . W e kno w fro m al l o f ou r previou s structural analysi s that m.19 6 i s a 'one. ' I f tha t i s so , an d i f w e follo w throug h with mor e four-ba r phrases, the n mm.200 , 204 , 208 , 212 , 216 , 220 , and 22 4 will also al l b e 'ones. ' An d i f all that i s true, then th e f f mai n motiv e burstin g i n a t 28. Ho w powerfull y th e four-ba r structurin g o f th e movemen t ca n tak e hol d ca n b e hear d i n a recording mad e o f Brun o Walte r rehearsin g th e firs t tw o movement s o f th e Beethove n Fifth . A s Walter, wh o afte r al l ha d b y tha t tim e conducte d th e symphon y dozen s i f not hundred s o f times , approaches th e en d o f thi s passage , twice h e exhort s th e musician s to pla y th e oncomin g ff — onl y he doe s s o one bur to o early! Th e gravitationa l pul l o f the four-ba r structurin g had hi m momentarily confused, s o that suddenl y he coul d no t dea l wit h tha t five-bar anomaly. Similarly, Toscanin i i n hi s 195 2 broadcas t an d telecas t performanc e of th e Beethove n Fift h ca n be see n an d hear d t o conduc t th e f f o f m.228 on e ba r early !

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y

143

m.228 ha s go t t o b e a 'five. ' Bu t w e kno w that thi s mai n motiv e alway s starts— and ha s consistantl y started—o n a 'four. ' Her e to o i t i s o n a 'four, ' bu t sittin g i n the place o f a 'five. ' Tha t m.22 8 i s metricall y an d gesturall y a 'four ' i s born e out b y th e fac t tha t mm.229-3 2 clearl y compris e th e origina l basi c four-ba r

structuring, ,

exactly as in mm . 1-5, 6-9 ,

59-62, an d man y othe r places . Furthe r reiteratio n an d confirmatio n o f thi s structuring com e a fe w bar s late r whe n th e three-eighth-not e motiv e i s i n it s right place , startin g o n a 'four ' (m.240) . Shoul d w e stil l doub t tha t evidence , then w e nee d onl y coun t throug h tw o furthe r four-ba r phrase s t o receiv e un equivocal confirmatio n o f the fact , fo r in m.24 8 we come to a full recapitulatio n of the openin g o f the symphony , fermata s and all , although quit e reorchestrated . In this interpretiv e version then, all flows naturally from th e m.19 6 starting point in eigh t four-bar entities, wit h th e las t one extende d t o five bars to accommodat e the eruptiv e anacrusi s eighth-note motiv e (Ex.17) .

Ex.17

144

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

An alternate readin g of this passage i s offered b y Schenker, 29 in which h e con tends that the initial four-bar phrasing is abrogated i n m.209, turning "an originally weak measur e int o a strong one, " i n turn makin g m.21 0 a weak one. Fro m ther e on (m.209) in Schenker's accountin g there remain twenty bars up to and including the anacrusis measure m.22 8 (five four-bar units or ten two-ba r units). This i n turn means that Schenker's five-bar phrase comprise s mm.204-08 (Ex. 18).

Ex.18

There i s logic t o bot h interpretations . I n Schenker' s version , th e logi c lies — so som e woul d say—i n th e fac t tha t th e highe r note s (i n th e woodwinds ) ar e now o n stron g beats , th e lowe r note s (i n th e strings ) o n wea k beats . Thi s i s a possible way of looking at it . Bu t I personally do no t fin d thi s reasonin g particularly compelling , becaus e I se e n o inheren t priorit y that uppe r note s (o r woodwind notes ) carr y i n term s o f weight o r strengt h o f beat. Indeed , I coul d mor e readily presen t a counterargumen t that , i n thousand s o f so-calle d oom-pa h ac companiments i n bot h classica l an d popula r musi c

the

lower note contain s suc h weigh t an d strength . B y that criterio n Beethoven coul d just as easily hav e mean t th e lowe r strin g notes t o b e o n stron g beats, th e wind s on wea k beats (a s in m y Ex . 17 ; see th e phras e bracketing) . Schenker wa s also basin g hi s explanatio n o f this passag e o n a harmoni c an d melodic analysi s by means o f which h e delineate s th e Urlinie (th e basi c line) — in effec t th e fundamenta l long-ter m harmoni c rhythm s —of th e entir e move ment. I t woul d g o beyon d th e scop e o f thi s stud y t o explor e full y Schenker' s approach t o th e movement' s basi c harmoni c line , bu t i n respec t t o th e passag e under discussio n h e argue s tha t th e B t mino r chor d o f m.209 i s part o f a larg e harmonic rhyth m tha t give s i t mor e tha n passin g structura l importance . Hi s diagram (Ex . 19) , emende d t o sho w th e ba r number s t o whic h th e pitche s (th e harmonic stations ) refer , i s correc t u p t o th e F (m . 196) an d possibl y eve n

Ex. 1 9

the Bl > (m.209) . I t i s thereafte r tha t Schenker' s logi c break s down , fo r Beetho ven's amazin g continuin g modulation, plu s the tw o ff interruptions surroundin g the seve n bar s of quie t diminishe d chords , canno t b e fitte d int o hi s scheme . I t 29. Schenker , Beethoven: Fifth Symphony pp . 12-13,18 .

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 14

5

is a lon g stretc h fro m m.20 9 t o m.249 , wit h a lo t happenin g whic h canno t b e skipped over—whic h Schenker , alas , does —nor explaine d i n term s o f hi s sche matic assumptions , a process he see s define d b y what h e call s the Quartknotenpunkte (noda l point s o f a fourth) . (Fo r mor e o n thi s se e Schenker' s Beethoven: Fifth Symphony.) I thin k tha t Schenke r wa s (untypically ) fo r onc e seduce d b y the beautiful symmetry of his diagram (Ex.19 ) G / C /^ p / B t / E ^ j-j e a ]so was clutching a t straws , I think , whe n h e argue d tha t Beethoven' s diminuend o i n m.210, followe d on e ba r late r b y a diminuend o i n th e winds , wa s mean t t o indicate "thereb y tha t th e characte r [o f m.210 ] wa s a wea k bea t compare d t o m.209." Apar t from hi s inabilit y to demonstrat e tha t thi s i s in fac t wha t Beetho ven's tw o 'diminuendo ' indication s mean , Beethove n woul d no t hav e pu t a diminuendo sig n int o a n empt y measure . Thu s ther e i s no mor e significanc e to the diminuend o i n m.211 than tha t it happened t o be the first measure in which the compose r coul d indicat e suc h a diminuendo i n th e winds , the previou s bar being empty ; and , a s I say , Beethove n woul d no t hav e writte n a diminuend o indication int o a n empt y measur e (no r would an y logically thinking composer). Schenker's accoun t o f th e passag e als o ha s th e advantage—s o som e woul d argue—that the f f interruptio n i n m.22 8 no w fits neatly int o a four-bar unit , an d is therefor e no t a s disruptive , not a s disturbing , as i n th e othe r version . Ah, bu t that i s precisely th e point ! Di d no t Beethoven , th e 'titanic, ' eve n a t time s 'de monic' composer, wh o gav e us so many 'disturbing' moments , s o many shockers in hi s music , wan t suc h a disruptio n here ? An d ho w bette r coul d h e achiev e this disruptio n tha n t o lul l u s int o a comfortabl e acceptanc e o f th e four-ba r structuring, couple d wit h a calmin g diminuendo , an d then , suddenly , hi t u s with a shatterin g explosion ? I submi t furthe r tha t i t woul d see m ver y unlikely that Beethove n woul d have stuc k his five-bar phrase somewhere int o the middl e of thi s passage . H e would , judgin g b y hi s genera l life-lon g workin g methods , have pu t i t either a t the beginnin g or at the end . Finally, on e las t argumen t fo r wha t I wil l dar e t o cal l th e 'Schulle r version ' resides i n th e fac t tha t Beethove n break s u p hi s four-ba r phrase s int o two-ba r units o f alternating wind s an d strings . I canno t fin d an y overwhelmin g reason s why tha t pattern , establishe d fo r a t leas t twelv e bar s (mm . 196-207), shoul d b e abandoned i n th e nex t two bars and b e broke n int o artificially . I t is more i n th e spirit o f th e ever-inventive , ever-explorativ e Beethove n min d tha t th e pattern breaking woul d hav e manifeste d itsel f i n th e break-u p o f th e initia l four-ba r structures, divide d a t firs t int o instrumentationall y an d registrall y differentiate d iwo-bar phrases, then int o one-ba r units , as well as in th e eve r greater 'hesitance ' and stretchin g ou t o f th e harmoni c progressio n (initiall y two bar s pe r chord , then, i n m.215 , six bars per chord , an d finally, in m.221 , seven bars). 30 Unfortunately, mos t conductor s an d performer s do no t kno w what t o mak e of this passage and mor e o r less drif t throug h it , not awar e of where they are i n th e 30. Anothe r totall y different , an d i n m y vie w unnecessaril y fanciful , analysi s o f th e passag e (mm. 196-232) i s contained i n a n articl e b y Andrew Imbrie, (" 'Extra' Measure s and Metrica l Ambiguity i n Beethoven , i n Beethoven Studies, ed . A . Tyso n (Ne w York , 1973) , i n whic h th e author , one o f America's very fines t composers , not onl y dispute s Schenker's interpretatio n but develop s a n

146 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

metric/rhythmic schem e o f things . Mos t recording s that I hav e sample d follo w neither o f the abov e versions , but fo r n o discernibl e o r logica l reason s turn th e beats aroun d i n m.199 , whic h the y trea t a s a 'one. ' Bu t tha t make s a complet e mess structurally , for no w w e hav e a three-ba r uni t (mm . 196-98), presumabl y followed b y seven four-ba r units , bu t leavin g us a t the en d wit h a left-ove r 'one two' (mm.227-28) . Muti , Leibowitz , Rodzinsky, and Boul t ar e t o b e especiall y commended a s th e onl y conductor s wh o di d no t tur n th e bea t aroun d a t mm.199 o r 20 1 (whethe r by design o r b y chance, I cannot say). For anyone interested how this passage sounds (and feels) whe n played in what I believe to be the correc t structuring, I strongly recommend Leibowitz' s recording. In it one ca n hear what I consider to be perhaps the mos t remarkable aspect of this entire episode , namely , tha t i f the weightie r beats ar e maintaine d i n th e string s (with th e woodwind s as a sort of subtle 'afterbeat' ) in mm . 210-27, then on e wil l hear the wondrous effect of this phrase feeling being reversed when i n mm.233-39 it is the woodwinds' turn to have the 'strong ' beats and the strings the 'weak ' beats. Measure 196 ha s als o bee n a favorit e plac e fo r conductor s t o slow dow n i n tempo, man y o f them inordinately . This make s little sense sinc e Beethove n ha s already slowe d dow n th e motio n o f the musi c b y composing th e singl e longes t passage i n th e whol e movemen t entirel y se t i n half-notes . Surel y an y furthe r slowing dow n i s not required . Figure 3 (pp . 148-49 ) show s ho w mos t conductor s hav e handle d thi s temp o question. elaborate an d somewha t convolute d theory , whic h attempt s t o demonstrat e tha t Beethove n di d no t conceive th e firs t movemen t o f his Fift h Symphon y i n a basicall y quartenary o r binar y structuring . Imbrie argue s tha t man y passage s ar e asymmetricall y constructe d ou t o f variou s combination s o f threes, fives , an d sixes . I t goe s beyon d m y intention s an d th e scop e o f thi s stud y t o full y describ e and the n refut e Imbrie' s reasonings . Suffic e i t to say that th e majo r flaws in hi s discussio n li e i n th e fact tha t (a ) h e completel y ignore s th e existenc e (o r possibilit y o f existence ) o f th e five-ba r phras e under consideratio n here ; (b ) although h e present s counterargument s t o most o f Schenker's analysis , he accept s th e on e poin t wher e i n fact , I believe , Schenke r errs—hi s pivota l argumen t tha t m.20 9 is both a 'four ' an d a 'one'—an d build s hi s entir e theor y aroun d it . And i n orde r t o d o that, Imbri e felt th e nee d t o completel y 'restructure ' the entir e previou s passag e o f mm.168-96. I n hi s somewha t tortuous speculation s Imbri e feel s compelle d t o argu e tha t mm . 176-78 an d 179-8 1 ar e three-ba r units. Thi s i n tur n make s mm.17 9 an d 18 7 'ones'—the latte r a rea l impossibility , sinc e Beethove n would neve r hav e place d a first-inversion chord o n a 'one', particularl y in suc h a structurally critical juncture a t o r near th e beginnin g o f the developmen t section—and i t makes m.19 6 a 'two, ' anothe r musical impossibility , give n th e harmonic , dynamic , an d durationa l weigh t Beethove n give s thi s measure. I fin d i t curiou s tha t Imbri e woul d ignor e an d (b y implication) no t accep t a simpl e fivebar uni t a t m.224— a nic e touc h o f asymmetry , afte r all—bu t woul d instea d inven t a muc h mor e complex an d les s tenabl e hypothesi s o f metri c organizatio n t o justif y hi s assumptio n o f "metrica l ambiguity i n Beethoven. " It is sad to repor t tha t Igo r Markevitch , on e o f the 20t h century' s fines t conductor s an d composers , in hi s aforementione d stud y o f Beethove n symphonie s seem s t o b e totall y unawar e o f Beethoven' s five-bar phrase a t m.224 , fo r although h e offer s a n exhaustiv e bar-by-ba r periodizatio n analysi s of th e entire movemen t (mostl y ver y arbitrary , i n m y view) , h e goe s int o n o detai l regardin g m . 196-247, in effec t glossin g over Beethoven' s mos t remarkabl e metric anomaly . Peter Gülk e i n hi s critica l repor t fo r th e ne w Peter s editio n o f Beethoven' s Fift h basicall y follow s Schenker's analysi s of the passage . (See Zu r Neuausgabe de r Sinfonie Nr . 5 von Ludwig va n Beethoven (Leipzig, 1978) , PP. 56-57. )

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 14

7

Strauss i s trul y 'od d ma n out ' i n th e interpretatio n o f thi s passage . Havin g ambled alon g a t various speeds ( J = 9 6 a t the beginnin g o f the movement , b y m.14 u p to j = 104 , at m.2 5 dow n t o J = 96 , at m.63 J = 88 , accelerating bac k t o J = 9 4 aroun d m.94) , Straus s suddenl y pushe s th e temp o dra matically a t m.19 6 t o J = 104 , slams throug h th e nex t eigh t bar s a t a terrifi c speed (completel y surprising and disorientin g the orchestra) , the n —just a s perversely—slowing dow n b y m.21 0 t o a sluggis h J = 84 . Measur e 23 3 i s eve n slower ( J = 80) , whereupon h e agai n pounce s ont o m.24 0 a t a ful l spee d o f J = 104 , a 24-poin t jump , with the orchestr a agai n surprise d an d disorganized . Perhaps th e mos t difficul t aspec t o f thi s passag e (mm . 196-239) strictl y fro m the poin t o f vie w o f instrumental/technica l contro l i s th e prope r sustainin g o f all th e half-notes , especiall y when th e musi c break s down int o single alternatin g half-note duration s a t m.210 . Wha t on e almos t alway s hear s i n thi s passage , instead o f J, i s J. 7

and J. . ?

, or worse J- 1

and J- ?

. To hold

each half-not e withou t an y decreas e o f sound righ t u p t o the ba r line—bu t no t beyond i t either—is fiendishly hard an d take s terrific concentratio n an d control . It i s something musician s ar e almos t neve r aske d t o do . M y poin t i s tha t eac h half-note mus t connec t precisel y with eac h succeedin g half-note , neithe r fallin g short of it no r overlappin g wit h it ; and, of course, a t it s designated dynami c th e note mus t no t diminuendo . I kno w o f onl y on e wa y to achiev e thi s resul t an d that i s fo r al l th e musician s t o coun t i n thei r min d tw o quarter-note s o r fou r eighth-notes, a s they hold thei r note. This may sound naiv e or simplistic to som e readers, bu t i t works. Indeed, i t i s the onl y way the ful l magi c an d originalit y of this passag e ca n b e realized . I hav e hear d onl y three recordings , thos e o f Krips, Schuricht, an d Mitropoulos , i n which th e passag e was played in a well-sustained manner. Some conductors , lik e Mengelberg , Leibowitz , Mitropoulos , an d Ormandy , ask the string s to play two successive down-bow s i n mm . 198-99, 202-203 , 206 207. Whil e thi s ma y ad d a certai n weigh t an d powe r t o th e sound , i t als o i s bound t o shorte n th e duratio n o f the half-note s (t o | J- t \) , thu s illogicall y differentiating th e string s fro m th e wind s an d destroyin g Beethoven' s intende d sustained continuit y as well a s his four-ba r phrasing. The nex t dange r spo t come s i n o r aroun d m.245 , especiall y m.248 . Her e many conductor s mak e a greate r o r lesse r ritardand o (som e a s earl y as m.245), then eve n slowe r at m.250. They seem t o have n o ide a tha t the y hav e jus t com e upon th e recapitulatio n (Ex.20 ) an d tha t on e wa y of makin g tha t clea r migh t be t o stay i n tempo. Doin g s o i n fac t produce s a n extraordinar y impact o n th e listener. I t i s a s i f a n objec t wer e hurtlin g alon g a t ful l spee d an d suddenl y Ex. 2 0

Fig. 3 Conductor

Basic Temp o

Tempo a t m . 19 6

Norrington Gardiner Brüggen Dohnanyi Karajan (1984 ) Toscanini Hickox Giulini Steinberg Scherchen C. Kleibe r Furtwängler Karajan (1962 ) Reiner Hogwood Ansermet Mitropoulos Wand Leibowitz Suitner Harnoncourt Muti Van Otterlo o Ozawa Strauss DeSabata Weingartner Haitink E. Kleibe r Walter Rodzinsky Stokowski (1975) Maazel Ashkenazy Hanover Ban d Munch Jochum Mehta Solti Szell Schuricht Kempe Abbado Schwarz Boult

J=108 J=108 J=106 J=104 J=104 J=104 J=104 J=100 J=100 J=100 J=100

J=104 J=104

J = 98-1 00 J = 98 J = 98 J = 96 J = 96 J = 96 J = 96 J = 96 J = 96 J = 96 J = 96 J = 96 J = 96 J = 96 J = 94 J = 94 J = 94 J = 94 j =92 J = 92 J = 92 J = 92 J = 92 J = 92 J = 92 J = 90 j =90 J = 90 J = 90 J = 88 J = 88 J = 88 J = 88 J = 88

J = 98 J = 96 J = 92

J = 98 ( a t m . 2 0 0j = 90) a—

J = 82 J = 88 J = 96 J = 92 J = 86

J=104

J = 90 J = 96 J = 76 J = 96 J = 84 J = 96 J = 86 J = 84 J = 92 J = 90 J = 88 J= 104 (sie) J = 74 J = 88 J = 86 a—

J = 92 J = 92 J = 80 J = 90 j =88 J = 88 J = 92 J = 88 J = 86 J = 84 J = 84 J = 84 J = 84 J = 88 J = 86 J = 84

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y

Dorati Koussevitzky Kletzki Schalk Sawallisch Nikisch Ancerl Thomas Knappertsbusch Masur Colin Davi s Ormandy Mengelberg Bernstein Böhm Kubelik Klemperer Leinsdorf Krips Boulez Stokowski (1940 )

J = 88

J = 88 J = 88 J = 88 J = 88 J = 88 J = 86 J = 86 J = 84 J = 84 J = 84 J = 84 J = 84 J = 82 J = 80 J = 80 J = 80 J = 78 J = 76 J = 74 J = 86

149

J = 92 J = 84 J = 82 J = 80 J = 84 J = 80 J = 82 J = 88 J = 72 J = 80 J = 82 J = 84 J = 84 J = 72 J = 76 J = 76 J = 70 J = 84(sic) J = 76 J = 72 J = 88

slams int o a solid wall (th e ff chor d a t m.249) . This ungentle simil e i s purposely chosen, fo r the effec t her e mus t be terrifying , dramatic , unpredictabl e —and yet , in retrospect , inevitable. 31 I woul d als o submi t tha t Beethove n wa s perfectl y capable o f writin g 'poco ritardando (se e mm.7 , 17,5 1 etc . i n th e thir d move ment, an d o f course , hundred s o f place s i n othe r works) . No t havin g pu t a ritardando a t m.248 ough t t o clearl y suggest that h e didn' t wan t one! Her e Nik isch's 191 3 performance is rather peculiar. H e rushe s the temp o a t first, accelerating dramaticall y at m.244 , the n put s o n th e brake s at m.24 8 fo r a huge ritard, followed b y excessivel y long fermatas. "As in al l great masterpieces , s o too i n th e Fift h Symphony , th e recapitulatio n is governe d b y th e la w [Gesefe ] o f transformation : w e se e no t a merel y empt y rattling of f [abschnurrende] [onc e agai n o f the exposition] , but i n variou s details a ne w life-infusin g repetition. " Thu s Schenker , describin g th e reprise. 32 And i n truth, Beethove n ingeniousl y reconstitutes th e materia l o f mm.6-21 int o a brilliant ne w variant : th e previou s violi n an d viol a part s ar e condense d int o jus t violins; bassoons alone carr y the bas s line (modified) , previously also maintaine d by th e cellos ; th e lowe r string s no w provid e "life-infusing " pizzicatos ; clarinet s 31. Furtwängle r onc e wrot e abou t thi s recapitulatio n tha t "i t i s neve r prepare d fo r [eingeführt] i n any way ; it i s so to spea k suddenl y there " (To n un d Wort, p . 244) . Unfortunately , Furtwängle r i n hi s performances di d no t follo w th e implicatio n o f hi s fin e insight , for h e make s a sizabl e ritar d i n m.247—as a resul t o f whic h m.24 8 i s not "suddenl y there"—followe d b y a n eve n slowe r an d mor e ponderous eighth-not e figur e i n in.25 0 ( J = 72) . 32. Schenker , Beethoven: Fifth Symphony, p . 13.

150 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

(and flutes ) ad d th e harmonie s previousl y sustained b y the strings ; and , abov e all, a slende r melodi c lin e i s added i n th e sol o oboe . Thi s obo e emerge s glori ously—like a cocoo n releasin g a gracefu l butterfly—int o a plangen t sol o mini cadenza (m.268) , marke d adagio, replacin g mm.21-2 4 o f th e exposition . Al though Beethove n give s n o indicatio n i n th e entir e obo e lin e (mm.254-68 ) o f its gradua l emergence , it s transformation , int o a ful l blow n sol o —I thin k be cause h e coul d no t find the notationa l mean s to do so (più espr. i n m.262 migh t have done it , but tha t expressio n was not i n commo n us e in 1808 ) —I share wit h Schenker th e ide a that th e obo e shoul d very subtly and graduall y in mm.262-67 begin t o emerg e int o a leadin g position . Schenke r put s i t ver y carefully : "Th e oboe shoul d mak e itsel f noticeabl e i n m.262. " M y ow n suggestio n i s tha t th e oboe begi n i n m.25 4 a s i f merel y playin g a harmon y part , an d the n b y th e subtlest for m o f increasin g expressiveness—perhap s eve n a subtl e crescend o — starting i n m.262 , grow into th e dominan t rol e fo r m.268 . Beethoven's talen t fo r constant variation continues t o be lavishe d on th e reca pitulation. Beside s re-orchestratio n i n th e passag e beginnin g wit h m.26 9 (th e parallel t o m.25) , m.273 signal s a four-bar crescend o i n thunderin g three-octav e string unisons , bringin g th e musi c u p t o f a t m.277 , i n tur n placin g th e suc ceeding reiterativ e sf's (mm.282-8 7 i n a totally differen t (namel y f ) contex t tha n in th e expositio n (mm.38-43) . A def t modulatio n a t a ke y poin t (mm.300-02) moves th e musi c t o C majo r (formerl y i n Et ) fo r th e retur n o f the secon d sub ject, thereby alread y announcing th e priorit y of the C tonalit y from her e o n ou t to the en d o f the movement . A long-standing controvers y exists regarding the us e o f horns instea d o f (or i n addition to ) bassoon s i n mm.303-30 6 (Ex.21) , and th e reason s wh y Beethove n

Ex. 2 1

did no t us e horn s here , electin g instea d t o giv e th e passag e t o th e bassoons . (The sketche s sho w tha t Beethove n originall y had i n min d addin g cello s t o th e bassoons.) Ther e ar e severa l possibl e reasons , foremos t that th e note s c , d ar e bad, partiall y stopped, note s o n th e E b Naturhom o f the day , hence Beethoven's decision t o giv e the passag e t o th e bassoons . The alternative s would hav e bee n (a) t o pul l i n a secon d pai r o f horns , pitche d i n C , whic h coul d hav e playe d those note s easil y an d well , o r (b ) t o hav e th e tw o hor n player s chang e t o C crooks prior to this point . This migh t hav e bee n a possibility becaus e Beethove n does chang e th e horn s t o C i n th e secon d an d fourt h movement s o f th e sym phony. Bu t changin g t o C horn s fo r m.30 0 woul d hav e necessitate d no t usin g the horn s for a t leas t 5 0 to 8 0 o f the previou s measures, at bes t fro m m.25 4 on . For i t too k anywher e from 3 0 t o 4 5 second s fo r th e player s t o chang e crooks . This woul d i n tur n hav e mean t eliminatio n o f th e horn s i n th e climacti c ff

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 15

1

measures o f 29 6 t o 272 . That wa s an optio n tha t Beethoven , I imagine , readil y rejected. H e als o ruled ou t th e othe r option—addin g a secon d pai r of horns for this passag e — presumably becaus e i t seeme d a littl e sill y t o dra g i n tw o horn s for a mer e fou r bars , havin g previously , we shoul d note , decide d fo r whateve r reasons (economical , practical , balanc e i n the brass , etc.) to limit himself in thi s symphony to tw o horns. 33 The performanc e proble m tha t i s presume d t o plagu e conductor s her e an d why man y choos e t o substitut e horn s fo r th e bassoon s (o r ad d horn s t o th e bassoons) i s that nowaday s and fo r som e tim e i n th e past , th e ff o f the moder n horns an d th e f f o f th e moder n bassoon s ar e fa r fro m equivalent . An d thos e conductors wh o interprete d (an d stil l interpret ) this symphon y a s an expressio n of the titani c Romanti c super-her o o r i n post-Wagnerian , post-Mahleria n terms , are, o f course , boun d t o b e disappointe d i n th e relativel y smaller soun d mad e by th e tw o bassoons . Thei r unthinking , automati c solutio n i s to scra p th e bas soons an d substitut e horns . I submit thi s i s nonsense, an d no t a t all a s logical o r necessary a s such conductor s think. 34 Schenker ha d alread y urged th e retentio n o f the bassoons , notin g tha t "mos t of th e tim e horn s ar e use d instea d o f bassoons , ver y muc h i n erro r [z u Unrecht}"1''' arguin g tha t Beethove n kne w th e bassoo n extremel y wel l —"his early works sho w that"—an d tha t h e kne w exactl y what h e wa s doing whe n h e gav e this passag e t o th e bassoons . H e suggest s tha t instea d o f trying to pla y the thre e eighth-note G' s wit h "th e mos t blasting " [schmetterndsten] ff , th e weigh t an d emphasis shoul d b e placed o n the three succeedin g half-notes , especially c ' (in m.304), a 'one' i n the phras e structuring . The solutio n t o thi s allege d dilemma , onc e again , lie s no t i n th e pursui t of playing everythin g ever louder, bu t in—peris h th e thought!—playin g somethin g occasionally a littl e softer . Thi s (radical ) though t i s particularl y appropriate t o Beethoven's Fift h Symphony , fo r i t i s perhaps, particularly in it s first movement, the ultimat e wor k o f whic h on e ca n sa y that i t feel s an d sound s lean , strong , muscular—with n o exces s fa t o n it s fram e ('lea n an d hungry ' migh t b e eve n more apt) ; obese , flabby, ponderous, lazy, heav y musi c i t is certainly not . I furthe r submi t tha t th e natur e o f the horn s and bassoon s o f Beethoven's da y offers u s anothe r clu e a s to ho w t o reconcil e thi s apparent—and i t is only apparent—discrepancy. O n th e on e hand , th e natura l hor n o f Mozart's an d Beetho 33. Havin g alread y use d thre e horn s i n hi s Third Symphon y an d i n tw o key s a t time s (tw o i n &, one i n C ) i t i s curious that Beethove n di d no t ligh t o n tha t solutio n fo r hi s Fift h Symphony . 34. S o ingraine d i s thi s traditio n i n conductors— I woul d cal l i t anothe r 'ba d habit'—tha t Brun o Walter, fo r example , i n th e aforementione d recordin g o f hi s rehearsa l of the Fifth' s firs t movement , every tim e h e go t t o m.303 , kep t addressin g the horns , speakin g abou t th e horns , callin g fo r th e horns, whe n al l the tim e onl y the bassoon s had bee n playing . After repeate d attempt s a t this passage, and Walte r stil l callin g fo r th e horns , th e tw o hor n player s quietl y bega n t o pla y alon g wit h th e bassoons. Poo r Walte r seem s neve r t o hav e notice d tha t i t wa s bassoons who wer e playing th e pas sage, no r notice d an y o f the ensuin g interplay! In hi s officia l recordin g of the Fift h wit h th e Columbi a Symphon y Orchestra, Walter di d indee d use th e horn s instead of bassoons. 35. Schenker , Beethoven: Fifth Symphony, p.19 .

152

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

ven's da y wa s a n instrumen t wit h a pure , war m tone , ligh t an d buoyan t i n sound, projectin g well becaus e o f it s purity o f tone , no t it s loudness . Th e bas soon, o n th e othe r hand , ha d a rathe r full , round , woods y sound tha t matche d the hor n ver y well.36 Th e moder n doubl e horn s o f today, depending somewha t on mak e an d manufacture , ar e generally , i n respons e t o th e demand s o f Strauss's, Wagner's, an d Mahler' s literature , capable o f an enormou s soun d tha t in n o wa y relate s t o sound s o f a lat e 18th - earl y 19th-centur y horn . Th e bas soons, however , hav e acquire d ove r th e las t centur y a mor e refined , a mor e cultivated sound, but no t necessaril y all that mor e projecting . Under th e circum stances, t o replicat e th e sound s Beethove n ha d i n mind—th e sound s o f th e instruments h e hear d an d fo r whic h h e wrot e hi s music—al l w e hav e t o d o i s tell th e hor n player s in mm.59-6 3 no t t o pla y thei r loudes t post-Mahleria n ff , but instea d a cultivate d tensil e ff , i n whic h rhythmi c energ y an d articulatio n play a mor e importan t rol e tha n shee r amplitud e an d sonori c obesity . At th e same time , i f we ca n encourag e th e bassoon s t o giv e thei r al l i n mm.303-306 , a viabl e dynamic relationship betwee n th e tw o passages will have been restored . Again, Beethoven's extraordinary imagination and sens e for constant variation is at wor k in th e recapitulatio n o f the 'secon d subject ' episod e (mm.306-46) . No t only i s it wonderfull y re-orchestrate d but , wherea s the lyri c four-bar phrase wa s heard three times in the exposition, it is now played four times, alternating between violins and flute. This expansion in turn allows Beethoven to play around with the cellos' an d basses ' b

y havin g the m shar e i t alternately

with the timpani. At m.323 a different simple r harmonic progression (C7-F-D7-G) is substituted fo r the earlie r one (EI>-C 7-Fm-DI>-EI>7-AI>). Then, the earlie r elevenbar phrase, culminating in the dominant, is now expanded to fifteen (mm.3 31-45) (Ex.22). Bu t while the latte r is expanded horizontally , it is thinned ou t vertically, i.e. harmonically : the sustaine d win d harmonie s tha t fleshe d ou t th e passag e in mm. 8 3-9 3 are now removed, leaving only bare-bones counterpoint, implying a series of diminished chords. Horns come t o the rescu e to help re-establish the clea r dominant b y supplying th e sevent h (F) , jus t barely avoiding a rhythmic collisio n with the FA' S in the melodi c line .

Ex. 2 2

36. Tha t i s why , fo r example , Beethove n wa s abl e t o us e th e bassoo n i n th e grea t Fidelio aria , "Abscheulischer, W o Eils t D u Hin " as , i n effect , a fourt h horn , o r wh y Mendelssoh n use d th e

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y

153

FI.

Once again, in this entir e episod e (mm.306-46 ) the player s must know where the four-ba r structura l points li e (mm.308 , 312 , etc., no t mm.307 , 311—whic h is th e wa y one hear s i t playe d s o ofte n —mm.324, 328 , 332 , etc.), an d th e link ups betwee n violin s and flut e mus t b e maintaine d t o creat e lon g sixteen-ba r or at least eight-ba r lines. Nikisch's an d Furtwängler' s an d Schalk' s link-up s are beautifull y done ; s o are Erich Kleiber's , Giulini's , Mitropoulos's , an d Walter's . Bu t Bernstein's , Toscani ni's, Weingartner's, Masur's , and Wand' s ar e not . Strauss' s interpretatio n remain s the mos t peculiar , the mos t vagran t as to temp o variations . He take s the secon d subject (m.306 ) a t a leisurel y « J = 88 , havin g com e dow n fro m variou s faste r tempos ( j = 96 , J = 104) , bu t b y m.346 i s up agai n a t a hurtlin g J = 11 2 (sic!), eve n faste r tha n Beethoven' s ow n basi c « 1 = 108. 37 bassoon i n th e compan y o f horns i n tw o famou s passages : th e tri o o f hi s Fourt h Symphony' s thir d movement an d th e Nocturne fro m th e Midsummer Night's Dream musi c (whic h shoul d be—bu t never is—interprete d a s a horn an d tw o bassoon trio, no t a hor n sol o accompanie d b y two bassoons. I wa s certainly disappointe d tha t Harnoncour t chos e t o ad d horn s t o th e bassoon s i n m.303 , h e who pride s himsel f o n performin g Beethove n i n th e 'mos t authentic ' way . 37. Earlier , i n m . 26 6 befor e th e obo e cadenza , Straus s make s a n accelerand o (sic ) as he ha d don e in th e earlie r analogou s place , m.19 . Knowin g somethin g abou t Strauss' s attitude s i n thes e matters , I hav e th e feelin g tha t h e rushe d thes e place s simpl y to counterac t th e slowin g down , th e ponderou s dragging, tha t mos t conductor s indulge d i n i n hi s time—an d man y stil l d o today .

154 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

The AN' s i n m.340-4 6 no t onl y lift th e melodi c lin e fro m it s minor mood, bu t lift ou r spirit s as well , a s we liste n t o thi s powerfu l motivi c expansion . I t i s as if the cloud s ar e finally lifting an d th e clea r blu e sky of C majo r i s now imminent . For i t i s thos e Al>' s tha t specificall y allo w th e musi c t o resolv e t o a joyou s C major, fo r the first time i n ful l forc e i n th e entir e movemen t (no t countin g th e brief intermitten t C majo r measure s in th e 'secon d subject') . One o f the mor e peculia r (an d inept ) interpretation s of the climacti c passage just befor e th e development-extensio n (m.374 ) i s Bernstein's . Havin g dragge d along a t a ponderou s temp o fo r the entir e movement—startin g i t a t j = 82 , slowing i t ofte n t o a reall y patheti c J = 7 2 (onl y about 3 6 metronome point s away fro m Beethoven' s temp o indication!)—h e suddenl y lurche s forwar d a t m.362, jumpin g to—fo r him— a fas t J = 92 . I can' t tel l fro m th e recordin g whether thi s temp o lea p i s th e resul t o f a n editin g splice , o r whethe r h e sud denly remembere d tha t th e en d o f th e movemen t wa s nearing, an d tha t he' d better ge t the temp o movin g for an excitin g 'flas h finish. ' Measure 37 4 ha s ofte n bee n mistake n fo r th e cod a o f th e firs t movement . The cod a doe s no t arriv e in fac t unti l m.483 , m.37 4 bein g instea d i n Beetho ven's tim e a relativel y new forma l componen t o f th e sonat a form— I a m call ing i t development-extension—whic h on e ca n fin d occasionall y i n som e lat e Haydn symphonies , bu t whic h Beethove n reall y develope d int o majo r propor tions i n som e o f hi s symphonies , pian o sonatas , an d strin g quartets , an d mos t importantly her e (mm . 374-482) i n the first movement o f the Fifth . I t differenti ates itsel f fro m th e mai n developmen t sectio n i n tha t roo m i s mad e her e fo r additional inventions , expressions, variants of material touched upon,earlie r that , in th e composer' s view , permits o f (o r demands ) furthe r elaboratio n an d expan sion. Thus Beethove n i s intent here on givin g all this accumulated materia l on e more giganti c work-out , as i f his initia l idea s an d visio n had no t ye t bee n suffi ciently though t throug h t o thei r fina l conclusion . Thu s th e development extension unfold s i n thre e giganti c episodes , eac h o f whic h rise s fro m th e tonic C an d fall s bac k t o i t (mm.374 , 423 , an d 439) . I n th e initia l measure s (mm. 374-481 ) o f th e development-extension , i t i s importan t tha t al l instru ments full y sustai n their lon g half-notes : What on e hear s almos t universall y (especiall y wit h 'perio d instrument ' con ductors) i s particularl

y in th e strings , who

generally spen d mos t o f their bo w on th e sf, leavin g them wit h a p b y the en d (or even the middle ) of the lon g note . This completely undermines and weakens the powe r an d excitemen t o f this climacti c momen t wit h it s brilliant C majo r outburst. The brigh t toni c majo r o f m.37 4 i s immediatel y converte d int o a powerfu l harmonic progressio n (Ex. 23), which Beethove n presently recycles, this tim e i n the mino r mode i n the secon d episod e (mm.427—29 : It—IV 1 — It1 — IV-V2-!1 etc.).

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHONY

155

Ex. 2 3

In th e meantime , on e ha s barel y recovered fro m th e terrifyin g shoc k o f the Dl > ff chor d i n m.38 2 (se e Plate V) when a n eve n greater surprise is in store : anothe r completely unpredictabl e five-ba r phras e (mm . 3 86-90). Measur e 39 0 is a 'four, ' of course, an d thu s th e inserte d empt y ba r (m.389 ) i s an almos t freakis h phras e aberration.38 Almos t a s muc h o f a surpris e i s th e sudde n eeri e p reiteratio n o f the four-not e motive . Thi s passag e brough t suc h consternatio n t o earl y inter preters o f the symphony , that the y simpl y cu t th e empt y ba r out , compressin g the phras e t o it s more comfortabl e an d ordinar y four-bar form . Th e eliminatio n of m.38 9 ca n b e hear d o n Nikisch' s 191 3 recording ! Measure 39 8 recapitulate s th e openin g motive , thi s tim e withou t fermatas, and—notó bene— marked onl y f. Mos t conductor s pla y this too loud , wit h grea t effect perhaps , bu t i t make s th e ensuin g massiv e build-u p an d th e ultimat e release int o f f a t m.43 9 al l anticlimactic . I t i s a sham e whe n th e cello s and basse s fai l t o sustai n th e half-note s C-At-Et- F etc. , mm.423 - 32 , whic h 38. Beethoven' s manuscrip t autograph alread y contains thi s 'extra-measure ' phrase ; tha t i s to say , i t was no t on e o f the addition s mad e a yea r late r i n 1809 , an d thu s mus t hav e bee n include d i n th e first performance. Still , it was not i n hi s very first conception oftha t passage , as one ca n deduc e fro m the manuscrip t which her e show s some sign s of struggle and indecisio n (see Plate V). Beethoven was in th e habi t o f first ruling in th e vertica l bar lines , mor e o r les s equidistant—usuall y comprisin g six bars pe r page—an d the n fillin g i n th e stave s wit h notes . Th e autograp h show s that m.386 , whic h initially had a simple rhyth m o f J \ I , was sometime late r divide d into two measures and the present m.38 7 wa s inserted i n tha t ne w space . Based o n m y study of the manuscript , I believ e tha t Beethove n originall y meant t o hav e tw o bars of silence here, befor e the ff outburs t of m. 390. Those two measures would have been, lik e mm.12324, 'two ' an d 'three ' o f a four-ba r phrase , an d thu s th e fou r measure s comprisin g th e fina l quarter note D t chor d throug h th e eighth-not e diminished-sevent h chor d motiv e fou r bar s late r wer e in tended t o recapitulat e tha t earlie r idea (mm.122-25) . Bu t then, havin g completed th e pag e o f score, Beethoven, perhap s feelin g tha t th e tw o silen t bar s wer e afte r al l a littl e to o empty , impedin g th e flow and energ y o f the movement , ha d th e ide a to inser t a variant of the openin g four-not e call, bu t in p— an afterthough t of the f f D t chord . Havin g don e that , h e the n realize d tha t th e f f diminishe d chord, alread y written at tha t point, could no t follo w hard o n th e tin y p insert . It i s at this point tha t he lef t th e on e empt y measur e alread y composed i n place . It i s perhap s audaciou s o f a mer e morta l lik e m e t o second-gues s a n immorta l lik e Beethoven , but i t seems t o me tha t i n hi s revision his musica l instincts provided him wit h the absolutel y perfect solution. I n an y case , i t i s an astonishin g thing t o m e tha t n o othe r conducto r o r writer on Beethoven's Fift h Symphon y ha s eve r studie d an d analyze d ho w Beethove n cam e t o writ e thi s five-bar phrase. I t i s sa d t o repor t tha t neithe r Igo r Markevitc h no r Pete r Gülke , i n thei r respectiv e ne w critical edition s of the Beethove n Fifth, mak e any referenc e t o thi s remarkabl e five-bar phrase anomaly. Coul d the y have been unawar e of it?

Plate V Autograp h manuscript of mm.383-390 o f the firs t movemen t o f Beethoven's Fift h Symphon y

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y

157

is ofte n th e cas e whe n th e conducto r suggest s tha t th e firs t si x measure s here b e playe d al l wit h down-bows . Th e resul t the n i s somethin g like : . I n ver y fe w recording s wer e thes e notes properl y sustained, thereb y seriousl y undermining th e powe r an d driv e of this passage . A crucia l question , unfortunatel y no t explicitl y answerable , i s whethe r th e violins shoul d hav e sf s i n mm.427 , 429 , 431 , an d 433 . I t i s har d t o kno w whether Beethove n (1 ) forgo t to add them, (2 ) thought performer s would simply assume the m t o continu e ever y alternat e ba r fo r anothe r eigh t measures , o r whether (3 ) h e intende d som e modifyin g effect fro m m.42 7 on . I rathe r doub t the last , and sugges t th e retentio n o f the extr a sfs. The viol a lin e i n m.42 3 (double d i n th e violin s a n octav e higher ) i s no w restated f f an d expanded , beginnin g i n m.439 , alternatin g wind s (plu s timpani) with strings , an d heraldin g th e secon d episod e i n th e development-extension . Here agai n on e canno t stres s enoug h ho w importan t i t i s t o understand , per form, hear , an d feel Beethoven' s four-ba r structuring. Measur e 44 2 i s a 'four, ' not a 'one ' (a s i t i s fa r to o ofte n played) . Thes e massiv e chorda l structures , produced wit h a n orchestr a n o large r than i n man y a Hayd n symphony , ar e all the mor e overwhelmin g i n thei r effec t whe n delivere d in on e giganti c line , no t just merely arbitrarily strung together. Beethoven' s fertil e imaginatio n her e pours forth a marve l o f rhythmic/structural inventio n whic h operate s o n severa l levels . On th e on e hand , th e earlie r two-bar phrases, sitting atilt the four-ba r infrastruc ture (o n a purel y rhythmic/metri c level) , ar e fragmente d int o variou s one-bar , two-bar, three-bar, an d four-ba r phrases (see Ex. 24). On anothe r level—timbral orchestrational—the passag e break s dow n int o somewha t differen t phras e components, sometime s coincidin g wit h th e rhythmic/metri c structuring , some times a t odd s wit h it . A third leve l — registral — intersects wit h th e tw o othe r lay erings, parallelin g mostl y th e timbra i layer , an d frequentl y entailin g giganti c registral leaps . Th e thre e levels o f operation, i n composite , produce a structural

Ex. 2 4

158 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

The exampl e represent s onl y the uppe r melodi c line . Th e uppe r bracket s represen t various timbrall y and registrall y delineated phras e lengths ; th e lowe r bracket s represen t the basi c four-bar metri c structure .

polyphony tha t i s reminiscent o f some o f Bach's more comple x so-calle d mathe matical fugues . I t i s precisely because o f the enormou s amoun t o f variation an d considerable orchestrationa l fragmentatio n i n thi s polyphon y o f layerings , tha t the conducto r an d player s mus t maintai n a sens e o f th e underlyin g four-ba r infrastructure—musically anchore d i n it , as it were—lest the three-layere d superstructure become s a mer e arbitrar y thirty-ba r jumble . Man y conductor s ge t bogged dow n i n thi s fragmente d texture , unabl e t o maintai n th e relentles s flow of the music . Ho w excitin g and righ t this sound s whe n full y comprehende d ca n be hear d o n Mitropoulos' s recording . Beethoven return s t o th e openin g mott o o f th e symphon y on e fina l tim e (mm.478-82), more powerfu l an d monumenta l tha n eve r before, starkly 'harmonized' i n bal d thirds , seconds , an d fourths , coverin g a tremendou s rang e o f six and a hal f octaves . Th e ver y lo w D o f the basse s (mm.481-82 ) mus t b e full y exploited, requirin g as many five-strin g o r extension-equippe d basse s as possible. The mos t trul y Beethovenia n wa y o f renderin g thi s fina l retur n o f th e mott o theme i s not t o bac k int o wit h a ritard ; it i s hair-raising when approache d abso lutely i n tempo . Unfortunately , most conductor s abus e thi s passage , turnin g i t into pompou s bombas t wit h thei r monumenta l ritards , often startin g a s early as m.476. The wors t offenders her e ar e Bernstein , Stokowsk i (1940), an d Furtwän gler, the latter' s tempo i n m.48 0 bein g a n astonishin g J = 3 6 (Jl = 144) ! After thi s massive, shattering reiteration o f the openin g motto , remindin g us of where this remarkable musical journey began 51/ 2 minutes earlier, Beethoven gives us to believe tha t he will bring back stil l more of the exposition. Instead he finally comes t o th e coda . Th e mai n them e (o f m.6) return s i n m.48 3 a s if in a dream , from fa r away , darkene d b y a sombe r open-strin g fift h i n th e cellos , an d thre e winds—bassoons, clarinet, and oboe—weavin g subtle legato garlands around th e eighth-note motives . But before we can fully appreciate what is happening, Beetho ven break s i n wit h a thunderou s ff, an d i n twelv e sharpl y articulated measure s brings not only the movement to a climactic close but completes the entire cycle of four-bar phrases in m.502 on not a 'one' but a 'three,' leaving open th e theoretica l possibility that the entire cycle could start all over again with the 'four' of m.l. After th e rigorousl y perfecte d structurin g o f th e firs t movement , th e secon d movement, Andante co n moto, wit h it s lovely, song-like themati c material , pro-

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 15

9

vides a welcome contrast—perhap s eve n relief . Relief i n th e sens e that , nestlin g between th e relentles s drive and co n brio of the Allegro and th e a t times mysterious, eve n spectral , at othe r time s roug h an d impetuou s Scherz o (whic h i s then extended withou t a brea k int o th e tumultuou s triumphan t Finale) , anothe r tightly constructe d movemen t woul d hav e mad e th e entir e wor k almost beyon d endurance, emotiona l a s well a s physical . As it is , the secon d movement , wit h its "tender melodi c sentiment " (a s John Bur k called it 39 ) an d expressiv e simplicity, offer s th e perfec t counterpoise t o it s mighty surroundings. But eve n here , i n thi s gentler , calme r music , ther e i s a n underton e o f ur gency, o f tension , o f motion—a t least ther e should b e i n performance . Thi s i s clearly indicate d b y the word s con moto i n Beethoven' s temp o headin g an d th e metronome mar k o f Jl = 92 . And ye t i t i s this underlyin g element (beyon d all questions o f exterio r detail ) whic h i s mos t consistentl y ignore d o r rejecte d b y conductors i n rendition s o f thi s movement . I n m y samplin g o f recording s onl y Harnoncourt honore d Beethoven' s metronom e marking , althoug h a fe w others came withi n range: Leibowitz at J> = 88 , Dohnanyi an d Norringto n a t Jl = 86 , the tw o Kleiber s an d Mengelber g a t J ^ = 84 . Mos t conductor s settle d fo r a leisurel y Jl = 80 , includin g Toscanini , Suitner , Reiner , Karajan , Bernstein , Weingartner, DeSabata , Ashkenazy , Strauss , Boult , an d Wand . Al l th e other s 'interpreted' th e movemen t i n sluggis h tempo s aroun d th e lo w o r middl e 70s , with Walter, Krips , and Solt i on the lugubriou s side with an adagio-like Ji = 66 , and Stokowsk i with a 'schmaltzy' J^ = 60 . Gardiner, on the othe r hand, drives the music too fast, most of the time around Jl = 100 . Some readers will immediately protest: 'Oh, Schuller , here, yo u go again with Beethoven's damnabl e metronom e markings . W e don't eve n kno w whether the y are authentic ; they'r e probabl y a mistake . Anyway , it' s to o mechanica l an d aca demic t o follo w rigidl y those metronomics. ' Several responses come to mind. First, we don't ¿now—meaning know for sure — that Beethoven's metronomic s are inaccurate and noi what he really intended. Sec ond, workin g within a composer' s metronomi c indication s doe s no t necessarily lead to 'mechanical,' 'academic' performances, as a number of inspired recordings that respect composers' tempo marking s can attest.40 'Mechanical,' 'academic' performances resul t fro m ba d conducting , no t 'incorrect ' —or fo r tha t matte r 'cor rect'—tempos. Third, why is it that the protester s of Beethoven's metronom e indi cations protest selectively; why do the y accep t many—mos t o f the slowe r ones — and ignor e the fast(er) ones? Fourth—and thi s i s the mos t importan t point—i f conductor s (an d othe r per formers) wis h to ignore Beethoven' s metronom e markings , so be it . But how ca n 39. Joh n N . Burk , The Life an d Works o f Beethoven (Ne w York, 1935) , p . 279 . 40. Ver y fe w recordings , obviously , o f this movement , sinc e non e (excep t Harnoncourt' s an d Lei bowitz's, perhaps) respect Beethoven' s metronom e markings. But there ar e any number o f recordings of variou s movement s an d work s b y an y numbe r o f composer s in which , contrar y t o th e prevailing 'tradition' to ignor e th e metronom e markings , some conductor s have adhered to them an d produced performances tha t ar e anythin g but 'mechanical ' an d 'academic. '

160

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

they dar e t o ignor e hi s temp o headings , i n thi s cas e andante co n moto, no t jus t andante. (Not e also that in mos t cases Beethoven's metronom e marking s are con firmation an d illustratio n of hi s temp o headings. ) I n Italia n andante co n moto clearly means 'i n a walking tempo with motion.' I t seems t o me tha t th e messag e thereby given i s unequivocal an d shoul d b e heeded , especiall y when i t is a great master like Beethoven who i s instructing us. I wan t t o mak e i t clea r tha t I attach primar y importance t o th e verbal tempo heading, whic h i n th e cas e o f mos t grea t composer s i s remarkably precise an d refined, an d i n m y vie w t o b e truste d a s muc h a s o r perhap s eve n mor e tha n the metronomizations . Thi s approac h als o allow s u s t o dea l effectivel y wit h those composers—lik e Brahms , Schubert , Debussy , an d Strauss—wh o rarel y or never use d metronom e markings . On th e othe r hand , wher e th e metronomic s corroborate th e verbalize d tempo indications , as in th e cas e o f Beethoven's "Andante co n moto, J > = 92, " i t seems to m e w e ought t o be doubl y eager to respec t those indications . Indeed, thi s movement , whe n playe d at or near the designate d tempo, reveal s a very different characte r an d feelin g from wha t on e usuall y gets in th e typica l conventional performance . I t is , in fact , no t a 'slo w movement ' a t all, whic h seem s t o b e th e standar d interpretation , I suspect , o n th e basi s tha t 'this i s a symphony , and i t must therefor e have a slo w movement . I t i s merely a 'somewha t slower ' movement , no t onl y i n tha t it s tempo i s slower than tha t of the firs t movemen t (fro m 10 8 pe r bea t t o 92) , bu t fo r muc h o f it s duratio n it s beats (eighth-notes ) are no t furthe r subdivide d into faste r rhythms . Thus Beetho ven achieve s a significan t degre e o f relaxation by both slowin g down th e temp o and adherin g generally to the broade r rhythmi c units . Seen i n this light, Beetho ven's tempo i s already sufficiently differentiate d from it s surrounding movement s as to requir e n o furthe r 'improvement ' fro m performers . But further , of even greate r impor t i s the fac t tha t Beethoven' s andante them e in it s melodic contou r outline s a pitch progressio n fro m C vi a D I» to & (point s x,y,z i n Ex . 25) . The temp o mus t no t imped e o r imperi l one' s perceptio n of— i.e. one's abilit y to hear—the melodi c (an d implied harmonic) motion containe d in thi s themati c line . I n tha t connection , th e f dynami c i n m. 7 underscore s

Ex. 2 5

41. I t is not ofte n enoug h remembere d tha t Beethoven' s initia l intention wa s to cal l this movemen t Andante quasi menuetto. And conductor s wh o thin k o f this movemen t a s a slo w movement shoul d be reminde d that Beethoven's Seventh Symphon y doesn't hav e a 'slo w movement " either . Bu t the n such conductor s ar e no t likel y t o hee d Beethoven' s allegretto ( J = 76 ) temp o i n tha t cas e either, evidenced b y th e fac t tha t i f ther e i s a temp o markin g that i s mor e abuse d tha n Beethoven' s Fift h Symphony Andante, i t i s the Allegretto o f the Sevent h Symphony .

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 16

1

the arriva l poin t (El> ) o f th e melodic/harmoni c progression . And ho w ofte n thi s remarkable f i s ignored o r suppresse d o r otherwis e adulterated ! Let m e ad d les t I b e misunderstood , I a m no t suggestin g tha t th e f s i n mm . 7,9,11 ar e hard hitting, aggressiv e fs, bu t rathe r firml y expressive , lyric fs, t o b e playe d wit h a certain warmt h an d 'cordiality ' — in effec t a forte dolce. Indeed, temp o an d dynamic s are th e tw o elements mos t ofte n disregarde d in performances o f thi s movement , thi s despit e th e fac t tha t thes e ar e th e mos t unusual an d origina l aspects o f the piece . I n man y recordings , for example, th e theme i n th e viola s and cello s i s played mf (o r mp) wit h a thick , heav y sound — what on e criti c ha s calle d a n "industria l strength " sound—that , whe n also played a t to o slow a tempo , completel y falsifie s thi s theme' s discree t artfulnes s and simpl e elegance . I t i s not fo r lac k of craf t o r harmoni c sensibilit y that Bee thoven chos e no t t o harmoniz e th e them e i n conventiona l four-par t voicing . It is precisely its Handelian o r Haydnesqu e two-line simplicity that give s thi s statement it s utte r nobility . I t i s simple two-par t counterpoint, elevate d t o th e leve l of a deeply felt lyri c theme. All that is needed i n performance s is a light, discreet p sound , rhythm s tha t ar e clearl y and accuratel y articulate d (withi n th e slurs) , no extraneou s dynamic nuancin g (lik e —= : := - ) — and Beethoven' s perfectly cho sen note s wil l d o th e rest . Bu t onl y si x conductors i n ou r samplin g hono r Bee thoven's dynamics : Haitink, the tw o Kleibers , Strauss, Gardiner, an d Brüggen. 42 Toscanini almos t does , producin g a n elegant , nobl e p i n th e firs t si x measures, a healthy fin m.7 , but then disbelieve s Beethoven's sustaine d fand diminuendo s to th e nex t p . Other s com e close , deliverin g a fin e p dolce, bu t ar e seemingl y afraid o f Beethoven' s sudde n f i n m.7 , reducin g i t t o m p o r mf . Thi s include s Furtwängler, Boult , Böhm , Suitner , an d Solti . Others , lik e Maazel, Masur , Co lin Davis , Ansermet , allo w a kin d o f creepin g crescend o i n th e firs t si x bars, especially wher e ther e ar e tw o bows per ba r (m.4,5—thre e i n m.6 ) whic h agai n works t o annu l th e sudde n f o f m.7. Eve n wors e are thos e who fee l th e nee d fo r a thick , heavy syrupy m f or m p i n th e firs t si x bars—Weingartner, Wand, Masur , Stokowski, Ashkenazy , Krips , Karajan , Walter , Giulini , Bernstei n (Bernstein' s and Stokowski' s ar e th e thickest)—for , b y goin g i n thi s direction , the y com pletely vitiate Beethoven's intende d an d surprisin g dynamic contrast in m.7 . All such 'interpretations ' undermin e Beethoven' s remarkabl y refined, original, and sophisticate d us e o f dynamics in thi s movement , flattenin g ou t th e music' s extraordinary dynamic contours to the poin t o f blandness (see Exx. 26a,b below). For example , th e thre e importan t &s i n mm.7 , 9 , and 1 1 ar e al l differentl y set . Measures 7 an d 9 bot h hav e fs followe d by subito p's i n m. 8 an d m . 10. However, m.9 slurs into m . 10, while m.7 doe s no t int o m.8 . The differenc e i s subtle, 42. Bu t Brüggen is otherwise disappointing i n this theme for, although h e start s the viola s and cello s at J ) = 92 , b y th e fift h measur e h e ha s droppe d t o J > = 76 . I t i s hard t o tel l fro m th e recordin g whether th e musician s i n th e orchestr a pulle d hi m back , preferrin g th e mor e leisurel y tempo, an d he simpl y followed them , o r whethe r Brüggen purposely or inadvertentl y change d temp o afte r on e or tw o bars . Bruggen' s performanc e o f th e entir e movemen t i s quit e errati c i n term s o f tempo , vascillating ofte n betwee n a lo w o f J ^ = 6 4 t o a hig h o f J) = 84 . I t neve r docs achieve th e origina l Beethoven temp o o f J) = 92 .

162 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

but significant—and , whe n don e right , perceptible an d meaningful . Measur e 1 1 is differen t again , in tha t her e th e f doe s hav e a diminuendo . D o th e conductor s who mak e thei r diminuendo s i n mm. 7 an d 9 reall y think tha t Beethove n didn' t know what he wa s doing, o r simply forgot the diminuendos ? O r t o put th e ques tion anothe r way : if Beethove n write s a diminuend o i n m.ll , wh y doe s i t no t occur t o thes e conductor s tha t mm. 7 an d 9 , wher e ther e i s none, ough t t o b e played withou t diminuendo ? D o the y no t se e th e beaut y an d originalit y of this subtle differentiation ? An d wh y d o the y overloo k the fac t tha t ther e ar e a t least five othe r instance s o f one-ba r f t o p diminuendo s i n th e movemen t (mm.37 , 60, 86 , 195 , 219)? Proo f enough , I shoul d think , tha t whe n ther e i s no diminu endo indicated , w e performers ough t no t t o mak e one . These ma y seem lik e simple, eve n naive , questions t o some. Bu t they ar e no t merely hypothetical o r rhetorical; they are based o n har d performanc e evidence. And th e fac t tha t suc h question s hav e t o b e asked , reflect s th e sa d stat e o f th e aesthetics (an d ethics ) o f conducting. I t also reflects th e wid e latitud e i n musica l self-discipline betwee n conductor s an d orchestra l musicians . Th e latte r woul d be severel y chastise d b y mos t conductor s i f the y allowe d themselve s a vagran t diminuendo o r a n arbitrar y ritardando o r an y othe r willfu l deviation , an d ye t a conductor i s allowe d suc h liberties , whethe r take n consciousl y o r inadver tently.43 It i s amazing ho w man y distortion s and deviation s conductors ar e capabl e o f visiting upo n thi s simple , innocen t theme . Perhap s i t i s it s ver y simplicit y that disturbs conductors , wh o fee l the y hav e t o 'dres s i t up, ' 'improv e o n it. ' Fo r example, Nikisc h virtually recomposes mm.7-1 1 (Ex . 26a).

Ex. 26a

Ex. 26 b

Walter (thi s time wit h th e Columbi a Symphony ) recompose s i t anothe r way (Ex. 26b) , havin g als o in th e first six measures gotten th e musician s to play sixty43. A telling exampl e of this double standard can b e hear d o n a recording of Bruno Walter rehearsing th e firs t tw o movement s o f the Beethove n Fifth wit h a n unname d orchestr a (actually , the Lo s Angeles Philharmonic) . The viola s an d cello s pla y i

n m.7 . Walte r stop s

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 16

3

fourths (instea d o f thirty-seconds), probabl y because hi s tempo (J > = 66 ) was so slow tha t th e thirty-seconds , whe n playe d correctl y i n tha t tempo , seeme d to o leisurely an d pedantic , eve n t o him . I t seemingl y neve r occurre d t o Walter tha t the wa y to fix this proble m wa s to speed u p hi s basic tempo, at which th e thirty seconds woul d hav e bee n jus t right . I t i s also amazin g ho w man y conductor s — among the m Strauss , Koussevitzky , Ansermet, Karajan , an d (th e usuall y meticu lous) Eric h Kleiber—hav e aske d fo r th e C i n m. l t o b e playe d tenuto, whe n Beethoven ha s clearl y marke d thi s not e wit h a staccato dot— a note , i n othe r words, t o b e gentl y lifted . Just a s amazing—an d disturbing—i s th e fac t tha t scarcel y anyon e play s th e pick-up note s ( ) i n mm. 8 an d 1 0 p; the y ar e usuall y rendere d a t variou s louder dynamics , mostl y mf . Hav e no t an y o f the man y conductor s wh o as k for this deviatio n (o r allow it) realized tha t thi s upbeat gestur e i n p , followe d imme diately b y a n expressiv e f, i s very dea r t o Beethoven' s heart , a s witnessed b y th e fact tha t i t not onl y recur s (i n a modifie d form ) i n m.5 7 an d m.59 , but i s reiterated twic e mor e i n eve n mor e dramati c dynami c contrast s (p p t o f f ) i n mm.28 29, 77-78 ? The nex t performanc e proble m appear s i n th e woodwin d phrase , mm . 11-15. It i s no t know n t o m e wh o starte d th e ba d traditio n o f separatin g mm . 11-1 4 into fou r disjunc t one-ba r phrases , makin g caesura s a t th e en d o f eac h bar . I t was probably Billow, wh o wa s fond o f making such phras e separation s an d sprin kling hi s performance s wit h innumerabl e tin y pauses—Luftpausen i n German . Weingartner describe s thi s i n Über da s Dirigieren,^ an d chastise s Billo w fo r i t but the n —in th e woodwin d phras e her e unde r discussion—himsel f make s pre cisely suc h phras e separation s i n hi s ow n recordings . Man y o f the earlie r con ductors imitat e thi s ba d tradition—Nikisch , Mengelberg , Jochum , Koussevitzky, Reiner, Walter , Szell , surprisingl y Toscanini, an d DeSabata , Kempe , Solti , an d even 'modern ' conductor s lik e Gardiner , Harnoncourt , an d Norrington— a tradi tion which , I am happ y to note, ha s for the mos t par t been stampe d ou t i n mor e recent times . Not e th e beautifu l lin e Haitink , fo r example, achieve s here . Speaking o f thi s descendin g line , i t i s rarel y realize d b y flutists , clarinetists , and conductor s tha t th e Dl > an d Bl > i n mm . 12-13 ar e written-ou t appoggiaturas. Had Beethove n wante d t o merel y imitat e mm.7-10 , h e woul d hav e writ ten i

n mm . 11—13. Th e appoggiatur a mus t b e fel t

and playe d a s such , tha t is , leaning o n th e firs t not e i n mm . 12-13. I t i s quit e wrong t o play , as many d o o r are urge d t o do , At the en d o f this phras e (recurrin g three mor e time s i n mm.60-64 , 195-99 , and tell s them t o pla y f "withou t a diminuendo, " then sing s th e passage , making a bi g diminuend o himself—exactly wha t the musician s had playe d in th e first place. Walter seem s t o hav e been totall y unaware o f hi s ow n contradiction. 44. (1905) , p . 38 ; (1913), p. 3 4

164 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

219-23), th e secon d clarine t shoul d pla y it s rhyth m ( )

clearly agains t th e

flute's rhyth m ( ) , i.e . no t converte d int o sixteent h triplets , as man y conduc tors hav e demande d o r allowe d (fo r example, Furtwängler , Mengelberg , Boult , Koussevitzky, Maazel , Szell , Solti , Masur) . Othe r conductor s (Giulini , Anser met, Klemperer , Steinberg , Gardiner , Brügge n —even th e usuall y exemplar y Haitink) allo w thi s littl e not e t o b e swallowed , becomin g virtuall y inaudible , especially i n th e severa l paralle l viola/firs t bassoo n passages. 45 I f conductor s question Beethoven' s rhythmi c notatio n her e ( agains t) , the y ar e advised t o note that Beethove n i n thi s entire movement i s constantly juxtaposing these tw o rhythmic cells. 46 Obviousl y all canno t b e accident s o r mistakes. The las t not e (m.15 ) o f th e woodwin d phras e i s ofte n hel d to o long , mos t commonly a s _ , o r eve n (a s with Reiner, Karajan , Ma sur, Giulini , an d Walter) . No w thi s ma y see m lik e a 'musical, ' 'sensitive ' wa y of ending th e phrase , roundin g i t off , as i t were, t o lin k u p bette r wit h the incom ing strings . Bu t i t i s wrong ; i t i s wron g (a ) becaus e Beethove n i s absolutel y consistent throughou t th e movemen t i n endin g al l hi s phrase s wit h a n eighth note (mm.19 , 20 , 31 , 199 , 242 , etc.—eve n m.22 , afte r th e previou s sixteenths); and (b ) becaus e th e rest s i n thi s musi c ar e no t arbitrary , accidenta l gap s t o b e somehow filled in; they ar e not 'empty ' moments , bu t a n importan t an d integra l part of the music . The silence s in rests are o f vital importance i n al l great music; they ar e th e place s wher e th e musi c breathes , an d wher e i t flexes itself . The y are als o ofte n th e window s int o th e structure , int o th e 'building, ' o f the music . These window s mus t no t b e boarde d up ; silence s mus t no t b e devalued . Th e temptation t o elongat e fina l phras e note s befor e a res t i s al l th e greate r whe n the temp o take n i s too slow : i t obviousl y makes the res t also too long , an d ther e is then th e greate r temptation t o fill in tha t rest . The nex t phrase (in the strings , mm. 15-19) generally fares no t muc h bette r i n performance. Th e tendenc y here is for the violin s to crescendo o n the thre e ana crusis notes in m.15, particularly whe n using an up-bow. An even greater temptation exist s in m. 16, where many conductors and strin g sections are wont to make a premature crescendo. Bu t the originalit y of Beethoven's conceptio n lie s precisely in the fac t that this phrase crescendos dramatically from p to fin on e measure, no t the tw o or two and a half measures most performances offer ou t o f sheer laziness or inattention . Again , Beethoven's creativ e imagination i s at it s most vivi d i n th e way he has enriched thi s phrase with dynamic variety and contras t (Ex . 27).

Ex. 2 7

45. Measure s 18 , 67, 202 , 203 . 46. Se e mm.26 , 33 , 158-62 , 238-39 .

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 16

5

While th e secon d movemen t o f Beethoven' s Fift h i s mor e spaciou s i n it s design and flowin g melodi" c lines , less rigorous in it s patterning an d les s involved &O Or O with minut e —one migh t almos t sa y mosaic—construction tha n th e firs t move ment, i t i s nonetheles s planne d ou t i n a marvelous , grandl y logica l form . Bee thoven ma y no t hav e calle d th e movemen t Variations' — it i s not strictl y speaking i n a conventiona l 'them e an d variations ' form—bu t i t i s nevertheles s essentially variationa l i n conception , a s th e forma l analysi s i n Fig . 4 easil y demonstrates. I t shoul d b e note d tha t wha t I hav e calle d th e 'theme ' i s itsel f

Fig. 4

Theme Var.

I Var.I

lI |

I

2z 1 1 A4 B C A B CC ¡A A 2 A' A'A ,! mm. 1-22 mm.22-3 mm.22-3 11 mm.31-49imm.49-7 mm.31-49imm.49-7 1 mm.71-8 0 mm.80-98 i mm.98-123 mm.124-14 7 mm.147-16 6 |l I

AB

CC

¡A

Var.III Cod

A5 A mm.166-184 mm.184-20

6

a 7

A 5 mm.205-22 mm.205-22

2z

B

88 mm.229-24 mm.229-24

7

divided int o thre e themati c segments , an d tha t B i s itself but a variation of A by way o f bot h contractio n an d expansio n (se e Ex . 28) , an d C a variatio n o f B

Ex. 2 8

(mostly b y wa y o f orchestratio n an d transpositio n (fro m A! > t o C major) . Als o notice tha t i n wha t I hav e calle d Variatio n I , onl y th e firs t par t o f A i s significantly altered , whil e B an d C remai n virtuall y unchange d (wit h bu t mino r rhythmic alterations) . Variatio n I I undergoe s mor e extensiv e modifications . Th e first part o f A i s varied thre e time s i n thre e immediatel y contiguou s variations , featuring i n successio n violas/cello s (m.98) , firs t violin s (m.106) , cellos/basse s (m.114). B an d C no w als o underg o substantia l alterations , mos t dramaticall y C, whic h i s stretche d fro m it s binar y (two-bar ) structurin g t o a ternar y (three bar) phrasing . I n Variatio n III , Beethove n take s u s t o A b mino r (th e onl y tim e in th e movement ) an d a t m.18 4 int o a gran d canoni c interpla y betwee n uppe r strings an d woodwinds . A7, which i n par t relate s to B' i n Variatio n II, is unique in th e movement' s over-al l schem e i n tha t i t i s broke n u p int o tw o tempos , a più moto an d a tempo primo. Th e coda' s B 2 i s initiall y ye t anothe r variant , a new fusion , o f the origina l A an d B .

166 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

That is the gran d schem e o f the movemen t i n it s largest, boldest outlines . O n a smaller , mor e detailed , phras e level , w e se e constructio n i n lon g eight-ba r phrases—long b y compariso n wit h th e four-ba r structurin g o f th e firs t move ment. Bu t w e als o fin d a numbe r o f seven-ba r phrases , eve n on e eleven-ba r phrase. Bu t mos t o f thes e asymmetrica l phrasing s ar e th e resul t o f contractio n (Verkürzung) o r expansio n (Dehnung). Thi s freer , irregular , more flexibl e struc turing als o contribute s t o th e music' s sens e o f looseness, o f spontaneous, almos t improvised invention . In m.2 3 tw o performanc e problem s arise . On e i s th e balanc e i n th e tw o woodwind pairs , specificall y th e balanc e o f th e secon d player s wit h th e firs t players. Only rarel y does one hea r these secon d player s —no matter wha t orchestra—match th e first s dynamicall y i n tru e balance d duets , a fac t born e ou t b y virtually al l th e recording s I hav e sampled . Someho w thi s passag e (mm.23—26 ) is generall y interprete d a s 'solos ' fo r firs t clarine t an d firs t bassoon , o n th e on e hand becaus e thes e player s usuall y take th e initiativ e i n tha t direction , an d o n the othe r han d becaus e ver y fe w conductors hea r th e resultan t imbalanc e an d therefore se e n o reaso n t o mak e a correction. 47 I t also result s from a widespread tendency amon g a majorit y o f conductor s t o conduc t an d hea r onl y 'th e mel ody,' rarel y hearin g an d balancin g th e harmonies . O f course , whe n th e fou r woodwinds ar e blende d o n a recordin g int o a well-balance d quartet , i t i s no t always possibl e t o ascrib e thi s succes s t o th e conductor ; i t ma y simpl y b e tha t the respectiv e secon d player s instinctivel y knew tha t the y shoul d balanc e wit h the firsts , an d th e conductor , awar e o r unaware , accepte d thi s gift . I t ma y als o be that th e conducto r actuall y asked for the instrument s t o balance, bu t withou t being presen t a t the rehearsals , it i s impossible t o deduc e fro m a recordin g wh o should receiv e th e credi t fo r th e righ t balance . I n an y case , onl y i n ver y fe w performances wer e thes e balance s right , those o f Haitink, Krips , Carlos Kleiber, Solti, an d Bernstein . Another problem i n this phrase result s from a mistake in the printe d scor e an d parts, as compared wit h Beethoven's manuscript . In mm . 2 3 and 2 5 (a s well as in m.72 and m.74 ) the woodwinds' slu r should en d wit h the third eighth, whil e the violins' slu r as printed al l three note s on on e bow . Beethove n was—agai n subtly, imaginatively—confirming th e differentiatio n between th e woodwinds ' quarter notes an d th e violins ' eighths i n m.2 4 an d m.26 . I n thi s connection , w e shoul d note that Beethoven has no crescendo indication s in mm. 2 3—26, either per two-bar phrase o r over-all in thes e four-ba r phrases. Yet the vas t majority o f performances contain suc h crescendo s —trivializing the passag e with an obviou s emotionalism that i s far removed fro m th e almos t unearthl y stillnes s and held-bac k tensio n th e phrase ha s when playe d without crescendoing—particularl y when the n followed by the powerfu l ff outcr y of mm.29-31. Finally, some conductors (Strauss , DeSabata, Boult , Toscanini, Norrington, and 47. Thi s i s a good exampl e o f why I described the ea r a s the servan t of the mind, of the intelligenec, in Par t I o f this book. N o matte r how physiologicall y shar p th e ea r is , it cannot (wil l not ) hea r what it i s ignorant of, what the min d ha s no t tol d th e ea r t o hear.

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y

167

Schuricht) like to move the tempo up a notch o r two at m.23, mostly, I suspect, so that they can broaden the tempo agai n with the /fin m.3 2 for greater 'effect.' 48 I n my opinio n Beethove n create s enoug h contrast s in texture , dynamic levels, an d orchestration t o mak e an y adjustments in temp o quit e unnecessary. Indeed, a s I have already pointed out , since these two phrases comprise identical thematic an d harmonic material , it ought t o be our obligatio n to present it in the sam e tempo , precisely to let all other Beethoven-inspired variations and change s be clearly, undistractedly heard. As mentioned before , the sudden dynamic contrasts of mm.7, 9, and 1 1 are reintroduced in mm.28-9, this time not fro m p to f, but p p to ff, a stunning effect rarely rendered correctly, alas. In m.30 (and the analogous m.79) the staccato dot on the dotted sixteent h i s an engravin g error, not containe d i n Beethoven' s manuscript . But th e tw o succeedin g eighth-note s d o hav e staccat o dots , whil e th e note s i n mm.32 an d 3 4 do not ; an d thu s th e latte r shoul d be playe d in a well-articulated but sustaine d manner. This i s necessary to mention since , once again , numerous conductors wh o hav e no t truste d Beethoven' s notation , hav e cause d th e brass , oboes, an d lo w string s t o pla y staccato i n thi s triumphan t passag e (Nikisch , Mengelberg, Boult , Thomas, an d Walter among them).49 48. Straus s eve n crescendo s throug h th e fou r measure s 23-26 , onl y t o correc t himsel f wit h a n exaggerated p p a t the en d o f m.26. A word o n Straus s a s a conductor, especiall y o f other composers ' works, ma y b e appropriat e here . Th e receive d wisdo m abou t hi s conductin g ha s alway s been tha t he wa s a musicia n give n t o fast , bright , no-nonsens e tempos , t o inexorabl e temp o steadines s an d control, t o a certai n 'coolness ' o f expression, espousin g i n genera l th e 'ne w objectivity ' o f the 1920s . The evidenc e o f his recordings , however , tell s u s tha t thi s i s all a myth , a myt h probabl y promul gated a s muc h b y himsel f a s b y observer s o r admirers . Hi s recording s sho w tha t h e wa s i n fac t a highly errati c an d willfu l interpreter , especiall y i n matter s o f tempo. I can thin k o f only tw o conductors wh o coul d outd o Straus s i n temp o deviations : Stokowsk i an d Bernstein , an d perhap s w e ca n add Mengelberg . The secon d movemen t o f Beethoven' s Fift h i s a strikin g example o f Strauss' s waywar d wa y wit h tempos. I n thi s movemen t alon e I coun t fourtee n majo r temp o changes , a s th e followin g tabl e shows. (Th e othe r movement s ar e no t muc h steadier) .

m.l J > = 80 m.12 4 J ^ = 84 m.19 m.23 J > = 90 m.13 2 J l = 96 (m.20 m.32 J i = 82 m.14 1 }> = 10 6 m.21 m.50 J ) = 86 m.14 8 J l = 76 m.22 m.72 J ) = 90 m.19 1 J > = 84 m.24 m.81 J > = 82 (Beethoven's metronom e markin g i s Jl = 92.)

6 J > = 78 5 J> = 1,06 ) 9 J l = 70 9 J ) = 78 5 hug e ritar d

49. T o giv e the m th e benefi t o f th e doubt , the y ma y hav e bee n influence d b y th e timpan i part , since i t i s difficul t (thoug h no t impossible ) t o pla y long-sustaine d note s o n th e timpani . Germa n timpanists generall y play wit h a dr y har d sound—mor e s o i n earlie r days—an d i t ma y b e tha t th e conductors jus t mentioned , facin g tha t reality , fel t tha t th e bras s shoul d the n matc h th e timpani . I should mentio n i n thi s connectio n tha t mos t printe d score s contai n a n erro r i n th e timpan i part : the sf s i n mm.35 , 3 6 should b e place d o n th e firs t beat , no t o n th e thir d (similarl y i n mm.84 , 85).

168 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

I cautio n her e agains t another ba d tradition , namely, that o f playing m.31 in a 'stop-and-go' manner , that is, a big cadencing slow-down on the first two eighths of the measure, then a fresh pick-u p in the brass on the third eighth. It is a much mor e exciting realizatio n of Beethoven's intention s her e t o keep th e temp o movin g i n m.31, to connect (no t separate) the tw o C major/ f s (mm.30/31 and m.32) , and to clarify and maintain the thematic lin k between m.2 3 and m.32. (Listen to Dohnanyi's recording to savor the ful l effectivenes s of this.) As already mentioned, man y conductors lik e to broaden th e temp o dramaticall y at m.32 , some (lik e Karajan , Knappertsbusch, Suitner , Ashkenazy , Colin Davis , an d Hogwood ) eve n —quite unmusically—already at m.29 or m.30; while others prefer t o noticeably brighte n the tempo. Those who broaden at m.32 argue that doing so heightens the 'majestic ' effect o f the passage . These include , apart fro m th e conductor s jus t mentioned , Strauss, Bernstein , and Sol d (th e last-named , alread y at a dangerousl y slow basic tempo o f Jl = 68 , slows to a ponderous 6 2 at m.32). Those, o n th e othe r hand , who pres s forward her e believ e a faste r temp o help s t o heighten th e effec t o f the bright C majo r sun g forth b y the bras s and timpani , givin g the passag e its 'necessary' urgency . (Included , a s might b e expected , ar e Toscanini , DeSabata , Ansermet, and Stokowski) . As suggested, neither approach i s valid or 'necessary.' Beetho ven ha s compose d enoug h contras t an d dram a int o th e passag e t o mak e an y obvious additional 'improvements' quite superfluous. The tw o crucia l performanc e problem s th e conducto r mus t addres s i n mm.32-37 ar e (1 ) th e over-al l balance an d (2 ) th e rhythm s i n mm.33 , 35 , 36. We shoul d recal l tha t th e bras s instrument s o f Beethoven' s Vienn a i n th e earl y 19th centur y were no t a s brilliant and powerfull y penetratin g a s the bras s instruments o f today. I t wa s therefore no t unreasonabl e —certainly no t a cas e of'ba d instrumentation'—on Beethoven' s par t t o pai r th e oboe s her e wit h th e bras s and timpani , give n als o Beethoven' s customar y habi t o f almos t alway s usin g uniform dynamic s fo r al l instrument s i n a give n measure . Bu t a goo d balanc e in mm.32-3 7 ca n b e easil y managed i f the conducto r admonishe s th e bras s not to pla y their absolut e loudes t (whic h a ff seem s alway s t o signa l t o mos t bras s players) and , o n th e othe r hand , t o encourag e th e oboe s t o giv e their all . Oboe players, especiall y seasone d ones , lon g ag o havin g give n u p tryin g to b e hear d here, ar e pron e t o 'tak e i t easy ' o r i n som e case s no t pla y at all , jus t appea r t o be playing . This problem reache s reall y ridiculous proportions when conductor s (Karajan, fo r one ) hav e th e ide a o f doublin g th e bras s in thi s symphony . Then truly al l hop e i s lost fo r th e oboists . The secon d proble m her e i s differentiating clearly between th e tw o rhythmic layers: th e triplet s i n th e uppe r string s an d th e martia l dotte d sixteenth - thirtysecond rhythm s of the res t of the orchestra . This usuall y takes a little rehearsin g (as wel l as the conductor' s fir m hand) , an d i s best achieve d whe n th e tw o disparate rhythmi c force s d o no t liste n t o eac h other , bu t simpl y maintain thei r ow n appropriate rhythms . I t i s als o wort h mentionin g that , again , a s i n mm.23—26 , the pair s o f wind s (oboes , trumpets, horns ) should balanc e dynamically . It de tracts tremendousl y fro m th e magnificen t ful l effec t o f thi s musi c whe n th e second players , who afte r al l supply the all-importan t harmony, are weake r than

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 16

9

the firsts . I n th e innumerabl e recording s I hav e analyzed , onl y i n a ver y few were th e instrument s properl y matched an d balance d here . Conductors shoul d kno w tha t th e diminuendo s i n th e bras s i n mm.37—3 8 — innocent lookin g enoug h i n th e score—ar e ver y hard t o produce withou t losing the intonation . I t is up t o th e players , of course, t o maste r thi s problem , bu t fo r the conductor—particularl y th e inexperience d conductor—wh o migh t b e quic k to berat e hi s players , it i s well t o kno w tha t a long-sustained , eve n diminuend o from f f t o p p i s one o f the mos t difficul t thing s (technically ) t o achiev e o n win d instruments. A smil e o f encouragemen t work s bette r her e tha n a frown . Th e players will in fac t appreciat e i t enormously i f the conducto r indicate s hi s awareness o f the technica l difficultie s here . The nex t phras e (mm.39-48 ) i s one o f th e mos t magica l moment s i n al l o f music, a harmoni c progressio n o f such darin g (fo r its time) a s only a Beethove n (or a Mozart ) coul d hav e produced . Bu t th e ful l effectivenes s of thi s passag e depends mos t cruciall y on bein g playe d no t onl y with a true p p bu t a soft velvety sonority. Onl y a quiet , war m sul tasto soun d wil l ensur e th e hushe d rap t moo d and th e beautifu l stillnes s o f thi s extraordinar y passage—th e feelin g tha t th e music i s motionles s bu t no t inert . Ver y fe w conductor s see m t o kno w ho w t o achieve thi s specia l mood , bu t Nikisch , Strauss , Reiner , th e tw o Kleibers, Knappertsbusch, Karajan , Schuricht , Dorati , Dohnanyi , an d Haitin k ar e notabl e an d welcome exceptions . (Incidentally , Harnoncour t her e slow s dow n t o a stati c J1) = 60 , dow n 3 2 points fro m hi s basi c (good ) J^ = 92. ) In mm.48-4 9 car e mus t b e take n tha t th e thre e E^' s (viola/cello , bassoons, clarinet) ar e produce d wit h equivalen t fs . O n mos t o f th e recording s sample d the bassoon s wer e substantiall y weaker (softer ) tha n th e othe r instruments . Since mm.49—6 1 ar e a variant o f mm.1—11, i t stands t o reaso n tha t th e gratu itous interpretationa l libertie s take n b y certai n conductor s ther e wil l b e perpe trated again . These include a heavy, fat mp o r mffor th e viola s and cello s (rather than a n elegant , elegia c p); th e creepin g crescend o whic h annul s the subito fin m.56; th e softenin g o f th e stron g dynami c contrast s i n mm.56—61 : al l t o b e rigorously avoided . Wha t i s new an d problemati c i n thi s passage—th e proble m will com e bac k agai n i n mm.98-10 5 —is th e pizzicat o accompaniment . Th e danger her e is—an d dozen s o f recordings prov e this—tha t th e violi n pizzicato s will b e to o soft , eve n barel y audible , relativ e t o th e bass' s pizzicato , unles s th e violinists ar e cautione d t o pla y a littl e louder , conceptually , say , mp , an d wit h what strin g player s cal l a 'full ' o r a 'deep ' pizzicato . Thi s is , o f course , no t a problem limite d t o thi s passag e i n Beethoven' s Fifth ; i t ca n appl y t o literall y thousands o f pizzicat o passage s i n th e literature , simpl y becaus e w e ar e con fronted her e wit h a n unalterabl e acousti c phenomenon : namely , tha t the projection o f a pizzicat o depend s i n larg e measur e upo n th e thicknes s o f th e strin g which i s plucked , an d thu s thicker , heavie r strings , a s o n a bas s o r cello , wil l project mor e effectivel y tha n a violi n string . Eve n o n a violi n th e lowes t (an d therefore th e thickest ) G strin g will produc e a loude r pizzicat o than th e uppe r (thinnest) E string . To pu t i t another way , the sam e .amount o f energy in plucking a strin g wil l inherentl y produc e a bigger , mor e projectin g pizzicato on a

170 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

bass strin g than o n a violi n or viol a string . The lesso n t o b e draw n fro m thi s is that a s a rule, especiall y in a p dynamic , violinist s should pla y a little louder an d bassists a littl e softe r t o achiev e th e desire d resul t o f a verticall y balanced pizzi cato throughou t th e strin g section . Conductor s shoul d hea r thi s imbalanc e when i t occurs , bu t i n m y experienc e mos t i n fac t d o not . An d th e recording s sampled i n thi s analysi s bear ou t m y point. Onl y ver y few of Beethoven's beauti fully chose n violi n pizzicat o note s i n mm.49-5 6 ca n b e heard , wherea s th e basses' pizzicato s are uniforml y well represented . A fe w score misprint s i n thi s passag e mus t b e mentioned . Th e clarinet' s slu r should sto p with th e E (writte n Fl) i n m.53 . Bot h bassoon s should pla y i n uni son fro m th e secon d sixteent h i n m . 5 7 t o th e downbea t o f m.59. I n m.5 7 th e last thre e sixteenth s o f the viola s should rea d a s follows : ,

similar

to th e analogou s passag e i n m.8 . Thoug h no t strictl y speaking a misprint , th e woodwinds i n m.5 9 shoul d b e marke d i n scor e an d part s a s follows : th e flut e beginning p, the other s (oboe, clarinets , bassoons) mp beginnin g at the las t three sixteenths. Many conductors , fo r reason s tha t I canno t fathom , hav e i n th e pas t mad e a big ritar d in m.6 0 an d then , eve n mor e ridiculously , an a tempo i n m.61 . Mea sure 6 0 being a variant parallel to m.l 1, the beginning—no t the en d —of a four bar phrase , ther e canno t b e an y justificatio n fo r distortin g Beethoven' s line , as , for example , Coli n Davis , Mengelberg, Furtwängler , an d Klempere r hav e done. (But eve n mor e shockin g ar e th e tw o bad , blatantl y audibl e splice s i n Solti' s Vienna Philharmoni c recordin g a t mm.5 5 an d 61—agai n th e wor k of some fa mous, well-pai d recordin g producer! ) Whatever ha s bee n sai d regardin g mm . 11-38 i s obviously applicable a s well to mm.60-87. Again, special car e shoul d b e take n no t t o swallo w the G' s i n th e second viola s an d firs t bassoo n a t th e en d o f m.67 ; no r shoul d thi s las t bea t diminuendo int o m.68 . Th e proble m o f balanc e an d continuit y mentione d i n connection wit h m.48 recur s i n m.97 , but i n a differen t version . Here th e clari nets ar e ap t t o soun d wea k relative to th e triple d bassoons , violas, and cellos . In mm.98-104 , i f th e viola s an d cello s pla y a tru e ligh t p dolce, an d th e violins' pizzicato s —especially the sixteenths , these perhap s eve n wit h th e slight est accent—are rebalanced , Beethoven' s intention s wil l b e full y realized . One o f the symphony' s most heavenl y passages, mm. 105-14, i s unfortunately rarely rendere d i n a 'heavenly ' manner . An d agai n i t i s simply a matte r o f con ductors and player s not following Beethoven's explici t instructions. While almost everyone make s the subito pp a t m.l05 —only Strauss , Koussevitzky, Walter, an d the earl y music specialist s Norrington, Hogwood , an d th e Hanove r Ban d d o no t (sic)—the result s i n mm . 107-14 revea l i n proportion s o f abou t thre e t o on e a cavalier disregar d o f Beethoven' s score . I n colum n I o f Fig . 5 ar e listed thos e conductors who hav e inadvertently or deliberately defied Beethoven's cautionary marking, sempre pp , i n m.107 ; i n colum n I I ar e thos e relativel y fe w wh o hav e

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y

171

Fig. 5 Column I Hickox «Abbado Strauss Weingartner Walter Toscanini Munch DeSabata *Muti Giulini Ormandy Jochum Kletzki Bernstein Ozawa Stokowski Koussevitzky Mengelberg Erich Kleibe r Szell Gardiner Harnoncourt Van Otterlo o

Boulez * Schalk Mitropoulos * Schuricht Krips Böhm * Leibowitz Ansermet * Knappertsbusch Kubelik * Dohnanyi Colin Davi s Ashkenazy Wand * Kempe * Klemperer * Steinberg * Thomas Mehta Norrington Hogwood Hanover Band Bruggen

Column I I Nikisch Furtwangler Karajan Reiner Boult Solti Carlos Kleibe r Maazel Haitink Dorati Masur Sawallisch Schwarz Suitner

respected an d understoo d hi s marking . I n th e latte r grou p th e result s ar e truly beautiful; i n the former , ordinary at best. (Asteriske d names i n colum n I indicat e conductors wh o maintaine d a reasonabl e p p a t m.107 , bu t the n allowed—o r urged—the violins , second s a s wel l a s firsts , t o cree p u p dynamically , t o cre scendo i n mm . 110-14) (se e Plat e VI) . At mm . 123-124 th e fermat a shoul d no t b e hel d overl y long—Wagner's pre viously mentione d fantas y admonitio n notwithstanding . Mos t conductor s tak e a slower temp o here , mainl y fo r a kin d o f misterioso stati c effect , a superficia l 'profundity' whic h i s both unnecessar y and misplaced . Ho w this passage, includ ing the clarine t and bassoo n solos and th e ensuin g woodwind quartet, can soun d when take n a t ver y clos e t o Beethoven' s intende d temp o ca n b e hear d t o won derful effec t o n Dorati' s recordin g wit h the Roya l Philharmonic Orchestr a (Lon don). Dorati , himsel f a fin e composer , wa s on e o f th e fe w who , respecte d a composer's score , and thoug h h e wa s not regarde d by the critica l and conducto rial fraternit y a s a 'grea t classical ' conductor—bein g stigmatize d early i n hi s ca -

Plate V I Mm.105-11 8 o f the secon d movemen t o f Beethoven's Fift h Symphon y

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 17

3

reer as a "balle t conductor " an d a "specialist " i n Bartók , Stravinsky , an d moder n ballet scores—h e wa s actuall y on e o f th e fines t Beethove n conductor s o f ou r time. The woodwin d quarte t passag e a t m . 13 2-46 lose s a lo t o f it s intende d effect whe n th e fou r woodwin d players , especiall y th e flutist , indulg e in a kin d o f fanc y wanderin g rubato , a s i f Beethove n ha d writte n Such players—and th e conductor s who allo w thes e indulgences—d o no t see m t o un derstand th e specia l natur e an d characte r o f this passag e (mm . 132-43). What is special abou t i t i s tha t i t i s harmonicall y stationary . B I» majo r stretche d ou t through si x measures , followe d b y si x measure s o f E k Thoug h th e passag e i s harmonically stationary , Beethove n provide s mor e tha n enoug h interes t b y two means: one , th e copiou s us e o f seventh an d nint h degree s throughout , an d th e other th e simpl e bu t her e ingeniousl y applie d devic e o f contrar y motio n be tween th e tw o instrumental pair s (flute/oboe and tw o clarinets). What al l o f this means i s that an y fancyin g u p o f th e passag e wit h rubato s an d gratuitou s cre scendos/diminuendos—as on e almos t alway s hears here —is unwarranted. A pristinely 'simple ' renditio n o f th e passag e i s wanted, precisel y becaus e th e musi c is, a s i t were , locke d int o tw o tonalitie s (Bl > an d El») , eac h stretche d ou t int o a kin d o f six-ba r fermata . And , a s I say , Beethove n ha s provide d enoug h other highlight s t o preven t th e passag e fro m gettin g borin g o r uneventfu l o r static. Indeed, on e piquan t touch hardl y ever realized is the extraordinar y cluster-like

clash o f notes a t th e beginnin g o f m. 139 .

This i s never hear d be -

cause the flute and obo e tend t o make a diminuendo in m. 138 thus vitiating and defusing the intended 'dissonantal clash ' in m. 139. It is amazing t o me tha t no t a single conducto r recordin g the Beethove n Fift h ever bothere d t o consul t th e origina l manuscrip t o r th e facsimil e publishe d i n Germany i n 1942 . Mos t reprehensibl e perhap s i s Karajan's , Furtwängler's , an d other Germany-base d conductors ' negligenc e i n thi s regard . Beethoven' s manu script lie s i n th e Staatsbibliothe k i n Berlin , an d ye t i n th e (a t least ) fou r re cordings Karaja n mad e o f th e Beethove n Fifth , h e apparentl y neve r sa w fi t t o study the origina l manuscript , no t onl y i n respec t t o this passag e in the Andante movement bu t i n respec t t o th e severa l dozen s o f othe r error s i n th e endlessl y reprinted firs t edition . Equall y disturbin g i s th e disregar d o f Beethoven' s in tended phrasin g by the Hanove r Band , who proclai m loudly in thei r C D book let tha t the y playe d from edite d part s mad e t o correspon d to Beethoven' s autograph. (Ther e i s mighty little evidenc e o f this i n thei r recording. ) The effec t o f this passag e whe n performe d a s Beethove n intende d i s totall y differen t fro m

174

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

what i s almost alway s heard . I t gain s i n clarit y and firmness , avoidin g the senti mental moo d o f a Romanza tha t th e usua l (wrong ) phrasin g impart s t o thi s passage.50 Measures 145-4 6 ar e interprete d b y man y conductor s i n a tenuto manner . There i s little justificatio n fo r this. Beethove n di d no t us e th e short-cu t notatio n found i n mos t availabl e scores, writing instead .

But the lac k

of staccato dot s i n mm . 145-47 (i n th e autograp h a s well) has led man y pedanti cally minde d conductor s t o interpre t thes e te n woodwin d sixteenth-note s i n a tenuto manner . Bu t comin g fro m th e previou s staccat o sixteenth s (i n the string s as well) , thi s sudde n tenut o make s n o musica l sense. A n interestin g alternative , assuming tha t th e incomin g horn s shoul d soun d a littl e broade r an d heavie r i n their f , i s to hav e th e woodwind s i n mm . 145-46 progres s gradually from a stac cato t o a tenuto. Man y fin e woodwin d player s ove r th e year s hav e don e thi s instinctively; i t goes logicall y with th e crescendo . In th e contex t o f th e consisten t binar y o r four-ba r structurin g o f thi s move ment, mm . 148-5 3 constitute a n interestin g anomaly : two three-bar phrase s (see Ex. 30) . I n man y recording s (an d performances ) on e ca n hea r th e relativ e discomfort o f th e musician s a t th e intrusio n o f thi s 'foreig n element, ' man y

Ex. 3 0

musicians, of course, not realizing that the sudde n three-ba r phrasin g is the caus e of their unease. A conductor's commen t here, urgin g the musician s to feel—per haps even enjoy—th e non-conformit y of this passage goes a long way towards making it sound right and 'comfortable. ' The nex t passage in the string s (mm. 158-66) is one of those rar e moments tha t is almost always played correctly (except, obdurately—instea d of'authentically' — by the Hanove r Band and Hogwood' s Academy of Ancient Musi c players). None theless it is worth taking note no t onl y of Beethoven's detaile d dynami c markings but hi s phrasing/bowing as well: three shor t light bow s in m.16 2 an d m.163 , followed by one long bow over two bars in mm.164-65. And, again, the più p here (in m.161) does not mean a sudden subito p, but rathe r a softening to the pp of m.162. The ke y o f A¡ > mino r i n m.16 7 ha s le d man y a conducto r t o tur n thi s pas sage—yet anothe r varian t o f th e openin g theme—int o a funera l march . Ho w this ca n soun d muc h mor e i n keepin g wit h Beethoven' s intention s —let u s re member tha t h e originall y intende d t o cal l thi s movemen t Andante quasi men50. Th e ne w Gulk c editio n (Peters ) is correct in thi s respect .

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHONY

175

netto—can b e hear d o n Dorati' s aforementione d recording : buoyan t rhythm s with a sens e o f underlying urgenc y i n th e strings ' repetitiv e pizzicatos , an d th e single obo e note s pokin g whimsically through th e texture . The crescend o foun d i n man y edition s i n th e flut e par t i n m.17 7 is spurious. There i s none i n Beethoven' s autograph . Th e entir e passag e shoul d b e playe d without crescendo s o r dynami c swells , maintaining (eve n i n th e hig h registe r of the flute) a pure simpl e p, followed similarly by the violins . The crescend o starts only with th e enterin g cello s an d basse s i n m.181 . In mm.182-8 3 car e shoul d b e take n tha t th e viola s and secon d violin s hold their dotte d eighth s jus t the righ t duration (Ex . 31). Hel d to o long, the y interfere

Ex. 3 1

with th e incomin g thirty-second-not e run ; hel d to o short , the y fai l t o mak e th e necessary connectio n t o those incomin g scales . A bi g balanc e proble m ha s plague d performance s a t mm . 18 5-94 fro m tim e immemorial. (Berlio z alread y complaine d abou t i t i n hi s A Critical Study o f Beethoven's Nine Symphonies [Englis h edition , Ne w York , 1912]. ) Fa r to o ofte n the wonderfu l canon betwee n string s and woodwinds , two beats apar t (no t thre e beats o r on e bar! ) is lef t unrealize d (Ex . 32) . Most conductor s ar e s o busy con -

Ex. 3 2

ducting th e string s her e tha t the y quit e neglec t th e three-octav e woodwin d counter-line. Sinc e th e violin s already outnumber th e woodwind s (fou r t o one ) and ar e hardl y i n dange r o f no t bein g heard , i t woul d behoov e a conducto r t o give hi s ful l attentio n t o th e woodwinds . Matter s ar e mad e wors e whe n th e sustained bras s an d timpan i a s wel l a s th e highl y rhythmi c lowe r string s pla y

176 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

their les s importan t non-melodi c part s to o loudly , to o heavily . Wha t i s trul y astonishing—and depressing—i s th e wa y Beethoven' s contrapunta l intention s here ar e s o roundl y ignored , eve n o n recording s wher e i t i s obviou s tha t th e woodwinds ar e doubled , provin g b y th e wa y that th e mer e doublin g o f wood winds i n f passage s does no t necessaril y guarantee prope r balances . Only a relativel y fe w conductor s hav e manage d thi s passag e (mm . 18 5-94 ) successfully, notabl y Nikisch , Jochum , Krips , Eric h Kleiber , Giulini , Bernstein , Mitropoulos, Thomas , Suitner , Haitink , Coli n Davis , Reiner , Szell , Solti . Re nowned conductor s wh o faile d i n this passage to the poin t wher e th e woodwind s are virtually inaudible ar e Weingartner, Furtwängler , Toscanini, Walter , Kubelik , Gardiner, Bruggen , an d Harnoncourt . Amazing ! Equally amazin g i s ho w man y conductor s fai l t o disciplin e themselve s an d their musician s t o produc e a n appropriat e p i n mm . 199-204, a passag e essen tially the sam e a s mm. 15-18 and 64-68 , but wit h th e crucia l exceptio n tha t thi s time th e earlie r crescendo i s completely withhel d b y Beethoven . Beethoven's pi ù moto temp o (m.205 ) i s J * = 116 , a 24-poin t increas e ove r the basi c andante tempo . Bu t her e again , mos t conductor s kee p a considerabl e distance fro m Beethoven' s tempo , i n fac t mor e o r les s t o th e sam e degre e the y deviate fro m th e basi c tempo. Th e rang e o f deviation i s astonishing, al l th e wa y from Weingartner' s rathe r fas t J > = 12 4 to Coli n Davis' s an d Giulini' s J l = 86 , a mer e 3 0 point s of f the mark ! Giulin i jump s t o thi s (fo r him ) relativel y lively tempo afte r grindin g t o a virtua l standstill i n th e previou s strin g passage wit h a deadly / > = 54—n o co n moto there ! Jochu m hit s i t prett y muc h o n th e nos e with a livel y Jl = 112 , an d others , lik e Furtwängler , Ansermet , Strauss , Tosca nini, Dohnanyi , an d Dorati , com e clos e enoug h (betwee n J^ l = 10 4 t o 108 ) t o capture th e spiri t and inten t o f this light-hearte d episode . Measures 210-1 3 hav e bee n adulterate d i n ever y conceivabl e way . Eve n though Beethoven' s grac e note s i n th e obo e ar e clearl y before the beat , an d th e G^'s hav e staccat o dots , an y numbe r o f conductor s insis t o n suc h variant s a s (Böhm, Furtwängler , Wand , Haitink , Krips) , (Mengel berg, Weingartner) , (Maazel)

, (Eric

-

h Kleiber , Nikisch),

' (Jochum , Ansermet). I n the meantime th e poor first bassoonist is left to fen d fo r himself . Beethove n neglecte d t o pu t staccat o dot s fo r the bassoon' s notes—he i s obviously partnered wit h the oboe—wit h th e resul t that everythin g has bee n tried , fro m « H t o J ^ (Kubelik , Dorati) t o (Bernstein)—a

s wel l a s

the correc t one : J\ One o f the mos t abuse d passage s in the entir e movemen t i s the recapitulator y phrase a t m.21 8 (an d onwar d t o th e cod a a t m.229) . Mos t conductor s wan t t o make a hug e temp o expansio n here ; an d i f the y hav e someho w manage d th e woodwind phras e without too much distortion , they will surel y want to mak e u p for tha t i n th e nex t strin g phras e an d pul l i t completel y asunder . (Th e wors t

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 17

7

offender i n thi s latte r respec t i s Knappertsbusch , wh o actuall y insert s a hug e fermata o f silenc e [sic] of almos t a n entir e measure' s duratio n befor e th e las t sixteenth o f m.226. ) Thi s approac h t o bot h phrase s clearl y i s wron g an d self indulgent. Fo r one thing , apar t fro m th e fac t tha t th e scor e clearl y states Tempo I a t m.218 , draggin g th e temp o her e prett y muc h destroy s an y possibilit y of hearing th e woodwin d phras e a s Beethoven' s fina l recapitulatio n o f m.ll, no w ingeniously modified—surel y modifie d enough b y Beethoven t o no t warran t still further digression—b y a remarkabl e pyramidal pile-u p o f an & chor d (bassoon , second clarinet , first clarinet, oboe i n succession) . Second, sinc e th e Tempo 1 of m.218 follow s a pi ù moto (marke d J l = 116) , i t ough t t o b e obviou s tha t a n excessively slo w temp o a t m.21 8 i s unjustifiable , no t onl y i n term s o f simpl e tempo contrast , bu t becaus e i t als o completel y defie s th e temp o relationshi p between th e tw o passages that Beethove n ha d i n mind : J ^ = 11 6 to Ji = 92 , a modest relationshi p o f 5:4 . Th e exten t t o whic h a temp o distortio n o f this passage destroy s Beethoven' s conceptio n an d structur e ca n perhap s b e bes t mea sured b y the fac t that , fo r conductor s wh o hav e alread y done th e whol e move ment a t a slower tempo tha n indicate d an d withou t Beethoven' s co n moto, goin g even slowe r here remove s th e passag e entirely fro m consideratio n a s part o f this quasi-menueito movement . I t becomes , agains t all logi c an d sens e o f continuity, an adagio, man y conductor s —Karajan, Furtwängler , Knappertsbusch , Szell , Ashkenazy, Thomas , Maazel , Bernstein , Coli n Davis , Giulin i —ending u p any where fro m betwee n 1 2 t o 2 0 point s metronomicall y belo w their alread y slo w Tempo I , an d Mengelber g of f by a n incredibl e 2 6 points . ( A bad editin g splic e on th e secon d bea t o f m.21 8 furthe r mar s Karajan' s 198 2 recording. ) Others , such a s Jochum, Kubelik , Ansermet, Walter , too k suc h a slow tempo t o begi n with (J l in the 60s ) that the y could not—o r dare d not—g o even slowe r at m.218. (One conductor , Masur , actuall y wen t faste r a t m.218. ) Th e worst offende r i s Böhm, who make s a huge ritar d a t mm.218-19, then suddenl y quit e irrationally does a n a tempo a t m.220 . Th e bes t performance s o f thi s sectio n ar e thos e o f Dorati, Dohnanyi , Mehta , Reiner , Toscanini , Eric h Kleiber , Wand, and—virtu ally perfect—Haitink . The note-by-not e pyrami d i n mm.218-1 9 i s often poorl y performed; it need s to b e perfectl y balance d i n th e fou r separat e entrances . Th e printe d scor e i s perhaps a littl e a t faul t here , sinc e thes e tw o measure s ar e somewha t carelessl y or ambiguously marked. I n the commonl y availabl e scores, a diminuendo wedg e in the bassoo n par t is entirely missing, whil e the others ' dynamic s are incorrectl y lined up , makin g it unclear wher e th e diminuend o i s in fac t t o start. Beethoven' s manuscript i s clear, however , i n tha t th e Z^r= - sign s (excep t fo r the bassoon's , which i s missing) start on th e thir d eight h o f m.218, extending fo r a total o f fou r beats. Thi s leave s matter s stil l a littl e unclea r i n respect , fo r example , t o th e oboe's entranc e (shoul d i t b e mf o r mp), als o th e firs t clarinet's . On e possibl e version o f clarifyin g Beethoven' s intention s migh t b e th e followin g (Ex . 33a) . This, however , i s mor e difficul t t o realiz e tha n th e versio n usuall y preferre d (Ex. 33b) , because it i s hard enoug h t o ge t al l thre e woodwin d players—the two

178

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Ex. 33 a

Ex. 33 b

clarinets an d th e oboe—t o matc h u p thei r attack s an d dynami c whe n the y ar e to b e al l equal ; i t i s even harde r t o calibrat e th e thre e entrance s i n suc h a way as to creat e a n over-al l diminuend o fro m f t o mp. As for mm.224-28, onc e agai n Beethove n ha s provide d enoug h contras t with the thre e previou s occurrence s o f this phrase—dynamically , harmonically , an d orchestrationally—as to no t requir e an y additiona l deviation from th e text . Eve n so, distortions of this passage abound s o plentifully as to hav e become a virtuall y irreversible tradition . Tha t i t wa s not a traditio n necessaril y hande d dow n fro m 19th-century interpretationa l practice s i s show n b y th e fac t that , fo r example , Mengelberg slow s th e temp o t o a n incredibl e 5 0 to th e eighth-note , whil e Nik isch keep s th e temp o beautifull y flowing. Conductors wh o over-sentimentaliz e this phras e see m no t t o realiz e tha t i t is , a s i t ha s alway s been i n th e thre e previous incarnations , a variant of the immediatel y precedin g woodwin d phrase, only thi s las t time heightene d i n intensit y by the mean s mentione d above . This suggests —or shoul d suggest—tha t m.22 4 i s not som e bran d ne w episod e i n th e

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y

179

movement, tha t i t should no t brea k th e bound s o f relationship to its predecesso r phrases, an d tha t i t i s no t a n excus e fo r a willful , self-indulgent , emotiona l ex ploitation. It i s endemi c t o al l unwanted , unintende d temp o change s tha t the y requir e readjustment, o r a t least rais e th e questio n o f ho w t o continue : i n th e sam e tempo, i n a ne w on e o r i n th e originall y intende d one ? Orchestr a musician s know tha t ever y tim e a conducto r deviate s fro m th e temp o h e ha s t o 'fi x it ' again, an d tha t this is always problematic, creatin g i n fac t unnecessar y problem s which woul d no t hav e arise n i f th e temp o ha d bee n kep t stead y i n th e firs t place. Th e enormou s temp o stretching s i n mos t performance s at mm.224-2 8 are n o exception . Fo r the y exacerbat e th e questio n o f wha t temp o shoul d b e taken for the coda , beginnin g m.229 . The answer , of course, is the 'righ t tempo,' namely tha t o f Beethoven's origina l Andante co n moto, perhap s a tiny bit slower, more relaxed , i n a sor t o f dreamy , reminiscen t mood , a s th e clarinet s an d bas soons nostalgicall y harken bac k to earlie r main them e statements . Instead , how ever, man y conductor s us e thi s passag e fo r furthe r self-indulgence , tryin g t o make th e passag e eithe r slowe r tha n anyon e els e ha s eve r don e it , o r softer , o r more legato . Th e extreme s here ar e represented b y Knappertsbusch and Ashkenazy, a t a creepin g J l = 5 0 an d J^ = 5 6 respectivel y (onl y 4 2 an d 3 6 point s away fro m th e intende d tempo! ) and , o n th e opposit e temp o scale , Thomas , who actuall y beats hi s ow n Tempo I b y fou r point s (J < = 84) . Th e slo w temp o at m.229, alread y requiring an adjustmen t from th e previou s six to ten bars , now prompts mos t conductor s t o mak e a n accelerand o wit h th e crescend o tha t starts in m.235 . Suc h a n accelerando—on e o f the mos t durabl e o f bad habit s i n an y case—becomes quit e unnecessary , whe n a bette r temp o i s maintaine d i n th e first place , a s Haitink's , Reiner's , Leibowitz's , an d Dorati' s recording s demon strate. One o f th e mos t problemati c passage s i n th e entir e movemen t i s mm.24041. Her e th e conventio n i n Beethoven' s tim e o f notating al l instrument s a t th e same dynami c leve l obscure s th e primar y thematic lin e whic h ascend s throug h the orchestra l rang e fro m th e lo w basses, cellos, an d viola s to th e violins , and i n the thir d bea t o f m.24 1 fro m th e violin s t o th e woodwind s (minu s oboes ) t o create th e followin g over-al l line (Ex . 34). The onl y way to achieve the intende d

Ex. 3 4

effect i s to ask all the player s not involve d in thi s arpeggiate d lin e t o lessen thei r f slightly , especiall y th e bras s an d timpani , a t th e sam e tim e askin g the player s who d o participat e in th e primar y lin e t o brin g i t out . I t i s astonishing how fe w recorded performance s cam e eve n clos e t o realizin g this passag e correctly , how

180 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

few eve n understoo d tha t ther e wa s a proble m here . Th e onl y conductor s wh o get i t righ t ar e Nikisc h an d Weingartner ; wit h som e others—Jochum , Walter , Klemperer, Maazel , Mehta , Haitink , Dohnanyi , Furtwängler , Suitner—comin g close (Furtwängler , an d Suitner , fo r example , onl y lose th e woodwinds ' part of the line). I a m no t partia l to big portentou s ritard s in th e las t six bars of the movement , although I realiz e the y ar e ver y popular . Fir m ff chord s i n th e strings , wellsustained El>' s i n woodwinds , a resolut e tempo , an d th e fina l tw o bar s playe d with grea t finality , ar e al l tha t i s required t o brin g th e movemen t t o a stirring close. Any reade r followin g my tabulatio n o f th e variou s and sundr y performance vagaries visite d upon th e Andante movement , wil l hav e notice d tha t the y repre sent i n tota l a muc h greate r latitud e i n interpretatio n compare d wit h th e firs t movement. Thi s i s undoubtedl y accounte d fo r b y th e structural , forma l differ ence betwee n th e tw o movements : th e on e tightl y organized , precisel y con structed ou t o f minut e motivi c cells , th e othe r conceive d i n longe r melodi c spans an d subtl e variationa l procedures , whic h i n themselve s provid e mor e room, a s it were, more opportunitie s to take liberties. Th e reade r ma y remembe r that Beethove n an d Wagner , bu t eve n Mattheso n an d Junker , already referre d to th e phenomeno n tha t a slow movement inherentl y offer s an d suggest s opportunities fo r tempo an d othe r interpretationa l modification s that a tightl y argued allegro simpl y does not . Thi s i s no t t o sugges t tha t thi s conditio n justifie s th e taking o f mor e libertie s i n th e slo w movements o f composers ' scores ; i t simply states the fac t tha t suc h a tendenc y exists , and lead s me t o suggest tha t conduc tors ough t t o b e eve n mor e o n guar d agains t arbitrar y indulgences i n slow(er) movements tha n i n faste r movements . Fo r le t i t b e state d fo r th e recor d that , predilections, tendencies, and willfu l tradition s aside, there i s absolutely no cate gorical reaso n wh y or proof that slow(er ) tempos can' t b e maintaine d a t a steady pace, as , o f course , an y numbe r o f fin e performance s b y th e bes t conductor s can attest . State d thi s way, it may soun d t o man y a reade r a s an obviou s truism, hardly wort h mentioning . Ye t the evidenc e tha t man y conductor s conside r slo w movements fai r gam e fo r egotistica l musica l self-gratificatio n i s overwhelming, and i s in itsel f a devastating commen t o n th e generall y deplorable stat e o f con ducting a s an interpretive , re-creative art. We turn no w to the thir d movemen t o f Beethoven's Fift h Symphon y an d retur n also t o th e stricter , tighter type o f structural organizatio n o f the firs t movement , as well as its conception i n single-measure-per-bea t notation an d four-ba r phrase structuring. An d onc e again , a s we shal l see , th e four-ba r structuring is not un equivocally displaye d i n Beethoven' s notation , whic h fac t ha s unfortunatel y led to innumerabl e misinterpretation s of the music . Bu t eve n mor e grievou s are th e common ignorin g and rejectio n of Beethoven's temp o an d metronom e marking , Allegro J . = 96 . I t reall y baffle s m e wh y conductor s ar e s o reluctan t to hono r Beethoven's metronomizatio n here, whe n the y are perfectl y conten t t o hono r i t

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 18

1

in som e o f Beethoven's othe r symphon y Scherzos , suc h a s the Firs t (J . = 108) , the Eroica (J . = 116) , th e Sevent h (J . = 132) , all muc h faste r tha n th e thir d movement i n th e Fifth . I s it because th e musi c i s in C minor ? Is it because th e opening phras e i s legato, rathe r the n staccato? I s i t becaus e th e tw o openin g phrases ar e marke d pp? Perhaps i t i s for al l o f these reasons . Bu t i f so, non e o f them i s justified . I t is , after all , a Scherzo—althoug h curiousl y Beethove n di d no t cal l i t thu s i n hi s manuscript score—an d i n it s relationship t o othe r Beethove n scherzo s i t i s only slightly slowe r tha n man y o f them . Eve n so , th e quarter-note s ar e stil l might y fast ( J = 288) . The wors t consequence o f taking a slower than indicate d temp o i s that, a s we shall se e abundantl y below , th e Scherz o i n mos t performance s turn s ou t t o b e slower tha n th e las t movement. Thi s make s no sens e whatsoever , by any possible reasoning. I t i s not onl y inaccurat e bu t perversel y disrespectful of Beethoven ; i t is furthermor e irrationa l i n tha t i t tend s t o respec t th e metronom e markin g o f the fourt h movemen t ( J = 84) , bu t no t o f the third . What kin d o f logic i s that? Apart from Toscanini , whos e tempo i s a perfect 96 to the dotte d half-note , only a few conductor s i n ou r hug e samplin g com e clos e t o Beethoven's desire d tempo : Norrington (94) , Straus s (92) , Hogwood, Muti, Dohnanyi , an d Reine r (90) , Karajan, Dorati , Masur , DeSabata , th e Hanove r Ban d (al l at 88) , Weingartner , Er ich Kleiber , and Leibowit z (86) , Brügge n an d Suitner(84) . Mos t conductor s set tle fo r a comfortable , leisurel y «J . = 80 , which , a s I hav e pointe d out , i f maintained throughou t th e Scherzo , wil l mak e i t slower than th e Finale . Eve n slower, aroun d 7 0 an d 7 2 (mor e tha n 2 0 point s of f from Beethoven' s mark ) ar e Knappertsbusch, Walter , Sold , Krips , Kletzki , Va n Otterloo , an d (surprisingly ) Haitink. Boule z take s a ponderous J . = 66 ! Gardiner i s once agai n o n th e fast , nervous side (J . = ca . 104). But le t u s assum e w e hav e accepte d Beethoven' s temp o indication ; w e stil l need t o determin e wher e th e four-ba r phras e structurin g falls . Wher e i s 'one, ' for example , i n th e openin g phrase ? Well, i t is not m . l, although man y conduc tors an d musician s hav e to o easil y assume d tha t t o b e th e case . A s in th e firs t movement, w e hav e t o perus e analyticall y virtually the entir e movemen t t o de termine wit h certainty where the four-ba r periodizations lie. Once agai n i t is not all tha t obvious , th e movemen t bein g notate d i n al l look-alik e singl e bars . We have t o us e th e sam e analyti c tool s a s i n th e firs t movement : tell-tal e majo r phrase junctures , confirmatio n through tonalit y o r tonic anchoring , evidenc e o f consistency i n th e phras e structuring , etc . B y such mean s w e discove r that th e first four note s ar e i n a n anacrusi s position , an d th e firs t 'one ' ba r i s m.2, thu s making mm.l , 5 , and 9 'fours, ' i.e . upbea t measure s (se e Plat e VII) . This in tur n means tha t th e fermat a measure s (mm.8 , 18 , 52 ) are 'threes, ' a logica l plac e fo r them, bein g o n dominan t (V ) positions harmonically . Thes e fermata s ar e pre ceded i n th e previou s measur e b y a poco ritard. This i s where th e performanc e and interpretatio n problems begin , fo r mos t conductor s simply have ignore d — and continu e t o ignor e — Beethoven's wor d poco. Mos t conductor s mak e hug e

Plate VI I Beethoven , Fift h Symphony , openin g o f the thir d movemen t

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 18

3

ritards here , no t onl y defyin g Beethoven' s admonitio n o f poco, but als o bringin g the piece , th e motio n an d flo w o f the music , t o a virtua l standstill when i t has barely gotte n started . Worse tha n that , mos t conductor s ignor e th e scor e further by startin g the ritar d as early as the fourt h or fifth measure. I f one doe s star t th e ritard early , the n inevitabl y it wil l resul t i n a molió ritard . I f conductor s woul d but consul t Beethoven' s manuscript , the y woul d se e tha t h e originall y had th e poco ritar d i n m.6 , bu t the n o n secon d though t specificall y moved i t on e ba r later t o m.7 . Thi s ough t t o tel l conductor s something , unles s the y simpl y want, once again , t o assum e tha t Beethove n didn' t kno w wha t h e wanted . Th e wors t sinners on thi s point ar e Nikisch , Mengelberg, Furtwängler , Krips, Koussevitzky, Böhm, Stokowski , Munch, Ansermet, Muti , an d Harnoncourt . Excellent, o n th e other hand , ar e Strauss , Maazel, Steinberg , Dorati , Karajan , Jochum , Schuricht , Dohnanyi, Ozawa , and , a s might b e expected , Toscanini . In mos t availabl e score s an d part s m.1 3 ha s a sf p i n th e cello s an d basses . But thi s i s incorrect; Beethoven' s manuscrip t ha s s/rl^=-, implyin g that m.1 4 is once agai n pp. W e should als o note i n passin g that i n thi s passag e (mm.9-18 ) Beethoven use d anothe r on e o f hi s phras e stretchings , extendin g th e expecte d four-bar line , startin g a t m.10 , t o si x bars. Fo r i f m.6 i s a 'one, ' the n m.1 6 mus t also b e a 'one, ' an d tha t mean s i n tur n tha t m.1 5 i s a 'four ' type , i n thi s case , however, transformed by the additio n o f two measures into a 'six.' By that reason ing m.!3' s s f I^= — fall s o n a 'four, ' an d function s therefor e a s a kin d o f off beat syncopation . I t i s very effectiv e tha t way , a littl e expressiv e surprise i n th e phrase structurin g earl y on i n th e movement . Bu t i t i s also possible , I suppose , to thin k o f th e six-ba r phras e divide d i n tw o three-ba r entities , i n whic h cas e m.13 woul d b e a 'one. ' Whicheve r choic e on e makes , I thin k i t i s importan t that a choice b e made, tha t th e cello s an d basse s fee l an d perfor m th e phras e with som e unifie d conception , rathe r tha n jus t playin g the s f i n som e arbitrar y uninformed way. Measures 1-1 8 constitut e th e introductio n t o th e actua l bod y o f th e move ment, whic h begin s wit h th e horn s i n th e anacrusi s m.19, that measur e bein g a 'four.' Thi s needs , alas , t o b e state d an d emphasized , fo r to o ofte n thi s musi c has bee n playe d a s if m.19 wer e th e hea d o f the phrase , i.e . a 'one, ' thu s bein g thereafter on e measur e of f in the phrasing . Suc h a misinterpretation als o ignore s the fac t tha t th e thre e hor n note s i n m.1 9 ar e a clos e varian t o f th e openin g motif o f the symphon y (Ex . 35) , also, as w e know, in a n anacrusi s position. I t is

Ex. 3 5

therefore importan t fo r the horn s to know that m.25 is a 'two,' a weak 'beat' in th e four-bar phrase , not th e accente d 'one ' s o often heard . The sam e caution applies to the uppe r strings and woodwind s in mm.3 3 and 37 . Care shoul d also be taken

184 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

that the bass line starting in m.27 is well sustained by the cello s and basses , in contrast to the preceding seven measures. Since a four-bar-ness (Schenker uses Viertaktigkeit) function s cruciall y throughout mos t of the movement—ther e are again , as we shall see, a few interesting exceptions—it i s imperativ e tha t conducto r an d player s understan d this, 51 but more than understanding it intellectually, feel i t and make it felt—and perceivable—to the listener. The differenc e between the right and the wrong phrasing can be heard in man y recordings; for example: (correct) Toscanini, Furtwängler, Haitink, Jochum, Reiner, Dorati, Mehta, Dohnanyi , Ozawa , Muti , Gardiner ; (incorrect) Weingartner , Klemperer, Suitner , Knappertsbusch , Walter, Ormandy , Giu lini, Solti, Thomas, Stokowski, 52 Ashkenazy, Boulez, Harnoncourt, Bruggen. Measures 40—4 5 i s another stretche d phras e (b y means o f repetition). Another kind o f stretching, althoug h thi s time withou t disturbin g the four-ba r periodization—a melodi c stretching—occur s i n mm.54-60 . This wa s necessitated b y th e need fo r th e musi c t o retur n t o th e toni c ke y of C minor , havin g landed i n B t minor i n m.4 5 an d m.53 . Th e intervalli c melodic twist s an d turn s i n mm.54 60, alread y of course partiall y anticipated i n mm . 11-14, represen t Beethoven' s ingenious wa y of moving in a minimal amoun t o f time fro m B t mino r t o a basic G(major) peda l in m.60 . Beethoven accomplishes thi s by traversing a brief cycle of fifths : B t -F-C- G (se e encircle d note s i n Ex . 36). I t i s this ver y widel y (and

Ex. 3 6

same as mm. 10-1 3

wildly) skippin g line —it mus t hav e sounde d ver y 'modern'an d strang e t o listeners i n 1808—whic h prompte d Beethove n t o cas t i t i n lon g slurs . His intention , I a m sure , wa s to subdu e th e twistin g contours o f the lin e an d it s pp dynami c by a n eeril y smoot h legato. Mos t performances , however , brea k th e strings ' 51. I t must be pointe d ou t tha t again , a s in th e firs t movement , unwar y orchestra musician s ar e no t likely to be abl e to deduce from merely lookin g at their individua l parts wher e th e four-ba r periodization falls . Unles s the y sa t down wit h th e scor e on e da y an d figure d ou t th e correc t periodizatio n o r have bee n tol d b y a goo d conducto r ho w th e phrase s go , the y ar e unlikel y eve r t o hav e though t about th e subject . Man y hor n players , fo r example , se e a /fi n m.1 9 an d simpl y assum e fro m tha t scant informatio n tha t i t is the 'downbeat ' beginnin g o f the phrase . 52. Stokowski's recording s o f Beethoven' s Fift h ar e complet e musica l travesties . Apar t fro m man y typically Stokowskia n phrasin g an d dynami c excesses—man y o f them th e resul t o f the mos t absur d technical electroni c alteration s (equalizing , dialin g entir e section s o r individua l player s int o in audible oblivion , other s int o exaggerate d prominence ) — Stokowski indulge s i n som e bizarr e re orchestrations. H e double s th e clarinet s i n mm.38-4 1 (an d th e oboe s i n mm.90-93 ) i n th e thir d movement wit h mute d (sic) trumpets; i n th e las t movemen t h e double s the piccol o run s in m.329 — 32, 346-49 with a flut e (no t another piccolo) , an d ha s th e horn s play most of the las t thirty measures an octav e higher . Bu t then , Kletzki , no t t o b e ou t clon e b y the Beethove n re-arrangers , has hi s first trumpet i n th e Czec h Philharmoni c pla y a hig h C i n m.415 .

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 18

5

phrasing an d bowing , thu s undermining—no t underscoring—th e intende d ef fect. I t i s als o importan t fo r th e strings , especiall y th e enterin g violas , t o kno w that m.5 7 i s a 'four ' i n th e phras e structure . Another six-ba r phras e extensio n occur s i n mm.66-71 , makin g th e violins' , horns', clarinets ' themati c entranc e i n m.7 1 a n upbea t measur e (similarl y that of th e trumpet s an d woodwind s i n m.79) . Th e six-ba r extension i n mm.92-9 7 parallels th e on e i n mm.40-45 , i n tur n makin g m.9 8 a 'one.' Measure s 97-10 0 is th e sixt h time tha t w e hav e hear d thi s phrase, 53 eac h time , however , headin g off i n a differen t direction . Thi s tim e i t lead s t o a majo r themati c excursion— a kind o f miniature developmen t section—which wil l pla y a mos t importan t rol e and underg o a mos t remarkabl e transformation in th e recapitulatio n (mm . 141 235) o f the Scherzo , afte r th e Trio . Because conducto r an d musician s ar e usuall y unaware o f the four-ba r phras ing, th e entir e sectio n mm . 101—40 i s mor e ofte n tha n no t playe d incorrectly. For i f viewed onl y fro m th e individua l parts—flute, oboe , first violins, cellos, fo r example—the phrase mm . 101-104 would seem a t first glance t o start on a 'one' (Ex. 37a,b) . The legato phrasin g i n the flut e an d cello s underscores that impres sion, a s d o th e f' s i n th e cello s i n mm.10 5 an d 109 . An d thi s i s indee d

Ex. 37 a

Ex. 37 b

how i t i s played i n th e majorit y o f cases, 54 including , alas , b y man y renowne d conductors lik e Kubelik , Solti , Dohnanyi , Ozawa , Walter , Klemperer , an d th e English 'authenticists. ' Thos e intereste d i n hearin g ho w thi s sectio n sound s when playe d wit h th e righ t phrasin g migh t liste n t o th e recording s o f Karajan , Jochum, Haitink , Dorati, Toscanini , an d Reiner . Karaja n an d th e Berli n Philhar monic manag e thi s entir e passag e especiall y well . Liste n t o ho w th e cello s no t only pla y mm. 105 an d 10 9 wit h a n elegantl y expressiv e f, bu t ho w the y fee l i t as a 'four,' a n effec t aki n to a syncopation , a n accen t on a weak beat (ver y much like th e 'fourt h beat ' accen t i n m.13) . Again , Beethoven' s phrasing/bowin g fo r the cello s (an d bassoons) , startin g i n m.115 , woul d lea d man y t o assum e tha t m.115, i s a 'one ' (Ex . 38a) . Bu t i t i s not; i t i s a 'two ' (Ex . 38b) . The importan t 53. Measure s 1-4 , 9-12 , 58-61 , 97-100, as well as mrn.45-48, 53-56 , the latte r two in transposition. 54. Flutist s especially love the incorrec t phrasing because i t allows them t o crescend o int o the hig h F an d G i n m.10 3 and m.10 7 respectively, a crescendo the y would be oblige d to avoid i n the correc t phrasing, wher e th e hig h not e i s on a 'two ' an d shoul d no t b e emphasized .

186

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Ex. 38 a

'ones' coincid e wit h th e toni c C' s i n m.11 8 an d m.122 . Similarly , m.131 surel y looks lik e a 'one' i n al l the parts—thre e sturd y tonic-dominant chords—an d ye t it to o i s a 'two / th e C mino r chor d i n m.13 2 the n bein g a 'three ' an d th e nex t main-theme repetitio n startin g (correctly) on a n upbeat measure . Thi s periodization require s that th e thre e chord s i n m.13 1 no t b e playe d a s loud a s possible — which mos t orchestra s lov e t o do , thinkin g i t i s the arriva l poin t o f th e phras e and th e pea k of the previou s nine-bar crescendo—bu t lead instea d t o the weightier 'three' i n m.132 , followed than b y a rea l f f i n m.133 . When orchestra s play m.133 erroneousl y as a 'one, ' the y en d —if indee d the y are feelin g four-bar phras e entitie s a t all—o n a weak 'four ' i n m.140 . That is , of course, impossible : neithe r Beethove n no r an y othe r compose r o f th e perio d would eve r hav e ende d a movemen t o r a majo r sectio n o f a movemen t o n th e weakest beat o f a phrase . And on e ca n hea r an d fee l th e embarrasse d hesitatio n and obviou s discomfor t of players i n performance s i n whic h m.13 3 an d m.13 7 are perceive d a s 'ones.' Measur e 14 0 therefore i s a 'three, ' completin g th e firs t part o f th e Scherz o (Ex . 39) , jus t a s th e firs t movemen t o f th e symphon y als o ended o n a 'three.'

Ex. 3 9

By rights , on e migh t argue , Beethove n shoul d no w hav e adde d a n empt y measure befor e attacking the Tri o o f the Scherzo . Bu t evidently he fel t th e nee d to plung e righ t o n int o wha t mus t hav e bee n a mos t shockin g surpris e t o musicians an d listener s in 1808 : th e rambunctious , galvani c outburst i n th e cel los an d basses , turne d eve n mor e surprisingl y immediately int o a 'proper ' littl e fugato. In th e meantime—befor e w e leave the Scherz o proper—w e shoul d no t fai l t o appreciate th e deliciou s piquant dissonance s wit h whic h Beethove n spice s u p much o f thi s 'developmen t section' : th e woodwinds ' At>'s , fo r example , i n mm.l 11-14, rubbing not only against the G peda l point s in horns and bassoons, but agains t the G-Et' s i n th e strings , engaged a t th e sam e tim e i n a n interplay

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y

187

with th e timpan i whos e G' s intermittentl y als o clas h wit h th e Al>' s o f the wood winds and viola s (see Ex. 40). The irregularit y of periodization w e have glimpse d

Ex.40

at th e en d o f th e Scherz o proper , i n effec t a seven-ba r structurin g (mm . 13440) —or viewe d anothe r wa y a three-ba r structurin g i n mm . 138-40 —is contin ued i n th e Trio , th e firs t sectio n o f which ca n b e see n a s consistin g o f tw o six bar phrase s (mm.141-52 ) (Ex.41) , followe d b y a five-ba r an d a three-ba r

Ex.41

unit (mm . 153-57 an d mm . 158-60, respectively) . I t i s a s i f Beethove n wante d to shak e u p th e previou s existin g structure , pumme l i t int o differen t unpre dictable shape s — of course , onl y o n th e surface . Fo r underneath , thes e ir regular phrase s stil l combin e int o a binary-base d over-al l perio d o f twent y bars. The just-mentione d six-ba r phrasing s o f th e Tri o ca n als o b e though t o f a s being eac h divisibl e int o thre e bar s (twice) , or—mor e remotely—int o tw o bars three times . I lea n strongl y towards the forme r conception fo r a numbe r o f reasons, primaril y harmonicall y oriented . I t become s clea r rathe r quickl y fro m a harmonic analysi s that, jus t a s th e Scherz o i s basically i n C minor , s o the Tri o is primaril y i n th e dominant , G , leadin g eventuall y wit h th e retur n o f th e Scherzo bac k t o th e toni c C minor . Bu t withi n thi s large r harmoni c schem e one find s smalle r harmoni c grouping s tha t clearl y hel p t o defin e th e phras e structuring. Th e schemati c (Fig . 6) o f th e firs t sectio n o f th e Tri o display s its harmonic function s i n detail , revealin g som e ver y fascinatin g patterns. W e se e that th e firs t thre e measures , se t i n G (wit h it s ancillar y subdominant C) , ar e exactly mirrored , althoug h transpose d u p a fourth , i n th e secon d six-ba r unit , both segment s the n appearin g i n th e nex t uni t i n a contracte d for m (mm . 141, 142, 147 , 148 combine d selectively , as ca n b e clearl y see n i n th e trumpe t an d bassoon parts , i n mm . 153-56). Th e extr a measur e 15 7 (i n D ) wa s neede d to brin g th e progressio n bac k t o th e temporar y toni c G ; thu s th e five-plusthree structuring . We ca n se e als o tha t th e three-ba r subdivisio n o f th e firs t

188

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Fig. 6 measure key (

a)

141 14 2 14 3 14 4 14 5 14 6 147 14 8 14 9 15 0 15 1 15 2 GC G C modulates to D O D O circle s t o sta y in aroun d

i i vi i v

tonality ( b ) V I V I ,, , , periodization 33 6

v

II V 1 I

i

v

I IV

33

153 15 4 15 5 15 6 15 7 QC D G D II VV I V VI I IV I I ii ,i 23 5

í

I1

6

158 15 9 16 0 G O O II I VV V ,, 3 3

The highe r harmoni c position s [a) ] ar e t o b e understoo d a s i n th e ke y o f th e Trio : G (dominant). Th e lowe r harmoni c position s [b) ] ar e t o b e understoo d a s in th e ke y of C , the Scherzo' s primar y key. six-bar phras e link s u p naturall y wit h th e Scherzo' s fina l thre e measures ,

C-G-C G-C-

G

whose cadenc e i s immediately reverberate d i n th e Trio' s V- 1 -V. 1 V l ~ ~ (I-IV-I ) A similar, closely related harmonic patter n ca n be seen i n the secon d par t of the Trio, no w returne d t o four-ba r phrasings. Th e eigh t measure s 161-6 8 ar e i n G , although i n a sense jus t barely so, since the first four measure s ar e hinge d t o th e seventh an d nint h degree s o f G—a thir d inversion , as it were. Now the following four-bar pattern s evolve (Fig. 7), which turn ou t to be harmonically expanded an d transpositionally modifie d variant s of mm . 15 3-56, melodically/thematicall y als o

Fig. 7 measure key onaiy

periodization

169 170 171 172 r G r G a ) IV IV I I i V i b) V

173 174 175 176 r F r F IV VII IV VII i IV i IV §

4

4

referring bac k t o th e Trio' s firs t part . A s i n tha t section , s o her e no w i n th e second section , th e eigh t measure s 169-7 6 ar e immediatel y mirrore d i n con tracted for m i n mm . 177-80 (G-C-C-F) , afte r whic h a prolonge d G peda l poin t (of twelv e measures ) send s th e musi c bac k t o C major . A repea t o f the secon d section, modifie d primaril y dynamicall y b y a prolonge d diminuend o bu t stil l principally locate d i n G majo r lead s t o a retur n o f th e Scherz o prope r ( C minor). As ca n b e see n fro m eve n thi s relativel y cursor y surve y o f th e Trio' s large r harmonic rhythms , i t i s remarkabl y stric t i n it s functiona l organization . Lik e boxes withi n boxes , harmoni c progression s and thei r thematic/melodi c counter points constantl y rotate aroun d th e variou s tonic axes , with th e larges t 'box' —in G major—containin g al l the smalle r ones. I hav e presente d thi s muc h harmoni c analysis—ther e i s muc h mor e tha t could b e sai d o n thi s subject—t o sho w ho w th e Trio' s harmoni c function s do i n

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 18

9

fact determin e it s over-all phras e structurin g an d i n particula r th e 6-6-5- 3 parti tioning i n th e first section. 55 The dramati c intensit y of the Trio' s b y now famous cello-and-bass passage ha s led man y a conducto r t o exaggerat e i t dynamically, urging th e players , either by gesture o r verba l bidding , t o pla y a s loudly an d roughl y a s possible . Th e entir e section i s marke d onl y f , i n contras t t o th e ff i n th e Trio' s secon d endin g (m.159), a dynami c tha t i s rarel y observe d (o r observable , sinc e th e previou s passage i s so ofte n thundere d fort h i n a pulverizin g ff). Whe n playe d to o loud , the ris k i s that i n mm . 141-42 the players ' bows will indiscriminately hit adjacen t strings, impairin g th e not e clarit y of th e passage , whic h i s hard enoug h t o pro duce cleanl y o n th e lowes t string s of the bas s a t a fas t tempo . I t als o make s th e open string s i n th e cello s (circle d i n Ex . 41) , especiall y th e brigh t A i n m.144 , spurt fort h i n a n out-of-context , edgy , explosiv e way. Two more problem s mus t stil l be deal t wit h i n thi s sectio n (applicabl e als o to mm. 194-97). One i s the nee d t o keep th e bas s line full y prominen t throughout , particularly i n mm . 158-60. Thi s i s important i n orde r t o full y re-establis h an d confirm th e ke y of G, no t onl y chordally/harmonicall y bu t melodically/themati cally. The proble m i n thi s regar d i s twofold: as just mentioned, i f the res t o f th e orchestra, includin g timpan i an d brass , i s playin g ff , th e cello s an d basse s will surely be outbalance d an d inaudible . Second , i t is an establishe d (thoug h gener ally littl e regarded ) fac t tha t th e vas t majority of listener s associate melody an d theme almos t exclusivel y with th e uppe r an d middl e register s o f ou r hearin g range. T o pu t i t anothe r way , generall y peopl e d o no t expec t t o hea r anythin g thematic, melodi c —or important—i n th e bas s register . Thei r ear s ar e mor e likely t o follo w a n uppe r registe r line, eve n i f it i s of lesse r consequence . Thu s in thi s case , th e averag e ea r wil l follo w th e violi n line , beginnin g i n m.154 , and b e completel y distracte d fro m followin g the all-importan t bas s line, unles s conductor an d orchestr a explicitl y treat i t as the mai n voice . I t i s therefore espe cially crucia l her e tha t th e timpan i no t pla y to o loud , o r le t it s notes rin g to o long. The secon d proble m i s one o f bowing. I n mm . 158-60 th e uppe r string s must use th e followin g bowin g , used, namely , result

fo r th e bowin g ofte n s i n th e thre e eighth-note s

sounding lik e a triple t or , i n effect , turnin g thes e 3/ 4 measures int o 6/8's . A s for the temp o o f the Trio , everythin g conceivabl e ha s bee n trie d ove r th e years . A few conductor s (includin g Solti , Thomas , an d Carlo s Kleiber ) lik e t o g o faste r at m.141 , ostensibl y producin g 'greate r excitement' ; mos t lik e t o g o slower , 55. Som e interestin g anomalie s an d ambiguitie s remain unexplained . Fo r example , i s m.142 really in C ? I believ e so , becaus e th e measure' s las t not e i s an F . Ha d Beethove n change d i t t o Fjt , th e whole phras e woul d hav e a totall y different feeling , muc h mor e ¡ n G major . Bu t then , ho w d o w e explain th e C | in m.148 ; and wh y did Beethove n us e i t here whe n h e di d not us e i t eight bar s late r in exactl y the sam e situatio n i n th e firs t violins ? And doe s tha t Cj t mak e in . 148 fal l mor e i n a D tonality?

190

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

thinking o f a weightier , heavie r effect— a stereotyp e often , alas , associate d wit h double basses . Some , o f course, believ e i n stayin g at th e sam e tempo , a s in th e main par t o f the Scherzo . Th e firs t (faster ) approac h ca n lea d t o a lac k o f pitc h clarity (alread y at a premiu m o n th e lowe r bass strings), if not actuall y a bi t o f a note scramble . Th e secon d approac h (slower ) ca n lea d t o a n overl y ponderous , pachydermatous effec t tha t i s quit e foreig n t o Beethoven' s music , which , eve n at it s weightiest, ha s a lea n tensil e strengt h tha t i s closer t o Haydn , Handel , an d Bach tha n t o Bruckne r an d Wagner . In th e end , an y o f the thre e temp o approache s work , this bein g on e o f Bee thoven's mor e indestructibl e an d memorabl e passages , tha t is , a s lon g a s th e tempo modificatio n i s withi n reason , withi n feel-abl e rang e o f th e origina l tempo.56 On a pa r wit h th e originalit y of the irregula r phrasing i n th e firs t par t o f th e Trio, all couche d i n a mini-fugato , i s the radicalit y of the motivi c fragmentatio n in the beginnin g (mm . 162-65) of the secon d par t (Ex . 42). This unusual passag e

Ex.42

has give n player s problems fo r generations , i t bein g difficul t t o pla y thes e shor t bursts o f phrase s without th e expecte d downbea t note s a t mm . 163, 167 . Th e rhythmic instabilit y implied her e ca n i n fac t b e destabilizing , eve n disorienting . In performance s an d recording s on e ofte n ca n hea r th e G' s i n mm . 163, 16 5 come i n early , rushed . Mor e tha n that , however , i t i s ver y har d t o preven t th e passage fro m soundin g lik e this : a

s

innumerable recording s attest . ( I hav e ofte n jokingl y called thi s th e firs t tru e 5/8 i n classica l music. ) A n accen t o n th e fina l F o f m.16 2 an d m.16 4 ca n b e avoided b y making a slight, subtle diminuend o o n th e las t two or three eighths. 57 56. Th e mos t pervers e interpretatio n o f th e Tri o o n recor d ha s go t t o b e Stokowski's , no t onl y because h e too k a sluggis h temp o of J. = 68 , but becaus e h e mad e th e poo r cellist s and bassist s of the Londo n Philharmoni c Orchestr a pla y the entir e passag e on th e string! S o did Scherchen . 57. Severa l conductor s hav e adde d t o th e 'irrationality ' o f thi s passag e b y imposin g eve n mor e irrational interpretation s o n it . Fo r example , Reiner , whos e recordin g o f th e Fift h i s i n almos t al l respects exemplary , nonetheles s ha d th e bizarr e ide a t o inser t a fermat a ove r th e rest s o f mm.163 , 165, thereb y delayin g th e incomin g G' s b y a whol e ba r an d makin g th e rest s equa l t o abou t fiv e quarter-beats, an d thu s drastically—an d unforgivably—recomposin g Beethoven' s music. The othe r notabl e performanc e aberratio n i n thi s passag e i s on e perpetrate d b y Kletzki , wh o conducted i t i n suc h a wa y a s t o resul t i n th e renditio n i n Ex . 43 . I ca n imagin e th e musicians ' consternation encounterin g thi s 'interpretation ' a t thei r firs t rehearsa l wit h Kletzki , an d thei r

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 19

1

The secon d sectio n o f the Tri o (mm . 162-97), developin g alon g th e line s of an expande d varian t o f th e firs t section , entail s tw o mor e six-ba r phrasing s (mm. 182-87, 188-93 ) ove r a G peda l point . Bu t thes e 'sixes / unlik e thos e ear lier (whic h divide d int o tw o 'threes') , see m t o partitio n int o 'twos ' and , i n th e second grou p int o reiterate d 'ones'—al l o f these, needles s t o say , still easil y con tainable i n th e movement' s generall y quaternar y periodizations . Mor e im portant, however , i s t o no t neglec t th e littl e chromati c alteration s Beethove n inserts i n th e seconds , violas , an d cellos , i n mm . 189-91, as well a s the interest ing bassoo n an d trumpe t part s in mm . 192-9 3. In the thir d par t of the Trio , Beethove n return s to the beginnin g o f the secon d section, bu t thi s tim e lead s th e musi c i n a n entirel y differen t directio n vi a a n eighteen-bar diminuendo . Th e whol e passage , whic h eventuall y moves fro m th e strings t o a flute-dominate d woodwin d septet, 58 function s a s a transitiona l lin k to the recapitulatio n o f the Scherz o (m.236) . At thi s poin t we , incidentally , fin d furthe r proo f (i f suc h b e stil l needed ) o f the particula r four-ba r structurin g I hav e suggeste d a s th e basi s for mos t o f th e movement. Th e ke y i s m.236 , whic h i s no t containe d i n th e origina l them e statement. Beethove n ha d t o ad d a measur e i f he wa s intereste d i n preservin g the four-ba r structuring a t the joinin g of the Tri o t o the Scherz o recapitulation . Having arrive d at m.234 , ha d h e no w simply repeate d th e openin g phras e liter ally, h e woul d hav e ende d u p wit h th e followin g phrase (Ex . 44), includin g a three-bar uni t (bracketed) . Th e insertio n o f th e on e ba r o f dotte d half-not e C

Ex.44

restored th e four-ba r symmetry . This then provide s further proo f that (a) Beetho ven wa s constructin g th e movemen t i n quaternar y phras e units , an d tha t (b ) m.237, lik e m.l, i s a 'four, ' a n 'upbeat ' measure , i n th e structure. 59 Ex.43

subsequent head-shakin g i n disbelie f a s the y struggl e t o pla y th e passag e wel l incorrectly—not a n easy thin g t o do . 58. I sugges t tha t two-ba r slur s b e adde d t o th e woodwind s in th e fou r bar s mm.214-17 , t o hel p maintain th e p p dynami c an d t o relat e mor e easil y to th e violins ' bowings/phrasings. 59. I am , o f course , awar e o f th e numerou s discussion s an d argument s tha t hav e rage d ove r th e question whethe r o r no t Beethove n intende d a repetitio n o f the entir e Scherz o an d Tri o a t m.236 , a debat e firs t initiate d b y Schenke r nearl y seventy years ago . Actually, th e discussio n goe s bac k t o th e thir d an d fourt h decade s o f th e 19t h century , whe n writers such a s Fétis i n Pari s an d variou s musicians and conductors , in German y includin g Mendelssohn, bega n t o questio n tw o extr a measure s tha t ha d mistakenl y bee n lef t i n scor e an d parts , mm.238-39. (Thes e ar e n o longe r i n present-da y scores.) A s Schenke r firs t pointe d out , furthe r

192 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

At m.23 1 man y conductor s star t a ritard , i n th e mistake n notio n tha t thi s is necessary t o prepar e th e retur n o f the Scherzo . Beethove n wa s quite capabl e o f writing ritard o r poco ritard i n m.23 1 o r m.23 2 i f he ha d wante d t o (h e di d s o only twelv e bar s later) . What h e reall y intended (o r a t least possibly intended ) was tha t th e Scherz o shoul d suddenl y reappear , ou t o f thi n air , a s i t wer e — unheralded, i n th e natur e o f a surprise. What follow s no w for the nex t 13 8 bars is surely one o f the mos t astonishingly visionary and, fo r its time, innovativ e musical creations . The Scherz o is recapitulated bu t transforme d int o a spectral , skeleta l shado w o f it s forme r self . An d when thi s recapitulatio n ha s ru n it s course , th e Scherz o doe s no t com e t o a close, a s i n Beethoven' s firs t fou r symphonies , but , a s i n th e Sixt h Symphon y (composed virtuall y simultaneously wit h th e Fifth) , a coda-transitio n lead s di rectly t o th e fourt h movement , whic h i s a n eve n mor e strikin g fligh t o f fancy , an almos t motionless , music , a s i f even th e ghos t o f the Scherz o ha d no w died , only t o b e revive d 42 bar s late r with th e gloriou s full-of-lif e C majo r brillianc e of the Finale . The entir e recapitulatio n an d coda-transitio n contain s numerou s performanc e pitfalls. Again, of primary importance i s an awarenes s at all times of the periodiza tion. Being a recapitulation o f the Scherzo , thoug h varied , it leans on th e exposition with similar, at times identical , phras e structuring. Fig. 8 shows the relation ships betwee n expositio n an d recapitulation . Th e firs t hin t tha t th e Scherzo' s recapitulation will not be merely an identical repeat, as in Beethoven's earlie r symphonies, come s i n m.238, when th e initia l legato is changed int o a spiccato and a few wind s replace the earlie r mixed sonorities. The transformatio n to the skeleta l apparition o f the forme r Scherzo i s fully accomplishe d i n m.24 5 when, al l flesh confirmed b y som e Beethove n biographers—Nottebohm , Thayer , fo r example—Beethove n sometime earl y on droppe d th e idea o f a complet e recapitulatio n o f the Scherz o an d Trio , which , how ever, through a series of mishaps an d misconnections—wit h publisher s an d copyists—neve r becam e unequivocally clarified, not i n th e autograp h o r i n th e printe d material s derive d therefrom . The controvers y has continued into our ow n time, with no one sid e having succeeded i n establish ing a n unequivoca l victor y pro o r con . A considerabl e literatur e ha s develope d ove r thi s question , most notabl y b y Heinric h Schenke r (1925) , Will y Hess , "Di e Teilwiederholun g i n de r klassische n Sinfonie un d Kammermusik " (i n Di e Musikforschung, Vol . XVI, 1963) ; Walte r Riezler , Beethoven, (Zürich, 1944) ; Rober t Simpson , "Th e Firs t Versio n o f Beethoven' s C mino r Symphony " (i n Th e Score, No.2 6 (1960) ; C Canisius , Quellenstudien un d satztechnische Untersuchungen zu m dritten Satz au s Beethovens c-Moll Sinfonie, Diss . Heidelberg , 1966 ; Pete r Gülke , Zu r Neuausgabe de r Sinfonie Nr . 5 von Ludwig va n Beethoven (Leipzig , 1978) ; Igo r Markevitch , Die Sinfonien vo n Ludwig va n Beethoven (Leipzig , 1983) . Having rea d al l these materials , especially those arguin g for the complet e repetition , I am stil l no t completely convince d tha t thi s represent s Beethoven' s absolut e o r fina l intentions ; ther e ar e to o many imponderable s an d factua l lacuna e t o be full y persuasive , although Gulke' s summatio n o f the matter—and conclusio n i n favo r o f the repetition—i s impressive . Under th e circumstances , barrin g ne w reliabl e documentation , an d claimin g n o irrefutabl e knowledge o n th e subject , I believe it i s unnecessary to re-argu e the cas e here . I refe r th e reade r to the source s abov e an d sugges t tha t conductor s mak e u p thei r ow n mind s base d o n a thoroug h analysis o f the relevan t disputations.

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 19

Fig. 8

Recapitulation m.236-44 m.245-54 m.255-80 m.281-323

3

Exposition = m.1- 8 = m.9-1 8 = m . 19-44 = m.97-13 9

stripped fro m it s bare not e bones, th e musi c i s reduced t o the spook y sounds o f a staccato bassoo n an d pizzicat o cellos . Thinl y piping woodwind s alternating wit h pizzicato violin s render wha t i s left o f the tune , whil e nervousl y twitching grac e notes i n violin s and viola s add an unearthly , eeri e touch . The grac e note s ca n b e played before or on the beat, 60 as long as they are played very, very fast. They mus t sound disembodied , thoug h o f course clearly audible.61 Note that th e dissonanta l interpla y of mm. 111-14 returns in the paralle l plac e mm.295-98, thi s tim e a singl e hor n providin g th e tin y discordancies . I t i s also worth noting that when playe d in the four-bar phrasing I have suggested, the pizzicato grac e note s i n th e first violins (mm.300, 304 , 308 , etc.) , whic h ar e virtually impossible to play without a tiny accent, fall —appropriately—on relativel y strong beats ('threes' ) o f the phras e units . (The y fall o n a weak 'two' the wa y the piec e is often incorrectly played.) Very few conductors ge t this ghostly Scherzo recapitula tion right , either i n it s phrase structurin g or in the specia l mood an d spel l i t casts. Conductors wh o have done especially well here are Reiner, Karajan , Furtwängler , Haitink, Wand, and—absolutely uncanny in the dance-like swing and shadowy unreality he imparts to the music —Carlos Kleiber. That must be heard to be believed. A brief word abou t Carlo s Kleibe r is perhaps i n order , eve n i f this book i s no t about individua l conductors , bu t rathe r abou t specifi c work s i n specifi c perfor mances. Kleibe r i s so unique , s o remarkable , s o outstandin g tha t on e ca n onl y describe hi m a s a phenomenon . Thi s doe s no t mea n tha t h e i s a 'perfect ' con ductor—perhaps n o on e ca n b e that—bu t h e ha s s o man y extraordinar y attri60. Conductors , musicologists , music historians have argued fo r generations about th e placemen t of Beethoven's grac e note s (no t onl y her e but , fo r example , als o i n th e slo w movemen t o f th e Eroica and i n a dozen othe r pieces). Nobody can b e absolutel y certain of Beethoven's wishes in thi s respect, or eve n whethe r h e wa s entirely consistent i n hi s us e o f grace note s an d whethe r thei r usag e migh t have varie d i n differen t musica l contexts . All tha t i s certain i s that i n Beethoven' s time , notationa l conventions require d tha t grac e note s associate d wit h a firs t bea t i n a measur e b e place d a t th e beginning of that measure, not befor e it. This is, of course, i n discrepancy with grace-note placemen t in relatio n t o othe r beats , wher e the y usuall y are placed , verticall y seen, before th e beat . Thi s nota tional discrepanc y leaves th e questio n unanswere d an d ambiguous . I n an y case , i n thi s Scherz o passage I prefer t o pla y the grac e note s o n th e beat , fo r the pragmati c reason that , base d o n m y own experiences wit h thi s passage, i f th e grac e note s ar e playe d befor e th e beat , the y ten d (a ) t o b e played to o slowly , an d (b ) a s th e passag e proceeds, th e grac e notes , especiall y in th e viola s wher e the grac e note s ar e quit e awkwar d technically , ten d t o com e progressivel y earlie r an d slower. 61. Wha t doc s no t see m t o mak e muc h sens e i s wha t Ashkenazy doe s wit h th e Philharmoni a Or chestra, whic h i s to hav e th e violin s pla y th e grac e notes before th e beat , th e viola s o n th e beat .

194 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

butes tha t mak e hi m a grea t an d importan t representativ e o f th e ar t o f re creation an d performance . To begi n with , hi s conductin g technique—tha t ter m i s almos t a misnome r because hi s manua l an d gestura l talents g o way beyond 'technique ' —is no t onl y astonishingly expressive, but amazingl y free an d flexible . I n it s variety of gestural choices—mostly concise , clea r an d t o th e poin t (althoug h sometime s a bi t out rageous)—his conducting is virtually improvisatory. That is to say, he almos t never conducts anything , any passage, any musical idea, gesturally the same ; his work is never pre-programmed. Also, as a 'switch-hitter,' he can at will do things with either or bot h hands—an d wit h a n infinit e variety of shadings. I n thes e respect s h e i s like a great jaz z improvise r who ha s endlessl y diverse ways o f expressing himself, even tim e an d tim e agai n o n th e sam e subject . With al l o f these gift s Kleibe r is not onl y an inspirin g leader/conductor, bu t a hel l o f a goo d show . As a musician/philosophe r Kleibe r i s i n th e gran d lineag e o f 20th-centur y German conductors— a sor t o f combinatio n o f Furtwängler/Eric h Kleiber/Frit z Busch—who abov e al l goe s fo r the gran d line , th e larg e shape , an d th e clarifi cation o f inheren t structure(s) . Not tha t he , lik e som e conductor s o f that tradition, ignore s details , bu t h e i s not obsesse d wit h the m an d therefor e i s able t o see th e fores t i n spit e o f the trees . Indeed , I fin d tha t h e i s not (o r elect s no t t o be) consciou s o f every detail i n a score , eve n detail s which other s woul d rightly consider ver y important . Lik e man y maestri , he i s selective i n wha t h e choose s to point ou t (b y his gestures) to th e orchestr a and th e audience . An d lik e man y others, h e ha s som e questionabl e musica l habits , suc h a s almost alway s crescendoing too muc h to o early—h e loves to driv e orchestras to a climax—conductin g too ofte n onl y the primar y melodi c o r themati c lines , frequentl y neglectin g t o make th e orchestr a reall y pla y th e softe r dynamics , occasionall y indulgin g i n unnecessary over-conducting . But whateve r he does , h e doe s wit h suc h consummat e control , gesturall y and intellectually, an d wit h suc h a jo y o f music-making , rangin g fro m complet e confidence-building relaxatio n i n fron t o f an orchestr a t o passionate , almost ec static outbursts , that on e ca n onl y be compelle d t o admir e i n aw e —even i f one does not alway s agree wit h ever y aspect o f his performances. Kleiber is a virtuoso in th e bes t sense , a virtuoso with a mind . Tempo i n th e Scherz o recapitulatio n i s critical , perhap s mor e s o tha n i n an y other par t of the Scherzo . I say this becaus e thi s skeletal music , consistin g mor e of silenc e tha n actua l note s played , requires , virtuall y by definition , a certai n minimal motio n an d pulse , jus t t o han g together , a s i t were . A slo w temp o o f J. = 64 , suc h a s Böh m take s here , o r eve n a leisurel y one suc h a s Walter' s J. = 72 , simply cannot work ; nor doe s a n overl y hasty rushed-through tempo , such a s Strauss's J . = 104 . The fina l six-ba r phras e (mm.318—23) , whic h woul d normall y have ended th e movement o r le d t o a coda , usher s i n th e aforementione d transitional passage (m.324), leadin g directl y t o th e fourt h movement . It s uncann y stillnes s i s achieved b y th e simples t of means: motionles s sustained strings, in thi s cas e a n

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 19

oddly spaced an d voice d At tonality, without the fifth (El> ) marke

5

d

ppp, th e onl y occurrence o f this dynamic i n th e entir e symphony, 62 an d a softl y pulsating timpan i patter n whic h recall s i n summar y the severa l rhythmi c variants o f th e mai n them e use d earlie r i n th e recapitulatio n o f th e Scherzo : . The timpani' s note is C, emphasizing the thir d of the key of At, adding to the suspenseful , unrea l atmosphere. At the same time tha t C, reiterate d over fifty measures, secretly anticipates and lead s to the brillian t C major—th e "écla t triomphale " (a s it ha s bee n s o aptly called b y Gülke) —of th e Finale . Tw o performanc e problem s mus t b e mentione d here . Care should be take n that the las t notes in the first violins in mm.341 , 343 , 345, 347, 34 9 no t b e dropped , eithe r dynamicall y or rhythmically . One ofte n hear s the passag e playe d a s follows : o r. Thi s ha s th e negative effec t o f destroyin g th e lon g melodi c sequentia l lin e tha t Beethove n has create d here , i n whic h th e silen t beats ar e jus t a s important a n elemen t of the musi c a s the audibl e notes. Makin g the fina l note s i n eac h three-not e grou p too short tends t o chop Beethoven' s 28-measure-lon g line int o too man y two-bar segments, rathe r tha n on e lon g archin g line . The othe r proble m i s really more o f a question , an d ha s t o d o wit h Beetho ven's unusua l phrasin g (and, presumably, bowing ) startin g in m.352 . There i s a certain metrical/structura l ambiguity in thi s passage, made al l the mor e tenuou s by Beethoven' s uncommo n bowing/phrasin g pattern (four- , six- , five-bar), it ap pears that Beethove n was operating simultaneously on thre e level s of perception: (1) th e ongoin g four-ba r infrastructure—betwee n m.32 4 an d th e entr y o f th e final movement ther e ar e eleve n four-ba r unit s plus on e (extended ) six-bar unit; (2) th e sequentia l pitc h contourin g whic h appear s t o fal l int o fiv e three-ba r groups; an d (3 ) th e aforementione d bowin g patter n o f four-six-five . Thu s a multi-layered structur e evolves— a 'polyphony ' o f perceptua l levels , as i t wer e — as show n i n Ex . 45 . Ther e ar e tw o mor e sub-pattern s embedde d i n th e pitc h

Ex.45

62. I a m convince d tha t Schuber t wa s influence d t o us e th e specia l pp p i n th e las t movemen t o f his Octet, mentione d earlie r (se e p. 26 , fn . 15) , by Beethoven's example. In bot h piece s the dynamic is use d exclusivel y a t th e on e poin t tha t represent s the dynami c nadir o f th e movement , building from tha t point to a critical juncture —in Schubert' s case the recapitulation , i n Beethoven' s case th e brilliant fourt h movement .

196

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Bracket a ,

a

_, delineate s th e bowin g pattern;

bracket b ,

b

_, th e sequentia l pitch contouring ;

bracket c ,

c

j the underlying four-bar metrical structuring.

contouring (bracke t b) , outlinin g tw o ascendin g scala r patterns, whic h fal l int o a five-plus-four module, a s show n i n Ex . 46 . Give n thi s comple x three-layere d

Ex.46

construction, I ca n onl y believ e tha t Beethoven' s bowin g i s intentional ; an d i t is, of course, entirel y practical a t th e pp p dynami c level . S o perhaps th e passage is no t s o muc h ambiguou s a s i t i s unusua l an d original , an d ough t t o b e per formed wit h an awarenes s of its multi-layered patterns . With th e en d o f the transition , we have com e t o on e o f the mor e remarkabl e moments i n th e entir e symphony : the burs t o f radiant C majo r tha t constitute s the sudde n arriva l o f th e Final e movemen t wit h a n overwhelmin g releas e o f energy that ha s been pen t up fo r nearly two minutes (an d nearl y 17 5 measures), ever sinc e th e middl e o f the Trio . Although nearl y ever y conducto r understand s an d feel s th e momentousnes s of thi s juncture , wher e th e thir d an d fourt h movement s mee t an d wher e th e Scherzo erupt s int o th e grea t Finale , very few seem t o comprehend th e intrinsi c relationship betwee n thes e tw o movements o n eve n the simples t and mos t basic terms: namely , tha t th e Final e is , a s conceive d b y Beethoven , i n it s tempo, it s pulse an d beat , slowe r than th e Scherzo . I t i s beyond m y abilit y to understan d why th e vas t majorit y o f conductor s insis t o n doin g th e reverse : conductin g the Final e i n a temp o faste r tha n th e Scherzo . Actually , the proble m i s no t s o much tha t th e las t movement i s played to o fast , bu t tha t th e Scherz o i s played

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 19

7

too slow . Beethoven' s metronom e marking s mak e th e intende d relationshi p of th e tw o movement s ver y clear : Scherzo , 9 6 (t o th e dotte d half-note) ; Finale , 84 (t o th e half-note). 63 Bu t eve n i f we choos e t o disregar d the metronom e indi cations, i t shoul d b e self-eviden t tha t a Scherzo , particularl y a Beethove n Scherzo, i s inherentl y faste r tha n a Sonata-Allegr o Final e movement . An d yet thi s temp o relationshi p i s reverse d an d perverte d b y virtuall y al l conduc tors—with a very few rare exceptions—and worse, it seems tha t conductors neve r even giv e th e matte r an y though t a t all . I t i s on e thin g t o perfor m a piec e o f music o r a movemen t a t a slowe r o r faste r temp o tha n intende d b y th e com poser, bu t i t i s quit e anothe r matte r t o revers e th e roles an d function s o f tw o movements. This confusio n of tempos i s made al l the wors e when conductor s additionall y make a hug e ritar d (no t indicate d b y Beethoven ) i n th e fina l measure s o f th e Scherzo goin g int o th e Finale , som e conductor s eve n ritardin g beyon d th e tempo the y tak e fo r the las t movement. I n m y samplin g o f recordings the onl y conductors whos e Scherz o temp o wa s faste r tha n tha t o f th e Final e an d clos e to Beethoven' s temp o wer e Hogwood , Hickox , Briiggen , Norrington , Toscanini , Karajan, Dorati , Steinberg , an d Strauss , wit h Toscanin i absolutel y o n targe t i n both tempo s (9 6 an d 84) , an d wit h som e o f these i t wa s because thei r Scherz o tempo wa s s o slo w tha t th e Final e almos t ha d t o b e faster . Al l th e res t se t th e last movement's temp o eithe r th e sam e a s the Scherzo' s o r faster , wit h Muti , for example droppin g a staggering 24 metronome points . But th e wors t habit o f all—again , a traditio n which man y conductor s seem ingly inherit unquestioningl y or are afrai d t o oppose —is holding the temp o back considerably i n th e first two to fou r measure s o f the Final e an d the n lettin g (or making) i t prope l forwar d fro m m. 5 o r m. 6 on . Th e mos t preposterou s version of tha t ide a I hav e eve r encountere d i s Ozawa's, wh o start s the las t movemen t at J = 62 , twenty-two points below Beethoven' s temp o designation , but i n m. 3 jumps 3 0 point s t o J = 92 , no w 8 point s above Beethoven' s intende d tempo . The sillines s of this 'interpretation ' ca n perhap s bes t b e underline d b y tw o pe t 63. W e ca n se e thi s relationshi p a t anothe r rhythmi c uni t leve l eve n mor e dramaticall y displayed: Scherzo—J = 288 ; Finale— J = 168 . Thi s i s one poin t i n regar d t o whic h th e usuall y infallibl e Schenker errs . I n comparin g th e tw o tempo s (Scherz o an d Finale) , h e suggest s (p.69 ) thinkin g of the las t fou r bar s o f the Scherz o a s "slightl y faster " ("etwa s beschleunigt" ) tha n th e quarter-note s o f the Finale . Perhap s Schenker' s error i s merely semanti c o r inadvertently ambiguous, bu t o n th e fac e of i t h e i s sayin g tha t th e dotte d half-note s o f th e Scherz o (J . = 96 ) ar e slightl y faste r tha n th e quarter-notes ( J = 168 ) o f the Finale . Thi s is , of course, mistaken , becaus e 9 6 is , of course , slower than 16 8 and, i n an y case , ca n hardl y b e describe d a s "slightly " faster . I thin k Schenke r ma y hav e wanted t o sugges t feelin g th e quarter-notes o f th e Scherz o a s faste r tha n thos e o f th e Finale . Bu t even i n tha t cas e th e wor d "etwas " (slightly ) is misapplied, fo r a dro p fro m J = 28 8 dow n t o J = 168 can hardl y be calle d 'slight. ' I a m als o concerne d b y Schenker' s implication—h e refrain s fro m sayin g s o explicitly—tha t th e Finale shoul d b e fel t (an d conducted? ) i n 4/4 . Som e conductor s (mysel f included ) hav e trie d thi s and on e ca n sa y unequivocally that i t doesn' t work—a t all . One mus t b e gratefu l t o Beethove n for marking th e movemen t J = 8 4 (no t J = 168) , wit h th e clea r implicatio n an d suggestion , despit e his C (no t 0) , tha t th e movemen t b e fel t an d conducte d i n two .

198 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

phrases orchestr a musician s privately, derisively, apply to suc h a n (mis)interpretation (Ex.47). 64 Scherche n indulge s i n th e sam e temp o distortions.

Ex.47

Many conductor s wh o star t the movemen t a t a slowe r (presumabl y 'stately/ 'majestic') pac e an d the n accelerate , arrivin g at full temp o usuall y around m.16 , who als o take th e repeat , fin d tha t b y the en d o f the expositio n the y hav e gath ered s o much momentum , tha t a t th e repea t the y ar e force d eithe r t o suddenly jam o n th e temp o brake s to reac h th e sam e slowe r tempo take n th e firs t time , or t o sta y a t ful l speed , which , o f course , make s a mocker y of th e repeat . Th e point i s tha t al l suc h temp o twisting s an d deformation s as describe d her e ar e not onl y totall y unnecessar y but significantl y detrac t fro m an d undermin e th e real intende d effect , whic h i s powerful , thrilling, an d majesti c enoug h jus t a s Beethoven wrot e it . What ca n b e mor e excitin g an d breathtakin g than th e out burst o f triumphant C majo r wit h it s simple powerful , elementa l theme , follow ing minute s o f mysteriously spectral, stifle d tension ! In vie w of the extraordinar y popularity of Beethoven's Fift h Symphon y and it s overwhelming impac t upo n audience s ove r mor e tha n a doze n decades , i t i s interesting t o lear n tha t man y earl y listeners foun d muc h o f the las t movemen t wanting i n variou s respects. Som e foun d i t "commonplace " an d "overl y noisy," others though t i t "blatant" o r "vulgar," expecting , on e suspects , a polite Mozart ian Rondo . Ludwi g Spoh r complaine d abou t th e "disreputable " sound s o f th e trombones an d piccolo , littl e appreciatin g th e fac t tha t thes e instrument s an d the contrabassoo n wer e use d her e fo r th e firs t tim e i n a symphony . Berlio z found th e Final e "repetitious. " Eve n a s late a s 1890 , th e critic-musicologis t Hermann Kretzschma r could no t resist pointing ou t that h e considere d "th e theme s [of the las t movement ] simpl e to th e poin t o f triviality." 65 The openin g them e o f the Final e ma y indee d b e 'simple, ' bu t i t i s also, be cause o f it s simplicity, remarkably strong an d compelling . Furthermore , under neath th e apparen t simplicit y there li e som e fascinatingl y origina l an d comple x 64. Incidentally , th e Germa n musicologis t an d conducto r Pete r Gülk e ha s pointed ou t th e interest ing relationshi p betwee n th e openin g mai n them e o f the las t movemen t an d th e woodwin d them e of th e Andante co n moto.

65. Herman n Kretzschmar , Führer durch de n Concertsaal (Leipzig , 1890) .

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 19

9

structural interplays . Ou r understandin g o f thi s musi c mus t begi n wit h th e knowledge tha t mos t o f th e movemen t i s constructe d i n two-ba r phrase s an d measure groups , whic h ar e extende d frequentl y t o three-ba r unit s (ver y muc h like th e four s i n th e firs t an d thir d movement s extende d sometime s t o sixes) . These two-ba r unit s ar e fuse d int o large r phras e an d structura l entities , a s fo r example mm.1—6 , mm.7—12 , mm.13—1 8 (al l three time s tw o measures). What is unusual i n thes e phras e construction s i s that th e longes t an d therefor e weightiest rhythmic values , dotted half-notes , fall o n the second , fourth , and sixt h measure s of th e firs t six-ba r phrase , thu s fallin g o n th e 'weaker ' measur e o f eac h two-ba r unit. Thi s i s somewhat unusua l bu t als o complex i n th e subtles t of ways, in tha t the longe r rhythmi c valu e produces a kind o f syncopation, no t onl y because th e dotted-half-note i s longer tha n th e previou s two notes, bu t becaus e th e G i n m. 2 is also the highes t not e i n the themati c line , havin g risen from th e toni c C . Thi s 'syncopation' an d subtl e shif t o f weight reverberate s throughout th e firs t par t of the exposition , i n differen t rhythmi c configurations . Fo r example , th e inher ent basi c syncopatio n i n mm.14,1 6 (f ? o r £_ f f) , itsel f a referenc e t o mm.1-2 ( \ p p

|p

- \

|) , recur s agai n i n mm.18 , 19 , and i n diminu -

tion i n mm.20 , 21, 66 a s wel l a s i n th e accompanimenta l figure s i n th e bas s line (J l J ) an d som e o f th e wind s (["/'] f l T). 67 Thi s veritabl e barrag e o f syncopations an d offbea t accentuation s culminate s i n th e powerfu l descendin g unison passag e i n mm.22-2 5 Thi

s figur e i n

turn will , somewha t smoothe d ou t rhythmicall y an d dynamically , pla y a n important rol e i n th e secon d par t o f th e exposition , returnin g a s It i s becaus e o f al l thes e intricat e 66. On e interestin g confirmatio n o f this inheren t feelin g o f syncopation i s the fac t tha t virtuall y al l orchestras automaticall y play—an d thi s mean s feel—mm.20,2 1 a s syncopated , playin g wit h a n ac cent o r sf o n th e secon d an d fourt h beats , a feeling , o f course, emphasize d b y timpani, cellos , basses , and contrabassoon . Thi s cross-accentuatio n i s usually s o strong i n mos t orchestra s tha t I hav e ofte n as a conducto r bee n move d t o tel l th e player s wh o pla y o n th e firs t an d thir d beat s t o accen t them, t o restor e som e degre e o f bea t equilibriu m t o thes e measure s an d t o avoi d a resul t suc h as:

67. Who , b y the way , among conductors has ever bothered t o distinguish betwee n th e tw o accompanimental rhythm s betwee n cellos/basse s an d timpan i i n mm.20 , 2 1 ( I s ) J an d f j f ) ? I mysel f never ha d th e tim e t o sor t thes e rhythm s ou t i n rehearsa l unti l a fe w years ag o wit h severa l orches tras, includin g the Spokan e Symphon y an d th e Cologne Radio Orchestra . When the instrumentalist s involved becam e awar e o f an d actuall y hear d th e rhythmi c difference s i n thos e tw o measure s the y were amaze d no t onl y a t Beethoven's ingeniou s inventiveness , but tha t the y ha d neve r i n th e severa l hundred time s the y ha d al l playe d th e piec e notice d thi s rhythmi c differentiation , an d tha t n o conductor ha d eve r pointe d ou t thi s detai l before .

200 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

rhythmic an d thematic/motivi c relationship s tha t a rock-lik e steadines s of temp o is ver y muc h needed , an y temp o deviatio n underminin g Beethoven' s structura l framework an d rhythmi c detailing . To add t o the complexit y of this initially "simple-" looking music, th e phrasin g takes a n interestin g tur n i n m.18 , which function s in tw o roles. I t is at onc e th e sixth measur e i n th e thir d six-ba r phras e (mm . 13-18) an d th e firs t measur e o f two two-ba r unit s (mm.18-19 , 20-21) . Thi s elisio n i n th e periodicit y explain s why ther e i s a n uneve n numbe r o f bar s i n th e firs t phas e (mm . 1-25) o f th e exposition. It use d t o be popula r amon g conductor s t o broade n th e temp o measurabl y a t m.26, an d worse , t o prepar e fo r thi s broadenin g wit h a substantia l ritar d i n mm.24—25, a s one ca n hea r i n Mengelberg' s recording , fo r example. I t seems t o me quit e unmusica l t o imped e th e exhilaratin g rus h o f sound s Beethove n ha s created i n mm.22-25 , jus t t o achiev e som e rathe r obviou s grandios e effec t a t m.26. Fortunately , judgin g b y recording s o f more recen t vintage , mos t conduc tors n o longe r indulg e i n thi s particula r distortion , sensin g tha t i t i s more effec tive t o kee p th e establishe d momentu m goin g acros s th e structura l seam s a t m.26. Man y conductor s do , however, stil l lea n towards a heavy ponderous soun d at m.26. 68 Thi s i s particularly inappropriate onc e on e realize s tha t m.2 6 i s no t some majo r arriva l poin t bu t a surgin g continuatio n o f th e movement' s firs t theme statement , leadin g o n toward s a much mor e importan t juncture , namely , the arriva l o f the dominan t i n m.45 . A caution need s t o be raise d for mm. 26-27, where to o often th e horns , enthu siastically seizin g upo n th e firs t goo d littl e tun e the y hav e bee n offere d b y Bee thoven, blas t i n wit h a n enormou s ff tha t completel y overbalance s th e wood winds tha t also have thi s phrase. 69 A serious balanc e proble m arise s in mm.28-2 9 an d 32-33 , i n whic h th e ma jestic risin g arpeggiated figure s i n th e bas s instrument s ar e usuall y drowned ou t by timpan i an d bras s i f car e i s no t take n t o avoi d this . Interestingly , th e bas s figure, lastin g three measure s (mm.28-30) , continue s beyon d th e timpan i roll , overlapping wit h th e continuin g them e i n horn s an d woodwinds . Th e effec t i s very od d indee d when , i n poo r balancin g o f thi s passage , th e bas s instrument s are inaudibl e i n mm.28-2 9 and the n suddenl y emerg e fo r the final five beats of their figure , which , o f course, make s n o musica l sens e a t al l but ha s bee n toler ated tim e an d tim e agai n b y bot h conductor s an d recordin g producers . I t doe s not see m t o hav e occurre d t o man y conductor s tha t tha t bas s figur e i s the 're sponse' t o th e 'call ' o f th e wind s i n m.26 , t o whic h i t mus t therefor e b e con 68. On e o f the wors t distortions of this phras e occur s o n Abbado' s Vienna Philharmoni c recording , where th e maestr o i n m.2 7 stretche s th e temp o enormously—in effec t makin g a fermat a i n th e middle o f th e measure—t o th e obviou s consternatio n o f th e Vienn a musicians , wh o com e com pletely apar t rhythmically. (I t is even mor e shockin g tha t a majo r record produce r woul d allo w such a misha p t o remai n uncorrecte d an d t o appea r o n a professiona l recordin g by a world-famou s con ductor an d orchestra. ) 69. Dangerou s enoug h wit h tw o horns, one ca n imagin e ho w thi s passag e sounds when wit h Kara jan o r Klemperc r conducting, th e horn s arc doubled .

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y

201

nected musicall y an d equalize d dynamically . O f th e innumerabl e recording s sampled, i n onl y a smal l numbe r wa s th e prope r balanc e achieve d an d th e entire bas s line heard , mos t notabl y thos e o f Toscanini, Jochum , Reiner , Dorati , Haitink, Solti , Gardine r an d Nilcisch . Measures 26-3 3 compris e tw o four-ba r group s (or , i f yo u will , fou r two-ba r units, dependin g upo n whic h instrument s on e i s looking at) , followe d i n m.3 4 by a seven-ba r phrase , which i s in effec t anothe r on e o f Beethoven' s stretching s of material, i n thi s cas e th e immediatel y precedin g materia l o f mm.26-33. Bot h main idea s i n thos e measure s ar e extended , th e violins ' melodi c lin e bein g a variant o f th e winds ' them e a t m.26 , includin g th e unusua l phrase/bowin g

Ex.48

articulation, an d th e bas s instrument s continuin g i n eighth-not e motion , m.3 4 being analogou s t o m.3 0 (se e Plate VIII) . These tw o elements, supporte d b y an added contrapunta l lin e i n th e viola s and firs t bassoo n (i n inversio n t o th e vio lins), ar e spu n ou t int o a modulator y bridg e leadin g t o th e secondar y dominan t D majo r i n m.41 , which i n tur n set s u p th e mandator y mov e t o G (m.45) . At first glance on e ma y b e puzzle d b y the existenc e o f an irregula r seven-bar phrase (mm.34-40) , especiall y i f one i s aware of the recapitulatio n o f this mate rial, mm.240-49, where it reappears i n regula r even-numbered multiple s o f twobar phras e units . We will retur n shortl y to that recapitulation, on e o f Beethoven' s most extraordinar y inspirations. Fo r now i t will suffice/t o explai n tha t the seven bar phras e i n questio n wa s necessitate d b y th e modulator y mov e t o D majo r (m.41), a progressio n tha t coul d no t easil y have bee n achieve d i n si x measures given th e startin g poin t o f C majo r (i n m.34) . Thi s ca n b e readil y seen , fo r instance, b y eliminating m.40 , which woul d caus e a very crud e an d inep t mov e to m.4 1 (fro m m.39) . Th e 'extra ' measur e i n th e phras e is , i n fact , m.38 , a G 6/4 chord , whic h ha d t o b e adde d i n orde r t o ge t t o th e D majo r arriva l poin t of m.4 1 a s soo n a s feasible , a s th e progressio n i n Fig . 9 shows . Measur e 3 8 is a sequentia l repetitio n o f m.37 , th e latter' s note s bein g o f necessit y transpose d

Fig. 9

mm. 34-3 5

mm. 36-37

m.38

m.39

m.40

C

D7

G6/4

D

Q6/4

m.41 D

up on e ste p t o exten d th e risin g melodi c progressio n fro m e 2 t o ftt 2 , begu n in mm.34-37 . Th e passag e ha s thu s a kin d o f self-fulfillin g inevitabilit y abou t it, includin g th e seven-ba r phrasing . Wha t make s i t eve n mor e inter esting an d i s i n a wa y th e reaso n fo r th e irregula r phras e length , i s th e fac t

Plate VII I Beethoven , Fift h Symphony , fourt h movement , mm.31—3 9

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 20

3

that m . 3 5 i s a one-ba r rhythmi c contractio n o f th e two-ba r winds ' them e at m.26 . Instea d o f Beethove

n permutâte s i t t o

, a kin d o f doublin g u p o f th e phrase . Not e als o how m.3 9 i s a rhythmicized varian t o f m.37 (Ex . 49) . B e i t noted tha t this one bar mutatio n does not destro y the basi c two-bar phrasing (mm.34-35, 36-37), for it i s ingeniously encapsuled i n it . In othe r words , the tw o bars contain bot h th e original thematic for m an d it s contraction (se e Ex. 50). In the en d i t is this one-bar thematic varian t which i n tur n allow s Beethoven t o mov e with i t to G majo r i n m.38 and then contrast the phrase even further rhythmicall y in mm.39-40.

Ex. 49 Ex

. 50

Two error s in al l score s an d parts , on e quit e serious , th e othe r les s so , mus t be mentione d here . On e concern s th e secon d violins , whic h fro m th e fourt h beat o f m.34 o n shoul d b e playe d on e octav e higher , a s i s made unequivocall y clear i n Beethoven' s autograph . (Th e sam e i s tru e o f mm.240-43.) Th e othe r error occur s i n m.3 2 i n th e bass , which shoul d star t this measur e wit h th e lo w contra C (se e m.23 8 for comparison). I hav e gon e t o considerabl e pain s to detai l th e structura l analysi s o f this pas sage fo r tw o reasons : first , th e hop e o f alertin g conductor s t o th e remarkabl e polyphonic, harmonic , an d structura l originality of this passage , and t o th e fac t that car e mus t b e take n t o mak e al l thes e element s functio n correctl y together ; and second , because , a s already alluded to , this passage undergoes a n eve n mor e ingenious, almos t miraculou s transformatio n when encountere d agai n i n th e reprise (se e below, pp. 214-15) . The nex t episod e (mm.45-63) , o n th e dominant , seeme d no t t o rais e an y terribly seriou s performanc e problem s i n th e majorit y o f recording s sampled . Minor shortcoming s d o occur , o f course , suc h a s th e failur e o f mos t perfor mances t o observ e the specia l pp i n m.5 4 (a s compared wit h the previou s p's in mm.46,50). Also , sinc e mos t conductor s generall y concentrat e onl y o n th e highest-lying an d mos t obviousl y prominent melodi c lines , th e four-not e cell o phrases (th e first one i n mm.45-47 : ) are ofte n neglected . That i s unfortunate, since thi s motiv e take s on considerabl e prominenc e i n th e development sectio n (se e mm . 106-08 (contrabassoon , cellos , basses ) o r mm.112-14 (trombones , bassoons ) etc.). Most conductor s an d orchestra s pic k u p considerabl e spee d a t mm.45—al though some , suc h a s Carlo s Kleiber , Abbado, an d Kubeli k actuall y slo w u p there (sz'c ) — and then , a t m.58 , increas e th e momentu m eve n mor e fo r th e strings' sixteenth-runs . This, o f course , make s fo r a superficiall y ver y excitin g

204 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

effect fo r audiences, bu t i s an unnecessar y 'improvement' o f Beethoven's music . What bother s m e abou t suc h rushin g o f th e temp o i s tha t i n mos t case s i t i s inadvertent, mor e a matte r o f lac k o f contro l o f th e temp o tha n som e well considered musica l intention . A steady, unrushed temp o i s actually eve n mor e powerful an d dramati c i n effect . I shoul d als o mentio n tha t i n man y perfor mances an d recording s the violin s in mm.58-5 9 ar e partiall y or totall y covered by the over-playe d ff of the res t of the orchestra , especiall y the bras s and timpani . (In th e Ansermet , Mengelberg , Norrington , Hanove r Band , Hogwood , an d Co lin Davi s recording s th e string s ar e eithe r virtuall y or , i n som e cases , totall y inaudible, especiall y in mm.58,59. ) Before w e leav e thi s sectio n (mm.45-57) , w e shoul d tak e not e o f the recur rence o f the quasi-syncopatio n we found i n th e openin g o f the movement , tha t is, the longe r not e valu e (mm.46,50 ) fallin g o n a wea k measure i n th e four-ba r phrasing. Thi s ide a return s man y mor e time s i n th e Finale , no t onl y i n thi s particular for m bu

t i n th e developmen t sectio n i n

a rhythmi c variant , a s i n mm.106-108 , 132-34 , etc . (Ex . 51) . I t i s wel l fo r conductors and thei r orchestras to appreciate this unusual phrasing and to make

Ex. 5 1

it subtly fel t whenever , in th e cours e o f the movement , i t occurs. Let u s als o not e i n passin g th e five-ba r phras e mm.53-57 , anothe r on e o f Beethoven's phras e stretchings fro m fou r t o five measures, caused b y the interpo lation o f the G augmente d chor d (m.57) . That i s to say , had Beethoven no t fel t the nee d fo r that transitiona l chord, goin g instea d fro m a pure G majo r tria d to the C majo r o f m.58, th e extr a bar woul d no t hav e bee n needed . There i s also the possibilit y that Beethove n coul d hav e deal t wit h the presen t tw o bars in on e bar o

r,

which woul d hav e preserved the four-ba r

structuring. Bu t th e 'dissonance ' o f th e augmente d chor d t o Beethoven' s ear s required th e phras e expansio n an d extr a spacing . However unproblemati c an d reasonabl y well-played the sectio n jus t discussed seems t o be , th e nex t episod e (mm.64-71 ) i s quit e th e opposite . I t ha s almos t never bee n playe d correctl y o n an y recordin g tha t I kno w of , no r hav e I eve r heard i t 'interpreted ' properl y i n concert . I t i s difficult t o understan d wh y Bee thoven's dynamic s (variou s fp's an d p's) ar e summaril y ignored o r rejected . Almost everyone, including the celebrate d Beethoven'specialists ' Furtwängler , Karajan, Klemperer , Walter , Masur , an d eve n Toscanini , simpl y pla y th e whol e eight-bar passag e a t a mediocr e mf, neithe r f i n th e fp , no r p i n between . Th e only conductor s wh o respec t Beethoven' s dynamic s ar e Reiner , Dorati , Carlo s Kleiber, an d Jochum , althoug h th e las t allows to o muc h crescend o i n mm.65 , 67, and 69-7 1 toward s the f o f m.72, which the n annul s the p' s . There ar e two

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHONY

205

viable interpretation s o f Beethoven's fp's here . On e i s to tak e th e markin g literally, tha t i s a true f followe d instantl y by a true p , tha t p continuin g throug h th e next seve n beat s (without crescendo) . Proo f that Beethove n i s serious about this p ca n b e see n i n th e cell o par t i n m.65 , a s well a s the firs t violins . I would add , that thi s f p shoul d b e treate d a s a n expressiv e (singing ) fp , no t a n aggressive , hard-hitting one . The othe r sometime s offere d interpretatio n i s to consider th e entir e eigh t bar s at a basic p dynami c level , with th e fp's treate d a s accents i n p , jus t as one migh t interpret sf s map context . Bu t th e proble m i s that thes e ar e no t sfs; the y ar e fp's, a distinctio n Beethove n make s frequentl y i n hi s musi c an d on e whic h w e as performer s ought t o honor . Additionally , I should poin t ou t tha t al l generall y available edition s contai n seriou s phrasin g an d bowin g error s i n thi s passage . According t o Beethoven' s autograp h score , th e followin g i s th e correc t settin g (Ex. 52) 70

Ex. 5 2

A partial reiteration a t m.72 o f the previou s eight measure s lead s to the repea t of th e expositio n (m.84) . Th e descan t violi n figure s o f mm.65-7 1 ar e no w echoed i n th e piccol o —one piccol o agains t th e entir e orchestra . Thi s certainl y presents a balance problem , bu t no t a n insurmountabl e one . I t is important tha t the orchestr a kee p t o onl y a f , no t jus t t o allo w th e piccol o t o b e heard , bu t because Beethove n follow s thi s f si x bars late r wit h a pi ù f an d thre e bar s afte r that a ful l ff . Unfortunatel y i n mos t o f th e recording s sample d th e orchestr a i s too lou d a t m.7 3 an d th e piccol o i s barel y audibl e or , i n som e cases , totall y inaudible —understandable perhap s i n a performance , but ther e i s no excus e i n a recording . 70. Th e s f i n th e firs t violin s in m.6 8 that on e find s i n mos t edition s shoul d b e eliminated ; i t i s an error an d no t t o h e foun d i n Beethoven' s autograph . This misprin t was pointed ou t a s earl y a s 1925 by Schenke r an d mentione d wit h som e frequenc y i n subsequen t writings o n Beethoven' s Fifth . I t is thus al l th e mor e amazin g still t o fin d thi s erran t s f i n man y performances , includin g on e i n earl y 1994 b y Kurt Masur an d th e Ne w Yor k Philharmonic .

206 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

This i s perhap s th e appropriat e occasio n t o lamen t th e fac t tha t th e instru ments Beethove n add s t o hi s basi c 'classical ' orchestr a i n th e Finale—piccolo , contrabassoon, an d thre e trombones—ar e woefull y neglecte d i n mos t perfor mances an d eve n mos t recordings. This is unforgivable, especially on recordings . Here Beethove n ha s th e innovativ e darin g t o emplo y thes e instruments , a s i t turns ou t fo r th e firs t tim e i n an y symphony , and fo r al l on e ca n hea r o f them on mos t recordings , they migh t jus t as well hav e neve r bee n use d b y Beethoven . This i s true, surprisingly , even o f the trombones , a n inexcusabl e laps e I ascribe as muc h t o th e recordin g producer s a s the conductor s (althoug h th e latte r pre sumably have th e fina l artisti c approval of the recorde d performanc e an d shoul d object t o the muzzlin g o f these instruments) . Bu t wors e yet, there i s not a single recording o n whic h th e contrabassoo n ca n b e hear d a t all , a t an y time . Thi s presumes th e ironic , almos t humorou s situatio n tha t i n al l thes e recording s a contrabassoonist wa s hired , wa s pai d fo r hi s services , an d no t on e not e o f hi s playing i s heard. H e o r she migh t jus t as well have stayed home . I t is almost th e same wit h th e piccolo , whic h o n many , man y recording s i s often eithe r inaudi ble o r barel y present. Al l this i s particularly deplorable sinc e thes e instrument s were mean t t o enric h Beethoven' s instrumenta l palette , addin g thre e ne w an d unusual color s to th e collectiv e orchestra l sonority. This i s especially true o f th e trombones, a brilliant powerful additio n to Beethoven' s fou r bras s (two trumpets, two horns). Sinc e trombone s ar e anythin g but wea k non-projecting instruments , it i s amazin g t o m e tha t o n s o man y recording s th e trombon e colo r i s eithe r virtually or totally hidden. It is a color which conductor s shoul d relis h to exploit, but fo r some inexplicabl e reason s mostly don't. We shoul d als o note—an d fee l an d mak e audible , i.e . comprehensibl e t o a listener—that m.7 1 (an d m.64) i s the first instance wher e th e longe r not e valu e (J.) occur s o n th e 'strong ' measur e o f a two-bar o r four-ba r phrase . Thes e note s should b e wel l sustaine d i n a melodi c sense , tha t is , 'dropped' neithe r rhythmi cally (t o )

no r dynamicall y (H^=-). Bot h defect s ca n b e hear d

on mos t recordings . The pi ù f o n th e secon d bea t o f m.77 has give n many conductors interpretiv e problems. There ar e i n fac t tw o theories curren t a s to th e meanin g o f this pi ù f (and man y simila r instance s i n Beethoven' s oeuvre) . Som e musicologist s an d historians clai m t o kno w tha t Beethove n use d pi ù f t o indicat e a crescendo . I have alread y referre d t o on e suc h instanc e i n th e Fift h Symphony' s first movement, mm . 17 5-79 (althoug h ther e th e additiona l perforated lines extending ou t from th e word s pi ù f ten d t o mak e thi s interpretatio n mor e reasonable) . Th e other theor y claims, o f course, tha t pi ù f ca n onl y mean a sudde n dynami c jolt, since Beethove n regularl y used th e designatio n "cresc. " or "cresc "t o indicate a gradua l dynami c increase , an d tha t th e tw o notations canno t possibl y mean th e sam e thin g an d ar e no t interchangeable . Bu t I stil l ten d t o agre e with th e firs t formulation : a graduate d dynami c increment . Th e proble m som e conductors an d orchestra s hav e a t m.7 7 is , however , no t o f suc h a subtl e theoretical/ interpretiv e nature. Thei r proble m i s mor e mundan e i n tha t the y

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 20

7

allow th e phras e a t m.7 1 t o b e excessively loud, afte r whic h the y naturall y find it impossibl e t o increas e th e volum e a t m.7 7 (eithe r a s a sudde n più f o r as a further crescendo) . Variou s circumvention s ar e the n resorte d to , suc h a s chang ing Beethoven' s pi ù f t o a subito p an d the n crescendoin g t o th e /fa t m.80— a really tawdry, banal effec t (thi s was a favorit e o f Ormandy's) — or, lik e Böhm an d Reiner, resortin g t o makin g a n accelerand o (sic). Non e o f thes e 'solutions ' ar e necessary o r justifiable ; Beethoven' s scor e tell s u s precisel y wha t t o d o an d i s eminently realizabl e wit h som e care , som e rehearsing . The measure s directl y prio r t o th e firs t an d secon d endings , an d th e secon d ending itself , (m.85) d o take som e special car e i n term s o f ensemble balanc e t o realize Beethoven' s intentions . Th e proble m i s t o brin g ou t al l th e movin g eighth-notes i n mm.8 0 through 8 9 against th e sustaine d sound s o f the bras s and the sixteenth-not e barrage s of the timpani . Thes e arpeggiated eighth-not e figures must b e wel l hear d an d projected , fo r the y provid e th e rhythmi c momentum , the surgin g energy, tha t propel s th e musi c i n th e first instance bac k to the reca pitulation an d th e beginnin g o f the movement , i n th e secon d instanc e toward s the developmen t section . Beethoven her e solve d a difficul t proble m mos t effectivel y i n hi s typica l di rect, unhesitatin g fashion , whic h solution , however , i f no t performe d wit h un derstanding, tha t is , wit h a deliberat e judiciou s pacing , ca n soun d to o abrup t and a littl e awkward . I a m referrin g to th e fac t tha t Beethoven , havin g maneu vered hi s musi c t o th e ke y o f F mino r (m.80) , an d havin g als o arrive d a t a point wher e th e nex t imminen t forma l section s woul d b e a recapitulatio n o f the expositio n and , th e secon d time , th e developmen t section , ha d t o prepar e simultaneously fo r both eventualities , i n th e on e cas e returnin g t o C major , i n the othe r goin g o n t o E majo r (m.86 ) an d thenc e t o A majo r (m.90) . I a m certain—and th e sketc h book s an d autograp h confir m this—tha t Beethove n struggled considerabl y t o arriv e a t thi s remarkabl e twi n solution , an d havin g succeeded, I think i t i s mandatory for u s performer s to respec t hi s decisio n o f a first ending an d a n expositio n repeat. 71 Many performance s contai n a self-inflicte d proble m aroun d m.82 . Conduc tors wh o hav e slowe d u p th e temp o eithe r a t m.26 o r m.45 an d now , eyein g th e return t o th e repea t o r the plung e int o th e developmen t section , suddenl y realize tha t the y mus t increas e thei r pac e t o arriv e at a temp o identica l o r a t leas t similar t o th e on e the y ha d take n a t the beginnin g o f the Finale . Thi s readjust ment ofte n create s ensembl e problem s an d rhythmi c raggednes s in th e orches tra, a s can b e hear d o n Bernstein's , Jochum's , an d Steinberg' s recordings . Con 71. I recal l a semina r on Beethove n symphonies , held b y Igo r Markevitch a t m y invitatio n at Tan glewood i n 1982 , a t whic h i n answe r t o a questio n o n whethe r t o hono r repeat s i n classica l (bu t especially Beethove n an d Brahms ) symphonies, Markevitc h suggeste d tha t i f the compose r ha s writ ten a n extensiv e first ending wit h ne w materia l no t otherwis e represente d i n th e wor k and/o r ha s evidently spent considerabl e effort o n redirectin g the musi c back t o a repeat, then that repea t shoul d be honored . I t i s an interestin g and cntertainabl e proposition , quite apar t fro m question s of forma l balance an d proportions . It i s al l th e mor e disappointin g to rea d i n Markevitch' s Beethove n symphony studie s Di e Sinfonien vo n Ludwig va n Beethoven (Leipzig , 1983) , tha t h e strongl y advocates eliminating th e repea t in th e Fift h Symphony' s Finale (p . 307).

208

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

versely, many conductors wh o mak e th e repea t caus e serious rhythmic/ensemble problems when , havin g pushe d th e temp o forwar d befor e the firs t ending , sud denly pu t o n th e brake s for the retur n t o th e openin g o f the movement . The sudde n movemen t t o E majo r i n th e secon d endin g (m.86 ) i s one o f the most excitin g moment s i n th e Finale , comin g a s i t doe s a s somewha t o f a har monic surprise . Her e i t i s importan t t o brin g out , a s mentione d earlier , th e eighth-note figurations, not onl y in th e bas s instruments but i n th e continuatio n of the lin e i n th e secon d violin s (m.88) an d th e woodwind s (m.89). Wha t mus t be clearl y audible t o th e listene r i s the followin g tota l lin e (Ex . 53) . Admittedly, Ex. 5 3

the completio n o f this line , especiall y in m.88 , i s somewhat under-orchestrated . However, some subtl e rebalancin g an d dynami c reductio n t o poco f o r mf i n al l the sustainin g upper-rang e instrument s an d th e brass , ca n readil y achiev e th e appropriate realizatio n of these fou r measures . (On e ca n eve n borro w a fe w first violins and/o r viola s to ad d t o th e secon d violin s in m.88. ) Unfortunatel y mor e than hal f of the recorde d performance s indicates that the conductor s didn' t eve n know there was a problem here . Thos e who di d very well here are both Kleibers, Kletzki, Ormandy , Toscanini , Mehta , Dorati , Krips , an d abov e al l Haitin k an d Maazel, whil e th e famou s Beethove n conductor s Furtwängler , Karajan , an d Szell deserv e onl y a 'fair ' rating . Solt i i n hi s Vienn a Philharmoni c recordin g projects th e bas s instruments well, but lose s th e secon d violin s and woodwinds . The development , initiall y featuring only a transpositio n o f th e exposition' s second episod e (m.45) , soo n rework s and extend s muc h o f the earlie r material, at times b y inversion (se e oboe an d flut e i n mm.96-99 ) o r by modulation (even tually t o th e ke y o f Bl> , m.106) , an d seem s t o represen t relativel y few perfor mance problems . Bu t on e migh t watc h tha t n o crescend o occur s i n th e as cending woodwin d lin e i n m.102 , fo r i t will undermin e th e effec t o f the rathe r sudden f i n m.106 . I als o don' t understan d wh y Gardine r ha s t o chang e th e strings' figure s i n mm.100-10 1 an d mm.104-10 5 t o separat e bows , whe n Bee thoven's slurre d triplets really work very well —indeed better . In th e meantim e th e four-not e cell o motiv e I mentione d earlie r (i n con nection wit h mm.46-48 ) i s now elaborated an d sequentiall y extended (mm.91 93) an

d distribute d variously amon g th e strings , eventu -

ally t o tak e o n primar y importanc e i n m.106 . Fo r her e thi s bas s motive i s no w

BEETHOVEN: FIFTH SYMPHON Y

209

elevated t o th e functio n o f theme an d accorde d furthe r elaboration , expandin g it eventually from it s customary two-bar shap e t o it s current four-not e configuration, bu t stretche d t o three-bar unit s (mm.107-109 , 110-12) . Many caution s ar e i n orde r here , th e first one regardin g dynamic levels . As so often i n Beethoven' s matur e works , h e applie s hi s favorit e climax-generatin g device: /"via pi ù fío f f (mm . 106-122-132). The dange r i s that th e variou s brass and timpan i entrances , i f louder tha n a cultivate d f , wil l prematurel y drive th e whole dynami c leve l up , makin g a pi ù f an d a climacti c f f ver y difficul t o r impossible. Th e wors t offender i s often th e timpanis t who , havin g rested fo r 2 8 measures an d spyin g th e f a i m. 104, i s eager to participat e i n th e buil d u p an d crashes in with a thunderous / f roll. (Thi s disturbanc e ca n b e hear d o n countles s recordings.) Bu t th e bigges t balanc e proble m occur s i n mm.118-21 , i n whic h the trumpet s ente r thematicall y (aide d an d abette d b y horn s an d timpani ) an d are ap t to drown ou t no t onl y the othe r themati c line s (violins , mm. 118-20 an d violas/cellos, mm . 120-21) bu t als o th e triple t figure s i n th e woodwinds . These last ar e ver y importan t becaus e i t i s now thei r tur n t o b e transforme d int o pri mary material , triumphantl y leading, i n alternation s wit h th e brass , t o th e cli mactic majesti c dominan t peda l poin t o f m. 132. The staggere d canoni c layerin g and structurin g that need to be clearly preserved i n performance can b e appreciated graphicall y in Ex . 54 .

Ex. 5 4

I hav e neve r understoo d wh y th e violins ' phrasing/bowin g i n mm . 106 107 an d 109-1 0 (a s wel l a s th e cellos ' i n mm.112-1 3 an d mm. l 15-16) a s shown i n mos t availabl e editions , includin g th e firs t editio n an d Beethoven' s autograph, i s universall y ignore d an d rejected . I f th e reaso n i s tha t i t i s 'impractical' t o pla y fiv e beat s i n f o n on e bow—whic h i s no t reall y truethen le t u s a t leas t preserv e Beethoven' s sens e o f legato, s o importan t to contras t wit h th e staccat o alternat e measure s (108-109 , 111-1 2 etc.) , and no t pla y .

A compromis e o f with sustained quarter-note s woul d

serve Beethoven' s intention s much better . The obo e triplet s in mm. l 13 and 11 6

210

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

are almos t neve r heard , bu t tha t i s through shee r neglect . Sinc e the y continu e the previou s strings ' triplet s gestures an d ar e als o the lin k to th e triple t line s i n mm. 118-21 (and beyond tha t t o mm . 122-31), the y are important an d ca n wit h a littl e car e i n balancin g be mad e quit e discernible . A serious error exist s i n th e contrabassoon, cello , an d bas s part s i n mm . 118-19: th e Dl> , analogou s t o th e woodwinds i n m.10 6 an d th e secon d violin s in m.112 , should b e tie d acros s th e bar lin e t o the whol e note . Two problems stan d ou t i n th e nex t section , mm . 122-31. One, simply a bad habit rathe r tha n a rea l problem , i s the failur e t o sustai n th e dotte d half-note s in the strings . In almos t all orchestras this passage, either solicite d b y or tolerated by thei r conductors , i s rendered a s i f written o

r

or, wors e ye t , Th e Englis h 'authenticists ' an d Harnoncour t ar e particularly negligent in this respect. Indeed, the y make a stylistic (bowing ) fetish of these diminuendos. The othe r problem i s to create a viable balance i n the più f between woodwinds and brass (and timpani) in their triplet alternations. Balance problem s continu e t o plagu e mos t o f the nex t section (mm . 132-52), but al l ca n b e deal t wit h successfull y i n intelligen t rehearsin g an d subtl e dy namic readjustment s without excessiv e doublings o r orchestrationa l retouching . The woodwinds ' theme , beginnin g m.132 , a t firs t i n octaves , the n i n thirds — remarkably positioned i n fou r octave s (Ex.55 ) —can easil y be brough t into prominence (withou t resorting to doubling ) b y judiciou s modification o f the strings .

Ex. 5 5

Let u s remembe r tha t rhythmi c energ y an d intensit y are jus t a s effective—per haps eve n mor e so—a s shee r volum e an d mas s o f sound. A healthy, cultivate d / f i n th e bras s (a t m.136) , adde d b y Beethove n t o th e woodwind s a s a timbr e augmentation (no t as supersedin g th e woodwinds) , will hel p t o kee p al l elements o f the passag e i n balanc e and unde r control . For whateve r it' s worth, I shoul d lik e t o ad d m y ow n voic e i n objectio n t o doubling the woodwind s at m.132 with th e horns , unfortunatel y a long-standing tradition, firs t propose d (bu t later retracted ) b y Weingartne r an d sinc e the n fa vored b y man y conductor s (Karajan , Böhm , Koussevitzky , Szell, DeSabata , Ab bado, eve n Eric h Kleiber) . Such doublin g an d 'fixin g up ' o f Beethoven i s both misguided an d unnecessary , as Weingartne r himsel f realize d late r i n lif e whe n he concede d tha t "afte r all , Beethoven had know n best." 72 I n thi s instance add72. Weingartner , Über da s Dirigieren.

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 21

1

ing th e horn s i n mm . 13 2-36 destroy s an d distort s Beethoven' s origina l an d much mor e interestin g conception . A s Schenker onc e pu t it : "I t i s part o f Bee thoven's ar t [an d genius ] t o b e concerne d even i n a ful l ff wit h [instrumental ] shadings, whil e simultaneousl y workin g toward s a dynami c intensificatio n b y giving th e them e initiall y onl y t o th e woodwind s an d addin g th e horn s [an d trumpets] onl y i n m.136 . I t i s therefore /^inimical (ff-widrig) whe n a conducto r brings th e horn s i n alread y i n m.132." 73 I woul d ad d tha t introducin g horn s a t m.132 thickens the textur e i n an anti-Beethovenia n way , and wil l certainl y cover over an d obscur e th e unusual , fascinatin g low voicing i n thirds i n th e bassoons . If th e orchestr a player s ar e awar e o f th e harmoni c conten t o f Beethoven' s terrifying dissonanc e a t m.14 1 (Ex . 56) , especiall y th e A t an d F player s whose _, , note s clas h wit h the bass G, the effect wil l b e much mor e overwhelm ing tha n tha t produce d b y sheer loudness . I t shoul d b e remembere d that i n musi c onl y that whic h i s truly heard, i.e . tha t whic h th e musi cians actuall y hea r an d feel—an d onl y that—wil l projec t i n perfor mance. On e mor e caution : m.14 2 i s not louder tha n th e previou s ten measures, a s Beethoven' s cautionar y sempre f f ough t t o mak e ver y clear. (No r shoul d on e follo w Ormandy , Bernstein , Furtwängler , an d Walter, wh o adde d subito p' s eithe r a t m.14 2 o r m . 146-47, fol lowed b y vulgar super crescendos. ) Many conductors , preparin g for the recapitulatio n o f the Scherzo , mistakenl y start jockeyin g around fo r an 'appropriate ' temp o t o accomplis h tha t transition , thereby upsettin g th e orchestra' s accumulate d momentu m an d causin g ensem ble an d rhythmi c irregularitie s (hear th e recording s o f Munch, Mehta , an d Co lin Davis) . But eve n wors e is the ritar d some conductor s make—anothe r deplor able tradition—i n th e fina l thre e bar s (mm . 150-52) befor e the Scherzo' s retur n (notably Szell , Ashkenazy, Ansermet). Beethoven's Final e developmen t sectio n i s one o f the master' s mos t extraordinary creations , bu t a s we hav e see n i t i s also fraugh t wit h man y problems i f no t performed a s Beethove n intende d an d s o notated . Thre e conductor s hav e ex celled i n recording s o f thi s passage , no t onl y i n term s o f textual fidelity bu t i n the driv e an d excitemen t the y brin g t o th e music , mostl y b y virtue o f textua l fidelity. They ar e Reiner , Toscanini , an d Furtwängler . Reine r drive s the musi c relentlessly forward, considerabl y exceeding Beethoven's basi c tempo—by m.132 he ha s reache d J = 10 6 (sic!) — and ye t maintaining , a s almost onl y h e coul d in tha t generatio n o f conductors , a mesmerizin g contro l bot h ove r th e musi c and hi s musicians . I t i s high musica l dram a a t it s best. Toscanin i an d Furtwän gler achiev e almos t th e sam e kin d o f musica l excitemen t but , interestingly , by quite differen t means : Toscanin i wit h hi s typica l hard-driving, somewhat muscu lar, tensil e approach , Furtwängle r b y hi s (fo r hi m als o typical ) uniqu e gif t t o create lon g lines , coherin g grea t architectura l span s o f time , combine d wit h a remarkable dept h an d warmt h o f sound . Fo r thos e wh o lik e t o kee p trac k o f various conductors ' metronomi c inclinations , let m e jus t ad d tha t Furtwängler, 73. Schenker , Beethoven: Fifth Symphony, p.69 .

212 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

too, gather s terrifi c temp o momentu m here ; b y m.145 h e i s at J = 9 8 (agai n considerably above Beethoven's suggeste d tempo) . From th e earlies t day s o f th e Fift h Symphon y virtuall y everyone , eve n som e of the work' s detractors, ha s considere d th e recal l o f the Scherz o i n th e middl e of the Final e on e o f Beethoven's mos t origina l an d irresistibl e strokes of genius. And s o it is, but muc h les s s o when th e temp o relationships between th e Final e and Scherz o ar e disturbed or, worse, even reversed . Great confusio n reign s her e at th e junctur e of the tw o movement s i n mos t recordings , wit h fe w conductor s returning t o a faste r bea t ( J . = 96) , an d indee d mos t remainin g a t a n equiva lent temp o or , eve n mor e strangely , slowin g to a leisurel y un-scherzo-is h pace . As i n th e Scherz o proper , man y performance s hav e th e bea t turne d around , erroneously takin g mm . 160, 164 , 168 , etc . a s 'ones' i n th e four-ba r structuring . Where the 'ones ' are is , once again , vitally important t o know, because th e lon g oboe lin e (eventuall y joined b y flut e an d bassoon ) i s i n it s phrasing an d pitc h moves ou t o f phas e b y on e bar , tha t is , i n subtl e syncopatio n wit h th e basi c four-bar periodization . Thi s i s no t somethin g on e coul d readil y deduc e fro m viewing th e obo e par t isolate d fro m th e score . Seein g a phras e suc h as

or almos

t anybod y would assume a

four-bar o r six-ba r phrase-uni t wit h th e respectiv e firs t measure s fallin g o n a structural downbeat . Such , however , i s no t th e case , m.17 3 bein g a 'one. ' Yet most oboist s pla y th e line—an d mos t conductor s allow the m t o pla y it—tha t way. Someon e wh o ha s no t hear d th e passag e playe d th e righ t wa y can hardl y imagine wha t a differenc e i t makes. The fac t i s that th e entir e Scherzo recapitu lation, startin g at m.153 , consist s o f twelve four-bar group s plus , at th e end , on e six-bar extension . To furthe r clarif y th e 'correct ' interpretation , especiall y by the oboe , w e hav e to understand th e functio n o f this Scherz o interpolation , th e reaso n fo r Beetho ven's insertio n o f it . Mos t ordinar y composers woul d hav e gon e directl y fro m the sustaine d chord s o f mm. 150-52 (perhap s addin g on e mor e simila r measur e to preserv e quaternar y structuring ) t o a recapitulation . Bu t Beethove n wa s no t an 'ordinary ' composer . Hi s inspiratio n wa s to brin g bac k th e Scherzo—a t leas t part o f it—t o creat e a paralle l t o th e situatio n tha t exist s prior t o th e arriva l o f the fourt h movement. H e fel t th e nee d t o re-create tha t sam e mood , makin g th e thus delayed repris e o f the Final e al l th e mor e powerfu l an d overwhelming — again a momen t o f tremendou s releas e o f pent-up , suppresse d energies . Th e eerie stillness , th e uncann y staticit y o f th e origina l transitio n passag e mus t b e replicated here . Onl y thi s time , instea d o f a quietl y pulsatin g timpan i an d a shadowy, twistin g violin line , i t i s the thi n lin e o f a singl e obo e tha t represent s the onl y slightl y quasi-melodi c movemen t i n thi s music . Therefor e th e obois t must pla y wit h a minimu m o f expression , holdin g back , suppressin g al l overly

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 21

3

emotional utterance , creatin g a sens e o f motionlessnes s (ye t with a beautifu l tone, o f course ) —not th e ofte n hear d emotional , rhapsodic , indulgen t displa y that man y oboist s an d conductor s offe r here . I t i s i n tha t sens e tha t I woul d reject th e impuls e t o ornamen t th e oboe' s lin e wit h extraneou s dynami c nu ances, suc h a s those recommende d b y Markevitc h an d man y othe r conductor s in, fo r example , mm . 177-79 Th

e fac t i s that , i n th e

midst o f this harmonicall y an d melodicall y virtuall y motionles s realm , th e ver y move t o Ftt , onl y a sligh t hal f ste p fro m th e surroundin g sustaine d G's , already contains al l the 'expression ' tha t i s needed . I neve r ceas e t o b e surprise d an d amaze d a t th e poo r intonatio n displaye d by most oboist s i n thi s sol o passage , especiall y i n th e firs t fou r bar s (mm . 172-75). Doubters o f thi s statemen t shoul d liste n t o th e recording s o f Karajan , Muti , Mehta, Abbado , Coli n Davis , an d Kubelik , al l presiding , needles s t o sa y over first-rate, world-famous orchestras . Similarly , it i s rather shockin g o n ho w man y recordings th e clarinet s i n mm . 164-67 ar e ou t o f tune, invariabl y quite sharp . As i n th e fina l measure s o f th e firs t transitio n passage , s o her e to o n o ritar dando i s necessar y o r wanted , especiall y since th e fina l six-bar s (mm.201-206 ) are alread y in effec t a written-out ritenuto, a 'stretching ' o f the phrase . All trul y great musi c i s marked b y two extraordinar y qualities: on e i s its memorability— it etches itsel f into ou r memory . Th e othe r i s its sense o f inevitability, that amazin g an d amaze d feelin g w e hav e a s listener s that , regardles s o f ho w original, ho w unpredictabl e an d surprisin g a certai n musica l ide a (o r a move ment, o r a whole work) may be or may appear t o be a t first hearing, i n retrospec t we perceiv e i t a s th e bes t an d onl y possibl e ide a appropriat e fo r tha t work ; i t was, i n short , inevitable . Suc h thought s com e t o min d i n contemplatin g th e astonishingly unpredictable , eve n radica l ide a o f recapitulatin g th e Scherz o i n the middl e o f a Sonata-Allegr o fourt h movement . For , as extraordinar y as thi s idea ma y b e —one canno t thin k o f an y compose r o f th e tim e wh o coul d hav e had suc h a n inspiration—w e hear i t a s i f it ha d bee n th e mos t logica l thin g t o do, a s inevitable. A s Schenke r onc e pu t it : "Wha t logi c i n thes e occurrences , which appea r t o driv e where the y themselve s ar e driven!" 74 Everything tha t ha s bee n sai d abou t th e firs t 3 3 measure s o f th e Final e wil l apply t o th e identica l segmen t o f th e recapitulation . A t th e 34t h measur e (m.240) th e musi c take s a remarkabl e an d decisiv e turn , a turnin g poin t im pelled b y th e nee d fo r th e secon d them e o f the recapitulate d expositio n t o b e set i n th e toni c ke y of C. Thu s Beethove n seize d th e opportunit y t o modulat e to the subdominan t F and thenc e to the dominan t G . I f we retrace hi s composi tional steps , w e ca n se e tha t Beethoven , realizin g tha t h e woul d nee d mor e maneuvering roo m t o accomplis h thi s modulator y proces s (se e Fig. 10) , was inspired a t th e sam e tim e t o inver t structurall y par t o f th e earlie r passag e — another extraordinar y strok e of genius. 74. Schcnker , Beethoven: Fifth Symphony (Vienna , 1925) , p . 6 5

214 TH

Fig. 1 0

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Comparison o f exposition (mm.34-44 ) an d recapitulation (mm.240-53 )

~ Expositio n C (11 measures ) mm.34-3 Exposition G _ (1 1 measures) m.4 ~ Recapitulatio n C

_ (1 4 measures) m.24

6/4

G

5 mm.36-3

7 m.3

D

8 m.3

9

7

D 0 mm.41-4 F

(14 measures ) mm.240-4 Recapitulation G

7

D

4 G

1 mm.242-4

C 3 mm.244-4

C

G

8 m.24

9 mm.250-5

5 mm.246-4

7

7

3

What is remarkable an d wa s (as far as I know) at the tim e unprecedente d in th e symphonic literature, was Beethoven's ide a of turning the earlier music o f mm. 3440 registrally upside down i n its entirety in mm.240-49 (see Exx.57a and b) . What

Ex. 57 a

Ex. 57 b

BEETHOVEN: FIFTH SYMPHON Y 21

5

was originall y in th e bas s i s no w i n th e highes t registe r piccolo) ; wha t wa s o n top a s the primar y melodic lin e i s now i n th e bass ; and th e viol a counterline i n the teno r rang e i s now i n th e woodwinds , distribute d over three octaves . But ther e wa s on e proble m wit h Beethoven' s idea : h e didn' t hav e quit e enough instrument s (eve n i n hi s expande d orchestra ) t o realiz e al l o f i t full y and easily . On e piccol o i n it s mediu m registe r ca n hardl y replicat e a whol e section o f cello s an d basses , couple d wit h contrabassoon . Becaus e thi s six-ba r phrase (mm . 244-49) i s suc h a remarkabl e invention , i t i s on e o f th e ver y fe w places where I would i n a live performance sugges t a minor instrumenta l adjust ment t o provid e Beethoven' s intention s wit h a viabl e acoustica l realization . Apart fro m assurin g tha t th e orchestr a no t excee d th e implie d f dynamic , th e piccolo par t shoul d b e playe d b y tw o piccolo s (marke d ff ) , th e secon d piccol o to b e playe d b y th e secon d flutist . (Doublin g th e piccol o wit h a flut e i s also possible, but i t is not a s good a n ide a becaus e th e flut e i n it s highest registe r has a quit e differen t an d mor e penetratin g soun d which , compare d wit h th e thinne r piccolo timbre , woul d b e intrusiv e and ou t o f place. ) Additionally , on e migh t then borro w on e o f th e oboist s o r clarinetist s t o fil l i n fo r th e vacate d secon d flute, mor e likel y a clarine t sinc e th e clarinet' s note s are doubled exactl y in th e second violin s an d ca n thu s b e spared . I n orde r for the piccol o doublin g t o b e feasible, th e secon d flut e mus t quickl y switc h t o piccol o i n m.236 , pla y th e second flut e par t i n mm.250-5 2 o n piccolo , an d switc h bac k t o flut e i n th e ensuing measure s o f rest. I woul d no t thin k tha t thi s bi t o f cosmetic instrumenta l realignin g would b e necessary i n a recording , fo r there ar e eas y electroni c mean s t o giv e the piccol o its neede d presence . Despit e this , o n onl y eigh t ou t o f th e nearl y ninet y re cordings sample d ca n th e piccol o b e clearl y heard (Muti , Jochum , Dorati , Suit ner, Thomas, Haitink , Krips , and Carlo s Kleiber) . On a doze n other s i t is barely discernible, i f one listen s very hard. O n th e res t (som e 50-plu s recordings ) i t is literally, totally, completely inaudible ! The mos t bizarr e case i s that o f Stokowski whose dialin g madness, a s mentione d before , cause s hi m t o virtuall y 're-invent ' Beethoven's entir e symphony . I n th e passag e i n question , instea d o f helping th e piccolo electronically , h e make s a has h o f this entire episod e b y first dialing th e violins way up i n mm.240-43 , the n wa y down i n m.244 , simultaneousl y raising the cello s an d basse s tremendously , i n th e meanwhil e suppressin g entirel y no t only th e piccol o par t bu t th e importan t woodwind s counter-line. A t m.250 sud denly al l instrument s burs t fort h ff , soundin g almos t lik e a ba d editin g splic e (perhaps i t was). Again, everythin g tha t ha s bee n sai d abou t mm.41-7 1 shoul d b e applie d t o mm.250-80, wit h onl y th e additiona l commen t tha t th e firs t clarine t an d first bassoon i n mm.263-6 4 i n th e recapitulatio n hav e replace d th e tw o horn s o f mm.5 5-56 includin g th e writte n p p (no t p o r mfl), a fac t no t ofte n realize d b y the respectiv e musicians and mos t conductors . Specia l car e mus t also b e take n that th e horn s observ e religiously Beethoven's p dolce i n mm.273—80 . We com e no w t o a passag e in whic h I believe Beethoven di d mak e a 'seriou s mistake,' probabl y a n inadverten t omission . Excep t fo r som e orchestrationa l

216 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

modifications, mm.281-8 8 i s a n exac t transpositio n o f mm.72-79 . Somehow , however, Beethoven , i n writin g out th e transposition , forgo t abou t th e piccol o runs tha t ar e suc h a n importan t par t o f the origina l passage . Th e piccol o staf f in th e autograp h i n th e respectiv e measure s i s blank . Sinc e Beethove n i n hi s manuscript score s di d no t bothe r wit h rest s i n empt y measures , w e canno t b e absolutely sur e tha t h e lef t th e piccol o ou t intentionally . Ha d ther e specificall y been rest s in mm.282—85 , i t would hav e clearl y indicated Beethoven' s intentio n to eliminat e th e piccol o i n th e recapitulation . But I fee l certai n tha t Beethove n simply forgo t t o includ e th e piccolo . (Mor e composer s mak e mos t o f their mis takes an d omission s i n recapitulations , usually, in haste , takin g certai n obviou s reiterations fo r granted.) What surprise s me mor e i s that, t o m y knowledge , no t one write r on Beethoven' s C mino r Symphon y has ever commented o n o r questioned thi s curiou s omission . Fo r m y part , I hav e adde d th e missin g piccol o notes (b y transpositio n u p a fourth ) i n m y performance s o f th e symphon y fo r many years , ofte n t o th e amazemen t o f piccol o player s wh o ha d n o idea , o f course, tha t an importan t piccolo passag e migh t hav e been lef t out . At m.289 we encounter anothe r on e o f Beethoven's stretche d phrases , this one extended t o fiv e bars . Interestingly, from a purel y technical/theoretical poin t o f view, Beethoven di d not hav e to resor t to a five-bar phrase. The modulator y progression contained i n mm.289-93 (C#° over F-BI>6/4-F0-F#0) could easily have been accomplished i n four measures , but evidentl y Beethoven fel t that the mov e to the C peda l point would thus be too abrupt and inserted the extra measure (m.293). This progressio n an d it s arrival a t th e dominan t (G ) peda l poin t produc e ex actly th e sam e feelin g on e get s a t th e arriva l poin t o f a cadenz a i n a classica l concerto. Beethoven' s re-workin g of the secon d expositio n theme , no w a t a tre mendously hig h leve l o f intensity , feel s indee d lik e cadenz a material. 75 I t i s seething wit h rhythmi c excitemen t (wave s of triple t eighths) , crowne d wit h triumphant them e proclamation s (firs t i n th e strings , then i n th e brass) , and leads , almost a s expected, t o a climacti c subdominant , dramatize d by secon d bea t sf s (mm. 308-11), an d thenc e t o a serie s of dominant-tonic chorda l exchange s tha t in almos t an y compose r othe r tha n Beethove n woul d hav e signale d —indeed would hav e been—the en d o f the movement . But Beethove n i s no t throug h yet . Havin g jus t recycle d th e secon d mai n theme o f th e exposition , h e realize d tha t h e coul d tur n onc e mor e t o othe r primary thematic material , not ye t fully exploited . The winds ' theme o f mm.2627 i s now revived, although no t a s there stated , but a s it had appeare d i n slightly altered an d contracte d for m i n th e bas s instrument s i n mm . 246-47. Thi s i s undoubtedly wh y this theme i s now give n t o tw o uniso n bassoons , immediately discreetly succeede d b y tw o horns . A s simpl e an d a s uncomplicate d a s thi s sounds, i t is , strang e t o say , on e o f th e mos t maltreate d passage s i n th e entir e symphony. Fo r reasons I canno t understand , th e dynamic s her e ar e consistentl y ignored b y virtually al l player s and conductors , mor e ofte n tha n no t completel y 75. Th e sf s fo r brass an d timpan i i n m.29 6 ar c no t authentic ; the dynami c here shoul d be a simple f. Als o it should be obviou s that, afte r th e s f o f m.294, the succeedin g dynamic is f (no t ff) , followe d soon b y Beethoven' s favorit e crescend o strategy , pi ù f an d the n ff .

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 21

7

reversed. Grante d tha t o n purel y acoustica l term s th e differenc e betwee n a ff o f bassoons an d a p i n horn s wil l no t b e a s dramati c a s the bal d dynamic s migh t indicate. O n th e othe r hand , wit h a littl e effor t Beethoven' s contrastin g dynam ics can b e achieved . What i s so disturbing—and s o inexcusable —is that, judging by th e recording s sampled , mos t player s an d conductor s don' t eve n tr y t o achieve an y meaningful dynami c contrast . O n almos t al l recording s on e hear s a kind o f tepi d mp—mf i n th e bassoon s an d anythin g bu t a n echoe y p i n th e horns, i n man y instance s i n fac t a coars e mf o r f\ Ever y dynami c excep t th e right one s ca n b e heard : Bassoons —

Horn s

fmp — mf — p mp --

rnf mp mp p mf

P-

f

Not a singl e recordin g manage s t o represen t Beethoven' s intende d dynamic s correctly, althoug h o n som e performance s th e player s seem a t leas t t o be tryin g and i n som e instance s com e fairl y clos e (Muti , Coli n Davis , Haitink , Krips , Toscanini, an d Jochum , althoug h Jochum' s recordin g i s spoile d b y a crudel y edited splic e a t the horns ' entrance) . At m.32 9 (an d m.346 ) tw o performanc e problems—on e o f the m merel y an other ba d habit—ma r mos t o f the recordings . Th e vas t majorit y distor t Beetho ven's rhyth m a so r primaril y in the strings , althoug h ofte n th e wind s see m t o b e influence d b y the m a s well . This rhythmi c misrepresentatio n make s th e fou r bars , mm.329-32 , soun d choppy an d disconnected . Furthermore , i f Beethoven ha d wante d a caesur a be fore th e fourt h bea t (which , b e i t noted , i s staccat o b y wa y o f contrast) , h e would hav e writte n a rhyth m (lik e ) t o achiev e tha t effect . Onl y a fe w conductors — Reiner, Koussevitzky , and Karaja n (whos e penchan t fo r sostenuto playing i s wel l known ) — manage t o sustai n thes e chord s properly , thereb y achieving a gran d four-ba r lin e rathe r tha n fou r choppe d apar t one-ba r units . The othe r proble m i s tha t th e lowe r thre e o r fou r note s o f th e piccol o i n mm.329-332 ar e hardl y eve r heard . I t i s true, o f course, tha t note s withi n th e staff o n a piccol o hav e ver y littl e projection , bu t again , tha t i s a n acoustica l limitation whic h coul d certainl y b e mitigate d audio-technicall y i n a moder n recording.76 Stokowsk i solved the proble m i n hi s typically impulsive way by add 76. On e occasio n whe n a playe r migh t hav e wishe d no t t o b e hear d a t al l occur s o n Steinberg' s recording wit h th e Pittsburg h Symphony, where th e piccol o playe r entered tw o bars earl y (i n m.32 3 instead o f m.325). I t i s amazing to m e tha t thi s erro r wa s simply left o n th e recording .

218 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

ing a flut e (i n the highe r octave ) an d dialin g both instrument s up t o levels that are twic e a s loud a s the entir e res t of the orchestra ! One fina l wor d o n th e piccol o run s i n mm.329-32 , 346-49 : the y ar e t o b e tongued, no t slurred , no t onl y becaus e the y ar e s o writte n b y Beethoven , bu t because the y wil l project better whe n tongued . During th e sempre pi ù allegro (meanin g accelerando ) betwee n mm.352—6 1 the conducto r mus t convert gradually to one bea t per bar . It is best t o be i n 'one ' by m.357 , eve n thoug h th e accelerand o continue s fo r anothe r fou r measures . A numbe r o f performance problems haun t th e cod a (m.361) , marke d presto 0 = 112 . Beethoven' s metronom e marking , which onc e agai n almos t n o one observes, i s perfect, producing when adhere d t o a triumphantl y tumultuous, ec static, spine-tinglin g excitemen t tha t i s simpl y overwhelmin g an d irresistible. 77 A favorite temp o fo r many conductor s i s ° = 100 , man y other s wel l below tha t in th e 90s , an d a fe w laggards like Klemperer , Walter, an d (surprisingly ) Dorat i at 88 , 84 , 8 8 respectively. Only a fe w conductors, Szell , Norrington , an d Gardi ner amon g them , manag e Beethoven' s 112 . However , Szel l slow s u p signifi cantly (t o 104 ) a t m.389 , a traditio n clun g t o b y man y conductors , particularly of th e earlie r generation s o r thos e wh o studie d i n th e earlie r German tradition (Ormandy, Steinberg , Ashkenazy , Mehta) . Meht a start s the presto at ° = 100 , slows to 96, then 92 and finally to a rather ponderou s ° = 88 . Other conductor s accelerate somewher e befor e m.389 : Ansermet , fo r example , als o Böhm , Hai tink, Weingartner , Reiner . Straus s i s once agai n th e oddes t cas e o f all , starting the presto at 100 , acceleratin g twic e t o 10 4 and 10 8 but i n betwee n als o twice reducing th e temp o noticeably , in effec t zig-zaggin g through five differen t temp o changes i n littl e ove r thirt y seconds o f music. Furtwängle r who , a s I have men tioned before , i s often though t t o b e a slow-temp o conductor start s the presto at a livel y <= > = 10 4 an d befor e lon g ha s pushe d th e temp o t o ° = 120 , eve n beyond Beethoven' s 112 . Furtwängler' s cod a i s a n exhilarating , transporting experience, a s i s Toscanini's, al l i n th e sam e temp o (< = = 106) , relentlessl y an d excitingly driven , an d despit e som e ensembl e raggednes s overwhelmin g i n it s impact. In a wa y more problematic , becaus e the y ar e harde r to correct , ar e th e com mon performin g bad habits , suc h a s no t reall y playing fp (emphasi s o n th e p) , or droppin g th e dotte d half-note s in mm.361 , 363 , 36 5 etc. Thes e note s shoul d be full y sustained ; and on e 'trick ' to get both th e almos t lyrica l sustaining of the presto's two-ba r phrase s an d t o assur e a rea l p effect , i s t o tel l th e string s (and later i n m.36 9 th e woodwinds ) to pla y basically p an d mak e accent s (i n p ) o n the downbeat s of the alternat e measures . Th e timpan i an d bras s f punctuation s provide th e necessar y energ y accents. 78 I n practice , ver y fe w orchestra s (an d 77. I hav e ofte n wondere d why almost al l conductor s ar e remarkabl y eager t o pounc e o n th e fastes t prestissimo temp o possibl e i n th e cod a o f Beethoven' s Nint h Symphony , an d ye t resis t an d argu e against a simila r approac h in th e Fift h Symphony . 78. Le t u s not e i n passin g tha t cello s an d basse s are her e playin g th e sam e figur e the y playe d s o often i n th e first movement. The temp o i s virtually th e same , only the notatio n uses larger rhythmic units.

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 21

9

conductors) ar e abl e t o maintai n a basi c p fo r th e firs t sixtee n measure s o f th e presto. Thi s i s no t easy , a t thi s spee d an d wit h th e constan t interruptiv e fp's, whic h tend cumulativel y t o spira l th e dynami c leve l upward . Bu t eve n when th e woodwind s ente r i n m.369 , th e over-al l dynami c leve l shoul d no t increase. Although man y hav e criticize d wha t the y conside r t o b e a n excessivel y long and repetitiou s ending—"interminabl e C majo r chords, " " a miscalculatio n b y Beethoven"—I maintai n tha t hi s cod a an d endin g ar e perfect , especiall y whe n done a t hi s tempo . (I t does becom e laboriou s an d borin g whe n conducte d a t a ponderous temp o of , say, ° — 88, some 2 4 points of f the mark. ) A work of such monumental scope , o f such forma l complexity, whic h ha s been pauseles s sinc e the beginnin g o f the Scherzo , needs a monumenta l ending . I n thi s respec t i t is very muc h lik e Mahler's Thir d Symphony , whic h ha s an eve n longe r ( D major ) coda, primaril y because i t i s an eve n longe r symphon y tha n Beethoven' s Fifth . And perhap s w e als o nee d t o b e reminde d tha t th e las t forty-od d measures ar e not a s devoi d o f interes t a s som e woul d hav e u s believe . Unfortunatel y most performances (an d recordings ) mak e th e cod a soun d emptie r tha n i t is . Apart from th e ecstaticall y risin g melodi c lin e echoin g th e Finale' s openin g mai n theme (a t m.389), Beethove n ha s a numbe r o f trump card s u p hi s sleeve , cards which are , however , neve r playe d b y most conductors . Fo r example , ho w man y times ha s anybody been abl e t o hea r th e canoni c respons e i n th e cellos , basses, and contrabassoo n i n mm.390-400 , a dramati c counter-lin e that , whe n pro jected properly gives a tremendous lif t t o thi s passage. Alas, it i s usually buried — inaudible —under a barrag e o f timpani an d bras s (especially when th e bras s are doubled).79 Similarly , the majesticall y risin g figure in th e lowe r strings and con trabassoon i n m.42 7 i s almost alway s (unnecessarily) covered b y the surroundin g din. O n mos t recording s eve n th e trombone s ar e no t allowe d o r encourage d t o shout fort h thei r triumphan t harmonies . If everythin g Beethove n pu t int o hi s cod a i s brought out , ther e i s no nee d t o doctor u p hi s orchestration , a s Kletzk i does , b y havin g th e firs t trumpe t pla y a in m.415 ; o r a s Stokowski does whe n h e ha s th e horn s play a whole octav e highe r (excep t for the hig h G's ) i n mm.40 3-14 an d agai n m.419 to the end . One fina l wor d on th e subjec t of revising, supplementing, retouchin g Beetho 79. Berlio z complaine d abou t thi s passage i n hi s Mémoires, writing : "There i s along wit h th e fina l statement o f the them e a cano n i n th e bas s instrument s i n pitc h uniso n a t a distanc e o f on e bar , which woul d giv e thi s melod y renewe d interes t if i t wer e [i n fact ] possibl e to hea r th e imitatio n of the winds . Bu t unfortunatel y the whol e orchestr a i s a t th e sam e tim e playin g s o loud , tha t [thi s canonic imitation ] i s inaudible. " I ca n onl y conclud e tha t Berlio z hear d a typica l poorly balance d rendition, suc h a s one ca n stil l hea r almos t an y da y in ou r ow n tim e and , alas , on mos t recordings . I was particularly disappointed in Gardiner's , Harnoncourt's, and Brüggen' s recording s a t this point (m.390), fo r I would have thought that the y an d som e o f the othe r 'perio d instrumen t authenticists' would hav e bee n mor e successfu l i n realizin g Beethoven' s remarkabl e canonic imitatio n a t mm . 389/90-99.

220 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

ven's orchestratio n an d th e doublin g o f instruments. Tha t final word will not b e mine, bu t Schenker's , wh o pu t th e cas e fo r honorin g Beethoven' s text—an d genius—as wel l a s anybod y eve r has . "Al l trick s of reinforcement an d doublin g of instrument s whic h th e compose r himsel f di d no t foresee , wil l prov e t o b e superfluous fo r an y conducto r wh o reall y understand s ho w t o rea d thi s score . The scor e wil l alway s prevai l ove r al l suc h conductor s who , fo r th e sak e o f on e cheap effec t o r another , fee l th e nee d t o pain t th e scor e ove r with a stylisticall y inappropriate instrumenta l rouge." 8 The recen t (i n certai n circles ) much-toute d recording s o f various Beethove n symphonies performe d on 'period ' instruments , le d b y Roger Norrington , Chris topher Hogwood , an d Monic a Hugge t ar e o f such questionabl e musica l quality and i n an y cas e s o utterl y remove d i n conceptio n an d performanc e practic e from al l th e othe r 'normal ' recordings , tha t I fee l compelle d t o dea l wit h the m separately, al l th e mor e s o becaus e th e thre e leader s an d thei r orchestra s (th e London Classica l Players , th e Academ y o f Ancien t Music , an d th e Hanove r Band) exhibi t a n almos t identica l approac h i n thei r 'interpretations. ' Further more, ther e ha s been suc h a n avalanch e o f hype promulgate d b y these 'authen ticists' i n th e las t decad e o r s o — many o f their claim s totally spurious and chim eric—that I fee l compelle d i n th e contex t o f thi s boo k t o offe r a seriou s challenge t o thei r cultis h can t (an d thei r supportin g recor d companies) , base d on th e har d evidenc e o f their recordings . But befor e I ca n elaborat e o n th e specific s of their recorde d performances , a whole rang e o f fundamental assumption s an d pretension s mus t b e deal t wit h — without, however , turning this stud y into a disputation o n th e earl y music move ment (fa r too muc h attentio n ha s bee n pai d t o i t already, at least i n regar d to its encroachment o n th e 'classical ' an d now , 'Romantic ' repertory) . The thre e jus t mentioned 'authenticists ' hav e sprea d suc h a bewilderin g amoun t o f confusion, invoking variou s (untenable ) theories , premises , an d pseudo-historica l assumptions, tha t th e min d boggle s a s t o wher e t o begi n t o expos e an d refut e thes e claims.81 Bu t perhap s on e wa y to star t is to detonat e thei r mos t cherishe d claim , 80. Schenker , Beethoven: Fifth Symphony, p . 69 . Havin g studied th e Fift h Symphon y autograph , I am convince d tha t th e timpan i par t i n th e las t measur e shoul d simpl y have a trill , meanin g a fas t roll. I believ e tha t Beethove n initiall y starte d t o writ e a thirty-second-not e tremolo , change d hi s mind, alterin g i t t o a pur e roll , bu t forgo t t o cros s ou t th e tremolo . A s it stand s i n al l edition s i t makes littl e sense, an d a t th e fas t temp o canno t b e playe d as notated . 81. Les t I b e misunderstoo d a t th e outse t o f this particular discussion, let m e poin t ou t tha t I have been a supporter of historically and musicologicall y informed performances of'earl y music ' for many decades, goin g bac k t o th e earl y day s o f suc h pioneer s a s Arnol d Dolmetsch , Noa h Greenberg , George Malcolm , an d Rober t Donington ; late r heroe s o f mine wer e Davi d Munrow , (occasionally) Nicholas Harnoncourt , and , o f course, Charle s Mackerras , Raymon d Leppard , an d (mor e recently) John Elio t Gardiner . I will be immodes t enoug h t o mentio n a few of my own activitie s in th e real m of 'historicall y informed ' performance , suc h a s 'authentic ' rendition s o f Ar s Nov a repertor y i n th e early 1950s , wha t I believ e t o b e th e firs t performanc e i n th e Unite d State s o f Monteverdi' s Orfeo with th e ful l authenti c 42-piec e instrumentariu m specifie d b y Monteverdi , and —closer t o th e sub ject o f thi s book—th e performanc e o f Beethove n symphonie s at Beethoven' s metronom e tempo s and hi s specifie d dynamics , for example, a s lon g ag o a s the earl y 1960s .

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 22

1

that the y ar e givin g u s —finally—the firs t opportunit y eve r t o hea r Beethoven' s symphonies i n " a for m which " h e himsel f "woul d recognize." 82 Th e arroganc e of this assumptio n i s staggering, fo r i t suggests tha t thes e particula r 'authenticists ' (a) kno w precisel y wha t Beethove n performance s wer e lik e i n hi s ow n tim e (even unde r hi s ow n direction) , an d wha t therefor e "h e woul d recognize, " an d (b) tha t al l previou s interpretation s an d performance s o f thes e work s b y man y generations o f conductors an d orchestra s were boun d t o be 'inauthentic. ' Ther e is th e furthe r assumptio n tha t th e allegedl y authenti c performance s o n perio d instruments w e ar e bein g give n ar e b y virtue o f that fac t alon e inherentl y bette r or preferabl e t o anythin g don e o n moder n instruments . The y als o clai m (o r try to creat e th e impression ) tha t thei r performance s ar e base d o n textua l fidelit y with, again , th e implicatio n tha t textua l fidelit y i s a subjec t that ha s no w com e up fo r the firs t time , an d tha t the y ar e th e rescuer s o f Beethoven's symphonie s from textua l infidelit y an d th e romanticis t 'improvisers' . Taking thes e point s on e b y one , i n revers e order , w e hav e t o begi n b y re minding thes e folk s tha t th e textua l fidelity revolution wa s initiated b y Toscanini early i n thi s century , an d tha t virtuall y ever y conducto r sinc e the n ha s t o on e degree o r another bee n influence d b y Toscanini, an d tha t an y numbe r o f 'modern' conductor s (Haitink , Carlo s Kleiber , Abbado , Dorati , Dohnany i —just t o name a few ) are, a s fa r a s th e text , th e score , goes , muc h mor e 'authentic ' i n their performance s than anythin g Norrington, Hogwood , an d th e Hanover s hav e yet produced. (W e will retur n t o this poin t again. ) The assumptio n tha t a performanc e bein g o n perio d instrument s o f itself defines tha t performanc e a s someho w 'authentic ' o r 'better ' o r 'preferable, ' i s s o lacking i n logic—an d s o full o f chutzpah—as to b e laughable . T o put i t anothe r way, th e fac t tha t a n orchestr a i s playing o n 'perio d instruments ' i n an d o f itself does no t guarante e tha t tha t performanc e i s somehow 'authentic ' o r adhere s t o the philosoph y o f 'textua l fidelity.' A performanc e o n 'perio d instruments ' ma y indulge i n a s man y interpretiv e aberration s —and ofte n i n fac t doe s —as tha t b y an orchestr a playin g o n 'modern ' instruments . On stil l anothe r point , on e ca n safel y assum e tha t ever y conductor , fro m Wagner an d Biilo w to Karaja n an d Thomas—no t to mentio n suc h superio r Bee thoven interpreter s a s Eric h Kleiber , Schuricht , Reiner , Weingartner—ha s claimed fidelit y t o Beethoven' s intentions . Th e implie d notion , spawne d b y these latter-da y 'authenticists,' that onl y those wh o perform Beethoven o n perio d instruments coul d possibl y have th e appropriat e insight s int o Beethoven' s inten tions an d tha t thei r revelation s hav e becom e possibl e onl y i n mos t recen t times , is nothin g shor t o f ludicrous . Further , th e ide a tha t thes e performer s woul d somehow kno w wha t Beethove n woul d recogniz e o r no t recognize , an d tha t th e mantle o f authenticity ca n no w be assume d becaus e on e ha s (allegedly ) irrefut able evidenc e a s to orchestra sizes , performanc e venues, payrolls , reliable eyewit 82. Th e clai m o f Horace Fitzpatric k i n th e sleev e not e fo r the Hanove r Band's recording o f Beethoven's Firs t Symphony , (Nimbu s CD 5003) .

222 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

ness accounts , an d othe r 'quantitative ' data , provide s a nea t wa y o f avoidin g all th e reall y relevan t an d difficul t 'qualitative ' performanc e an d interpretatio n questions. I t i s interestin g t o not e tha t th e so-calle d 'evidence ' i s selectivel y re spected o r alternativel y disregarded when i t suit s thes e authenticists ' ow n inten tions, suc h as , fo r example , 'conducting ' a Beethove n symphon y fro m a forte piano, whe n ther e i s ampl e an d conclusiv e evidenc e tha t Beethove n ofte n conducted premiere s o f hi s work s i n th e moder n sens e o f conducting , tha t i s standing i n fron t o f the orchestra , wavin g hi s arm s an d gesturall y representin g the musi c withou t benefi t o f a fortepiano. Hogwood doe s indee d mak e th e clai m (throug h hi s sleeve-not e write r for his recordings of the first two Beethoven symphonies ) that th e ideal , true Beethove n symphony performanc e ca n onl y b e achieve d wit h a conductorles s orchestra , specifically on e le d a s i n th e ol d day s fro m th e keyboar d (eve n thoug h ther e are n o keyboar d part s i n Beethoven' s symphonies ) wit h som e hel p fro m th e concertmaster/mistress. Thi s is , o f course , t o begi n wit h a smokescreen , a n at tempt t o hid e th e fac t tha t Hogwoo d i s nonetheless 'conducting ' the ensemble , making all the decision s as to tempo, dynamics, phrasing , balance s etc . o r mor e the case , a s w e shal l see , failin g t o d o so , eve n a s h e conducts . Second , hi s notion tha t conductor-less-nes s b y itsel f wil l remov e generation s o f stylisti c en crustations that hav e accumulated ove r the year s as the legac y of conductors no t sanctified b y th e earl y music movemen t i s hogwash, mainl y becaus e Hogwoo d (and hi s tw o majo r confrères ) simpl y substitut e thei r ow n interpretation s an d modifications fo r thos e o f thei r predecessors . Hogwood' s performanc e o f th e Fifth i s hardly the pure , pristine , freshly hear d Beethove n h e claim s to be resur recting fro m th e past , bu t i s instead , wit h hi s idiosyncrati c deviation s fro m th e text, a s vagrant an interpretatio n a s any i n th e recor d catalogues . Third, Hogwoo d claim s (agai n throug h hi s sleeve-not e spokesman ) tha t a maestro-less orchestra , le d fro m th e keyboard , cannot indulg e i n the "wide r variety o f nuanc e an d temp o modifications " tha t Hogwoo d i s ostensibl y tryin g t o supplant. "Th e ol d syste m inevitabl y necessitated a constant pulse, " resultin g in "uncomplicated rhythmica l performances." 83 Apar t fro m th e fac t tha t thi s re veals tha t Mr . Hogwoo d seem s neve r t o hav e hear d a Toscanini Beethove n per formance, on e need s t o ask what is so good abou t a n "uncomplicate d rhythmica l Beethoven performance" ? Coul d i t be tha t Hogwoo d ha s never heard o f Beethoven's belove d "elastische r Takt " an d th e tempo rubato, no t onl y i n Beethove n but i n Mozar t an d Haydn ? Could i t be tha t h e ha s not eve n rea d hi s Dolmetsc h and Donington? 84 Similarly, the authenticists ' claim s of authenticity o n the assumptio n tha t their performances ar e base d o n th e tex t tur n ou t b e equall y fallacious, sinc e i n gen eral the y fai l t o follo w th e tex t an y tim e i t i s convenient fo r them no t t o d o s o — as w e shal l se e anon . Furthermore , insofa r a s man y o f thei r claim s t o 'textua l 83. Sleev e not e fo r Symphonie s 1 an d 2 b y Beethoven , Christophe r Hogwoo d an d Academ y of Ancient Musi c (Oiseau—Lyr e C D 41 4 338). 84. Arnol d Dolmetsch , Th e Interpretation o f th e Music o f th e XVII an d XVII I Centuries (London , 1915, 1944) ; Rober t Donington , Th e Interpretation o f Early Music (Ne w York, 1974) .

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 22

3

fidelity' are, a s i t turn s out , base d o n evidenc e external t o th e text , an d insofa r as thei r performance s ar e no t inspired , hard-wo n interpretation s base d o n a painstaking consideratio n o f th e scor e a s a prescription, bu t instea d dul l run throughs, non-interpretations , whic h regar d score s as descriptions of a work, their understanding o f 'textua l fidelity ' i s exactl y th e opposit e o f min e an d tha t o f most o f the value s expressed i n thi s book . Last, eve n i f on e wer e abl e t o clai m possessio n o f absolutel y reliabl e knowl edge i n regar d to origina l intentions an d practices—Beethoven's , his musicians' , the effect s o f various personal an d instrumenta l capacitie s an d limitations—ar e we t o assum e tha t suc h intention s an d practice s ar e imperishable , immun e t o reconsideration an d revision? 85 Given al l these erroneou s assumption s and spuriou s premises, i t is not surpris ing tha t th e performance s o f th e thre e authenticist s unde r consideratio n her e are riddle d wit h deficiencies , misinterpretations , bal d disregarding s of th e text , and, i n addition , somethin g no t foun d o n an y o f the othe r 6 0 to 7 0 recordings , a terribl e unBeethovenia n sound , rangin g from scrawn y to coars e an d grating sounds on e sincerel y hope s Beethove n woul d i n fac t no t b e "abl e to recognize. " Especially annoyin g i s the soun d o f th e Hanove r Band' s performanc e tha t was recorded i n som e cavernou s hal l o r churc h whos e excessiv e reverberation com pletely defeat s an d counteract s th e essentiall y chambe r musi c approac h the y have taken , eve n t o th e exten t o f reducin g th e strin g sectio n t o six-five-four three-two players. Now t o a fe w performanc e specifics . The openin g measure s o f Beethoven' s Fifth Symphony' s first movement ar e variousl y mishandled, Norringto n makin g the secon d fermat a actually shorter than th e first, as well a s 'embellishing' bot h fermatas wit h hug e diminuendo s an d addin g tw o extr a empt y bar s befor e m.6 ; Hogwood gettin g th e fermat a length s right , bu t allowin g the thre e eighth-note s to sound lik e triplets; th e Hanover s also making a sizable diminuendo i n mm.45 i n th e strings , which, however , th e clarinet s d o no t make , thu s causin g the m to protrud e incongruousl y a t th e en d o f th e measure . (I f I hav e earlie r com plained abou t no t hearin g th e clarinet s i n th e openin g measure s i n an y re cording, I was not expectin g o r hopin g t o hea r the m i n thi s inep t way.) 85. I t migh t b e wel l fo r ou r thre e 'authenticists ' t o ponde r th e word s o f th e ver y wis e (an d no t ambitiously self-promoting) late Rober t Donington , who i n hi s invaluabl e The Interpretation o f Early Music (p.38 ) writes : "A merely tacit assumptio n tha t earl y methods, instrument s and technique s ar e superior fo r earl y musi c ignore s th e possibilit y that ther e migh t b e exception s t o tha t basi c truth . This ne w an d fashionabl e habi t o f min d i s indee d sounde r tha n it s previou s opposite , an d give s better results ; but i t still flie s somewhat i n th e fac e o f probability . In th e cours e o f musical history, there must , w e should suppose , hav e been som e flaws upon whic h w e have mad e genuin e improvements." Doningto n the n add s "And i n fac t ther e wer e many . An uncritica l assumption that whatever is old i s best i s no mor e reasonabl e tha n a n uncritica l assumption [o f the opposite]. " (Th e las t three words ar e m y paraphras e of his implication. ) Mackerras give s thes e thought s a slightl y differen t twist , a s quoted i n Charles Mackerras: A Musicians' Musician b y Nanc y Phela n (London , 1987) : "Althoug h w e shoul d tr y t o lear n a s muc h a s possible abou t how eighteenth-centur y musicians performed, we should no t tur n our knowledg e int o an inflexibl e dogma , bu t us e i t to vitaliz e ou r moder n performance."

224 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

As fo r tempo , Norringto n is , o f th e three , generall y th e mos t respectfu l o f Beethoven's metronom e markings , whil e Hogwoo d an d th e Hanovers , despit e all claim s t o textua l fidelity , convenientl y ignor e them , settlin g fo r a leisurel y « = 9 6 an d=< > = 92 , respectively , in th e firs t movement . Thi s i s a particularly annoying exampl e o f how cavalierly these musician s treat Beethoven' s scor e an d intentions whe n i t suits their interpretationa l purposes. The Hanover s are particularly high-hande d i n thei r dismissa l o f Beethoven' s tempo s an d metronom e marks—flatly statin g i n thei r line r not e tha t "thes e temp i ar e no t a t al l suit able"—suitable t o whom , t o what?—an d tha t th e "authenticity " o f their temp o conception i s based o n th e notio n (unsubstantiated , o f course) tha t "Beethove n inherited th e convention s o f temp o i n us e durin g th e latte r par t o f th e eigh teenth century, " an d tha t "th e evidence " — but wha t evidence ? — "of thes e con ventions an d th e technica l demand s o f the instrument s o f the tim e combin e t o suggest tha t fas t movement s wer e playe d slowe r . . . an d slow movement s faster." (Not e th e cleverl y hedging wor d "suggest." ) A t another poin t thei r deci sion t o op t fo r " a lat e 18th-centur y concep t o f tempo" rathe r tha n Beethoven' s markings o f 181 7 i s justifie d b y th e opinio n tha t i t "solve s certai n problem s of bot h techniqu e an d ensemble." 86 What problems , pra y tell? Apar t fro m th e unsubstantiability of these arguments , i t i s a gross example o f historical revisionism t o clai m tha t Beethove n adhere d t o "18th-centur y conventions " whe n al l sorts o f unquestionabl e evidence , no t th e leas t a break-throug h wor k lik e th e Fifth Symphony , show s him t o have been engage d i n supplantin g those conven tions. Th e conventiona l tempo s o f the pas t were specificall y singled ou t b y Bee thoven a s outdated an d belongin g t o "th e barbarou s perio d o f music" (a s he pu t it i n a well-know n letter t o Igna z vo n Mosel) , welcomin g therefor e th e hel p o f Mälzels's metronom e i n mor e precisel y definin g the ne w temp o possibilities . (I would no t mak e a n issu e o f th e Hanove r Band' s transgression s i n regar d t o tempo—for a s w e hav e see n th e vas t majorit y o f conductor s hav e likewis e ig nored o r rejecte d mos t o f Beethoven' s metronom e indications—wer e i t no t fo r their claim s o f authenticity , thei r callou s misrepresentatio n o f incontrovertibl e evidence, an d thei r particularl y arrogant dismissa l of Beethoven's temp o indica tions.) Common to these thre e recorde d performance s is the genera l lac k of dynamic (and therefor e timbrai) contrast, th e resul t of a tendenc y t o favo r highe r decibe l levels. Norringto n an d Hogwoo d neve r ge t dow n t o a rea l p a t m.6 , an d th e former's Classica l Player s star t i n m.1 4 th e crescend o Beethove n ha s i n m.18 . (So much fo r textual fidelity!) The Hanover s spoi l the firs t phrase by lopping off every lon g not e valu e (half-notes ) t o o

n the , again , chronologicall y

irrelevant evidenc e o f a 177 4 violi n metho d o f a n obscur e Germa n compose r and theorist , Geor g Simo n Löhlei n (th e nam e misspelle d i n thei r sleev e note) , indicating ho w rhythmi c values were played a t tha t tim e ("shortene d slightl y in 86. Horac e Fitzpatrick , sleeve note (Nimbu s CD 5003) .

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 22

5

order t o separat e them") . I sa y irrelevan t because , again , i t stem s fro m "th e barbarous perio d o f music " thirt y o r mor e year s befor e th e compositio n o f th e Fifth Symphony , whos e convention s Beethove n wa s drasticall y overhaulin g i f not rejectin g outright , irrelevan t als o becaus e Löhlei n wa s a mino r theoris t whose writing s are hardl y representativ e o f Hayd n an d Mozart' s er a (le t alon e Beethoven's), an d whos e theorie s ar e i n man y respect s no t corroborate d i n an y of th e majo r performanc e practic e tract s o f tha t perio d (suc h a s Leopol d Mo zart's Violinschule, th e famou s Quant z an d Car l Philip p Emanue l Bach , Methods); an d whos e obscur e 177 4 treatis e wa s selectivel y chosen a s 'evidence ' be cause i t happened t o suit the Hanovers ' peculiar purposes. In an y case, this for m of 'articulation ' feature d i n al l th e Hanovers ' violin s an d viola s create s a chopped-up, dissecte d phrasin g that completel y negate s bot h th e four-ba r struc turing o f the musi c an d an y sens e o f a complet e musica l statemen t i n mm.6—2 1 or an y othe r phras e (o r period structure). In th e upcomin g fermata s (mm.2 1 an d 24) , Norringto n an d th e Hanover s indulge i n supposedl y 'authentic ' dynami c nuances : fade-to-nothin g diminuen dos, down-and-u p ( ( = = ^"= = ) ) swoops . (I n man y place s late r the y impos e th e so-called messa d i voce, 87 a n up-and-dow n swell , especiall y disturbin g i n th e timpani rolls—agai n a misguide d stylisti c applicatio n whic h wa s primarily , a s the nam e implies , a voca l effect , rarel y applie d t o instruments , an d on e whic h flourished i n th e Baroqu e era , certainl y not i n Beethoven' s time . Man y o f these dynamic effects , especiall y in Norrington , are , to mak e matter s worse, electronically manipulate d whic h make s the m painfull y 'artificial, ' rathe r tha n 'authen tic.' (Hea r this , for example, o n th e repea t o f mm.4-5.) The vulga r dynamic swoop s i n th e horn s (m

. 34-3 8) and wood -

winds (mm.36—37) , s o disturbin g i n man y o f th e 'normal ' recordings , ar e her e (in Norringto n an d Hogwood ) s o exaggerate d a s t o becom e a tasteles s manner ism o r fetish . A t m.4 4 and , again , m.5 2 ther e i s rea l troubl e i n thes e perfor mances. Wit h th e Hanover s an d Hogwoo d th e violin s ar e nearl y covered i n th e first instance, an d totall y covered — inaudible — in th e secon d (m.52) . Norrington achieves a reasonabl e balance , bu t distort s th e four-ba r phrase s a t mm.4 4 an d 48 wit h four-ba r diminuendos . In th e 'secon d subject ' episod e non e o f the thre e performance s achieves any interconnection, musicall y implici t o r technicall y explicit , betwee n th e variou s links o f th e lon g melodi c chai n (excep t tha t i n th e Hanovers ' recordin g th e extreme reverberatio n cause s a certai n amoun t o f acoustic overlap) . Hogwood' s performance is , i n addition , particularl y offensive i n it s extrem e dynami c exag gerations i n Beethoven' s foreshortene d two-ba r phras e group s (a s in mm.75-76 , for example ) which ar e performe d as .

Beethoven's

wonderful subito p' s i n mm . 145 and 15 3 ar e seriousl y compromise d i n al l thre e 87. Spelle d mesa d i voce i n th e Hanove r Band' s sleev e note .

226 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

recordings, whil e th e ingeniou s dynamic s o f mm . 158-67 ar e prett y muc h ig nored, an d playe d a s mp t o mf a t m.15 8 an d a much-too-earl y crescendo . S o much, again , fo r authenticity and textua l fidelity ! In mm . 182 an d 19 0 th e win d counterfigure s I single d ou t previousl y come off reasonabl y well (primaril y as a resul t o f th e much-reduce d strin g sections), although b y no mean s ideally , the articulation s an d dynami c level s i n th e vari ous win d section s bein g somewha t les s than uniform . I n mm . 196-2 39 there i s little attemp t t o sustai n Beethoven' s not e values , al l unde r th e assumptio n o f Baroque practices . Th e Manöver s ar e particularl y annoyin g here , reducin g al l J.'s to j. . i n th e winds , but t o J. i n th e strings . Later, whe n Beethove n abbrevi ates the instrumenta l alternation s to single measures, the string s give us no mor e than a chintz y quarter-note. The bi g climacti c moment s (lik e mm.228-3 2 o r mm.240-52 ) i n al l thre e recordings soun d harsh , strained, and uncultivated ; the trumpet s ar e particularly blary throughout . Th e excessiv e reverberation o n th e Hanovers ' recordin g pro duces othe r unpleasan t sid e effects , suc h a s th e trumpets ' lou d D i n m.23 2 bleeding ove r into th e sof t sound s o f m.233. At times th e overwhelmin g decibe l levels, overbearin g reverberation , an d genera l dynami c boisterousnes s o f th e Manövers' recordin g mak e th e Beethove n Fift h soun d mor e lik e Mahler' s Eighth. Balance problem s continuall y plagu e al l thre e performances , as fo r exampl e in m.35 4 where the violin s disappear completely unde r a barrage of timpani an d crude brass . At the climacti c Dl > chor d o f m.382, Norringto n treat s u s t o on e o f his manneristi c down-and-u p inverte d messa d i voce effects . Non e o f th e re cordings manage s t o com e eve n clos e t o a p i n mm . 3 87-88, normall y on e o f Beethoven's mor e heart-stoppin g moments. Unwante d diminuendo s o r excessive sfs variousl y spoil th e development-extensio n section , toppe d i n Norrington' s recording b y a crazil y noisy, all ou t o f proportion, timpan i swel l i n th e fermat a of mm.481-82 . Finally , non e o f th e performer s show s an y respec t fo r Beetho ven's exquisit e coda pp's a t m.483 . The secon d movemen t doesn' t far e muc h better . Again, the questio n o f tempo is resolve d i n unanimit y b y al l thre e 'authenticists ' b y disregardin g Beethoven' s é1 = 92 , settlin g fo r a mor e "suitable " J > = 86 . Th e firs t them e statemen t is marke d b y a unifor m ignoring o f th e p dolce dynamic—th e viola s and cello s playing wit h a non-dolce, rough-hew n ton e somewher e i n th e m f range—an d is al l gussie d u p wit h extraneou s crescendo s an d diminuendos . Th e dynamic s in mm.7-1 2 ar e als o prett y muc h ignored , wit h n o contrastin g expressiv e fs (som e o f the m als o erode d b y lon g diminuendos ) an d wit h th e p pick-u p notes i n mm . 8 an d 1 0 al l playe d to o loud . Agai n thes e ar e 'sins ' committe d as wel l b y othe r conductor s i n othe r recordings , bu t give n al l th e claim s an d hype regardin g 'authenticity, ' on e ha s a righ t t o expec t somethin g a littl e les s shoddy. Hogwood, lik e man y conductor s who star t with a relativel y movin g temp o a t the beginnin g o f the movement , als o (lik e them ) slow s considerabl y to a n adagietto Ji = 6 0 during the woodwin d phrase (mm . 11—15) an d th e ensuin g strin g

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 22

7

passage. In the meantim e th e Manöver s somehow produc e a n enormou s mysteri ous & wron g not e i n th e accompanyin g harmon y o f m.16. Agai n i n al l thre e recordings the writte n p' s and pp's ar e a s scarce a s hen's teeth. Beethoven's wondrousl y mystical strings-and-bassoo n sequenc e a t m.39 is platitudinized i n thes e performances , i n th e Hanovers ' cas e b y a col d non-vibrato , in Hogwood' s by an unpleasan t stringines s of sound, i n Norrington' s a paralyzing dullness. Similarly , the problem s tha t surface d i n man y recording s i n th e varia tional episode s o f mm.5 0 an d 98 , ar e no t deal t wit h muc h mor e successfully ; essentially al l thre e ensemble s disregar d Beethoven' s p dolce, callousl y crescen doing int o m.56 , thereb y o f cours e precludin g an y o f th e composer' s intende d dynamic an d textura l contrasts. Dynami c contro l i s obviously not o f much inter est to thes e authenticists . Thi s become s painfull y eviden t i n th e crucia l typica l Beethovenian dynamic s o f m.10 5 (subito pp) an d m.W7(sempre pp), roundl y ignored i n al l thre e renditions—similarl y i n th e breathtakin g misterios o passag e of m . 161-66. One o f the mor e difficul t passage s i n th e Andante co n moto movemen t i s the episode a t mm.114-2 3 —difficult i n term s o f balanc e an d articulation . Bu t n o one ha s distorte d thi s passag e mor e thoroughl y tha n ou r tri o o f authenticists , imposing al l sort s o f gratuitou s yo-y o lik e dynami c effect s o n th e accompani mental repeate d sixteenths . Thi s display s a degre e o f arrogance vis-à-vi s Beetho ven tha t eve n a Stokowsk i or a Bernstei n woul d no t hav e mustered . The Hanover s clai m tha t the y recorde d thei r performanc e usin g "edite d an d revised part s base d o n th e autograp h an d th e firs t editio n o f 1809. " The y mus t not hav e looke d ver y closely , for many passage s tha t ar e i n discrepanc y with th e generally availabl e Breitkop f or Peter s editions , ar e performe d i n th e traditiona l (incorrect) manner . Skipping ove r many , man y furthe r detail s t o som e o f the grosse r textual an d stylistic misdemeanor s perpetrate d b y the thre e groups , le t m e cit e th e openin g of th e Scherz o whic h i s playe d wit h a n astoundin g coarsenes s and , a s usua l with thes e ensembles , wit h a total disregar d o f Beethoven's dynamics . Worse yet , Hogwood's tinn y fortepian o doublings , a s h e lead s fro m th e pian o bench , ar e painfully audibl e here . Th e difficul t scuttlin g cell o an d bas s passage i n th e Tri o is a gran d mes s i n al l thre e recordings , especiall y tha t o f th e Hanove r Band . Norrington's performanc e i s technicall y cleane r bu t s o decked-ou t wit h gratu itous nuance s (se e Ex . 58)—tal k o f a "wide r variet y of nuances " —as t o mak e one thin k o f Schuman n o r Césa r Franck . I mus t cit e als o th e wondrou s

Ex. 5 8

bridge passag e leadin g t o th e Finale , whic h al l thre e group s perfor m wit h a degree o f insensitivit y an d a blatan t disregar d o f Beethoven' s text , includin g mf timpanis, tha t I fin d simpl y astonishing.

228 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

In th e Final e som e o f th e wors t offense s includ e th e Hanovers ' adoptio n o f an absurdl y fas t temp o fo r th e openin g ( J = 96 , compare d wit h Beethoven' s «J = 84 ) —although the y soo n retrea t t o a sane r an d safe r J = 88 ; Hogwoo d doesn't see m t o kno w that th e violi n sfs i n mm.6 8 an d 27 7 are spurious ; non e of th e importan t piccol o part s ar e bough t ou t i n an y o f th e thre e recordings , least of all the crucia l one i n mm.244-50 (the y see m a s unaware o f the proble m as al l th e othe r conductors) ; th e coda' s presto i s messy with Hogwood , bu t sur prisingly good wit h Norringto n wh o not onl y hit s the temp o ( « = 112 ) righ t on the nose , bu t manage s th e basi c p dynami c leve l ver y well. Thi s i s surprising because Norrington , lik e the others , produce s a generally rather lou d las t move ment wit h almos t n o contrastin g sof t nuances , perhap s tryin g t o liv e u p t o hi s sleeve-note whic h call s th e Final e o f th e Fift h "unremittin g loud " (sic) . Th e vital canoni c counter-lin e i n th e bas s instrument s i n m.39 0 i s totally obscure d by bras s an d timpan i i n al l three recordings . In Norrington' s defense , his writin g or speakin g about hi s involvemen t i n th e 'period-instrument' movemen t i s considerabl y mor e rationa l tha n som e o f hi s recorded performances . H e admit s i n hi s intervie w with Jeanin e Waga r i n he r Conversations With Conductors (Boston , 1991 ) tha t h e sometime s wonders , upon hearin g "a moder n orchestr a playing superbly, probably with som e contro l over vibrato , with a n awarenes s o f phrasing, " wh y h e "bother s wit h ol d instru ments." H e goe s o n t o say , rightly, "in th e en d I don' t thin k tha t earl y music is about instruments ; it' s abou t music. " H e suggest s i t i s more a matte r o f creatin g a historicall y informed performance," on e wher e the "playin g [is ] relevant to th e music." I n th e sam e interview-conversation , speaking o n th e subjec t o f rubat o and temp o fluctuations , Norringto n asserts that i n Beethove n h e doesn' t chang e tempi," doesn' t "fee l i t necessary" t o d o so , whereas i n late r Romantic-er a musi c (Mendelssohn, Brahms ) he doe s fee l "th e nee d t o d o it. " H e furthe r point s ou t quite correctl y that i n Beethoven' s tim e a ) i n orchestra l music—wha t Norring ton call s "publi c music"-temp i wer e no t change d because , amon g othe r things , "that woul d hav e bee n a ver y difficul t thin g t o do " i n tha t "ther e weren' t an y conductors around , i n th e moder n sense " t o direc t th e temp o fluctuations ; an d b) tha t there was very likel y a considerabl e differenc e i n th e wa y "public music " as oppose d t o musi c playe d i n privat e salons—sonatas , smal l intimat e chambe r pieces—was performed , i n th e latte r cas e obviousl y mor e freely . Norringto n i s again historically/philosophicall y on targe t whe n h e say s tha t thi s differenc e i s one "w e no longe r observ e today, because al l o f our musi c ha s becom e public , but it' s a very importan t difference." I coul d continu e wit h thi s drear y recita l o f th e essentia l fraudulenc e o f th e authenticists' claim s an d pretensions . Bu t perhap s th e poin t ha s alread y bee n sufficiently mad e t o debun k th e pretender s t o th e thron e o f authenticit y an d historical fidelity—they are the ne w emperors withou t clothes—and t o show that these conductor s (an d thei r performances ) ar e les s faithfu l t o Beethove n tha n those who m the y clai m t o replace . Th e hyp e an d controvers y that hav e sur rounded (an d supported) their effort s hav e unfortunately obscure d the outstand-

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 22

9

ing contribution s o f some o f the fines t conductor s o f the pas t (o r of the present , for tha t matter). They have also , alas, managed t o obscure the longstandin g good works i n 'historicall y informed ' performance s of Charles Mackerra s (remembe r his Messiah o f 1966) , Raymon d Leppard , an d mor e recently , Joh n Elio t Gar diner.

This page intentionally left blank

Beethoven: Seventh Symphony

It i s debatabl e whethe r Beethoven' s magnificen t Sevent h Symphon y ha s fare d better o r wors e i n th e hand s o f most conductor s tha n hi s Fift h Symphony . I t is perhaps i n som e respect s a les s vulnerabl e work ; in th e sens e tha t i t i s fo r th e most par t les s rigorousl y constructe d tha n th e Fift h (especiall y i n th e firs t an d third movements ) an d therefor e allows for slightly more interpretationa l maneu verability—it i s als o les s vulnerabl e t o damage . Someho w th e apparentl y mor e spontaneous, mor e intuitivel y realized rhythmi c characteristic s o f th e Sevent h Symphony hav e le d mos t interpreter s t o rei n i n thei r interpretiv e ambitions . Rhythm is , after all , th e mos t powerful , mos t compelling , an d a t th e sam e tim e the mos t readil y understandable featur e o f a musica l work . I t speak s mor e di rectly t o th e musician—and , o f course , th e listener—tha n do , say , harmony , instrumental timbre , o r eve n melod y (sojn e o f the othe r tool s o f the composer) . And i f Wagner' s almos t universall y accepte d characterizatio n o f th e Sevent h Symphony, especiall y it s las t movement , a s th e "Apotheosi s o f th e Dance, " i s not particularl y useful conductorial-interpretiv e advic e —it strike s m e a s rathe r non-specific —it ha s in genera l cause d attentio n t o b e focuse d o n th e rhythmic / metric aspect s o f th e work , it s elemental an d linea r drive , an d ha s i n tur n dis couraged th e kin d of tempo divagation s so routinely visited upon th e Fift h Sym phony. On th e othe r hand , i n severa l other basi c respect s th e Sevent h i s maltreated at leas t a s muc h i f not mor e tha n th e Fifth . Beethoven' s tempo s o f th e secon d and thir d movements , especiall y th e latter' s Trio , ar e a s cavalierl y rejecte d a s any i n th e entir e symphoni c literature . I n thos e tw o movement s Beethoven' s unique an d remarkabl y precise phrasing-articulations are universall y ignored; re duced t o merely convenient, mediocre , non-committa l approximations , thus los ing thei r trul y Beethovenia n singularity . And i f uncontrollabl y loud timpani , urged o n o r permitte d b y conductors , i s a widesprea d proble m i n th e Fift h Symphony, th e brutalizatio n of timpani part s i n th e Sevent h i s even mor e ram 231

232 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

pant. The destructiv e impact here o f this particular offense i s even mor e serious, because beyon d anythin g i n th e Fift h Symphony , Beethove n pu t mor e o f hi s primary themati c materia l i n th e bas s range, wher e a n overl y loud, competin g timpani wil l d o th e mos t sever e damage, obliteratin g those importan t bas s lines. The ensuin g analyses of recordings will sho w how ofte n th e criminall y loud an d over-recorded timpan i part s obscur e entir e section s o f musi c wher e th e mai n discourse i s being—or supposed to be —carried i n the cello s and basses . I canno t think o f anothe r majo r symphoni c wor k i n whic h thi s abus e i s s o commo n o r so damaging . Because man y o f th e conductoria l misdemeanor s encountere d i n th e re cordings o f the Sevent h ar e i n natur e th e sam e a s those we'v e encountere d i n our examinatio n o f th e Fift h Symphony , I wil l no t b e a s exhaustivel y detailed in th e analysi s of the Seventh' s nearl y fifty sampled recordings . On th e on e han d I wil l emphasiz e thos e digression s that ar e th e mos t grievous , and o n th e othe r hand thos e mos t injuriou s t o th e special , perhap s eve n unique , qualitie s of th e Seventh Symphony . Although, th e temp o marking s of the Sevent h Symphony' s first movement— both introductio n an d mai n body , th e Vivace—are i n genera l mor e respectfull y treated tha n ar e mos t o f Beethoven's metronom e an d temp o markings , there i s still enoug h divergenc e o n th e par t o f conductors a s to th e 'appropriate ' temp o to warran t discussion here. Th e differenc e i n tempo interpretatio n betwee n thi s movement an d s o man y othe r Beethove n symphon y movements, bu t especiall y the Fifth , i s one o f degree . Wherea s i n th e Fifth—an d indee d in , fo r example , the Tri o o f the Seventh' s Scherz o movement—mos t conductor s ar e a s much a s 30 points off the indicate d metronom e marking , in th e introductio n o f the Sev enth, th e margi n o f deviation i s considerably less, more lik e 1 5 points . Interestingly enough , th e tendenc y t o disbeliev e Beethoven's J = 69 poco sostenuto and to tak e a slowe r temp o wa s mor e commo n amon g th e earlie r generation s o f conductors—Furtwängler, Stokowski , Casals, Boult , and som e o f their imitators , and yes , even Toscanini—than i t is today among th e presen t generatio n o f established maestri . Figure 1 shows the rang e o f tempos chosen , wit h Barenboi m and Casals th e slowes t and Weingartne r and Bati z on th e fastes t track. The stranges t tempo conceptio n o f this movement I have encountere d i s on e proffered b y Arnol d Schönber g i n hi s Structural Functions o f Harmony. l Al though, a s fa r a s I know , h e neve r actuall y conducte d th e Sevent h Symphony , he seem s t o hav e bee n convince d tha t th e score' s J = 6 9 shoul d hav e bee n J = 69 . I n a footnot e t o a harmoni c analysi s o f the openin g o f the Seventh' s first movement, Schönber g states : "I am convince d tha t [ j = 69 ] is a misprint. Evidently th e tw o episode s o n median t an d submedian t [mm.42—5 2 an d mm.24-34] hav e a march-like character. " Schoenber g the n back s away fro m hi s 'conviction' a little with : "If J = 6 9 seems to o fast, I would sugges t J = 52-54 . Besides i f one o f these master s [Beethoven ] writes sixteenth-notes, h e mean s it ; 1. Arnol d Schönberg, Structural Functions o f Harmony (London , 1954; ) p,17J .

BEETHOVEN: SEVENT H SYMPHON Y 23

3

Fig. 1 J=52 Barenboim , Casal s J=54 Furtwängler , Toscanini, Previn , Sanderlin g J=56 Bernstein , Kubelik , Norrington, Maaze l J=58 Boult , Ferenczik , Solti , Collegiu m Aureum , C . Kleiber , Celibidach e J = 60 Dorati , Coli n Davis , Stokowsk i (1959), Keilberth, Brüggen J = 62 Walter , Kletzki , Stokowski (1928) , Dohnany i J = 64 Thomas , Steinber g J = 66 Mengelberg , Abbado , Fricsay , Ashkenazy, Böhm, Jochu m J = 67 Karajan , Masu r J = 69 Haitink , Klemperer, Muti , E . Kleiber , Ansermet, Leinsdor f J = 70 Cantell i (Philharmonia ) J = 72 Harnoncourt , Gardiner , Mehta , Szel l J = 76 Weingartne r J = 78 Bati z

•he means no t eighth-note s bu t fas t notes , which wil l always be hear d i f the give n metronome mar k i s obeyed. " That i s debatable, o f course, especiall y in th e cas e o f Beethoven. An d ye t i t is a curiou s bu t intellectuall y intriguing notio n whic h relate s interestingl y to th e Brahms Firs t Symphony' s poco sostenuto introduction . For , as the discussio n on that music' s temp o show s (se e p.280), ther e i s considerabl e interna l evidenc e that Brahms' s poco sostenuto coul d als o b e i n a muc h faste r temp o tha n ha s been traditionall y and universall y accepted. I f Beethoven's poco sostenuto were , like Brahms's , a n afterthough t relatin g t o th e movement' s mai n Allegro tempo , then Schönberg' s idea would no t b e s o far-fetched. Schönberg' s ide a als o begin s to hav e som e merit—especiall y i n hi s secondar y suggestion o f a compromis e J = 52-54 tempo—whe n w e realiz e tha t th e fina l si x bars o f th e introduction , (which, I mus t confess , I hav e ofte n intuitivel y felt ar e interminabl y slow, j too elongated an d fragmented , especiall y whe n don e slower than J = 69) , if executed a t Schönberg' s suggeste d temp o relat e mor e organicall y an d naturall y to the upcomin g Vivace. Th e silence s betwee n th e reiterate d E' s relat e bette r t o the Vivaces rhythm , whil e the metronomi c relationshi p between th e two tempos, J = 5 2 - J . = 104— a classi c 1: 2 ratio —also seem s no t beyon d th e realm o f consideration. I personall y cannot envisio n doin g th e Seventh' s introductio n a t Schönberg' s fast temp o —I woul d als o sugges t tha t i n th e cas e o f Schönberg' s supposition , Beethoven migh t hav e use d a tim e signatur e o f <jî—bu t I may , afte r all , also b e completely brainwashe d b y th e traditiona l (Beethoven's ) temp o conceptio n heard sinc e m y earl y childhood. Still , I fin d i t a n intellectuall y intriguin g idea, probably t o b e explore d further . Beyond th e temp o question , a number o f other interpretive temptations arises,

234 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

plaguing man y performances. Beethoven's pillar-lik e chords ever y other measur e (mm. 1-7) ar e clearl y marke d wit h a staccat o dot . An d ye t man y conductor s (Previn, Harnoncourt , an d Sanderling , fo r example) , wishin g t o sho w ho w 'deeply' they feel Beethoven' s musi c an d ho w 'profound ' thes e chorda l eruption s are, insis t o n makin g the m int o lon g sustaine d chords—Coli n Davi s pushin g things t o a n extrem e b y makin g hi s orchestr a (th e Londo n Symphony ) pla y Beethoven's J a s J^,J V Perhap s som e o f thes e conductor s canno t reconcil e short chord s wit h a poco sostenuto, no t realizin g tha t an y slowis h temp o ca n have within i t sharply articulated, staccat o chords . Indeed , this is clearly Beetho ven's intention : t o demarcat e th e lovel y lyri c four-note them e first heard i n th e oboe an d thre e time s varie d in othe r instruments , wit h incisive , almost shockin g interruptions. O f course , reasonabl e me n an d wome n ca n argu e abou t ho w short i s short ; ther e ar e degree s o f staccato . I merel y sugges t tha t some kin d o f staccato need s t o be heard here , no t J o r J j) . Leibowit z unfortunately carries things t o th e opposit e extreme , makin g th e fou r chord s excessivel y short—actually staccat o sixteenths(!)—and unnaturall y sharply articulated. I fin d particularl y annoying th e stretchin g o f (ritarding in) ever y second mea sure i n th e openin g (mm.2 , 4 , 6 ) b y man y conductors . Thei r idea , I suspect , i s to extrac t some additiona l expressivit y out o f those measures , o n th e suppositio n that distorting/stretchin g a phras e make s i t someho w mor e 'profound, ' mor e 'emotionally compelling. ' I acknowledg e tha t th e subtles t flexibilit y o f temp o might no t see m harmful , but whe n conductor s (Ashkenazy , Böhm, Furtwängler, Ferenczik) stretc h th e measure s under discussio n t o 5/ 4 or 4V2/ 4 i t goes beyon d the bound s o f taste an d artisti c discipline, seriousl y distorting Beethoven' s for m and continuity—an d thi s at the ver y outse t o f the movement . Temp o distortion s of this sor t and thi s magnitud e preven t th e all-importan t initial expository material fro m bein g hear d properly . The nex t proble m man y conductor s creat e occur s i n m. 4 whe n the y allo w the oboist , who admittedl y has a gently wavy expressive phrase, to 'do somethin g with it, ' 'mak e somethin g ou t o f it'—a n understandabl e desire , excep t tha t i f overdone, a s i t mos t ofte n is , it obscure s th e four-not e main motiv e no w i n th e unison clarinets . The sam e proble m woul d aris e as seriously in m.6 , excep t for the fac t tha t th e horns , no w carryin g the four-not e motive , ar e i n a relatively more projectin g registe r tha n th e clarinet s ar e i n m. 3 an d m.4 ; an d therefor e the horn s ar e no t a s easil y obscure d a s th e clarinets . I n fact , i t i s no t eas y t o get th e horn s t o pla y as softly i n m. 5 a s the clarinet s i n m.3 , whic h b y all rights they should . Fo r ou r moder n 20th-centur y all-purpos e horn s thi s i s a proble m that need s specia l attention , i n a wa y not tru e fo r the earl y 19th-centur y natura l ' horns, crooke d i n A . O n Reiner' s Chicag o recordin g thes e balance s ar e al l per fect. The crescend o tha t almos t alway s develops i n m. 5 an d m. 6 i s often continue d by many conductors in m.7 and m.8 , perhaps because th e musi c no w modulates fairly quickly—i n jus t tw o bars—fro m D majo r throug h G an d C t o F major , and the y ar e inadvertentl y led t o expres s thi s dynamically when i n fac t Beetho -

BEETHOVEN: SEVENT H SYMPHON Y 23

5

ven intend s that only the harmoni c movemen t an d th e resultan t quietl y moving voice-leading be th e sol e expressiv e medium . A majo r interpretiv e transgressio n occur s wit h disturbin g frequenc y a t m.1 0 (or sometime s m.9) , namely, a substantial chang e i n tempo—whe n non e i s indicated—in mos t case s slower. This tempo mutation i s then jus t as surely followed by a compensatin g accelerand o i n m.14 , helplessl y respondin g t o tha t mos t primitive o f urges o f pushing the temp o forward , becaus e Beethoven happen s i n that ver y sam e measur e t o b e askin g fo r a tremendou s crescendo—fro m p p t o ff. Man y conductor s indulge(d ) i n thi s temp o aberratio n t o th e poin t wher e fo r many year s i t wa s a har d an d fas t tradition . Majo r offender s i n thi s 'tradition ' were (are ) Furtwängler , Celibidache , Mengelberg , Walter , Stokowski , Jochum , Ferenczik, Fricsay , Masur , Ashkenazy , Mehta , Sanderling , Böhm , d e Burgos , Leibowitz — even Carlo s Kleiber ; whil e thos e wh o hel d th e tempo , t o allo w th e wonderful contras t betwee n th e first nine measures ' half-note s an d th e nex t thirteen bars' sixteenth-notes t o have it s full effect , wer e (are ) Reiner, Cantelli , Kara jan, Haitink , Ansermet, Solti , Szell , Muti , an d abov e all , Gardine r an d Abbado , whose recording s o f the Sevent h ar e altogethe r splendid , perhaps , al l i n all , th e finest recordings o f the work. 2 In contras t t o those wh o tak e a slower tempo a t m.10, a host o f other conduc tors rushe s th e temp o o f th e incomin g sixteenth s — if no t ther e the n surel y i n m.14. Toscanini , Weingartner , Steinberg , Casals , Bernstein , Keilberth , Kletzki , Boult, Kubelik , Erich Kleiber , Coli n Davis , an d th e Collegiu m Aureu m belon g to tha t group , whil e Gardine r rushe s noticeabl y bu t onl y i n m.14 . Previ n i s odd man ou t here , a s he hold s stubbornl y to hi s alread y very slow (too slow ) tempo . Then ther e ar e conductor s (Dohnanyi , Barenboim ) wh o rus h th e temp o eve n before m. 9 an d m.10 , Dohnanyi , fo r example , a s earl y a s m.3 . Klemperer , o n the othe r hand , slow s dow n substantiall y at bot h critica l junctures , endin g i n m. 15 wit h a ponderous temp o abou t 1 5 point s belo w Beethoven' s metronomiza tion. Incidentally, i t makes n o sens e t o trea t th e sixteenth s o f mm. 15-22 any differ ently than thos e o f mm. 10, 12 , and 14 . Or ar e w e to believ e tha t i f the musi c is soft (pp), w e shoul d adop t a slowe r tempo, an d i f the dynami c i s ff, w e shoul d go faster? ! The nex t bi g problem—on e t o som e exten t o f Beethoven' s making , bu t cer tainly no t unsolvabl e —occurs i n mm . 15-22, an d eve n mor e s o i n th e paralle l section mm . 34-41. Give n Beethoven' s powerfull y sustaine d harmonie s i n th e woodwinds and bras s in mm . 15-21, especiall y the trumpets ' ff, i f literally main2. Gardiner' s recordin g is , excep t fo r a hal f dozen interpretiv e lapses (mentione d i n th e text) , all i n all remarkabl y good—I shoul d ad d 'correct'—an d provide s a n excellen t exampl e o f how a correct , respectful-of-the-score discipline d performanc e can b e exciting , passionat e and , i n man y moments , even revelatory . I disagre e wit h Gardiner' s stron g feelin g tha t suc h a performanc e ca n onl y b e achieved o n perio d instruments . (I t i s no t th e instrument s b y themselve s tha t produc e th e 'right ' sounds; i t i s and shoul d b e th e ear s o f th e performer s an d thei r sensitivit y t o ho w th e instruments sounded i n Beethoven' s tim e tha t ca n produc e the 'right ' sounds ; and th e 'right ' player s ca n d o that on an y instruments , modern o r 'period.' )

236 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

tained, th e secon d violins ' four-not e theme , echoin g th e oboe' s openin g state ment, ca n hardl y b e heard . I t i s indeed difficul t t o brin g ou t th e secon d violi n line sufficiently—especially

, bein g i n

the uppe r middl e (o r i f you will , lowe r upper ) register , sinc e i t i s less projectin g than th e first violins' fou r note s tw o bars later—unless on e ask s the winds , partic ularly th e trumpet s an d horns , t o bac k of f a bi t afte r thei r attack . ' A bit' usually does it . I t i s als o no t necessary—indee d no t advisable—fo r th e woodwind s t o play their loudes t ff. Howeve r it is done, it is urgent tha t the secon d violin s (in mm.15-16 an d mm.19-20 ) b e hear d a s th e primar y voice , towar d whic h en d Beethoven's s/ s (fou r pe r phrase , on e fo r eac h note) , i f vigorously attacked, ca n be mos t effective . Reine r an d Abbad o ar e abou t th e onl y conductor s o n re cordings wh o ge t this passag e reall y right . (Carlo s Kleibe r als o does i t beautifull y on th e Germa n Unite l video , les s so on hi s Vienna Philharmoni c recording. ) I woul d als o lik e t o poin t ou t anothe r aspec t o f this passag e (mm . 15-22) tha t is almost always overlooked. The sixteenth-not e scales , usuall y treated i n distinct , unconnected one-ba r units , ar e actuall y compose d i n tw o ba r phrases , startin g in th e lowe r registe r an d climbin g eac h tim e int o th e uppe r range . Exampl e 1 illustrates wha t I mean . Th e scala r link-up s a t mm.16 , 18 , 20, 22 , no t immedi ately discernibl e fro m th e instrumenta l parts , need t o be speciall y rehearsed , an d

Ex. 1

in effec t th e violin s hav e t o tak e ove r th e ascendin g line s fro m th e cello s and basses , whil e th e latte r hav e t o b e awar e o f passing o n thei r lin e t o th e violins.

BEETHOVEN: SEVENT H SYMPHON Y 23

7

An awfu l misdee d occur s i n m.2 1 i n tw o recordings : Stokowski' s 192 8 re cording an d Bernstein' s (wit h th e Vienn a Philharmonic) . I n tha t measur e on e can hea r a painfull y dissonant C bein g played, thi s i n a G majo r sevent h chord . On Stokowski' s recordin g i t sound s a s thoug h th e bassoon s ar e th e offendin g instruments (wer e their part s wrong, written i n teno r clef?) , whil e o n Bernstein' s recording i t sound s lik e two horn s playin g a quit e powerfu l I

know fro m

many persona l experience s wit h Stokowsk i and man y examples i n hi s recordings that h e rarel y paid attentio n t o suc h 'minor ' detail s a s wrong notes . Bu t wha t is truly inexplicable—and shocking—i s that the recordin g producers an d engineer s did no t i n bot h instance s hea r th e offendin g notes . It i s perhap s understandabl e wh y oboist s i n mm.23—2 8 (an d flutist s i n mm.42—47) conside r thi s lovel y tuneful episod e thei r privat e solo. With it s gently swaying contours, i t i s one o f Beethoven's mos t gracefu l an d attractiv e melo dies. Bu t I sugges t ther e i s another wa y o f lookin g a t thes e tw o passages . Base d on th e stud y o f th e autograp h score , I believ e wha t Beethove n reall y ha d i n mind i n mm.23-2 8 was a well-balance d win d sexte t o f two oboes , tw o clarinets , and tw o bassoons, with th e lea d voice , o f course, i n th e firs t oboe; similarly , i n mm.42-47, wher e i t i s a flute-le d win d septe t intermittentl y fleshe d ou t wit h divided violas . This represents a quite differen t conceptio n o f these tw o passages, but on e whic h I think i s more faithfu l t o Beethoven' s intentions , an d a t the very least, represent s a logica l alternativ e interpretiv e option . Onc e hear d playe d i n this fashion, I think man y conductor s wil l be convince d o f its interpretive viability. Th e on e recordin g o n whic h thes e passage s were performe d i n th e manne r suggested her e wa s Dohnanyi's . I a m passin g over the fac t tha t man y conductor s an d player s ignore th e specia l pp i n m.2 9 (an d m.48 ) i n th e secon d theme , mos t conspicuously , Celibidache , Reiner, Jochum , Mengelberg , Ashkenazy , Mehta , Dohnanyi , Brüggen , Gardi ner, Harnoncourt , Strauss , d e Burgos , Leibowitz , Kletzki , Ferenczik, Batiz , th e Collegium Aureu m (t o nam e jus t a few ) —Gardiner ha s a poo r splic e her e — and, mos t grievous , Stokowsk i in hi s 192 8 Philadelphi a recording , i n whic h h e manages a big fat mf (sic) i n m.29 3 ; also the fac t tha t mos t conductor s crescend o too muc h an d to o early 3 betwee n m.2 9 an d m.3 4 (an d i n th e paralle l passag e between m.4 8 an d m.53) , neve r noticin g Beethoven' s importan t distinctio n be tween th e tw o passages: the crescend o i n th e C majo r sectio n (m.30 ) i s initially held back , beginnin g onl y thre e an d a hal f measure s late r an d i s therefor e a rather abrup t crescendo ; wherea s i n the F majo r section (m.48) , i t begins i n th e second ba r an d i s thus stretche d acros s four ful l measures . 3. Oddl y enough , Stokowsk i i n hi s 195 9 Symphon y o f th e Ai r recording , wen t overboar d i n th e opposite direction , i n m.2 9 producin g a jus t barel y audible quadrupl e p . Stokowsk i could b e a ma n of extremes . In m y hundred s upon hundred s of pages of copious, detailed handwritten (yellow lega l pad) notes on th e mor e tha n 43 0 recording s (over-all) studie d an d analyze d fo r Par t III , the crescendo s mad e too muc h an d to o earl y wer e s o frequent—tantamoun t t o a n epidemi c —that I wa s force d t o resort to th e abbreviatio n "trnte" m m y note s t o cop e wit h th e cataloguin g of this interpretational abuse .

238

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

More importan t i s what happen s i n mm.34-41—o r wha t doesn't happe n i n the majorit y o f performance s an d recordings . I f th e analogou s earlie r passag e (mm. 15-22) wa s difficul t t o brin g off , the late r on e i s even mor e problematic . Never on e t o merel y repea t a musica l ide a verbatim , Beethove n add s anothe r thematic laye r i n m.34 , b y wa y o f canoni c imitation . A s Ex . 2 shows , th e

Ex. 2

woodwinds imitat e th e string s fairly strictly 4, a facto r tha t mus t be mad e audibly clear. And yet, in most recordings, judging by the aura l evidence, this canonic layering is left unattended to, or at best left to chance. It is in fact not easy to make the fullness o f Beethoven's structurin g here absolutel y clear . Onl y a fe w conductors achieved it : Reiner , Celibidache , Klemperer , Kletzki , Boult , Jochum , Eric h Kleiber, Casals, Sanderling , Leibowitz, Furtwängler (i n his Vienna Philharmoni c recording), and abov e all, Abbado; while those who seem most ignorant of what is at stake here includ e Walter, Bernstein , Masur, Coli n Davis , Keilberth, Harnon court, even (surprisingly) Weingartner and Gardiner. Many other conductors, Car los Kleiber , Stokowski, Haitink, Toscanini, Muti , Ansermet , Furtwängle r (i n hi s Berlin recording) and Cantelli , com e fairl y close to realizing the ful l exten t of the structuring. Th e proble m i s that mos t conductor s ge t so involved in conductin g the sixteenth-not e scale s that they tend t o forget all about the canoni c bypla y and fail to hear whether it is properly balanced or not. Let u s mov e o n t o the Vivace, an d her e w e encounter, apar t from th e temp o issue (whic h I wil l no t detai l agai n a t thi s time) , man y performanc e problems, the tw o mos t crucia l o f which, an d th e mos t universall y ignored b y conductor s and orchestras , ar e 1 ) th e slippin g rhythmicall y int o a 2/ 4 (instea d o f Beetho ven's 6/8) , an d 2 ) Beethoven' s subtl y varie d articulativ e differentiatio n o f th e basic rhythmi c cell, th e famou s 'Am—ster—dam ' rhythm . As for the latter , hardly anyone seems t o notice tha t Beethoven use s three clearl y and consistently differentiated version s o f thi s rhythmi c figure : (a ) (b

) an

d

(c) Th e mos t tha t eve r happens i s that occasionally , by accident, thi s or that playe r o r sectio n wil l happe n t o pla y th e rhythmi c figur e a s writte n b y Beethoven. Mostl y thi s occur s wit h th e versio n (b), th e mor e commonl y use d version o f th e three . Generally , mos t conductor s an d performer s eithe r fai l t o 4. Beethove n ingeniously eschews an absolut e pitch imitatio n at points a and b to avoid, at point a, a pitch not accommodatable in an E minor chord and, at b, the bland doubling of the violins' pitches.

BEETHOVEN: SEVENTH SYMPHONY 23

9

notice th e differen t notation s o r assum e tha t the y ar e meaningless : Beethoven' s carelessness o r pointles s idiosyncracy . In poin t o f fact , thes e articulativ e distinction s ar e anythin g bu t meaningless . Beethoven i s astonishingl y clea r an d consisten t abou t hi s intentions . T o begi n with, th e flut e an d obo e hav e the cel l typ e a , the sustaine d version , at mm.6366, an d quit e logicall y so, sinc e thos e measure s represen t a transitio n fro m th e sustained reiterate d E' s at the en d o f the introductio n t o the mai n them e o f the Vivace i n th e flut e (m.67) . The firs t appearanc e o f one o f the staccat o versions, cell typ e b , occur s a t m.85 . Cell a return s immediatel y thereafte r i n a f f re statement o f th e mai n theme . Thi s i s especiall y crucia l t o rende r correctl y i n the cello s an d basses , whos e harmoni c foundatio n i n mm . 89-96 need s t o b e well sustaine d t o suppor t th e powerfu l them e abov e it . I n m.9 8 th e cello s an d basses tur n melodi c wit h a n importan t counter-respons e t o th e violin s a ba r earlier: agai n mos t effectiv e whe n sustained , tha t is , playe d 'melodically ' no t merely 'rhythmically. ' Let u s nex t notic e th e distinctio n mad e betwee n th e mor e sustaine d violins at mm. 111-14 as well as m.118 (cel l type a) and th e lightl y skipping woodwinds (cell typ e c ) i n mm . 116-17. Th e intereste d reader , wit h scor e i n hand , ca n continue to trace the progress—and process—by which Beethoven varies the three cell types , brilliantly fitting them int o differen t musica l and expressiv e contexts. I shall single out severa l unique instances : (1 ) the ver y precise, cogent—and there fore crucial—differentiatio n Beethove n make s i n th e p p C majo r sectio n at th e beginnin g o f the developmen t (m.181) , wher e afte r fou r bar s o f the sustained type , th e risin g figures , i n canoni c successio n (cellos/basses—firs t violins—second violin s —oboe-flute/bassoon) ar e se t i n th e lightl y skipping c type; (2) a little later, m.22 2 an d onward , Beethove n mixes the tw o types, a and b , th e former reserve d fo r primary thematic material , the latte r give n t o th e secondar y responses (see Ex. 3) . Notice tha t th e viol a participates in bot h types . It is essen-

Ex. 3

tial to insis t on these articulative distinctions,5 fo r only thus ca n on e brin g clarity and sens e t o th e rathe r complicate d polyphoni c an d fragmente d textur e o f this brief episode, which, to complicat e matters , i s set in thre e three-ba r phrases an d one five-bar extension;6 (3) whereas the differen t articulation s in th e sectio n jus t described were handled successivel y (sequentially), in the next episode (mm.23650) the y ar e presente d simultaneously . Beethoven give s th e wind s the sustaine d 5. Onl y a fe w conductor s and orchestra s succeede d i n makin g thes e distinctions , mos t notabl y Abbado, Masur , Stokowsk i (i n hi s 195 9 recording) , Kubelik , Harnoncourt , an d Gardiner. 6. Measure s 222-24 , 225-27 , 228-30 , 231-35 .

240

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

version, th e string s th e skippin g staccat o version . Th e role s ar e reverse d i n mm.256-57, 260-61 , wher e th e wind s are staccat o an d th e string s sustained. A similar contrast is made a t m.278 and onwar d between th e violins (sustained, melodic) an d th e cellos/basse s (staccato , accompanimental). It should b e clea r fro m even these few examples that these articulative marking s are anything bu t mean ingless or arbitrary, and tha t they ought to be observed strictly and conscientiously. As for the matte r o f maintaining a 6/ 8 rhyth m throughou t th e Vivace, tha t is, of course , no t easy ; but i t ca n b e don e a s a ver y fe w recording s sho w (Carlo s Kleiber, Täte) . Mos t performances , a s demonstrated b y the recordings , slip int o a 2/ 4 at some tim e o r other. I f not don e i n 2/ 4 th

e rhythm s most readily

encountered ar e o r, which , ironically , i f Beethove n (o r an y composer fo r that matter ) ha d actuall y written that , ther e woul d b e (hav e been) the loudes t howl s o f complain t fo r writin g suc h a 'complicated ' rhythm . Th e fact i s that rhythmi c training , rhythmi c accuracy , rhythmi c disciplin e ar e i n ex tremely short supply, in th e presen t da y as in the past . It is a subject glossed over in musi c school s and conservatorie s and treate d ver y casually in professiona l life. It s o happen s tha t t o pla y a tru e 6/8— a dancing , swingin g 6/8 —is on e o f th e most difficul t thing s i n musi c t o do . Th e tw o rhythm s show n above , plu s th e one ofte n encountere d i n th e Beethove n Sevent h (2/ 4 ) , are very easy t o slid e into , unnotice d excep t b y very shar p mind s an d ears . The proble m in th e Seventh' s Vivace i s exacerbate d whe n th e temp o i s taken to o fast . Eve n at j . = 10 4 it i s har d t o maintai n a tru e 'Am-ster-dam ' 6/ 8 rhythm ; bu t th e faster on e goes , th e harde r it is to distinguish between 6/ 8 an

d 2/ 4

or becaus e th e actua l distanc e betwee n th e respectiv e thir d notes , al ready clos e a t j. = 104 , become s virtuall y immeasurable . But , o f course, i t can be don e correctly . Therefor e i t i s doubl y inexcusabl e whe n conductor s (an d orchestras), takin g a too-slo w tempo , stil l don' t kee p t o a tru e 6/ 8 an d sli p int o a 2/ 4 o r th e '5 ' o r '7 ' variant s shown above . Mos t conductor s (and , alas , musi cians) don' t eve n hea r thes e rhythmi c differentiations , as i s easily demonstrate d by the recording s of the Seventh . Th e followin g table, representin g onl y a smal l sampling, show s ho w conductors and orchestra s fared i n thi s matter .

correct 6/ 8

incorrect onl y intermittently

C. Kleiber Brüggen Täte Jochum (almost all i Masu r the time ) Norrington Reiner

incorrect often Celibidache 1 Harnoncourt J Abbado Böhm De Burgos Dohnanyi E. Kleiber

; incorrec t mos t of the tim e (despite thei r | Beecha m slow tempos ) Í Toscanin i (NBC ) j Monteu x 1 Leibowitz Casal s Paray Hogwood Strauss Walter Gardiner

BEETHOVEN: SEVENT H SYMPHON Y 24

1

To return to the beginning of the Vivace, some strange things go on here in certain recordings, quite apart from th e fac t that most conductors ignore Beethoven's p su b a t m.67 . Fo r example , Carlo s Kleibe r start s the Vivace somewha t unde r tempo but accelerates into the main theme to J. = 11 2 (faster than Beethoven's j . = 104) . I' m sur e Kleibe r was trying to mak e a kin d o f transition fro m th e slo w introduction graduall y to the ful l Vivace. Furtwängle r doe s somethin g quit e th e opposite (a s does Boult—did they both ge t this idea from thei r mentor Nikisch?). Furtwängler speeds up at m.59, trying, I assume, to get a leg up o n the upcomin g (vivace) tempo , bu t the n make s a substantial ritard in mm.64-66. The tw o ideas together mak e ver y littl e sense . I n th e Collegiu m Aureum' s recordin g an erran t horn enters in m.65 (on a low A, as I recall), and i n m.63 the rhythm is exceedingly messy. The grou p makes up fo r that i n a way by bringing out th e wonderfu l lo w bassoon thirds (a somewhat unusual voicing for Beethoven) in mm.75-80. Celibidache's temp o fo r the Vivace i s a pitiful , pedestria n j . = 7 2 (a s com pared t o Beethoven' s 104) , th e slowes t on record . A word about Celibidach e i s à propos here . Sinc e h e ha s not recorde d commerciall y since th e lat e 1940 s an d indeed ha s refuse d t o recor d o n a variet y o f philosophical , commercia l an d technical grounds , th e numerou s LP s and CD s issue d i n th e las t tw o decades are al l liv e concer t performances , i n mos t case s recorde d unde r les s tha n idea l if no t downrigh t poo r technica l conditions . Celibidach e ha s manage d throug h the year s t o creat e a mystiqu e abou t himself—almos t a s a kin d o f cult figure — and ha s apparentl y legion s o f admirers. This admiration , however , seem s t o b e totally subjective , indicatin g n o awarenes s of Celi' s (a s his musician s cal l him ) erratic interpretiv e behavior , his performance s rangin g fro m th e sublim e t o th e perverse. A man o f extraordinar y passions and , a t th e sam e time , o f keen intel lect, his work has vacillated between th e brilliant , searching, an d deepl y moving on th e on e hand , t o the coars e and perversel y idiosyncratic on th e other . Within the sam e piec e h e ma y a t onc e b e maniacall y insisten t o n textua l fidelity and arrogantly dismissiv e o f th e score , reconstructin g an d recomposin g i t a t will . Celibidache i s a kind o f Roumanian Stokowski , both conductor s representin g a very, very rar e combinatio n o f genius an d charlatanism . To his man y admirers I would like to sugges t listenin g seriousl y to jus t on e o f his 'recordings' : th e Beethove n Seventh , recorde d i n 196 4 wit h th e Stuttgar t Radio Symphon y Orchestra— a fin e orchestra , b y th e way , typical of th e man y good Germa n radi o orchestra s o f th e '60 s wh o dutifull y followe d Celi' s ever y interpretive twist and turn . Celibidache's interpretiv e willfulnes s exhibit s itsel f mos t prominentl y an d consistently i n th e realm s of tempo an d dynamic s (i n man y ways, of course, th e central theme s of this book). In matter s o f tempo Celibidache ca n b e incompre hensibly arbitrary , inconsistent, an d illogical . Conside r hi s tempo s i n th e Sev enth a s compared wit h Beethoven's . The tw o reall y gross misinterpretation s ar e foun d i n th e firs t movement' s Vi vace (s o draggingl y slow an d ponderous ) an d th e Scherzo' s Tri o (se e Fig . 2) . How any ma n o f Celibidache's intelligenc e can indulg e himsel f in suc h distor tions o f the composer' s inten t i s har d t o fathom . Sinc e i t canno t b e ignoranc e of th e facts , i t mus t b e eg o an d arrogance . O n th e othe r hand , a s wron g a s

242

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

Fig. 2 Celibidache I. Poc o sostenuto 1 Vivace i II. Allegrett o 1 III. Scherz o | Trio j IV. Allegr o co n bri o i

J=58 J. = 72 J=56 J. = 132 J.=44 J = 66

Beethoven

J=69 ! J. = 104 ij = 7 6 ! J . = 13 2 J. = 84 ! J= 7 2 i

his tempo s ma y sometimes be , h e i s at least—unlik e man y othe r conductors consistent wit h them , rarel y changing o r losin g contro l o f his preferre d temp o once established . Equally shamefu l i s Celi' s callou s ignorin g o f Beethoven' s dynamics . Every thing i n thi s Beethove n Sevent h performanc e i s squeezed int o a borin g middl e range: mp t o mf. Ther e ar e n o ff' s an d ther e ar e n o p' s or pp's, and certainl y no distinctions betwee n th e latte r two, especially as in th e Scherz o or , say, a t m.2 9 in th e firs t movement . H e doe s no t eve n notic e Beethoven' s fff i n th e las t movement, no r hi s specia l pp i n th e fugat o o f the Allegretto. It comes a s a complete surprise , then, that i n othe r matter s Celibidache i s remarkably conscientious an d intelligent . Take , for example, th e articulativ e rhythmic distinctions Beethoven makes (see Ex.3) throughout the first movement. Celi bidache i s among a rar e fe w who insist s in thi s regard . Sinc e h e take s suc h a n impossibly slo w tempo i n th e Vivace, on e ca n hea r ver y clearl y the Stuttgarters ' successful contrastin g rendition o f these rhythms , althoug h th e slo w tempo completely vitiates and undercuts Beethoven's intentions in other ways . Even mor e remarkabl e i s Celibidache' s handlin g o f th e Allegretto's famou s theme. H e i s th e onl y on e wh o honor' s Beethoven' s phrasing/articulation , in cluding th e ful l tenuto o f the firs t beat . Celibidach e i s also on e o f the fe w wh o brings ou t th e woodwind s sf's i n th e beginnin g o f th e Final e an d throughou t the movement . His fan s wil l claim tha t hi s fines t insight s outweig h th e tasteles s indulgences . I a m no t s o sure. I n an y case , hi s performance s are fille d wit h irrational , willful but passionatel y fel t interpretations , sid e b y sid e wit h genia l inspirations , all i n bewildering juxtaposition s that reflec t n o sens e o r known logic . Almost everybod y does wel l i n th e ff re-statemen t o f the firs t movement' s mai n subject (m.89) , except when th e timpanis t is allowed to play too loudly. Unfortunately, thi s happen s o n fa r to o man y recording s an d i s especially damagin g i n passages lik e mm.97—100 , wher e a n overl y loud timpan i ca n easil y obscure th e important answe r o f th e cello s an d basses , responding to th e violins , clarinets , and bassoons . This obtrusiv e timpani playing in Beethove n (an d Brahms) sym phonies seem s t o be a particular problem wit h Germa n an d German-base d conductors, and , more likely , Germa n timpanists . The Germa n schoo l o f timpani

BEETHOVEN: SEVENT H SYMPHON Y 24

3

playing i s addicted t o th e us e o f very hard sticks , producin g a hard , dr y sound . In m y view it i s a rathe r 'military ' an d insensitiv e sound , a n inflexibl e approach to timpan i playing ; an d whil e i t ca n produc e unde r certai n circumstance s a welcome pitc h an d soni c clarity , unfortunatel y it als o lend s itsel f to o readil y to out-of-context, overl y obtrusive playing. Many Sevent h Symphon y recording s are marked b y such insensate , clangorous , obstreperou s timpani-playing , mos t nota bly Karajan' s 197 7 Berli n Philharmoni c recording . Tha t timpan i player' s relent less bombardment o f the timpan i par t i s truly astonishing ; it would b e ludicrou s if it weren't s o distressing. He play s as if he wer e a soloist in th e piece , and treat s the symphon y a s a 'Concert o fo r Timpani'—and Karaja n tolerate s it . If some reader s like more thunderou s timpani-playin g i n thei r Beethove n Sev enth, the y ca n indulg e themselve s t o th e utmos t i n a numbe r o f recordings , including thos e o f Klemperer , Fricsay , Masur , Casals , Barenboim , Muti , Coli n Davis, Keilberth , Harnoncourt , th e Collegiu m Aureum, an d abov e al l i n Batiz' s (one o f th e wors t offenders ) an d i n Furtwängler' s Vienn a recording , i n whic h the timpanis t play s so loud tha t eve n th e hig h horns , playin g /fin mm.89-100 , are completel y covered . I f the reade r on th e othe r han d i s looking for recordings in whic h th e balance s ar e correc t an d th e timpanis t i s a n intelligen t sensitiv e member o f th e over-al l ensemble , he/sh e shoul d tur n t o thos e o f Toscanini , Cantelli, Reiner , Haitink , Previn , Sanderling , Kletzki , Kubelik , Täte , and , t o a lesser extent , Abbado , Carlo s Kleiber , and (mos t o f the time ) Gardiner . A smal l poin t bu t nonetheles s wort h mentionin g concern s mm.107-18 . Her e Beethoven ra n into an interestin g problem with the flute part. In the previou s six measures the flute had been partnered with the oboe and bassoon, initially answering the first violins and then joining the violins in octave unison (in m. 106). But at that point Beethoven realized that continuing t o double th e violin part in the flute at the octav e woul d be impossibl e becaus e o f the flute's then limited hig h range . Accordingly he gav e the flute , startin g in m.107 , for three beat s parallel third s to the violins. For these thirds to be heard against the whole orchestra, including brass and timpani, it is best to have both flutes double the part. In mm.120-2 2 (an d th e paralle l passage mm.332-34 ) i t is a nea t helpfu l trick to hav e hal f th e secon d violi n an d viol a section s pla y thei r sixteenth-not e run s separate bow , fo r playe d entirel y slurre d the y ar e easil y covere d b y th e res t o f the orchestra . I hav e alway s found th e six-ba r passag e o f mm. 124-29 to b e on e o f the mos t exciting i n th e entir e symphony . Fo r most music lover s and musicians , I suppose it has los t it s fascination, simply through familiarity . Bu t w e should bea r i n min d that ther e i s nothing lik e this i n an y musi c tha t I know of prior to this moment . The climacti c powerfull y reiterativ e doubl e note s i n th e winds , followe d b y a dramatic shee r two-and-a-half-octav e drop t o th e lo w strings, is , when see n an d heard i n historica l perspective , on e o f the mos t darin g leaps o f the imaginatio n devised unti l then . Unfortunatel y the passag e lose s some o f its power an d dram a when win d players , out o f shee r inattention , rus h th e eighth-note s an d le t u p dynamically o n th e secon d i n eac h pai r o f notes , i.e . ,

Onl y

when bot h note s are played in perfec t time and mad e equa l i n strength, ca n th e

244 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

full effec t o f thi s extraordinar y passage be appreciated , a s ca n b e hear d s o per fectly o n Toscanini' s Ne w Yor k Philharmoni c recording . Two problem s aris e regularl y in th e wonderfull y inventiv e ten-ba r passag e o f mm. 141-51. As the crescend o mounts , startin g i n m.146 , i f it i s also driven to o much to o early, the littl e three-note figure si n th e woodwinds , especially in th e clarinet , bassoon , an d obo e part s (mm . 147-49), ar e ap t t o b e drowne d out entirel y b y th e encroachin g strings . Conductors (an d players ) should tak e note tha t Beethove n write s not cresc. bu t creso, poco a poco, a markin g which i s used t o indicat e a very gradual crescendo. I n innumerabl e recording s conducto r and orchestr a hav e alread y reached ful l f o r ff i n m.14 8 or m.149 , thereby com pletely obliteratin g th e singl e woodwind s tryin g desperatel y t o b e heard . Th e other proble m concern s th e littl e three-note figures themselves which, especiall y in the cello s and basses , are rarely played rhythmicall y correctly. What one hear s far to o ofte n i s instea d o f Thi s i s particularl y dis turbing whe n th e woodwind s pla y correctl y (whic h the y generall y d o i n mos t orchestras), whil e th e lo w strings play the sixteenth s too fast , lik e grac e notes . I have als o heard o n fa r too man y recording s wha t appears in Ex . 4b :

Ex. 4 a

Ex. 4 b etc.

The effec t o f overl y quic k sixteenths , especiall y i n th e lowes t registe r o f th e basses, i s tha t o f a serie s o f pitch-les s grunts—hea r i t yoursel f on , say , Barenboim's recording—a n effec t Beethove n surel y did no t hav e i n mind . The bas s part s i n mm . 152-61 (an d th e analogou s recapitulatio n section , mm. 364-71) are to this day extraordinarily difficult; on e wonder s how Beethove n dared to write something so audacious in 1812 (along with the eve n more challenging passage i n mm.278-99) . Eve n toda y these passage s ar e rarel y played cleanl y and eve n more rarely well recorded, especially when a booming timpani runs constant interference in the overly reverberant halls so often used for recordings nowadays. Ho w clear an d clea n thes e passage s ca n soun d ca n b e hear d t o wonderful effect o n Abbado's remarkabl e Vienna Philharmonic recording . Abbado's performanc e i s also exemplar y i n tha t astonishin g C majo r passag e which initiate s th e developmen t sectio n (mm . 181-94), a s i s Haitink's {with th e London Philharmonic ) and Gardiner's. Other conductors and orchestras can learn a lesson not onl y in what a real orchestral pp is , but wha t a feeling of suspense and mystery such a pp ca n convey . Moreover , Abbado and Haitin k mak e the earlier mentioned canoni c byplay crystal clear, avoiding all crescendos a s the figures rise in pitch, the unwante d crescendos that most orchestras seem unabl e to resist.

BEETHOVEN: SEVENT H SYMPHON Y

245

There i s a strang e scriptura l anomal y i n mm.205-20 6 an d mm.211 12, whic h ha s confounde d conductors , probabl y sinc e th e Sevent h Sym phony's publicatio n i n 1817 . Th e secon d violins ' rhythmi c figur e first encountere d i n m.201 , continue s through mm.205-206 , whil e i n th e paralle l plac e fiv e bar s later , th e secon d violins ar e silent . I t seems strang e that Beethove n woul d hav e adde d th e violins to th e wind s in on e plac e an d no t th e other . Give n tha t premise , on e ha s th e choice o f eithe r eliminatin g th e secon d violin s i n mm.205-20 6 (save o n th e downbeat o f m.205 ) whic h Strauss , fo r exampl e (i n hi s earl y 192 6 recording ) and Reine r do , o r insertin g a simila r rhythmic figur e (o n th e pitche s E/GI ) i n mm.211-12. Through th e year s various conductors hav e take n on e o r the othe r of these options , but mos t conductors—man y o f them perhap s eve n unawar e of the 'apparent ' discrepanc y have—simpl y gon e wit h th e printe d scor e an d parts.7

Ex. 5

7. A possibl e explanatio n onc e suggeste d t o m e —in fac t b y on e o f m y brightes t conductin g stu dents—for th e presenc e o f th e secon d violin s i n mm.205-20 6 an d thei r omissio n i n m.211-1 2 relates t o the winds ' instrumentatio n i n both passages . Largel y becaus e of the horns ' note limitations , Beethoven wa s unable t o creat e th e kin d o f middle-low-range voicin g i n th e bassoon s an d horn s i n mm.205-206 h e coul d s o readil y ge t fiv e bar s later , namel y I

n mm.205-20 6

the A horn s o f Beethoven' s da y coul d no t pla y th e lo w G (see n no w i n th e secon d violins ) o r

246

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Among th e man y darin g passage s i n th e Sevent h Symphony , non e i s mor e radically innovativ e than tha t remarkabl e chai n o f minor an d majo r secon d dis sonances nea r th e en d o f the developmen t sectio n (mm.236-49 ) (Ex . 5). Oddly, these bracing , almos t terrifyin g dissonance s ar e frequentl y softene d b y con ductors, especiall y conductor s afrai d o f stron g dissonance s o r conductor s fear ful o f thei r audience' s negativ e reaction , conductor s wh o rarel y conduc t an y 'dissonant' contemporar y music . I n m y vie w Beethoven' s dissonances , ver y modern soundin g eve n toda y whe n forcefull y projected , mus t b e give n ful l in tense harmoni c expression , as opposed t o indulgin g in th e 'too-much-crescendo too-early' approach , whic h s o man y conductor s adop t her e an d wit h whic h they try to impres s and overwhel m thei r audiences. Notic e th e rhythmi c distinc tion betwee n th e tw o motivi c cell s —one wit h sixteenth-not e rests , th e othe r without—a differentiatio n whic h almos t nobod y makes , excep t notabl y Celibi ache. Two truly troublesome spot s occu r a t mm.256-57 and m m 260-61 , the prob lem bein g t o mak e audibl e th e descendin g strin g patterns. A t fault i n mos t per formances an d recording s ar e th e bras s an d timpani , especiall y th e latter . All that need s doin g i s to as k the bras s t o bac k of f a littl e o n thei r sustaine d note s and th e timpan i t o softe n it s rol l slightly . O n almos t al l recording s th e string s (Ex. 6 ) ar e quit e inaudible ; o r t o pu t i t anothe r way , o n onl y si x recording s

the o

f the bassoons . Th e latte r could , o f course, hav e played tha t desire d lo w G bu t tha t

would hav e throw n ou t o f balance Beethoven' s full , evenl y registered three-octav e voicing . Wherea s

such a ful l balance d voicin g wa s easil y obtainable i n mm.211-1 2 i

n mm.205 -

206 th e bes t Beethove n coul d hav e don e i s

( b )

( a ) or

In optio n a , I suspect , h e woul d hav e considere d th e lo w G to o wea k i n jus t on e bassoo n (wherea s it i s quite stron g o n th e ope n G strin g of the violins) , while i n optio n b , h e woul d hav e considere d the gap between

and

and the lacking

a serious imbalancing of the

chordal voicing . Thus, accordin g to thi s reasoning , Beethoven neede d th e hel p o f the secon d violin s i n mm.205 206, bu t no t i n m.211-12 . I shoul d poin t ou t that , i n an y case , thi s apparen t anomal y is no t a n editor's o r engraver' s error; th e passag e is rendered a s i t appear s in Beethoven' s autograph.

BEETHOVEN: SEVENT H SYMPHON Y

247

Ex.6

(out o f 70-odd ) i s thi s passag e wel l balanced , wit h th e string s hear d properly : Haitink's, Kletzki's , Klemperer's , Reiner's , Sanderling's , an d especiall y Previn's. Muti's i s the worst , for not onl y is the timpan i muc h to o lou d bu t Mut i ha s th e two trumpet s mak e vulga r crescend o swoop s i n m.25 7 an d m.261 , non e o f course indicate d b y Beethoven . Skipping over many performance problems (o f the typ e already discussed elsewhere) an d muc h o f the recapitulation , I com e no w t o on e o f those passage s whose correc t expressio n depend s o n th e ful l realizatio n o f th e tiniest , mos t minuscule details . Tin y details— a shif t o f one not e i n a n unexpecte d place , a harmonic/melodic clas h tha t ma y flas h b y i n a hundredt h o f a second , a n un usual voicin g almos t hidde n i n a comple x texture , unusua l octav e displace ments—these ar e almos t alway s th e hallmar k o f th e wor k o f grea t composers , and Beethove n contribute d hi s ful l shar e o f such importan t minutia e through out his entire oeuvre. Curiously, the mor e uncommon , th e spicie r the effect , th e more conductor s ten d t o ignor e o r suppres s it. This i s sad, since i t i s often (a s I have previousl y pointed out ) tha t particular , unique, unprecedente d flas h o f invention, o f inspiration , tha t represent s a n importan t break-through , an d place s its compose r uniquel y abov e al l other s o f hi s tim e an d move s th e languag e o f music forwar d i n som e significan t and unexpecte d way. One suc h passag e i s that betwee n m.35 8 an d m.363 , i n whic h i n eac h mea sure tin y dissonantal clashe s occu r betwee n th e firs t an d secon d violin s (an al most identica l thin g happen s i n a n earlie r paralle l passage , mm . 146-51, bu t there th e 'clashing ' note s ar e a n octav e apar t an d therefor e no t a s obviou s i n their shoc k effect) . Reduce d t o a single-lin e reductio n (Ex . 7) , i t i s eas y t o se e

Ex. 7

how unusua l an d ho w darin g Beethoven's ide a i s (the clas h point s are circle d i n the example) . Before Beethoven , a s far a s I ca n se e o r imagine , only Mozart o r Bach —possibly Haydn—coul d hav e conceive d somethin g s o bold , s o 'wrong ' according t o al l th e textbook s and ye t soundin g so natura l an d wonderful . Th e problem i s that th e majorit y o f conductors and, I' m sorr y t o say , most orchestral

248

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

violinists, seem t o be totall y unaware of how unusual thi s passage is . They ignor e it, suppres s it , neutraliz e it , emasculat e it . A lot o f this come s fro m th e baleful , boring habi t o f conductors conductin g th e firs t violin s (o r othe r lea d voices ) to the neglec t o f othe r equall y importan t an d interestin g parts . Th e onl y wa y i n which wha t Beethoven ha s written here ca n b e full y realize d i s when bot h violi n sections pla y a t equa l strength , abov e al l a t th e clas h points . Simpl e awarenes s will generall y produc e th e righ t result . Th e onl y recordin g o n whic h thi s won drous effec t ca n b e savore d i s Dorati's . Another poin t o f awareness concern s th e passag e mm.376-8 2 (an d it s earlier parallel, mm . 164-70), i n whic h ther e occur s a canoni c exchang e o f idea s be tween firs t violins/woodwind s an d cellos/basse s an d i n whic h eac h four-ba r phrase i s divide d int o primar y an d secondar y elements . A s reduce d i n Ex . 8 , one ca n readil y se e tha t th e firs t tw o measure s (mm . 3 76-7) i n th e violin s and woodwind s contai n primaril y thematic materia l (brackete d > ') , derive d from th e flute' s initia l them e statemen t (mm.68-88) , whil e th e nex t tw o bar s (mm. 378-9 ) are simply the bass line (brackete d ' ' ) , transferred to the violin and woodwind s fro m th e cellos ' an d basses ' firs t tw o bars . I t thu s become s clear tha t th e violins ' an d woodwinds ' phras e i s no t a ful l four-ba r phras e bu t rather on e broke n int o tw o components: primar y (thematic) an d the n secondar y (accompanimental), th e revers e fo r cello s an d basses . Thi s make s a beautifu l symmetrical structura l design , diagrammaticall y represente d i n Fig . 3 , on e

Ex. 8

BEETHOVEN: SEVENT H SYMPHON Y 24

9

Fig. 3

which ca n (an d should ) b e realize d aurally/acoustically . This i s accomplishe d by eve n th e meres t awareness o n th e par t of the conducto r an d player s o f what is a t stake , i.e . tha t th e thre e notes , A - Gi l - E , i n th e violin s an d woodwind s (mm. 378-9) are merely a transported bas s line, no t par t of the melody , and mus t therefore b e somewha t underplayed , while conversely the cello s and basse s must bring thei r primar y thematic measure s t o th e fore . (Not e als o th e emphasizin g sfs i n the themati c segmen t no t presen t i n th e accompanimenta l notes. ) I n tha t way Beethoven's simpl e bu t poten t canonic/contrapunta l interpla y can b e mad e unequivocally audible and full y representativ e o f both th e ide a an d it s notation. If on th e othe r han d th e timpan i pounds awa y at full tilt , especially in a reverberant, boom y hal l o r recording studio , then th e cellos'/basses ' canoni c answer s are simply wiped out, an d Beethoven' s beautifu l aura l design i s completely defeated . By th e simples t o f moves—a n unadorne d half-ste p modulatio n downward— Beethoven transport s u s t o th e ke y o f Al > (i n a n A majo r piece!) , bu t jus t a s quickly by a magica l four-step progression (A t - C6/4 - F - A6/4 ) brings u s back in jus t eigh t bar s (mm.391-99) t o th e centra l key . To underscore th e mystery — and audaciousness—o f thi s passage , i t i s absolutely necessar y t o pla y th e basi c tenuto, i.e. melodically—again one of those rhythmic figure articulative distinction s Beethove n too k pain s t o mak e bu t generall y ignore d b y most conductors. 8 Most composers , having gotten bac k t o the centra l key , would no w have gon e quickly an d directl y t o th e movement' s fina l denouement . Bu t Beethove n ha s one mor e ingeniou s mov e u p hi s sleeve , a n ide a h e stretche s an d prolong s ago nizingly slowl y (mm . 401-22) , almos t t o th e poin t o f being unbearable , whe n it simpl y has t o erup t an d b e release d int o th e fina l coda . I t i s kept harmonic ally ambivalen t (althoug h th e implication s o f th e movement' s toni c ke y an d its dominan t ar e vaguel y discernible ) b y a low-register , grinding , repetitious , but constantl y growin g chromati c figur e i n violas , cello s an d basse s repeated n o fewe r tha n nin e times , 8. I t i s wrong for the horn s and answerin g woodwinds i n mm . 399-400 t o play instead o f a

s they brazenly d o i n

Erich Kleibers , Jochum's, an d Mengelberg' s performances , eve n mor e latel y wit h Carlo s Kleiber (evidently a Concertgebou w hor n tradition).

250 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

and double d u p rhythmicall y the tent h time—twenty-tw o bar s i n all . I t i s like something slowl y turning o n a spit, rotatin g agai n an d agai n o n it s own axis, bu t growing and evolvin g eventually t o gigantic proportions . This chromatically twisting, writhin g bas s line—we will see other examples of this i n th e las t movemen t o f th e symphony—i s se t agains t th e starkes t of backdrops, agai n harmonicall y ambiguous o r vacillating : one a five-octave sustained pedal poin t E (Ex . 9a ) i n th e winds , an d (Ex . 9b ) a stationar y melodi c lin e

Ex. 9 a Ex

. 9b

pivoting aroun d a n E axis . Thi s amazin g structur e i s sustaine d for , a s I hav e said, twenty-tw o measures , i n a giganti c crescendo , wit h instrument s graduall y being adde d an d th e upper-rang e figure s becomin g mor e an d mor e rhyth micized. Liste n t o ho w beautifull y Reine r an d Gardine r contro l th e dynamic s here (mm.401-22) , restrainin g their musician s fro m crescendoin g to o early! Many conductor s throug h th e year s have mad e th e bas s player s pla y this en tire sectio n a n octav e lower , i.e . Though I a m secon d t o non e i n m y lov e o f deep low-registe r sounds, 9 an d a m not onl y constantly demandin g th e ful l rang e dow n t o low C an d B in bas s parts in m y own compositions, an d als o find myself occasionally tempted t o add suc h low-octave doubling s whereve r appropriate i n th e classica l and Romanti c works , the Beethove n passag e unde r discussio n here i s one i n which , I submit, i t is no t appropriate to add a lower octave. There are tw o reasons. One i s that Beethove n in th e Sevent h Symphon y i s very consisten t an d logica l i n hi s us e o f th e low , fifth bas s strin g and , a s fa r a s I ca n tell , ver y clea r abou t wher e h e want s lo w notes and wher e h e doesn't . Below-E note s ar e conspicuously scattere d throughout th e work, 10 an d on e mus t assum e therefor e tha t whe n Beethove n keep s th e basses i n uniso n wit h th e cellos , h e mus t mea n it . I t i s ras h simpl y to assum e that Beethove n forgot , o r tha t th e missin g lowe r octav e i s a mistake . I believ e the secon d reaso n th e lowe r bas s octav e in mm.401-2 2 i s not wante d ha s to do with th e wa y Beethoven ha s structure d the passag e i n term s o f the chose n over all range—fiv e octaves , a s mentioned—withi n whic h thre e separat e layer s o f 9. I was , afte r all , th e firs t t o writ e a Contrabassoon Concerto, an d t o writ e i n 194 7 a Quartet fo r Doublehasses, an d hav e writte n voluminously fo r the contrabassclarinet . 10. Se e for example mm.40-41, 77 , 141-46, 366-74 , in the first movement; none i n the tw o middle movements, bu t man y places in th e Finale , includin g that remarkable twisting, writhing pedal poin t at th e en d o f the developmen t sectio n (mm.298-328) .

BEETHOVEN: SEVENT H SYMPHON Y 25

1

music function . I a m convince d tha t Beethove n di d no t wan t hi s bas s lin e to o far remove d fro m th e lowes t peda l poin t not e i n th e secon d horn . Finally, a s regard s thi s particula r passage , i t i s tragi c o n ho w man y recording s the timpan i (i n mm.421-22) completel y obliterate s th e fina l tw o bars of the bas s line (Ex . 10) ; most brutall y in Casals' s an d Ferenczik' s recordings. 11

Ex. 1 0

I canno t resis t pointin g ou t anothe r on e o f Beethoven' s miraculou s canoni c interplays (mm.427-31) , i n whic h th e lo w strings at first imitate th e hig h string s but halfwa y throug h role s ar e reversed , an d no w th e uppe r string s mimi c th e lower string s (Ex . lia , simplifie d an d reduce d —(the diagona l line s sho w th e

Ex. li a

canonic interconnections) . W e migh t als o not e wha t a n interestin g composit e rhythm result s from thes e interlockin g lines, especiall y i n mm.429-31 (Ex . lib) .

Ex. l i b etc.

A fina l commen t o n th e firs t movement : I wis h ther e wa s eve n jus t on e re cording (or , fo r tha t matter , on e performanc e o f those tha t I hav e hear d i n al l 11. Bu t th e wors t offender s ar e Mengelber g an d hi s 194 0 Concertgebou w timpanist , no t onl y i n this passag e but i n al l th e places—i n al l fou r movements—wher e th e timpan i plays.

252 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

my year s o f hearin g th e Beethove n Seventh ) i n whic h th e horn s ar e hear d as well i n m.44 7 as in mm.442 , 444 , 446 . I t i s obvious tha t hig h hor n part s pro ject mor e readil y tha n middle-registe r ones ; bu t thi s imbalance— a norma l acoustic phenomenon—ca n easil y be adjuste d b y an y hor n playe r i f he/she wil l play, fo r example , i n th e descendin g passag e jus t referre d t o (mm.446-47) , a little softe r i n th e hig h registe r an d a littl e loude r i n th e middl e register . Can not on e pai r o f hor n player s achieve—o r on e conducto r as k for—suc h rebal ancing? In th e Seventh' s secon d movement , th e famou s Allegretto— the movemen t tha t had t o be immediatel y encore d a t the Symphony' s premier e i n 1813—ther e ar e two majo r performance/interpretatio n issue s rarely adhered to : the basi c temp o (Beethoven's metronomizatio n i s J = 76) , an d th e phrasin g and articulatio n of the movement' s basi c thematic/rhythmi c cel l (mm.3-4) . Dealing wit h th e first issue, we fin d ourselve s once agai n i n a situation wher e 90 percen t o f all conductor s ignor e o r rejec t no t onl y Beethoven' s metronom e marking bu t hi s Italian temp o an d characte r designatio n a s well. They evidently distrust bot h an d ar e sur e the y kno w bette r tha n Beethove n wha t h e wanted . They ar e usuall y abou t 2 0 metronom e point s of f the mark , slowe r tha t is . O h yes, i t i s wel l know n tha t Beethove n i s repute d t o hav e sai d a t on e poin t tha t perhaps h e shoul d hav e name d th e movemen t Andante quasi allegretto. Bu t ultimately, thoug h h e ha d ampl e opportunit y t o chang e th e temp o designation , he di d not. Also , why assume automatically—a s I have pointe d ou t i n respec t t o so man y o f Beethoven's temp o setting s — that th e marking s are wrong ? Why no t give the m a try ; and wh y questio n th e Allegretto her e an d no t th e temp o an d Allegro co n brio o f th e Seventh' s las t movement ? I t al l make s ver y littl e sense , and ultimatel y i s so disrespectfu l o f Beethove n an d hi s intelligence . As a matte r o f fact , Beethoven' s Allegretto J = 7 6 work s wonderfull y well . Instead o f th e usua l funereal , drudging-along , heavy-foote d kin d o f affair , th e movement become s ligh t an d airy , friendl y an d positive . At to o slo w a tempo , the movement' s extraordinar y repetition s — a singl e two-ba r rhythmi c patter n dominates th e entir e movement—becom e overbearing , if not boring . I n Beetho ven's tempo , i t achieves, in th e righ t conductoria l hands , a wonderfu l flow and a unit y o f conceptio n instea d o f th e usua l drawn-out , belabore d effect . Ho w right and beautifu l thi s musi c ca n soun d at Beethoven's temp o —or clos e to itcan b e heard , fortunately , o n severa l recordings , mos t notabl y o n bot h Eric h and Carlo s Kleiber's , Dohnanyi's , Szell's , Karajan's , Reiner's , Harnoncourt's , Gardiner's, an d th e Collegiu m Aureum's . The secon d issue , th e phrasin g an d articulatio n o f the two-ba r cell , seem s t o be eve n mor e resistan t to correct interpretation/realization . And yet, Beethoven' s marking i s s o clea r an d unequivocal , an d moreove r reiterativel y consisten t throughout th e movement . Her e i s th e two-ba r phras e a s notate d b y Beetho ven: On

e ca n se e immediatel y that Beethove n too k a lot

BEETHOVEN: SEVENT H SYMPHON Y 25

3

of care i n refinin g hi s notation, i n specifyin g a particular articulation an d expres sion. Mos t ordinar y composers woul d hav e jus t lef t i t a t instead, Beethove n provide s fiv e phrasin g indication s fo r fiv e notes . Ye t fo r al l his pains , mos t conductor s ignor e or—possibly—misunderstan d them . Th e in formation i s very clear : th e firs t not e i s t o b e hel d (tenuto), th e nex t tw o note s are t o b e playe d staccato an d th e fina l tw o note s slightl y lifted , slightl y longe r than th e previou s two eighth-notes . Th e idea l bowin g fo r renderin g tha t phras ing is :

I suspec t tha t som e o f th e confusio n abou t th e phrasin g derive s fro m th e fact tha t man y conductor s (Solti , fo r example ) thin k th e ten. (tenuto) refer s t o the entir e phras e an d al l o f it s repetitions , resultin g i n somethin g lik e . Bu t tha t i s a misreadin g o f the notation , sinc e Beetho ven i s absolutely consistent throughou t th e movemen t i n markin g that first note ten., i n whateve r instruments , alway s followe d b y th e tw o succeedin g eighth notes wit h staccato dots . I t canno t b e tha t th e entir e five-not e patter n shoul d be playe d tenuto, becaus e tha t totall y contradict s th e staccato an d semi-staccato markings tha t follow . Besides , t o pla y the entir e phras e wit h it s several hundre d repetitions tenuto woul d resul t i n a n appallin g lac k o f variety , whic h a grea t composer lik e Beethove n woul d neve r hav e tolerate d o r wishe d for . Eve n i n those recording s (an d performances ) i n whic h ther e i s a n attemp t t o realiz e Beethoven's notation—generall y rathe r half-hearted—th e seriou s proble m tha t invariably remains is that the first quarter-note i s not hel d lon g enough. I t gener ally end s u p bein g aroun d three-quarte r length , a s i f Beethove n ha d writ ten o

ro

rI

t i s invariabl y bad , careles s bowin g

habits tha t caus e thi s performanc e flaw ; th e not e need s t o b e full y sustained , held righ t into th e secon d beat . Onl y i n tha t wa y i s Beethoven' s remarkabl e conception—three totall y differen t articulation s i n bu t tw o measures—given its full due . To conclud e o n thi s particula r matter , th e correc t varie d articulation , pre sented a t th e righ t tempo , wil l resul t i n a wonderfull y buoyant , flowing , almos t swinging feelin g i n thi s movement , a s on e ca n hea r o n Carlo s Kleiber' s re cording (Cantell i an d Abbad o ge t th e righ t articulation/phrasing , bu t thei r tempo i s a slowis h j = 63 , while Harnoncour t a t a tempo o f j = 6 9 gets two of th e thre e articulation s correct , bu t add s al l kind s o f annoyin g dynami c nu ances an d unwante d accents. ) If thes e basi c aspect s o f th e Allegretto movemen t ar e wel l attende d to , th e whole movemen t fall s rathe r readil y int o place , presentin g no t to o man y other problems . O f thos e tha t remain , I shoul d lik e t o mentio n onl y th e fol lowing. Betwee n m.2 7 an d m.4 2 ther e mus t no t b e an y crescendo , accidenta l or otherwise , whil e th e cresc.. poco a poco startin g a t m.5 1 mus t b e handle d

254

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

very judiciously , that is , ver y gradually , sprea d ove r twenty-fou r bars . Man y conductors pounc e o n thi s crescend o wit h suc h vehemenc e tha t the y arriv e at a ful l f o r eve n ff afte r onl y eigh t measures—th e usua l 'tmte. ' Th e wors t offender i n thi s regar d i s Mengelberg , wh o perpetrate s a hug e crescend o even before m.51 , arrivin g there a t a ful l til t f o r ff , maintainin g i t fo r th e nex t eigh teen bar s o r so , an d then make s a diminuend o (! ) jus t wher e Beethove n write s più f . Unbelievable ! In th e magnificen t clima x o f thi s expositor y phas e o f th e movemen t (mm . 75-98), the thre e layer s of activity (see Ex . 12 ) have to b e wel l balanced agains t Ex. 1 2

one another . I t is very important tha t al l three structura l components b e equally audible. What very often i s obscured o r underplayed i s the rhythmi c understructure ( C i n Ex . 12 ) with it s bounding triplet s i n violas , cellos, an d basses . Her e again a poundin g timpan i ca n d o enormou s damage , makin g th e importan t triplets, th e brand-ne w element i n Beethoven' s traversa l of the exposition , virtually o r totall y inaudible , a s severa l recordings , mos t notabl y thos e o f Mengel berg, Toscanini , Muti , Fricsay , and Ansermet , reveal. The mentio n o f the ter m 'exposition ' serves t o remind u s that the for m of the Allegretto movement i s in itsel f one o f Beethoven's miracle s o f invention, a wonderful ne w hybri d combinin g element s o f sonat a form , variation , rondo , cha conne, an d marc h (o r processional). I t i s variational because it s main theme , a sixteen-bar phrase , i s frequently varied although, a s has ofte n bee n pointe d out , not thematicall y an d no t i n th e usua l Beethovenia n developmenta l sens e bu t rather mor e limitedl y throug h varie d instrumentatio n an d rhythmi c ornamenta tion (as , fo r example , th e adde d triplet s i n mm.75-99) . I t i s a kin d o f rond o form sinc e th e A episod e return s alway s afte r th e interpolate d secondar y seg ments, thre e mor e time s (fou r i f one count s the cod a a s well). Thus th e follow ing quasi-rond o ABACABAA form evolve s (Fig. 4) :

255

BEETHOVEN:SEVENTH SYMPHONY

Fig. 4 As Rond o Introduction A (mai n theme ) B (secondar y episode ) A (mai n theme , varied ) C (development ) A (mai n theme , varied) B (secondar y episode foreshortened ) A (mai n theme , fragmented ) A (mai n them e a s coda) Closure

As Sonat a for m mm. 1-2 mm.3-101 mm. 102-49 mm. 150-82 mm. 183-2 B mm.2 14-24 mm.225-46 mm.246-54 mm.255-75 mm.276-78

Introduction First subject Second subjec t First subject Development Recapitulation (varied) 1 Coda i Closure

It i s in sonat a for m i n tha t th e movemen t ha s a first and secon d subjec t (th e A major section) , a development sectio n (i n thi s case a fugato), an d a recapitula tion an d coda . I t i s als o a chaconn e i n th e sens e tha t th e groun d figur e o r theme i s subjected t o a constan t ostinato-lik e repetition , continuall y varie d an d gradually building to climacti c peaks , as traditionally many chaconne s (an d pas sacaglias) do . I t i s obviousl y als o a marc h o r processional , wit h it s stead y gai t and relentles s pulse . Tha t i s sufficient reaso n wh y conductor s shoul d no t mak e any o f the ritard s that hav e become , alas, so fashionable an d traditional , particu larly th e one s i n mm . 101 and 22 4 (hea r Strauss' s exaggerate d pullbac k here) , 148-49, 243-48 , an d especiall y the utterl y vulgar one a t m.213) . (Fo r a n exam ple o f that a t it s worst, liste n t o Maazel' s Clevelan d recording. ) I shoul d als o lik e t o poin t ou t that , jus t a s the Allegretto i s radical an d nove l in it s innovativ e form, so i t i s radically innovative an d nove l i n it s fundamental conception an d construction . Fo r a s far as I ca n tell , i t was the firs t tim e i n th e history o f Western musi c (o r a t least sinc e th e Ar s Nova an d th e earl y Renais sance) tha t a compose r ha d writte n a majo r wor k which manage d t o almos t d o without on e o f the mos t essentia l element s i n th e creatio n o f a piec e o f music : melody. The emphasi s in this movement is primarily o n the elemen t of rhythm , supported an d colore d b y harmon y an d timbr e (instrumenta l color) , bu t virtu ally eschewing melodi c invention . Som e a t first blush ma y consider tha t a heret ical statement , bu t i f one think s about i t more on e ma y find it difficult t o defen d the movement' s firs t subjec t as a grea t melody , o r an y melod y a t all.

It i s on th e othe r han d a remarkabl y strikin g fusion o f rhyth m an d harmony , made al l th e mor e remarkabl e b y th e us e o f soft , darkl y colored, lo w strings . A more trul y melodi c inventio n enter s a t m.27 , th e beautiful , almos t Schubertia n counter-melody i n th e uniso n viola s an d cellos ; an d th e A majo r episod e wit h its serene , sunny , step-wis e woodwin d lin e lean s eve n mor e i n th e directio n of

256 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

melody. Bu t eve n ther e th e rhythmi c an d harmoni c element s remai n mor e o r less i n th e forefront , or , t o pu t i t anothe r way , support wha t littl e tru e melod y there i s t o mak e i t int o a mor e fulfilled , a mor e complet e musica l statement . That aspec t o f the piece , alon g wit h it s daring repetitiousness , ha s undoubtedl y contributed t o th e succes s o f the movemen t whic h ha s mesmerize d audience s ever sinc e it s premiere . Fo r audience s b y an d larg e reac t mor e strongl y an d positively to rhyth m an d repetitio n tha n t o any othe r stimuli. 12 The A majo r sectio n (m.102 ) i s on e o f Beethoven' s lovelies t lyri c creations , even a s the somewha t ominou s puls e o f the mai n them e rhyth m continues (no w in lo w string pizzicatos) and ripplin g triplets in th e violin s embellish th e winds ' long seren e lines . No t i n th e real m o f major interpretationa l problems bu t nevertheless small unnecessary annoyances, are th e frequen t disregard by clarinetists and secon d hornist s o f Beethoven' s explici t phrasin g articulations . I t i s incom prehensible t o m e wh y so many players in thos e tw o positions disregar d Beetho ven's staccat o marking s i n mm . 118-19 an d 120-21 , respectively , clearl y in tended t o contras t wit h th e legato s thre e bar s later , whe n th e flute , oboe , an d bassoon i n th e virtuall y identica l figure s i n mm . 139—42, almost alway s play staccato. I t makes n o sense! Another all-too-obviou s performanc e detail , whic h however , fo r al l it s ob viousness, i s largely ignored b y performers and conductor s i s to b e foun d i n th e descending A minor scal e i n mm . 144-48, distribute d acros s thre e instrumenta l sections. I n a t least hal f th e recording s o f th e Sevent h Symphony , musicians , conductors, recordin g producer s an d engineer s di d no t hea r (an d failed t o correct) whe n player s end thei r par t o f the scal e wit h a lon g eighth-note , which , of course, distort s an d disturb s the intende d effec t o f on e lon g four-octave , evenl y articulated scale . I f th e thre e wind s an d violin s i n m.14 5 an d m.147 , respec tively, fai l t o shorten thei r las t notes to at least that o f the ongoin g triple t eighths , those elongate d note s wil l blee d ove r int o th e continuin g scales , makin g a clumsy, untidy , an d unmusica l effect . Amon g th e fe w recording s tha t handl e this scal e passag e wel l i s Jeffre y Täte' s wit h th e wonderfu l (an d highly disci plined) Dresde n Staatskapell e an d d e Burgos' s with th e Londo n Symphon y Or chestra. Starting a t m.150 , Beethove n recapitulate s hi s mai n subject—varie d o f course—using on e o f hi s favorit e devices , namely , turnin g th e origina l musi c upside down . Th e lea d lin e o f m. 3 i s no w i n th e cello s an d basses , whil e th e lovely secondar y line, first encountered i n m.2 7 i n th e viola s and cellos , i s now transferred t o th e uppe r registe r an d give n t o thre e woodwinds . I n addition , Beethoven mixe s rhythmi c figuration s wit h almos t Brahmsia n daring ; quarter s and eighth s i n som e o f the string s (pizzicato), spiccat o sixteenth s i n th e others , and occasionall y triplet eighth s i n th e winds . But unfortunately those triplet s are 12. No t unti l almos t a centur y late r di d a compose r tak e tha t ide a a considerabl e ste p farther . I n 1909, Schönberg , i n th e thir d movemen t o f hi s Five Pieces fo r Orchestra, wrot e a piec e whic h al l but eliminate s rhythm i n additio n to melod y (or theme) fro m th e creativ e process. It i s a movemen t which consist s entirel y of harmon y and timbre , and ye t i s self-sufficient i n makin g an astoundingly complete, i f relativel y brief , musica l statement.

BEETHOVEN: SEVENT H SYMPHON Y 25

7

all to o ofte n playe d incorrectly , i n th e majorit y o f performance s onl y approxi mated and , slippin g inadvertentl y int o dupl e patterns . Th e recording s tha t go t this right , tha t is , where on e ca n reall y hear al l thre e rhythm s (a s in m.156 , for example) clearl y and distinctl y in thei r composit e complexity , ar e thos e o f Can telli, Dorati , Carlo s Kleiber , Haitink, Solti , Klemperer , Masur , Steinberg , Sand erling, Karajan , an d Ferenczik , whil e all the other s ar e incorrect, o r rhythmically ambiguous, especiall y thos e o f Casals , Muti , Fricsay , Jochum , Keilberth , Har noncourt, Gardiner , and , surprisingly , Toscanini. The fugat o (mm.183-213 ) serves , a s alread y mentioned , a s a developmen t section; a t th e sam e tim e i t i s ye t anothe r variatio n o n th e mai n them e firs t subject. On e migh t cal l i t a fuga l variation . Apar t fro m bein g a n exemplar y precision-controlled fugato , simpl e i n th e extrem e an d a triump h o f econom y and balance d proportions , i t i s eve n mor e remarkabl e fo r bein g hel d dynami cally a t ba y fo r 2 6 measures—almos t 4 5 second s —until i t i s allowe d t o burs t forth int o a climacti c recapitulatio n o f th e mai n them e i n ful l regalia . Th e fugato i s thu s a ver y special , eve n uniqu e momen t i n th e movement , lik e a precious exquisit e jewe l encase d o n eithe r sid e b y th e riches t o f embroidere d frames. Therefor e th e secre t o f performin g this fugat o a s intende d i s t o pla y i t in it s entiret y p p — noi mp o r p— but pp . Unfortunately , to judg e b y al l th e recorded evidence , this i s rarely done. I t is also imperative that th e fugat o b e fel t in Beethoven' s 2/ 4 time signature , not the 4/ 8 to which i t so often deteriorates in performance. I n 4/ 8 th e fugat o sound s painfull y pedanti c an d schoolmasterish . Here agai n temp o i s a ver y crucia l consideration , fo r a t to o slo w a temp o i t almost canno t hel p bu t b e i n 4/ 8 an d thu s stiffl y academic . Th e onl y recorde d performances tha t rende r th e fugat o a s th e specia l momen t i t is , ar e thos e o f Cantelli, Toscanini , Eric h Kleiber , Jochum, Walter, Kletzki , Abbado, Muti, Gar diner, and , abov e all , Solti . Th e las t named' s realizatio n i s m y favorite . I t i s almost ghostl y i n it s quietude , a s i f hear d fro m a distance , a farawa y long-ag o remembrance—almost a s i f it wer e no t a rea l par t o f the movement . Quit e th e opposite occur s i n som e o f the wors t performances of the fugato—thos e o f Sto kowski, Casals , Maazel , an d Bernstein . The y literall y exce l i n thei r disregar d of Beethoven's pp's (an d remindin g sempre pp's) an d i n thei r stiff , stilte d rhythmi c interpretation. In the final moments o f the movemen t al l the problems attendant to the prope r phrasing and articulatio n of the mai n themati c materia l com e hom e t o roost. O n recording after recordin g the differen t win d sections or choirs play the basi c rhythmic/thematic cel l in any fashion they choose to or by chance happe n t o land upon. What is crucial in Beethoven's Klangfarben conceptio n o f this coda is that the tone colors change while the phrasing remains constant, binding the fragmented phrase segments together again. Seemingly, the conductors in question had nothing to say on thes e matter s o r perhaps di d no t eve n hea r th e lac k o f uniformity. The mos t flagrant abuses her e occu r o n th e recording s o f the Clevelan d Symphon y (with both Maaze l an d Dohnanyi) , Mengelberg , an d Steinberg . Eve n Carlo s Kleiber, who does so beautifully with the main theme a t the beginning of the movement, at the end allow s the winds too much phrasing inconsistency.

258 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Certain aspect s o f the final five bars of the Allegretto movemen t hav e puz/led conductors fo r generations, an d d o i n fac t presen t a numbe r o f unusual perfor mance problem s an d questions . First , ther e i s th e mixtur e o f pizzicato s an d arcos i n mm.273-76 . I t i s known tha t Beethove n wa s uncertain himsel f during the composin g o f the piec e abou t th e choic e o f pizzicato o r arco an d precisel y when thes e shoul d occur ; ther e i s even evidenc e tha t Beethoven' s origina l ide a was t o retai n th e pizzicat o whic h start s way back i n m.25 5 throug h t o the end . In an y case , h e ultimatel y committe d himsel f t o th e endin g w e al l know, th e ending i n al l the availabl e published score s an d parts . I mus t confes s that sinc e m y earlies t acquaintanc e wit h th e work , eve n a s a teenager, I have alway s foun d th e sudde n retur n t o arc o i n m.27 5 i n th e violin s strange an d unconvincing , and hav e ofte n bee n tempte d t o restore th e pizzicat o (and o n several occasions have actually performed the endin g tha t way—bu t no t without a certai n guil t feeling) . I n listenin g t o th e dozen s o f recording s i n m y research fo r this book, I was fascinated to fin d tha t a t least fou r conductor s hav e also insiste d o n tha t fina l pizzicato : bot h Kleibers , Strauss, and Klemperer . Th e problem o f realizin g thes e measure s i s complicate d b y th e sudde n appearanc e of a f i n th e string s in th e third-las t measure , fo r th e questio n immediatel y an d naturally arises: is that a subito f? O r ar e w e to crescendo int o it , on th e assump tion tha t Beethove n forgo t t o pu t i n th e crescendo ? Wh y i s the f there ? Well , i t is clea r t o m e tha t th e f go t there onc e Beethove n ha d decide d tha t h e wante d to clos e th e movemen t wit h th e sam e win d chor d wit h which i t opened, whic h starts f an d diminuendo s t o pp . Bu t tha t stil l leave s th e othe r tw o question s unresolved, an d I' m afrai d w e wil l never hav e th e absolut e answer s to them . As a result , conductor s hav e throug h th e year s come u p wit h al l sort s o f differen t solutions. The mos t favore d solutio n is to make a crescendo int o th e foï m.276 , many time s startin g i t a s earl y as m.27. 3 i n th e cello s an d basses. 13 T o m e tha t is the mor e obviou s an d ordinar y remedy; I think th e subito f effec t i n m.27 6 is much mor e interestin g an d mor e i n lin e wit h Beethoven' s constantl y eviden t sense o f surprise , hi s avoidanc e o f th e obvious , hi s vivi d imaginatio n fo r th e untried an d th e unusual . I a m als o unwillin g to assum e tha t Beethove n 'forgo t the crescendo. ' There i s scarcely any evidenc e tha t Beethove n forgo t details ; o n the contrary , hi s manuscrip t score s are marvel s of scrupulous, meticulou s atten tion t o detail s an d minutia e o f notation . Th e sign s o f struggl e an d tormente d revisions i n hi s score s provide furthe r proo f o f that. The fina l win d chor d (a s wel l a s it s partne r a t th e ver y beginnin g o f th e movement) i s rarely performed wel l o r correctly . First o f all, i t seems t o b e ver y hard t o tune , th e proble m note s her e bein g th e C' s i n secon d obo e an d first bassoon, th e mino r third s o f the chord . Ther e ar e onl y a handfu l o f recordings out o f the fifty-odd in whic h thes e chord s ar e i n tune . Second , hardl y anybody seems t o appreciate th e unusua l voicing of this A minor chord . I t is a 6/ 4 chord, with th e secon d hor n i n th e 'bass ' position . Apparentl y ver y fe w conductor s 13. Incidentally , many conductor s (suc h a s Stokowski , Carlo s Kleibe r and Klemperer ) had th e vio las, cellos , and basse s play pizzicato in m.276 . Sinc e thes e ar e conductor s who assum e Beethoven's arco i n th e violin s t o b e correct , i t i s difficul t t o fatho m wh y the y don' t assum e a s muc h fo r th e remaining strings .

BEETHOVEN: SEVENT H SYMPHON Y 25

9

know thi s o r allo w thi s unusua l voicin g t o b e heard . I n virtuall y all recording s the secon d bassoon' s A is far too prominent, while th e secon d horn' s lower E is subdued, suppressed , o r playe d with ver y littl e presence . Perhaps the strangest , and mos t bizarr e rendition of the movement' s ending amounting actuall y to an almos t complet e re-composin g o f it—is Stokowski' s (in his 192 8 recording) . After a hug e ritar d i n m.271 , Stokowsk i changes th e viola s in m.27 4 t o arc o (sic ) bu t then—perversely—bac k t o pizzicat o i n m.276 . Thi s is followed by a hug e 'sexy ' ritar d i n m.275 , an d t o ca p matters , th e first violins are force d to hol d ou t thei r fina l A with th e wind s in a lon g protracte d diminu endo, hi s final tempo a t the en d bein g somewher e aroun d J = 26 ! In th e Presto movement , a Scherz o i n everythin g bu t name , ther e ar e fewe r performance problems—a t leas t unti l on e get s t o th e Trio—tha n i n th e Sev enth's othe r thre e movements . I t i s no t a s encumbere d wit h misguide d tradi tions; eve n i n th e questio n o f it s basic temp o (agai n with th e exceptio n o f th e Trio section ) conductors see m t o find Beethoven's Presto and metronomi c desig nation o f J. = 13 2 much mor e acceptabl e tha n i n th e Scherz o o f the Fifth , for example. They at least do i t in som e sor t of fast tempo , i f not exactl y Beethoven' s 132 marking. Since thi s i s again a movemen t t o b e conducte d i n 'one, ' the questio n o f th e phrase structurin g may arise. Here too , unlik e Beethoven' s Fift h Symphony , th e Seventh's Scherz o offer s ver y few complication s o r irregularities . For th e mos t part i t fall s neatl y int o four-ba r patterns , wit h th e occasiona l six-ba r extensio n interpolated alon g th e way . Two of these ar e interesting . Wherea s Beethove n i n most o f hi s fas t temp o musi c form s hi s six-ba r phrases b y addin g tw o measure s to the en d o f a four-bar entity , in thi s Scherz o movemen t h e twic e (twelve times counting al l three Scherz o section s an d repetitions ) attache s th e extr a measure s at th e fron t en d o f the four-ba r unit . Thi s occur s a t th e ver y beginning o f th e movement an d i n it s recapitulation, m.89 . Th e usua l Beethove n 'sixes ' o n th e other han d alway s occur i n th e risin g phrase first heard i n mm . 11-16. The phras e an d perio d structurin g here i s so natural and regula r that ver y few interpretive problem s ca n arise—th e kin d o f problems tha t aboun d i n th e first and thir d movement s o f the Fift h Symphony . But ther e i s one sectio n i n whic h the phras e periodicit y i s no t a s obviou s a s i t migh t see m whe n glancin g a t th e instrumental parts , an d i s i n fac t s o ambiguou s an d comple x tha t n o on e ca n be sur e wha t Beethove n actuall y ha d i n mind . Th e proble m begin s i n m.63 , a 'three ' of a four-bar phrase, where the obo e and bassoo n overla p with th e out going four-ba r phras e o f th e strings . There i s n o wa y a n obois t an d bassoonis t can discer n fro m merel y thei r ow n part s whethe r th e not e D (i n m.64) , , whic h the y mostl y assume t o b e a 'one,' i s in fac t a 'one' o r a 'four. ' An d i f i t i s a 'one, ' the n i s i t a 'one ' i n a five-ba r phrase ? Or i s it th e 'one ' o f a serie s o f four-ba r phrase s tha t Beethove n ha s shifted , a s Ivé s might hav e done , on e ba r earlie r i n th e over-al l structural pattern? And i f that is

260

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

the case , when an d ho w does Beethove n realig n th e winds— a flut e an d secon d bassoon ar e adde d a littl e later—wit h th e prevailin g four-ba r periodicity ? There seems t o b e n o unequivoca l answer . Th e thre e possibilities , al l viabl e option s for a performanc e interpretation , ar e outline d i n Exx . 1 3 a,b,c . This firs t optio n

Ex. 13 a

is har d t o brin g of f fo r th e obo e an d bassoon , sinc e th e Bl>' s i n m.6 6 lan d squarely o n th e toni c not e — B\> i s th e temporar y ke y cente r o f thi s sectio n — and i n bot h part s tha t measur e feel s mor e lik e a 'one ' —mind yo u fo r th e oboe an d bassoon , no t fo r th e strings . I n tha t cas e too , mm.63-6 4 would b e anacrusi s notes t o the F 'down beat' o f m.65, which migh t fee l strang e a t first try, but ca n b e mad e t o work. O r is the phrasin g therefor e polymetricall y displace d a s in Exx . 13 b and 13c ? I n th e former instanc e (Ex . 13b) , we would hav e i n th e woodwind s one o f Beethoven' s

Ex. 13 b

BEETHOVEN: SEVENT H SYMPHON Y

261

Ex. 13 c

six-bar phrases , o f th e typ e peculia r t o thi s movemen t (a s alread y mentioned) , and indee d a phrase identical , excep t fo r dynamic variants , to the first six bars of the Scherzo . Thi s seems quit e logical an d i s indeed ho w most oboists/bassoonist s instinctively interpre t the phrase , wit h perhap s a slight extr a puls e o n m.66 . Bu t if thei r phras e i s i n fac t a 'six, ' an d i t i s followed b y fou r 'fours, ' the n t o becom e reconciled wit h th e string s an d thei r undisturbe d four-ba r patterning , ther e would hav e t o b e a 'three ' a t th e en d (mm.86-88) . I n tha t optiona l interpreta tion, th e win d solo s would b e on e ba r ou t o f phase wit h thei r strin g accompani ment, whic h i s the wa y the passag e i s most ofte n played , consciousl y o r inadver tently. Another possibility , represented b y the lowe r string brackets i n Ex . 13b , woul d be tha t th e string s start wit h a five-bar phrasing, the n alig n themselve s wit h th e winds, continuin g i n 'fours, ' unti l the y to o woul d hav e t o d o a 'three ' t o arriv e correctly a t th e f i n m.89 . This , however , i s a fairl y remot e solution , sinc e th e harmonic structurin g (alternatin g B t an d F chord s i n four-ba r units ) i s s o

262 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

strongly anchored i n those key s that i t would see m downrigh t peculia r t o chang e that to In th e thir d option , show n i n Ex . 13c , th e first wind phras e woul d b e a 'five. ' Measure 6 9 woul d the n b e a 'one, ' whic h woul d wor k wel l wit h th e ongoin g four-bar strin g structuring , bu t woul d als o mea n tha t th e wind s woul d hav e t o feel mm.70 , 72 , 74 , 78 , 8 2 a s 'twos ' i n a four-ba r phrase . Tha t seem s rathe r difficult t o do , i n vie w o f the fac t tha t i n thes e measure s th e wind s star t on th e high not e o f a descending lin e afte r a two-beat rest , an d thes e initia l high note s sit squarel y on th e toni c an d dominan t positions . I t als o goe s agains t th e phras ing a s Beethove n firs t an d mos t ofte n present s thi s theme , wher e th e ba r i n question her e (m.70 , fo r example ) i s alway s a 'three, ' muc h mor e structurall y akin t o a 'one. ' O n th e othe r hand , thoug h difficult , thi s interpretatio n i s no t impossible; i t jus t takes a littl e extr a effort , an d indee d produce s a ver y interest ing an d i n it s ow n wa y quit e logica l effect , ver y differen t fro m wha t on e nor mally get s t o hea r i n thi s passage . I t woul d mea n tha t th e obo e an d bassoo n (and late r th e flute ) woul d hav e t o pla y mm.70, 74 , 78 , 8 2 relatively lightly an d probably fee l a sligh t crescend o (par t o f th e over-al l crescendo poco a poco) i n each descendin g line , feelin g a stronge r puls e o r weigh t on mm.69 , 73 , 77 , 81. Again, the advantag e of this i s that i n tha t phrasin g the wind s and string s are o n common metri c ground . While w e ar e o n thi s passage , I should mentio n tha t i t i s very importan t tha t the obo e an d flut e kno w tha t th e obo e ha s th e lea d throug h mm.74-47 , relin quishing i t to th e flut e i n m.78. To judg e by the recorde d evidence , thi s i s very rarely understood . To retur n no w t o th e openin g o f th e Scherz o movement , tw o performanc e misdeeds ar e immediatel y committe d i n th e firs t te n measure s b y mos t orches tras an d conductors . Ver y fe w orchestra s attai n a tru e p i n m.3 , whic h i s afte r all thre e dynami c level s below th e initia l f. There shoul d b e a dramati c dro p i n intensity an d dynami c level , no t the half-hearte d mp - mf - poco f on e hear s most o f the time . Th e sudde n dro p t o p, afte r th e boisterou s bras s an d timpani laden openin g f , i s s o typicall y Beethovenian—somethin g h e undoubtedl y learned fro m Haydn , th e maste r o f thi s kin d o f surprise—tha t i t i s t o severel y misjudge Beethoven' s sens e o f humor an d mis s the whol e point o f this particular movement t o no t observ e thi s subito p . Jus t a s sever e a misinterpretatio n i s th e universal ba d habi t o f failing t o hol d ou t th e dotte d half-note s of mm.6 an d 10 . On recordin g afte r recordin g on e ca n hea r ever y possible distortio n o f this duration fro m J throug h an d J t o Th e conducto r ma y hav e t o tell th e wind s no t t o breath e i n m.6—i t bein g quit e unnecessary ; a s fo r th e violins, they ar e i n a perfec t position , up-bo w tha t is , to hol d th e not e through . The beaut y o f thi s sustainin g approach 14 —it i s wha t Beethove n wrote , afte r 14. A s far as I ca n tell , i t i s to b e hear d correctl y o n onl y two recordings : Dorati's and Ashkenazy's .

BEETHOVEN: SEVENT H SYMPHON Y 26

3

all —is that i t turns the whol e openin g passag e int o a wonderful eight-bar phrase, mm. 3-10 (te n bar s if you coun t i n mm . 1-2). Al l too ofte n i n thi s movement, a s in s o man y classica l movement s notate d an d conducte d one-to-the-bar , per formances achiev e a kin d o f breathless , choppy , disjointe d feeling . I t i s im portant fo r al l concerne d t o produc e lon g multi-ba r phrases—eight- , twelve- , sixteen-, eve n twenty-four-ba r phrases—th e underlyin g four-ba r infrastructur e notwithstanding. Thi s approac h ca n b e ver y importan t i n th e aforementione d winds-and-strings episod e (mm.61-89) , whic h reall y sing s an d swing s whe n i t is playe d a s on e lon g twenty-eight-ba r musica l thought . (Yes , reader, i t ca n b e done!) Since sudde n dynami c contrast s ar e on e o f th e majo r compositiona l tool s Beethoven consistentl y uses , i t i s surprising—an d disheartening—t o discove r how few conductors an d orchestra s pay any attention t o these markings . In mos t recordings th e sudde n p' s i n thi s Scherz o ar e treate d ver y casually, more i n th e region o f mp o r mf; o n som e the y are ignore d entirely . Nor ar e Beethoven' s littl e pp echoes , scattere d throughou t th e expositio n alway s attended to . What I fin d particularly unpleasan t ar e th e accent s tha t man y orchestra s make , especiall y the strings , a s i n mm.37-40 . M y sens e i s that suc h four-ba r phrases , especiall y when the y are se t i n pp , shoul d b e playe d very smoothly , lettin g jus t the subtl e bow change s articulat e th e individua l bars. Th e tied-ove r not e i n th e firs t bas soon, horn , an d viola s i n mm.41-4 3 an d 37-3 9 i s anothe r clu e tha t a legato unaccented approac h i s the righ t one . B y the sam e token , car e mus t b e take n in violins and viola s not t o drop the eight h note s i n mm.4 4 and 60 , as if Beethoven ha d writte n a diminuendo, ,

a common faul t i n many

recordings. Thes e eighth-note s are , a s we ca n se e i n th e openin g measure s an d passages lik e mm . 2 5-28 (wher e incidentally , oddl y enough , the y ar e usuall y played correctly) , an integral , no t t o b e dismisse d par t o f the primar y thematic material. That Beethove n attache d grea t importance t o th e sudde n p i n m.3 , an d tha t it wasn' t som e idle , accidenta l effect , i s confirme d b y th e sudde n dynami c change i n th e recapitulatio n of this theme i n m.93 , this time no t droppin g to p , but intensifyin g t o it s opposite , ff. Again , sa d t o report , thi s startlin g effec t i s largely ignore d i n th e vas t majorit y o f recording s an d performances , althoug h here an d ther e a n occasiona l timpanis t enjoy s hittin g hi s drum s a bi t loude r i n that measure . Th e poin t i s tha t mos t conductors ignor e o r ar e unawar e of this important dynami c indication. I canno t resis t expressing my wonderment a t Beethoven' s ingeniou s choice o f pitches fo r th e timpan i par t i n th e Scherzo : Sinc e th e Scherz o proper i s i n th e ke y o f F , th e timpani' s F wa s a logical , even inevitabl e choice. Normally th e othe r not e fo r the timpan i in a n F majo r piec e woul d have bee n

264 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

C 15 . Bu t since th e Tri o wa s going t o be i n D major , Beethove n ha d t o consider the choic e o f a second timpan i pitc h i n tha t tonality . Hi s decision wa s A, which, as th e thir d i n F major , coul d b e use d fairl y effectivel y i n tha t ke y a s well . Furthermore, Beethove n a t tha t momen t o f decision alread y knew tha t som e o f the actua l Scherz o woul d als o b e i n A majo r (se e mm . 17-28), an d tha t hi s timpani F/A' s coul d possibl y eve n occasionall y follo w th e contour s o f hi s the matic materia l (se e mm . 140-44). Th e A , bein g th e dominan t o f D , coul d o f course serv e hi m wel l i n th e D majo r Tri o section ; an d indee d th e climacti c passage o f mm.207-2 1 demonstrate s som e o f th e mos t excitin g an d powerfu l use o f the timpan i i n th e entir e classica l repertory. 16 The res t o f the Scherz o sectio n usuall y comes of f rather well , excep t o n on e recording (Maazel's ) I heard th e violi n trill s in mm.117 , 119 , 121 , etc. rebowe d as

It is in th e Tri o wher e the mos t sever e interpretive problems an d ba d traditio n again rea r their ugl y heads. Onc e again, i t is the fundamenta l questio n o f tempo which i s a t th e hear t o f th e interpretiv e dissention . Ye t I fai l t o se e wh y ther e should b e an y questio n a s t o th e appropriat e tempo , namel y Beethoven's , an d why anyon e shoul d questio n i t i n th e firs t place . Beethove n i s very clear abou t it, bot h i n th e Italia n temp o designatio n an d th e metronom e marking , whic h latter, a s I hav e suggeste d before , confirm s th e former . Assez ; meno presto i n Beethoven's ver y goo d Italia n quit e clearl y mean s "ver y muc h les s fast " or , i n better English , "considerabl y les s fast. " I t doe s no t mea n andante o r adagio o r 15. W e hav e t o remembe r tha t i n th e lat e 18t h an d earl y 19t h centur y al l composer s wer e limite d to tw o timpani—o r though t the y were , unti l Berlio z cam e alon g wit h hi s Symphonie Fantastique (using fou r timpani ) an d Requiem (usin g sixtee n timpani) . I n addition , th e instrument s o f the da y could onl y b e retune d ver y laboriously ; the chai n tunin g an d th e peda l timpan i woul d no t com e along fo r anothe r half-century . O f course , som e composers , notabl y Graupner , Fischer , Molter , Druschetzky, Salieri , an d Spohr , ha d occasionall y already written fo r multiple timpani—sometime s as man y as seven or eight. Bu t Beethove n apparentl y wa s either unawar e of such earlie r experiment s (unlikely) o r simpl y felt n o nee d t o follo w i n suc h footsteps . 16. I n tha t connection , I am oppose d t o revisions of Beethoven's timpan i parts , a s many conductors and timpanist s hav e done , makin g us e o f the full y chromati c moder n timpani . Whil e tha t i s great fun t o do—to line up th e timpan i parts with the bas s parts, to fill in timpan i note s i n section s where, because o f som e temporar y modulation , th e potentia l o r desirabl e timpan i note s wer e simpl y no t available i n Beethoven' s time— I oppos e suc h a n approac h (a ) Becaus e i t usuall y amount s t o a n almost complet e rewritin g of Beethoven's music ; (b ) because Beethove n di d hi s bes t t o compensat e for th e timpani' s limitation s an d di d s o ingeniously , ofte n adjustin g othe r pitche s t o mak e u p fo r those deficiencies ; and (c ) how i s one t o know where t o sto p rewriting , how far to go in modernizin g the timpan i parts . A s they exis t the y ar e a n inheren t part o f Beethoven' s conception. Hi s timpani parts ar e no t mer e orchestrationa l add-ons , an d I a m willin g t o be t tha t i n many , man y case s th e limitations o f th e timpan i influence d th e cours e o f hi s composition . To tinke r with tha t is , t o m y mind, impermissible.

BEETHOVEN: SEVENTH SYMPHONY 265

'slowly'! No , i t simpl y say s "considerabl y slower. " Now , I submi t tha t droppin g from M.I3 2 t o M.8 4 i s considerabl y "less fast" , "considerabl y slower; " constitut ing, i n fact , a one-thir d dro p i n tempo . I don' t know who starte d thi s deplorabl e traditio n o f performing the Tri o i n a slow, ponderous, bombastic , draggin g manner; perhap s it was Billow. I doubt tha t it was Wagner o r Habeneck o r Mahler o r Seidl . I n an y case, i t is wrong, if for n o other reason than tha t i n some of the ploddin g tempos man y conductors take, th e Trio i s n o longe r par t o f a Scherzo . (Eve n Bruckner' s Trio s ar e no t take n thi s slowly!) The othe r immediate proble m i s that, taken at too slow a tempo, th e entire Trio become s a series of chopped apar t two-bar phrases, rather than th e eight-ba r sentences Beethove n composed . Unde r suc h treatmen t th e Tri o lose s it s grand line, it s breadth, it s nobility. Eve n Furtwängler , th e maste r o f the gran d eterna l line, could no t at his tempo o f J. = 4 6 (50 in some recordings) maintain the long sweeping arching lines that Beethoven created i n the Trio . As show n i n Fig . 5 , the rang e generall y goes al l the wa y from J . = 4 4 t o th e lower 70s . The favorit e temp o appear s to be J . = 54— a 'mere ' 3 0 points belo w Beethoven's intende d tempo—th e '54 ' a temp o share d b y a hal f a doze n o r so conductors. Toscanini's , Reiner's , Norrington's , an d (surprisingly ) Ashkenazy' s stand ou t a s the onl y ones eithe r o n o r clos e t o Beethoven' s mark . The ritar d almost al l conductor s make i n the secon d endin g (fou r bar s befor e the Trio ) i s a dea d give-awa y that the y ar e als o going to ignor e Beethoven' s Tri o markings. Not e tha t ther e i s no rit. indicatio n i n th e secon d ending . Sinc e Bee thoven wa s quit e capabl e o f writing a ritardando—althoug h h e di d s o sparingly

Fig. 5 J.=44 Celibidach e J. =46 Furtwängler , Batiz , Mengelber g (slow s down late r t o 38) , Straus s <J. = 48 Böhm , Weingartner, Ferenczik , d e Burgo s J. = 50 Stokowsk i (192 8 — in hi s 195 9 recordin g h e ha d advance d t o 56) , Anser met, Fricsay , Sanderling , Jochu m J. = 52 Coli n Davi s J. = 54 Eric h Kleiber , Keilberth , Kubelik , Klemperer , Casals , Haitink , Meht a J. = 56 Walter , Abbad o (speed s u p t o 6 6 later ) J. = 5 8 Bernstein , Previn , Kletzki , Masur (speed s u p t o 6 4 later), Harnoncour t J. = 60 Barenboi m J. = 62 Collegiu m Aureu m J. = 64 Steinberg , Carlo s Kleiber , Maaze l J. = 66 Solti , Maazel , Boult , Cantelli , Brügge n J. = 68 Thoma s (slow s down t o 60 later), Karajan , Muti , Leinsdor f J. = 72 Dohnany i (slow s down late r t o 64) , Gardiner , Szell , Leibowit z J. = 74 Dorat i J. = 76 Reine r <J. = 8 0 Ashkenazy , Norrington J. = 84 Toscanini , Reine r

266

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

in his symphonies —whe n w e see none written , we ought t o assume tha t ther e was not mean t t o be one . I am als o convinced tha t Beethove n mean t th e sudde n appearance o f the Tri o t o b e a surprise , undilute d an d unrestraine d b y a ritard, a temp o dro p tha t should b e suddenl y experienced a t ful l speed . The othe r proble m encountere d frequentl y in th e Seventh' s Tri o i s that i t is played to o loud an d wit h to o heavy a sound. The violins ' sustaine d peda l poin t high A's, marked p, and the lac k of low-register notes (at least until the entranc e of the second hor n i n m. 181), offer a clue tha t the whole Trio should be played with a light, airy sound, in a gently swaying tempo. Lik e the fugato section in the secon d movement, the Trio, except for its powerful ff climax , should be heard a s a quieter , serene interlude , somewhat isolate d fro m th e drivin g Scherzo sections ; an d main taining a rea l p wil l contribut e immeasurabl y t o tha t effect . Anothe r commo n abuse is that the swells (-= = — ) in the first four bars are imposed o n the next two measures as well (not so indicated b y Beethoven, o f course). Among othe r vulgarisms visited upon the Trio are the ritar d directly before m.207 (the big D major ff ) and on e jus t before the retur n o f the Scherzo . Her e som e conductor s los e com plete contro l o f themselves. Mengelberg , i n hi s performances , fo r example, afte r having slowed to J = 3 8 around m.193, used to make a considerable accelerand o with th e secon d hor n i n mm. 199-20 4 and then pul l o n the temp o brake s again with a hug e ritar d i n mm.205-6 . Another ritar d would com e a t m.221 , slowing down further afte r that, and coming to a virtual ^standstill in m.235. (All of this is documented o n hi s 194 0 Concertgebou w recording. ) Furtwängle r eve n outdoe s Mengelberg by slowing down to J. = 1 7 (J= 51 ) before the return of the Scherzo . Other majo r self-indulger s i n excessiv e ritards are Strauss , Böhm, Muti , Fricsay , and Sanderling . Instead o f worryin g about a ritar d i n mm.205-206 , wha t conductor s shoul d concentrate o n i s bringing ou t th e startlin g dissonance s i n mm.201-204 , espe cially th e on e i n mm . 20 3-204. Her e a diminishe d chor d i n th e woodwind s clashes wit h th e stationar y A' s o f th e violin s an d th e secon d horn' s Gf t - A (See Ex . 14) . The B t o f the secon d clarine t i s the mos t crucia l not e an d need s to b e brough t out . Instea d i t i s mor e ofte n tha n no t suppressed , quietl y

Ex. 1 4

17. Beethoven' s chambe r music , especiall y the strin g quartets, hi s Lieder, hi s chora l works , and, o f course, the oper a Fidelio make much mor e us e of ritardandos and accelerandos , and a general flexibility of tempo tha n do his symphonies. I believe the reaso n i s that in the latte r he was dealing with muc h more tightl y constructed forms, th e unit y and rhythmi c energy of which h e wante d to preserv e at all costs. It is also true that while Beethoven's interest in free r tempos , rubatos, more frequen t change s of tempos, develope d later i n lif e a s his creative vision expande d and becam e mor e elaborate, he neve r lost his abhorrence of "slighting form fo r the sak e of content," a s Frederick Dorian pu t i t so eloquently (Frederick Dorian, The History of Music i n Performance (Ne w York, 1942)) .

BEETHOVEN: SEVENT H SYMPHON Y 26

7

buried somewher e i n th e chord . Th e fe w conductors wh o brough t thi s daring , typically Beethovenia n harmoni c ide a t o the for e ar e Abbado, Harnoncourt , Ca sals, Walter , Toscanini , Leinsdorf , Sanderling , Kletzki , Thomas , Steinberg , Boult, and Dorati. 18 Before goin g o n t o th e res t o f the movement , I mus t stil l allud e t o a n appar ently tin y notationa l detail , whic h is , however , o f strikin g importance , simpl y because Beethove n use s th e markin g i n questio n i n a ver y specia l way . I a m referring t o the horns ' f p i n m.222 . Perhap s hor n players , looking merely at their part, ma y b e partiall y forgiven fo r not understandin g that thi s fp i s not th e usua l one—although i f they use d thei r ear s an d wer e a bit curiou s they migh t b e le d to a t least ponde r th e question . Bu t ther e i s no suc h excus e fo r the conducto r who ha s th e ful l scor e i n sigh t and shoul d i n th e tota l contex t o f the passag e i n question b e abl e t o understand—an d the n elici t fro m th e performers—th e par ticular meanin g an d feelin g o f thi s fp . A s Ex . 1 5 shows , th e horn s ar e Ex. 1 5

merely a continuatio n o f a D majo r triadi c arpeggio , whic h Beethove n use s t o both retur n t o th e repea t o f the previou s 34-ba r sectio n an d lea d t o th e 14-ba r transitional postlud e tha t conclude s th e Trio . Th e horn s obviousl y have the rol e of continuing an d pickin g up fro m th e trumpet s thi s three-octave arpeggio . This means i n tur n tha t th e horn s mus t tak e u p th e trumpets ' lin e a s collaboratively, as efficiently , a s possible i n respec t t o bot h ton e an d dynamic , s o as to giv e th e impression o f one single descendin g seven-not e line . I f Beethoven ha d intende d this entir e two-ba r lin e t o b e playe d f o r perhap s wit h a gradua l diminuendo , there would b e les s of a problem; bu t sinc e h e decide d upo n th e secon d hal f of the arpeggi o t o b e playe d p , h e create d a mor e interestin g an d mor e compli cated performanc e problem. Th e link-u p between th e trumpet s an d horn s mus t be accomplishe d wit h grea t car e an d discretion . What typically happens instea d is that the trumpet s inadvertentl y make a slight diminuendo i n m.221 , while th e horns afte r tw o beat s rest , burs t i n wit h a n unthinkin g ordinar y fp — in, min d you, a favorabl y projectin g registe r compare d wit h th e outgoin g trumpets—an d the lin e i s broke n int o tw o part s rathe r the n on e phras e unit . I t i s therefor e essential tha t (a ) the trumpet s no t diminuend o a t all ; (b ) that th e horn s pic k u p exactly a t th e dynami c leve l o f the trumpet s —easily controlle d b y th e ear ; an d (c) continu e their par t of the phras e i n p , this necessitating playing the first note in m.22 2 i n a manne r show n i n Ex . 16 . This i s not easy , especiall y a t a fluen t tempo o f J = 25 2 (o r eve n a t a modifie d slowe r tempo) , bu t i t definitel y ca n be don e wit h a littl e effor t an d care . 18. Bu t perhap s I a m givin g to o muc h credi t to th e conductor , for i t could als o be tha t i t was some enterprising, harmony-consciou s clarinetist wh o o n hi s ow n brough t out th e desire d dissonance.

268 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

Ex. 1 6

The for m o f th e Seventh' s Scherz o movemen t i s quit e unusua l an d was , as far a s I know , a wholl y origina l inventio n o f Beethoven's . Followin g u p o n hi s various experiment s wit h th e Scherz o o f th e Fift h Symphon y a hal f a decad e earlier, h e expande d th e typica l Minue t o r Scherz o form , a s develope d an d refined b y th e Mannhei m schoo l a s wel l a s Hayd n an d Mozart , t o a muc h grander scheme . Th e Scherz o prope r i s her e playe d thre e times , wit h it s own internal repeats , an d th e Tri o appear s twice, als o with it s own repeats . Afte r th e third Scherzo , Beethove n teases u s briefly wit h a third Trio, bu t afte r fou r bar s — with tongu e i n cheek—break s i t off , and wit h the laughte r o f five short incisive chords ringin g in ou r ears , closes th e movement . As on e migh t assume , Beethoven wa s not conten t t o repea t th e Scherz o sec tions verbatim . H e find s a mos t ingeniou s wa y o f subtl y varyin g the material . After restartin g th e Scherz o i n it s secon d appearanc e exactl y a s th e firs t time , Beethoven suddenl y surprise s u s wit h a subito p wher e previousl y ther e ha d been a vigorou s f. Fro m tha t poin t o n (m.260 ) th e bul k o f the Scherzo , som e seventy measures , i s kept a t p o r pp , al l th e previou s contrastin g f's suppressed . This entir e p sectio n should , on th e fac e o f it, not offe r an y serious performance or interpretiv e problems . Yet it i s amazing—and discouraging—t o hea r ho w fe w conductors an d orchestra s see m t o be abl e t o carry out Beethoven' s wishes . Th e worst offender , onc e again , i s Mengelberg , wh o play s th e entir e p episod e a t least mf, mor e tha n onc e eve n reachin g f. I n effec t h e ignore s Beethoven's ide a entirely. (Th e sam e orchestra , th e Concertgebouw , does very well with this same movement twenty-six years late r unde r Eric h Kleiber' s excellen t direction. What a differenc e a conductor ca n make! ) The conductor s (beside s Kleiber) who have realized Beethoven' s ide a perfectl y are Abbado, Szell , Dohnanyi , Kletzki , Feren czik, Gardiner, Harnoncourt , Brugge n an d abov e all—spectacularly—Toscanini. Much les s successfu l o r downrigh t ba d ar e mos t o f th e othe r recorde d per formances, mos t notabl y thos e o f Strauss , Celibidache , Casals , Masur , Fricsay , Karajan, Solti , Mehta , Maazel , Leibowitz , d e Burgos , and Thoma s (whos e En glish Chambe r Orchestr a player s constantly striv e for an d ar e allowe d t o reac h mf). The fina l would-b e recapitulation of the Tri o near th e ver y end o f the move ment i s eve n mor e mishandle d b y th e majorit y o f conductors tha n i n it s two previous incarnations . Instea d o f realizin g tha t Beethoven' s jok e consist s pre cisely of having the Tri o reappear i n true 'peek-a-boo' fashion for only an instant , they manufactur e som e elaborat e dram a (o r melodrama ) t o justif y doin g th e four bar s a t eve n slowe r tha n snail' s pace . Wrong ! Th e joke' s succes s depend s entirely o n th e sudde n unexpecte d reappearanc e o f th e sam e alread y twiceheard Trio , a s i f to elici t i n th e audienc e a groa n o f 'Oh, no t again?!' , whe n o f course, jus t a s abruptly, Beethoven let s u s kno w he wa s 'just kidding. '

BEETHOVEN: SEVENT H SYMPHON Y 26

9

For th e record , onc e agai n Mengelber g i s the wors t offender . Hi s temp o fo r the las t Trio appearanc e i s J. = 3 0 (some assai meno presto tempo!), whic h h e follows wit h a lon g fermat a i n th e secon d measure , the n ritard s furthe r dow n to J . = 23 . Strauss' s ritar d is almost a s bad. With tha t sa d commentar y o n th e sometim e stat e o f the ar t o f conducting , w e must tur n t o th e fourt h movemen t o f Beethoven' s Seventh . Ther e ar e lot s o f performance/ interpretatio n problem s here , bu t I shal l tr y t o restric t mysel f to the mos t grievou s conductorial misdemeanors . Again , m y emphasi s wil l no t b e on obviou s generalities, but rathe r on thos e aspect s o f the wor k tha t ar e special , unprecedented, original , o r perhap s eve n uniqu e t o Beethove n o r thi s sym phony. O f course , nothin g i n Beethoven' s grea t work s i s ever ordinary or unspe cial. Ever y measur e o f the Seventh' s Final e bristle s with strikin g ideas, remarkable solution s t o ne w unprecedente d problems , eye - an d ear-openin g revelations, ingeniou s revitalization s of ol d formulas—to o man y t o trea t i n thi s context a s exhaustively as they deserve. Let m e assum e tha t w e al l kno w b y no w tha t th e Seventh' s Final e i s a mos t extraordinary exploratio n of the potentia l expressiv e power of rhythm an d meter , combined wit h a livel y tempo , t o mov e an d excit e th e huma n spirit . Bu t ho w does thi s manifes t itself in particular ? Many pieces , sa y by Hayd n o r Mozart or even Bac h and Rameau—ha d involve d rhythmically exciting, driving Finales . What wa s new , wha t wa s s o specia l abou t Beethoven' s Sevent h Finale ? Mor e than anythin g else , eve n mor e tha n th e shee r scop e an d relentles s energ y an d dynamic intensit y o f th e movement , wha t give s i t it s emotiona l powe r is , I be lieve, th e unsettlin g elemen t o f syncopation , a kin d o f shiftin g th e bea t int o unexpected places , all of this—the unpredictable , th e unknown—balance d wit h absolute forma l contro l wit h th e predictable , th e known . Thes e essentia l hall marks o f th e movemen t ar e al l enunciate d a t it s ver y opening . A s one follow s the cours e o f the movemen t on e wil l encounte r agai n an d agai n th e following principal ideas : (a ) (b (c) ,

) and (d ) —al

l emphasizin g syncopation

and th e illusor y shifting an d destabilizatio n o f the commo n beat . Almost all conductors d o well with Beethoven' s temp o o f J = 72 . Only a few of th e earlie r generation , lik e Furtwängler , Klemperer , Boult , Mengelberg , Böhm, an d Eric h Kleiber , tended t o tak e slowe r tempos, bu t no t b y much (th e slowest wa s Klemperer' s a t j = 58) , whil e som e o f th e presen t maestri , lik e Muti, Ashkenazy , and Dohnanyi , ten d t o er r o n th e fas t side , agai n b y relatively little—Muti, for example, J = 78 . But tempo i s not a majo r poin t o f discussion; other matter s are . Already in th e initia l theme statemen t (mm.5-12 ) th e sf's i n the cellos , basses , and bras s (Ex.17 ) los e muc h o f thei r punc h an d feelin g o f syncopation i n mos t recorde d performances , for th e reaso n tha t th e player s d o not fee l th e weigh t and puls e o f the downbeat s i n eac h measur e sufficientl y t o

270

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Ex. 1 7 etc.

act a s the counterpois e t o th e second-bea t sfs. Musician s an d conductor s some times ten d t o forge t tha t a syncopatio n ca n onl y soun d syncopate d i f i t i s i n reaction t o a strongl y fel t beat . Whe n a normall y weak bea t i s stressed , tha t stressing ca n onl y b e perceive d a s suc h whe n th e normall y strong bea t i s also felt i n al l it s full strengt h and weight ; otherwise the stresse d weak beat ha s noth ing t o b e overstresse d agains t an d i s likely to soun d a s a n ordinar y strong beat . This i s what happen s whe n th e aforementione d instrument s pla y mm.5-1 2 a s in Ex . 18 , tha t is , with a quic k deca y o f the soun d t o som e substantiall y lesser

Ex. 1 8

dynamic, thereb y turnin g th e stron g firs t bea t int o a wea k beat . Wit h tha t al l sense o f syncopatio n i s gone an d th e stron g bea t ha s simpl y shifte d ove r t o th e second beat . In orde r for Beethoven's reiterate d syncopation s to work , it i s necessary for th e players t o d o tw o things : (1 ) allo w n o diminuend o fro m th e s f secon d bea t t o the nex t 2/ 4 downbeat , i n othe r word s t o maintai n th e basi c ff , th e s f bein g merely a mor e pronounced , mor e aggressiv e attack o n to p o f the ff ; (2 ) stop th e note o n th e first beat, althoug h tied , wit h a n audible , perceptible , an d rhythmi cally precis e release—no t som e vagu e indiscernibl e disappearanc e o f the note . The onl y way I ca n thin k of notating thi s i s as follows : etc. Th e sustainin g and clea r releas e of the soun d ar e mor e difficul t t o achieve whe n bot h th e stresse d weak beat an d the stron g first beat ar e the sam e pitch . When th e pitc h change s o n th e releas e note, a s in mm . 11-12 o r mm. 13-2019 i n th e cello s an d basses , it automatically becomes mor e audibl e —as listening to any recording of this passage will attest. 20 19. Th e ba r count I have used i n the Final e i s based o n the principl e that first and secon d endings in the many repeats in this movement are designated by the same measure number. Thus the first ending is m.!2a, the secon d endin g is m.l2b. The nex t phrase thus starts with m.13, not m.14. The first and second endings at the end of the exposition ar e designated mm . 122a-26a and mm.l22b-26b. 20. Thi s i s a proble m encountere d i n a wid e rang e o f musica l repertory . I cit e onl y a ver y fe w examples: Beethove n Leonore Overtur e N " 3 , strings , mm.444-51 ; Tchaikovsk y Sixt h Symphony , third movemen t mm.265-69 , 301-308 ; Brahm s Fourth Symphony , third movemen t mrn.11-15 .

BEETHOVEN: SEVENTH SYMPHONY 27

1

But Beethoven i n many place s i n the Final e i s not content to have one synco pation pe r measure . I n mm.5-19 and man y othe r subsequen t passage s h e super imposes no t onl y anothe r syncopatio n bu t anothe r order o f syncopation. Havin g already include d syncopatio n a t the quarter-not e level , Beethove n add s syncopation a t the eighth-not e leve l as well (i n the woodwinds) . This result s in a doubl e syncopation, th e secon d on e bein g a syncopatio n withi n an d agains t th e other . / • j ? In simplifie d notation th e resul t i s

etc.

Here too , th e woodwind s mus t produc e clea r audibl e release s on thei r tied-ove r notes, especiall y when pitche s sta y the sam e (a s in th e flut e part s i n mm.5-12) . Unfortunately, hardl y anybody seems to be awar e of this most extraordinar y effect of double two-leve l syncopation ; fo r o n al l bu t a fe w recordings (Carlo s Kleiber , Harnoncourt, Cantelli , Bernstein , Kletzki , Jochum, Leinsdorf , Dorati) the wood winds are eithe r virtually or totally inaudible. S o much for respect o f Beethoven' s wonderful idea ! Equally wonderfu l ar e Beethoven' s viol a part s i n thi s movement—viol a parts which , however , ar e hardl y eve r hear d becaus e the y ar e un - o r under appreciated b y conductor s (wh o ar e conductin g th e melod y anyway , as i f tha t were necessary) , o r becaus e timpan i parts , playe d to o loudly , drow n ou t wha t the generall y very hard-working violas are playing . Loo k a t th e wonderfu l viola lines, th e exquisit e not e choices , i n passage s lik e mm.5-16 and mm . 155-62. I am , afte r som e fifty years of listening t o th e Beethove n Seventh , prett y tired of hearin g onl y th e hig h horn s i n mm.26-29 . As a first horn mysel f years ago I remember ho w muc h I enjoye d playing those wonderfu l high A horn parts , bu t I als o recall realizin g tha t I was in thos e fou r measure s par t o f a ten-piece wind choir. I t i s tiresome t o hea r i n recordin g afte r recordin g ver y littl e o r n o wood winds, tha t i s until th e firs t flut e pop s ou t o n it s high A in m.28 . Similarly , it is tiresome i n recordin g afte r recordin g t o hea r onl y first violins—no second s an d violas—in mm.33—36 . Articulation problems , simila r to thos e i n th e Seventh' s firs t movement , aris e in muc h o f th e Finale . Beethove n i s absolutel y consequen t an d logica l abou t differentiating betwee n an d Ye t these phrasin g distinctions are fo r th e mos t par t ignored , conductor s makin g arbitrar y choices whic h ar e often th e exac t opposite o f what Beethoven notated . Measure s 53-6 2 shoul d no t be playe d (especiall y with a revers e bowing) , a s on e i s force d t o hear o n th e vas t majority o f recordings. Beethoven's intentio n her e i s to pla y on the contras t betwee n th e short , incisiv e staccato wind s and timpan i o n th e on e hand an d th e mor e sustaine d string s on th e other . Two notationa l error s are embedde d i n th e conventionall y used parts , one o f them i s wron g i n th e scor e a s well . I n m.6 3 th e firs t violins ' quarter-not e Ft t should obviousl y b e a n eighth-not e (a s i t i s i n Beethoven' s autograph) . All th e winds an d remainin g string s hav e a n eighth-not e an d i t i s someho w ludicrous

272 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

and bizarr e for conductors t o expres s their fidelity to th e scor e i n th e on e plac e where ther e i s an obviou s error , havin g i n th e meantim e pai d ver y littl e atten tion t o a thousan d othe r Beethove n markings . A glanc e a t m.284 , th e corres ponding plac e i n th e recapitulation , wher e th e notatio n i s correct , migh t hav e been useful . I t i s truly astonishing t o m e tha t intelligen t world-famou s conduc tors—like Karajan , Jochum , Abbado , Kubelik , Casals , Reiner, Dorati, and Gardi ner—insist o n o r allow the lon g quarter-not e Ft. 21 (On e migh t als o then as k the question wh y not mak e th e D i n m.28 4 lon g a s well?) The othe r erro r i s i n th e secon d hor n par t i n mm.288-8 9 i n whic h corresponding t o th e simila r part i n th e bassoo n in mm.68-69 , i s missing. Bu t i t i s an erro r which wa s discovered decade s ago 22 and i s nowadays almost alway s played correctly. Some o f the conductor s o f today who don' t see m t o kno w abou t th e missin g second hor n par t ar e Maazel , Har noncourt, an d th e Collegiu m Aureum . Caution mus t b e use d i n mm.64-7 4 an d al l simila r places t o no t le t Beetho ven's deteriorat

e to a

s

it doe s i n a numbe r o f recordings , suc h a s Cantelli's , an d th e Collegiu m Aureum's. A fierce balance proble m arise s in mm . 10 5-22 (an d th e correspondin g place , mm.329-44), onc e agai n involvin g timpani parts . As Ex. 1 9 shows, the bas s and timpani part s criss-cros s continually. The timpani' s tw o notes, A and E , no t onl y

Ex. 1 9

21. I n Fricsay' s recording wit h th e Berli n Philharmonic , a performanc e ruine d t o a larg e exten t by a constantl y excessivel y loud an d boomin g timpani , on e canno t hea r th e violins ' Ft t (o r fo r tha t matter an y o f th e orchestra ) a t all , a s th e timpanis t release s a ffff canno n sho t here , th e like s o f which I hav e neve r hear d o n recordings . A close contende r fo r the recordin g most ruine d by a timpani player is Barenboim's wit h th e sam e orchestra—probably th e sam e timpanist . 22. Thes e hor n note s ar e missin g fro m som e o f th e earlie r conductors ' recordings , fo r exampl e Stokowski's 192 8 Philadelphia , Mengelberg's Concertgebouw , Ansermet' s Suiss e Romande , Walter' s Columbia Symphony , Furtwängler' s Berli n Philharmonic , an d Cantelli' s NB C Symphon y perfor mances. I n Klemperer' s 1950 s Philharmoni a recordin g th e maestro , havin g b y then learne d o f th e mistake i n th e hor n part , attempts t o correc t it , bu t fixe s i t incorrectly , th e tw o missin g hor n note s now coming one ba r too late which, when dutifull y repeate d two more times, causes the elimination of the two-hor n octave in mm.293—94 .

BEETHOVEN: SEVENTH SYMPHONY 27

3

do no t correspon d a t an y tim e t o th e bas s note s bu t serv e differen t harmoni c functions i n th e entir e chor d progression : i n mm.105-106 , 108 , 11 0 the timpa ni's A's are th e sixt h i n a C diminishe d chord ; i n mm . 107, 109 , 11 1 the E' s ar e the thir d i n a C I mino r chord ; i n m.11 2 th e A i s th e thir d i n a n Fi t minor chord; i n m.11 3 th e E i s the thir d i n a C I mino r 6/ 4 chord, an d s o on. Clearly , if the timpan i plays its fullest ff, followe d b y seven cannonading sfs, i t will eithe r overpower o r a t leas t obscur e th e all-importan t bas s line , thu s als o obscurin g Beethoven's remarkabl e harmoni c progressio n here . Ho w tremendou s thi s pas sage can soun d whe n th e timpanis t blends int o th e harmoni c fabric , rathe r than performing a 'timpan i concerto, ' ca n b e hear d abov e al l o n Dorati' s excellen t London Symphon y recording, bu t als o on Thomas's, Steinberg's, an d Toscanini' s (New Yor k Philharmonic ) recordings . Ho w horrendou s thi s passag e ca n soun d can b e sample d o n th e recording s of Barenboim, Walter, an d Mengelberg . It i s a seriou s misrepresentatio n o f Beethoven' s scor e t o slo w th e temp o a t m.130 o r t o stretc h th e hel d note s her e wit h fermatas , as s o man y conductor s do. Can the y no t realiz e that, afte r som e 28 0 measures(l) (countin g th e repeats) of mor e o r les s relentless, fas t rhythmi c activity , mostly sixteenth-notes , Beetho ven ha s i n mm. 130-3 3 already slowed dow n the motio n o f the musi c b y a facto r of twelve , or a t leas t six ? Additiona l slowing down , stretchin g an d distortin g th e tempo, i s totall y unnecessar y an d unwanted . Beethove n coul d certainl y hav e put a fermat a ove r m.13 1 an d m.13 3 i f that wa s what h e wished . Bi g offender s in thi s regar d ar e Furtwängler , Weingartner , Klemperer , Reiner , Mengelberg , Barenboim, Thomas , Coli n Davis , Ashkenazy , Mehta, an d Harnoncourt , wit h the wors t interpretation s comin g fro m Stokowsk i (hug e fermata s an d vulga r slides) and Abbad o (wh o adds a whole measur e a t m.131 an d m.139) , drastically recomposing Beethoven' s closel y structured music . Strauss , who ofte n spok e ou t against this particula r type of tempo distortion , i s guilty of it himself in hi s 192 6 Berlin recording . Anyon e intereste d i n savorin g ho w thi s passag e ca n soun d when playe d i n temp o shoul d hea r any of the following : th e tw o Kleibers (fathe r and son) , Kubelik , Casals, Masur , Böhm , Dohnanyi, Solti, Steinberg, and , above all, Toscanin i an d Dorati . Karajan' s 'interpretation ' i s perhaps th e mos t curiou s and pervers e o f al l i n tha t h e speed s ahea d i n m.12 7 beyon d hi s alread y fast basi c temp o o f « J = 76 , bu t the n a s irrationall y suddenly slow s dow n a t m.138. The developmen t sectio n o f the Final e i s one o f Beethoven's mos t awesom e creations, but—again , alas —rarely given it s full du e i n performance . The reade r may recal l tha t I referre d earlie r t o wha t I calle d Beethoven' s doubl e syncopa tions a t the beginnin g o f the movement . They return now , no t only in th e 'false ' recapitulations i n mm . 127, 13 4 an d 147 , bu t the y pla y a n importan t develop mental rol e beginnin g a t m.163 , wher e Beethove n onc e again , a s i s hi s wont , turns th e origina l passag e literall y upsid e down . Th e bas s lin e o f mm . 5-12 i s now i n effec t pu t hig h u p (fou r octave s higher ) i n th e firs t violins , whil e th e erstwhile hig h woodwinds ' sfs ar e no w droppe d dow n t o th e cello s an d basse s (see Ex . 20) . Even mor e ingenious—an d startlin g to discover—i s tha t th e lowe r

274 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

Ex. 2 0

part i s a rhythmicall y exac t retrograd e o f th e uppe r par t i

s th e exac t

reverse o f Incidentally , the sf s i n th e cello s an d basse s in mm . 163-64 must b e continue d al l the wa y through m.195 . The y wer e inadvertentl y left ou t by Beethove n o r assumed i n contex t t o b e continued . Two o f th e fou r elementar y themati c cell s I pointe d ou t a t th e beginnin g o f the discussio n of the Final e an

d ar

e her e

given a developmental workout : they are bot h o f equal importance , thematicall y interlocked a s one ca n se e no t onl y i n th e expositio n bu t her e i n th e develop ment section . Ye t conductor afte r conducto r demote s th e figur e t o a sec ondary statu s i n mm . 167-74 and , eve n beyon d that , i n th e firs t violin s i n mm. 175-96. Thi s i s agai n a seriou s misinterpretatio n fo r th e followin g obvious —on e woul d think—reasons . Tha t three-not e unsyncopate d figure , alon g with th e secon d violi n an d viol a figurations , i s the onl y stabilizing metric ele ment—the rhythmi c ancho r a s i t were—agains t an d fro m whic h th e off-bea t sf syncopations ca n rebound . Second , i t i s als o a n importan t harmoni c determi nant (agai n i n conjunctio n wit h th e secon d violin s and violas ) i n mm . 163-70, clearly definin g th e fou r tonalitie s i n progressio n here : C — F - Bl > - C . Thi s harmonic functio n becomes eve n mor e pronounce d som e measure s later where the reiterate d D' s o f th e firs t violin s (alon g wit h th e trumpets ) ar e th e singl e stabilizing elemen t agains t the constantl y and rapidl y shifting harmoni c stations. The figure' s importanc e increase s even mor e whe n i t moves t o the pitc h E , th e dominant o f the toni c key , presaging th e arriva l o f the recapitulatio n (whic h is, however, avoide d b y a deceptiv e cadence) . Beyon d that , a s Ex . 2 1 shows , th e

Ex. 2 1

BEETHOVEN: SEVENT H SYMPHON Y

275

repeated insisten t E' s remain a constant, whil e the intervalli c gap between the m and th e graduall y rising 'bass line ' i s diminished t o a mino r second , convergin g finally in th e semiton e (Dt/E ) clashe s i n mm . 194-98. Th e three-not e figure' s primacy i s further confirme d i n a quasi-recapitulatio n (lik e a fain t ech o o f th e movement's opening ) i n mm.200-203 , i n th e remot e evasiv e ke y o f F major . The rea l recapitulatio n finall y arrive s i n m.22 2 afte r man y fals e foretokens , detours, and delays . All that I have discusse d regarding th e expositio n should obviously apply here a s well. When a recapitulatio n ha s ru n it s course, mos t composer s woul d hav e gon e directly t o a coda o f some kind. Bu t Beethoven , as we have alread y see n i n th e firs movemen t o f the Fift h Symphony , i s always intent o n extendin g an d devel opir ? his material s further, wha t we hav e calle d a Schlußdurchführing. Accord ingly i n m.35 1 anothe r deceptiv e retur n t o th e openin g o f th e movemen t i s quickly diverte d int o a gran d elaboratio n o f what constitute s th e secon d subject of the movement , originall y heard i n m . 37-52. Whereas i n it s initial appearanc e Beethoven holds to the toni c ke y and it s relative minor (F t minor) , here Beetho ven move s to B minor an d fro m tha t somewhat remote tona l positio n unleashe s an extraordinar y spinning ou t o f th e secon d subject' s elements , includin g th e five-note figur e cite d a t th e beginnin g a s on e o f th e fou r elementar y motivi c cells (p.269 , illus . c) . Thes e whirlin g fragment s ar e se t agains t a descendin g bass lin e —I cal l i t 'th e gran d descent ' —of th e mos t extraordinar y boldness an d originality. Nothing lik e it was heard i n musi c agai n until hal f a centur y later i n some o f Wagner's lat e operas , where simila r chromatic progression s occasionally occur. Beethoven's 'gran d descent ' starts in th e toni c key of A (m. 374)—see Ex . 2 2 — and move s throug h som e fift y (! ) harmoni c position s t o th e dominan t E , bu t

Ex. 2 1

276 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

then oscillate s bac k an d fort h betwee n E an d D t fo r anothe r twenty bars , th e Dl's grindin g hard agains t the prevailin g tonic/dominant harmonies . The entir e passage i s marked wit h remindin g f s an d certainl y does no t displa y even a hin t of an y diminuendo . Ye t great number s o f conductor s mak e varyin g degree s o f decrescendo aroun d m.37 6 i n orde r to build again , some twent y bars later, to a huge f f clima x (a t m.415) . Thi s i s no t onl y on e o f th e mos t obviou s self indulgent, audience-panderin g ploys , bu t constitute s a particularl y gross distortion o f one o f Beethoven's grandes t inspirations. May i t also be sai d that m.41 5 i s not the 'arriva l point' , the 'climacti c release ' that s o man y conductor s mak e o f this , becaus e the y happe n t o se e a f f there , forgetting tha t th e musi c ha s been—o r i s suppose d t o hav e been — ff al l along . The rea l climacti c pea k i s in m.437 . Bu t unfortunatel y with too man y conduc tors, who , seein g m.41 5 a s th e pea k an d the n hav e nothin g mor e t o give , th e glorious clima x at m.43 7 become s a n anti-climax . The onl y appropriate wa y of rendering thi s magnificen t passag e i s to maintain , especiall y i n th e cello s an d basses, the utmos t intensit y throughout, never lettin g u p fo r even a split-second. In tha t wa y i t become s a n overwhelmin g experience . A numbe r o f recording s achieve this , mos t notabl y an d magnificentl y Toscanini's, Dorati's , Bernstein's , Masur's, Jochum's , Abbado's, Gardiner's , and Carlo s Keiber's. A fina l cautio n abou t th e timpan i part : a t mm.415-1 8 th e cello s an d basse s keep grindin g awa y o n thei r lo w E/D t peda l poin t (an d agai n fiv e bar s later , mm.423-26). These las t measure s o f the 'gran d descent ' mus t no t b e drowne d out b y the timpani , something tha t happens, unfortunately, on a t least two-thirds of the recording s sampled . There remai n onl y som e lesse r 'housekeeping ' detail s to b e mentioned . Th e descending violi n sixteenth-note passages , mm.427-36, must be played i n a con tinuous unrelentin g ff , no t wit h accents o r ffmp's o n th e hea d not e o f every twobar phrase , a s on e usuall y hear s here . Also , a s tumultuou s a s thes e climacti c moments o f the Final e are—Beethove n ha s demanded a continuous / f from th e orchestra eve r sinc e m.329 , som e 10 8 measures i n all , on e an d a hal f minutes in duration—som e energy and projectio n must b e kept i n reserve to achieve th e triple fort e i n m.437 . Beethove n use d thi s dynami c ver y sparingl y in hi s symphonies; thus , whe n i t i s used, i t i s meant t o produc e a ver y special , dramatic, all-shattering, towerin g climax. Man y conductor s an d orchestra s give thei r al l much to o earl y and hav e nothing left fo r the fff. I n additio n the secon d trumpe t must b e urge d t o pla y a ver y stron g low D i n mm.439-4 0 t o for m a balance d

BEETHOVEN: SEVENT H SYMPHON Y 27

triad wit h th e othe r trumpe t an d th e horn s Som

7

e conductor s hav e at-

tempted t o 'improve ' an d updat e Beethoven' s orchestratio n b y putting th e sec ond trumpet' s D , a n octav e higher ; or , worse , the secon d trumpet' s G , tw o bars earlier, an octav e lower. Beethoven coul d hav e mad e th e forme r choic e himself, but didn't ; th e latte r h e coul d no t hav e made , bu t h e kne w tha t ver y wel l an d arranged hi s voice leading accordingly, taking that 'limitation ' int o ful l consider ation—with th e resul t w e no w se e i n hi s score . Indeed , i t i s that secon d trum pet's fantasti c leap—down a n octav e an d a fourth—whic h whe n wel l projected adds s o immeasurably to th e overpowerin g effect o f this climax. In mm.441-44 , I have neve r hear d th e wind s o f the orchestr a pla y those fou r half-notes full y sustained . One invariabl y hears one o r the othe r o f the followin g interpretations: o

r or

, a s i f s f mean s shortenin g th e duratio n of the applicabl e note. 23 We com e no w to th e fina l fiftee n measure s o f the movement . A s in mm.25 28 mentione d earlier , her e too , i n mm.462-68 , I a m s o tired o f hearing i n th e vast majorit y o f performance s onl y th e tw o horn s o r eve n wors e onl y th e firs t trumpet; o r alternativel y only th e timpani . Onc e agai n ther e i s an ensembl e o f ten wind s (twelv e countin g th e trumpets ) tha t shoul d b e hear d a s a unit , a s a balanced ensemble . Eve n mor e importan t i s that th e violin s should no t b e cov ered here , fo r they have , afte r all , the mos t importan t thematic/motivi c materia l of the entir e movement , tha t sixteenth-not e cel l (c ) that I cited a t the beginnin g of the movement . O n al l but hal f a doze n recording s th e violin s are quit e inau dible—and on e migh t a s well jus t forge t abou t th e descendin g fourth s an d fifths 23. Onl y Celibidach e plays these duration s correctly. On e o f the mos t grievou s sins committed her e by any conductor i s the recomposin g o f the hor n part s by Mengelberg i n mm.441-44 (and 457-60) . Instead o f Beethoven' s wonderfu l an d unusua l he demand s th e ver y ordinar y cliché, use d i n man y 'hor n fifths' situations . Firs t o f all , Beethove n coul d hav e writte n thos e 'horn fifths'—the y wer e availabl e on th e A-horn s o f the day—an d th e fac t tha t h e chos e no t t o d o so ough t t o b e reaso n enoug h no t t o tampe r wit h o r rewrit e the passage . Second , Mengelber g di d not see m t o kno w tha t accordin g t o th e basi c rule s o f classi c voice leadin g an d counterpoin t i n a first inversion harmony , the third , alread y strongl y represented i n th e bass , shoul d no t b e double d in th e uppe r structur e o f th e chord . I f Beethove n ha d no t learne d tha t rul e i n hi s youth , h e i s certainly likel y t o hav e gotten i t fro m Albrechtsberge r an d Salicri . I t wa s incumben t upo n Mengel berg no t t o brea k that rule, especially in a wor k b y th e master , Beethoven.

278 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

of th e cello s an d basses . Thes e player s migh t a s wel l hav e gon e hom e befor e the en d o f the recordin g session. There ar e tw o perversions—'chea p tricks ' i s perhap s a mor e appropriat e term—that many conductors indulg e i n towards the en d o f the Seventh' s Finale . One i s an acceleratio n of the tempo , alway s a sure-fire wa y to bring an audienc e to it s feet shoutin g bravos ; the othe r i s to le t th e timpan i tak e ove r completel y with a n enormou s fina l crescendo , especially in the las t five bars. Previn's timpanist, fo r example, 'kills ' th e res t of the orchestra— a technica l recordin g triumph to th e hi-finatics , bu t artisticall y an offens e an d a gros s corruption . Th e last minute speedin g up—som e conductor s star t gunnin g th e temp o a s earl y a s m.427 (Fricsay , Dohnanyi) —is, a s I say, the ultimat e distortio n an d cheapenin g of Beethoven' s monumenta l Final e ending . Th e conductor s wh o seeme d th e least abl e t o resis t this childis h temptatio n ar e Anserme t an d Harnoncour t (u p to J = 80) ; Furtwängle r (u p t o J = 84) ; Dohnany i (u p t o J = 86) ; eve n Kletzki, generall y a tasteful , discipline d conductor (u p t o J = 88) ; Stokowski (up t o J = 92) ; and Barenboim (u p to J = 96) . Any reader who would like to hear ho w fantastic th e Finale's climacti c endin g can sound , withou t an y o f the abov e exhibitionisti c shenanigans, nee d onl y listen t o the recording s of Carlos Kleiber , Gardiner, Masur , Dorat i (Londo n Sym phony), Reiner , an d Toscanin i (Ne w Yor k Philharmonic) . Th e last-named' s re cording o f th e Seventh , excep t fo r a fe w mino r foible s her e an d there , i s a remarkable document , especiall y fo r it s tim e (1936) ; an d it s las t movement , especially it s ending, i s an absolut e triump h o f a performance.

Brahms: First Symphony

If Beethove n an d th e bes t composer s o f hi s tim e wer e remarkabl y precise an d careful i n th e notatio n o f thei r musica l creations , Brahm s wa s eve n mor e ex plicit, mor e detaile d an d exacting , i f only fo r th e reaso n tha t musica l notatio n in genera l b y th e secon d hal f o f th e 19t h centur y ha d becom e mor e explicit , more refine d an d sophisticated . This was inevitable a s the increasingl y comple x demands o f music require d additiona l notationa l device s an d terminology . Also, composers b y an d larg e ha d fo r som e tim e fel t th e nee d t o protec t themselve s against the vagarie s and indulgence s o f their interpreters , an d ha d invente d nota tional technique s wit h whic h the y expecte d t o achiev e tha t goal . Brahms wa s no t onl y a meticulou s worker , constantl y self-critica l an d self examining, bu t als o a t hear t a stric t classicist . For al l th e ne w complexit y an d modernity of his musical language, especiall y in hi s symphonies, Brahms' s music develops fro m th e classica l lineage an d indee d mor e ofte n tha n no t adhere s t o a basicall y classical conception—precise , succinct , clea r i n for m an d continuity . The fac t tha t w e don't ofte n hea r Brahm s played that wa y is unfortunate an d is , of course , no t Brahms' s fault . Th e opinio n hel d i n man y quarter s that Brahms' s music i s heav y and turgid , rathe r square , an d eve n 'academic, ' exist s primarily because mos t performances o f hi s musi c ar e 'heavy ' an d 'turgid, ' emotionall y overladen, indulgen t i n Romanti c exaggeration s and distortion s which d o sever e damage t o the music . The iron y i n al l thi s i s tha t i t too k musicians , orchestras , conductor s man y decades t o lear n ho w to pla y Brahms's symphonie s with technical eas e an d con trol— Brahms's musi c i s still, even today , amon g th e mos t difficul t o f the entir e 19th-century repertory , especially i n regar d t o harmoni c understanding , intona tion, an d certai n particularl y Brahmsian rhythmic/metri c problems . But , onc e fully accepte d int o th e repertory , hi s orchestra l music was then artisticall y suffo cated b y a n exces s of misinterpretation s and blatan t disregar d o f hi s score s an d their wonderfull y explici t notations . Very fe w early 20th-centur y conductors rec 279

280 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

ognized o r appreciate d th e classica l clarit y and balanc e i n Brahms' s music , it s absolute integrit y and coherenc e o f musica l construction . Tw o rar e exception s were Toscanin i an d Weingartner , wh o intuitivel y cut throug h al l th e previously acquired interpretationa l encrustation s t o th e rea l hear t an d essenc e o f the mu sic a s envisione d i n th e score. Becaus e Toscanin i wa s mor e celebrate d fo r hi s volatile Beethove n interpretation s an d hi s devotio n t o bot h Wagne r an d Verdi , his servic e t o Brahm s wen t virtuall y unrecognized an d is , I think , eve n toda y generally littl e appreciated . Late r remarkabl e Brahm s conductors , mor e o r les s in th e Toscanin i lineag e —Reiner, Haitink , Suitner , Skrowaczewski , Carlo s Kleiber—are fin e representative s of how an inspired , imaginative 'interpretation' can b e develope d fro m a n exactin g readin g o f th e score . On e woul d certainly not conside r Stokowsk i a conducto r i n th e Toscanin i mold , give n t o textua l fidelity an d a n innat e respec t fo r the composer' s notations . Bu t among th e hun dreds of recordings Stokowsk i made i n a long career , man y of which wer e wildly revisionist an d disrespectfu l o f th e composer' s intentions , hi s ver y earl y (1927) recording o f th e Brahm s First , apar t fro m on e o r tw o eccentri c aberrations , stands ou t a s a paragon o f musical sensibility and taste . Stokowsk i seems t o have had a special affinit y an d lov e for this work , and hi s intelligent, respectful, lovin g approach, expresse d throug h th e sumptuou s sound s onl y h e coul d elici t fro m the Philadelphi a Orchestra , make s hi s recordin g a very special an d muc h t o b e admired document . How explici t Brahm s could b e i n hi s notation— a fe w exceptional anomalie s and ambiguitie s notwithstanding—w e wil l learn full y t o appreciat e i n th e ensu ing perusa l o f the Firs t Symphon y and a n analysi s of its many recordings . Once again, this traversal of the wor k will emphasize thos e aspect s that ar e mos t pertinent t o th e conducto r an d t o achievin g a faithful , relevant , an d inspire d performance-realization. The symphon y open s wit h on e o f th e grandest , mos t profoundl y movin g an d overwhelming passage s in al l th e symphoni c literature . But lik e almos t al l grea t moments i n music , thi s openin g contain s hidde n performanc e problem s an d interpretational questions . I t also contain s wha t man y conside r a terminological ambiguity: th e sol e temp o indicatio n o f u n poco sostenuto. I t i s indee d on e o f the rare r tempo designations , havin g been use d (t o my knowledge) onl y a hand ful o f time s previously , mos t notabl y i n th e openin g o f Beethoven' s Sevent h Symphony (bu t ther e backe d u p b y a metronom e marking) . The ter m a s such has, o f course , n o explici t temp o denotation ; i t simpl y mean s "somewha t sus tained" (literally , a little sustained ) bu t offer s n o indicatio n a s to which temp o is to b e playe d i n a sustaine d manner . Tha t Brahm s wa s avers e t o usin g metro nome indication s is, of course, wel l known , an d i n thi s cas e tha t doe s leav e th e tempo questio n quit e ope n t o speculation . Many conductor s hav e simpl y assume d tha t sostenuto her e mean s somethin g slow, bu t agai n withou t an y specifi c agreemen t o n ho w slow . An d indee d re corded performance s show tha t th e temp o variance s can ru n al l th e wa y fro m Jl = 7 0 (Abbado ) t o . h = 7 2 (Klemperer , Furtwängler ) t o Jl = 10 0 (Szell,

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y 28

1

Toscanini), an d lately , Norringto n J l = 11 4 (J . = 38) . I t seem s t o hav e oc curred t o ver y fe w conductor s tha t Brahm s ma y hav e intende d a ver y specific metrical relationship—wha t ar e nowaday s calle d "metri c modulations"—be tween th e introductio n an d th e bod y o f the Allegro, namely , th e eight h o f th e opening 6/ 8 equalin g the dotte d quarte r i n th e Allegro (i.e.<— e> = J.—>) . Wha t lends credenc e t o suc h a notio n i s the fac t that , a s a resul t o f Brahms' s studies of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven , h e wa s all his lif e a n arden t devotee o f classical symmetr y an d purit y o f form. Precis e proportiona l temp o relationship s be tween slowe r introductions, an d th e mai n allegros abound i n th e classica l literature, e.g . Haydn' s Symphonie s No.10 1 an d No.103 , Mozart' s Linz Symphon y (No.36), Beethoven' s Firs t an d Fourth) , t o provid e bu t a fe w o f many , man y examples. W e als o kno w tha t th e introductio n o f Brahms' s Firs t wa s a n after thought, afte r h e ha d alread y composed mos t o f the Allegro, undoubtedl y the n instinctively relatin g th e tw o tempos . Fo r al l thes e reason s i t i s most likely—fo r me i t is a given—that Brahms intended th e temp o o f the openin g t o correspon d in som e direc t relationshi p to the Allegro at m.38. 1 This concept stil l does not , o f course, tel l u s which temp o i s to be taken , bu t I thin k i t help s u s t o establis h a t leas t a rang e withi n whic h th e tw o tempo s can —in Brun o Walter's phrase—"allo w fo r technical exactness, " a s wel l a s permitting "th e musica l meanin g an d th e emotiona l significance " of the musi c t o project "t o bes t effec t . " To o fas t a n allegro an d th e musi c i s draine d o f it s meaning an d ma y even lea d t o 'technical inexactness ' and becom e mor e o r less unplayable. B y th e sam e token , to o slo w an d ponderou s a n openin g 6/ 8 ca n produce a similarl y negativ e effect , drainin g i t o f it s "emotiona l significance " and perhap s eve n makin g the lon g lin e o f the first eight measure s virtuall y 'un sustainable.' A tempo o f aroun d 92 , giv e o r tak e a fe w points , seem s t o m e t o satisfy mos t happil y bot h sections : a bright , lively , energetic allegro and a not too-ponderous, overl y notey openin g 6/8. A s for the latter , le t u s remember tha t Brahms include s th e wor d "poco " i n u n poco sostenuto. Imagin e tha t h e ha d written molió sostenuto; how differen t i n feelin g the openin g woul d be . Bu t th e point is that h e wrot e poco and a s performers we ought t o respec t that . (Bu t see pp. 316-1 7 for a quit e differen t alternativ e t o this temp o question. ) But wh y did Brahm s no t giv e a prope r temp o designation , suc h a s andante or allegro? We shall probabl y never know the answe r to tha t question , give n that the autograp h t o th e symphony' s first movement appear s t o b e irrevocabl y lost. It migh t hav e containe d som e indication , som e clue , som e firs t an d secon d thoughts, som e notationa l alteration s an d changes—thes e are often mor e reveal ing in man y o f Brahms' s autograph s than th e fina l editoria l determinations—a s to th e composer' s decisiona l proces s i n withholdin g a specifi c temp o marking . I can onl y conjectur e tha t Brahms , havin g writte n th e mai n Allegro an d havin g 1. I t i s als o a give n fo r severa l othe r conductors , mos t notabl y Weingartner , Toscanini , Karajan , Szell, as well as for David Epstein, conductor-composer theorist, who i n hi s invaluabl e "Brahm s an d the Mechanism s o f Motion" containe d i n Brahms Studies (Oxford , 1986 ) ha s show n ho w no t onl y the introductio n an d bod y o f th e firs t movemen t bu t al l fou r movement s an d thei r subdivisions can—and accordin g t o him should— relate metronomicall y (pp. 212-13) .

282 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

arrived a t (o r already composed) th e meno allegro coda, fel t tha t th e movemen t needed a n introduction , a s a counterbalanc e t o th e coda— a forma l framing, a s it were , o f th e bod y o f th e movement—bu t i n hi s excitemen t and , fo r al l w e know som e haste , forgo t t o specif y a temp o markin g on th e assumptio n tha t i t would b e clea r t o everyon e tha t hi s retroactiv e poco sostenuto woul d impl y a slightly more sustaine d versio n of the mai n allegro. If we assume tha t a s a possi ble explanatio n an d hypothesis , i t would mea n tha t th e temp o o f the introduc tion's eighth-note s wer e mean t t o b e onl y slightl y slower tha n thos e o f the Allegro, meaning i n turn tha t th e introductor y 6/8 would b e fel t i n 'two', not i n 'six. ' But wha t abou t th e ter m sostenuto itself ? Wha t doe s Brahm s mean? Doe s i t connote onl y th e intende d feelin g and characte r o f the music , o r doe s i t hav e a tempo implicatio n a s well? I t i s my convictio n tha t i t refer s t o bot h temp o an d character, wit h th e emphasis , however , more o n feelin g and character , because , in m y judgment , a s I hav e suggeste d above , Brahm s assumed th e temp o o f th e introduction t o be determined i n relation t o the Allegro. Moreover th e sostenuto character o f the musi c i s re-emphasized an d confirme d quit e specificall y in th e first measure o f the score , mos t particularl y in th e bas s and contrabassoo n part s (adding th e wor d pesante (heavy ) t o th e bas s part) . Ther e Brahm s add s a ti e underneath eac h measure' s si x eighth-notes, ,

a notationa l

character tha t i n itsel f signifie s unequivocall y th e ful l sustainin g o f th e notes . (Hear ho w magnificentl y Stokowski [in hi s 192 7 recording] elicit s from hi s Phil adelphians, especiall y th e basses , a n astonishin g singin g sostenuto, a t th e sam e time avoidin g the usua l overplayin g of the timpan i part. ) Furthe r confirmatio n can b e foun d i n the wor d "legato " i n th e woodwind s and strings , an admonitio n not reall y necessary i n vie w o f Brahms' s lon g slur s i n al l thes e parts . Bu t obvi ously he wante d t o achiev e th e utmos t i n a sustained legato line, b y the wa y not an entirel y eas y thin g t o d o i n th e wind s since , unlik e th e strings , the y hav e to breathe , thu s automaticall y interruptin g th e sustaine d phras e line s her e an d there. In thi s contex t i t is clear t o me tha t th e timpan i par t shoul d als o be playe d i n a sustaine d way , not i n th e horrifi c pounding manne r on e almos t alway s hears. We should not e i n thi s connection tha t th e prevailin g dynamic , inclusiv e o f the timpani, i s f—notff. Thi s i s of considerable importanc e sinc e th e recapitulatio n at m.25 o f this opening phras e i s marked ff. Alas , most recordings do no t achiev e the intende d differenc e i n intensity , because th e openin g eigh t measure s o f the symphony are i n mos t cases already played so loudly that n o contrastin g ff inten sification ca n b e attained . Add to this fact tha t the loude r one play s the opening , the mor e bo w change s i n th e string s and disruptiv e breathing i n th e wind s become necessary . Note als o that Brahms' s ff re-renderin g o f the openin g a t m.2 5 is onl y half the lengt h o f the origina l phrase—surel y no t a n accident . It s shortened for m allow s the passag e to b e playe d a t ful l intensity , 'in on e breath, ' a s it were, perhap s no t literall y bu t figurativel y speaking certainly. Conductors wh o managed t o kee p th e timpan i fro m poundin g f f ar e ver y fe w bu t al l th e mor e

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y

283

worth mentioning : Stokowsk i (1927) , Horenstein , Suitner , Furtwängler , Celibi dache, Skrowaczewski , Leinsdorf, and Toscanini . Returning t o th e openin g measures , a n extraordinar y exampl e o f achievin g that gran d sostenuto/legato lin e I spea k of , ca n b e hear d o n Furtwängler' s Vi enna Philharmoni c recording . Furtwängler , th e maste r o f the 'gran d line, ' coul d within an y given tempo produce a n almos t incredibl e stretch , the ultimat e sostenuto, an d a t hi s best , withou t an y sens e o f draggin g th e tempo , eve n i n hi s famous 'slo w tempos. ' I n hi s jus t mentione d recording , th e firs t eigh t measure s of th e symphon y ar e playe d wit h a dept h o f sound an d a n inexorabl e bea t tha t make thi s passag e a trul y overwhelmin g an d sublim e listenin g experience , a striking exampl e o f ho w a remarkabl e conducto r ca n o n occasio n wit h certai n special gift s b e utterl y convincing, eve n i n wha t by some othe r criteri a migh t b e considered a 'wron g tempo.' If inexorableness of tempo an d bea t i s a performance requisit e i n thes e open ing measures , Ozaw a i n hi s recordin g certainl y misse s th e poin t completely . Starting with a n excellen t temp o o f Jl = 90 , he seem s unabl e t o hol d it , accelerating considerabl y b y th e fourt h measur e an d rushe s eve n furthe r int o m.8 , only to mak e a bi g compensator y ritard i n th e 9/ 8 o f m.9 . One o f the mos t fascinatin g an d origina l aspects o f Brahms's opening idea , so rich i n interpretationa l option s and—therefore—obligations , i s th e horizonta l layering o f two magnificentl y spun-out line s ove r th e sustaine d stationar y pedal point. Brahms , eve r th e grea t contrapuntist , design s tw o majesti c line s i n con trary motion , th e on e —in th e wind s an d violas—descendin g (primarily ) an d harmonized i n thirds and sixths, th e other—i n the violin s an d cellos—risin g and in lea n three-octav e unisons . Th e descendin g win d lin e i s also initiall y cas t i n three octave s bu t i s expande d t o fou r octave s i n th e thir d measur e (Ex.1) . Already thi s contrapunta l stran d take s considerabl e car e o n th e par t o f the con Ex. 1

ductor an d th e win d player s to balance, an d t o balanc e consistentl y throughou t its eigh t measures . Th e flute s ten d t o disappea r durin g the secon d measur e an d pop ou t again , a s i t were , i n th e middl e o f th e thir d measur e a s the y regai n a more favorabl y projectin g register . I n th e meantim e th e bassoon s ar e almos t never hear d i n mos t performances, especially in the thir d through fifth measures where thei r lin e dip s dow n int o a les s projectin g range . (Th e sam e applie s t o the clarinet s i n th e fourt h throug h sixt h measures. ) Al l o f thi s ca n b e easil y

284

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

balanced b y th e player s adjustin g an d compensatin g fo r thei r les s projectin g registers: the flutes , fo r example, maintainin g their f leve l by a subtly compensat ing crescend o i n m. 2 (an d agai n i n th e downwar d octav e jum p i n m.6) , th e bassoons compensatin g i n mm.3-5 . All this carefu l balancin g come s t o naught , however, i f th e timpan i i s allowe d t o poun d awa y with a n all-obliteratin g ff o r fff. I t als o come s t o naugh t whe n th e thir d an d fourt h horn s blas t i n wit h a n over-blown f i n m.7 , totall y unawar e tha t her e the y ar e par t o f th e woodwin d section. Sadly , such dynami c balancing i s almost neve r undertake n —in m y sampling o f fifty-odd recordings o f th e Brahm s Firs t onl y a fe w conductors seeme d to hav e bee n awar e o f this proble m an d a t leas t tried t o dea l wit h i t (Stokowski, Toscanini, Walter , Boult , Skrowaczewski , Haitink, and Suitner) . But th e interna l balancin g o f th e woodwinds , tw o horns , an d viola s i s jus t one-third o f th e proble m i n achievin g a n over-al l orchestra l balanc e i n mm . 1-8. Ther e i s th e matte r o f th e three-octav e strin g lin e i n ascendin g motio n and, o f course , a s th e thir d element , th e C peda l point . Generall y th e thre e string line s (Ex.2 ) balanc e wel l amon g themselves , bu t i n man y orchestra s

Ex. 2

and performance s — especially wit h conductor s wh o continuall y emphasize , i n fact, conduc t onl y the string s at the expens e o f the winds—th e strings overpower and overbalanc e th e wind/viol a line (excep t usuall y for th e horns) . When tha t happens—and i t happen s al l to o ofte n —Brahms's wonderfu l contrary-motio n counterpoint goe s ou t th e window . The los s i s considerable, becaus e no w bot h the excitin g harmonic tension s Brahm s has buil t int o hi s two—actuall y thre e — lines (se e Ex.3a ) an d th e extraordinar y sensation o f th e tw o contrary-motio n lines are all essentially precluded. Th e ric h and wholl y new polyphony achieved here b y Brahm s ca n bes t b e appreciate d i n condense d reductio n (Ex.3a) . Not e Ex. 3 a

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y

285

Ex. 3 b

particularly th e remarkabl y powerfu l harmoni c tensio n (dissonance ) points , marked a ) throug h e ) i n Exx.3 a an d 3b , harmoni c tension s tha t ar e woefull y underplayed o r ignore d i n a vas t majorit y o f performances. 2 Onl y Stokowski , 2. Ove r a lifetim e o f listenin g t o countles s performance s an d recording s o f th e grea t masterpiece s of the Baroque , classical , an d Romanti c literatur e (fro m Bach an d Ramea u t o Brahms an d Tchaikov sky) I hav e notice d th e distressin g habi t o f a n overwhelmin g majorit y o f conductors , performers , soloists—whoever—of suppressin g o r ignorin g th e dissonance s an d harmonic/chromati c tension s i n the music . I t i s as i f they ar e afrai d o f thes e dissonance s —assuming the y ar e eve n awar e o f them— even thoug h suc h dissonance s ar e almos t alway s resolved, an d ar e afrai d o f offendin g th e ear s o f

286 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

among th e earlie r conductors, seeme d to understand (an d hear ) the almos t radical harmoni c inventio n containe d i n Brahms' s masterfu l melodic-contrapunta l construction, whil e amon g present-da y conductor s onl y a fe w (Celibidache , Sanderling, Suitner , Norrington ) see m t o b e awar e o f the importanc e o f thes e harmonic tensio n points . A furthe r exampl e o f Brahms' s masterfu l contrapunta l construction , com bined wit h th e utmos t econom y o f means , ca n b e see n i n th e ver y firs t fou r bars. I n keepin g wit h th e contrar y motio n o f the tw o lines, the thir d an d fourt h bars o f the violi n line ar e a pitc h retrograd e o f the firs t tw o bars of the flut e (G At-A-BI» i n th e violins , Bl>-A-AI>- G i n th e flute) . Th e wonde r o f suc h melodi c manipulations i s that Brahm s does thi s so naturally, so effortlessly—an d I would say, s o unostentatiously—that on e migh t hea r thi s passag e man y times , revelin g in it s wonderfully simpl e tunefulnes s an d emotiona l outpouring , withou t realizing o r hearin g tha t i t i s als o a remarkabl e exampl e o f th e musica l min d an d intellect a t work. It ma y b e clea r b y no w tha t i t i s no t entirel y easy—le t alon e automatic—t o realize th e ful l intention s an d implication s o f Brahms' s majesti c an d wholl y original Firs t Symphon y 'prologue. ' Indeed, it probably ca n onl y be achieve d b y taking the musi c apart , so to speak, dividing it into it s separate components. For , once th e musician s hea r th e thre e strand s o f musi c individually , they wil l quickly hea r an d understan d ho w th e dynami c compensation s an d interna l a s well a s over-al l balance s nee d t o b e adjusted . Thus , havin g th e woodwinds , violas, trumpets , an d thir d an d fourt h horn s pla y mm. l t o 9 alone , correctin g all thos e balance s an d makin g th e necessar y registe r adjustments , the n havin g the violin s an d cello s pla y thei r line s alone , followe d b y puttin g bot h strand s together again , wil l i n al l likelihoo d produc e a well-balance d polyphoni c com posite. I f in the meantim e th e timpan i playe r will have listened t o the foregoin g 'sectional' rehearsing , he o r she will , it is hopeed, also have understoo d ho w an d why Brahms' s wonderfu l textur e ough t no t t o b e drowne d ou t b y a barrag e of pounding timpan i fusillades ; an d wonde r o f wonders , on e ma y the n perhap s even realiz e the possibilit y of actually hearing th e contrabassoon. 3 For al l th e reason s give n earlie r i n thi s study , there shoul d no t b e an y ritardando o r broadening i n m.8—a s s o many conductor s someho w fee l th e nee d t o do. Brahms' s crescend o i s sufficien t t o achiev e th e desire d resul t o f a phras e climax on th e downbea t o f m.9. In m. 9 w e encounter fo r the first time i n thi s study one o f the tw o absolutely most origina l ideas Brahm s contributed t o th e developmen t o f music: th e shift their audiences . This i s as true o f conductors an d orchestra s playing Bach o r Mozar t o r Beethoven , music lade n wit h powerful , pungen t dissonances , a s i t i s o f pianist s playin g Chopin, fo r example , whose richl y chromati c writin g i s almos t alway s suppressed an d conceale d i n favo r o f th e simple r melodic an d harmoni c elements . N o wonde r suc h conductor s canno t dea l wit h 20th-centur y o r atonal music , when the y can't eve n handl e 'dissonances ' i n earlie r music. 3. A s i n th e cas e o f th e Beethove n Fift h recordings , th e contrabassoo n is , wit h bu t a fe w rar e moments, totall y inaudibl e o n al l Brahm s First recordings.

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y

287

ing o r dislocatio n of phrases rhythmically from thei r expecte d metri c placemen t to othe r positions , ver y often displace d b y on e beat. 4 Th e othe r majo r innova tional concep t Brahm s developed—i t als o becam e a virtua l obsessio n wit h him—was the rhythmi c juxtapositio n of triple an d dupl e rhythms , either i n horizontal successio n o r vertical simultaneity. 5 In mm.9-1 8 (Ex.4a) , Brahm s move s hi s motivi c material , whic h wit h an y other compose r (excep t perhap s Beethoven ) woul d hav e bee n writte n simply as in Ex.4b , on e eighth-bea t late r i n th e measure . Thi s an d al l simila r passages —

Ex. 4 a

Ex. 4 b

not onl y i n m.1 3 bu t i n th e man y phrase s shifte d a hal f ba r (mm.51-52,53-56 , 59-63,63-68,145-52,291-320)-are usuall y playe d a s i n Ex.4 c (-> denotin g a stressed beat , ^ a n unstresse d beat) : i n othe r words , a s i f Brahm s ha d writte n the passag e a s i n Ex.4b . Bu t th e fac t i s tha t Brahm s wrot e i t a s i n Ex.4a , b y which h e mean t t o achiev e a quit e differen t effec t tha n tha t whic h result s fro m playing it in the ordinar y version (Ex.4b). We must hear the rhythmi c dislocation Ex. 4 c

in performance , a kin d o f 'syncopation ' o f the phrase , whic h w e wil l definitel y not hea r i f we simply turn th e secon d eighth s o f m.9 and m.1 0 int o downbeats , stressed beats , an d thereb y 'underweight ' th e firs t an d fourt h eighth s i n mm. 9 4. I n thi s respec t Brahm s wa s a forerunne r o f Charles Ivés , whos e fondnes s fo r dis - and mis-placin g themes, melodies, rhythmi c figures , whol e phrases , i s by now legendary . B y the sam e token , Brahm s was not , of course, th e firs t t o explor e metric/rhythmi c beat-shifting . See , for example , th e openin g measures o f the Final e o f Beethoven's Sevent h Symphony . Brahms , however , too k hol d o f this ide a and, i n a n almos t obsessiv e way , made i t int o on e o f hi s principa l modi operandi i n hi s symphoni c and chambe r music . 5. Fo r muc h mor e o n this , se e als o th e succeedin g discussio n o f Brahms's Fourt h Symphony .

288

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

and 10 , which logicall y ar e stresse d beat s inheren t i n a 6/ 8 meter . I t i s incon ceivable tha t Brahms , a t onc e th e mos t rigorou s classicis t an d th e mos t radica l rhythmic an d metri c innovator 6 o f the entir e 19t h century—excep t perhap s for Strauss i n hi s Till Eulenspiegel (se e discussio n o f sam e herein , p.430)—woul d have notate d suc h passage s a s h e di d i f h e mean t the m t o soun d simpl y a s i n Ex.4b. Rather , th e classicis t i n hi m woul d hav e wante d t o preserve th e integrit y and symmetr y of the basi c mete r ( a pendulant 6/ 8 in thi s case) ; while th e rhyth mic innovato r i n hi m wante d t o introduc e a conflictin g rhythmi c force , a coun terweight that woul d stan d i n constan t contentio n wit h th e underlyin g rhythmic/ metric pulse , bu t woul d nonetheles s remai n i n equipois e wit h it , neithe r over whelming th e basi c pulse no r bein g subjugate d b y it.7 In that conceptio n a mor e precisely denne d notatio n woul d b e th e obvers e o f Ex.4c, namel y Ex.4d .

Ex. 4 d

6. Ther e is a passage i n th e Brahm s Fourth Symphony (firs t movement , m . 130-32) that i s as moder n and comple x a s anythin g i n Stravinsky' s Sacre d u Printemps, bu t whic h unfortunatel y ha s t o m y knowledge bee n playe d correctl y (o r eve n ver y close t o correctly ) on onl y on e recording : Skrowac zewski's wit h th e Hall e Orchestra . I have hear d i t playe d correctl y o n a tap e o f a liv e performanc e by th e Harvard-Radcliff e Orchestra , conducte d b y James Yannatos, bu t neve r otherwise . 7. I t i s analogous t o th e situatio n o f a hemiola , th e overla y of thre e binar y entitie s (2/4,2/8,2/2 ) o n two ternar y one s (3/4,3/8,3/2) , which I alway s describe a s a contes t o r a battl e betwee n 'two ' an d 'three', bu t a battl e whic h neithe r sid e wins . Both rhythmi c feelings , the 'two ' an d th e 'three, ' mus t be equall y represented , equall y fel t an d heard , as , fo r exampl e Spanis h an d Mexica n musician s d o as secon d natur e i n thei r nativ e music . Unfortunatel y i n mos t performance s o f Europea n musi c containing hemiolas—fro m Beethove n t o Dvorak and Brahms , and includin g th e Spaniard s and th e 'French Spaniards, ' Chabrie r an d Ravel , all o f whose work s are ric h i n hemiolas—th e 'two's ' always win out , an d th e underlyin g puls e an d mete r ar e constantl y sacrificed . Take, fo r example, Dvorak' s famous Slavonic Dance No J i n C major . Th e firs t eigh t measure s ar e almos t alway s played , eve n by Czech , Slowak , an d Bohemian-traditio n conductor s a s i f Dvora k ha d writte n merel y a serie s of twelve 2/ 4 bars , when , o f course , h e wrot e eigh t 3/ 4 measure s wit h a n overla y o f 2/ 4 phrasing / articulation patterns :

etc. H e di d no t write : etc., bu t that' s ho w th e passag e i s alway s played,

rendering th e tension—th e conflict—betwee n th e ternar y an d th e binar y puls e totall y impotent . The correc t rendition—an d thi s woul d appl y t o man y hundreds o f similar passage s i n th e classica l and Romanti c orchestra l an d chambe r literatur e — is t o mak e clea r both rhythmic/metri c patterns , the 'three ' an d th e 'two. ' B y feeling both , adherin g t o Dvorak' s phrasin g (an d bowing ) an d a t th e same tim e no t losin g th e underlyin g stres s (th e weight ) i n th e secon d an d fourt h bar s o f th e 3/ 4 meter, th e tru e essenc e of the musi c i s imparted. One more , slightl y different bu t related , example: and le t m e sta y with Dvorak . In hi s New World Symphony, ther e ar e passages—ver y ofte n give n t o th e horns—whic h involv e a 3-against- 2 o r 2 against-3 (i. e hemiola ) situation . I n th e thir d movemen t (mm.253-56 ) an d severa l ver y simila r

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y 28

9

I se e i n thi s a n exac t paralle l i n th e real m o f rhyth m an d mete r t o Brahms' s profound commitmen t t o counterpoin t an d polyphony . His metric/rhythmi c displacements an d unexpecte d syncopation s produc e a kin d o f 'rhythmic/metric / agogic counterpoint. ' I t is the vertica l analogue t o the horizonta l aspec t o f linear counterpoint. Jus t as two or more contrapunta l line s inherently produc e t o som e degree o r othe r a conflic t and tensio n betwee n thos e lines , remainin g nonethe less i n a balance d equilibrium , s o Brahms's displace d rhythm s and phrase s pro duce a conflic t an d tensio n betwee n rhyth m an d meter , remaining nonetheless also i n a balance d equilibriu m —or s o they should . To achiev e wha t I believ e i s Brahms' s tru e purpose , t o produc e tha t slightl y uneasy feelin g an d rhythmi c tensio n i n m. 9 an d m . 10 —coming after , le t u s remind ourselves , fifty-on e steady , regular , conventionall y stresse d beat s i n mm. 1-8—all th e conducto r ha s t o tel l th e musician s i s to fee l th e fourt h an d first eighths i n thos e measure s a s stresse d o r stron g beats , an d t o underpla y (o r at leas t no t undul y stress ) th e secon d an d fift h eighths . Th e secon d an d fift h eighths mus t be fel t an d hear d a s gentle, subtl e syncopations comin g of f the first passages w e se e Wha

t w e usuall y hear—indee d

almost alway s —is : a

notatio n Dvora k could hav e

written bu t didn't . Simpl y b y bein g awar e o f the fac t tha t th e underlyin g metri c infrastructur e i s a triple mete r (3/4 ) an d givin g the appropriat e weight (stress , no t accents ) t o th e secon d an d fourt h measures, th e tru e musical/rhythmi c essenc e o f th e passag e wil l b e honored , rathe r tha n a binary falsification. That hor n motiv e firs t appear s i n variou s notationa l guise s i n th e symphony' s firs t move ment introductio n an d Allegro molto. I n th e latte r w e see—agai n i n th e horns — . I wis h tha t Dvora k ha d no t pu t a n accen t („) on th e fourt h note, becaus e i t lead s musician s even mor e t o shapin g th e passag e erroneously , as follows: .

Again, preserving—feeling—the integrity

of th e underlyin g 2/4 wil l guarantee th e righ t interpretatio n i n whic h th e tw o competing rhythmi c feelings wil l both b e honore d an d heard . Staying with thi s theme on e mor e time , on e o f its last appearances—again i n th e horn(s)—occur s in m.26 7 o f the las t movement : . What on e invariabl y hears is

as i f Dvorak had writte n etc

- Gon e i s the pul l o f the synco-

pated against-the-unclerlying-puls e feelin g tha t Dvora k s o ingeniousl y conceived. (Note to o tha t i n such misinterpretations , the eigth-not e rest s in mm.268-6 9 ar e als o throw n to th e winds. )

290 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

and fourt h stronge r beats , instea d o f th e usua l blan d rendition , which , i f no tated, woul d loo k a s follows: ; an

d

Just thinkin g an d feelin g th e 'weight' o f th e firs t an d fourt h beats , eve n whe n tie d ove r (a s i n th e winds) , will produc e th e desire d effec t o f bot h rhythmi c essence s bein g fully , correctl y represented an d respected . Some 'intellectuals ' an d 'theorists, ' inten t o n modernizin g an d updatin g Brahms, wil l wan t t o argu e tha t wha t Brahm s reall y had i n min d wa s an asymmetrical contourin g o f the phras e a s perhaps i n Ex . 5. They wil l als o argu e tha t

Ex. 5

these asymmetrica l patterns ar e i n retrospec t al l the mor e 'exciting ' an d 'logical ' when Brahm s eventually 'straightens out' the rhythms in conformity with the basic meter as in mm. 19-37, letting the rhythms , so to speak, back into the metri c fold . But thi s i s imposing a completel y alie n viewpoin t and aestheti c o n Brahms' s art. For all the darin g and relativ e complexity in his music, he neve r broke out o f the bounds o f his classica l orientation. Indeed , a metri c rethinkin g of the passag e as shown abov e (Ex.5 ) i s much les s interesting , muc h les s 'exciting' tha n Brahms' s highly original—and much mor e subtle and less obvious—conception. In m y samplin g o f nearly fifty recordings o f the Brahm s Firs t ther e wer e only a fe w conductor s wh o seeme d t o b e awar e o f th e rhythmic/metri c issue s jus t raised: Stokowski , Walter, Klemperer , Boult , Horenstein , Haitink , Abbado, Suit ner, an d Skrowaczewski. 8 It i s only i n recen t time s tha t Brahms' s remarkabl e rhythmic/metri c innova tions hav e begu n t o b e assesse d an d understood , however , alas , no t b y an y o f the majo r Brahm s conductor s bu t b y a fe w musicologist/theorists , mos t notabl y Walter Frisc h an d Davi d Epstein. 9 Bu t eve n here , whil e bot h writer s have sin gled ou t an d analyze d fro m a conceptua l poin t o f view some o f Brahms' s mos t radical metrica l displacements , bot h i n hi s chambe r musi c an d hi s symphonie s and songs , neithe r ha s deal t wit h th e questio n o f how t o perform —how t o prop erly realize—thes e metrical/rhythmi c dislocations . 8. Giulin i an d Rowick i really distort this passage beyond al l recognitio n b y delaying the second-bea t At (i n m.9) , Giulin i b y a whole eighth-note beat. 9. Se e Frisch' s "Th e Shiftin g Ba r Line: Metrica l Displacement i n Brahms " an d Epstein' s "Brahm s and th e Mechanism s o f Motion : Th e Compositio n o f Performance" , both i n th e aforementioned Brahms Studies (Oxford , 1990) .

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y

291

I a m quit e convince d tha t Brahms' s metrical/rhythmi c displacement s ar e no t to b e merel y admired intellectually , analyze d conceptually , bu t ar e i n fac t t o b e made audibl e i n performance . I must digres s temporarily to dea l wit h this point , for t o m y knowledg e i t ha s neve r bee n examine d i n writing , let alon e explore d in performance . First t o reall y understan d full y wha t Brahms' s rhythmi c innovation s i n th e realm o f 'metrical displacement' comprise , first we must remin d ourselve s of two essential points : one , tha t i n th e classica l Europea n traditio n ther e exist s in an y metric desig n (4/ 4 o r 3/ 4 or eve n 2/4 ) a hierarch y o f weights and stresses . (I t is incorrect t o cal l thes e 'accents' ; perhap s 'emphases ' o r 'stresses ' ar e th e bette r and mor e neutra l terms. ) I n tha t hierarchy , bea t 'one ' i n a 4/4 measur e ha s th e strongest weight and emphasis , followe d in declinin g orde r by beats 'three,' 'two,' and 'four.' 10 Tha t wa s th e basi s o f al l classica l metri c conceptions , a traditio n which Brahm s inherite d an d strongl y adhered to , an d whic h h e sa w as the un shakable foundatio n o f all musica l structuring . Also, w e shoul d realiz e that i t make s absolutel y n o sens e fo r Brahms to hav e written hi s man y phras e displacement s i f h e ha d no t mean t somethin g mor e special, somethin g different , tha n merel y havin g th e phras e appea r on e bea t earlier (o r later, o r whatever the degre e o f displacement.) An d h e wa s surely not interested i n merel y composin g a serie s o f uneven , irregular , asymmetrica l subphrases, delineate d i n divers e metric durations . This is proven by at least two facts: First that he di d not write a series of irregular meters, say, a sequence o f 4/4 5/4 - 4/4 - 4/4, a s he migh t have done (bu t didn't) i n the first four bar s of the slow movement o f hi s Secon d Symphon y (se e Ex.6) . Th e 5/ 4 mete r a s a rhyth -

10. W e sa w in th e chapte r o n Beethoven' s Fift h Symphon y tha t thi s applie s a s well t o four-measure groupings—what Schenke r calle d "Viertaktigkeit " an d Davi d Epstei n ha s calle d th e "hyper measure"—substituting onl y th e wor d 'measure ' fo r th e wor d "beat. "

292

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

mic notatio n wa s certainl y availabl e t o hi m b y 1877 ; i t wa s bot h a technical / notational an d conceptua l optio n fo r him . Bu t changin g meter s wa s not wha t interested Brahms , fo r tha t woul d onl y produc e a horizonta l linea r effect , whereas wha t Brahm s wa s fascinate d wit h an d constantl y strivin g fo r wa s th e vertical (therefor e polyphonic ) interpla y o f line s an d rhythms . H e coul d no t have foun d i n 187 7 a metri c desig n t o accommodat e a passag e lik e th e on e i n the developmen t sectio n o f the Secon d Symphony' s firs t movemen t (mm . 135 152, se e Ex.7a) . That i s to say , if he ha d wante d th e thre e strand s o f polyphon y to be fel t an d hear d i n a metri c desig n correspondin g t o the notate d phras e slurs and ties—an d a s they ar e alway s played—then h e woul d hav e ha d t o hav e written th e passag e i n polymetri c notatio n (as , fo r example, i n Ex.7b) . Bu t this was not a technical/notational optio n availabl e to him . Ex. 7 a (mm

. 136-40)

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y

293

Ex. 7 b

Second, i f we tak e int o accoun t th e harmoni c structurin g in thi s passage, an d try someho w t o justif y a n irregula r metric sequenc e (as , fo r instance , i n Ex.7b ) in relatio n t o it s harmonic sequenc e (i.e . toni c an d othe r degre e positions) , w e still wil l fin d littl e congruenc e o f mete r an d harmony , fo r thes e element s ar e operating o n thei r ow n separat e tim e tracks . The significan t harmoni c stations , i.e. th e mai n audibl e harmoni c stres s points , a s compose d b y Brahms , ar e als o out o f phase wit h th e metri c structuring . Furthermore , t o unancho r th e passag e even more , t o mak e i t eve n mor e harmonicall y ambivalent , Brahm s introduce s the A t i n th e strings ' melodi c lines , where mos t ordinar y composer s woul d hav e used a n Ab, the Al t i n thi s context materiall y undermining th e prevalen t E majo r tonality. In th e end , w e have t o rul e ou t al l o f these othe r possibilities , because al l th e internal evidenc e offere d b y th e man y passage s o f metrica l displacemen t scat tered throughou t Brahms' s work s demonstrate s tha t wha t Brahm s wa s afte r wa s to creat e a tension , a tu g o f war , a s i t were , betwee n th e actua l hear d rhyth m and phrase , an d th e underlyin g metri c pulse . I n addition , th e harmoni c desig n might ofte n als o be i n a stat e o f tension—and contention—wit h bot h th e rhyth mic an d metri c design , creating , i n othe r words , three line s o f polyphonic ten sion.

294

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

When thes e passage s are playe d i n suc h a way as to preserve th e integrit y and feeling o f the underlyin g metri c structuring , tha t is , 4/4 i n th e slo w movemen t of th e Secon d Symphony , 3/ 4 i n th e firs t movement , th e musi c i s transformed into somethin g totally different : imaginative , original , and exciting , no t ordinary, routine, an d prosaic , as one usuall y hears it . I cit e on e mor e relativel y simple bu t nonetheles s ver y strikin g Brahmsian example o f rhythmic shifting , because i t is so prototypical (countles s simila r exam ples ca n b e foun d i n man y othe r work s o f Brahms) . I t come s fro m Brahms' s Horn Trio , Op . 40 , i n th e ver y openin g o f the work , wher e th e chorda l pian o accompaniment to , first, the violin , and then , the horn , i s for 1 6 measures con sistently se t o n th e secon d bea t (i n a 2/ 4 meter) . Th e confusin g and unsettle d feeling thi s them e statemen t generates—al l th e mor e unsettlin g an d confusin g when i t i s played incorrectly—result s fro m th e fac t tha t th e singl e note s o f th e violin (an d horn ) o n th e downbeat s ar e oppose d b y th e weightie r six - or seven part quarter-not e chord s Brahm s ha s placed o n th e second , presumabl y weaker, beats. Bu t i f Brahms wanted th e musi c t o soun d a s i t i s almost alway s rendere d (as i n Ex.Sa) , then surel y Brahms would hav e writte n i t as in Ex . 8b . Bu t h e

Ex. 8 a

Ex. 8 b did not . Wha t Brahms actuall y wrot e is : etc

- an d

therefore b y n o logi c know n t o m e shoul d thi s them e b e 'interpreted ' i n suc h a simplisti c wa y a s i n Ex.S a o r Ex.Sb . I t i s relativel y easy t o achiev e th e cor rect subtl e balanc e o f weight s an d stresse s b y havin g th e violinist—an d late r the hornist—gentl y emphasiz e th e downbea t feelin g (an d i t i s enough t o thin k it an d fee l it) , whil e a t th e sam e tim e havin g th e pianis t pla y th e secon d beat chord s wit h a ligh t 'lifted ' touch , feelin g th e passag e a s a constan t un resolved chai n o f anacruses . Thes e pian o chord s shoul d no t 'sit'—an d cer tainly no t heavily—bu t shoul d 'float. ' Wit h jus t tha t muc h subtl e adjustin g and reorientatio n o n th e par t o f th e thre e players , a whol e ne w wondrou s rhythmic/expressive world opens up , on e that , onc e heard, i s truly unforgettable. In suc h a renderin g withou t an y tremendou s effor t o r rewriting , both Brahms' s 2/4 puls e an d hi s rhythmi c dislocation s ar e honore d an d mad e movingl y audible.

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y 29

5

I g o s o fa r a s t o sugges t tha t th e term s 'metrica l ambiguity ' an d 'harmoni c ambiguity,' a s use d b y Frisch , Epstein , an d othe r writers , are incorrect , tha t is, they d o no t appl y t o Brahms' s music . 'Ambivalent, ' yes , bu t 'ambiguous, ' no . There i s to m y eye s an d ear s nothin g ambiguou s abou t Brahms' s rhythmi c dis placements, no r i s the ter m 'metrica l displacement ' entirel y correc t o r applica ble. I t i s not tha t th e metri c desig n i s displaced o r dislocated ; i t i s the rhythmic shapes, phrases , and pattern s whic h ar e dislocate d over an inviolat e and immuta ble regula r metric sequence . I t i s the tension(s ) between an d amon g thos e con tending force s tha t Brahm s wishe s to express , and thi s does , o f course, resul t i n a degre e o f ambivalence. Bu t ambivalenc e suggest s a condition i n whic h on e o r more options , on e o r mor e understandings , on e o r mor e feelings , co-exis t co equally, an d whic h therefor e mus t b e interprete d an d realize d co-equally . Thi s in tur n mean s tha t tw o opposin g rhythmic/metri c force s ar e t o b e hear d an d made audibl e i n intimate , inseparabl e equipoise . I t i s i n thi s wa y that Brahm s so ingeniousl y and imaginativel y managed t o clin g t o earlie r classica l traditions while a t th e sam e tim e dramaticall y renewin g an d re-interpretin g thos e tradi tions i n wholl y new expressiv e ways. I a m no t generall y give n t o hermeneuti c interpretations , t o superimposin g onto music—leas t o f al l Brahms' s musi c —extraneous, extra-musica l scenarios . But i t i s fascinating to speculat e tha t th e ambivalenc e on e find s i n s o muc h o f his musi c i s i n itsel f a reflectio n o f the varie d an d myria d ambivalence s whic h we kno w b y al l account s wer e a n intrinsi c aspec t o f his personality , manifestations o f whic h ra n a s a constan t threa d throughou t hi s entil e life . Th e storie s documenting Brahms' s ambivalence o f feelings, of commitments, i n makin g decisions, are legion. 11 I cite onl y two which ar e especiall y fascinating and, I think, especially relevan t t o matter s musical . I t i s well know n b y now tha t Brahm s late in lif e agree d t o mak e a cylinde r recordin g fo r th e Ediso n Company . A n eye witness account o f the even t reports that a t the appointe d tim e fo r the recording , Brahms, i n a ver y agitated mood , a t first refused t o participate , but a shor t tim e later, suddenl y sa t dow n a t th e piano , impatientl y wantin g t o begi n recording , when al l the technica l preparation s necessary for making th e recordin g ha d no t yet been completed. 12 A secon d strikin g example o f Brahmsia n ambivalenc e i s hi s obsessiv e desire on th e on e han d t o achiev e position s o f prominence i n Hambur g an d Vienna , but o n th e othe r hand , whe n accorde d suc h position s (directo r o f the Wiene r Singakademie o r the venerabl e Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde , for example), h e resigned soo n afte r acceptin g th e appointments . Simila r examples , bot h i n hi s personal an d professiona l life , abound , especiall y i n hi s attitud e toward s mar riage an d femal e companionship . 11. Se e an y majo r Brahm s biograph y (Geiringer , Kalbeck , Schauffler , Specht ) bu t especiall y Kar l Geiringer's articl e "Brahms th e Ambivalent " i n Brahms Newsletter, Vol . I , No. 2 , (Autum n 1983) . 12. I am indebte d fo r this accoun t to George Bozarth , who i n tur n drew upon th e memoir s (Klänge um Brahms) b y Richar d Fellinger, th e so n o f Brahms's Viennese friend s a t whos e hom e th e Ediso n recording wa s mad e i n 1889 . (Se e "Brahm s o n Record, " i n Brahms Newsletter, Vol . VI , (Sprin g 1987), p.5.)

296 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Since grea t creativ e artist s reflect in thei r ar t their personalitie s an d characte r traits intimately—th e greater the artis t the mor e directly and intimatel y are thes e reflected—is i t no t possibl e t o thin k tha t Brahms' s penchan t fo r structura l eli sion, evasive modulations, harmonic/metric incongruence , disguised cadences — his entir e arsena l o f rhythmic/metric permutations an d shiftings—ar e al l i n sub tly varie d way s direc t reflection s o f hi s menta l an d emotiona l attitudes ? Th e miracle o f Brahms' s ar t i s that, althoug h h e wa s i n muc h o f hi s lif e unabl e t o reconcile th e contradiction s i n hi s characte r an d attitude s i n hi s persona l life , in hi s musi c h e wa s abl e t o achiev e a remarkabl e symbiosi s of opposite s an d conflicts, o f old an d new , o f traditional an d innovative—th e "classica l Romanti cist," a s Wagner calle d him . Brahms's metric/rhythmic ambivalenc e i s just one aspec t of his rhythmic innovations. While this concept of rhythmic-to-metric counterpoint i s based on a regular, steady underlying pulse, Brahms achieves rhythmic and continuity flexibility — speed modulations , as it were—by frequently (throughout hi s work) changing th e amount o f rhythmic activity within the ba r and/or withi n the beat . A t such time s the musi c completel y change s i n character—withou t the basi c pulse itsel f being altered. (Fo r a striking example, se e Ex.12 in the discussio n of the Brahm s Fourth and the surrounding commentary. Se e also footnote 46 below, p. 356) . By thes e mean s Brahm s achieve s fluctuation s an d modification s o f motio n without resortin g t o ritard s and accelerandos . Th e motio n (speed ) o f the musi c remains unde r hi s contro l b y virtu e o f th e steadines s o f the underlyin g pulse , beat, an d meter . Bu t thi s mean s i n tur n tha t w e a s interpreter s ma y no t willy nilly chang e th e basi c tempo, and , a s I've sai d before , no t slo w down th e basi c tempo whe n Brahm s ha s alread y decrease d th e amoun t o f rhythmi c activity . This i s especiall y mandator y whe n th e underlyin g puls e happen s t o b e silent ; then th e audibl e surfac e o f the musi c ha s change d (slowed ) while th e underly ing puls e an d feelin g o f th e musi c remain s constant , an d remain s unde r Brahms's contro l —or s o i t should , an d woul d i f conductor s coul d lear n thi s basic lesson . Thi s als o explains wh y Brahm s ha s s o few ritardondos an d accele randos i n hi s music , especiall y his symphonies . To retur n t o the Brahm s First musica l example s cite d earlier , i t is quite possible—indeed, readil y so wit h a littl e extr a rehearsa l effort—t o d o justic e t o an d render audibl e both the rhythmi c dislocation s an d their underlyin g metric pulse . Anyone wh o ha s no t hear d th e remarkabl e expressiv e effect tha t result s fro m a balanced, equipoise d realizatio n o f thes e opposing , eve n colliding , rhythmic / metric an d harmoni c force s probably cannot imagin e ho w exciting , how powerful—and ho w right—suc h realization s sound. Unfortunatel y the reade r will find it difficul t t o hea r suc h o n recordings , sinc e ther e ar e ver y fe w conductor s re cording Brahm s symphonies wh o hav e understoo d thi s fundamenta l premis e of Brahms's art , an d therefor e ver y fe w recording s o n whic h it s Tightnes s ca n b e assessed or , fo r that matter , argued—an d eve n amon g thos e fe w there ar e non e which ar c entirel y consisten t i n renderin g thi s aspec t o f Brahms' s ar t uner ringly. The nex t interpretation/performanc e problem i n th e symphony' s first movement occur s i n m.15 , wher e mos t conductor s allo w (o r elicit ) a prematur e and

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y

297

exaggerated crescendo , reachin g th e f o f m . 19 i n m.17 , thereb y destroyin g Brahms's intende d asymmetrica l arching shap e (Fig . 1) . Care mus t b e take n tha t th e crescendo/diminuend o wedges i n

Fig. 1

mm. 15-16 no t b e exaggerate d an d tha t th e diminuend o hal f o f this expressive nuancing return s th e dynami c t o p . Wha t usuall y happen s instea d migh t b e rendered i n notatio n a s (Ex.9) . Thi s is , o f course , onc e agai n par t o f a

Ex. 9 m.15

much large r widesprea d an d long-standin g 'interpretational ' problem , namely , the world-wid e epidemi c o f makin g prematur e and/o r exaggerate d crescendos , basically renderin g al l rea l climaxe s anti-climaxes , undercuttin g thei r rea l in tended impact . I t seems t o be typica l of human nature—musician s an d conduc tors included—t o b e generall y unabl e t o resis t thes e temptation s t o overstate . And yet , I kno w fro m man y persona l experience s tha t i f a conducto r insist s firmly on controllin g th e pacin g an d curvatur e o f crescendos (th e sam e ca n b e said abou t diminuendos)—als o controllin g hi s ow n baton/technica l pacing — such nuance s ca n b e rendered accurately , feelingl y and , i n the end , muc h mor e effectively tha n i s typically the case . As a 20th-centur y compose r composin g i n a n atonal , highl y chromati c lan guage, an d bein g deepl y awar e o f th e innovation s o f m y creativ e precursors , among the m Brahm s an d Schönber g (th e latte r bein g a s muc h influence d b y the forme r as he wa s by Wagner), I am fascinate d by the wide-rangin g chromaticism o f the melodi c lin e betwee n m. 9 and m . 19—only one o f hundreds of such passages i n Brahms' s oeuvre. As shown i n Ex.10 , al l twelv e pitche s o f th e chro matic scal e ar e touched , no t i n absolut e succession , o f course , a s i n a twelve tone o r seria l work, but nonetheles s clearl y heading i n suc h a direction : eleve n pitches i n all , the onl y pitch no t represente d bein g A.

Ex. 1 0

Similarly, harmonically the passag e moves around chromatically in a way that one woul d not find , fo r example, in Beethove n o r Schuber t or eve n Schumann , but whic h agai n presage s wha t earl y 20th-centur y composer s lik e Rege r an d Schönberg—not t o mentio n Brahms' s arc h rival , Wagner—di d a s a matte r o f

298

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Fig. 2 m.9/10

m.ll

m.12

m.13/14

G-9

D b7Qb

D° B b7 D° C m

G D b ° (implied C~ 9 )

m.15

m.16

m.17

b7

7

Qb7

Cb

G° E Fm

A° F G m

m.18 b

m.19 7

B° A D ° G A

b

Db

course (Fig . 2) . Nearl y twent y differen t chords—harmoni c stations—ar e passe d through i n th e shor t span o f only ten measures . Particularly striking is the abrup t dramatic mov e fro m G majo r t o Dl > diminishe d (wit h th e implie d C dominan t minor ninth) , th e modernit y o f which (fo r its time) ha s bee n los t t o mos t con temporary ear s with over-familiarity . Almost everyon e get s th e wonderfu l magica l momen t a t m.2 1 right—th e p p filled with a sense o f mystery—but troubl e start s again a t m.23 , where to o man y conductors accelerat e th e temp o (als o indulgin g i n a prematur e crescendo) , only t o slo w up dramaticall y in m.24 , befor e th e f f o f m.25 . Th e wors t o f thes e unwanted an d unnecessar y ritardando s were perpetrate d b y Muti, Giulini , an d Bernstein. Oddl y enough , goin g quit e agains t th e norma l trend , Klempere r and Stokowski actuall y accelerated th e temp o i n m.24 , arrivin g at a suddenl y faste r tempo i n m.25 . Ho w effectiv e th e passag e ca n b e withou t ritardand o o r accele rando can b e hear d o n th e recording s o f Furtwängler (surprise!) , Toscanini, Hor enstein, Skrowaczewski , and Walter . At mm.25-28 , a shortene d an d slightl y re-orchestrate d recapitulatio n o f th e symphony's opening , no w situated o n th e dominan t o f the bas e key , we encoun ter anothe r on e o f Brahms's mos t darin g harmonic utterances . I mea n th e clas h of th e peda l poin t G wit h th e Ct t mino r harmon y a t th e beginnin g o f m.26 , more powerfu l an d terrifyin g tha n th e paralle l plac e i n m . 2—more powerfu l because thi s tim e th e trumpet s ar e brough t i n t o sustai n th e G i n th e uppe r range agains t th e alie n C t mino r (Ex.11) . Unfortunately , ver y fe w conduc -

Ex. 1 1

tors an d orchestra s are eve n awar e o f thi s moment , le t alon e exploi t it . I t i s important no t t o le t th e trumpet s diminuend o o n thei r sustaine d G's . Ho w extraordinary and overwhelmin g in it s expressive power this passage can soun d can

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y 29

9

at leas t b e savore d i n Järvi' s recordin g wit h th e Londo n Symphony , Suitner' s with the Berli n Staatskapelle , Lehel's with the Budapes t Philharmonic, an d Fur twängler's wit h th e Vienn a Philharmonic . Le t u s als o not e i n passin g Brahms' s unusual crossin g o f line s a t m.2 7 i n th e violas , second violins , an d cellos , th e latter tw o suddenl y droppin g down a n octave , th e viola s contraril y jumpin g up a n octave . Norringto n ruin s thi s magnificen t four-ba r passag e entirel y b y adding—God know s whence h e go t this ide a —a bi g diminuend o i n th e string s in m.2 6 (thereb y totally vitiating the Ct t minor/G 1! harmonic clash) , followe d in quic k succession b y a swoopin g crescendo, a p subito an d another crescendo , al l o f thes e no t eve n remotel y indicated (o r intended) b y Brahms. The res t of Brahms's introductio n present s no particular performance problems , and i s generally played well, comme i l faut, excep t perhap s for the fina l tw o bars (m.36-37), where many conductors make a ritardando—often a n excessive one. It is bette r t o kee p thes e bar s i n tempo , particularl y if one i s inten t o n showin g a tempo relatio n betwee n th e introductio n an d th e mai n Allegro part of the move ment (as discussed and suggeste d earlier) . Many conductors als o make suc h an excessive diminuendo i n m.36-37 that the resolution to G major in the final measure of the introductio n i s virtually inaudible. Brahms's dynamic is pp i n m.34, and, of course, h e coul d easil y have asked for a further diminuendo an d marke d the final notes ppp. Bu t he did not, and thus it is incumbent o n conductors an d performer s not to fade away to virtual silence for some obvious 'audience effect.' Fo r as they do so, they destroy th e lin k to the main Allegro which in turn vitiates the whole point of the introduction: it doesn't 'introduce' the main body of the movement, but ends up being an independent close d movement , disconnecte d fro m the whole. After th e gentl e resignatio n o f the fina l introductor y bars , th e ensuin g ff allegro (m.38-41 ) burst s upo n ou r ear s wit h a powe r an d explosivenes s that mus t have bee n a real shocker i n Brahms' s ow n time. 13 One ca n readil y imagine why Brahms o n secon d though t fel t thi s burs t o f f f wa s to o abrup t an d abrasiv e a start fo r hi s symphon y an d thu s adde d th e introduction . I t i s a dramati c cal l t o action, an d wha t remarkable action s an d activitie s it now summon s forth ! If w e didn' t kno w th e introductio n wa s compose d afte r th e Allegro ha d been finished , w e woul d assum e th e risin g chromati c motiv e a t m.3 8 :t the violins and cellos course, th e case .

o b e a varian t of the movement' s firs t tw o bar s i n (mm. 1-2). The reverse is, of

13. A s explosive and powerfu l a s thi s passage is , care should b e take n tha t th e tw o horn s no t over power th e woodwinds , but rathe r blen d wit h them. Fa r too man y performances (and recordings) are marred her e b y overl y rambunctiou s moder n hornist s who , seein g onl y th e f f i n thei r part s an d paying n o min d t o th e fac t tha t the y ar e playin g wit h woodwinds , enter th e fra y wit h a (misplaced and mindless ) vengeance .

300 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Performance problem s aboun d here , mostl y unsolve d o r misinterpreted , i n the grea t majorit y o f sample d recordings . Take , fo r instance , th e progressio n from f throug h piu fio ff—so typicall y Beethovenian—in th e string s i n mm . 42-51. I n nin e ou t o f te n performance/recording s th e strings—eithe r permit ted o r urge d o n b y their conductors—plo w int o th e risin g figure at ful l til t an d : wit h a n aggressive , har d soun d — simply continuin g th e previou s ff— that , o f course , permit s n o dynami c aug mentation a t m.4 6 an d m.51 . Therefor e ther e i s n o growth , n o intensifica tion, paralle l to the harmoni c expansion , in th e entir e passage . I t is just boringly loud, stuc k o n it s ff plateau . Notably , Stokowski , Weingartner, Toscanini , va n Beinum, Kondrashin , Abravanel , Jochum , Järvi , an d abov e all , Suitner , ar e among th e fe w conductors wh o go t thi s passage an d it s subtle dynami c distinc tions right . Another, eve n mor e challenging , performanc e proble m i s th e necessit y o f observing an d dealin g practically with Brahms' s amazingly varied phrase-endin g release notes—al l o f this unobserve d o r consciousl y ignore d b y almos t al l con ductors. Thes e release s com e i n al l 'shape s an d sizes' , J ^ (a s in m.51) , J (a s in mm.44,52, an d 171) , j (a s in m.7 4 i n th e woodwind s o r m.195) , an d eve n J " (m.263 i n th e strings ) and ß (m.33 7 i n th e strings) . Not onl y doe s Brahm s con stantly mak e thes e articulatio n distinction s throughou t th e movemen t wit h re markable consistency , bu t h e frequentl y differentiate s wit h differen t articulation s between, say , strings an d woodwind s (a s i n mm.63 , 74 , an d mos t importan t i n mm.90 an d 91) . Thes e ar e fascinatin g examples o f ho w meticulousl y an d pre cisely Brahm s marke d hi s scores , an d conductor s wh o simpl y willfull y chang e or ignor e thes e marking s are conductor s withou t any artistic integrit y or musica l imagination. Even Brahms' s meticulousl y marke d score s are , o f course, no t withou t nota tional ambiguitie s an d discrepancie s whic h ca n confoun d eve n th e mos t intelli gent an d exactin g minds . Fo r example , wha t doe s Brahm s mea n b y th e mark ing I s th e Bl > t o b e re-articulated , o r i s i t t o b e slurre d into bu t the n playe d staccato , i.e . short ? Withou t bein g able t o consul t Brahm s in perso n an d withou t access t o the autograp h scor e w e cannot b e sure . Bu t my sense i s that th e tw o notes shoul d b e slurred , primaril y because tha t i s how the y appear i n thei r origina l formulatio n i n m.ll . Ther e i s world-wid e confusio n about thi s phrase markin g among no t only composers bu t musi c editors , engravers, an d publishers , wit h th e resul t tha t n o on e seem s t o kno w wit h certaint y how to interpre t such notations , particularly when the y can yiel d different inter pretations betwee n strin g an d win d players . For the forme r the y ca n hav e bow ing a s well a s merely articulative or phras e implications . Fo r the latte r the y ca n have particula r tonguin g implications . I hav e an eas y solution and suggestio n to mak e o n thi s point, on e tha t I have

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y

301

used i n m y own scores fo r many years. It is to put th e do t between th e en d o f the slur an d th e notehea d i f the ne w not e i s to be separatel y articulate d (tongue d i n d t o pu t th e do t above the slur , away fro m

the cas e o f the winds ) an

the notehead , i f the ne w not e i s to b e slurre d int o The usuall y meticulously precis e Brahm s i s inconsistent i n thi s respect , a s are most composer s pas t an d present , everybod y assuming tha t someho w performers can deduc e th e righ t articulation fro m th e musica l context . While this is often th e case, there ar e far too many instances i n the literatur e where i t is quite impossible to tell whic h articulatio n the compose r reall y intended, wher e bot h basi c ways — articulated or non-articulated (slurred)—are possibilities. Not onl y i s Brahms' s autograp h scor e inconsisten t i n thes e respects , bu t s o are al l printe d score s o f th e symphony , mor e o r les s followin g Brahms' s mark ings, an d i n some cases , t o mak e matter s worse , adding stil l differen t articulatio n variations. Stayin g fo r the momen t onl y wit h Brahms' s Firs t Symphony , le t m e point ou t th e followin g examples in which th e phrasing/articulation—an d i n th e case of the string s therefore also the bowing—ar e not unequivocally clear, and in deed ar e either interprete d variousl y or in oppositio n t o Brahms's apparent inten tions. In th e firs t movement , apar t fro m th e passag e alread y referre d t o (mm . 54-66, an d it s paralle l place , mm.355-67) , conside r th e followin g exam ples: mm.73-74 (uppe r woodwinds) ,

m.194 (winds ) mm.321-2

(strings) bu

but i n th e bassoons :

6

t i n woodwind s on e ba r earlie r w e see : while i n th e sam e measur e i n cello s an d basse s we see : m.337 (woodwind s an d strings) , similarl y m.33 4 an d m.339 :

In th e secon d movemen t w e fin d th e unusua l markin g

302

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

(in th e firs t violins ) i n mm.9-1 1 an

d i n mm . 115-16

1.

also identicall y i n th e wood 2.

winds i n mm . 121-22. Jus t ho w confuse d performer s are , i s show n b y th e fac t that i n th e majorit y o f performances an d recording s th e violin s re-articulate th e B an d A t i n mm . 115-16 (bu t no t o n Weingartner' s an d Celibidache's) , wherea s the woodwind s usuall y slur int o thos e note s i n mm . 121-22. In th e fourt h movemen t we see in mm . 129-30 i n the string s

and i n mm . 176, 178 , 17 9 (and it s parallel place , mm.360 , 362 , 363) .

From al l thi s 'evidence ' on e ca n se e wh y interpretation s can—an d do—var y considerably, althoug h certai n 'traditions ' hav e evolved , wit h wind s interpretin g these notation s mostl y on e wa y (slurred an d short) , string s variously , dependin g on dynamics , durationa l values , a concertmaster' s decision , whil e mos t conduc tors stan d by , either unabl e t o refere e th e questio n or , i n mos t cases , eve n un aware o f a problem . I d o no t preten d t o kno w unequivocall y wha t i n eac h instanc e i s the correc t interpretation. Bu t a t leas t w e shoul d b e awar e tha t ther e i s a proble m her e which need s t o b e give n ver y seriou s thought . Wha t make s n o sens e t o m e is, fo r example , t o hav e th e wind s tongu e th e eighth-note s i n mm . 54-66 (firs t movement), bu t t o slu r them , give n th e sam e notation , i n mm.121-2 2 o f th e second movement . In an y case , th e phrasin g i n mm.54-6 6 tha t ha s bee n almos t universall y adapted i s th e separated , newl y articulate d one . I n m y samplin g o f recordings

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHONY

303

only Stokowsk i an d Rowick i slurre d th e tw o notes , whic h i s i n m y vie w th e correct realization . It i s reall y ba d whe n th e violins , fo r example , pla y i n mm . 5 3-5 5 a s fol lows or

, wors e yet ,

My suggestio n fo r a bowin g whic h retain s th e slurrin g I believ e Brahm s in tended, a s well a s helping t o preserv e th e integrit y o f the basi c binar y meter is :

Another no t easil y solvabl e proble m i s caused b y the discrepanc y i n notatio n between m.51-5 2 i n th e expositio n an d m.352-5 3 i n th e recapitulation . I n th e latter instanc e Brahm s write s unde r eac h pai r of notes, but no t s o in th e exposition.14 Which i s right? Or ar e bot h right ? It is a crucia l question , no t onl y per se , bu t i t impinge s o n th e large r issu e raise d befor e o f ho w t o dea l wit h Brahms's penchan t fo r off-bea t o r syncopate d phrasings . Fo r i f a diminuend o i s made i n m . 51 of f the secon d beat , the n i t will be extremel y difficul t t o maintai n a sens e o f the underlyin g 6/ 8 mete r i n th e nex t an d succeedin g measures . The ter m "pesante " i n m.6 0 an d m.6 4 (meaning , o f course , heavy , weighty ) implies a s wel l tha t th e dotte d quarter s shoul d b e playe d i n a ver y sustaine d manner. In m.6 3 Brahms' s più f shoul d undoubtedl y rea d sempre ff, a pi ù f necessaril y driving th e dynami c u p t o fff instea d o f Brahms's /fi n m.68 . Before w e mov e o n t o th e nex t sectio n o f th e Allegro's exposition , le t u s note—and appreciate—th e remarkable harmoni c progressio n (mm.59-69) , inge niously returnin g u s t o th e toni c key , surel y startlin g i n it s tim e bu t rendere d almost routin e fo r modern ear s by constant re-hearin g (se e Ex.12) .

Ex. 1 2

14. Thes e tw o measure s are, o f course, a variatio n o f mm.9-10, jus t a s the entir e sectio n fro m m. 9 to abou t m.1 6 i s brought bac k and reconstitute d in m.5 1 t o abou t m.67 .

304

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

In th e entir e sectio n betwee n m.7 0 an d m.11 4 th e articulatio n question s I raised befor e ar e o f paramount importanc e an d mus t b e rigorousl y observed, a s opposed t o th e indiscriminat e changin g an d ignorin g o f Brahms' s distinctions . Particularly importan t i s the retentio n o f Brahms's clea r differentiatio n between woodwinds an d string s i n mm.90-98 . That these ar e no t som e accidenta l differ ences—much les s something tha t ca n arbitraril y be change d a t a given maestro' s discretion —should b e clea r fro m th e fac t tha t Brahms' s indication s her e ar e absolutely consisten t an d logical . Th e string s and bras s i n combinatio n alternat e with th e woodwinds , so that when th e forme r hav e a ful l quarter-note , th e latte r have sharpl y articulate d shor t eighth-notes , an d vic e versa . Th e sustainin g o f the quarter-note s i s especially crucia l whe n th e othe r instrumenta l choi r ha s a dissonance agains t th e basi c chord , e.g . th e woodwinds ' A t agains t th e G chor d (m.90), th e C agains t Bl > i n m.92 , th e & agains t D majo r i n m.94 , etc . Th e only conductors , a s fa r a s I ca n tell , wh o ar e awar e o f thes e notationa l an d harmonic distinction s ar e Stokowsk i (1927 ) an d Celibidache . In man y edition s th e accen t (> ) fo r th e strings ' Cl > i n m.9 9 i s missing . I t i s meant to b e a slightl y milde r versio n o f the s f i n m.97 . Great car e mus t b e take n tha t th e violins ' pizzicato s i n mm . 105-109 b e well heard , especiall y th e lower-pitche d notes . Th e ful l realizatio n o f this , once again , wondrou s harmoni c progressio n (Ex.13 ) depend s o n th e correc t

Ex. 1 3

balancing o f both th e pizzicato s an d th e win d chord s which , followin g th e first violins' risin g intervals , also mov e upward s i n fourth s an d fifths :

The pizzicato s o f th e secon d violin s i n m.11 4 an d m.11 6 agains t th e thir d

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y 30

5

horn's Bl>' s ar e equall y important , a s are th e ensuin g A' s in th e firs t violin s an d cellos i n mm.117—118 . Th e horns ' unusua l fifth s i n m.11 4 an d m.11 6 als o should no t b e playe d to o softly , to o blandly , bu t instea d perhap s eve n wit h a gently swingin g accent , fo r the y ar e th e note s fro m whic h th e woodwind s 'bounce off. ' In orde r fo r on e o f th e firs t movement' s mai n theme s t o b e properl y heard , appearing no w i n th e cello s a t m.121 , th e woodwind s and horn s mus t no t pla y too loud , o r crescend o to o much . Th e wind s shoul d no t reac h thei r f unti l m.128, whe n —interestingly—the string s hav e alread y begun thei r diminuendo . This i s what th e scor e prescribes ; n o recordin g o r performanc e tha t I kno w o f has eve r observe d thi s ver y specia l an d remarkabl e nuance . Indeed , mos t con ductors mak e th e violin s crescendo int o m.129 , then cal l fo r a big diminuendo , in th e meantim e ofte n losin g th e F eighth-note , an d thu s th e prope r resolutio n to th e temporar y toni c o f Bk The thir d episod e o f the exposition , mm . 130-56, wit h it s elegant oboe , clari net, an d thir d hor n solos , look s simple enoug h o n th e fac e o f it. Bu t Brahm s is never tha t simple ; hi s harmonic an d timbra i (instrumental ) interconnection s ar e so imaginativel y devised and, also , constantl y regrouped , rearranged , recast, 15 as to provide ever-new, ofte n subtl e performanc e challenges . Fo r instance, i t would seem obviou s tha t th e obo e an d clarine t exchange s (mm . 137-41) ough t t o match i n phrasin g an d dynamics . Yet , judgin g by th e recordings , tha t i s in fac t rarely th e case. Indeed , i t distresses me tha t i n thes e exchanges , bu t eve n mor e so i n th e clarine t an d thir d hor n exchange s i n mm . 148-52, th e phras e empha sis seem s alway s t o b e o n th e anacrusi s notes , a s i f Brahm s ha d writte n . Also , wh y d o mos t clarine t player s swallo w th e final not e D , sometime s t o th e poin t o f inaudibility ? (Oboist s see m t o follo w through muc h mor e consistently. ) I thin k thes e divagations , giving the player s for the momen t the benefi t o f the doubt, ar e cause d b y th e fac t that , startin g subtl y i n m.13 7 (2.oboe , 2.bassoon ) and mor e obviousl y a few bars later (mm . 142-48), Brahms shifts th e accompani ment phrasing s t o th e secon d bea t o f the bar . Bu t tha t shoul d no t b e a reaso n for th e wind s to chang e thei r agogi c emphasis , especiall y since Brahm s provides a substantiatin g crescend o ( ) for the tw o anacrusi s notes , clearl y indicating a stress on th e ensuin g downbeat . I n fact , i t is, as I have suggeste d earlier , precisely th e conflic t betwee n tw o types o f rhythmic phrasings , i n thi s cas e on e beat apart , that fascinate d Brahm s so and tha t he worke d into hi s musi c a t every possible opportunity . An additiona l proble m tha t ofte n arise s i n thi s episod e i s a n immoderatel y 15. I t i s Brahms' s extraordinar y talen t fo r permutatio n an d variatio n o f hi s musica l material s (themes, motives , harmonies, instrumentations , etc.) tha t s o impresse d an d influence d Schönberg , moving hi m i n tur n i n th e directio n o f two majo r compositiona l principles : constant variatio n an d non-repetition, an d thu s pavin g th e wa y fo r tw o o f th e essentia l trait s o f th e Secon d Viennes e School. Se e Schönberg' s essa y "Brahms the Progressive " in hi s Style an d Idea (Ne w York, 1950) .

306

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

loud pai r o f horns (mm . 137-42), clearl y overbalancin g th e sol o woodwinds , as one ca n hea r o n an y numbe r o f recordings, notabl y Dohnanyi's , Rowicki's , and Boult's. Why woul d an y conductor chang e Brahms' s notation—bu t no t jus t the nota tion, th e ver y conception , th e ver y soun d o f the music—a s s o many conductor s have don e i n mm . 145-52? I fin d thi s a particularl y grievou s distortio n o f Brahms's intentions , especiall y since, a s I have already shown, h e wa s so explicit in hi s delineatio n o f all manne r o f rhythmic durations . To chang e

to

is shee r arrogan t

willfulness. Th e conductor s wh o indulge d themselve s i n thi s particula r whi m are Szell , Horenstein , Abravanel , Klemperer , Munch , Boult , Rowicki , an d Sto kowski. I suppos e tha t som e o f the m though t tha t Brahm s mus t hav e mad e a mistake, meanin g t o observ e th e phrasin g a s i n a simila r but no t identica l pas sage i n mm.287-93 . I f the y though t tha t far , they didn' t thin k fa r enough , fo r the rea l paralle l t o mm . 145-52, confirmin g that Brahm s kne w exactl y what h e was doing , occur s i n th e recapitulatio n i n mm.418- 2 5. To not observ e Brahms's durations i s obviousl y wrong, bu t eas y t o correct . Mor e difficult , althoug h cer tainly no t impossible , i s preserving th e integrit y o f th e dupl e mete r (a s exten sively discusse d earlier) . I t wil l suffic e i f eac h strin g playe r (i n m . 145-52) feels the downbeat s i n thes e measures , an d th e correc t balanc e betwee n th e actuall y articulated note s an d th e underlyin g pulse wil l be achieved . After thi s quiescen t episode , Brahm s return s t o th e Sturm un d Drang moo d of the earlie r parts of the exposition . In fou r brie f harmonically and rhythmically striking measure s (mm . 157-60)—a kin d o f stretched-ou t anacrusi s gesture—the music rouse s itsel f t o ful l forc e i n m.161 . Bu t unfortunatel y these fou r bar s ar e rarely rendere d t o thei r fulles t expressiv e potential . O n th e harmoni c side , Brahms's startling , unexpected , an d abrup t dominan t mino r nint h chord s i n mm. 157-58 ar

e rendered unstartlin g and anonymou s in mos t

performances b y th e suppressio n o r underplayin g of th e majo r third , A . Ho w

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y 30

7

something s o elementary an d obviou s can b e s o consistently misrepresente d de fies explanation. I t i s not tha t nobod y play s the A , but someho w i n th e pizzicat o doublestops o f the violin s and triplestop s o f the cellos , th e A gets lost . The poin t is tha t almos t n o conducto r seem s t o hea r tha t thi s importan t pitch—th e on e that no t onl y make s i t a rea l chor d bu t need s t o b e full y sounde d t o balanc e against th e 'dissonant ' mino r nint h (Gl> ) —is underrepresented . Th e proble m i s usually exacerbate d b y the fac t tha t th e viola s play their arc o note s anythin g bu t p (Brahms' s dynamic) , whil e th e pizzicato s i n th e remainin g string s ar e barel y grazed, th e tw o approache s obviousl y resulting i n a seriou s imbalance . Matter s are eve n wors e i n th e paralle l plac e i n th e recapitulation , wher e th e all important F l (i n a D dominan t minor-nint h chord ) appear s onl y i n th e firs t violins. Rhythmically th e passag e fare s no t muc h better. 16 Th e cross-rhythm s i n mm. 159-60 (an d mm.433-34) ar

e hardly ever bal -

anced properly , and thei r 6/ 8 feelin g is usually distorted int o a 3/4 , a s i f Brahms had writte n There are very few problems afte r that , excep t t o note that th e themati c mate rial beginnin g wit h (m.161

) ha s staccat o dot s whil e th e

lower lin e i n violas , cellos , basses , an d bassoon s ha s none . Whe n th e line s ar e reversed nin e bar s later, th e sam e respectiv e articulation s are retained . Thi s sim ply mean s tha t a t m . 161 the lowe r lin e (an d a t m.169 the uppe r line ) shoul d b e played i n a slightly more tenuto manner . Nonetheles s thi s differenc e i n markin g has confounde d man y conductor s wh o hav e edite d th e violins ' parts , fo r exam ple, variousl y a s o

r

The onl y conductor s who hav e mad e Brahms' s articulatio n distinction s clea r ar e Stokowski , Celibi dache, Dohnanyi , Jochum , an d Abbado . But a muc h wors e si n i s generally committe d b y conductors an d thei r string s in m.18 0 an d m.184— I shoul d ad d b y conductor s wh o eithe r (a ) can' t rea d a score correctly ; (b ) d o no t trus t th e scor e o r Brahms ; (c ) assum e tha t Brahm s 16. Unbelievably , Horenstei n turn s m.15 7 an d m.15 8 int o 9/ 8 measures , addin g a whol e extr a bea t of silenc e at th e en d o f the bar !

308 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

must hav e mad e a mistake ; o r (d ) wh o d o no t hea r tha t wha t i s bein g playe d doesn't correspon d t o what i s in th e score . I' m referrin g to the unusua l bu t ver y ingenious differentiatio n i n articulatio n an d duratio n betwee n th e strin g (an d brass) part s an d th e woodwin d parts . Th e las t hav e staccat o quarter-note s ( f ), the other s hav e dotte d quarter-note s ( f ) : a significan t difference . Despit e thi s clear distinction , o n onl y fou r recordings—thos e o f Sanderling , Jochum , Ab bado, an d Klemperer—d o th e string s hol d thei r note s a t ful l value . Really curious i s th e quit e illogica l interpretatio n b y a numbe r o f conductor s (Karajan , Furtwängler, Szell , Jochum , Horenstein , Giulini , Leinsdorf , Janowski , van Bei num) i n whic h m.18 0 i s playe d tenuto bu t m.18 4 i s not , an d th e eve n mor e illogical on e b y Wand, namely , m.18 0 short , m.18 4 long! Following thi s thunderou s peroratio n (i n E t minor ) an d a quic k mov e t o B major, 17 w e fin d ourselve s quite suddenl y i n th e developmen t section—startin g actually i n m.189 . Tw o warnings : (1 ) i t i s no t a t al l necessar y o r desirabl e t o slow dow n i n an d aroun d m.196—no t eve n fo r the ten-ba r 'descent ' i n m.21 5 — and (2 ) a half-hearte d p an d p p i n m.19 7 (an d 205 ) will no t do , fo r i t wil l no t achieve th e ai r o f myster y mixe d wit h a suppresse d tensio n tha t i s so uniqu e t o this passage . Ho w extraordinary this passag e ca n soun d whe n playe d wit h a rea l pp sempre (Brahms' s precis e marking ) an d a ver y quiet , introspectiv e p i n th e winds can b e hear d t o best effec t o n onl y nin e recordings : Toscanini's, Karajan's , Haitink's, Jochum's , Böhm's , Chailly's , Herbig's , an d abov e all , Suitner' s an d Furtwängler's. Not e th e wa y th e viola s surreptitiousl y shado w th e bassoo n (mm. 197-204), later th e flut e an d oboe . The gossame r textur e o f these measure s mus t b e maintaine d a t all cos t whe n the musi c modulate s bac k t o C, althoug h thi s tim e t o C majo r (onl y briefly) . A recurrence o f the thir d principa l them e o f the expositio n brings wit h it , in keep ing wit h Brahms' s penchan t fo r additiv e an d variationa l procedures , a serie s of clearly enunciate d an d obviou s references t o Beethoven, particularl y the famous opening four-not e mott o o f the Fift h Symphony . Fo r som e forty-od d measure s Brahms hammer s hom e Beethoven' s motive , an d yet , a s clea r an d obviou s a s this is , i t i s astonishin g ho w fe w conductor s cause(d ) o r allow(ed ) thes e refer 17. I n earlie r times , n o on e eve r mad e th e repea t vi a th e firs t ending . O f late , however , unde r the genera l pressur e o f th e tren d toward s 'historicall y informe d authenticism, ' a numbe r o f con ductors hav e recorde d th e firs t movemen t wit h th e repeat . Fo r m e ther e is , I mus t confess , a cer tain awkwardnes s in th e wa y Brahms return s t o m.38 , a n abruptnes s i n th e harmoni c progressio n which I can't quit e analyze . On th e fac e o f it the El - mino r o f m.185 shoul d elid e quit e nicel y with the E t diminishe d chor d o f m. 189 (i.e. m.38) . However , i n practic e th e effec t seem s constrained , lacking Brahms' s usuall y infallibl e harmoni c sense . I f on e wer e eve r t o conside r a revisio n o f thi s transition passage— a fairl y outrageou s though t t o begi n with— I woul d offe r tw o suggestions : (1 ) I believe on e proble m i s th e D t a t th e en d o f m.189 , whic h work s magnificentl y whe n th e musi c moves t o B majo r but seem s les s felicitou s in th e mov e bac k t o C minor . I would sugges t replacin g that D t wit h a D^ i n m.18 9 (th e firs t tim e only , o f course) ; (2 ) I t help s t o softe n th e abruptnes s of th e retur n t o m.3 8 i f th e brass , bassoons , an d timpan i o n th e downbea t o f tha t measur e ar e eliminated.

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y 30

9

enees t o Beethoven, th e "giant " whose "tread " Brahm s constantl y heard behin d him an d feare d when writin g his C mino r Symphony , to become audible . Occasionally, o n a fe w recordings, as i f by accident, the y wil l surface her e an d there , perhaps i n th e horn s o r trumpets . Bu t th e whol e chai n o f repeated Beethove n quotations i s clearl y projecte d i n onl y a fe w recordings : thos e o f Toscanini , Böhm, Szell , Abravanel , Leinsdorf , Dohnanyi , Janowski , Jochum , Tennstedt , and, bes t o f all, Skrowaczewsk i and Chailly . An ide a o f th e compactnes s o f structur e an d econom y o f mean s Brahm s commands, almos t a t th e leve l o f Beethoven' s Fifth , ca n b e gaine d no t onl y by th e wa y al l th e primar y themati c materia l o f th e expositio n i s reworked — expanded, contracted , varied , inverted , reorchestrated—bu t als o i n th e wa y Brahms exploit s eve n secondar y materia l fo r furthe r recycling . Note , fo r exam ple, ho w th e innocen t lookin g chromati c bas s line appearin g i n th e cello s an d basses firs t hear d i n mm.265-66 , the n again , twice , i n mm.269-72 , suddenl y emerges as primary melody in the violin s four octave s higher i n m.273 . But the n we se e tha t thi s passage is , in addition , a veiled reference to th e ver y openin g of the symphony : over a G peda l poin t i n gentl y reiterate d eighth-notes , tw o lines are spu n ou t contrapuntall y an d i n contrar y motion . Again , th e on e i n th e woodwinds an d violas , descending an d i n harmon y (a t least in thirds) , the othe r in violin s in octav e unison s risin g an d falling , wendin g it s way gradually downward i n a lon g (21—bar ) diminuendo . Despit e th e clearl y differentiated rhythms and phrasing s an d th e unequivocall y specified continuous diminuendo , conduc tors ar e constantl y changin g th e rhythms , punchin g hole s an d break s int o Brahms's sustaine d line s wher e ther e shouldn' t b e any , an d makin g crescendos , as i n mm.274 , 278 , an d 282 , wher e ther e clearl y aren' t (an d shouldn' t be) any . Thi s i s mer e self-indulgenc e an d a "know-better " contemp t fo r th e score. With thi s beautifu l lon g dynami c an d registra l descent , w e reac h on e o f the mos t movin g moments o f the entir e symphony : when, le d b y a darkly mysterious combinatio n o f contrabassoon , lo w cellos , an d basse s i n m.293 , th e lon g ascent t o th e f f ful l orchestr a pinnacl e a t m.32 1 begins . Ther e ar e tw o perfor mance problem s here , however , whic h ar e roundl y ignore d b y almos t al l per formers o f thi s work . On e concern s dynamics , mor e specificall y the tempta tion—almost alway s yielde d to—t o crescend o to o muc h to o early . Instea d o f climaxing with a /fat m . 321, most performance s reach tha t dynami c level muc h earlier—Ormandy, fo r example , a t m.303 , nearl y twent y bar s to o early—thu s turning th e intende d clima x int o a bi g anti-climax . Brahm s give s u s excellen t clues fo r pacin g th e 37-ba r crescend o i n th e clarinet s an d oboes . Bu t th e rea l problem i s usuall y i n th e strings , particularl y in th e firs t violins , wh o (a ) i n general lov e t o pla y loudly , forcefully , whe n o n th e G string , (b ) wh o whe n seeing th e crescend o wedge s in mm.295,297,29 9 ten d t o mak e overbearin g crescendos an d (c ) in th e alternat e measure s neve r retur n t o a pp. Th e sam e tend s to happe n wit h the cello s and basses . T o kee p th e crescend o in chec k s o that it is trul y ver y gradual , it i s well t o ad d th e followin g dynamics : p a t m.302 , mp a t

310 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

m.305, mf a t m.309 , an d f a t m.313 . I woul d als o sugges t tha t a distinctio n b e made i n th e clarinet s an d oboe s betwee n wha t i s 'soloistic ' an d merel y harmonic/accompanimental, a t least i n th e firs t tw o entrances , i.e . clarinets ' pp o n th e secon d bea t m.298 , th e oboes ' p o n th e secon d bea t m.302 . These instrument s shoul d trac k (excep t fo r their four-not e 'solos' ) th e dynamic s of th e tw o bassoons . Car e shoul d als o b e take n tha t th e brass' s an d timpani' s Beethoven reiteration s b e wel l hear d an d follo w th e sam e gentl y risin g cre scendo line . The othe r problem , judgin g b y numerou s performance s an d recordings , i s apparently eve n harder to resolve: namely, t o prevent the bea t fro m bein g turne d around. Thi s happen s quit e naturall y unles s guarde d against , becaus e ther e i s no articulate d downbea t i n ever y alternat e pai r of measures i n th e mai n leadin g voices: fo r example, m.29 5 an d m.29 7 i n th e first violins , m.29 4 an d m.29 6 i n the cellos , basses , and contrabassoon . Thi s ambivalenc e o f pulse i s exacerbate d by th e fac t tha t th e tw o leadin g line s ar e i n canoni c imitation , on e ba r apart , with th e resul t tha t when , fo r example , th e bas s lin e does hav e a n articulate d downbeat, the othe r lin e doesn't , an d vic e versa. Now surely, Brahms—eve r th e explorer o f new rhythmi c ideas—wante d here to create a degree of unsettledness but, I am convinced , no t t o the poin t o f being completely disoriented metrically . It i s inconceivable tha t Brahm s would hav e wante d th e violins , for example , t o sound etc

', which , incidentally ,

when playe d tha t way, results just befor e th e clima x (m.321 ) i n a disruptiv e bar of eithe r 9/ 8 o r 3/8 . The reaso n tha t th e phrasin g i n th e bas s lin e start s on th e secon d bea t i s that it i s merel y a transpositio n ( a triton e down ) o f th e to p note s a t th e ver y begin ning o f the Allegro, mm.38-3 9 (Exx.l4a,b) . Bu t thi s doe s no t necessaril y mean

Ex. H a

Ex. 14 b that th e beat shoul d b e allowe d t o tur n around , i n effec t movin g al l th e ba r lines on e dotted-quarte r bea t later . Th e entir e passag e can—an d i n m y view — certainly shoul d b e playe d t o preserv e bot h sensations : th e rhythmi c unsettled ness mentione d abov e an d th e regula r pulse o f the underlyin g meter, i n a word 'to hav e ou r cak e an d ea t i t too.' Fo r i t is once again , a s so ofte n i n Brahms , th e conflict, th e tension , betwee n tw o opposin g rhythmic/metri c force s tha t h e wants t o create , an d tha t we , a s performers , mus t rende r appropriately . Al l that needs t o b e suggeste d to th e player s i s to kee p th e 6/ 8 puls e i n mind , t o fee l it , especially o n th e unarticulate d downbeat s —this migh t b e rendere d notationall y

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y 31

as —an

1

d th e balanc e betwee n th e

syncopated melodi c lin e an d th e underlyin g bea t wil l be preserved . But w e lose eve n mor e whe n w e allow the bea t to be turne d around ; we los e all thos e remarkabl e an d fo r their tim e darin g upwar d leap s starting i n th e bas s instruments i n mm.296-97 , an d i n mm.307-30 8 i n th e first violins. As the cre scendo mounts , thes e upwar d thrusts—lik e the slo w initial tremors o f a volcani c eruption—must becom e increasingl y pronounced , canonicall y on e measur e apart, a t th e sam e tim e increasingl y emphasizin g th e 'ones / th e downbeats , o f the measures . Whe n al l o f this i s done properly , th e climacti c releas e a t m.32 1 is overwhelming , becaus e i t evolve s absolutel y organicall y an d i s no t fel t a s a strange unexpecte d ruptur e (or , as mentioned earlier , an anti-climax) . The powerfu l dissonanta l clashe s a t th e clima x i n mos t case s nee d t o b e worked out . I am speakin g of the A!>' s agains t the G' s i n m.321 , the clas h o f th e violins' D agains t th e woodwinds ' C i n m.32 2 (repeate d on e ton e lowe r i n m.324). Bu t i t i s perhap s eve n harde r t o mak e th e viola s an d cello s hear d i n m.322 and m.324 , a s they answe r the violins , again canonically . The woodwind s must b e cautione d t o hold al l their dotte d quarter-note s ful l lengt h t o differentiate thei r rhythmi c contou r fro m tha t o f the bras s and timpani . But th e bigges t problem , becaus e least notice d an d appreciated , i s th e careless habi t o f th e string s playin g instea

do f

One ca n hea r thi s o n virtuall y al l recordings , most notabl y Chailly's , Barenboim's , Muti's , Herbig's , an d eve n Furtwängler' s and Toscanini's . Brahms write s a reinforcin g /f fo r th e string s i n m.329 . Al l string sections , o f course, pla y thi s passag e ff , bu t ar e mor e ofte n tha n no t acousticall y drowne d out b y timpan i an d winds . O n onl y a fe w recording s (Walter , Toscanini , Järvi , Rowicki, Tennstedt ) ca n th e string s b e hear d a t all . (Can' t thes e world-famou s Grammy-winning recor d producer s hea r tha t th e string s are totall y covered?) With th e magnificentl y ponderous bas s lin e in m.339 , we have arrive d at the re capitulation. Bu t not e ho w ingeniousl y Brahm s modifie s its first four bars , als o reversing i n effec t th e orchestration : wha t wa s in th e wind s i n th e expositio n is now i n th e strings , and vic e versa. As so many composers, starting with Haydn and Mozart , have done, so too does Brahms foreshorten the recapitulation . The whol e sectio n o f the expositio n fro m m.69 to m.9 6 i s not represente d in th e reprise . This wa s partially necessitated by Brahms's need to return to C minor (whereas the parallel sections in the exposition were basically in & minor) . Although the materia l in the recapitulatio n is essen-

312

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

dally th e sam e a s i n th e exposition , Brahm s introduce s man y variations , som e very subtle, an d mostl y in terms o f reorchestration. Obviously, all comments an d suggestions mentione d i n referenc e t o the expositio n appl y to the recapitulatio n as well. Just a s the expositio n come s t o a clos e a t m.188 , s o now th e paralle l place i n the recapitulatio n (m.461 ) mus t fin d a ne w wa y to continue . And ho w brillian t is Brahms' s solution ! Whereas a t tha t junctur e in th e expositio n Brahm s move s from E) > mino r t o Cl > majo r (actuall y enharmonically B major), i n th e recapitula tion h e move s fro m C mino r t o a C majo r dominan t sevent h i n a thir d inver sion, intensel y orchestrated i n horn s an d bassoon s Unfortunately ver y fe w conductor s tak e th e troubl e t o balanc e thi s chor d i n its si x reiterations , th e proble m bein g tha t th e not e whic h make s i t a majo r chord, E^ , lie s rather lo w in onl y the secon d hor n an d inherentl y projects much less tha n th e G i n th e thir d hor n a tent h above . But , o f course, th e chor d ca n be balanced ; i t jus t take s a littl e rehearsin g an d a pai r o f carin g ears . O f th e many recordings I heard, ther e wer e only nine wher e these chord s wer e properly and excitingl y balanced , and/o r no t drowne d ou t b y th e timpani : thos e o f Sto kowski, Jochum , Skrowaczewski , Wand, Tennstedt , Abbado , Ormandy , Suitner , and Järvi . O n to o man y recording s th e horn s an d bassoon s wer e allowe d t o play instea

d of |

. The ful l sustain -

ing (an d correc t balancing ) o f these chord s i s what make s this passag e so thrilling to hear . In m.46 0 an d m.46 4 Norringto n ha s th e bizarr e ide a o f addin g subito p' s (followed b y immediat e crescendos , o f course) , perversel y impedin g th e flo w and dram a o f this climactic passage . In m.46 6 Brahm s build s a kin d o f stretto, usin g hi s basi c chromati c mai n motive whic h w e first hear a t th e ver y openin g o f the Allegro (mm.38-40) , now again transpose d dow n a triton e an d se t agains t a contrary-motio n bas s lin e (Ex.15). Th e prominenc e Brahm s give s thi s chromati c motiv e Ft-G-AI » a t thi s

Ex. 1 5

point, seem s t o m e almos t preordained , fo r h e ha s previousl y used i t numerou s times i n th e movement , alway s a t critica l forma l junctures . Fig . 3 display s a selection o f these a s they occur and re-occu r variously in th e movement , demon strating Brahms' s Beethovenia n compactnes s o f architectura l desig n an d econ omy o f means.

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y

Fig. 3

(1) mm.434-36 : the encircle d notes (2) mm.442-44 : Th e abov e reiterate d i n th e lowe r strings eigh t measure s later; (3) mm.418-21 : (4) mm.403-405 : first oboe (i n transpose d inversion) ,

(5) m.383 : violins (in th e origina l untranspose d position )

(6) mm.371-72 : woodwinds an d string s

(7) mm.367-70 : first violins (8) mm.364-67 : flute, oboe, clarine t (transposed ) ; a t the sam e tim e i n a differ ent transpositio n an d inversio n i n lo w strings and bassoon s

(9) mm.350-52 : high-register instruments , wit h not e sequenc e changed (10) mm.343-45 : first clarinet, first oboe, second violins , secon d horn

(11) mm.3 3 5-37: hig h registe r instruments

313

314

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

(12) mm . 3 39-41: simultaneously, origina l untranspose d versio n (violins, horns, 2.flute , l.oboe ) an d transpose d retrograd e a s well a s inversion

(13) mm.293-95 : contrabassoon , cellos , basse s

(14) mm.273-77 : violins, a) transposed b ) retrograde d then spu n ou t i n various other transpositions ; (15) mm.229-31 : string s transposed, an d i n canoni c imitatio n (encircle d notes)

All th e example s above , whic h figur e i n th e recapitulation , appear , of course, i n stil l differen t transposition s i n th e exposition . At m.47 4 an d th e remainde r o f th e movement, 18 Brahm s present s u s wit h one o f th e mos t seriou s interpretationa l problem s i n th e entir e symphony . I t is not clea r ho w th e performer s are t o ge t fro m m.474 , presumabl y a t ful l allegro tempo, t o th e rae.no allegro a t m.495 , o r ho w muc h slowe r th e memo allegro is to be . Any mov e t o a slowe r tempo , whethe r vi a a ritardand o o r not , involve s above 18. Her e man y a performanc e and recordin g have bee n ruine d b y a n overl y boisterou s timpanist. The brutalit y an d insensitivit y wit h which som e timpanist s literally slam int o m.47 4 i s staggering; in the process , o f course , 'wipin g out ' th e entir e res t o f th e orchestra . (Hea r th e Janowsk i an d Pait a recordings fo r confirmation.)

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y 3

15

all a fir m decisio n a s to ho w slo w that slowe r tempo i s to be . Ther e are ver y few places i n th e symphoni c literatur e where tha t decisio n i s so difficul t t o mak e a s in th e Brahm s First . Meno allegro i s suc h a relativ e ter m an d wit h n o metro nome indicatio n a s a clue , i t i s anyone's gues s wha t Brahm s ma y hav e ha d i n mind. Ironically , matters are also made difficul t b y the knowledg e that the move ment's u n poco sostenuto introduction , t o whic h th e meno allegro coda i s obviously closel y related, wa s compose d after th e mai n bod y o f the movemen t ha d been completed . Tha t informatio n no w leads t o the temptin g though t tha t th e introduction an d cod a ough t t o b e identica l (o r a t leas t 'closel y related' ) i n tempo. Suc h thinkin g i n tur n lead s t o th e possibilit y that bot h th e introductio n and cod a shoul d b e i n a moderato o r allegro moderato tempo , conducte d i n 'two,' onl y moderatel y slower than th e ful l allegro. It i s not difficul t t o fin d a rational e fo r suc h a n approach . Afte r all , a t m.49 5 Brahms simpl y say s meno allegro, i.e . les s lively . H e doe s no t sa y andante o r adagio; and , a s I have already pointed out , hi s un poco sostenuto of the introduc tion ma y signif y a similarl y modeiate divergenc e fro m th e mai n allegro tempo . Given the ambiguousness of Brahms's tempo indication s here, conductors have resorted to all manner of'solutions,' purely intuitively in most cases, probably without any particular intellectual o r analytical rationale. A relatively few (Rowicki, van Beinum, Leinsdorf , Abravanel) have take n Brahms' s meno allegro at fac e value , conducting i t in 'two' in what might be called an andante co n moto or allegro molió moderato (th e dotted quarte r in the metronome' s uppe r 50s , lower 60s).19 It i s als o significan t tha t Brahm s wrot e men o allegro, an d not , fo r example , più andante o r pi ù adagio. I n othe r words , he mean t th e temp o t o sta y i n th e allegro realm, wit h the implicatio n tha t hi s tempo indicatio n refer s t o the dotte d quarter M . j, no t the eighth-note . Another fac t tha t lend s credenc e t o interpretin g Brahms' s meno allegro i n a relatively lively' temp o i s the fac t tha t h e doe s no t indicat e an y ritardando prior to m.495 . Unles s w e simpl y wan t t o assume—withou t an y justificatio n o r proof—that Brahm s jus t forgo t th e ritardando , his meno allegro has t o tak e o n a quite differen t meanin g tha n i t ha s heretofor e usuall y bee n accorded . Mos t conductors hav e take n a temp o o f the dotte d quarte r between 4 0 an d 50 , with Furtwängler, Klemperer , Bernstein , Chailly , Skrowaczewski , an d Horenstei n even belo w tha t (a t J - = 34 , 36 and 38) . The proble m fo r all of them ha s bee n how t o ge t fro m th e ful l drivin g allegro, say , a t m.474—usuall y aroun d J - = 92—to their much, muc h slowe r meno allegros. And again , ever y possible logical and illogica l optio n ha s bee n attempte d b y someon e a t on e tim e o r another , from a n immediat e sudde n pullin g bac k o f th e temp o a t m.47 5 t o a judicious almost imperceptibl e slowin g over twenty bars, and man y gradations in betwee n (see belo w fo r mor e details) . 19. I f indeed som e o f those conductor s eve r thought abou t als o taking th e introductio n i n a similar moderato tempo , as a counterpart t o the coda , they probably were dissuaded from doing so by the long standing entrenched traditio n of doing the openin g i n the familiar ponderousl y slow tempo, conducte d in 'six. ' To my knowledge onl y Norrington ha s dared t o pace the openin g i n a fairly livel y 'two.'

316 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

But what abou t thos e wonderfu l duples i n th e cello s i n mm.294-93 ? What is their significance ? In m y vie w the y ar e Brahms' s ingeniou s wa y o f gentl y re laxing an d calmin g th e feeling o f the music , withou t appreciabl y disturbing th e David Epstein , i n hi s hi s aforementione d discussio n o f temp o relationship s between movement s an d withi n movement s i n Brahms' s Firs t Symphony , pro poses a ver y interestin g answe r t o th e temp o questio n i n th e meno allegro by suggesting tha t th e cellos ' dupl e quarter-note s shoul d equa l th e eighth-note s o f the slowe r 6/ 8 I n hi s suggeste d temp o rang e o f j- = 96 104, th e eighth-note s i n m.49 5 woul d the n b e i n th e rang e o f 192-208 . B e i t noted tha t i n Epstein' s suggestio n ther e i s no possibl e consideratio n o f the nor mally adopte d ritardand o between m.47 5 an d m.495 . I realiz e tha t mos t conductor s wil l heatedl y argu e agains t suc h a 'ridiculou s notion.' An d th e establishe d traditio n wil l automaticall y b e invoked , supporte d by generation s o f world-famous maestri, t o th e effec t tha t th e meno allegro has "always bee n don e slow , an d s o i t shoul d be". 20 Bu t I invit e anyon e t o sin g through th e las t nine bars or so of the Allegro at a tempo, say , of J- = 92 , notin g the calmin g effec t o f the cellos ' duple s (bu t withou t slowin g down), an d a t th e meno allegro dropping dow n to , say , = J - 60 . (Norringto n take s J - = 62. ) Any reasonable, objective , unprejudiced min d wil l have to admit tha t suc h a concep tion work s ver y well , an d is , at least , a s reasonabl e a n optio n a s an y othe r tha t has bee n offere d throug h th e years . It canno t jus t b e peremptoril y ruled ou t a s a possibility , rejected out o f hand . This poin t o f vie w raises , i n retrospect , a s I implie d earlier , th e fascinatin g possibility tha t Brahm s meant both th e openin g o f the symphon y an d th e cod a (m.495) t o b e i n a moderatel y movin g tempo , tha t is , fel t an d conducte d i n 'two,' no t 'six ' (o r optionally , a subdivide d 'two'). Again I invit e th e incredulou s objector, horrifie d a t th e ver y thought, t o sin g throug h th e entir e introductor y section a t a temp o o f abou t j - = 50-60 . An y remotel y objectiv e perso n wil l have t o admi t tha t i t i s a possibility . Brahms's lon g line s flo w beautifully , th e integrity o f th e 6/ 8 mete r an d it s 'two' feelin g i s more readil y maintained, an d even th e lovel y sequence o f oboe, flute , cell o (mm.29-37 ) gain s a gently undu lating, lyric quality. Admittedly, at this tempo, th e introductio n lose s its painfull y anguished, heavil y tragic mood . Bu t the n whoeve r sai d — or presume s t o kno w with certainty—tha t Brahm s intended th e movemen t t o hav e thi s tragic ponder ous quality ? I n al l likelihoo d th e variou s hermeneuti c interpretation s o f th e Brahms First' s firs t movemen t a s "despairing, " "gloomy, " "elemental, " "tragic " 20. I n poin t o f fact , I doub t tha t anyone—certainl y no t anyon e livin g today—know s whe n tha t tradition started , who starte d it , and eve n whethe r i t wa s (as is so easil y assumed ) a tradition create d by som e interprete r i n th e earl y years o f thi s symphony's existence . Di d Ott o Dessof f establis h th e tradition whe n h e firs t premiere d th e wor k i n Karlsruh e in 1876 ? O r wa s i t Brahm s himsel f when he conducte d th e symphon y i n late r performances ? O r wa s i t Billow ? W e don' t know . Al l w e d o know i s that b y the tim e th e firs t recording s were made (b y Stokowski and Klernperer ) i n th e 1920' s the 'tradition ' wa s graven in stone , an d ha s bee n —I think , thoughtlessly—perpetuated eve r since.

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y 31

7

(see Tovey , fo r example ) al l cam e t o min d a s a resul t o f performance s which , erroneously, interprete d th e wor k i n tha t fashion . O r perhap s i t wa s the othe r way around . Taking th e introductio n i n a slo w 'two, ' o f course , destroy s th e ide a o f th e previously suggested 3: 1 metric-uni t relationshi p (•*—« P = J.—*) betwee n i t an d the Allegro. At j- = 96-10 4 in the Allegro an d J - = 48-5 2 i n the meno allegro, the relationshi p woul d obviousl y b e 2: 1 (a - = J.) which , again , i s another rea sonable interpretiv e possibility. I d o no t clai m définitiv e knowledg e i n regar d t o thes e temp o matter s ( I wish that other s woul d als o no t clai m suc h authority) ; I a m simpl y suggestin g som e alternatives o n th e basi s of what Brahms' s scor e actuall y says , alternative s that, i t seems, ver y few conductor s hav e eve r considere d before , suggestion s tha t hav e enough validit y to be take n seriously , to b e a t least discusse d an d argued . What conductor s have don e i n th e fina l 3 8 bars o f the movemen t (startin g at m.475) i s t o introduc e arbitraril y variou s type s an d degree s o f ritardandi , de pending o n ho w slo w (agai n arbitraril y determined) th e meno allegro tempo wa s to be . Som e conductors—Klempere r (th e Berli n Stat e Oper a recordin g o f 1928), Walter , Kondrashin , Skrowaczewski , Bernstein , Boult—hav e starte d th e ritardando immediatel y a t m.47 5 — sometimes i n a giganti c jammin g o n o f th e tempo brakes—s o tha t b y m.47 8 (jus t thre e bar s later ) the y ar e alread y i n a substantially slowe r tempo. The n the y hav e ritarde d eve n more , arrivin g finally at a lugubriously slow meno allegro. Still others (Levine , Stokowski , van Beinum ) have waite d unti l m.47 8 to commence their ritard ; still other s (Szell , Dohnanyi ) have waite d eve n longer , ritardin g onl y i n th e fina l eigh t o r nin e measure s (ca.m.486). Som e fe w conductor s (Rowicki , Abravanel, Haitink , Toscanini , Jo chum) hav e ver y gracefull y an d tastefull y calibrate d a subtle , almos t impercepti ble ritardand o ove r th e twent y bar s (mm.475-95) . Bu t other s hav e com e u p with reall y bizarr e 'solutions, ' lik e Järvi , wh o slow s u p a t m.474 , spring s bac k into temp o i n m.475 , startin g anothe r ritar d aroun d m.48 1 an d arrivin g finally at a n adagio versio n o f the meno allegro of j- = 44 ; o r Furtwängle r an d Janow ski, th e opposit e o f Järvi, who accelerate into m.474 , the n pul l bac k enormousl y at m.475 . Stil l othe r conductors , lik e Tennstedt, Abbado, an d Chaill y pul l bac k suddenly a t m.47 4 (sic), whic h make s n o sens e a t all . Bu t perhap s th e mos t blatant aberratio n come s fro m Celibidache , wh o make s a sizabl e fermat a (i^\) over the quarte r res t of m.475. Herbig' s approac h i s also very strange. After slow ing dow n slightl y around m.476 , h e make s a hug e ritar d starting at m.491 , onl y to go quasi a tempo (J - = 52 , J- = 56 ) at th e meno allegro. To make th e ritar d at m.49 1 i s (1) t o ignor e th e fac t tha t ther e i s none indicate d b y Brahms , (2 ) is to ignor e completel y th e duplet s (an d thei r meaning ) i n th e cell o i n mm.492 93, an d (3 ) i s to ignor e th e grea t probabilit y tha t Brahm s wante d th e temp o o f the las t few measures befor e the meno allegro to elid e almos t imperceptibl y int o that coda . Beyond that , mino r ba d habit s an d fault s hav e crep t int o rendition s o f thi s section. Fo r example , virtuall y al l violi n section s mak e diminuendo s i n m.48 1

318 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

and m.484 , when i t says quit e explicitl y poco a poco cresc., and whe n th e resolv ing note s G an d A N (respectively ) shoul d b e full y intoned . I wis h tha t mor e conductor s an d orchestr a musician s woul d appreciat e Brahms's penchan t (i n al l hi s orchestra l works ) fo r a n organ-lik e orchestration , as, fo r example , i n mm.477-79 , wher e horn s represen t a n eight-foo t stop , th e clarinets a four-foo t stop , an d th e flute s a two-foo t stop. During th e meno allegro itsel f several problem s ca n arise . First , ther e i s th e problem o f a goo d balanc e betwee n horn s an d timpani , particularl y the lo w C of th e secon d hor n an d als o th e sostenuto characte r o f th e timpani . Second , I find tha t often th e variou s chromatic phrases , echoe s o f the ver y opening o f th e symphony, d o no t star t p (se e mm.495,497,499,501) . Last , le t m e plea d tha t th e contrabassoon's lo w C i n m.50 8 be wel l heard . (I t is quite inaudibl e o n th e vas t majority o f recordings.) I hav e n o stron g particula r opinio n a s to ho w long th e wind s shoul d hol d th e final C majo r chord . I t seems t o m e tha t i t works well at least two different ways , for example , th e wind s releasin g wit h th e strings ' final pizzicato, o r alternatively holding th e chor d a littl e beyon d th e pizzicato. Mos t conductors , mysel f in cluded, op t for the latte r interpretation , bu t I recal l bein g severel y chastised o n one occasio n b y a very respecte d musicia n colleague , wh o claime d t o know tha t the winds ' chor d "shoul d neve r sustai n beyon d th e 'pluck ' o f th e strings ' (an d timpani's) pizzicato. " H e ma y hav e asserte d tha t i n respons e t o th e man y con ductors wh o hol d th e las t chor d inordinatel y long , e.g . Stokowski , Ormandy , Abbado. (Al l that ha s been sai d on thi s point applie s equall y to the fina l measur e of the thir d movement. ) The secon d movement' s majo r interpretationa l problem i s one o f tempo. Brahm s gives us andante sostenuto. Thi s seem s relativel y explicit to me , particularl y that word 'andante,' and I therefore cannot understand why the vast majority of conductors, past and present, insist on playing this movement as an adagio, indeed an adagio molto or adagississimo. Some conductor s (Kertesz , Rowicki, Klemperer, for example) pla y thi s movemen t s o slo w tha t th e triple t eighth s i n m. 6 fee l lik e individual quarter-notes . I n suc h instance s th e triplet s lose al l feelin g of triplets, have no flow or line; they jus t sit there: stolid, stif f an d heavy , unmoving—indeed unmovable. The temp o suc h conductor s tak e is not on any metronome, no t eve n on modern metronome s whic h usually go down only to 32. I am , onc e again , no t sur e wh o starte d thi s 'tradition ' o f such extremel y slow tempos i n thi s movement , no r why . I coul d gues s that , onc e th e lat e 19th century hermeneuti c interpreter s with their extra-musica l anecdotal fantasie s go t hold o f Brahms' s First , hi s symphon y wa s see n a s th e grea t tragic , anguishe d statement o f a geniu s strugglin g not onl y wit h fat e (a s Beethoven wa s imagine d to hav e similarl y struggled i n hi s Fift h Symphony) , bu t wit h th e spel l o f th e universal canonizatio n o f the ver y sam e Beethoven . Th e fac t tha t bot h Beetho ven's Fift h an d Brahms' s First were in C mino r becam e a convenien t polemica l premise b y whic h Brahm s coul d b e elevate d t o th e tru e hei r o f th e thron e re cently vacate d b y Beethoven , a t th e sam e tim e investin g him wit h th e mantl e

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y 31

9

of the grea t tragic', suffering , *strugglin g Romanti c artist . And suc h tragedy , 'suc h O O O O Ö O O J suffering, could , o f course, onl y be expresse d i n th e slowes t and mos t anguishe d of tempos . But th e fac t is , al l anecdote s an d fancifu l figment s aside , th e secon d move ment o f Brahms's allegedl y 'tragic ' symphon y i s in E major , a n untragic , warm , luminous, almos t sunn y key ; an d i t i s a n aria , a song , sun g b y som e o f th e brightest singer s o f th e orchestra : th e oboe , th e clarinet , th e violin , an d th e horn. It will come a s a shock—a n ac t o f heresy—for thos e wh o ar e use d onl y t o th e thickly, massive , creeping , lugubriou s rendering s o f this movemen t tha t a temp o of, say , j = 52-60 , th e lowe r en d o f the andante scale , work s beautifully. The music the n easil y achieves it s essential , almos t Schubertia n song-lik e quality, 21 its lon g archin g lines , withou t an y los s o f passio n o r drama , allowin g eve n fo r the appearanc e o f the occasiona l 'darkenin g cloud' alon g th e wa y (for instance , mm.3,16,49,53,70). Another majo r reaso n fo r not adoptin g th e slowes t possible temp o i n th e sec ond movement 22 i s its remarkable—better said , extraordinary—phras e construc tion, n o aspec t o f whic h i s realizabl e o r audibl e whe n th e temp o i s s o slo w as t o pul l al l phrases , eve n individua l measures , int o smal l clump s o f isolate d disconnected sounds . N o conducto r t o m y knowledg e — even th e 'greatest ' Brahmsians—has encourage d a n orchestr a t o fee l an d hear—an d communi cate—the unusua l periodization s i n thi s movement . Withou t a n understandin g of these heterogeneou s archin g lines , performer s are reduce d t o merel y sloshin g through th e notes , ba r b y bar, withou t an y sens e o f the structura l continuity , o f where the y ar e i n th e over-al l for m o f the piece . Consider thi s remarkable , unorthodox , an d highl y origina l structura l pla n (schematically represente d i n Fig . 4) , clearl y discernibl e fro m eve n a casua l reading o f the score . The ba d habit s —bad traditions—an d misbegotte n interpretations , a s wel l a s plain ignorin g o r rejectio n o f Brahms's score , ar e legio n i n thi s movement , an d a recita l o f these doe s no t giv e me muc h pleasure . Bu t the y ar e s o insidious , so ingrained i n almos t al l performances , tha t the y must , I feel , b e addresse d an d exposed. The temp o questio n alread y referred t o is, of course, th e mos t seriou s proble m and i n m y view , a rea l obstacl e t o a faithfu l performanc e (se e Fig . 5 for a tabl e of variou s conductors ' temp o choices) . Fo r i f Brahms's andante i s observed , al l 21. Th e compose r Dougla s Townsen d ha s mad e th e cas e ver y wel l i n hi s writing s — including hi s superb line r note s fo r Rowicki' s recording s o f th e fou r Brahm s symphonies—fo r th e stron g impac t of Schubert' s influenc e o n Brahms . Townsend' s reflection s o n th e subjec t o f Brahms' s earl y influ ences ar e wort h citin g here : "Brahms' s musica l genealog y migh t rea d somethin g lik e this : great grandfather: Bach ; paterna l an d materna l grandfathers : Mozar t an d Beethoven ; uncle : Schubert ; cousin: Mendelssohn ; an d father : Schumann. " Townsen d goe s o n t o say : "Schubert's influenc e ca n be observe d i n man y o f Brahms ' ow n melodies , which , howeve r Brahmsian , hav e a s thei r poin t o f origin earl y nineteenth-centur y Vienn a a s i t i s expressed i n th e musi c o f Schubert. " 22. I t occur s t o m e tha t Mahle r i n simila r circumstance s woul d hav e writte n 'langsa m abe r nich t schleppend' (slo w bu t no t dragging) .

320

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Fig. 4 Number of meas .

5'

1' 1'

3

5

1

'

i

I)

Meas, numbers

mm. 1-5 i

(or 4+1 ) '

3

mm.6- 8 '

mm.9-1 3 i

(o r 4+1 )

10

1

i

mm.14-1 6 i m.1 7

mm. 18-27 (6 + 2 + 2)

3 mm. 1-3 (repeated) kinds o f performanc e aspect s wil l fal l automatically , nicel y int o place . Assum ing, then , that a reasonable and moderat e temp o i s taken, ther e ar e stil l a variety of musica l misdemeanor s whic h hav e becom e par t o f th e 'tradition ' o f per forming thi s movement . Fo r example , mos t orchestra s and conductor s mak e a tremendous crescend o i n th e ver y firs t measure , undoubtedl y wantin g t o sho w how emotional , ho w profoundly expressive , they ca n be , a s opposed t o the alleg edly 'cool, ' overl y 'intellectual ' 'remote ' Brahms, 23 wh o didn' t eve n hav e th e

Fig. 5 J = 28

J=30

J=34 J=36

J = 38 J = 40

Klemperer (1928) , Giulin i Bernstein, Ozawa , Tennstedt , Abbado Munch, Janowski , Böhm, Sand erling Weingartner, va n Beinum , Stokowski, Ormandy , Klempere r (1955-57), Steinberg , Jochu m Horenstein, Furtwängle r (Vienna), Rowick i (who slows to J = 3 2 b y m . 5 ) , Celibidach e Skrowaczewski, Levine , Szell , Abravanel, Kertesz , Chailly , Haitink, Paita , Herbig , Lehe l

J = 42 J = 44 J = 46 J = 48 J=52

J = 60

Dohnanyi, Leinsdorf , Kondrashin, Järvi , Walte r Wand Karajan (Vienna ) Boult, Suitne r (wh o slow s

to J = 42 by m.5 )

Norrington Toscanini, Mut i (who slows t o J = 42 b y m.3)

23. Thes e wer e indee d som e o f th e earl y an d immediat e reaction s t o Brahms' s Firs t Symphony , especially, o f course, b y the Wagnerite s o f the day . The genera l consensu s i n mos t circle s wa s that Brahms's ne w symphony , for all it s skill—or perhap s becaus e o f it—wa s "too intellectual," "remote" (fremdartig), "revolting " (abstossend), "aloof " and othe r simila r epithets. Earl y reactions t o Brahms' s symphonies i n th e Unite d State s wer e n o different . I n Boston , th e criti c Phili p Hale , evidentl y speaking fo r many American musi c lovers , suggested tha t th e door s i n Symphon y Hal l b e equippe d with sign s readin g "Exi t i n cas e o f Brahms. " Harr y Elli s Dickso n i n hi s memoi r recall s tha t a t th e first performance o f the Brahm s Fourth Symphon y by the Bosto n Symphony the wor k "wa s remove d from th e Saturda y program, an d a symphon y by Schuman n wa s substituted . [Conductor ] Gerick e announced t o th e pres s that th e Brahm s symphony was 'incomprehensible.' " (Harry Elli s Dickson, Beating Time—A Musicians Memoir (Boston , 1995), p. 74.)

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y 32

1

imagination o r decenc y t o pu t a •™= = = = - i n th e firs t tw o bars! What suc h 'inter preters' forge t i s tha t Brahm s wa s quit e capabl e o f writin g suc h 'hairpin ' crescendo-diminuendos, whe n an d i f he wante d them . Indeed , b y my count, i n this secon d movemen t alon e ther e ar e n o les s tha n twent y instance s o f thi s particular dynami c nuance . Someone wil l no w undoubtedl y argu e th e cas e tha t Brahm s simpl y forgot t o put a — = = = - i n th e first two bars. An y objective, rationa l min d wil l hav e to conced e tha t tha t i s a possibility ; Brahms could hav e forgotten . Bu t wha t I don't understan d i s how w e go so quickly from thi s possibility—to m y min d ver y remote, give n Brahms' s notoriou s fastidiousnes s in detail s o f notation—t o th e assertion (an d absolute conviction) tha t Brahm s obviousl y must hav e forgotte n this expressive nuance. 24 Why mus t the possibl e an d probabl e becom e automati cally th e absolute , unarguable , untouchable , unalterabl e sine qu a no n o f per forming traditions ? Why no t explor e wit h a littl e imagination , ho w wha t i s presumed t o b e a mistak e o r a n omissio n o r a miscalculatio n coul d b e i n fac t absolutely feasible , and—perish th e thought—th e bes t solutio n afte r all ? The openin g o f Brahms' s secon d movemen t i s an appropriat e cas e i n point . Its littl e six-not e melod y (mm . 1-2) ha s a simplicity , a n unadorne d beaut y an d artless charm , tha t i s completel y destroye d whe n gussie d u p wit h extraneou s dynamic swell s and heavings , especiall y offensiv e whe n additionall y the temp o is twic e a s slo w a s i t shoul d be . For , th e slowe r th e temp o th e mor e painfu l these interpretationa l exaggeration s become . M y motto , an d m y admonitio n t o orchestral player s wh o hav e bee n taugh t t o pla y thi s openin g phras e i n suc h a vulgarized way , is: let Brahms' s beautiful note s d o the talking . I n thei r wonderful purity the y don' t nee d an y additional shorin g up , improving , embellishing , sup plementing, interpolating ; the y communicat e quit e wel l enoug h withou t ou r pitiful 'interpreter ' overlays. The sam e proble m i s at issu e i n m.3 , where , again , conductor s an d violinists want t o ad d a presumabl y missin g * = : := * t o th e phrase , justifyin g thei r deci sions, I assume , b y th e fac t tha t Brahm s add s jus t suc h a nuanc e th e nex t tw o times thi s littl e phras e appear s (violin s m.15, viola s m.16). Ther e is , of course , no substantiabl e logi c behin d suc h a n assumption ; an d furthermor e i t pre cludes, again , th e mor e interestin g optio n o f performin g mm . 3-4 a s writte n (come è scritto, as Toscanini woul d say) , that is , to see k ou t th e meanin g behin d Brahms's avoidanc e o f a crescendo-diminuendo , rathe r tha n blithel y assumin g that it s absenc e i s a 'mistake. ' I n fact , th e meanin g o f thi s nuance-les s p p is , i t seems t o me , quit e clear . B y whatever metapho r on e ma y wis h to describ e thi s phrase —m.3 alway s evoke s for m e th e imag e o f a smal l passin g clou d tha t fo r a moment partiall y darken s th e sky—i t i s firs t an d foremos t a sudde n softening , darkening, distancin g o f the musi c fro m it s two-bar anteceden t phrase . And jus t 24. I t seem s t o m e tha t such assertion s an d undocumente d (indee d undocumentable ) assumption s are a t th e hear t o f the matte r o f what ail s most performin g o f the Romanti c an d classica l repertoire . A possibility , a probability , i s quickly turne d int o a certaint y an d a sacralize d traditio n b y thos e wh o would righteousl y presum e t o kno w bette r tha n th e composer s themselve s wha t thes e composer s intended thei r score s t o reveal .

322 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

as tha t firs t phras e ha s n o - = = - , s o its 'echo ' als o doesn't—and , o f course , shouldn't. As an ex-horn-playe r I cannot resis t commenting o n th e anomalous—actuall y incorrect, bu t onl y slightl y so—marking, gestopft (stopped) , i n th e horn s i n m.3 . On th e natura l horn , fo r which Brahm s alway s wrot e despit e th e fac t tha t th e valved hor n ha d com e int o commo n use as early as the 1830s—anothe r exampl e of hi s adherenc e t o certai n conservativ e o r classi c viewpoints—th e writte n Fi t (sounding A# i n actua l pitc h o n th e hor n crooke d i n E ) coul d onl y be produce d by partially closing th e bel l o f the hor n wit h th e han d —emphasis o n "partially. " For i f a hor n playe r wer e t o completel y clos e th e bell , i.e . the tru e gestopft, th e pitch tha t woul d resul t woul d b e a writte n Al>, 25 i n thi s cas e a soundin g Ch , which would , o f course , no t fi t int o Brahms' s Ft t dominan t chord . Brahm s was half right , hal f wrong . H e kne w tha t som e degre e o f 'stopping' wa s necessary to get th e AK , bu t wa s wrong i n callin g i t gestopft, whic h i s a ver y specific mutin g technique resultin g i n a particula r sound quit e differen t fro m wha t Brahm s ha d intended.26 Partially closing th e bel l get s exactly the soun d Brahm s neede d here : softer, darker , mor e distant . Hor n player s hav e bee n confuse d b y thi s markin g for many , man y decades , bu t surprisingl y few hav e give n muc h though t t o it s meaning o r wha t Brahm s intende d t o indicat e b y it . Mos t hor n player s hav e simply played it—an d continu e t o this da y to play it—in th e conventiona l hand stopped manner, 27 producin g quit e th e wron g sound : a nasal , buzzy , piercing , edgy sound whic h i s inappropriate here . What hor n player s should d o to rende r Brahms's intende d effec t correctl y i s to 'half-mute ' th e note , fingerin g a sound ing B, closing th e han d int o th e bel l jus t enoug h t o produc e a n At , a mov e tha t will als o automaticall y darke n an d distanc e th e soun d — exactly wha t Brahm s wanted. Th e othe r alternativ e — not a s good —is t o pla y m. 3 ope n bu t suddenl y softer(/jp), an d t o darken , perhap s eve n slightl y muffl e th e soun d wit h th e em bouchure. I indicate d i n Fig . 4 tha t th e firs t five-ba r phras e coul d als o b e though t o f as 'four-plus-one. ' Th e 'one, ' actuall y 'one-and-a-third ' ba r is , i n fact , slightl y separable fro m th e first fou r measure s an d ca n b e though t o f as either a n exten sion o f those firs t fou r bars , o r a lon g anacrusi s gesture , a n extende d upbea t i n effect t o m.6 . Eve n mor e interestin g i s th e fac t tha t thes e fou r beat s o f musi c have alread y mad e a n earlie r ap pearance i n thi s symphony , i n fac t severa l times . Incredibly , thes e note s are , but fo r th e transpositio n a thir d lowe r an d a slowe r tempo , exactl y th e sam e notes a s i n th e openin g o f th e Allegro (m.38-40 ) i n th e firs t movement . Thi s 25. Fo r a full explanatio n o f this acoustic phenomeno n an d it s technical realization , see this author' s Horn Technique (London : Oxfor d Universit y Press, London , 1962,1992) ; pp.60-69 . 26. Brahm s wa s als o wron g i n no t puttin g th e wor d offen (open ) i n m.4 , th e ter m use d t o cance l any previou s stopping. 27. I remembe r a s a youn g hor n studen t no t onl y bein g taugh t b y m y teacher , a membe r o f th e New Yor k Philharmoni c horn section, t o pla y thi s not e han d stopped , bu t hearin g it played that way in al l performances i n thos e days .

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y 32

3

was on e o f Brahms' s delight s i n hi s majo r works : to brin g back—t o sli p in—i n one movemen t materia l tha t ha d appeare d i n a previous movement, or , its opposite, t o develo p a whole ne w theme , eve n a whole ne w movement , ou t o f some incidental materia l tha t ha d occurre d earlier. 28 The serenit y an d gentl e lyricis m of the openin g fou r measure s ar e quit e sud denly transforme d vi a the fift h ba r int o a mos t extraordinar y passage (mm.6-8 ) of quintessentia l Brahmsia n polyphony , a passag e which, however , loses most o f its extraordinar y quality whe n playe d to o slowly . The thre e individua l rhythms used t o generat e thi s ric h an d comple x contrapunta l fabri c — eighths, triple t eighths, an d dotte d eighths-sixteenth s — need a certai n momentum , a temp o flow, to unvei l their particula r rhythmic qualitie s and characteristics . At too slow a temp o the y simpl y disintegrate int o som e unfeelabl e mass , so that th e tensio n and conflic t at close quarter s between an d amon g thes e rhythmi c configurations are lost . A n ide a o f what I mea n b y conflic t and comple x counterpoin t ca n b e gained wit h eve n a cursor y glanc e a t th e musica l exampl e (Ex . 16a) , whic h displays a linea r representatio n o f the composit e rhyth m produce d b y the thre e aforementioned rhythmi c unit s see n i n m.8 . Separate d out , th e thre e trul y contrapuntal rhythmi c line s i n m. 8 loo k a s i n Ex . 16b . Thi s i s obviousl y a n ex Ex. 16 a

Ex. 16 b

tremely comple x rhythmi c design , and a s specifically expressed by Brahms, particularly i n mm.7-8 , need s t o b e playe d wit h th e utmos t rhythmi c accuracy . Failing that , eve n slightly , Brahms' s rhythmi c polyphon y turn s int o rhythmi c mush an d rhythmi c anonymity . Some migh t argu e tha t th e distinction s between th e thre e rhythmi c lines will be mor e clearl y audibl e th e slowe r th e basi c tempo . Possibly ; a t leas t o n on e level o f perception . Bu t wha t migh t perhap s b e gaine d i n rhythmi c clarit y and discernibility i n a ver y slow tempo , wil l b e vitiate d b y th e los s o f momentu m and tension . Th e thre e rhythms , whe n stretche d t o excess , los e thei r strength , like a n old , worn-ou t rubbe r band . Surely , Brahm s did no t creat e suc h comple x contrapuntal passage s i n orde r t o creat e somethin g eas y to liste n to , somethin g conflict-free. Furthermore , thi s passag e work s musicall y onl y withi n th e fram e 28. W e shal l se e a brillian t example o f th e latte r i n th e discussio n of th e Brahm s Fourth. Thes e little motivi c o r themati c came o appearance s o r re-appearance s i n Brahms' s works remin d m e o f Alfred Hitchcock' s penchan t fo r appearin g i n hi s ow n film s i n som e virtuall y unnoticed , tiny , 'cameo,' capacity.

324

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

of reference of a quarter-not e beat . Conductor s wh o d o thi s passage so slow (van Beinum, Tennstedt , Bernstein , Giulini ) tha t the y ar e almos t force d t o subdivide, in othe r word s conduct i n eighths , produc e onl y a chunky , ponderous , muscle bound feeling , whic h i s quite antithetica l t o Brahms' s conception . Ho w power fully expressiv e and excitin g th e thre e bar s i n questio n ca n soun d ca n b e hear d on Haitink' s altogethe r splendi d recording . From th e hig h level s o f intensit y o f mm.6-8 , Brahm s no w return s t o th e tranquillity o f the openin g i n thre e exquisitel y harmonized an d nuance d mea sures. Unfortunately , the nint h chor d i n m.1 0 and th e thirteent h chor d i n m.ll are almos t neve r full y realized . Fo r som e strang e reason—i s i t a laten t fea r o f dissonance, o f chromaticism?—the A in th e secon d violin s in m.10 , and th e D 1) in th e viola s i n m.l l ar e almos t alway s under-played . Man y conductor s reall y do no t hea r ver y wel l harmonicall y and see m t o hav e n o interest—no r th e nec essary ear—t o brin g ou t th e pungen t harmonie s al l grea t composer s blen d int o their music . Thi s incapacit y severel y undermines th e ful l effect—an d effective ness—of th e musi c o f th e grea t harmoni c masters , especiall y Brahms . I coul d find onl y tw o recording s i n whic h thes e harmoni c shading s wer e properl y realized (Sawallisc h an d Celibidache) . Measure 1 2 i s rarel y performe d correctly , mainl y becaus e n o on e seem s t o know that rfis no t th e sam e as sfor sfz. Th e markin g rfis simpl y an abbreviation of th e Italia n ter m rinforzando (meanin g reinforcing) . Thu s th e downbea t o f m. 12 i s not som e hug e f accent , bu t a gently expressiv e 'reinforcement.' Comin g from th e p p i n m.l l th e actua l dynami c leve l a t m.1 2 ough t no t t o b e mor e than mp. Also , no on e eve r seems t o pay any attention t o Brahms' s meticulousl y precise placemen t o f the dynami c nuance s i n m.12 . Th e wind s crescend o goe s to th e secon d bea t (no t th e first) , on e bea t late r tha n th e strings' . I t i s almos t always erroneousl y played a s : It is important that th e downbea t o f m. 13 in th e wind s be p (somethin g muc h harder t o achiev e i f m.12 i s played f ) , for i t migh t the n remin d conductor s an d string player s tha t th e prevailin g dynami c her e is , i n fact , p . Recordin g afte r recording offers thi s beautiful, elegant, gentl e phras e in a full , thick , fa t f, furthe r vulgarized wit h gratuitou s saccharin e portamenti, (a s represented i n Ex.17) , i n

Ex. 1 7

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y 32

5

my vie w al l a grievou s trivialization of Brahms' s intentions . Ther e i s a heavenl y repose i n thi s passag e (mm . 13-17) whe n i t i s played softl y i n a contemplative , inner-directed way , a s Brahm s wrot e it . Amon g th e ver y fe w conductor s wh o caught this special mood , I would lik e t o cite particularl y Suitner , Haitink , an d Sawallisch. Speaking o f harmoni c neglects , Brahms' s C$ i n th e secon d cello s i n m.1 6 (and th e paralle l place , m.70 ) i s rarel y full y projected . Mos t composer s woul d have writte n th e muc h les s interestin g C I here . Bu t Brahms , alway s inten t o n varying hi s materials , constantl y reinventing , havin g alread y use d th e plai n di minished chor d (i n m.15) , darken s th e harmon y wit h th e C (makin g i t a 'Ger man' sixth chord). Bu t the beaut y of this subtle harmoni c touc h seem s t o escap e most performers , although no t Stokowsk i and Abbado . The quiescen t moo d continue s wit h a poignan t obo e sol o accompanie d b y soft wind s an d violas—onl y here again , to o ofte n th e moo d i s destroyed b y th e 'mezzo-fortissization' tha t seem s t o plagu e s o man y orchestras . Thi s i s on e o f Brahms's mos t poignan t melodies ; i t ha s a feelin g o f intimacy , eve n o f fragilit y and vulnerability . Bu t whe n th e obois t swaggeringl y trumpets ou t hi s solo , th e other instrument s automaticall y com e u p i n dynami c level ; and unles s th e con ductor prevent s thi s dynami c distortion , th e whol e transcenden t beaut y o f thi s passage i s gone. What als o gives this passag e it s poignancy i s the bitterswee t dissonanc e i n th e clashing o f th e A#' s an d B' s i n m.1 9 an d m.21 : Th

e absenc e o f thi s

expressive dissonanc e i n mos t performance s ca n b e ascribe d t o tw o factors : (1 ) the aforementione d tendenc y o f most conductor s (an d mos t musicians , fo r tha t matter) t o avoi d an y 'alien ' dissonanc e i n tona l music , an d (2 ) onc e again , th e misreading o r ignorin g o f Brahms' s carefull y place d dynami c markings . Th e 'hairpin' nuance s i n m . 18-21 ar e usually playe d | instead o f Brahms' s Th

e resul t i s tha t precisel y wher e

the All' s clas h wit h th e E mino r chord , th e player s have backe d of f into a ten sionless p o r pp , rathe r tha n th e expressiv e mp Brahms' s notatio n implies . O n only fiv e recordings—thos e o f Abravanel , Janowski , Järvi , Stokowski , an d Suit ner—is thi s ver y Brahmsia n touc h exploited .

326

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

In th e middl e o f thi s phras e Brahm s devise s on e o f th e mos t extraordinary , brilliant musical/structura l idea s an y compose r ha d conceive d u p t o tha t time . It consist s o f th e encounte r betwee n tw o totall y unrelate d musica l ideas : th e movement's mai n them e (Them e I ) a s first stated i n mm . 1-4, an d th e secon d subject (Them e II ) a s state d b y the oboe . I hav e alread y alluded t o thi s i n Fig . 4, bu t perhap s th e radicalit y o f Brahms's ide a ca n b e appreciate d eve n mor e i n the followin g graphic representatio n of Fig. 6.

Fig. 6 Theme II Theme I What Brahm s ha s don e i n effec t i s t o slid e Them e I i n unde r th e pea k measure (m.22 ) o f Them e II, 29 the n abando n Them e I I tw o bar s late r whil e letting Them e I continu e (m.24)—again , b e i t noted, withou t an y dynami c nu ances. Then , i n m.25 , Brahm s pick s u p th e interrupte d obo e melody , fash ions a varian t o f the oboe' s las t thre e note s a s a link-measur e t o allo w th e mel ody t o b e finishe d ou t i n mm.26-2 7 i n a fina l resolutio n t o th e toni c ke y of E , thereb y als o roundin g of f th e firs t majo r episod e o f th e movement . B y rights th e resumptio n o f th e interrupte d (oboe ) melod y i n m.2 5 shoul d hav e been give n t o th e oboe . Bu t Brahm s decide d t o tur n i t ove r t o th e strings , th e 'intruders' wh o surreptitiousl y crep t i n thre e bar s earlier . Th e whol e passag e (mm. 18-27) i s a t once , i n it s quie t an d subtl e way , on e o f th e mos t radica l and sophisticate d polyphoni c conceptions , a worth y extensio n o f th e lesson s Brahms learne d fro m hi s studie s o f Bach' s polyphoni c masterpieces. 30 Unfortu nately ver y fe w conductors, le t alon e orchestra l musicians , hav e appreciate d th e originality an d technica l sophisticatio n o f Brahms' s invention , an d th e whol e marvelous themati c interpla y her e i s rarel y full y realize d i n performanc e an d recordings. Before leavin g this section , I mus t reiterat e tha t th e rf i n m.2 5 is , once again , not som e supe r explosiv e sfz, bu t a gentl e expressiv e accen t i n th e contex t 29. Wha t happen s in mm.22-23 can b e likene d in th e visua l real m to ou r suddenl y seeing a photographic doubl e image, on e pictur e superimposed upon another , but slightl y askew . 30. Thi s is , of course , as I hav e previously suggested, no t mer e imitatio n o f straigh t Bachian fuga l and canoni c writing. As Douglas Townsend puts it in th e aforementione d liner notes: "whe n w e say that musicall y speaking [Brahms' ] great-grandfathe r was Bach , i t i s no t becaus e hi s musi c i s s o polyphonic, bu t rathe r reflect s th e knowledge o f counterpoint, eve n whe n i t i s no t contrapuntal. " I would ad d tha t i t no t onl y reflects tha t knowledge , bu t i n highl y imaginativ e way s extend s an d augments tha t knowledge, investing it with wholly ne w concepts , reinventin g and renewin g polyphony i n relatio n t o the newe r symphonic forms. Townsen d continues: "[Brahms's] knowledge of counterpoint an d fugu e ar e manifeste d i n mos t o f hi s wor k b y th e manne r i n whic h th e texture o f hi s compositions i s constantly varied fro m th e polyphoni c to th e homophoni c an d bac k again. "

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y 32

7

of th e essentiall y calm , quiet , seren e main-theme . I mus t als o remin d u s that th e •" = = * • i n m.2 6 peak s o n th e fourt h eighth-not e o f the measure , no t the thir d beat—whic h i s th e way , alas , i t i s universally , bu t erroneously , played. The nex t episod e (mm.28-38 ) i s on e o f th e mos t gloriousl y singin g i n th e entire symphony . I t i s so beloved b y conductors , a s well a s string players, that i t is generall y treate d wit h grea t respec t an d lov e an d thu s relativel y wel l per formed. Bu t wha t sometime s happen s to thi s passage i s (a) too muc h crescend o in m.2 9 (th e p' s in the accompanimen t i n m.3 0 provide a clue that the dynami c in th e violin s and viola s ough t no t t o excee d mp—or a t mos t mf ) ; (b ) rushin g the temp o ou t o f sheer uncontrolle d excitemen t i n mm.29-3 0 an d mm . 31-32, also—and eve n mor e likely—crescendoin g i n thos e tw o measure s (Brahm s de lays th e crescend o unti l m.34) ; an d (c ) a n erroneous , ofte n ver y vulgar ritard i n m.37, followed by an equall y mindless accelerando i n m.38 . This last aberration is particularly disturbing because i t destroys the whol e momentu m an d puls e of the music , whic h i t i s most importan t t o preserv e in orde r t o properl y set up , a s it were, th e nex t 'kinde r an d gentler ' obo e an d clarine t episod e (mm.39-ca.48) . The sa d fac t i s that th e inordinat e slowin g up o f the temp o i n m.3 7 an d speed ing u p i n m.3 8 ar e ofte n cause d b y th e strin g players , especiall y th e violinists, who wan t t o us e hug e ful l bow s (fou r o f them ) i n m.37 , bu t wh o quickl y ru n out o f bo w i n m.38 . I t mus t b e thousand s o f time s i n th e histor y o f th e piec e that th e string s have alread y reached th e ti p o f the bo w b y the secon d o r thir d eighth o f m.38 , wit h th e resul t tha t ther e i s a ver y quic k one-bea t diminuendo ; for th e res t of the measur e th e string s then han g o n weakly , waiting for the nex t downbeat, instea d o f maintaining a lon g three-beat diminuendo. Thi s ca n easily be don e wit h a littl e though t an d car e b y balancin g bo w pressur e agains t bo w speed—what string players call "savin g the bow. " Bu t to o man y conductor s hav e caved i n t o the strin g players, accommodating t o their ba d habi t b y acceleratin g the temp o i n m.38 , whe n i n fac t b y al l musica l logi c an d feeling , afte r th e almost ecstatic passion and grandeu r of the entir e previous phrase, it s resolution, its restin g poin t i n m.38 , shoul d als o b e gran d an d sustained . Amon g th e fe w conductors wh o avoide d thi s particula r distortion , I singl e ou t especiall y Leins dorf an d Suitner . Up t o thi s poin t i n th e secon d movement , th e onl y conductors , amon g th e fifty-odd recordings sampled , wh o offe r trul y satisfactory , respectfu l ye t inspire d performances ar e Weingartne r (i n hi s late-1930 s Londo n Symphon y perfor mance) an d Suitne r i n hi s recen t recordin g wit h th e Berli n Staatskapelle . Ex cept fo r a rather slowish over-all tempo (Weingartner : j = 40 , Suitner: j = 48) and a weak unappreciated C^ i n m.16 , all the point s covere d thu s fa r are beauti fully handle d wit h warmth , taste , an d intelligence . I mus t confes s tha t whe n I firs t bega n conductin g thi s symphony , I di d no t understand th e dynamic s i n th e accompanimen t i n mm.34—37 , especiall y the p in m.35 . Wh y shoul d th e accompanimen t dro p out , s o to speak , in mm.35-37 , rather tha n full y supportin g th e uppe r strings ? I hav e sinc e realize d tha t

328 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

Brahms's dynamic s her e ar e no t simpl y 'wrong'—a s on e migh t to o hastil y assume—but that , i n fact , Brahm s i s after anothe r darin g an d unorthodo x effect , namely, that o f the supportiv e harmonic accompanimen t functionin g on it s own separate dynami c track : a kin d o f polyphon y o f dynamic s an d o f texture . I n effect, th e accompanimen t recedes , almos t disappearin g like some undergroun d river, onl y to re-emerg e i n m.3 7 i n complet e suppor t o f the melodi c line . Thi s is the n a n ide a t o b e explore d full y an d exploite d rathe r tha n change d o r re jected ou t o f hand. We shoul d not e i n passin g how ingeniousl y Brahm s maximize s the us e o f his musical materials . B y criss-crossin g hi s tw o to p melodic/contrapunta l line s (Ex.lSa), he i s able t o stretc h m.3 4 out t o thre e measure s (a s shown i n Ex.lSb) . It i s thi s three-stag e bar-by-ba r descent—descen t bot h registrall y an d dynami cally—that undoubtedl y prompte d Brahm s t o conceiv e th e aforementione d un usual dispositio n o f the accompanimen t here .

Ex. 18 a

Ex. 18 b

The oboe' s lon g sinuous , exquisitel y spun-ou t lin e rise s almost imperceptibl y out o f the recedin g diminuend o o f the string s in m.38 . When thi s movemen t i s played a t th e righ t flowin g (andante) tempo , thi s middl e episod e ha s a re freshing, light , air y characte r tha t provide s a wonderfu l contras t t o th e thre e previous sections. 31 Th e musi c seem s t o b e floatin g o n buoyant , feathery-ligh t springs, a feeling which i s best achieve d i n th e string s by a subtl e relaxe d subdivision o f th e conductor' s beat . I n man y recording s th e strings ' syncopate d ac companiment i s anythin g bu t feathery-light ; instea d i t i s heavy , stiff , chunky , and, surprisingl y often, untogether . Car e mus t b e take n tha t th e sixteenth-note s not b e cu t to o short , a ba d bowin g habi t tha t her e destroy s the gran d lin e an d 31. Le t u s also not e tha t th e pitche s i n th e first violins here (m . 39-40) are , wit h bu t on e exceptio n

(the B» ) identical t o Brahms' s principa l openin g theme . Wit h th e entranc e o f th e clarine t fiv e bar s later , Brahms invert s th e accompanimen t C ßi " G A t BU> .

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y 32

9

dissects th e musi c int o countles s tin y littl e fragments . Strin g player s mus t b e cautioned t o play the sixteenth-note s ful l lengt h an d thin k acros s the intercedin g rest, s o tha t a lon g uninterrupte d chai n o f floatin g syncopation s results . I t i s surprising—and disappointing—t o hea r i n bot h Karajan' s an d Kertesz' s re cordings, bot h wit h th e Vienn a Philharmonic , th e string s pla y th e accompani ment i n mm . 39-49 not onl y very stiffly , unfloatingly , bu t i n suc h a manne r tha t the syncopation s see m turne d around , a s i f Brahms had writte n instead o f (This i s probably th e resul t o f misguidedly bowing th e passag e ) Before th e clarinet' s respons e t o th e obo e i s completed , cello s an d basse s sneak i n wit h th e oboe' s sinuou s m.3 9 theme , ominousl y darkenin g th e moo d of the music . I n m.4 8 car e mus t b e take n tha t th e clarinet' s fina l measur e i s not drowned ou t b y th e enterin g flut e an d bassoon , a s happen s unfortunatel y o n dozens o f recordings. The uppe r strings ' syncopation s no w ar e use d b y Brahms t o considerabl y agitate th e moo d (mm.49,51-52) . Surprisingly , thes e ar e agai n th e melodi c note s of m.3, rhythmically an d transpositionall y varied. becomes, a thir d lowe r and enharmonicall y re-spelled, .

A s i n a seethin g sea ,

waves o f churnin g syncopate d rhythm s rol l forward , crashin g ultimatel y (m.53 ) onto th e barrie r of a five-octave-deep Gtt, bringin g the musi c bac k t o the tempo rary bas e ke y o f Ct t minor . Th e sf p her e mus t b e sharpl y articulate d t o full y represent th e sudde n arrestatio n o f the music' s risin g momentum. I t i s too ofte n played a s a mediocr e sfmf, whic h hardl y doe s justic e t o wha t i s thus fa r i n thi s movement it s mos t dramatic , almos t shocking , moment . Bu t th e tempestuou s surge o f the musi c canno t b e hel d bac k fo r long . I t break s fort h int o a passion ate, richl y texture d outpourin g whic h comprise s th e clima x o f th e whol e Ct t minor middl e sectio n (mm . 39-62) o f the movement . Its tai l en d (mm.61-62 ) present s a rea l performanc e problem , though . I t i s my vie w tha t th e sixteenth-not e groups , divide d amon g variou s woodwind an d string choirs , ough t t o b e playe d s o a s t o creat e on e beautifu l Klangfarben se quence.32 I ca n wel l imagin e Brahm s playin g thes e tw o bar s a t th e pian o (fo r Clara Schumann? ) i n on e unbroke n descendin g line , a s represented i n Ex . 19. 32. Ther e i s a ver y simila r passag e i n th e slo w movemen t o f th e Fourt h Symphon y (mm.57-59) , where th e sam e performanc e problem o f connectin g thre e disparat e instrumenta l groups int o on e single lin e exists .

330

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Ex. 1 9

This is much harde r to achieve, o f course, amon g differen t instrumenta l sections than i t is on on e pian o playe d by one person , whos e on e ea r an d on e min d ar e controlling te n fingers . Mos t o f th e time , ou t o f shee r inattentio n o r laziness , the firs t fou r successiv e grouping s (mm.61-62 ) ar e playe d i n a disjointe d man ner, mainl y becaus e oftha t universa l bad habit— a veritabl e plagu e —of cuttin g off las t note s befor e a rest . Thi s passag e ca n b e don e correctl y if all th e player s involved hol d thei r las t sixteent h ful l lengt h —not longer , no t shorter—an d real ize tha t the y hav e t o han d thei r las t not e ove r t o anothe r playe r o r grou p o f players, jus t a s incomin g player s have t o realiz e tha t the y ar e takin g ove r fro m another se t o f players. I t ma y tak e a bi t o f rehearsin g t o achiev e thi s continuit y of line , bu t i t i s wel l wort h th e effort . Furtwängler' s Vienn a Philharmoni c re cording offer s a shinin g exampl e o f how beautifu l thi s passag e can soun d whe n played i n th e conjoine d manne r I am suggesting . I have several times referre d to Brahms's fondness for playing around wit h th e beat an d th e meter . I hav e als o no t conceale d m y stron g convictio n tha t de spite—indeed becaus e of—thes e rhythmi c sniffings , Brahm s meant the underly ing puls e an d mete r als o to b e felt , t o b e implied . Thes e rhythmi c shifting s ar e like enlarge d syncopations : they ar e no t jus t on e not e bein g syncopate d agains t its adjacen t beat , bu t a whol e phras e syncopate d agains t a whol e measure , o r several. Measure s 63-6 5 ar e a cas e i n point . Wherea s w e almost alway s hear i n performances an d recording s these measure s playe d a s if Brahms had writte n a s in Ex . 20 a (i n pian o reduction) , the y should , i n fact , soun d a s actually se t b y Brahms, namel y Ex . 20b . Anythin g les s tha n thi s vitiate s the whol e poin t an d

Ex. 20 a

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y

331

j = downbeat weigh t / emphasis = lesser weight, but still a clearly felt pulse

w

meaning o f Brahmsian syncopations, whic h shoul d hav e a n against-the-bea t lil t to them . An d i t i s ver y disturbin g (a s wel l a s wrong ) whe n w e ar e oblige d t o hear a n inadverten t 3/ 8 (as bracketed i n Ex . 20a ) in m.66 . Furtwängler, wh o ha d jus t negotiate d mm.61-6 2 s o beautifully , no w lose s himself i n suc h a slo w temp o i n m.63— J = 4 6 (eve n slowe r i n hi s Berli n Philharmonic recording) , th e eighth s almos t a s slo w a s hi s quarter s were a t th e beginning o f the movement—tha t th e music , no t t o mentio n th e form , loses all shape an d coherence . Toscanini , wh o als o negotiate d m.61-6 2 relativel y well, takes the opposit e approac h t o Furtwängler's i n m.63 , lungin g precipitousl y into a temp o o f J = 58 , completel y ou t o f contex t wit h hi s basi c temp o fo r th e movement an d th e kin d o f tempo waywardnes s that Toscanin i almos t neve r per mitted himself . We hav e arrive d at th e recapitulation , bu t no t th e ordinar y reprise of classical vintage. I t i s the ne w genr e o f recapitulation firs t propose d b y Beethove n i n hi s Fifth Symphony , base d o n th e principl e o f non-repetitio n an d perpetua l varia tion. Th e recapitulatio n a t mm.66-6 7 i s a gloriou s revisitin g of th e mai n (an d opening) themati c materia l o f th e movement . Measure s 1-2 7 ar e reanimated , vertically an d horizontall y expande d (extr a bar s ar e interpolate d thre e times : mm.70,80,85-87), orchestrationally refurbished, and contrapuntall y enriched, t o the poin t tha t th e half-attentiv e listener (an d musician ) ma y not eve n realiz e h e is hearing a recapitulation . Though th e orchestr a use d no w i s much large r tha n i n th e exposition, 33 th e dynamic level s ar e —and shoul d be , bu t almos t neve r are—th e same . Ther e i s nothing mor e exquisit e in musi c than a ful l symphon y orchestra playing pp, an d 33. I t i s wort h notin g tha t trumpet s an d timpan i mak e thei r firs t appearanc e i n th e movemen t a t this point , havin g been save d unti l no w fo r jus t this purposefu l entrance .

332 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Brahms definitel y call s fo r i t her e (mm.67-71) , th e littl e crescendo s neve r exceeding mp. Bu t sadly , thi s i s universally ignored; a n obes e m f i s usually substituted (onl y Skrowaczewsk i managed t o achiev e th e almos t Debussya n transparency an d tendernes s o f these measures) . Eve n wors e i s the predilectio n o n th e part of so many conductor s t o forever conduc t onl y the strings , an approac h tha t is severely damaging to the passag e in question , fo r the primar y (thematic) mate rial i s in th e uppe r woodwinds, 34 not i n th e strings. The uppe r string s have only a simpl e counterlin e whic h certainl y should no t cove r or obscure th e delicatel y orchestrated woodwinds . But to o man y conductor s exhor t th e violin s and viola s to a passionat e outburst , startin g no t p p bu t mf , followe d b y a n enormou s cre scendo. Unde r thes e exhortations , th e strin g player s hav e n o choic e bu t t o change Brahms' s bowing i n mm.67-6 8 to 1

or , wors e yet, t o

Between th e origina l m.4 and m.5 , as recapitulated here , Brahms interpolate s mm.16-17 (reorchestrate d an d revoiced , of course), the mode l fo r this being th e exposition's mm.15-17 . Th e origina l m. 5 the n return s i n m.72 , embellishe d with strin g pizzicatos . Her e grea t car e mus t b e take n b y the firs t flut e an d first clarinet t o pla y the softes t p p possibl e i n m.7 1 an d no t t o mak e to o bi g a cre scendo. O n th e othe r hand , th e secon d flute , firs t oboe , an d secon d clarine t should kno w that the y hav e th e leadin g melodi c notes . ( I know of no recordin g where thi s bi t o f sophisticate d voic e leadin g an d balancin g wa s properl y han dled.) I n mm.73-7 5 (th e origina l mm.6-8) , Brahm s modulate s t o a ne w tona l region. Again , th e swee t 'dissonances, ' firs t encountere d i n mm.9-11 , mus t b e brought out : th e nint h chord s i n mm.76 , 77 , an d th e A' s in th e 13t h chor d o f m.78. The voicin g i s quite close , almos t a s in jaz z block-chor d writin g (Ex. 21).

Ex. 2 1

Notice particularl y the clos e voicin g of the secon d clarine t and first horn. There are als o th e delicat e melodi c an d rhythmi c clashe s o f the resolvin g eighth-not e Fit's agains t th e triple t Ett' s i n mm.76-78 , whic h requir e ver y precise timin g t o bring of f correctly . I n m.7 9 th e contrastin g dynamic s (th e woodwind s peakin g on th e secon d beat , the string s on th e thir d beat) ar e almost neve r observed , no r is th e nee d fo r a n enormou s diminuend o fro m th e ffs o f tha t measur e t o th e 34. Brahm s undoubtedly woul d hav e wante d t o tak e th e firs t flut e u p t o th e highes t C f i n m.67 , but fearing—rightl y so—tha t i t would b e to o lou d ( a hig h C | o n th e flut e canno t b e playe d f>), h e took i t down th e octave . Jochu m an d Ormand y ar e th e onl y conductor s I know of who tak e the C f up a n octave , not t o th e bes t effect , I' m afraid .

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y

333

soft, delicate , transparen t p texture s o f m.80 . I f anyon e wer e eve r t o observ e Brahms's diminuend o i n th e string s in m.80 , th e nex t bar would commenc e pp , and woul d thu s be the appropriat e recapitulator y parallel t o mm. 13-17. Brahms no w interpolate s int o th e recapitulatio n tw o previously heard phrase s —small recapitulation s withi n th e large r recapitulation , a s i t were . Th e firs t i s the woodwin d phras e o f mm.85-86 , a slightl y expande d reworkin g o f m.80; the secon d a n altere d 'repeat ' o f mm.81-84, adjuste d by Brahms t o prepare th e way fo r th e retur n o f th e secon d subjec t (th e oboe melod y o f m.18) . Agai n much depend s o n th e respec t th e conducto r an d performer s hav e (o r d o no t have) for Brahms's dynami c indications . A s I have emphasize d severa l times, no t much i n th e wa y o f colo r an d timbra i richnes s ca n b e achieve d i f dynami c variety, especiall y a t th e softe r levels , i s suppressed ; tha t is , i f th e ubiquitou s mezzofortissimo i s pu t int o operation . Brahms' s mixin g o f colors , o f lines , o f particular sonori c effects , o f rhythms , her e i s s o ingenious , s o delicatel y cali brated, tha t ever y detai l o f hi s scrupulou s notatio n mus t b e observe d an d rendered accurately . To begin wit h (se e Ex.22), th e thre e 'solo ' instrument s —oboe, horn , violin -

Ex. 2 2

have t o b e wel l balance d amon g themselve s i n mm.91-96 . ( I have los t trac k of how man y recording s fai l t o achiev e this ; usuall y one hear s primaril y the hor n and violin. ) Next, th e crescend o swell s i n m.9 1 mus t b e handle d ver y discreetly lest the y overpowe r th e soloists , wh o i n self-defens e wil l then , o f course , resor t to a mf dynami c o r more . Throug h thi s relativel y dense textur e th e harp-lik e triplet pizzicatos o f the cello s mus t b e abl e t o projec t without forcing. Next, th e Att' s previously referred t o i n connectio n wit h m.1 9 and m.21 , mus t be wel l balance d agains t thei r neighborin g B's . Almost alway s ignore d i s th e articulation Brahm s give s mos t o f th e accompanyin g instrument s i n m.9 2 an d m.94: no

t.

Not e tha t th e trumpet s an d secon d hor n maintai n thi s

notation fo r the entir e first four measure s (mm.91-94), Brahms's way of showing that thes e note s shoul d b e playe d wit h somethin g approximatin g th e soun d o f timpani notes when playe d wit h sof t sticks , a sound like ,

as seen i n nota -

35

tion. The combinatio n o f cresc. and i n mm.93-9 4 has confused musicians an d conductor s fo r years . Bu t i t i s reall y ver y simple : i n thos e tw o 35. Here , incidentally , o n thi s smal l poin t th e questio n o f tempo arise s again . Fo r i f the potentia l duration o f a timpan i not e playe d p i n averag e acoustic s is , say, a hal f t o three-quarter s o f a second , then i n a n andante th e duratio n o f the timpan i note s wil l correspon d wel l t o Brahms' s notation ; i f on th e othe r han d a temp o o f J = 3 0 i s taken , th e timpan i note s wil l fil l onl y a fourt h o f tha t duration, soundin g lik e

334 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

bars, one i s to mak e a n overal l crescendo fro m p t o f, a t the sam e tim e incorpo rating a n additiona l cresc.- dim. , whic h peak s temporaril y o n th e downbeat o f m.94, bu t onl y i n thos e instrument s (uppe r woodwinds , trumpets , and timpani ) tha t hav e thi s dynami c overlay . Measure 9 5 i s difficul t t o balance , especiall y i n liv e (non-recording ) perfor mance, fo r several simultaneou s demand s o f th e musi c mus t b e fulfilled : th e three sol o instrument s must no t b e smothere d b y the f o f the othe r instruments ; at th e sam e tim e th e mai n openin g theme , enterin g i n lo w strings , bassoons , and contrabassoo n mus t als o be full y (i.e . deeply, richly ) represented, al l o f this , one hopes , no t obscurin g th e pizzicato s i n th e cellos . Many conductor s mak e a little break, a tiny caesura, between m.9 6 and m.97 . This i s wrong , fo r th e thre e sol o instruments ' melod y (E-B-GÍ ) shoul d carr y directly int o th e tune' s continuatio n i n th e flut e an d clarinet . Th e interruptio n comes i n th e next measure , ther e actually composed int o th e musi c b y Brahms. Other tempo distortions at the hand s of many conductors aboun d i n this recapit ulation (m.67) , bu t non e wors e than thos e o f Bernstein, an d t o a lesse r extent , Rowicki. Afte r turnin g th e bea t completel y around , fo r example, i n mm.63-6 4 Bernstein no w make s a huge ritar d i n m.65 , followe d b y a n enormou s fermat a on th e secon d bea t o f m.66 . Measur e 6 7 i s then take n u p adagississimo, bu t then—ludicrously—m.71 i s suddenly muc h faster , bu t onl y fo r tw o bars. Fo r a t m.73 Bernstei n slow s up dramaticall y again. Similarly , some tim e later , at m.8 9 Bernstein impose s th e huges t ritar d o f all , bu t wit h th e entr y o f the hor n sol o (m.100) rushe s suddenl y forwar d again . However , nex t on e ca n hea r th e hor n soloist pull th e temp o back t o where i n the large r context i t actually should hav e been al l along . Ther e i s in al l o f this jus t to o muc h o f an "oy-vay " Weltschmerz to b e bearable . I gues s I wil l neve r full y understan d ho w a ma n o f Bernstein' s basic talent and intelligenc e coul d allo w himself suc h temp o excesses , wreaking havoc wit h Brahms' s classi c form , an d i n effec t recomposin g an d restructurin g the musi c t o hi s own whims and ego-drive n fantasies . Not quit e i n Bernstein' s league , Rowick i nonetheles s compete s valiantl y in the 'temp o distortion ' game . Havin g embarke d o n th e hor n sol o i n m.100 a t his basic temp o for the Andante movement , a sluggish j = 38 , he suddenl y jumps the temp o t o J = 4 6 i n m.104 , bu t tw o bars late r i s back dow n t o J = ca.40 . What was he thinkin g of ? Astonishing mixture s o f sonorities , o f rhythms , als o aboun d i n th e secon d subject's recapitulator y extension, se t forth b y a solo horn (mm.100-104) . Let us assume tha t th e horn , a wel l projectin g instrumen t afte r all , wil l no t fee l th e need t o pla y loudly , wil l i n fac t star t th e sol o i n p . Thi s i s no t onl y wha t Brahms's scor e calls for—reason enoug h t o respec t it—bu t beyond that , th e mix ture o f sof t flute s an d clarinet s (th e latte r continuin g th e previou s pizzicat o o f the cellos) , sof t timpani , an d strings , al l se t i n waltz-lik e triplets ove r a sustained pedal poin t i n cellos , basses , and on e lo w horn, wil l b e simpl y blotted ou t whe n the hor n i s too loud . The n ther e i s the sol o violin to b e reckone d with . Many a concertmaster ha s ha d t o pla y this sol o f, i n orde r merel y t o b e heard . Bu t al l such forcin g o f th e sounds , whethe r i n th e hor n o r th e violin , o r othe r instru -

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y 33

5

ments competin g t o b e heard , ruin s the delicat e textur e and air y dance-like lil t of the music . One of the mos t elegan t and lyrica l rendition s of thi s passag e (mm.100-104) can be heard o n Chailly' s Concertgebou w recording , with Tosca nini's, Levine's , Suitner's , Sawallisch's , an d Szell's , a s close runners-up . Th e las t named feature s a particularl y elegant an d tastefu l violi n obbligat o b y Rafae l Druian. There i s considerable confusio n a s to ho w the sextuplet s in th e sol o violi n in mm.103-104 shoul d b e played : i n thre e grouping s o f tw o o r tw o grouping s of three. I lean toward s the latte r choic e fo r three reasons : (1 ) the violi n solo is first and foremos t a n accompanyin g ornamentatio n o f th e hor n sol o an d a s suc h should preserv e th e dupl e divisio n of the beats ; (2 ) mm. 103-104 being a variant of mm.101-102, i t seems logica l that Brahm s was thinking t o exten d th e earlie r sixteenths to sixteent h triplets , preservin g the dupl e divisio n of the bea t fo r that reason; (3 ) I sugges t tha t Brahm s wa s settin g th e tw o sol o partners , hor n an d violin, against the underlyin g triplet accompaniment—again hi s fascination wit h two ove r three, two against three . Her e i t is very importan t als o to brin g out th e somewhat under-orchestrate d cell o D (th e sevent h o f E major ) i n m.103 , an d the 'dark ' Cï i n m.104. It i s astonishing wit h wha t extraordinary economy Brahm s consistentl y works. As i n th e firs t movemen t o f Beethoven's Fifth , ever y tin y scra p of materia l i s of significance, regardles s of how insignifican t i t may look o r sound a t first hearing, and i s used an d re-use d i n th e mos t imaginativ e and origina l ways. I don't think many conductors o r orchestra musician s have realized that i n mm . 105-108 (and in a varied form i n mm . 109-11) the three-not e melod y of the movement' s open ing them e i s used a s the bas s line (Ex.23) . Furthermore, th e melodi c line , split between th e flut e an d th e violins , is taken fro m mm.21-2 2 of the secon d subject oboe theme . Car e mus t b e taken tha t th e over-al l line, fro m th e pick-u p eighths in th e woodwind s in m.10 4 throug h m . l l l , no t b e broken . Th e sonori c ex changes betwee n woodwind s an d string s shoul d b e carrie d ou t ver y smoothly. The dynami c i n the string s in m.10 6 shoul d probabl y be mp.

Ex.23

The whol e movement i s constructed with such a wondrous over-all line , with themes an d motive s merging almost imperceptibly into on e another , eliding and

336 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

overlapping, tha t i t i s sometime s difficul t t o tel l wher e on e sectio n end s an d another begins . Th e cod a i s a cas e i n point . I suppos e on e migh t plac e i t i n m.114, bu t her e to o on e phras e (i n th e winds ) elides an d overlap s with anothe r incoming on e (i n th e strings) , making an y clea r structura l delineatio n ambigu ous. I have ofte n felt , despit e wha t m y mind wa s telling me , tha t th e cod a start s in m.112 , when th e clarine t an d sol o violi n phras e ha s com e t o a restin g place, resolving o n th e toni c key . More themati c recyclin g now : what i s in th e wind s in mm.114—1 6 re-appear s in th e string s i n mm . 120—22, an d vic e versa . A t th e sam e tim e th e chromati c transitional phras e tha t w e firs t encountere d i n m. 5 i s use d twic e more , onc e leading t o a fals e cadence , th e secon d tim e t o th e fina l resolutio n i n E major . Again, ther e ar e man y specia l —I woul d sa y unique—Brahmsian touches , tha t should b e bu t rarel y are observed . In m.11 8 the trumpets ' an d secon d horn' s E's are no t audibl e i n mos t performance s an d recordings . A s the seventh s i n a sec ond inversio n Fi t dominant chord , thes e E' s giv e a n unusua l colo r t o th e har mony, also , of course, presagin g th e toni c ke y to which al l wil l soo n b e resolved. Also, nobod y seem s t o wan t t o observ e an d respec t Brahms' s unusua l dynamic s in mm.118-19 : th e flut e an d clarine t crescend o int o th e downbea t o f m.119 , while al l the othe r instrument s hav e a long two-ba r diminuendo . Th e - = = nuance i n mm . 122-2 3 is also ver y specia l an d rarel y performed a s written. Th e crescendo peaks—i t i s a mil d crescend o i n an y case , onl y to p o r a t mos t mp — in th e middl e o f the first beat (m.123) . This make s the crescend o shorte r (thre e eighths) tha n th e ensuin g diminuend o (fiv e eighths) . When th e whol e orchestr a observes thi s dynami c nuanc e faithfully , i t i s a ravishingl y beautiful effect , an d in th e mos t exquisit e way prepares th e closin g five bars, contrabassoon an d tim pani (th e forme r hardl y eve r hear d i n performance , alas ) havin g th e fina l all resolving word. 36 The thir d movemen t ha s th e somewha t unusua l an d slightl y ambiguou s mark ing o f u n poco allegretto e grazioso — "slightly ambiguous " becaus e ther e ha s been fro m tim e t o time i n som e circle s an uncertaint y abou t th e ter m allegretto (is i t a somewha t slowe r allegro or jus t a lighte r one? ) an d becaus e o f th e wor d poco (doe s i t modif y th e allegretto i n a faste r o r slowe r direction?) . I t i s really not clear , an d i n th e absenc e o f an y metronom e markin g i t i s anyone' s gues s what th e idea l temp o migh t be . An d indeed , th e musi c work s wel l i n severa l tempos withi n a certai n range . I n th e man y recording s I have sample d th e slow est was Bernstein's ( j = 74) , th e fastes t wer e Horenstein' s J = 9 4 (surprisingly, 36. Brahm s use s th e sam e effec t o f a singl e instrumen t holdin g throug h tw o separat e concludin g chords a s Wagner ha d don e earlie r i n Tristan un d Isolde a t th e ver y end o f the opera . Th e ide a i s thus no t origina l wit h Brahms , who , despit e th e feudin g between th e Wagne r an d Brahm s disciples, knew an d respecte d Wagner' s lat e opera s well , an d wa s certainly awar e of the Tristan ending . Abhado ha s th e trumpet s als o hol d throug h wit h th e sol o violin . I assum e h e garnere d thi s idea from Brahms' s autograph facsimile, whic h indee d ha s th e trumpet s tied acros s the las t tw o bars. Bu t this i s clearly a n oversigh t o n Brahms' s part. Brahm s originally ha d al l th e wind s tie d acros s the las t two bars, but the n crosse d thos e tie s out. I am certai n tha t Brahms meant t o eliminate th e trumpets' ties a s well, bu t inadvertentl y failed t o d o so .

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y 33

7

a conducto r generall y give n t o slowis h tempos ) an d Klemperer' s (i n hi s 192 8 Berlin recording , j = 94) ; an d the y al l seeme d t o b e possibl e interpretations . (Talk abou t elastischer Takt!) M y own preference i s for j = ca. 80, a tempo tha t gives th e musi c a grazioso lilt , i s unhurried , an d ye t enable s th e musi c t o b e heard i n it s phrase length s a s phras e entities , no t jus t an arbitrar y successio n o f 2/4 bars. These phras e length s ar e a matte r o f some impor t an d shoul d b e felt , heard , and understoo d b y the conducto r an d th e musicians . The y ar e rathe r unusua l and unorthodox . Th e tw o firs t phrase s (mm . 1-5, mm.6-10 ) are , fo r example , five-bar phrases. But when thi s musi c i s recapitulated i n mm. 19-25 an d mm.2632, Brahm s ha s extende d the m t o seven-ba r phrases . I n truth , th e forme r ar e four-bar phrase s extende d b y on e bar , th e latte r four-ba r phrase s extende d b y three bars . I n man y recording s ther e i s absolutely n o sens e o r awarenes s of this, nor o f th e ide a tha t th e strings ' entrance s i n m. 4 an d m. 9 ar e nothin g mor e than a colo r adde d t o th e prevailin g winds. They shoul d blen d wit h winds , no t take ove r fro m them . The openin g principa l ten-ba r them e i s also a brillian t exampl e o f Brahms' s inspired abilit y to construc t musica l idea s ou t o f th e simples t material s an d b y the simplest , mos t economica l means , fo r the secon d fiv e bar s (mm.6-10) ar e a melodic inversio n of the first five bars. Measures 11-1 8 ar e almos t alway s playe d to o loud , bot h i n th e woodwind s and i n th e string s (th e one s notate d p , th e other s pp)— only fou r recorde d per formances manag e t o achiev e th e textura l contras t a t m.ll , thos e o f Toscanini , Stokowski, Kondrashin , an d Skrowaczewski . Here too , th e woodwind s i n som e orchestras pla y triplet s (instea d o f dotte d eighths-sixteenths) ; an d th e secon d flute an d secon d clarine t i n mm.16-1 8 ofte n ar e unawar e tha t the y hav e th e main voic e her e (fo r example, th e Chicag o Symphon y player s i n Levine' s re cording). Th e wonderfu l softl y pulsatin g pizzicato s i n th e basse s ar e als o ofte n underplayed o r acousticall y blurred. Whe n mm . 11-18 are playe d to o loud , th e contrasting dynami c Brahm s call s fo r i n m.1 9 canno t b e realized . Indeed , i n some recording s th e intende d effec t i s quit e reversed : m.1 9 bein g softer tha n mm.11-18. I n an y case, th e first violins shoul d no w sing out , playin g the clari net's melody a t a slightly fuller dynami c level . Occasionally clarinetist s may hav e to b e tol d tha t th e triple t passag e (mm . 19-22) i s not a 'solo, ' tha t i t i s in fac t a discreet accompanimen t to or embellishmen t of the violins ' tune. What ha s bee n sai d abou t mm.11-1 8 applies , o f course , t o mm.33-44 , a subtle re-workin g o f the earlie r passage . Somethin g quit e ne w an d differen t ha s also been added , a n ech o phrase i n mm.39-40. I t is amazing an d shockin g how many performance s an d recording s blithel y ignor e thi s exquisit e effect , ridin g roughshod ove r thes e tw o bars as i f there wer e n o pp's an d ppp's there . Indeed, i t is depressing t o realiz e ho w man y recorde d performance s b y worldfamous maestr i completely ignor e Brahms's wonderfully subtl e dynamic an d tex tural contrast s i n th e entire thir d movemen t expositio n (mm . 1-44). Th e lis t of offending conductor s i s a lon g on e an d includes , mos t notoriously , Böhm, Hor enstein, Boult , Dohnanyi , Klemperer , Rowicki , Ozawa, Wand, wit h perhaps th e

338 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

worst offender s Munc h (wit h th e Orchestr e d e Paris ) an d Janowski , bot h o f whom charg e i n wit h a health y mf a t m.ll , pla y m.19 softer, m.3 3 lou d again , and barel y giv e an y notic e t o Brahms' s ech o phras e a t m.39 . Th e conductor s who see m t o understand an d respec t Brahms' s intention s her e are , again, Tosca nini, Stokowski , Kondrashin , Skrowaczewski , and, i n a half-hearte d sor t o f way, Muti wit h hi s Philadelphians . Many conductor s ge t overly excited i n the nex t episod e (startin g at m.45) an d push th e tempo , havin g then , o f course , t o rela x i t agai n shortl y befor e m.62 . Actually, a littl e rubato i n thi s ver y Hungarian-gypsy-lik e musi c i s quit e appro priate—in th e sens e o f Beethoven' s "Temp o de s Gefühls " (temp o o f feeling) , but thi s shoul d no t b e exaggerated . B e i t noted , nonetheless , tha t fo r al l th e rhythmic driv e an d Schwung, o f thi s passag e (mm.50-53) , i t i s a varian t o f th e clarinet's openin g theme , a s ar e th e rollin g accompanimenta l figure s i n th e strings i n mm . 59-61. Finally , I fin d i t awfu l whe n th e woodwind s cli p of f their last eighths i n m.5 8 and m.60 , as one ca n hear , alas , in far too many recordings . On th e retur n o f th e openin g theme—no w th e thir d appearanc e —Brahms extends i t fro m it s previou s seve n bar s t o nin e bars . Thi s elongatio n an d it s concomitant diminuend o hav e le d man y conductor s t o slo w u p th e temp o i n mm.67-70, unfortunately arriving then a t a slower tempo a t the 6/8 , whic h i s in effect th e 'Trio ' o f thi s dance-lik e movement . (I n earlie r day s th e thir d move ment woul d hav e bee n a Menuet o r a Scherzo , o r i n late r day s a Ländler, a s in Mahler). I n an y case , th e basi c temp o o f th e outgoin g 2/ 4 an d incomin g 6/ 8 should b e th e sam e (<— J = J.—>), anothe r manifestatio n o f Brahms' s consisten t fascination wit h relationship s of two to three . It i s quite unmusica l whe n th e wind s dro p thei r dotte d quarter s rhythmically and/or dynamicall y (mm.71-72, mm.75-76 , etc.) , fo r i t dissect s wha t i s clearly intended t o be a four-ba r phras e int o thre e littl e one - an d two-ba r phrases . Not e also Brahms' s carefu l notatio n o f th e winds ' dotte d quarters , bu t th e strings ' plain quarters . I d o no t kno w wha t t o mak e o f th e curiou s articulation—unslurre d —in th e violins i n mm.85-86 , except tha t I think i t i s a mistake, i n bot h Brahms' s manu script an d th e printe d editions . On e ca n b e sur e that , sinc e th e horn s ar e slurred, th e violin s were likewis e meant t o b e legato. This scriptura l lacuna ha s led conductor s t o som e o f th e stranges t interpretations , mor e ofte n tha n no t heavy détaché stroke s (which t o m y ear s soun d completel y ou t o f context) . Bu t the mos t bizarr e solutio n wa s adopte d b y Klempere r i n hi s 192 8 recordin g i n which h e ha d th e violin s play the tw o bars with a secco Stravinskya n staccato, a decision abou t which h e obviousl y had secon d thoughts , fo r in hi s later Philhar monia recordin g he opt s for ordinary tenuto separate bows . I fin d i t ironic —even a bi t perverse—tha t s o man y conductors , pas t an d present , wh o hav e ha d n o compunctions abou t ignorin g or changing Brahms' s scor e a t will in hundred s o f places, her e i n thi s on e plac e wher e logi c woul d dictat e tha t ther e reall y i s a textual error , the y al l adher e stubbornl y t o th e misprint . Onl y fiv e conductor s (among th e recorde d samples ) hav e ha d th e goo d sens e t o slu r thes e tw o bars : Furtwängler, Toscanini, Munch , Norrington , and Rowicki .

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y

339

Apart fro m a n almos t universa l neglect o f th e sf s i n th e wind s i n m.9 0 an d m.94, ther e i s the tendenc y her e o n th e par t o f man y conductor s t o pus h th e tempo enormously , eithe r fo r th e effec t o f a 'chea p thrill ' fo r th e audienc e o r because o f an utte r lac k o f tempo control . Ho w powerfu l th e climacti c passag e at mm.96-10 7 ca n soun d without rushing ma y b e hear d t o excellen t effec t o n the recording s o f Suitne r an d Klempere r (Philharmonia) . Wha t i s als o almos t always neglecte d i s Brahms's importan t an d carefu l notationa l differentiatio n i n the bas s part betwee n th e quarter-note s o f mm.93-95 and th e dotte d quarter s of mm.96-101. Th e latte r mus t b e playe d molió sostenuto, espressivo, powerfull y singing with great intensity . No recordin g reall y achieved thi s but a few, Abrava nel's, Klemperer' s (Philharmonia) , Suitner's , an d Kondrashin's , com e close . In m y view mm . 106-107 are no t a mere successio n o f 3/8-3/8-5/8 entities, as they ar e almos t alway s playe d an d heard , bu t a serie s o f strongl y syncopate d accents se t agains t (bu t no t obscuring ) th e underlyin g 6/ 8 pulse . I n orde r t o achieve th e twi n resul t o f hearing bot h th e asymmetrica l cross-accent s an d th e basic pulse , al l th e conducto r ha s t o tel l th e musician s i s to fee l an d thin k th e beats (th e first and fourt h eighth s i n bot h measures ) underneat h an d insid e th e stated notate d rhythms . Ho w excitin g thi s ca n soun d whe n performe d correctl y can b e savore d o n Stokowski' s and Dohnanyi' s recordings . In th e firs t endin g Brahm s seem s t o hav e omitte d a crescend o i n th e bras s and strings . One needn' t worr y about th e brass , however , sinc e th e eighth-not e figure, risin g ove r a n octave , wil l almos t automaticall y b e accompanie d b y a crescendo. One o f the mos t annoyin g liberties—becaus e s o naive , s o self-indulgen t and thoughtless—taken i n Brahms' s Firs t Symphon y i s the ritardand o almos t every one make s i n th e secon d endin g (mm.108-114) . I t is 'self-indulgent' i n tha t i t is done simpl y because 'i t feels good ' or 'I jus t like it.' I t is 'thoughtless' and 'naive ' because (a ) Brahms would certainl y have written a poco rit. i f he ha d wante d it , and (b ) becaus e i t mus t b e quit e clea r fro m a n intelligen t readin g o f the scor e that Brahm s intende d fo r th e 'threes, ' no w writte n a s eighth-not e triplet s (i n m.110 an d mm.115-19 ) bu t equivalen t t o the eighth s o f the previou s 6/8, t o be identical (Ex . 24) . Bu t no t onl y that : Brahm s obviousl y wanted a smoot h an d

Ex. 2 4

340

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

imperceptible retur n t o th e 2/ 4 music , th e revers e o f wha t h e ha d achieve d when th e 2/ 4 earlie r o n wa s imperceptibl y transforme d into a 6/8 . Again , th e old Brahmsia n fascination with 'three ' versu s 'two.' Ho w ingeniou s an d wonder ful Brahms' s overlay and extensio n o f the 6/ 8 feeling over the retur n o f the mai n theme (mm . 115-119)—and the n beyon d tha t i n th e clarinet s an d bassoon s (mm. 120-124)! I ca n fin d onl y one recordin g i n whic h th e transmutatio n fro m the Tri o back to the 'Menuet, ' that is , without an y tempo disturbance , is handled correctly: Leinsdorf' s with th e Bosto n Symphony . Others , wh o mak e a modest , tasteful ritar d i n mm . 109-114 an d thu s d o no t substantiall y disturb th e flo w of th e music , ar e Skrowaczewski , Abravanel, Janowski, Wand , Klempere r (bot h recordings), Rowicki , and Ozawa . Som e conductors , Toscanini , Norrington, and Karajan, ar e o f the categor y who , havin g gotte n a littl e to o excite d tempo-wis e in mm.96-108 , ar e force d t o ritar d bac k int o thei r mor e moderat e origina l Tempo I— a mil d an d pardonabl e sin. But wha t som e othe r conductor s generall y perpetrat e her e border s o n th e bizarre an d th e incredible . There ar e thos e wh o mak e a sudden , abrup t meno mosso a t m . 109—among the m va n Beinum , Dohnanyi , Giulini , Szell , Suitner , Kondrashin, Järvi , Walter , Celibidache , Bernstein , Paita—wh o the n hav e t o jump abou t 2 0 metronome point s a t m.l 15 to get back to som e kin d o f normal recapitulation Tempo I . A few others, suc h a s Böh m an d Furtwängler , star t th e 2/4 i n temp o an d then mak e a hug e ritard . All thes e conductor s think , I sup pose, tha t they are, lik e old Billow , delineating th e for m fo r the audience , whe n in fac t the y ar e tearin g i t apart . Tw o o f th e stranges t aberration s visite d upo n these si x transitiona l measure s (mm . 109-14) ar e b y (1 ) Stokowski , who, i n a mostly superio r recording, especiall y considering it s early date (actuall y the first recording o f th e Brahm s First) , make s a precipitou s meno mosso ( J = 52 ) at m.109, bu t tw o bars later jump s twenty point s (sic) forward ( J = 72 ) an d the n accelerates furthe r (sic) into a J = 7 8 Tempo I ; and (2 ) b y Horenstein, wh o a t first seems t o want to maintain the tempo at the 2/4 , bu t then suddenly change s his min d fou r bar s later an d cram s a hug e ritar d int o th e fina l tw o bar s of th e phrase. Once again , the clarine t must lead i n mm . 115-19, as at the beginnin g of the movement. Violin s and viola s ad d a wholly new colo r i n mm.118-19. I n m.12 0 Brahms write s th e relativel y rar e markin g molió dolce, meanin g i n thi s context

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y 34

1

pp an d Ver y sensitive' and 'gentle.' 37 It requires a very quiet, warm , and sensitiv e sound i n pp . Thi s als o explain s Brahms' s bowing : al l fou r bar s (mm . 120-123) on on e bow . Yet recording afte r recordin g ignore s bot h th e molió dolce an d th e indicated bowing , i n innumerabl e recording s th e violin s blithel y sawing away at a health y mf —with on e bo w per bar . What then result s i s that th e lovel y rolling triplets o f the clarinet s an d bassoon s ar e barel y audible o r eve n downrigh t inau dible (a s they ar e o n 5 0 percen t o f th e recording s sampled) . Le t u s note , too , how subtl y Brahm s recast s th e secon d par t o f th e mai n them e o f th e exposi tion—originally a five-bar, later a seven-ba r phras e —as a six-ba r phrase . Brahm s does thi s s o ingeniously , s o naturally , that th e alteratio n ca n easil y go b y unno ticed. Especially ingeniou s i s the wa y Brahms foreshorten s the entir e recapitulation . The exposition , originall y sevent y bar s i n length , i s no w reduce d t o no t quit e forty bars , reshaped int o a new sequenc e b y some typicall y skillful (an d painless) Brahmsian surgery (in effec t cuttin g mm . 19—58 from th e exposition) . Thereafter, the 'Trio ' i s briefl y recapitulate d an d renotate d i n 2/ 4 (instea d o f th e origina l 6/8), no w servin g as the cod a o f the entir e movement . This coda ha s been s o variously interpreted an d misinterprete d a s to be almos t legendary a s a 'proble m piece. ' Actuall y i t i s quit e simpl e an d clear . Brahm s writes poco a poco più tranquillo, startin g i n m . 152, meaning i n plai n languag e 'gradually quieter, ' bu t quiete r implyin g als o 'quiete r i n tempo. ' Thi s translates , in othe r words , int o a ver y gradua l relaxin g o f the temp o til l th e end. 38 Onc e again, however, i t is beyond comprehensio n wh y the vas t majority o f conductor s can't rea d o r understan d Brahms' s marking , o r wh y the y simpl y rejec t i t a s 'wrong.' Som e star t th e ritardand o si x or eigh t bar s earlie r than indicated , som e even befor e tha t (a s earl y a s m.142!) . Th e proble m wit h thes e ver y prematur e 37. Dolce, of course, mean s swee t i n everyda y Italian, but i n musi c i n th e 19t h century , particularly with Beethove n an d composer s afte r him , i t too k o n a rang e o f relate d an d overlappin g meanings , most ofte n "gentle, " "delicate, " "soft, " "quiet, " an d perhap s a combinatio n o f these . Dolce wa s also used b y Beethoven—an d Brahms , i n emulatio n o f Beethoven—t o mea n simpl y p. Ther e ar e hun dreds o f instance s i n Beethove n score s wher e dolce substitute s fo r p . Her e i n Brahms' s m.12 0 i t means mo/t o p o r pp . 38. I am a t a loss to explai n the doubl e ba r a t m.154 . Could i t be tha t i t represents the poin t wher e Brahms intende d th e pi ù tranquillo t o start , an d th e word s poco a poco accidentall y wer e written i n two bar s earlier ? Ther e i s evidenc e t o tha t effec t i n th e autograp h manuscript , i n whic h ther e appears t o b e a sligh t differenc e in th e han d writin g between poco a poco an d pi ù tranquillo, sug gesting tha t pi ù tranquillo wa s Brahms' s initia l impulse—i t woul d als o explai n th e double-ba r a t m. 154—but tha t a t som e late r poin t h e though t o f th e eve n bette r ide a o f a continuou s gradua l relaxing o f the temp o t o th e fina l ba r o f the movement . Findin g n o roo m a t m . 154 to writ e in th e afterthought poco a poco, h e wrot e i t i n tw o bars earlier , which woul d leav e ope n onl y the questio n of where th e slackenin g o f tempo shoul d start : m. 152 or m.154 ; no t whether. Bu t thi s seems t o b e a moot point , sinc e mos t conductor s ignor e al l o f this anyway. A simila r temp o modificatio n i n anothe r celebrate d masterpiece , Debussy' s L'Après-midi d'un faune, i s likewise ignored b y the majorit y o f conductors. Ther e Debuss y place s ver y clearl y five bars from th e en d Trè s lent e t très retenu jusqu'à l a fi n (ver y slo w and ver y hel d bac k unti l th e end) . Bu t almost n o on e seem s t o take notice o f this marking, the las t three bars being generally played almost twice a s fast a s th e previou s two. Similarly , Strauss' s long ritardand o (poco a poco pi ù calando si n al fin, stretchin g acros s seventee n bars ) a t th e en d o f Death an d Transfiguration i s consistently ignored.

342 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

ritardandos i s that , i f the y ar e carrie d ou t progressively , the y lea d t o a virtua l standstill o f the musi c b y the las t three t o five measures , a s in th e cas e o f Furt wängler, Chailly , Abbado , an d Sanderling . I n th e last-named' s recording , fo r example, th e temp o i n th e las t thre e bar s i s J . = ca.TA, whic h wit h al l du e respect canno t b e a possible tempo i n a n allegretto movement—unles s on e simply want s t o abando n an y notio n o f forma l balance , o f proportions , an d o f boundaries o f taste an d logic . Beyond suc h considerations , too slow a tempo i n mm . 154-64 makes th e cod a sound maudli n an d overl y sentimental—like somethin g o n a n 'eas y listening ' radio station—losin g tha t tensil e strengt h tha t i s always, even a t it s most lyrical and romantic , a n essentia l feature of Brahms's music . A lithe, flowing, very gradually ritardin g tempo , endin g i n th e las t fe w measure s o f th e movement , say, around j . = 6 3 i s not onl y intrinsicall y appropriat e but , in m y view, provides the righ t parallel to Brahms' s wonderfull y delicate, transparent , gossame r instru mentation o f multiple divide d strings and winds . Last, I would offe r th e though t that a moderat e temp o make s audibl e —makes intelligible—th e three-against two polyphon y i n mm . 156-57 an d mm . 160-61, whic h whe n playe d a t too slow a temp o lose s al l motion , al l flow: the dialogu e betwee n th e tw o rhythm s be comes s o distended a s to b e almos t meaningless . The antipode s o f interpretation s o n recording s ar e represente d o n th e on e hand—the excessivel y slow temp o an d prematur e ritard—b y Furtwangler , Le vine, Muti, Kondrashin , Järvi, Stokowski , Abravanel, Rowicki, Bernstein, Ozawa ; on th e othe r hand—th e moderate , tasteful , almos t imperceptibl e slackenin g of tempo—Skrowaczewski, Leinsdorf , Kertesz , Toscanini , an d Walter . Somewher e on a middle groun d ar e a host of others, divide d into two basic categories : those , van Beinum , Haitink , Szell—i s thi s a peculiarl y Dutc h tradition?—an d Wan d and Jochum , wh o make n o ritar d at all until the ver y end (perhap s the las t three to five bars); and those , Dohnanyi , Giulini , Abbado, Tennstedt, Chailly , Munch, Janowski, Karajan , Böhm , an d Suitner , wh o provid e a kin d o f 'rolle r coaster ' interpretation, ritardin g at first but the n rushin g forwar d wit h th e crescendo s i n m.156 an d m.160 , onl y t o ritar d a lo t i n th e fina l thre e bars . A n especiall y willful interpretatio n i s that o f Bernstein, who, after givin g us th e 'rolle r coaster ' treatment, incredibl y suddenly goes much faster (sic) fo r the las t three bars . With such a divergence o f tempo interpretations , one begin s t o wis h that Brahm s had used metronom e markings , t o a t least provid e a genera l clu e a s t o hi s temp o feelings. Bu t probabl y that wouldn' t hav e helpe d wit h a Bernstein . The Final e movemen t o f th e Brahm s Firs t i s fraught with majo r performanc e problems, mostly in the real m o f tempo question s which hav e puzzled interpret ers for ove r a centur y an d which , t o m y knowledge , hav e neve r bee n satisfactorily resolved . And perhap s the y wil l never be , a t leas t no t unequivocally , defini tively. I a m referrin g to th e tempo s o f the openin g Adagio introduction , the Pi ù andante o f m.30 , an d th e mai n bod y o f th e movement , th e complexl y named Allegro no n troppo, m a co n brio a t m.62 , an d th e possibl e tempo relationships between an d amon g thes e thre e majo r structura l junctures.

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y 34

3

As i n th e firs t movement , Brahm s fel t th e nee d fo r a slowe r introductio n t o the movemen t proper , onl y thi s tim e i n tw o phases (mm.1-2 9 and mm.30-61) , both o f thes e furthe r partitione d b y variou s themati c intervention s an d temp o modifications. An d a s i n th e firs t movement , thi s twi n introductio n supplie s all the relevan t thematic/motivi c materia l tha t wil l constitute th e mai n argumen t o f the mai n bod y o f th e movement . I n effec t th e introductio n i s lik e a giganti c two-part overture t o th e unfoldin g drama o f the Allegro proper . But onc e again , Brahm s give s u s n o metronom e markings , eithe r a t th e be ginning o r alon g th e way , no obviou s clue s t o basi c tempo s o r temp o relation ships. I n thi s cas e Brahms' s notatio n i s certainly no t precis e o r explicit ; Adagio can b e legitimatel y interprete d i n a wid e rang e o f tempos —I suppos e anywher e from J = 2 5 t o J = 60—whil e Pi ù andante i s considere d b y mos t conduc tors a fairl y ambiguou s temp o indication , especiall y i n thi s cas e sinc e i t i s clea r that i t i s t o b e relate d someho w t o th e previou s Adagio; an d last , th e rathe r vacillating marking , Allegro no n troppo, m a co n brio (no t to o lively , an d ye t sprightly). A s can b e easil y imagined, thi s lac k o f specificity has le d t o al l kinds of interpretations , non e o f whic h seem s t o hav e seriously , analyticall y probe d the inheren t temp o possibilities , bu t som e o f whic h (Klemperer's , Abravanel's, Walter's, Wand's, Dohnanyi's , Kondrashin's , fo r example) have sheerly intuitively arrived a t admirabl e solutions . Bu t o n th e premis e —on whic h thi s entir e boo k is based—tha t trul y penetrating , comprehensiv e analysi s can lea d t o th e mos t illuminating, imaginative , an d inspire d musica l performances , le t u s se e wit h what reasonabl e option s Brahms' s scor e does , i n fact , presen t us . An d indeed , upon close r scrutin y we d o fin d severa l importan t clue s i n Brahms' s notation , that provid e crucia l guideline s toward s evolvin g a cogent , coheren t interpreta tion. The mos t importan t an d precis e clu e fo r solving the temp o puzzle , I believe, occurs i n mm . 29-30 i n th e timpan i part . Bu t whil e i t i s a soli d piec e o f evidence a s t o ho w thos e tw o measure s ar e intende d t o relate, b y itsel f i t doesn' t tell u s unequivocall y what th e actual tempo s ough t t o be . Ye t m.29 an d m.30 , if they ar e take n literally , narrow the discussion—an d th e option s —in ver y com pelling an d fascinatin g ways. What Brahm s is clearly saying in th e timpan i par t (Ex. 25)—an d i t is astonishing that h e wa s inspired to b e s o explicit—is that th e

Ex. 2 5

tripletized sixteenth s i n m.30 , notate d a s equa

l th e tripletize d thirty-second s

in th e latte r half of m.29. I n moder n 20th-centur y notation w e migh t no w con firm thi s b y a 'metri c modulation ' notatio n o f *-* = J- > o r <-• ' = «'-». Tha t 1

3

3

344 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

much seem s clear , fo r on e canno t imagin e wh y Brahm s woul d hav e se t dow n such a relatively complex an d intellectual , mathematical an d ver y modern nota tion, i f by so doing h e didn' t mea n somethin g quit e specific . What thi s understandin g o f Brahms' s temp o conversio n signifie s i s tha t hi s Più andante a t m.3 0 wil l b e twic e a s fas t a s th e precedin g Adagio. Bu t thi s i s where i t gets complicated an d elusive , for if we wer e to assum e fo r the momen t that thi s sectio n (mm.30-61)migh t b e a t a tempo , say , of J = 7 2 o r J = 60 , then m.2 9 woul d hav e t o b e J = 3 6 or j = 30 , respectively. Now , tha t i s a reasonable possibilit y fo r th e openin g Adagio an d i s i n fac t th e temp o rang e within whic h th e vas t majorit y o f conductors se t the Adagio. (Tha t mos t o f them in tur n d o th e secon d movement , whic h i s marked Andante, jus t a s slow a s this Adagio doesn' t see m t o distur b them particularly.) If w e allow for the momen t th e reasonablenes s o f a J = 30-3 6 temp o rang e for th e Adagio, w e are confronte d wit h th e apparen t unreasonablenes s o f main taining tha t temp o throughou t th e Adagio phas e o f th e introduction , tha t is , through mm.22-2 8 a s well . Bu t ther e isn' t a singl e conducto r tha t I kno w of , past o r present , wh o kep t o r keep s th e origina l slo w tempo i n thos e seve n mea sures. Wh y thi s acceleratio n occur s i s not reall y clear ; i t seem s simpl y t o b e a long-standing traditio n wit h origin s buried i n th e distan t past . Brahm s certainl y does no t indicat e an y accelerand o o r stringend o i n m.2 2 o r m.23 , a s h e does , for example , i n mm.8-1 1 an d mm . 18-19. Ye t tremendou s acceleration s o f tempo hav e becom e d e rigeur i n thi s passage, I suppose, becaus e nobod y seem s to b e abl e t o countenanc e th e ide a o f th e thirty-second-note s i n mm.24-2 6 dragging alon g a t a spee d of , say, Jl = 60 . And i n trut h tha t woul d see m t o b e a musica l impossibility . Mos t conductor s reac h a tempo of around J i = 112—16 , the slowes t I have hear d (Boult ) a t Jl = 92 , th e fastes t (Stokowski ) at « h = 138 . Needless to say, if the tempo is speeded u p i n mm. 22-28, then th e original Adagio tempo i s certainly abrogated an d wit h that, o f course, th e possibilit y of retaining the m.29/30 J) = j relationshi p I postulated earlier . We might also note i n passing that i f the temp o reache d i n mm.25-2 8 was , for example, j = 6 0 (J) = 120) , Brahms's sixty-fourth-note s in th e timpan i i n m.2 9 woul d becom e clearl y un performable. We seem t o fin d ourselve s thus fa r in a n impenetrabl e interpretationa l thicke t in whic h n o temp o choices , eithe r intuitivel y or rationally arrived at, seem t o b e structurally compatible . I f we maintai n th e origina l Adagio temp o an d adher e to Brahms' s metri c modulatio n i n mm.29—30 , th e climacti c passag e i n mm.22 — 29 wil l b e clearl y incongruous ; i f o n th e othe r han d w e follo w ou r intuition s and accelerat e t o a muc h faste r temp o i n th e climacti c thirty-second-not e pas sage, w e canno t perfor m Brahms' s metri c modulatio n i n mm . 29-30, fo r the n the Pi ù andante temp o woul d tur n ou t t o b e somewher e aroun d J = 120 , depending o n ho w muc h accelerand o w e ha d mad e previously . And i t mus t b e very clea r tha t mm.30—6 1 wit h thei r alphor n melod y an d bras s chorale , canno t be a t a tempo o f J = 120 . Obviously som e adjustment , som e compromise , mus t b e mad e somewhere . My solutio n lie s i n th e recognitio n that th e agitate d syncopate d figure s i n th e

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y

345

woodwinds i n mm.27-2 8 (Ex.26a ) appear als o i n mm.279-8 4 (Ex.26b ) of th e main Allegro, an d tha t similarly , th e descendin g thirty-secon d note-run s i n

Ex. 26 a

mm.24-26 (Ex.27a ) reappea r several time s i n mm . 106-10, 234-4 2 (Ex.27b) , 259-67. Thi s the n ma y b e a clu e a s to ho w fas t wha t I hav e bee n callin g "th e climactic passage " (mm.24-28 , 29 ) migh t be . That , o f course , i n tur n woul d presuppose tha t w e kno w wha t temp o th e movement' s mai n Allegro ough t t o

Ex. 27 a

Ex. 27 b

be; and here , indeed , ther e seem s t o be genera l agreemen t amon g interpreters . Keeping in mind that Brahms's Allegro non troppo, ma con brio —note that Brahms does not say allegro ma non troppo, but simply Allegro non troppo, the subtle differ ence being between 'no t too lively' and livel y but no t to o much'—has to be significantly faster than m.30's Pz'ù andante, bu t als o slower than the coda' s (f c Pfu allegro. Sinc e there i s a limit to how fast the sextuple t eighth notes in the cod a can b e sensibly played—probabl y aroun d j = 136-144—i t suggests , b y retracing our tempo step s back through the stringend o o f mm. 3 8 3-90 t o the mai n Allegro, that the no n troppo allegro of m.62 will typically range somewher e between j = 10 4 (Järvi's tempo) an d J = 12 0 (Furtwängler's, Abravanel's, Abbado's, Kondrashin' s tempo).''Transferring this range of tempos furthe r back to mm.24-29 of the introduction, w e find that both cite d figures, the syncopations in mm.27-28, the thirtysecond-note run s in mm.24-26 work perfectly well within that rang e (counte d i n eighth-notes, o f course, i.e. J) = 10 4 to J^ = 120) . But i f that solve s the proble m o f the relativ e tempos a t m.l, mm.24-28, m.30, 39. Onl y a fe w conductors d o m.6 2 slowe r (Giulin i a t a sluggis h j = 90 , Bernstei n a t J = 92 , Ozawa a t J = 96) , an d onl y a fe w d o i t faste r (Toscanini , Jochum , an d Stokowski , j = 144 , j = 138 , an d j = 124 , respectively) . Karaja n i n som e o f his recordings can' t mak e u p hi s mind , starting aroun d j = 96 , then speedin g u p some measure s late r t o J = 120 .

346

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

and presumabl y m.62, i t still leave s on e loophole , namely , m.29 . Fo r i f m.29 is somewhere betwee n j = 10 4 and j = 12 0 (as it should b e i f m.28 i s in tha t tempo range) , the n carryin g ou t th e implie d metri c modulatio n woul d caus e the hor n cal l a t m.3 0 t o b e als o a t a temp o betwee n j = 10 4 and j = 120 . This w e als o kno w i s impossible, becaus e w e kno w tha t Brahm s too k thi s hor n passage fro m a n alphor n cal l tha t i s played—b y th e way , t o thi s day—o n th e Swiss alps , a s w e lear n fro m a postcar d Brahm s sen t t o Clar a Schuman n i n September 1868 , tellin g he r abou t hearin g thi s cal l an d quotin g i t i n musica l notation o n th e postcard . That alphor n cal l i s certainly no t playe d a t a temp o of J = 96-12 0 by the cow - and goatherd s o f Switzerland. My solution t o closin g that 'loophole ' i s a relativel y simple one : mak e a gentl e ritar d i n th e las t tw o beats (fou r eighths ) o f m.29 , easin g th e musi c fro m th e faste r temp o int o a slower on e a t m.30 , whic h nonetheles s respect s Brahms' s Pi ù andante i n tha t it is 'mor e moving ' ('mor e walking, ' literally ) tha n th e initia l Adagio. Thu s th e whole temp o schemati c ca n b e rendere d a s in Fig.7 , showin g no t specifi c deter minated tempo s bu t approximate , meanin g possible , temp o ranges .

Fig. 7 mm. 1-7 J= 30-5 0

1

mm.8-10 accel. to J = ca.l32

mm. 1 1 (a tempo)-l7 J= 30-5 0

mm. 18-1 9 accel. t o J = ca.l32

mm.20-21 I mm.22-2 31 mm.24-2 8 I m.2 9! m.3 0 J= 30-5 0 ! accel. t o J ) = ca. 100-120 ! J) = ca. 100-120 ! rit. i n 2 . half t o ! J = 60-72

As I indicate d earlier , certai n conductor s hav e arrive d intuitivel y a t simila r solutions to the temp o question(s ) left unclarifie d b y Brahms. M y proffered solu tion provides , I believe , a logica l an d rationa l approac h t o th e proble m withi n certain objectiv e parameters . Having establishe d th e parameter s withi n whic h th e tempo s ma y range , th e conductor mus t still , however , determin e a specific temp o o r a t least narro w i t down t o a mor e limite d rang e tha n J = 30-50 . Mos t conductors , a s I hav e indicated, ten d toward s a n excruciatingl y slo w tempo fo r the openin g Adagio, I suppose unde r th e mistake n notio n tha t i t will ensur e th e mos t 'profound ' an d 'anguished' expression . They ought t o remind themselve s tha t Brahms' s marking is merely Adagio, no t eve n Adagio molto, let alone Largo o r Grave. At too slo w a tempo th e musi c lose s all line, al l tension an d inne r strength . I t simply become s lugubrious an d empty . I n th e cas e o f som e conductors ' recordings , Bernstein' s or Böhm's , th e musi c seem s t o com e t o a standstil l i n th e firs t fe w measures. My preference—an d that , evidently , o f Toscanini , Klemperer , Walter , an d Wand — is J = 46—50 . Tha t i s quit e slo w enough , an d wit h tha t temp o th e essence o f the music , residin g in bot h it s sustained chromatic line s an d it s pedal points, ca n b e full y expressed . Figure 8 shows the temp o choice s represente d i n the fifty-odd recordings of the Brahm s First tha t wer e analyzed.

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y 34

7

Fig. 8 J = 24 Bernstein + J = 26 va n Beinum, Tennstedt* , Sanderlin g + J=30 Munch + *, Ozawa , Suitner , Skrowaczewski , Szell, Karajan* , Abbado + *, Solti + * J = 3 2 Rowicki , Kertesz, Böh m * J = 34 Stokowski , Boult , Dohnanyi *, Giulini+, Leinsdorf, Furtwängle r + (Vienna), Walter + *,Herbig + * J = 36 Abravanel , Kondrashin *, Janowski *, Muti+ , Ormandy +, Haitink, Levine, Jochum + * J = 38 Järvi , Chailly J = 40 Horenstein , Klempere r ( 1928), Toscanini, Lehel + J = 44 Wand * J = 46 Klempere r (Philharmonia) +

identifies those conductor s wh o make a fermata C^) on the fourth beat of m. l. * identifies those conductors wh o make (made) further excessiv e ritards in mm.4 and 5 .

Just a s the temp o shoul d no t b e exaggerated , s o too th e dynamic s shoul d b e contained withi n reason . To o ofte n al l th e f' s ar e turne d int o ffs o r fff's, th e crescendo i n m . l i s tremendously exaggerated , and th e first timpani tril l is transformed int o a terrifyin g cannonade , al l ou t o f proportion t o th e elementa l sim plicity an d dolefu l mood o f this introductor y phrase (se e Ex . 28a). The melodi c line, wit h it s poignan t dro p dow n a majo r thir d i n m. 3 (i n th e violin s an d

Ex. 28 a

l.horn), wil l reappea r slightl y altere d a s th e mai n them e o f th e Allegro no n troppo i n m.6 2 (Ex . 28b) . A t firs t glanc e thi s openin g lin e ma y see m t o b e a two-bar phrase , bu t i t i s in fac t a four-ba r phrase, i n whic h th e thir d an d fourt h bars ar e a near-repetitio n a varie d repetitio n o f the firs t tw o bar s (no t countin g

Ex. 28 b

the anacrusi s measure) . To o ofte n thi s openin g i s treate d a s tw o separat e two bar phrases, thus destroying the gran d line which, in m y view, i s more importan t to preserv e rathe r tha n t o indulg e i n som e painfull y slo w tempo . Th e almos t two-octave drop and intervenin g rest (in m.4 ) i n the first violin line i s potentially disruptive enough , s o tha t on e mus t mak e ever y effor t t o creat e a lin e o f fou r

348 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

bars. Onl y thre e conductor s manage d t o preserv e th e Viertaktigkeit (th e hyper-measure, a s i t i s calle d b y moder n musicologist s an d theorists ) o f thi s opening phrase : Furtwängler , Toscanini , an d Norrington . Toward s tha t en d th e chromatic windin g third s i n th e woodwind s and th e viola s can b e o f enormou s help. A t th e sam e tim e th e intervalli c clashe s i n m. 4 an d m. 5 o f Ai > an d Fi t against th e peda l G mus t b e mad e audible . I f the musician s involve d are mad e to hea r an d fee l thes e harmoni c tensio n points , th e tragi c feelin g o f the musi c is expresse d muc h mor e powerfull y tha n wit h som e impossible-to-sustai n slo w tempo. As fo r th e dynamic s o f th e firs t phrase , apar t fro m m y suggestio n tha t th e f p in m. 2 no t b e to o explosive , th e remainde r o f the phras e shoul d b e containe d within essentiall y a p dynami c range , recedin g t o a p p onl y a t th e en d o f m.5 . The crescendo/diminuend o o f mm.2-3 i s not muc h mor e tha n a phrasin g nu ance, a s distinguishe d fro m a majo r dynami c modification . Brahm s ofte n indi cates suc h subtl e dynami c nuancin g i n hi s work s a s a confirmatio n o f wha t a sensitive, expressive musician might d o quite naturally . Brahms was quite precis e about suc h matter s i n hi s notation , fro m whic h w e shoul d infe r tha t whe n h e does no t indicat e suc h phras e nuances , the y ar e no t wante d an d we , as performers, ough t no t t o impos e them . In thi s connection , I fee l compelle d t o poin t ou t somethin g tha t seem s t o b e little know n amon g conductor s an d instrumentalists , tha t i t i s a quit e commo n practice o n th e par t o f composer s a s well a s musi c engravers , copyists, and edi tors tha t a n incidenta l 'hairpin ' nuanc e crescendo s onl y t o th e nex t dynamic leve l above the on e fro m whic h i t starts. Thus a markin g like p is mean t t o g o onl y u p t o mp. I f a compose r want s t o hav e a bigge r crescend o than that , h e mus t indicat e a s muc h o r, Admittedly, no t al l composer s adher e t o thi s notationa l principle , bu t man y do , and i t is a goo d rul e o f thumb t o follow . I t i s also reasonable t o assum e tha t th e first beat o f m.3 ough t no t t o be playe d mf o r f, give n th e fac t tha t th e sustaine d G i n th e lowe r instrument s i s marked p . There i s a danger—an d i t i s represented o n numerou s recordings—tha t th e violins i n m. 3 (an d violin s an d viola s i n m.14 ) mak e to o grea t a diminuend o because o f no t 'savin g th e bow. ' A s I've mentione d before , thi s i s a world-wide bad habi t amon g orchestra l violinists , an d unfortunatel y mos t conductor s d o very littl e t o correc t it , o r don' t kno w ho w to correc t it . The effec t o f this exces sive immediat e diminuend o i s exacerbated whe n th e crescend o i n m. 2 (an d i n m.13) i s als o overdone , bringin g th e E t i n m. 2 t o a f , fo r example , wit h th e immediate resul t tha t th e violinist s use u p hal f th e bo w befor e th e firs t bea t i s over. Th e furthe r resul t the n i s that beat s 2 and 3 are clos e t o p an d th e fourt h beat pp . The n wha t usuall y happens i s that i n m.4 , afte r th e quarte r res t there , the violins , with a 'fres h bow, ' unknowingl y come i n m p o r p , which , o f course , has th e effec t o f destroying the evennes s o f the four-ba r lon g lin e (o r three-ba r in th e cas e o f mm . 13-15). Instea d o f soundin g a s graphicall y displayed in Fig . 9a, whic h i s what Brahms' s notatio n call s for , it sound s a s i n Fig . 9b , whic h is in n o wa y what Brahms's notation indicates .

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y

Fig. 9 a Fig

349

.9 b

Since th e en d o f m.5 i s pp, m. 6 mus t b e a subito p , tha t is , one dynami c level higher. Thi s nuanc e i s hardl y eve r observe d i n performanc e an d recordings . Indeed man y conductors produc e som e kin d of super pianississimo at m.6 that is totally misapplied, amon g the m Bernstein , Dohnanyi , Giulini , Janowski , Ozawa, Abbado, th e wors t bein g Mut i an d Kertesz , o n whos e recording s I ha d t o tur n up th e playbac k leve l substantially t o b e abl e t o eve n hea r th e passag e a t all . Even mor e disappointin g i s that o n th e vas t majorit y o f recordings i n th e ensu ing pizzicato passag e th e viola s and cello s play much to o softly , whil e the violin s and basse s pla y quit e vigorously , wit h th e resul t tha t th e passag e i s distorte d t o sound a s if Brahms ha d onl y writte n as in Ex . 29a, when i n fac t Ex . 29b i s what

Ex. 29 a

Ex. 29 b

he actuall y wrote. Th e viol a and cell o part s are the mos t important ; the y ar e th e binding tha t give s th e whol e passag e it s unity an d line . Ho w thi s sound s whe n well balance d ca n b e hear d t o wonderfu l effect , fo r example, o n Haitink's , Lev ine's, Skrowaczewski's , Norrington's an d Furtwangler' s recordings. Another ba d habi t i s a n excessiv e accelerand o i n m. 8 an d m.9 . Firs t o f all , Brahms write s stringendo poco a poco fo r mm.8-11 , a s oppose d t o string, molto in mm . 18-19. Thi s shoul d aler t conductor s t o th e fac t tha t Brahm s definitel y wants t o mak e a difference betwee n th e tw o stringendos, wit h the first one bein g of a moderat e an d ver y gradua l sort . Second , tha t firs t stringendo i s stretche d across fou r bars , bu t onl y acros s tw o bar s fo r th e late r one . Instead , however , many conductor s (lik e Tennstedt , Chailly , Munch , Janowski , Wand, Bernstein ) have alread y made s o much stringendo b y m.8 an d m. 9 tha t the y cannot acceler ate an y mor e i n th e remainin g tw o measures , whic h simpl y en d u p bein g fas t without an y accelerando , thu s completel y subvertin g Brahms' s idea . On e con -

350 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

ductor wh o get s i t right i s Toscanini, amon g the olde r conductors , an d another , among mor e recen t maestri , is Suitner. At m. 12 Brahm s takes the openin g five bars and, in effect , turn s the m upsid e down (althoug h foreshortene d b y on e measure) , jus t a s Beethoven ha d don e i n the las t movement o f the Fift h Symphon y (see pp.214-15). The thre e anacrusis notes i n m.1 2 ar e the upturne d counterpar t t o the first three note s o f the move ment, Brahm s havin g transferre d the m fro m th e lo w registe r an d th e string s (primarily) t o th e hig h registe r an d th e woodwinds . Her e agai n th e vulga r fermata (/r\ ) o n th e fourt h beat that , fo r example, Mut i does , i s to be avoided . Th e theme, firs t hear d i n th e hig h violins , i s no w se t i n th e lowe r middl e register , very much a s we shall see it in it s 'main subject' for m a t the outse t o f the Allegro (m.62). On e interestin g modification Brahms adds to this permutation b y inversion i s th e mor e pronounce d sustainin g o f th e peda l tones , no w als o move d from thei r erstwhil e lo w register to th e uppe r register . The trumpets ' an d flutes ' C's mus t b e wel l sustained , s o tha t th e momentar y dissonanta l clashe s i n mm.13-15 —Dl> an d B 1! agains t C—ar e full y realized . Onl y a fe w recording s exploit thi s particula r Brahmsia n (an d Beethovenian) effec t intelligentl y (van Beinum, Haitink , Furtwängler , Suitner , Abbado , Norrington , an d Kondra shin). What ha s bee n sai d earlie r abou t mm.6- 8 obviousl y applie s a s wel l a s t o mm. 16-18. I hav e alread y discussed the problem s relativ e t o th e passag e starting at m.22 . I shoul d lik e t o ad d tha t i n m y view the accelerand o her e shoul d no t b e over done. W e shoul d recogniz e tha t Brahm s ha s alread y quadruple d th e spee d o f the audibl e rhythm s i n mm.22-26 , compare d wit h th e opening . There w e had movement i n quarter-notes ; a t m.2 2 and onwar d w e hav e movemen t i n thirty second-notes. Th e basi c feelabl e pulse a t m.2 2 is i n eighth-note s (a s i t shoul d be and , as it is incidentally, mostly conducted). Therefore , give n this substantial accretion o f tempo flow, already composed int o th e music , i t i s not a t all neces sary t o mak e an y enormou s accelerando ; th e musi c speed s u p significantl y all by itself . M y preference is to mov e fro m a basic Adagio temp o o f j = 46-5 0 to about j = 60 , that is Jl = 12 0 by m.24. I t is, however, also possible to stay at J = 5 0 and rende r m.2 4 in a tempo o f /I = 100 , as, for example , Levin e does . Boult's temp o an d Skrowaczewski' s tempo a t m.2 4 are th e slowes t o f al l th e recordings I hav e hear d (9 2 an d 9 8 respectively) ; Stokowski' s i s th e fastest , clocked a t Jl = 138 . We should not e i n passing the intimat e relationshi p between th e melodi c lin e in mm.22-23 and that of mm.31-32 in the secon d movemen t (Ex.3 0 a,b), material w e shall see and hea r agai n ver y prominently, somewhat transformed, in th e main bod y o f th e las t movemen t i n m.15 6 (Ex.30c ) an d severa l othe r places .

Ex. 30 a Secon d movemen t

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y 35

1

Ex. 3 Ob Fourt h movemen t

Ex. 30 c Fourt h movemen t

In mos t performance s an d recording s mm.24-2 7 g o rathe r well, 40 bu t i n m.2 8 far to o ofte n th e dotte d eighth-notes , especiall y i n th e brass , ar e playe d eithe r too short or with sudden diminuendo s ( J ) ) , or both, seriously undermining th e effectiveness o f thi s powerfu l climax . I hav e alread y suggested tha t i t i s bes t t o conduct mm.22-2 8 i n 'eight ' (i.e . i n eighth-notes ) — indeed eve n th e las t tw o beats o f m.21 . I sugges t furthe r tha t m.2 9 als o b e conducte d i n 'eight, ' s o a s t o more readil y control an d pac e bot h th e lon g diminuend o an d th e ritar d I have spoken o f earlier a t the en d o f m.29. Th e eighth-not e beats are then converte d directly t o equivalen t quarter-not e beat s i n m.30 . Brahms wa s not generall y give n t o ton e painting , o r extra-musica l allusions, especially i n hi s symphonies. Bu t i t i s quite likel y that , her e an d there , ther e ar e hidden o r secre t scenarios . I thin k thi s i s the cas e i n mm.30-5 1 whic h begin s with Brahm s conjurin g u p a beautifu l cloudles s sunris e mornin g o n a Swis s aim, lik e th e on e h e ha d visite d i n 1868 , wit h a n alphor n sendin g it s simple song acros s th e valley s an d village s below . I sa y cloudless, becaus e th e driven , turbulent musi c o f mm.24-28 , bu t especiall y mm.27-28, surel y evoke s i n ou r musical imaginatio n a summer thunderstorm, particularly th e s f crashes of m.2 8 (which mus t hav e thei r precedenc e i n th e 'storm ' movemen t o f Beethoven' s Pastorale Symphony)— a stor m tha t passe s o n a s quickl y and a s suddenl y a s i t came. Th e lingering , disappearin g thunder i n m.2 9 i n fac t le d Stokowsk i in hi s in man y way s remarkabl e Philadelphi a Orchestr a recordin g o f 1927 , t o ad d a thunderous bas s drum sol o (sic) t o th e timpan i par t in mm.28-29 . The hor n an d flut e intonings , followe d by the reverentia l 'thanksgiving ' cho rale, comprise on e o f the mos t magical moment s i n al l of Brahms. But it s majes tic, transcenden t effec t depend s o n a scrupulou s observanc e o f Brahms's score , especially i n respect to the designate d dynamics . The orchestra l accompanimen t (mainly trombones, timpani , an d mute d strings 41) mus t b e a mystica l and misty pp—the mornin g mis t risin g fro m th e valley s (i f I ma y b e permitte d on e mor e metaphor)—and th e hor n mus t declai m it s call agains t this hushed backgroun d 40. A strange anomal y exist s i n one recording : whil e th e thirty-second-note s i n the violin s are univer sally playe d 'o n th e string, ' Walte r ha d the m playe d staccat o 'of f th e string, ' i n contex t a ver y od d sounding, incongruou s effect . 41. I recommen d tha t al l th e string s be mute d here , includin g cello s an d basses , who ca n pu t o n mutes on e b y one i n th e firs t fe w measures o f the Pi ù andante.

352 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

with nobilit y and rapture . Unfortunatel y the wondrou s effec t o f a f hor n agains t a p p impressionisti c backdrop ca n b e hear d o n onl y a ver y fe w recordings. O n the grea t majorit y o f recordings th e whol e dynami c leve l i s spiraled up : a bom bastic, blastin g horn i n ff o r fff, playin g with a bloated , oafish , obes e tone , an d an ordinar y p o r mp i n th e string s and trombone s (whic h woul d b e eve n wors e if th e violin s weren' t muted) . I a m als o amaze d t o discove r i n systematicall y listening t o al l thes e man y Brahm s Firs t recordings , o n ho w man y o f them th e horn player s play woefully ou t o f tune an d als o misrepresen t Brahms' s interest ing rhyth m i n m.30 , . Mor e ofte n tha n no t i t sound s a s i f Brahm s ha d written

The only horn players who get

both th e intonatio n an d th e rhyth m righ t ar e thos e i n th e Hall e (Skrowaczew ski), Chicag o (Levine) , Liverpool (Janowski) , Concertgebou w (Haitink) , Berli n Staatskapelle (Suitner) , Berli n Philharmoni c (Abbado) , Londo n Philharmoni c (Jochum), an d Philadelphi a (Stokowsk i and Ormandy ) orchestras . The dynami c markin g i n th e secon d hor n i n m.3 1 i s apparentl y unclea r t o many interpreters , bu t i t i s very clea r t o m e tha t Brahm s intende d th e secon d horn playe r t o ente r gentl y i n somethin g considerabl y less tha n f , swel l quickly and subtl y t o th e leve l o f th e firs t horn , an d the n reced e graduall y to a lesse r dynamic, say mf. This is to be repeate d i n m.3 3 and m.35. 42 The wors t recording of thi s passag e i s Boult' s wit h th e Londo n Philharmonic : th e horn s ar e ou t o f tune, th e secon d hor n neve r hold s hi s note s through , th e trombone s ar e muc h too loud , a s is the timpani ; and t o mak e matter s worse , there is a terrible editin g splice a t m.30 . An eve n brighte r ra y o f sunshin e no w break s through wit h th e flut e (m.38) , emulating th e hor n call , an d answere d gentl y b y a radian t sol o trumpet . Th e counter-lines i n bassoons , firs t an d thir d hor n i n mm.41-4 4 mus t b e treate d discretely, wit h modes t expressiv e dynamic swells . On Kertesz' s an d Abravanel' s 42. I t i s disturbin g t o realiz e tha t Brahms' s ingeniou s orchestratio n o f th e tw o horns , which , i f i t were playe d a s written, i s fail-safe, i s still so ofte n mismanaged . Could i t b e tha t man y secon d hor n players do not know how their note s fit into the over-al l declamation o f the alphor n melody ? Brahms realized tha t i f on e hor n alon e wer e t o pla y th e entir e eight-ba r melod y wit h a health y f , ther e would inevitabl y be a bi g breathin g gap , probabl y a whol e beat' s worth , a t th e en d o f the second , fourth, an d sixt h measures . T o counterac t that , Brahm s brough t i n th e secon d hor n t o i n effec t relieve th e firs t horn , givin g th e firs t hor n playe r a chanc e t o tak e a bi g (an d necessary ) breat h to continu e th e melody . Bu t instea d o f having the second hor n burs t i n wit h a ful l f , merel y doubl ing th e firs t horn , Brahm s bring s th e secon d hor n i n unde r th e firs t hor n then swellin g t o th e leve l o f th e firs t horn , continuin g it s line , a s i t were , an d the n bowin g out wit h a sligh t fourt h bea t diminuend o (mor e precisel y notate d a s o • Tha

r

t som e secon d hor n player s don' t eve n hol d throug h th e ful l fou r

beats, whic h i s their only purpos e in bein g involve d i n thi s passage in th e first place, defie s explanation; that thei r world-famou s maestr i allow the m t o d o s o i s even mor e disturbing .

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y 35

3

recordings th e thir d hor n i s so overbearingly loud tha t i t completel y drown s ou t the sol o flute . Als o i n severa l recordings—Clevelan d (Dohnanyi) , Lo s Angele s (Giulini), Philadelphi a (Muti)—th e thir d hor n player s ar e painfull y shar p i n mm.43-45 (Doesn' t anybod y hear thi s when recording?) . O n anothe r recording , Furtwängler's 195 2 recordin g wit h th e Berli n Philharmonic , th e thir d hor n i s missing entirely . Stokowski, who alway s had t o retouc h everybody' s orchestration, no t onl y uses two bassoon s t o inflat e th e secon d bassoo n countermelod y i n mm.41—43 , bu t adds hal f the cell o sectio n a s well. Brahms's gloriou s organ-lik e choral e follow s —a poignan t praye r o f thanksgiving—as simple a s any i n a Lutheran hymnbook , bu t transforme d into somethin g sublime b y th e additio n t o th e trombone s o f a contrabassoon , lik e a 16-foo t organ pedal . Thi s choral e passag e i s usuall y playe d quit e well , althoug h I a m often bothere d b y the excessiv e number o f breaths trombonist s tak e i n thes e five bars—some trombon e section s a s man y a s three breaths , an d i n on e cas e eve n four breath s (becaus e o f Bernstein's interminabl y slo w tempo)—when i n fac t th e whole phras e ca n easil y be don e i n on e breat h —of course , onl y if it i s played p dolce an d i n a reasonabl e tempo . The hor n returns , thi s tim e marke d poco f (emphasi s o n poco), a notatio n and qualificatio n which i s ignored o n almos t al l recordings , substitutin g instea d a bellowin g ff . A s a resul t th e succeedin g flut e an d clarine t entrance s (i n m.5 4 and, m.55 , respectively ) are neve r heard . I a m als o surprise d t o fin d ho w ofte n the interestin g trombone interpla y in mm.56-58—trul y Schubertia n trombone writing, b y th e way—i s no t heard . I t i s a n importan t ne w colo r specificall y brought ou t here . Bu t someho w thi s escape s mos t conductor s an d recordin g producers. Eve n mor e amazing—an d depressing—i s th e fac t tha t th e simpl e G dominant sevent h chor d i n horn s an d trombone s a t m.61 , whic h close s th e whole introduction , ha s hardly eve r been played i n tune . (Wha t i s so hard abou t tuning a simple G sevent h chord?) . O n only on e recordin g i s this chor d i n tun e and balance d i n a beautifu l pp: an d tha t i s Furtwängler's Vienn a recording . I n several others—Skrowaczewski's , Stokowski's , Ormandy's , an d Leinsdorf's—th e chord i s almost i n tune , i n al l th e other s painfull y ou t o f tune. Before w e leave thi s section, mentio n mus t b e mad e o f the unfortunat e habi t of man y conductor s t o accelerat e th e temp o i n mm.56-5 8 and , o f course , t o ritard i n m.5 9 —none o f whic h i s t o b e foun d i n Brahms' s score . Th e wors t offenders ar e Bernstei n an d Ozawa , especiall y th e former , who firs t o f all turn s m.52's poco f into a pi ù f , goe s suddenl y faste r a t m.56 , actuall y doublin g (sic) the temp o a t m.58 , an d the n jus t a s irrationally , relaxes th e temp o int o a very long fermat a i n m.60 . Poo r Brahms! ! The mai n them e o f the fourt h movemen t i s one o f the mos t well-know n an d most popula r melodie s i n al l o f the symphoni c literature , almost comparabl e t o the popularit y of the mai n theme of the Final e o f Beethoven's Nint h Symphony , to which , incidentally , Brahms' s them e wa s almos t immediatel y compare d b y listeners t o th e earl y performance s of the symphon y i n th e 1870s . I suspec t that Brahms's subtl e allusio n to th e "Od e t o Joy " theme wa s conscious an d purpose -

354 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

fui, a kin d o f tribute t o th e maste r h e s o revered an d fro m who m h e learne d s o much. Thi s i s th e kin d o f thin g tha t composer s hav e occasionall y don e fro m time immemorial , sometime s i n ver y subtle an d hidde n ways , sometime s i n a more obviou s o r over t manner . Tha t Brahm s considere d thi s referenc e t o Bee thoven's musi c t o b e fairl y obviou s wa s confirme d when , i n respons e t o on e such earl y listener wh o pointe d ou t t o Brahm s th e similarit y of the tw o themes , Brahms rathe r testil y replied: "that' s somethin g an y as s can hear." 43 And yet , for all o f the theme' s popularit y and celebrity , i t nevertheles s eludes man y conduc tors' understandin g or, alternatively, provokes them t o perform i t in way s that d o not correspon d t o wha t Brahm s wrot e i n hi s score . Ther e is , firs t o f all , th e question o f tempo , whic h I hav e alread y allude d to , designate d b y Brahm s a s allegro non troppo, ma con brio. 44 To recapitulate , the rang e of temp o choice s typically run s th e gamu t fro m th e slowes t ( J = 100 ) t o th e fastes t ( J = 120) , not considerin g a fe w extremist s (Celibidache , fo r example , wit h a funerea l J J = 80 , and Jochu m wit h a headlon g J = 138 ) o n eithe r side, a rang e o f 20 points. Apparentl y thos e wh o ar e o n th e slo w sid e emphasiz e th e no n troppo part o f th e temp o designatio n an d prett y muc h ignor e th e allegro part , whil e those o n th e fas t sid e emphasiz e th e co n brio a s wel l a s the allegro. That's th e way it often i s with unmetronomize d temp o markings . My ow n preferenc e i s for a temp o o f approximatel y J = 100 , giv e o r tak e a fe w metronom e points . I relate i t t o th e openin g Adagio o f approximatel y j = 50 , hal f th e Allegro's tempo, bu t als o t o m y Più andante temp o o f approximately J = 66 , a s it were, about one-thir d o f the wa y between 5 0 and 10 0 and, i n additio n t o the fina l Pi ù allegro (m.391) , whic h I d o a t a temp o o f approximatel y J = 100 . I n doin g so, I a m no t jus t playin g som e numbe r gam e o r obsesse d wit h th e notio n o f mathematically relatin g al l th e tempo s o f th e movement , bu t als o tha t thos e tempos see m bes t t o allo w a realizatio n o f all aspect s o f the music . In an y case , th e temp o o f Brahms's Allegro i s a legitimat e conductor' s choic e which i s left somewha t ope n b y Brahms' s reluctanc e t o us e metronom e mark ings. Wha t i s less ope n t o suc h a wid e rang e o f option s ar e th e dynamic s tha t Brahms give s for th e beginnin g o f th e Allegro: poco f i n th e violins . Bu t appar ently man y conductor s se e onl y th e f par t o f th e designatio n an d produc e a heavy, thick , sensuous , overwrough t strin g sound. The y als o fai l t o se e th e p i n the horns , th e mp i n th e cello s an d basses , an d th e fac t tha t th e tw o violin sections ar e partnered a t times (especiall y in mm.70-73 ) wit h only the on e viola section. Th e latte r poin t i s important sinc e Brahms' s notation canno t leav e any doubt tha t th e violi n an d viol a section s shoul d matc h i n a balance d poco f , which shoul d b e i n m y view something nea r o r between a mp an d mf—a t most ; and tha t balanc e i s very difficult t o achiev e i f the violin s play to o loudly . There are to o man y o f them (violins ) —in man y orchestra s i t migh t b e a s many a s 2 8 43. "Da s bemerkt j a schon jeder Esel" (literally : that woul d b e notice d b y any ass.) 44. W e kno w tha t Brahm s altere d th e temp o markin g fro m hi s origina l Allegro co n brio firs t t o Allegro moderato, m a co n brio an d finall y t o th e perhap s even mor e explici t Allegro no n troppo, m a con brio.

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y 35

5

to 30 players—as agains t 8 to 10 violas. Obviously , if a dynami c matc h is to be achieved, th e violins , playin g o n thei r richest , fulles t soundin g strin g (th e G string), wil l have t o moderat e thei r dynami c level . Conductor s shoul d als o kee p in min d tha t a t th e recapitulatio n o f thi s them e a t m.186 , Brahm s varie s th e orchestration, a s a kin d o f augmentatio n o f th e theme' s sonori c amplitude , b y adding amon g othe r thing s th e cello s t o the violins ' theme. 45 The tric k i s to pay homage t o al l thre e o f Brahms's tempo an d characte r clues : allegro, non troppo, and co n brio, that is , a basi c 'lively ' tempo , bu t 'no t to o muc h so, ' an d ye t with a certai n sprightliness . Thi s ca n obviousl y be realize d i n severa l subtl y differen t ways, dependin g o n ho w muc h emphasi s on e migh t giv e to eac h o f those thre e characterizations, an d ho w on e migh t interpre t 'no t to o much. ' Fo r myself I see no contradictio n i n th e 'no t to o lively ' an d 'bu t sprightly ' notions , fo r a moder ately livel y tempo ca n achiev e a certai n co n brío b y th e flow—it s forwar d mo tion—and b y a degre e o f lightnes s wit h whic h on e inflect s tha t tempo . I als o see a majo r clu e i n th e rathe r unusua l staccato-do t markin g o f th e pizzicat o cellos an d basses , a markin g observe d b y hardl y anybody, whic h signifie s t o m e a certai n brisknes s and lightness , a s well a s a clarit y of articulation . I t i s doubly interesting tha t Brahm s reiterate s thi s markin g whe n th e violin s and viola s have the pizzicat o sixtee n bar s later . Ther e ar e furthe r clue s a s to th e somewha t re strained basi c dynami c leve l i n mm.62-7 7 (excep t fo r a midwa y crescend o an d one sf), suc h a s the bassoon' s entr y markin g p (mm.70,72 ) an d th e retur n t o p in th e cello s an d basse s in m.74 . I shoul d als o poin t ou t anothe r clu e whic h seemingl y n o on e ha s observed — primarily I suppos e becaus e i t i s no t include d i n th e scor e an d part s usuall y used i n performances , bu t whic h ca n readil y b e see n i n Brahms' s manuscrip t score (whic h ha s bee n availabl e t o b e viewe d fo r mor e tha n fort y year s an d some year s ag o wa s publishe d i n facsimile ) —namely, tha t articulatio n dot s are situate d abov e th e tw o middl e note s i n firs t an d secon d violin s i n m.6 4 I kno w o f n o performanc e o r record ing tha t ha s considere d thi s phrasin g articulation , whic h automaticall y lend s a touch o f lightnes s t o th e passage , a s oppose d t o th e gluey , syrupy , 'sexy ' soun d that mos t conductor s favo r here . A s I have sai d before , n o wonde r man y peopl e have th e impressio n tha t Brahms' s musi c i s turgid, thick , an d heavy . At m.7 8 Brahm s indicate s a unifor m p i n al l th e parts , a p whic h i s onl y rarely observed . It i s definitely meant t o provid e a significan t contrast t o th e firs t 45. Tha t is why I would disagree with Toscanini's decisio n t o add a few stands of cellos t o the them e already a t m.62 . I t i s an unnecessar y enrichment o f th e strin g soun d an d anticipates—undercut s — what Brahm s himsel f did 12 4 bars later . One o f th e wors t rendition s o f th e Allegro's mai n them e i s to b e hear d o n Abbado' s recording , where ther e i s an inep t splic e between m.6 2 an d m.63 , wit h th e fron t en d i n a temp o o f J = 96 , the continuatio n i n a temp o o f J = 120 . Agai n th e question : Ho w ca n a conducto r o r a recor d producer allo w suc h a n editin g and performanc e bungle t o b e release d t o the public ?

356 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

sixteen bar s wit h a ligh t transparen t textur e an d crisp , nimbl e pizzicat o i n th e strings an d timpani . Instea d thi s i s usuall y regarde d b y th e win d sectio n a s its chance t o shine, t o outdo th e strings , and thu s t o 'pla y out.' Thereby not onl y is the mentione d contrastin g effec t gone , bu t Brahms' s carefu l dynami c structur ing, whic h wil l lead t o a brillian t ff eventuall y i n m.94 , i s subverted. Alon g th e same lines , I believe th e sf s i n m.7 3 and m.8 9 shoul d b e moderat e i n intensity , and th e strings—no t jus t th e winds—shoul d diminuend o i n m.8 9 (probabl y to p i n m.90 ) an d thenc e begi n a ne w crescendo . Many conductor s mak e a n accelerand o i n mm.90-93 to arrive at the animato in m.94 . I am oppose d t o thi s ide a (a ) because i t is much mor e effectiv e an d i n keeping wit h Brahms' s structurin g an d periodizatio n tha t th e animato b e achieved directl y a t m.94 ; (b ) I am no t absolutel y convince d o f the authenticit y of the animato designation—i t i s not i n Brahms' s manuscrip t scor e (bu t i t ma y have bee n adde d b y him afte r th e premier e bu t befor e the score' s first printing); (c) I am no t convince d tha t thi s animato (printe d i n smal l itali c letters) signifie s a temp o change , an d i f so , a radica l temp o change , o r whethe r i t migh t mea n just a subtl e brightening , animatin g o f th e tempe r o f th e musi c —or a subtl e combination o f both ideas . I sugges t thi s moderat e cautiou s approac h t o m.9 4 because fo r many conductors thi s passage, especiall y the scala r runs in mm. 106 13, ha s becom e a n unbridle d displa y of technical virtuosity , gaining a temp o o f around j = 144 . Thi s is , of course , superficiall y excitin g but , again , destroy s Brahms's fin e sens e o f form, proportion, an d balanc e o f structure. Th e fac t tha t Brahms double s th e spee d o f the note s i n m.94—th e actua l perceive d amoun t of rhythmic activity—fro m th e mor e stai d quarter-note s o f mm.62-93 to cluster s of eighth-note s i n mm.94-105 , an d the n double s i t agai n t o sixteenth-note s i n m.106, provide s enoug h rhythmi c intensit y an d excitemen t no t t o requir e an y big temp o increase. 46 Also , th e syncopation s i n mm.94-9 5 (i n th e bas s instru ments), whic h ar e unfortunatel y almos t neve r heard , eve n o n recordings , pro vide th e essentia l 'animation, ' i.e . increase d motio n an d activity , s o that, again , a bi g increas e i n temp o i s quite unnecessary . These syncopation s ar e no w followe d up an d extende d i n tw o differen t ways : the offbea t sf s i n mm.95-9 6 an d mm.99-100 , an d i n a polyphon y o f syncopations i n mm . 102-105. Thes e las t fou r bar s ar e hardl y eve r realize d correctl y from a rhythmic poin t o f view. Brahms compound s thre e uni t level s o f syncopations int o a remarkabl e polyrhythmi c composite . Th e hig h woodwind s an d vio las are writte n i n ver y large syncopation s , of the nex t fastes t uni t leve l th

the bras s in syncopation s e violin s and bas s instruments i n th e

46. I t seem s t o b e almos t impossibl e t o teac h conductor s a s well a s other musician s tha t (a ) there i s a differenc e betwee n motion—shee r rhythmi c activity—an d tempo—th e tw o concept s ar e separat e and distinct ; (b ) grea t composer s kno w ho w t o creat e th e illusio n o f increase d momentu m i n th e music b y increasin g the rhythmi c activit y without increasin g th e tempo ; (c ) therefor e performer s should no t (withou t other overridin g reasons ) spee d u p th e temp o whe n th e compose r ha s alread y composed int o his musi c a n acceleratio n o f activity. I n othe r words , sheer rhythmi c activit y creates a sens e o f acceleration , jus t a s a decreas e o f rhythmi c activity create s a sens e o f deceleration.

357

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y

meantime bein g enmeshe d i n interlockin g pattern s — in contrar y motion yet!—whic h ar e synchronize d wit h th e othe r tw o degree s o f syncopation s (see Ex . 31) . Thu s a rhythmi c composit e result s i n whic h ever y eighth-not e i n

Ex. 3 1

those fou r measure s i s articulate d b y som e grou p o f players . I n orde r fo r tha t polyrhythmic complexit y t o becom e audible , i t i s necessary that al l player s perform thei r rhythm s wit h ver y incisiv e articulations , no t necessaril y accents , bu t clearly articulate d attacks. We shoul d not e i n passin g ho w ingeniousl y Brahms transforms hi s mai n 'par ent' them e (Ex . 32a ) int o thre e divers e variant s (Exx . 3 2 b,c,d). 47 Le t u s als o admire in mm. 109-11 the ascending pattern o f violin runs alternating between th e firsts and seconds , constructe d no t i n pattern s o f thirds, but o f fourths (Ex . 33).

Ex. 32 a Ex

. 32 b

Ex. 32 c and slightl y embellished

Ex. 32 d

(encircled note s reflec t th e 'parent ' theme ) 47. Ex . 32 c is, of course, reminiscen t o f several similar passages i n th e first movement of Beethoven's Fifth Symphon y a

themati c allusio n which , i f i t

had bee n pointe d ou t t o Brahm s b y someone , woul d hav e undoubtedl y agai n elicite d hi s famou s rejoinder "An y as s can hea r that. "

358

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Ex. 3 3

Only on e conductor—Stokowsk i i n hi s 192 7 Philadelphi a recording—carrie s this passag e ou t correctly , creatin g on e singl e superbl y balanced integrate d line . The nex t performance proble m tha t arise s occurs a t m. 118, where man y con ductors an d orchestr a d o no t achiev e a rea l p dolce — instead w e ge t th e usua l 'industrial strength ' mezzofortissimo — often mad e wors e (o r perhap s eve n caused) b y th e fac t tha t th e violas , cellos , an d basses , i n a n alread y inherentl y heavy three-octave unison, playin g only four note s o n on e bow , us e th e ful l bo w length, thu s automaticall y raisin g the dynami c leve l considerably . Thes e thre e sections shoul d b e encourage d t o play very lightly: light i n dynami c an d ligh t i n texture—using ver y littl e bow . This littl e four-not e motiv e i s derived, o f course , from th e firs t fou r note s (i n th e bas s instruments ) o f th e Final e movement . Oddly enough , eve n th e f i n m.12 4 i s i n man y recording s rathe r 'lukewarm, ' odd becaus e generall y speaking musicians pounce on fs wit h irrepressible relish. I shal l pas s over the fac t tha t mos t conductor s rus h throug h mm . 130—31 with unrestrainable impetuosit y to poin t t o the nex t very interesting—an d mostl y misor underinterpreted—passage , mm.132-35. Mos t conductors manag e some kin d of subito p dolce a t m.132 , bu t the n fai l t o mak e a significan t crescend o and , even more , th e all-importan t sudden plpp a t m.136 . Onl y a handfu l o f conductors hav e brough t thi s of f successfully o n recordings : Tennstedt, Skrowaczewski , Janowski, Karajan , Haitink , Böhm , Kondrashin , and Walter . The lat e Russia n conducto r Kyri l Kondrashi n make s a n interestin g poin t i n regard t o thi s obo e sol o passage (mm.132-35 ) an d it s parallel i n th e recapitula tion.48 Notin g tha t mos t conductor s conduc t thi s passag e i n 'two, ' Kondrashi n argues tha t i t i s mor e relevan t t o sta y i n four , pointin g t o th e fac t tha t th e quarter-note triplet s in mm.134-135—an d I would add , th e syncopation s i n th e violas—retain muc h mor e o f th e typicall y Brahmsia n rhythmi c tensio n whe n played agains t a 4/4 beat an d feeling . I think h e i s quite right . When th e passag e is conducte d i n 'two, ' somethin g ma y b e gaine d i n th e flo w o f the passage , bu t the rhythm s ten d t o ge t tensionless , ver y loose . A bette r ide a o f th e rhythmi c tensions, see n an d hear d verticall y in thre e — and eve n four—level s (se e Ex . 34), can b e gaine d whe n feelin g and conductin g i n 'four. '

Ex. 3 4 oboe violas all other strings 48. Kyri l Kondrashin , Di e Kunst de s Dirigierens (Munich , 1989) , p.37 .

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y

359

It is amazing to me in how many orchestras the violas—either tolerated or urged on by their conductors—pounc e o n th e sixteenth-not e tremol o passag e at m.142 with a vigorous mf(or eve n f ), whe n actually the prevailing dynamic is pp. Brahms writes only marc. The secon d violin s in m.143 are asked to enter p, but, of course, won't do so if the viola s have preceded them with a loud entrance . Als o annoying is the bad habit of violins and violas accenting the third beats in every measure (th e top note s i n th e pitc h contour) , whe n instea d ever y attempt shoul d b e mad e t o create a long six-bar tremolando line , from pp to the f f o f m.148. The nex t problem spot , rarely rendered correctly , is mm. 156-57 (also mm. 160 63) where the violas have to play eighth-note triplets on 'two' and 'four' without any follow-up notes on 'one' and 'three' Thi

s is indeed a difficul t

but no t impossible rhyth m to manage correctly. In most viola sections the rhyth m turns into rathe r than , Curiously , because the y have been playing triplets al l throug h mm . 158-59, the y usuall y pla y th e triplet s tha t follo w i n mm. 160-65 more correctly . One o f the fe w recordings where these triplet s sound and fee l absolutel y right is the recen t Berli n Philharmonic's wit h Abbado and th e BBC Symphony's with Herbig. In mm . 164-67, man y conductor s ar e seduce d b y the temptatio n t o urg e th e orchestra int o to o earl y (and to o much ) a crescendo . Th e excessiv e /f that the n usually result s i n mm . 168-7 5 contribute s t o a furthe r obliteratio n o f Brahms's superb contrapunta l working s here (se e Ex . 35) , including a n expansio n o f roles between m.16 9 an d m.173 , combine d wit h canoni c imitation s i n mm.170-71 . Most conductor s an d orchestra s seem quit e unawar e o f these importan t motivic relationships an d thei r performanc e implications . Eve n th e chatterin g triple t eighth-note figure s i n th e woodwind s an d horn s (mm . 168-69,172-73), whic h look an d soun d lik e 'mere' passag e work, turn ou t t o b e a varian t of the violins'

360 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

m.2 (o r fo r tha t matte r m.62 ) (se e Exx . 3 6 a,b) . I t i s so tha t whereve r you loo k in th e late r page s o f a Brahm s symphonic movement , yo u will fin d tha t particu -

Ex. 36 a Ex

. 36 b

lar materia l t o b e a varian t or extensio n o f some previousl y stated elements— a theme, a motive , a n innocuou s accompanimenta l line , a bas s line . An d s o too, fo r example , th e descendin g line s i n th e oboes , clarinets , an d horn s i n mm. 170—71, which ar e a re-us e o f a similar descending quarter-not e lin e i n m. 2 in th e woodwinds. 49 In m.17 6 (an d mm . 178,179) th e abus e mos t commonl y visite d upo n thes e measures i s an enormou s crescend o i n th e timpan i int o th e fourt h beat , some thing lik e .

Needles s t o say , Brahms' s scor e ha s n o

such dynami c indicatio n yet conductors either tolerate o r encourage thi s aberra tion because , presumably , i t make s a gran d 'effect. ' Bu t i t i s i n fac t a vulgar , primitive effec t whic h simultaneousl y render s inaudibl e Brahms' s excellen t har monic progressio n and th e importan t woodwin d triple t runs. In mm . 183-85 anothe r for m o f abuse occur s wit h mos t conductors : a n exces sive alteratio n o f th e tempo . A subtl e relaxatio n o f th e flo w o f th e musi c i s certainly permissible, indee d desirable . It is , after all , a majo r structura l cadenc e and a modulatio n fro m th e relativ e key o f E mino r bac k t o th e bas e ke y o f C major. Bu t more ofte n tha n no t what happens her e i s anything but subtle . There is usually a mighty wrenchin g bac k o f the tempo , becaus e th e conducto r ha s let the previou s lengthy allegro section, especiall y the aforementione d animate, run out o f control , pickin g u p a n enormou s amoun t o f excitin g speed . Bu t then , facing th e retur n o f the statel y main them e (a t m.186), he suddenl y realizes that some temp o correctio n i s in order . Th e variou s treatments give n thi s passage— all wron g an d unnecessar y i n m y view—ar e show n i n Ex . 37 . Conductors wh o subject thes e measure s t o suc h dramati c temp o convulsion s fai l t o realiz e tha t Brahms has already slowed down the motio n o f the musi c by reducing the speed of the note s fro m strongl y articulated eighth s an d triple t eighths to quiet, smoothed out quarter-notes . All one need s t o do, assuming one ha s not inordinatel y rushed the allegro (animate), i s to gently relax the temp o into a Tempo I in m. 186.50 49. Th e onl

y reaso

n th

e flute

s don'

t hav

-they hav e instead—i

e th

e complet

e descendin

g lin

e

s tha t

Brahms wa s reluctan t t o writ e hig h B' s fo r th e woode n flute s o f tha t period . Substantiatio n o f thi s can b e foun d i n mm.354—55 , wher e th e respectiv e passag e is located a thir d lowe r an d th e highes t flute note , G , wa s technically withi n Brahms' s reach. 50. Not e th e highl y unusual omission i n m.18 2 o f B (th e fifth) and D( t (th e third ) in th e tw o chords , respectively.

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHONY

361

Ex. 3 7

The retur n o f the mai n them e her e i n m . 186 i s a surprise , for i t i s not a tru e recapitulation (a s i n a prope r sonat a form ) sinc e ther e ha s no t ye t bee n an y development section . Brahm s her e break s wit h classica l for m an d traditio n b y reversing th e orde r o f events : th e developmen t sectio n develop s ou t o f a n ex panded retur n o f th e exposition . Brahm s invent s a fascinatin g ne w form—wit h a fe w wholly origina l element s added . Th e resul t wa s no t onl y unprecedente d but, t o the bes t o f my knowledge, ha s neve r bee n emulate d b y any composer . ( I would b e happ y to stan d correcte d o n thi s point. ) As Fig. 1 0 shows, the expositio n contain s no t onl y five clearly discernible subsections bu t als o it s own mini-developmen t sectio n ( C throug h E) , s o that whe n

Fig. 1 0

Exposition

Re-exposition Development Re-exposition cont. Transition Coda

A 62-7 7 B 78-9 3 C 94-11 7 D 118-6 7 . E 168-8 5 A1 186-20 3 B1 204-1 9 C1 220-3 3 F 234-8 4 G* 285-30 0 " D 1 301-5 1 E1 352-7 0 H 371-9 0 I 390-45 7

* The developmen t sectio n contain s th e clima x of th e movement a t m.28 5 an d a transitio n (G) fro m ther e back t o D 1 fo r the continuatio n of the exposition .

362

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

it returns, like boxes within boxes , it is contained i n a larger—the real—develop ment section , whic h itsel f is encapsulated betwee n th e firs t an d secon d part s of the re-exposition . As we have seen s o often, Brahm s was virtually incapable o f returning to som e previously state d materia l withou t varying , refurbishin g it i n som e way . Unde r his principl e o f 'perpetua l variation, ' th e re-expositio n startin g a t m . 186 under goes exactl y such a conversion . Th e musi c i s subtly enriched an d elaborate d i n the mos t ingeniou s ways . W e hav e previousl y noted th e additio n o f cellos t o th e main them e here , givin g the passag e an extr a sense o f nobility and urgency . Th e previous bas s line i s now fleshe d ou t wit h th e additio n o f the timpani . Wherea s the earlie r version i n cell o an d bas s pizzicato s was

* the re-expositio n no w offer s (i n basse s an d timpani , intermittentl y an d abette d by bassoons):

(stems up =timpani; stem s dow n = basses and/o r bassoons)

It should b e obviou s that Brahm s meant thi s to be hear d (an d played ) as a single continuous balance d bas s line , bu t judgin g b y th e many , man y recording s i n which th e timpan i i s muc h to o loud—i n an y cas e loude r tha n th e basses—i t seems not t o be obviou s a t all . I t is useful an d time-savin g to rehears e these two (timpani an d basses ) alone, fo r the res t of the orchestr a t o hear . Meanwhile , th e horns' previou s purel y harmoni c accompanimenta l functio n ha s bee n re assessed. I n alternatio n wit h the bassoon s (se e Ex . 38) , the horn s no w participate in an d enric h sonicall y th e mai n melody . Althoug h mos t currentl y availabl e scores (an d parts ) sa y poco f i n th e bassoons , Brahms' s manuscrip t clearl y say s mf. I thin k thi s i s no t onl y a n importan t clu e a s t o Brahms' s desire d dynami c level fo r thi s passage , i.e . th e actua l meanin g o f hi s poco f , bu t i t als o suggest s to m e i n combinatio n wit h Brahms' s markin g o f mp fo r the horns , tha t bassoon s

Ex. 3 8

M = main theme ; A = accompaniment; bassoons uppe r staff; horns lower staf f

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y

363

and horn s shoul d alternat e mf an d mp dynamic s here: mf fo r the themati c mate rial (M) , mp fo r the accompanimenta l materia l (A) , so indicated i n th e exampl e above. Finally , th e reworkin g o f th e mai n them e i n th e re-expositio n i s com pleted b y the additio n of flutes, clarinets , and trumpet s i n a light bypla y of quasipizzicato staccat o note s (se e Ex.39) , al l o f whic h for m a counterpar t t o th e basses an d timpani .

Ex. 3 9

i

ii

I hav e gon e int o considerabl e detai l regardin g thi s passag e no t onl y t o sho w the exten t t o whic h Brahm s varies the recapitulatio n o f his Allegro main theme , but t o sugges t how muc h wil l b e los t if all thes e divers e element s an d differenti ated articulation s are no t represente d full y an d i n appropriat e balance . Inciden tally, the largamente a t m.18 6 i s not t o b e foun d i n hi s origina l manuscript. I f it is Brahms's indication , i t is meant, I think, t o cancel th e previou s animato's, an d should b e interprete d mor e a s a subtl e feelin g o f broadnes s tha n a substantia l tempo change. Brahms's constantl y inventiv e way s o f revisitin g previousl y state d materia l show a t almos t ever y point alon g th e way . Take, fo r example , th e ver y sophisticated dynami c nuancin g i n mm.200-204—al l o f this roundl y ignore d i n nearl y all recording s an d performances . The matte r i s complicated b y some error s an d omissions in th e usuall y available scores and parts . A crescendo wedg e i s missing in th e basse s i n m.200 , whil e i n th e othe r string s th e dynamic s shoul d be ,

no t A

s Ex . 4 0

shows, thre e differen t separat e dynami c line s procee d simultaneously , al l resolving i n m.20 4 int o a n air y ligh t p.

Ex.40

364

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

The problem s tha t aris e in th e pizzicat o passag e o f mm.6-9 i n th e beginnin g of the Finale—problem s o f balance, w e recall—ar e generall y t o b e foun d agai n in mm.208-1 1 (an d mm.216-19) . Th e viola s ar e usuall y to o wea k agains t th e rest o f the strings . On e conducto r wh o manage s thi s entir e passage , includin g mm.212-15, exceedingl y wel l i s Kondrashin . Th e pizzicat o accompanimen t i s crisp an d clear , well-balanced , an d nicel y flowing. For a mere te n bar s (mm.220-29 ) th e recapitulatio n contain s a n exac t repea t of th e exposition , befor e Brahm s veer s of f i n a differen t direction . Th e earlie r sixteenth-note passages—thos e tha t s o ofte n ar e playe d to o fas t fo r a n obviou s 'exciting' effect—ar e thi s tim e delaye d an d combine d wit h a four-not e motivi c fragment, whic h first made it s brief appearanc e i n mm.97-9 8 an d mm.101-10 2 (and, o f course , i n th e jus t mentione d recapitulator y passage , mm.223-2 4 and mm.227-28 ) (se e Exx.41a,b) . Thi s materia l i s no w develope d i n a mos t

Ex. 41 a

Ex. 41b (its inversion in the basses)

remarkable way , firs t i n a strikin g upwar d leapin g passag e i n th e uppe r string s in mm.232-33 (Ex. 42a) and simultaneously , i n contrar y motion, i n a downward bounding lin e i n th e lo w strings, consistin g miraculousl y o f the sam e pitche s a s in th e uppe r string s (se e Ex . 42b, diagona l connectin g lines) .

Ex. 42 a

Ex. 42 b

Incidentally, I am convince d tha t Brahm s arrive d at his for the tim e extraordi nary nint h chord s late r i n life , a s in , fo r example , th e Doubl e Concert o fo r Violin an d Cello , Op . 102 (se e Exx.43a,b ) b y wa y o f thes e earlie r melodic/har monic/contrapuntal experiments .

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y

365

Ex. 43 a

Ex. 43 b

Whereas i n ou r presen t exampl e fro m th e Firs t Symphon y (th e bas s line i n Ex . 42b), th e pitche s ar e stil l strun g ou t horizontally , i.e . i n succession , i t di d no t take muc h t o gathe r the m togethe r i n a harmoni c simultaneity , fo r exam ple o

ro

r,

It wa s stil l to o earl y for Brahm s t o

venture furthe r int o elevent h (o r thirteenth) chor d territory , but, o f course, man y composers withi n a fe w year s o f Brahms' s deat h di d jus t that ; an d thu s wer e born no t onl y the elevent h an d thirteent h chord s o f the earl y 20th century , bu t also bitonalit y an d polytonality . Brahms' s descendin g bas s lin e i n mm.232-33 , when gathere d int o a singl e chord , ca n b e hear d a s a comple x o f several triadic or seventh-chor d formation s (Ex. 44)

Ex. 4 4

or Th

e pilin g up i n thirds, as in th e

first chord displaye d directly above, becam e a favorit e devic e o f composers lik e Schönberg an d Stravinsk y as earl y a s th e firs t decad e o f th e ne w century , an d within ver y few years became a commonplace o f 20th-century harmonic writing. I poin t this out primaril y to underscor e onc e agai n th e astonishin g modernit y of Brahms's musica l conceptions , o f "Brahms th e Progressive, " a s Schönberg pu t i t in hi s famou s essay. 51 Brahm s was in s o man y way s always on th e cuttin g edg e 51. Schönberg , Style an d idea (Ne w York, 1950).

366

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

of musica l developments , despit e hi s avowe d conservatis m an d adherenc e t o earlier classica l model s an d values . Unfortunately , Brahms' s modernit y i s mor e often tha n no t eithe r underappreciated , take n fo r granted or , from constan t overuse (over-performance)—an d eve n misuse—entirel y ignored . I t i s als o wort h mentioning tha t Brahm s ha d a n ongoin g fascination— a lov e affair—wit h me lodic an d harmoni c constructio n i n thirds , particularl y fallin g thirds . Th e pas sage jus t referre d t o is , o f course , develope d ou t o f a serie s o f thirds , clearl y visible an d audibl e i n th e bas s line i n mm.232-33 , but disguise d i n risin g sixths (the inversio n of thirds) in the uppe r line . Ho w consistently Brahm s returne d t o such third s construction s ca n b e gauge d b y the fac t tha t on e o f his mos t famou s and belove d melodies , th e openin g them e o f hi s Fourt h Symphony , i s buil t exactly o n tha t principl e an d a similar series o f thirds (se e pp.381 , 416) . The secon d wa y in whic h Brahm s use s th e aforementione d four-not e motiv e (Ex.41a) i s i n a powerfu l contrapuntal/canoni c passage , mm.234-4 3 (Ex.45) , rhythmically foreshortene d i n strett o fashio n i n th e late r measures , a t the sam e time pittin g th e motiv e agains t th e sixteenth-not e run s firs t hear d i n m.10 6 (which i n turn wer e derived from th e thirty-second-not e run s in the introductio n

Ex.45 etc.

of the fourt h movement) . Thi s passag e an d it s even mor e sophisticatedl y elabo rated recapitulatio n i n mm.257-6 7 are hardl y ever playe d wit h an y understand ing o f their conten t o r structura l conception . The y ar e simpl y played i n a per functory "run-it-down " manne r an d i n to o fas t a tempo, 52 fairl y wel l emasculating th e music . Conductor s an d orchestra s wh o have , however , don e well b y these passage s are Walter , Sanderling , Herbig , an d Kertesz . The cascadin g f sixteenth-not e run s ar e suddenl y subdue d i n m.244 , turnin g into lacy , intermeshin g p leggiero accompanimenta l figure s i n a delicat e wood wind interpla y base d o n th e hea d tone s o f the mai n them e ( C B C A) . Th e passage i s cast i n tw o phase s (se e Fig . 11), firs t i n a five-ba r phrase , the n i n a n eight-bar extensio n i n whic h ingeniousl y th e sixt h through eight h measure s ar e a re-orchestrate d repetitio n o f mm.3- 5 o f th e firs t phase . I t i s a passag e whic h offers fe w problem s an d normall y goes quit e well , a s lon g a s th e p an d mf dy namics ar e respected . Surprisingly , however, th e entrance s o f th e clarine t an d viola (i n m.253 ) an d th e secon d hor n (i n m.255 ) ar e ofte n covered . Th e prob lem ma y be that Brahms gav e no dynamic s for the clarine t and viola—an d mos t conductors don' t offe r on e t o th e players , unles s possibl y when aske d to d o s o — 52. Klempere r i n hi s 192 8 Berli n recording , for example, hit s th e amazin g speed o f J = 156 . Szel l also pushe s th e temp o nervousl y forward an d a s a resul t th e playin g become s rathe r ragged.

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y

367

Fig. 1 1

and th e horn s i n m.25 4 are marke d p p b y Brahms, rather tha n p a s in th e othe r instruments a t tha t point . I t would b e advisabl e to chang e tha t dynami c t o p o r even mp, les t the secon d horn' s lovel y arpeggiated line i s los t i n th e over-al l polyphony . I n mm.257-6 7 Brahm s recapitulate s mm.232-43 in an elaborate d form . H e begin s b y inverting th e origina l structure: the uppe r strings ' leapin g passag e i s now i n th e lowe r strings , and th e descend ing jump s in third s i n cello s an d basse s are no w i n th e violin s (Ex. 46).

Ex. 4 6

Some o f those pitches , C-AI>-F-D , are the n isolate d t o begi n a highly comple x contrapuntal elaboratio n an d enrichmen t o f th e earlie r paralle l passage . I us e the wor d "complex " advisedly , fo r no t onl y ar e th e descendin g sixteenth-not e scales no w recas t i n three-par t o r two-par t harmonizations (fo r example, th e par allel triad s in m.259), but Brahm s produces a remarkable clos e canoni c structur ing, tw o beats apart , whic h include s shiftin g th e leapin g quarter-not e figur e on e beat earlie r tha n expecte d (i n m.260 , fo r example , i n th e lo w strings) . Th e whole passag e thus become s a spectacularl y comple x an d concentrate d gri d o f contrapuntal line s (Ex . 47). 5? Unfortunately , i n mos t performance s (an d th e majority o f recording s sampled ) orchestr a musician s ar e blissfull y unawar e o f any o f this intricat e polyphon y an d simpl y plo w throug h th e musi c a s best the y 53. I a m certai n tha t Brahm s wa s her e influence d o r inspire d b y th e equall y remarkabl e fugal / canonic peroratio n i n Mozart' s Jupiter Symphon y nea r th e en d o f the las t movement .

368

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Ex.47

can, wit h n o sens e o f ho w al l th e part s o f thi s multi-layere d textur e relat e t o each other . Brahms no w continue s th e strettoizatio n canonicall y a t eve n close r (i.e . eighth-note) rang e i n m.26 4 i n th e string s —right ou t o f lat e Beethoven ! —(Ex. 48), whil e i n th e woodwind s a chai n o f sixteenth-note run s (Ex.49 ) lead s t o a

Ex.48

major climacti c sectio n a t m.268 . Thi s woodwin d passag e is , however , some what difficul t t o bring of f correctly. Th e proble m i s that th e flute/clarine t lin e i s in a favorable projecting range an d ha s fou r instrument s i n octav e unison , whil e the othe r line , i n oboe s an d bassoons , i s i n les s projectin g register s a s wel l a s being divide d i n third s (rathe r than unison) . There i s not a singl e recordin g in which th e oboe s an d bassoon s ar e hear d a s wel l a s th e flute s an d clarinets ,

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y

369

Ex.49

thereby destroyin g the single-lin e trajector y Brahms obviousl y had intended . I t can, o f course, b e balance d properl y by simpl y urging th e oboe s an d bassoon s to projec t well and , i f necessary, by moderatin g th e dynamic s of th e flute s an d clarinets. Balancin g thi s passag e sectionall y i n rehearsal , a s wel l a s wit h (an d against) th e strings , i s well worth the trouble . The grea t twenty-ba r climacti c passag e (mm.268-88) , i n tw o majo r phases , offers a numbe r o f performanc e problems . Th e strings ' sixteenth-not e run s ar e easily burie d unde r th e weigh t o f the res t o f the orchestra' s sustaine d half-note chords an d th e timpan i rolls . Overl y loud timpani-playing , moreover , obscure s the unusua l bas s lin e her e featurin g thir d inversio n mino r sevent h chord s 57 (G 3 -C 5) . Also , conductor s hav e fo r decade s altered , i.e . modernized , th e

73

horn part s in mm.268-70, doubling the first horn i n mm.268, raising both horn s an octav e highe r i n mm.269-70 , an d changin g Brahms' s origina l hor n parts t

o! I

mus t confes s that I fin d i t strang e tha t

Brahms di d no t writ e fo r the horn s i n mm.269-70 , th e E^ bein g easily produceabl e o n th e natura l hor n fo r whic h Brahm s alway s wrot e (bu t which, by the way , no self-respecting horn playe r played any more b y the 1870s) . Brahms use d muc h mor e difficult-to-achiev e chromati c alteration s throughou t the Firs t Symphony . Wh y h e shie d awa y from th e above-mentione d eas y solu tion i s hard t o fathom . I n an y case , m y suggestio n woul d b e t o kee p th e horn s in th e lowe r octave i n mm.269-7 0 to preserve Brahms' s initia l intentions . Many conductor s als o indulg e i n exaggerate d temp o fluctuation s here , mos t commonly a headlon g accelerand o i n mm.274-7 7 an d a bi g pull-bac k i n m.278, all o f which i s quite unnecessar y an d a vulgarization of Brahms's already sufficiently 'exciting ' music . Measures 279-8 4 ar e on e o f Brahms' s mos t origina l an d darin g conceits . Evolving quite organicall y out o f the previou s eleven-ba r cumulative intensifica tion o f the movement' s mai n theme , the y als o refe r bac k t o mm.27-2 8 o f th e i n t r o d u c t i o n i n m.27 , i n m.279) . I t i s also on e o f the mor e difficul t passage s i n al l o f Brahms , sinc e fo r si x entire measure s n o one play s on th e stron g first and thir d beats—except , i n effect , th e conductor . I t is one o f the mos t totally syncopated passages i n al l music , and a s such i s unfor tunately almos t always playe d incorrectly, namely, as i f written:

370 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

etc «/

- when , o f

course, i t i s written etc

- I t i s an -

other on e o f Brahms's remarkabl e rhythmi c inventions , shiftin g th e phrasin g t o the weakes t beat s o f th e measure . Bu t I wis h Brahm s ha d notate d th e passag e as follows : etc

-, fo r thi s woul d hel p

players psychologicall y to ancho r th e syncopation s rhythmicall y in th e 4/ 4 met ric frame . On e o f the fe w recording s o n whic h thi s passag e i s right i s Skrowaczewski's wit h th e Hall é Orchestra : stead y an d well-paced , unfrantic , i n whic h one ca n fee l th e underlyin g basi c puls e an d th e fac t tha t th e rhythm s ar e al l syncopated off-beats . These twenty-four propulsiv e syncopation s culminat e finall y i n a n eve n mor e powerful outburs t i n m.285 , a syncopate d exclamatio n o f the alphor n them e of m.30. I t ha s lon g bee n a traditio n t o distor t thi s passag e wit h a tremendou s slowing dow n an d furthe r ritardin g in m.206-88 . This i s clearly wrong an d un warranted. Brahm s coul d certainl y hav e indicate d a ritenuto, ha d h e wante d one; second , Brahm s ha s alread y slowe d dow n th e momentu m o f th e musi c by augmentin g al l th e rhythmi c unit s fro m th e previou s t o , against , b y th e way , even mor e slowed-dow n sustaine d dot ted halve s an d whol e notes , al l o f thi s requirin g n o additiona l ritenuto; third , changing th e temp o i n m.28 5 negate s th e whol e poin t o f Brahms' s rhythmi c augmentation; fourth , th e secon d violins ' an d violas ' sextuple t rhythm s ar e a strong clu e tha t Brahm s want s t o maintai n th e origina l allegro pulse . I hav e heard onl y thre e conductor s wh o correctl y maintai n th e temp o here : Eric h Leinsdorf, van Beinum, and Lehel . Toscanini almos t does. Curiously , Klempere r and Stokowsk i both slow up i n m.28 5 bu t the n accelerat e i n th e nex t tw o measures, whic h make s littl e sense . Man y conductor s mak e a bi g fermat a o n th e first, the empty , bea t o f m.285 . Althoug h mos t orchestra s ar e b y no w prepare d for thi s aberration , i t i s dangerous , an d i n th e hea t o f th e battl e player s some times anticipat e th e ff secon d bea t (as , for instance , a bas s player doe s o n Doh nanyi's Clevelan d recording) . Incidentally , I sugges t a sligh t diminuend o i n al l instruments excep t th e firs t violin s i n m.283 , t o le t th e them e com e throug h against thi s otherwis e massiv e orchestral wall of sound. Most conductors , havin g slowed dow n i n mm.285-88 , now have the proble m of determinin g an d re-establishin g th e temp o i n m.289 , a n altere d recapitula tion o f m.30 . Mos t conductor s blithel y assum e tha t Brahm s mad e a mistak e here an d tha t th e temp o mus t b e th e sam e a s i n m.30 . Ho w littl e the y kno w their Brahms ! Again h e coul d hav e writte n meno mosso o r som e suc h designa -

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y 37

1

tion, i f he ha d wante d a slowe r tempo . Also , th e timpani' s eighth-not e triplet s in mm.289-9 7 ar e a goo d clue , relate d a s the y ar e t o m.30' s sixteenth-note sextuplets, tha t a faste r temp o i s wanted here , especially since ther e i s a calando in m.29 7 in mos t printe d scores. 54 The poin t is , if one i s already at a slow temp o in m.289 , followe d b y a calando i n m.297 , th e musi c ha s t o com e t o a vir tual standstil l b y m.300 , which , alas , i s exactl y wha t happen s i n mos t perfor mances. The relativel y obscur e markin g p f i n th e horn s an d obo e i n mm.289-90 , ignored i n al l bu t th e rares t o f performances , mean s simpl y poco forte; an d i n effect shoul d b e n o mor e tha n mp, rathe r tha n th e obes e overblow n ff tha t i s usually heard here . The appropriatenes s o f the softe r dynami c is further substan tiated b y the writte n p i n th e accompanimen t an d th e mf tw o bar s later i n th e first violins (m.291) , also by the fac t tha t a genera l fi s no t reache d unti l m.293 . Although viola s an d cello s ca n pla y p i n mm.289-9 0 wit h th e indicate d bow ing, the y mostl y don't , unles s challenge d t o d o s o b y th e conductor . I t i s bes t to ad d slur s her e a s Brahm s di d i

n

mm.291-92 an d surel y inadvertentl y di d no t i n mm.289-90 . On e o f th e fe w conductors wh o handle s thi s passage intelligentl y i s Skrowaczewski. I shoul d poin t ou t tha t th e diminuend o i n th e violin s i n m.29 9 i s incorrect . The correct , an d muc h mor e logical , placemen t o f the hairpi n dynamic s i n all the string s should be , a s in Brahms' s autograph and th e dim. foun d i n th e printe d scores shoul d b e eliminated . Th e animato i n m.301 , correspondin g t o th e on e in m.118 , i s necessitated b y the foregoin g calando, bu t become s unnecessar y o r self-evident i f the allegro tempo ha s bee n maintaine d al l along . Wha t i s muc h more important , i t seem s t o me , an d almos t neve r realized , i s th e unusual , remarkably sombr e voicin g i n th e secon d cello s i n mm.296-300 , a sixt h belo w the firs t cellos . Liste n t o Skrowaczewski' s and Toscanini' s recording s t o savo r how strangely beautiful thi s passag e ca n soun d whe n don e correctly . The conductor s wh o mak e a hug e ritar d here , usuall y with a prolonge d fer mata o n th e bas s B\> i n m.300 , are, above all , Giulini , Abbado, Dohnanyi , Muti , Suitner, Bernstein , Böhm , and—wit h th e longes t fermat a o f al l — Furtwängler (five second s long!) . Measures 302-2 4 ar e fo r th e mos t par t a fairl y litera l repetitio n o f mm . 11840, transpose d o f course ( a fourt h higher ) an d elaborate d her e an d there , a s i n the additio n o f the four-not e descendin g motiv e i n th e woodwind s in mm.303 310. Th e animato designatio n i n m.30 1 lead s man y conductor s t o plung e through thi s sectio n a t enormou s speed . Whe n thi s occur s afte r a n over 54. Thi s calando an d animato i n m.301 , however, ar e no t i n Brahms' s autograph, and ar e a late r addition t o th e score , probably by Brahm s himself—after th e premiere.

372 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

extended fermat a i n m.300 , i t i s an especiall y annoying ruptur e o f the form . I t is difficul t t o understan d ho w a n intelligen t conductor , Rowicki , fo r example , can justif y a t m.310 the incredibl e temp o o f J = 160 . Brahms's dynamic s i n mm.316-2 0 ar e mostl y ignore d o r misunderstoo d — only Skrowaczewski , Horenstein , Abravanel , Toscanini , Suitner , an d Herbi g seem t o hav e pai d clos e attentio n t o them—eve n thoug h simila r to th e paralle l passage mm.132-36 . I t shoul d b e clea r tha t th e poco f m th e violin s i n m.31 6 represents a subito meno f—something lik e a mf — followe d i n mm.318-1 9 by a crescendo, succeede d b y another subito meno f i n m.320 , Brahms' s notate d mf . Be i t noted tha t i n Brahms' s autograph th e bassoons ' dynami c i n m.316 i s p, no t mf; als o tha t Brahm s ha s marke d th e firs t hor n p i n m.32 0 agains t th e sol o oboe's mf . This , again , i s a dynami c nuanc e whic h i s rarel y observe d b y hor n players an d conductors . Everything tha t ha s bee n sai d previousl y abou t th e extende d episod e mm. 142-83 shoul d appl y to it s parallel, mm.326-67 . The cadenc e a t mm. 366-67, no w in the bas e ke y of the symphony , C minor , is use d b y Brahms t o initiat e a transitio n t o th e coda , piu allegro and C major . And wha t a magnificen t transitio n i t is! But als o how fraught with al l manne r o f performance problems , som e o f which ar e cause d b y engraving error s mad e b y the Simroc k editor s ove r a centur y ag o fo r th e firs t edition . Thes e errors , ex clusively i n dynami c markings , occu r primaril y i n th e firs t eigh t measure s o f the transitio n episode . I n genera l Brahms' s hairpi n dynamics , especiall y i n th e strings (an d bassoon s i n mm.371-74) , shoul d pea k o n th e thir d bea t o f the secon d measur e o f eac h two-ba r phrase , no t th e firs t bea t a s al l printe d scores hav e it . (Th e correcte d version , perhap s presente d her e fo r the firs t tim e in th e histor y o f thi s symphony , ca n b e see n i n Ex.50. ) What Brahm s ha s i n mind i s that th e risin g arpeggiated melodi c figure s and thei r inversio n i n th e woodwinds, particularl y in th e bassoons , should crescendo—slightly , b y th e way—to thei r final highest an d lowes t notes, respectively . The trombones , enter ing i n m.37 1 afte r onl y ver y sporadic us e sinc e th e en d o f the movement' s intro duction an d thu s a fascinatin g new colo r here , wer e marke d p b y Brahms , no t pp. Fo r m e th e mos t wondrou s aspect s o f thi s eight-ba r passag e ar e (1 ) th e re markable harmoni c progressio n i n mm.367-7 4 and (2 ) the entranc e o f the con trabassoon o n it s low contr a D! > i n m.373 . I believe thi s harmonic progressio n is wholly origina l with Brahms, to m y knowledge neve r compose d o r hear d befor e in an y music . I also believe that par t o f the beaut y and mysteriou s effec t o f this sequence o f harmonie s lie s i n it s remarkabl e symmetrica l construction . Con -

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y

373

Ex. 5 0

sider tha t th e firs t tw o chord s ( C mino r an d E I» minor ) ris e b y a third , a mino r third a t that , whil e th e tw o final chords ( F majo r an d D t minor ) fall b y a third , a major third . This , combine d wit h th e risin g melodi c figure s ove r th e first two chords an d th e falling figure s ove r the fina l tw o chords—all s o sophisticated an d complex i n it s conceptio n an d ye t s o pur e an d simpl e i n it s outwar d effect creates a magical moo d o f mystery that, i t seems to me, i s uniquely Brahmsian. 55 The passag e fit s superbl y Schönberg' s classi c definitio n o f superio r creativity , paraphrased: "[I n a grea t work ] th e profundit y o f th e rea l meanin g [doe s not ] interfere wit h th e eleganc e o f the presentatio n an d th e polis h o f the surface." 56 How extraordinar y this passag e (mm.371-76 ) ca n soun d ca n bes t b e hear d o n Stokowski's an d Haitink' s recordings . 55. Furthe r simila r o r analogous , primaril y harmony-induced , magica l moment s occu r i n man y o f Brahms's othe r works , no t onl y th e othe r thre e symphonie s bu t th e German Requiem an d th e A/t o Rhapsody a s well . 56. Schönberg , Style an d Idea, p . 190.

374 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

The ai r o f mystery , of ominous suppresse d tension , continue s i n m.375 , an d now build s dramaticall y unti l it s ultimat e releas e i n th e brillianc e o f th e C major stretto-cod a (m.391) . Bu t thi s ai r o f myster y is rarely well serve d i n mos t performances. Again , the proble m lie s with to o little attentio n give n to Brahms' s dynamic markings . Mos t seriously , the man y sf' s ar e generall y exaggerate d an d overblown—except curiousl y enoug h fo r th e tw o importan t trumpe t sf's i n mm. 3 80-81, which i n mos t performance s and recording s ar e ofte n woefully un derplayed 57 —and, second , conductor s eithe r deman d o r tolerat e a too-muc h and too-earl y crescendo . There i s no over-all crescendo until m.381. I n additio n many conductor s (Szell , Bernstein , Abbado , Celibidache , Ozawa , Ormandy , Järvi, Sanderling , Dohnanyi , Tennstedt , Furtwängler , Herbig , Weingartner , Muti, Norrington , an d Skrowaczewski ) start Brahms's stringendo of m.383 muc h too early . Wha t result s the n i s tha t bot h a ff an d th e pi ù allegro temp o ar e reached fou r t o five bars too early , making the rea l intende d culminatio n o f the crescendo an d stringend o i n m.39 1 a n anti-climax . This is , o f course, a muc h easier wa y o f rendering—actuall y mis-rendering—thi s passage , fo r i t make s th e establishment o f the pi ù allegro much 'safer, ' i t having been reache d severa l bars earlier. The harder , bu t als o the bette r way , is to pace the stringend o a t first less and the n progressivel y more, hittin g th e ne w faste r temp o onl y a t m.39 1 (più allegro). Moreover, i f the stringendo i s done to o muc h to o early , the secon d violi n and viola part s i n mm.385-8 7 becom e virtuall y unplayabl e and , i n suc h perfor mances, usuall y end u p i n rhythmi c uniso n wit h th e cello s an d basses . Jus t as important, bu t seemingl y unknow n t o most conductors , th e aforementione d sfs, are al l poco sf's, tha t is , i n th e contex t o f a basi c p dynami c level . Thi s i s espe cially crucia l i n th e thir d trombone , cellos , an d basses , but als o i n th e violins . Be i t note d a s well that the bas s instruments (includin g bas s trombone) hav e n o crescendo i n mm.375 , 377 , an d 379 . (Th e diminuendo s i n th e bas s trombon e in m.37 6 and m.37 8 are spurious, undoubtedly th e wor k of an overzealou s Sim rock editor. ) Th e sam e migh t appl y t o th e woodwinds , wh o often , despit e Brahms's differentiate d dynamics, ten d t o mak e variou s phrase an d over-al l cre scendos. Th e violin s must alway s return t o p i n mm.377 , 379 , 381 , which , o f 57. I suspec t tha t thi s ma y b e du e t o th e fac t tha t Brahrns' s trumpet-writin g is considered b y mos t musicians, includin g conductors , no t ver y 'exciting,' an d a s a consequenc e littl e attentio n i s paid t o the symphonies ' trumpe t parts . It i s true, of course, tha t hi s trumpet-writin g was extremely conservative an d unadventurous , muc h mor e s o than hi s horn - o r trombone-writing . Brahm s wa s the onl y late 19th-centur y compose r wh o adhere d t o a us e o f the trumpe t tha t goe s al l th e wa y back t o th e very introductio n o f trumpets int o th e orchestr a i n th e lat e 17t h an d earl y 18t h century , tha t is , in permanent associatio n with the timpani . This wa s a long-standin g traditio n harkin g back t o th e day s when trumpet s an d kettledrums , o n horseback , wer e th e essentia l instrument s i n marches , parades , and militar y and roya l festivities . Brahms use s th e trumpet s exclusivel y as 'natural ' trumpets—eve n thoug h th e valve d instrument had bee n i n existenc e sinc e Haydn' s day—an d primaril y partner s the m wit h th e timpani . Still, h e occasionally find s wonderfull y imaginativ e way s o f employin g th e trumpets , as , fo r example , th e beautiful radian t entranc e o f th e trumpe t in m.3 9 o f th e las t movement , o r th e powerfu l sustained ff i n m.2 5 i n th e introductio n to th e firs t movement .

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y 37

5

course, the y ar e no t likel y to d o i f th e whol e orchestr a i s already starte d o n a big over-al l crescend o an d a prematur e accelerando . Le t th e reader—an d th e prospective performer—b e assure d tha t th e mor e th e crescend o an d stringend o can b e hel d dow n o r delayed , th e mor e excitin g and overwhelmin g wil l be th e releasing clima x at the pi ù allegro (m.391). The conductor s wh o mos t correctl y and ye t mos t excitingl y realiz e thi s passag e o n recording s ar e Toscanini , and , more recently , Skrowaczewski. A varian t o f th e mai n them e forms th e basi c materia l fo r th e coda , whic h als o incorporate s a recapitulatio n of th e choral e them e hear d i n th e introductio n (mm.47-51) . Althoug h i t ap pears her e (m.407 ) i n a totall y differen t context— a brillian t allegro rather tha n a moderat e andante — most conductor s unfortunatel y treat th e cod a choral e i n a ponderous stentorian manner , as if Brahms ha d bee n incapabl e o f writing meno mosso o r pi ù maestoso o r largamente o r som e suc h terminolog y t o indicat e a slower tempo . Brahm s surel y meant th e choral e t o b e rendere d thi s tim e i n a blaze o f glory , i n triumphan t return— a kin d o f Hosanna o r Hallelujah, no t a sad melanchol y prayer . I submit als o that th e combinatio n o f a slow- and heavy paced choral e followe d by a headlong charg e fo r the finish line a t m.417, which most conductor s see m t o favor , i s on e o f th e cornies t an d cheapes t o f effects . Keeping th e temp o i n the 'chorale ' not onl y preserves Brahms's organic structuring bu t make s th e remainin g closin g musi c o f the movemen t eve n mor e excit ing, mor e driving , because i t is more logical , mor e organicall y generated. I realiz e tha t conductor s wh o hav e alway s done—or hear d th e choral e don e —slowly, ar e no t likel y to b e persuade d b y the ide a tha t i t i s much mor e effec tive i n th e brigh t tempo . Bu t shoul d anyon e wan t o r nee d evidenc e t o tha t effect, a liste n t o Leinsdorf' s an d Skrowaczewski' s recordings, t o nam e jus t tw o of th e ver y fe w that respec t Brahms' s scor e an d wisdom , shoul d b e convincing . Toscanini stay s almost in tempo, while Bernstei n with his penchant fo r exaggerations drop s a staggerin g 7 0 metronome point s (sic ) (fro m j = 12 0 a t m.39, to j = 5 0 for the 'chorale') . Although Stokowsk i also makes a huge ritar d into th e 'chorale'—and ha s th e nerv e t o doubl e th e orchestr a wit h a ful l diapaso n or gan—he i s the only conducto r wh o bring s out th e Bl > i n th e bas s instruments i n m.406, a mos t crucia l not e i n leadin g th e musi c int o th e brillian t A majo r of m.407. I n th e vas t majorit y o f recording s th e Bl > i s totally inaudible , obliterate d by the timpani . The sudde n alternatin g wave s of triplets , dramaticall y new an d refreshin g in this otherwis e ver y muc h duple-oriente d movement , fin d thei r releas e i n th e three powerfu l quasi-uniso n 'commands ' i n mm.431-43 . Bu t Brahm s her e i s once agai n u p t o hi s favorit e tric k of seemingl y shiftin g th e beat . Bu t i t i s only an illusion . Like the wor k o f a grea t magician, the fea t i s anchored i n logi c an d reality: th e music' s underlyin g pulse mus t no t b e destroye d i n performance . I t is, a s alway s i n suc h passages , th e tension betwee n th e audibl e rhyth m an d th e

376

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

underlying puls e tha t mus t b e upheld . Thi s canno t b e don e i f the conducto r and orchestr a simpl y convert th e musi c t o Matters ar e mad e wors e whe n tim pani player s are encourage d (o r allowed ) t o mak e a murderou s crescend o int o and a culminatin g accen t o n th e las t quarter-note o f mm.434, 438,443 . Al l tha t needs to b e don e t o perfor m thi s passag e correctl y i s for the entir e orchestr a t o think an d feel th e downbeat s i n eac h measure , an d abov e al l not t o diminuendo on eac h note , a s i f written —whic

h

is the wa y it is most ofte n played . In mm.439-4 3 there is , however, an orchestra tional o r balanc e problem , har d t o resolve . I t i s a cas e o f Brahm s runnin g ou t of instrument s t o full y realiz e hi s idea . Lookin g closel y a t thes e fiv e measures , one wil l not e tha t tha t th e firs t tw o pitches , C an d A , ar e reiterate d canoni cally—and, significantly , o n th e stron g beat s i n certai n instrument s (Ex . 51) .

Ex. 5 1

However, whe n Brahm s arrived at the F an d D whic h complet e thi s phrase , h e found tha t h e ha d indee d ru n ou t o f instruments t o continue th e canoni c reiter ations; fo r the F h e foun d onl y on e instrument , th e first clarinet, an d non e fo r the D . Wit h thes e on-the-bea t pitc h alliterations , I believ e Brahm s wante d t o restore partially the metri c equilibriu m in th e thir d and final of the thre e uniso n 'commands,' wit h a n ey e (an d a n ear ) toward s th e ful l unequivoca l re establishment o f th e puls e i n m.444 . I t i s a sham e tha t Brahm s di d no t hav e enough instrument s i n hi s orchestr a t o realiz e full y thi s remarkabl e idea. I hav e not hear d a singl e recordin g amon g th e fift y o r s o I hav e studie d i n whic h th e conductor seeme d eve n awar e of this problem, le t alon e attendin g t o i t in som e way. (I n m y ow n performances , so as not t o tampe r to o muc h wit h th e score , I merely as k the firs t clarine t t o pla y it s F ff f wit h a goo d accen t i n m.44 2 —also taking awa y the connectin g slur—an d as k the secon d clarine t t o joi n i n unison ; its A i s alread y well represente d b y th e firs t trombone . I leav e th e D unreiter ated, reluctantly.) The final , fina l performanc e proble m tha t remain s i n th e closin g fourteen bars of the symphon y occurs in mm.450-52 , where the magnificent , imperiously

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y 37

rising bas s lin e i

7

s usuall y mad e

completely inaudibl e b y over-enthusiasti c timpanist s an d conductor s goin g fo r the ultimat e cataclysmi c applause-gettin g effect . This accoun t o f Brahms Firs t Symphon y recording s ha s no t bee n pleasan t to write, although I have done m y best to poin t out whereve r possible the felicitou s and occasionall y grand interpretation s of certain fin e conductors . I would muc h rather hav e writte n a mor e positiv e report , i n whic h respec t fo r Brahms' s mag nificent scor e wa s much mor e evident . I t i s staggering—and I ca n wel l believ e that man y reader s wil l rea d m y finding s i n disbelief—t o realiz e tha t a master piece a s virtually perfect as this great symphony could b e s o consistently abused and misused , misunderstoo d an d misinterpreted , it s myria d notationa l detail s cavalierly ignored . I t i s indeed a sa d commentar y o n th e conductin g profession. But al l the mor e prais e fo r those relativel y few who hav e distille d from Brahms' s score a moving, imaginative , compellin g performance—withou t excessiv e distortions an d deviations : Toscanini , Weingartner , Leinsdorf , Kondrashin , Suitner , Haitink, Skrowaczewski, and eve n Stokowski , who despit e som e o f his capricious eccentricities, reall y loved an d understoo d thi s work.

This page intentionally left blank

Brahms: Fourth Symphony

Although i t took Brahm s mor e tha n twent y year s o f painstaking, often struggling effort t o complet e hi s Firs t Symphony , th e Secon d Symphon y appeare d almos t instantaneously an d wa s premiere d withi n a yea r o f th e First' s premiere . Th e Third Symphon y followe d i n anothe r si x years and th e Fourt h tw o years later; a mere 3 0 opus number s separat e i t from th e First . Thus the thre e las t symphonie s were create d i n les s tha n hal f th e tim e o f th e prolonge d gestatio n perio d re quired fo r the Firs t Symphony . This i s remarkable enough , especiall y i f one consider s tha t i n th e sam e nine year perio d Brahm s als o wrot e som e ninety-fiv e othe r compositions , includin g the staggerin g numbe r o f sixty-eigh t songs . Bu t perhap s eve n mor e remarkabl e and interestin g i s the fac t tha t hi s fou r symphonie s ar e a t onc e totall y original , and i n moo d an d conceptio n completel y differen t fro m on e another . A s uniquely distinctiv e a s eac h o f th e fou r symphonie s is , al l ar e quintessentiall y Brahmsian an d could , b y n o stretc h o f th e imagination , hav e bee n writte n b y anyone else , no t eve n b y Dvorak, Brahms's closest artisti c colleague an d musica l soulmate. This uniquenes s i s particularly appreciabl e i n Brahms' s Fourt h Symphony , a work which , eve n mor e tha n th e First , combine s th e mos t astonishingl y 'modern' an d intrinsicall y complex musica l idea s wit h a fundamenta l adherenc e t o classical an d pre-classica l models , a s particularl y manifested i n th e Passacaglia Finale movement . Fo r al l it s complexity an d frequen t darin g an d radicality , th e elegance an d polis h o f it s surface , it s shee r naturalnes s an d accessibility , ar e never disturbed . Brahms' s extraordinar y inventiveness an d ingenuit y i n exhaus tively exploitin g ever y motivie/themati c feature—wha t on e ma y aptl y cal l th e 'intellectual' sid e o f Brahms' s creativity—i s no t ver y muc h appreciate d b y th e average listener , althoug h h e ca n diml y sens e th e logi c an d attractivenes s of what h e i s hearing. Unfortunately , most orchestr a musician s and mos t conduc tors hav e little more understandin g and appreciatio n of Brahms's musical intelli379

380

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

gence than th e public . They relish the grea t tunes, reve l in the obviou s climaxe s and ric h harmonies , bu t rarel y appreciat e th e extraordinar y craft , skillfu l struc turing, forma l contro l o f the musica l material s that wen t int o th e creatio n o f his mature works . This shoul d b e eviden t fro m th e precedin g perusa l o f th e Firs t Symphon y and it s recorde d performances . Tha t minutel y detaile d account , i f rea d wit h care, wil l sav e m e —and th e reader—fro m examinin g th e Fourt h Symphon y i n similarly exhaustiv e detail . Al l m y previou s inveighing s agains t prematur e acce lerandos an d crescendos , agains t inattentio n t o dynamics , agains t exaggerate d modifications o f tempo , agains t willfu l arbitrar y deviation s fro m th e scor e —in short th e whol e pett y paraphernali a o f misguide d musica l conduct—applie s a s well t o th e discussio n o f th e Fourt h Symphony , savin g u s a lo t o f unnecessar y redundancies. Ther e are , however , man y moment s i n th e wor k tha t ar e uni formly abused , misinterprete d o r i n som e crucia l wa y ignored , tha t are , more over, specia l an d uniqu e t o the Fourth , an d which , therefore , mus t com e unde r discussion. The firs t eighteen-ba r statemen t o f the firs t movement , on e o f the mos t be loved an d popula r them e exposition s i n al l classica l music , i s nonetheless rarel y played correctly . Leavin g asid e fo r th e momen t th e alway s vexin g proble m o f tempo—tempo consideration s hav e alread y bee n ventilate d to o man y time s t o warrant furthe r reiteratio n now—ther e ar e subtle r performanc e question s tha t are rarel y even noted , le t alon e resolved . Take fo r example th e violins ' first eight bars, a them e whic h surel y everybod y thinks the y kno w an d kno w ho w i t i s t o be played . Th e fac t i s tha t i t i s almos t neve r playe d correctly ; moreover , i t i s very difficul t t o pla y reall y correctly. Wha t on e usuall y hear s i s any on e o f fou r versions (Exx . la,b,c,d).

Ex. l a

Ex. I b

What Brahm s actuall y wrot e ca n b e see n i n Ex . le . Th e proble m wit h th e fou r

Ex. l e misinterpretations (wit h th e possibl e exceptio n o f Ex . Id ) i s tha t the y dissec t what shoul d b e a n eight-ba r lyri c themati c statemen t int o eigh t tin y separat e motivic fragments , strun g together i n succession , lik e so man y link sausages . To maintain th e lon g lin e Brahm s obviously ha d i n min d bu t mad e mor e problem atic t o achiev e b y the inclusio n o f the quarter-not e rest , on e mus t sustai n eac h

BRAHMS: FOURT H SYMPHON Y 38

1

half-note th e exac t length—fou r eighth-notes ' worth—withou t diminuend o o r tapering off , an d feel o r think acros s th e res t t o th e nex t upbea t quarter-note . To d o tha t precisel y an d musically , tha t is , no t mechanicall y bu t feelingly , i s extraordinarily hard , but wit h car e and concentratio n ca n certainl y be done. Most conductors , o f course, conduc t th e violin s here, a gesture tha t look s fine in th e audience—especiall y sinc e i t offer s th e audienc e th e conductor' s hand some profile—bu t i t doe s no t necessaril y d o justic e to th e fullnes s o f Brahms' s musical idea . I t lead s rathe r quickl y to a n over-balancin g o f th e violins , to th e detriment o f the woodwinds . Bu t th e woodwinds , wh o shado w th e violin s a t a respectful distanc e o f tw o quarter-not e beats , ar e a n integra l par t o f th e them e and mus t no t b e slighted . I f the woodwind s ar e attende d t o at all by conductors , one usuall y hear s onl y th e flutes , whil e th e clarinet s an d bassoon s i n les s proj ecting register s remai n virtuall y inaudible . (Disbelievin g reader s ar e invite d t o sample an y availabl e recording.) Th e bassoon s especiall y ad d a slightl y darken ing colo r t o th e three-octav e counterplay , a favorit e orchestrationa l devic e o f Brahms, a s we hav e alread y note d severa l times . Even th e arpeggiate d accompanimenta l figure s i n th e cello s an d viola s do no t necessarily 'pla y themselves, ' a s the sayin g goes. Eac h ba r shoul d compris e on e single upwar d gestur e —if w e ca n imagin e Brahm s playin g an d composin g thi s at th e piano , w e wil l com e clos e t o realizin g ho w i t shoul d soun d —each mea sure the n connectin g wit h it s successo r int o a twelve-ba r understructur e o n which th e melod y ca n floa t an d sin g it s song. Th e viola s shoul d no t approac h their figur e a s i f i t wer e a ne w entry , bu t rathe r a s a continuatio n o f wha t th e cellos hav e initiated . M y suggestio n t o hel p toward s thi s long-lin e effec t i s t o bow th e viola s an d cello s a s i n Ex.2 . I ca n fin d onl y tw o recording s o n

Ex. 2

n

=

down-bow; v

= up-bow

which al l aspect s o f this wondrou s openin g subjec t ar e treate d intelligently , mu sically, an d i n balance . The y ar e Toscanini' s (NBC ) an d Walter' s (Columbi a Symphony). The astut e reade r wit h a goo d memor y wil l note a clos e relationshi p betwee n the Fourt h Symphony' s mai n subjec t and a similarl y constructed passag e i n th e First Symphon y i n th e las t movemen t (se e Exx.4 2 an d 46 , pp . 36 4 an d 367) . The fac t i s that Brahm s love d t o construc t idea s ou t o f fallin g thirds . A s in th e First Symphon y example , th e Fourth' s mai n theme' s firs t fou r measure s ar e re ally derive d fro m th e followin g sequence o f pitches i n descending third s while th e nex t fou r bar s ar e buil t out o f ascending third s Moreover

,

382 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

as the Englis h write r Ivor Keys ha s pointe d ou t i n hi s Brahm s biography, 1 ther e is in thi s E mino r symphon y a remarkable concentration o n an d emphasis , bot h melodically an d harmonically , o f th e minor-sixt h C , which , however , almos t always resolve s back t o the fifth , B . In th e openin g subjec t the C i s brought ou t by invertin g th e descendin g major-thir d E- C int o a n ascendin g mino r sixth , which b y m. 4 ha s resolve d bac k t o th e B . The reiterate d C' s i n mm.9-12 , re stated i n varie d for m i n mm . 153-56, eve n mor e pronounce d i n th e rhythmi c augmentation o f the openin g subjec t i n mm.246-58 , an d th e fina l restatemen t of th e them e i n mm.394-406 , a s wel l a s i n severel y concentrate d for m i n mm.422-29—to poin t ou t onl y som e o f th e mor e salien t moments—continu e the interpla y with C throughou t th e movement . Th e pla y continue s wit h th e harmonic ambiguit y of the unharmonize d beginnin g o f the symphony' s secon d movement, whic h unti l E majo r i s established i n m.4 , ca n certainl y b e hear d in C major ; o r i n th e fina l measure s o f tha t movemen t th e magnificen t shif t from E majo r t o C (mm . 114-16), which i n tur n prepare s fo r the C majo r thir d movement, an d th e man y C-emphasizin g A minor diversion s in th e las t move ment. Perhap s i t i s this emphasi s o f th e mino r sixt h —and frequentl y of F (th e minor secon d o f th e toni c key)—tha t give s th e symphon y it s melanchol y ye t consoling tona l flavor. Great confusio n exist s regardin g a Brahm s marking , use d ofte n i n thi s symphony, a shor t hairpi n dynami c i n mm.9-12 , place d i n suc h a wa y notationally tha t i t ca n lea d t o variou s interpretations . Doe s . mean o

r ' or

, a s som e conductor s eve n sugges t

. Actually , it doesn' t mea n an y o f these; i t simply means a certain bo w or left-hand (vibrato ) warming of the sound , i n effec t a subtle espressive accentuation . Violinist s an d conductor s shoul d avoi d a n automati c diminu endo i n m.10 , jus t becaus e th e phras e falls ; m.1 0 i s stil l par t o f th e over-al l crescendo whic h shoul d no t reac h mor e than mf i n m.12 , a s it als o shoul d no t in the varie d and expande d repetitio n (mm . 19-38) of the mai n subject . Measure 31 shoul d no t ris e abov e m f s o a s t o b e abl e t o complet e th e crescend o t o f i n mm.33-37. Mor e o n tha t later. A well-hidden problem exist s in mm . 17-18, where th e first note o f the oboe' s entrance i s hardl y eve r heard , eve n o n recordings . I mus t confes s tha t I a m on a one-ma n campaig n t o restor e this beautifu l phrase t o it s rightfu l plac e i n the melodic/themati c schem e o f things . Th e poin t i s tha t Brahm s wrot e as a beautifull y archin g line . Bu t this i s invariabl y destroye d b y th e firs t violins ' over-enthusiasti c crescendo i n 1. Ivo r Keys , Johannes Brahms (London , 1989) , pp. 188-89.

BRAHMS: FOURT H SYMPHON Y 38

3

m.17 (usuall y on th e G strin g wit h a thic k heav y vibrato) , completely coverin g the oboe' s firs t B . My suggestio n i s to remov e th e violins ' crescend o i n m.1 7 (i t will happe n anywa y with th e octav e rise) , modif y th e woodwinds ' dynami c t o poco f o r mf (especiall y th e fou r horns) , an d urg e th e obo e t o pla y it s mos t projecting lowe r B . Th e onl y recordin g o n whic h th e oboe' s initia l B ca n b e heard i s Mehta's (probabl y accidental). Notic e ho w the oboe' s C resolve s to th e second violins ' B —again tha t C t o B resolution —initiating i n tur n a remarkabl e transformation o f the mai n subject . The violins ' theme i s now broke n u p int o alternatin g eighth-note fragments , antiphonally divide d between th e tw o violin sections . An d yet the fragmentatio n should no t lea d t o mor e isolate d 'sausag e linking. ' This is , however, wha t invariably happen s whe n violinist s indulg e thei r aforementione d ba d habi t o f chop ping off—throwin g awa y through inattention—thei r las t notes i n eac h littl e four note grouplet . I n orde r t o mak e th e mai n them e surviv e a s a theme, th e tw o violin section s mus t no t drop thei r las t notes , eithe r rhythmicall y or dynamically, and, beyon d that , shoul d tr y to think/fee l acros s th e rest s betwee n them . Al l i t takes i s an awarenes s o f the proble m an d a kin d o f responsive playin g tha t tw o violinists woul d d o automaticall y i n a chambe r music—say , a strin g quartet — situation. Meanwhile , i n m.1 9 th e forme r woodwin d 'echoes ' o f mm. 1-8 hav e been relocate d i n th e cello s and basses , but a fifth lower. I see this no t a s a mer e accompaniment but , a s far as the dynami c leve l i s concerned, a s an integra l par t of the theme/mai n subject . One o f th e mos t abuse d passage s i n th e earl y page s o f thi s symphon y i s th e eighth-note figuration s i n th e viola s an d woodwind s i n mm . 19-26. Almos t n o one seem s t o hav e th e imaginatio n t o comprehen d wha t Brahm s mean s b y the annotation legg. Legg. (leggiero), o f course , mean s 'lightly ' i n Italian , an d i s Brahms's wa y of tellin g u s tha t thes e descendin g line s ar e t o b e playe d lightly , as a kin d o f embroiderin g accompanimen t t o th e mai n subject , fillin g i n th e rhythmic gap s lef t b y the rest s i n th e primar y theme. Bu t thes e line s ar e usually played by the respectiv e player s and section s a s 'solo' passages, thereby obscurin g and threatenin g th e priorit y of the mai n them e (i n the violins) . W e should not e that eve n thes e leggiero line s are an embellishe d variant—embellishe d wit h passing tones—o f th e firs t thre e note s o f the mai n subjec t (se e Ex.3a) , delineatin g an E mino r triad . Whil e th e fourt h them e note , C , appear s prominentl y i n th e first violins (m.20) , th e remainin g themati c note s appea r i n th e viol a par t i n

Ex. 3 a

(encircled notes are thematic) m.21 (Ex.3b) . I n th e meantim e th e clarine t and bassoo n i n m.2 0 an d th e flut e in m.2 2 ech o i n embroidere d fashio n th e cellos ' an d basses ' version s

384

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

Ex. 3 b

of the them e (Exx . 3c and d , respectively) , again a t the respectfu l distanceo f two or thre e beats . Thu s ingeniously , thes e line s ar e doin g doubl e duty , a s i t

Ex. 3 c Ex

.3d

were: (1 ) servin g a s a n embellishe d horizontalize d varian t o f th e woodwind s mm. 1-4, an d (2 ) simultaneously, a s a variant of the cellos ' an d basses ' recastin g of that ver y sam e material . Tal k abou t economica l us e o f materials! In m.2 3 Brahm s convert s th e eighth-not e garland s fro m singl e measur e ex changes to half-bar alternations, al l still marked /egg . These are invariabl y played too loud , especiall y by the woodwinds , treate d b y the player s as expressive 'solo' passages, rather than a s the discree t accompaniments the y reall y are. Nor shoul d there b e an y crescend o i n thes e fou r measures . (Brahm s originally had a poco cresc. in m.2 3 but , accordin g t o the autograph , had secon d thoughts and move d it fou r bar s later. ) Moreover , ever y effor t mus t b e mad e t o collec t thes e eigh t four-note bundle s int o on e Klangfarben line : oboe s an d violas, 2 alternatin g her e with flutes , clarinets , an d bassoon s i n Brahms' s favorit e three-octav e distribu tion.3 The wors t offender s i n thi s passag e ar e Furtwängle r an d Celibidache . Th e former make s an enormou s crescend o i n mm.23-26 , surging to a ful l fi n m.27 , when i n fac t th e scor e tell s u s tha t tha t ba r shoul d stil l b e p . Celibidache' s dynamic distortion s are eve n mor e extravagan t and peculiar . Lik e Furtwängle r (whom Celibidach e idolize d an d mimicke d earl y in hi s career) , h e start s a bi g crescendo in m.24 , continues it through mm.27-30 , arriving a t a ful l f m m.31 , and the n make s a bi g two-bar diminuendo (sic ) to star t m.33 i n pi—all a reverse of what Brahms has written . I hav e alread y alluded t o a specia l performanc e proble m i n mm.33-36 . In stead o f an over-al l four-bar crescendo i n th e violins , now i n paralle l thirds , on e invariably hear s th e dynami c renditio n o f Ex.4a . Eve n mor e musica l damag e

Ex. 4 a

2. Not e ho w ofte n i n hi s symphoni c work s Brahm s associates th e viola , almos t hi s favorit e instru ment (almos t as much a s the mezz o sopran o or alt o voice), with woodwinds. 3. I suggest , b y th e way , to shorte n al l group-endin g quarter-note s to eighth-note s s o tha t a bette r over-all lin e ma y b e achieve d an d th e harmonicall y destructive unpleasant dissonances resulting from a pedanticall y precise renditio n of the quarter-note s avoided.

BRAHMS: FOURT H SYMPHON Y

385

is don e whe n th e violin s dro p thei r fina l note s i n eac h measur e (dynamicall y and rhythmically) . Betwee n thes e tw o misinterpretation s th e resul t i s fou r huffing an d puffin g short-breathe d phrase s instea d o f on e gran d over-archin g crescendo line.Thi s occur s throug h shee r inattentio n o n th e par t o f conductors, concertmasters an d violinists , an d no t listenin g t o th e produce d result—m y 'third ear ' (se e p.17-19) woul d d o wel l t o com e int o pla y here—to se e whethe r what i s being playe d i n fac t relate s to wha t i s i n th e score . T o hel p counterac t any musica l an d physical / technical tendency t o diminuendo i n m.3 4 and m.36 , the bowin g i n Ex . 4b suggest s itself . Th e onl y recordin g tha t manage s t o repro -

Ex. 4 b

duce thes e fou r measure s mor e o r les s correctl y is Skrowaczewski's, while Mravinsky's and Furtwängler's fai l utterly : Mravinsky with huge hairpin s (-= ===~) per measure bu t n o over-al l crescendo , Furtwängle r i n a full , virtuall y out o f control ff , wit h n o possibility o f a crescendo . The rhythmi c problems i n the famou s transition them e i n mm. 5 3-56 (an d its many late r incarnations ) are to o wel l know n t o warran t muc h commen t here . Brahms's vivi d rhythmi c imaginatio n concoct s a them e whic h contain s i n i t five different rhythmi c unit s i n ingeniou s juxtapositions . To play i t accuratel y i s no t altogethe r easy , but i t i s generall y a t leas t take n rathe r seriously b y orchestr a players , except , however , fo r th e initiatin g Ft , a not e which i s almost alway s playe d too short , tha t is , as i f Brahms had written :

Don't as k m e why ! Le t u s notic e als o tha t th e unusual , od d characte r o f thi s theme, apart from it s rhythmic uniqueness, reside s largely in the aforementione d C (mino r sixth) to B (fifth ) relationship , only here transposed u p on e ton e to D C*. At thi s theme' s nex t appearanc e ther e i s real performanc e trouble . I t i s absolutely astonishin g that o n no t a singl e recordin g ar e mm.73-7 5 an d mm.77-7 9 (and al l simila r paralle l passages) played correctly , eve n Carlo s Kleiber's , Skro waczewski's, an d Reiner' s i n s o man y way s splendi d recordings . Wha t i s eve n more astonishin g i s the manner i n whic h thi s passag e i s played incorrectly : th e last note s o f eac h rhythmi c laye r (se e Ex . 5 ) i n eac h measur e ar e alway s

Ex. 5

386 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

played together ! I n this , on e o f Brahms' s mor e brillian t rhythmi c invention s — once agai n pittin g 'three ' agains t 'two'—th e dupl e rhyth m players ' fourt h bea t must fal l betwee n th e secon d an d thir d note s o f th e conflictin g triplet . Bu t somehow i n al l orchestra s —I sa y in al l orchestras—th e tw o rhythm s accommo date eac h othe r i n som e convenien t way , endin g u p togethe r an d thereby , o f course, takin g al l th e inventio n an d tensio n ou t o f Brahms's idea . And n o con ductor seem s eve r t o notic e thi s discrepanc y an d attemp t t o correc t it . Aston ishing an d lamentable ! (Onc e again , I invit e an y disbelievin g reader t o chec k any recordin g o f their choosin g fo r verificatio n of what I have jus t stated. ) It i s a mos t disturbin g exampl e o f th e casualness—an d sloppiness—wit h which rhythm s ar e generall y treate d i n mos t orchestras , especiall y triplets. 4 Granted, th e tim e differentia l betwee n th e fourt h beat an d eithe r on e o f the last two note s i n th e triple t group i s minuscule an d no t probabl y feelable o r techni cally controllabl e i n relatio n (o r i n reaction ) t o on e another . A t a tempo , say , of à — 72 , a commo n temp o fo r thi s movemen t an d thi s passage , th e elapse d time betwee n th e attac k o f th e secon d triple t not e an d th e fourt h bea t o f th e measure i s about one-sixt h o f a secon d (o r equivalen t t o a bea t a t metronom e 360), a time spa n no t reall y controllabl e b y the averag e instrumentalist . S o on e can perhap s understan d ho w easily the tw o rhythms can becom e congruent : al l that need s t o happe n i s for the fourth-bea t not e t o b e playe d a hai r late , an d i t will coincid e wit h th e las t o f the triple t notes ; o r alternatively , i f the triple t i s a tiny bit rushed, its third note wil l coincid e wit h the fourt h beat. (Thi s i s precisely what happen s o n man y recording s wher e th e woodwind s an d tw o C horn s play instea d o f -as , fo r example , o n Weingartner's 193 8 Londo n Symphon y an d DeSabata' s 193 9 Berli n Philhar monic recordings ; or, as on Celibidache' s 195 9 Milano concer t recording , where the sam e player s play a convenient Eithe r or both o f these misreadings invariabl y occur, alas—mostl y th e former—a s an y numbe r o f re 4. I t i s astonishing—and ver y depressing—tha t th e vas t majorit y o f musician s d o no t kno w ho w t o play triplet s precisely , especiall y so-calle d 'large ' triplets , i.e . (a ) o (b) o triplets, i.e . I

r (c ) Everyon

r

e doe s prett y wel l o n th e 'small '

, less wel l o n .

Almost universally , 'large'

triplets ar e playe d not a s , but a s Th e quic k solutio n to thi s problem—and hardl y anyone seem s t o teach thi s anymore—i s t o g o t o th e nex t fastes t levels of triplet s a s needed , whic h means , i n tryin g to pla y (a) , above , correctly—precisel y wit h th e righ t feeling—thinking or

, i f tha t doesn' t achiev e th e righ t result ,

I. Thi s i s suc h a n elementar y rhythmi c lesso n tha t I a m continualiy~surprised tha t i t hasn't bee n learne d (seemingly , it is not bein g taught).

BRAHMS: FOURT H SYMPHON Y 38

7

cordings wil l attest . O n a ver y fe w recording s on e ca n hea r a dim , accidenta l awareness o n th e par t o f th e musician s — not th e conductor , min d you—tha t those las t note s i n eac h rhythmi c configuratio n shoul d no t b e together . Curi ously, th e basse s an d cello s o n thos e recording s ente r th e fourt h bea t almos t o n time i n th e firs t measur e o f th e passag e (m.73) , bu t b y m.7 4 hav e bee n se duced—or intimidated—int o sidin g wit h th e triplets , playin g tha t measure' s fourth bea t lat e an d i n perfec t congruenc e wit h th e violins ' las t triple t note . And, shockingly, nobody—no conductor , n o musician , n o recordin g producer— ever notice s thi s an d challenge s th e conducto r and/o r themselve s t o wor k ou t the problem . The onl y way this remarkable rhythmic ide a ca n b e properl y realized i s if the duple rhyth m player s concentrate o n playin g the fourt h beat exactly i n tim e —it may soun d easy , bu t i s actuall y rathe r difficul t t o d o (a s th e countles s inep t recordings readil y show) —and i f the triple t rhyth m player s concentrate equall y hard o n playin g thei r rhyth m precisely. Remember tha t wit h eve n th e slightes t rhythmic deviatio n o n eithe r side—16 6 millisecond s ar e an infinitesima l instant of time—the two attack points will come together. I f then i n addition the players observe th e s f o n thei r las t notes , Brahms' s intende d effec t wil l b e finall y full y realized. An d ho w extraordinar y and uniqu e i t is ! Most musician s an d reader s will no t kno w what I mean , sinc e i t has hardl y ever bee n hear d properl y played by anybody . I kno w tha t whe n I hav e expose d th e proble m t o orchestra s an d rehearsed thi s passag e ver y carefully , ther e i s general amazemen t upo n hearin g it finally played a s written—and consternatio n an d chagri n tha t they have neve r before playe d correctl y something s o elementary . What make s matter s wors e i s that ther e ar e i n th e Fourt h Symphon y a t leas t half a dozen simila r rhythmic passage s which, t o the bes t o f my knowledge, hav e never bee n playe d correctly , an d certainl y no t o n an y o f th e thirty-od d re cordings o f this symphon y tha t I hav e studied . (W e shal l retur n t o thes e place s at th e appropriat e time. ) Triplet an d duple t rhythm s battle i t out i n Brahms' s symphonies al l the time : so too i n mm.91-94, where the triplet s in the viola s and cello s are almost always suppressed b y conductors, a s a kind o f rhythmic annoyanc e agains t the 'ecstatic ' violin an d hor n melody . Skipping ove r variou s interpretive an d performanc e questions , I tur n briefl y to mm . 110-11, wher e th e half-note s in th e woodwinds , within th e p p dynamic , must b e firml y sustaine d an d fo r th e precis e duration . Thi s i s easier sai d tha n done, a s man y recording s testify ; fo r invariabl y what on e hear s i s J- o r or bu

t no t wha t Brahm s wrote : J withou t Tha

t Brahm s was

quite seriou s abou t thes e durationa l aspect s i s see n i n th e variou s succeedin g versions o f thi s 'fanfare ' passage , wher e w e se e an

d an

d

One o f the mos t remarkable rhythmic passages ever written in th e entir e symphonic literatur e occurs i n mm . 128—32. I t i s also another passag e which, a s far

388

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

as I know , i s neve r playe d correctly . Afte r anothe r cross-accen t passag e (mm. 127-29) simila r t o th e on e discusse d above , combinin g triple t an d duple rhythms, Brahm s top s i t al l wit h a multi-layere d structur e o f suc h complexit y that I dare sa y there i s nothing lik e it even i n th e Rite o f Spring; on e ha s t o tur n to Ives' s Fourt h Symphon y t o fin d a parallel . Capitalizin g an d expandin g upo n the tw o mos t predominan t musica l idea s Brahm s ha s bee n jus t workin g wit h — the littl e 'fanfare ' motiv e an d th e triplet-against-duple t secon d subject—whic h until no w hav e bee n kep t separat e an d hear d onl y i n succession , the y ar e sud denly throw n togethe r i n a three-wa y collisio n o f rhythms . Leavin g asid e th e violas' fas t sextuplet s which almos t soun d lik e a tremolo, w e have quarter triplets in th e violins , , ular quarter-note s , pets th e 'fanfare ' motiv e . layer i n th e timpani , i n effec t ,

in th e bas s instruments w e hav e reg and i n th e flutes , oboes , horns , an d trum Ther e i s eve n a fourt h rhythmi c although writte n as

Putting thes e rhythm s al l together— I hav e marked the m a,b,c, — and relatin g the m verticall y we se e tha t Brahm s ha s cre ated a composit e rhyth m which

,

counting al l th e attac k points , i s astonishingly intricat e an d indee d difficul t t o render accuratel y i n it s multi-layere d complexity . Notic e that , a s i n a bel l pat tern, th e thre e layer s coincide rhythmicall y only no w and then , i n thi s cas e o n the firs t an d thir d beat s (se e Ex.6) . Th e exampl e doe s no t includ e th e viol a

Ex. 6

sextuplets, bu t show s whic h note s belon g t o whic h laye r (alphabetized) . A s if this wer e no t enough , Brahm s has shifte d th e phrasin g o f the quarter-not e laye r (c) on e bea t early , startin g o n th e fourt h bea t o f m.12 9 an d stretchin g i t t o six beats, the resul t being tw o 6/4 entities stretched acros s three 4/ 4 measures. 5 This is born e ou t b y the wa y Brahms continues thi s bas s line i n mm . 133-34 (Ex.7) , the rhythmi c anticipatio n an d shiftin g no w reduce d fro m a quarter-not e t o a n

Ex. 7 5. Thi s i s not unlik e th e famou s 6/ 4 passag e i n th e Rite o f Spring a t th e en d o f the "Cortèg e o f th e Wise One, " rehearsa l numbe r 70 .

BRAHMS: FOURT H SYMPHON Y 38

9

eighth-note. I t shoul d b e obviou s tha t al l thi s rhythmic , polyphoni c multi layering take s grea t car e i n rehearsin g an d performing , which , alas , i t almos t never seem s t o receive . I hav e foun d onl y on e recordin g i n whic h thes e mea sures (mm . 130-31) ar e playe d correctly , a quit e obscur e recordin g a t that , b y György Lehe l an d th e Budapes t Philharmonic . Th e Fourth' s performanc e an d interpretation a s a whol e i s rathe r unspecial , an d th e orchestra' s playin g an d ensemble ar e generally lax and roug h (no t to mention th e recording' s poor tech nical quality) . Therefore, i t i s a littl e difficul t t o vouc h absolutel y fo r th e accu racy o f performance i n thes e thre e measures , bu t a s far a s m y ear s ca n discern , it sound s correct . Withou t havin g been presen t a t th e sessions , ther e i s no way to tel l wh y thes e thre e measure s wer e playe d correctly—uniquel y s o i n th e his tory o f recordings o f this work . Whether i t was Lehel wh o sa w the proble m tha t no on e els e seem s t o hav e bee n awar e of , an d the n rehearse d i t carefully ; o r whether i t wa s th e firs t trumpe t playe r wh o mad e hi s colleague s pla y th e six teenth rhythm s correctly , I canno t tel l fo r sure . Bu t I ten d t o thin k th e latter , judging b y th e forcefull y secur e manne r i n whic h tha t playe r seem s t o lea d his colleagues . O n anothe r recording , Levine' s wit h Chicago , on e ca n hea r the grea t trumpete r Adolp h Herset h tryin g t o fi t th e trumpets ' tw o sixteenth s correctly int o th e over-al l rhythmi c scheme , bu t t o littl e effec t sinc e th e res t of th e orchestra' s rhythm s ar e playe d s o imprecisely . On e o f th e mos t anoma lous an d vexin g renditions o f thi s passag e i s DeSabata' s wit h th e Berli n Phil harmonic. Th e orchestr a i n a technicall y virtuall y impeccabl e performanc e —the Berli n Philharmoni c wa s i n 193 9 i n it s absolut e heyday—play s th e rhythms i n mm . 130-32 as accurately as I have bee n abl e t o hear , excep t fo r th e fact tha t someon e (DeSabata? ) change d th e woodwin d an d bras s part s t o (Yes, I didn' t believ e i t either , and ha d t o liste n t o i t i n disbelie f several times t o verif y th e fact. ) I kno w that whe n I have tackle d thi s passag e i n m y ow n performance s o f th e symphony, i t has require d a t least fifteen to twenty minutes o f rehearsing time — sorting ou t an d clarifyin g th e thre e discret e rhythmi c layer s section b y section— to finall y arriv e a t th e correc t (desired ) result , muc h t o th e consternatio n an d amazement (an d self-satisfie d delight ) o f the musicians . Of th e man y performanc e an d balanc e problem s tha t occu r aroun d th e Scheinreprise (fals e recapitulation) , mm.145-68 , I singl e out : (1 ) th e nee d t o make sure that the E o f the basse s in mm . 139-40 balances well and expressively with th e B-majo r dominan t chor d i n the winds—mos t conductors an d recordin g producers see m t o sh y awa y fro m thi s 'dissonance' : (2 ) th e nee d fo r th e thir d horn playe r to know that h e i s to blend wit h the tw o clarinets i n m.153 , in effec t a thir d clarinet , no t th e littl e 'solo ' tha t mos t hor n player s think the y have ; (3 ) the nee d fo r th e violi n section s i n mm . 153-56 t o shuttl e thei r littl e motive , which first appeared i n m. 9 (an d whic h i s a clos e relativ e of the Firs t Sympho ny's las t movement' s mai n theme) , bac k an d fort h s o a s t o creat e on e inter locking line . Wha t usuall y happens instea d i s that , throug h unawareness , the players—with conductors ' blessing s —drop th e las t not e eithe r rhythmicall y or dynamically o r both , makin g an y linkin g up o f th e alternatin g phrases impossi-

390 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

ble for the listener . The sam e wil l apply twelve bars later to the sol o woodwinds. A similar droppin g of final notes occurs almost always in the flutes and bassoon s in mm . 156-65, a transforme d and transpose d (t o G minor ) varian t of the mai n theme. Fro m etc.

, Brahm s derives ,

with passin g note s added , etc.

As i n th e cas e o f th e beginnin g o f th e symphony , a wa y mus t b e foun d t o make on e gran d lin e ou t o f these eigh t three-not e bundles , an d surel y the way to achiev e tha t i s not t o pla y I

t also

does no t hel p whe n i n m.16 1 th e clarinet s burs t i n to o loud , a s i f the y hav e some importan t 'sol o passage, ' whe n i n fac t the y are merel y the continuatio n o f the leggiero accompanimenta l line s starte d i n m.15 7 (which , o f course , har k back t o thos e analogou s figures in mm . 19-26). Brahm s evidently forgot t o mark m.157, m.15 8 (violins ) and m.16 1 an d (clarinets ) leggiero; h e di d s o tw o bar s later—that is , two bar s too late—fo r th e violins . Notice als o th e tin y melodic/harmoni c clashe s Brahm s build s int o thi s G minor episode : Ct t an d A agains t C 1! an d Bl > respectivel y (m.157) , F t an d D against F> l an d E\> (m.158) , an d eve n mor e piquantly , CI/ A agains t Ei>/C N i n rn.160, an d s o on . Thes e dissonanta l delicacie s mus t b e brough t out , mus t b e heard i n a performance . Generally , however , th e conducto r an d musician s in volved—flutes, bassoons , violins—see m t o b e unawar e o f anythin g interestin g going o n a t all ; the note s glid e b y unnoticed, unheard , unsavored—an d bland . In m.16 8 w e com e t o on e o f the mor e comple x an d motivicall y convolute d passages i n al l music , a s two three-note (o r six-note) fragments, generated i n th e previous Scheinreprise, battl e i t ou t contrapuntally , canonically , i n a fierc e f -ff fray, whic h i s finall y resolve d i n m.184 . T o d o ful l justic e t o thi s extraordinary passage i n performanc e i s very difficult , becaus e i t presumes tha t ever y player in the orchestr a woul d know exactly at every point whic h co g of this gigantic wheel he i s representing , th e proble m bein g exacerbate d b y th e fac t tha t th e role s initially assigne d t o specifi c instrument s an d player s change an d ar e give n over to other s a t various times durin g th e sixteen-ba r passage. Let m e se e i f I ca n sor t ou t thes e multipl e motivi c strand s i n a n easil y graspable format . To begin , le t u s isolat e th e tw o mai n motivi c fragments : one , the flutes'/bassoons ' varian t o f th e mai n them e (mm . 157-60) i s furthe r trans formed int o (a ) appearin

g initially

in th e violin s an d i n canoni c imitatio n tw o beat s late r i n th e bassoons , onl y to appear fou r bar s later in the cellos/basse s and canonicall y in tw o horns. Its inver-

BRAHMS: FOURT H SYMPHON Y 39

1

sion ( a ') appear s initiall y in th e cel los and basses , but i s then transferre d to the violin s (mm. 173-78). The othe r motivi c fragmen t (b ) i from th e violins ' mm . 15 3-54, also , o f course, fro m

s derive d

or, a s condensed , . I t appear s initiall y i n tw o horns , bu t i s late r given ove r to flutes and oboes . It s inversion (5 1) appears initiall y i n flute s an d oboes , bu t i s the n hande d ove r t o clarinet s an d bassoons. Thu s th e followin g polyphoni c structur e (Exx . 8 a an d b ) evolves , a t least i n it s first two phase s (mm . 169-76). T o hel p th e reade r throug h thi s laby rinthian comple x i n musica l notatio n (simplifie d and reduced) , th e variou s frag ments an d strand s are identified by a (th e first one cited above) , a ' its inversion, b th e secon d motive , b l it s inversion. Notic e agai n th e dissonanta l clashe s (E t and E^ , m.169 , 173 ; A\- an d A\ mm.170,174).

Ex. 8 a

Ex. 8 b

392 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Then, a t th e en d o f m.172 Brahm s invert s th e entir e previou s four-bar struc ture, somewha t a s Beethoven ha d don e at one poin t in the las t movement o f the Fifth Symphony . W e shoul d als o note that muc h o f the structur e is metrically off kilter. Th e b motiv e ha s bee n shifte d ove r t o the wea k fourth an d secon d beats , and eve n th e a motive , wit h it s canonic interlockin g an d unifor m accentuation , gives the impressio n o f being i n a constant stat e o f ambiguous rhythmi c flux . I n effect, th e entir e passag e i n al l its component parts sounds strangel y unanchored rhythmically/metrically; and i n fact , i t needs t o be playe d i n a kind o f agogically 'neutral' way. At th e en d o f m.17 6 th e fearsom e contrapunta l structur e undergoe s stil l an other se a change . Brahms , headin g fo r a n eventua l cadenc e an d resolutio n o f the polyphoni c struggle , simplifie s the structur e somewhat . Bu t again , h e doe s so ingeniousl y an d utterl y logically . I n mm . 172-73 w e fin d i n th e firs t violin s Th e G\> an d F 1! ar e

the following : .

the las t tw o note s o f th e a (mai n theme ) material ; th e A* i i s an extr a note , no t part o f an y themati c reference , adde d simpl y t o provid e som e harmon y (th e third i n a n F majo r chord) ; th e nex t B t is , as we hav e alread y seen, a par t o f an inversion o f th e mai n theme . Brahm s no w take s thes e thre e pitches , F-A*l-BI> , and fashion s a new three-note motiv e fro m them , puts i t in th e woodwinds , an d uses i t a s a lin k betwee n successiv e violi n phrase s (se e Ex.9) . Thi s ide a i s then

Ex.9

further expande d a t th e en d o f m.178 (alon g wit h a sudde n f f ) , the woodwind s reiterated (an d transposed ) i n cello s an d basse s an

d im -

mediately canonicall y imitate d i n th e uppe r woodwinds , whil e th e violins , bassoons, an d horn s tak e u p th e secon d three-not e par t o f th e them e . A few measures o f this an d Brahm s can brin g th e might y contrapunta l interpla y t o conclusio n (i n m.184) . I hav e gon e t o som e lengt h t o detai l th e constructio n o f thi s interlocking , multi-layered, timbrall y delineated structur e (mm . 169-84) t o indicat e it s com plexity an d difficult y o f performance, a complexit y o f design whic h ca n b e ren dered meaningfu l in performanc e onl y if , as I suggested above , al l th e perform ers are awar e of the inne r working s and constructio n o f the entir e passage . This is, o f course , neve r th e case . Orchestra s usuall y jus t plo w throug h thi s passage as bes t a s they can , no t reall y knowing where eve n on e not e i n thei r part s be longs, o r wh y i t i s there . Musicians , n o matte r ho w goo d o r ho w intelligent ,

BRAHMS: FOURT H SYMPHON Y

393

cannot jus t fro m thei r individua l part glea n anythin g o f the intricac y of structuring o f the variou s relationship s tha t thei r part s hav e t o al l th e othe r parts . Th e only way to mak e thi s aurall y and intellectuall y clea r t o th e musician s i s for th e conductor t o separat e ou t al l th e componen t parts , an d the n rehears e the m al l separately i n a serie s o f tin y 'sectio n rehearsals. ' Tha t take s time , bu t i s wel l worth th e effort . I hav e ofte n rehearse d th e passag e thi s way , an d no t onl y ha s the resultan t performanc e bee n mor e 'intelligent ' an d 'understanding ' o n th e part o f the musicians—a n intelligenc e whic h transmit s itsel f to th e audienc e i n performance—but als o th e musician s see m actuall y quit e relieve d (a s wel l a s pleased wit h themselves ) t o hav e bee n abl e t o brin g som e sens e t o a passag e which the y previousl y considered merel y dens e an d obscure . In mm . 184-85 (an d subsequen t simila r passages, like mm.202-203 ) th e prob lem i s tha t almos t everyon e play s instead o f Brahms's Skipping t o m.219 , I fin d tha t i n virtuall y al l performance s (an d recordings ) too muc h attentio n i s given b y conductor s t o th e clarinet s an d bassoons , rathe r than th e recapitulatio n o f the mai n them e i n th e pizzicat o string s and flutes. Measures 227-4 6 i s one o f those heavenl y passage s whic h onl y Brahms coul d devise. I t i s made u p o f a ver y beautiful an d origina l chor d progressio n and tw o little motives , first heard i n m. 9 and m.10 . Thi s sound s simpl e enoug h and , o n the fac e o f it , unproblematic ; an d ye t I hav e rarel y hear d thi s passag e playe d well. Th e proble m i s tha t th e Klangfarben connections , bot h i n th e melodie s and th e underlyin g harmonies , ar e difficul t t o achieve , give n tha t th e players , just starin g a t thei r parts , hav e littl e o r n o ide a who m the y follow , who m the y succeed, ho w th e entir e twent y measure s functio n musically . I t als o take s a bi t of painstakin g rehearsin g t o mak e sur e tha t al l th e hairpi n dynamic s ar e matched u p betwee n al l the differen t player s and sections . The chor d progressio n (Ex.10) , distribute d amon g alternatin g wind s an d strings, i s in itsel f a thin g o f beauty. Highlightin g thi s wondrou s progressio n ar e

Ex. 1 0

394

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

the harmonie s i n m.22 9 an d m.23 0 (an d it s sequence fou r bar s later), the on e a third inversio n & dominan t seventh , darkene d b y it s seventh i n th e bass , fol lowed instantl y b y th e other , a brigh t widel y spread C majo r sevent h chor d i n root position . Th e melodi c line , meanwhile , colore d wit h a t least fou r differen t timbres, shoul d soun d a s follows (Ex.11), that i s to say, one continuou s Klangfarben melody .

Ex. 1 1

It takes enormous concentratio n o n th e par t of the harmon y players to sustain the whole-not e chord s exactl y the righ t length , an d a t the sam e tim e maintai n the righ t p dynami c so a s t o b e abl e t o han d th e chor d over , a s i t were , t o th e next succeedin g grou p o f players ; also fo r al l participant s t o produc e th e sam e degree an d rhythmi c timin g o f the hairpi n crescendo-diminuendo s i n eac h mea sure. Th e sam e applie s t o th e melod y players , whethe r individua l soloist s o r entire sections . O n almos t al l recordings , the y dro p thei r las t eighth-note s dy namically, makin g a musica l connectio n t o th e nex t ba r impossible . On e re cording o n whic h thes e ninetee n bar s are beautifull y played is Mehta's wit h th e New York Philharmonic . Nea r the en d o f this episode, sa y from m.24 0 on, man y conductors mak e a ritardando and, worse, even mor e s o at m.243 where Brahm s has already slowed the rhyth m fro m eighth-note s t o half-notes. As Strauss already complained (se e p.90) , "subject s whic h th e compose r ha s alread y draw n out , should no t b e draw n ou t further. " Th e wors t offender s her e are , onc e again , Furtwängler, Celibidache , an d Fischer-Dieska u (th e latte r tw o probabl y imitating Furtwängler) , wh o slo w t o a n incredibl e J = 3 8 a t m.243 , afte r havin g shuttled bac k an d fort h betwee n th e mid-60 s an d lowe r 80s . Bu t Chailly ,

BRAHMS: FOURT H SYMPHON Y 39

5

Mengelberg, an d Sanderlin g ar e no t fa r behind , slowin g t o hal f spee d whe n Brahms ha s already done i t in hi s composition . A simila r exaggerated temp o distortio n occurs i n dozen s o f recording s in th e beautiful passag e mm.246-58 . Her e Brahm s take s th e firs t eigh t note s o f hi s opening mai n them e an d elongate s the m t o th e followin g (Ex . 12) .

The long-hel d C an d B ar e i n effec t written-ou t fermata s (si x times th e lengt h of th e origina l notes) . Still , conducto r afte r conducto r doe s thi s alread y drasti cally 'slowed-down' musi c a t a snail' s pace , al l bu t destroyin g Brahms's forma l proportions an d basi c allegro m a no n troppo pacing . Wagner' s "imperceptible, " "hardly noticeable" temp o modification s would be muc h mor e appropriate here. Our discussio n can ski p the recapitulatio n (whic h seems to start in m.25 9 bu t which i s actually already i n progres s as o f m.246) , excep t t o not e tha t th e cre scendo i n m.27 7 thi s tim e reache s a ful l f b y m.281 , quit e differen t fro m th e earlier paralle l passage in mm.9-12 . Another battl e o f 'three-against-two ' occur s i n mm . 387-89, th e two s i n th e winds, th e three s i n string s an d timpani . Simple r tha n th e othe r rhythmicall y complex passage s I hav e referre d t o earlier , nevertheless eve n thi s on e i s rarel y played correctly . O n innumerabl e recordings , notabl y Walter' s an d Celibi dache's, th e wind s an d timpan i pla y their notate d duple t quarter-note s squarely with th e strings ' triplets. The thre e bar s mm. 3 87-89 ar e anothe r plac e wher e a horrendously lou d timpan i has ruine d man y a recording. The tota l effectivenes s o f th e towerin g climacti c passag e a t m.39 4 depend s very muc h o n tw o factors : (1 ) tha t th e half-note s be wel l sustained , tha t is , no t tapered dynamically ; and (2 ) that they not b e hel d to o long , tha t is , as <J > „J \ which i s the wa y they are unfortunatel y almost always played. (This is in essenc e the sam e proble m a s at the ver y beginnin g of the Symphony. ) There ar e tw o additiona l very specia l moment s i n th e firs t movemen t o f th e Brahms Fourt h tha t warrant specific mention , an d particularl y fascinate m e a s a composer an d orchestrator . One i s the remarkabl e and wholl y original harmonic progression i n mm.418-20 , centere d an d voice d i n ope n tenth s i n th e lowe r instruments (Ex.13) . I t i s itsel f a n inversio n o f a simila r bu t descendin g line i n thirds (not tenths) i n mm.414-15. This is in turn an elaborate d recapitu-

Ex. 1 3

396

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

lation o f m.45 an d mm . 49-5 0 i n th e exposition , the latte r i n tenth s i n contrar y motion (Ex.14) . Wha t make s thi s ascendin g progressio n s o unusua l i s it s wide

Ex. 1 4

'open tenth ' spacin g an d th e augmente d second s (brackete d i n Ex . 13) , whic h in earlie r harmon y manual s use d t o b e calle d 'fals e relations. ' Brahm s i s her e reaching ou t toward s a harmonic languag e an d voicing , a parallelism that antici pates Debuss y an d Rave l an d othe r earl y turn-of-the century modernists . The passag e become s eve n mor e remarkabl e —and woul d eve n soun d startling, i f it s 'remarkableness ' wer e eve r appreciate d b y conductor s an d musician s who, throug h over-use , blithel y glid e throug h thes e measure s a s i f the y wer e very ordinary—whe n on e realize s that th e rising tenths ar e complemente d b y a line o f falling tenth s i n th e hig h registe r (Ex.15) . Th e resultan t harmoni c

Ex. 1 5

clashes (marke d x i n th e example ) agai n ar e rarel y appreciated an d heard/fel t (or brough t out ) b y performers . Thi s amazin g passag e mus t b e playe d wit h a rich, vibrant , intens e sound—especiall y i n th e cello s an d basses—t o attai n it s full powe r o f expression. O f al l th e recording s sampled , th e onl y one s tha t cap tured thi s powe r an d intensit y are thos e o f Maazel, Mravinsky , and Toscanini. 6 Even mor e startlin g is a slightly later passage (mm.428-30 ) o f shifting parallel 6/4 chord s (Ex.16) , a remarkabl e progression , whic h woul d hav e bee n consid ered 'wrong, ' 'inept, ' an d 'impermissible ' onl y a fe w decade s earlier—an d wa s probably stil l considere d s o b y conservative s at th e tim e o f th e appearanc e o f this symphony . Bu t unfortunatel y eve n thi s uniquel y Brahmsia n passag e has , through decade s o f repeated performances , los t al l it s novelty an d modernit y for most player s an d conductors . I hav e ofte n bee n successfu l i n rekindlin g som e wonderment i n orchestra l player s ove r thi s progressio n b y isolatin g th e tw o 6. Le t u s not e i n passin g th e frequen t us e o f hig h B' s an d C' s i n th e flute s i n thi s symphony , an advance ove r Brahrns' s mor e restricte d us e (onl y up t o A) i n th e Firs t Symphony.

BRAHMS: FOURT H SYMPHON Y

397

Ex. 1 6

chords i n m.42 9 i n rehearsal , havin g the musician s hea r i t ou t o f context i n al l its startlin g nakedness . Th e reade r migh t kindl e (o r re-kindle , a s the cas e ma y be) th e sam e sens e o f wondermen t fo r th e passag e b y goin g t o th e pian o an d playing i t to himself . Finally, I feel oblige d t o protes t the ubiquitou s vulgarization of the firs t move ment's fina l measure s o n th e par t o f countless conductors , b y either slowin g th e tempo inordinately , ofte n a s early as m.430, o r b y a n overl y bombastic timpani , especially i n th e las t tw o measures—o r a combinatio n o f both. (Th e wa y som e conductors over-indulg e i n thes e mannerisms , on e woul d thin k the y wer e con ducting th e en d o f th e Shostakovitc h Fift h o r th e Mahle r Third. ) On e o f th e worst offender s i s Celibidache, wh o slow s suddenly i n m.43 0 t o a pedantic J = 76, afte r surgin g alon g a t a brigh t J = 9 2 fo r mos t o f th e coda , an d expand s further int o a ponderou s timpan i bombardmen t i n th e penultimat e measure . DeSabata, Mengelberg , an d Maaze l ar e no t fa r behin d i n thi s typ e o f tasteless (but audience-grabbing ) trivializatio n of Brahms's noble an d statel y ending . The Fourt h Symphony' s secon d movemen t i s als o ful l o f wondrous , uniquel y Brahmsian moments , a fe w of which I woul d lik e t o dwel l upo n here . Th e firs t is th e ver y introductio n o f th e movemen t an d it s transition t o th e mai n them e at m.5 . Apar t fro m th e unusua l harmoni c ambiguit y o f th e opening—i s i t C major o r E mino r phrygian ? —let u s not e an d appreciat e th e organ-lik e instru mentation o f mm. 1-4. Brahm s wa s not unfamilia r with th e orga n an d it s literature—in hi s younge r year s he ha d compose d an d performe d (conducted ) a fai r amount o f chora l music , ofte n fo r jus t femal e choir , wit h orga n accompani ment—and i t seems t o m e tha t h e wa s here i n m. 2 playin g th e organist , tha t is, bringing i n th e four-foo t sto p wit h th e oboe s an d th e two-foo t with th e flutes , gradually eliminatin g the m agai n i n m.4 . I thin k wha t happen s i n m. 4 i s mos t extraordinary . Having tease d u s fo r th e first three measure s wit h a harmonicall y undefine d them e statement , Brahm s suddenly resolve s th e ambiguit y b y th e unequivoca l establishmen t o f E majo r in th e secon d hal f o f m. 4 (i n th e clarinets) . Unequivocally , yes , bu t als o i n typically Brahmsia n fashion , quietl y an d subtly . I tak e Brahms' s very precisel y marked dynami c notatio n i n m. 4 t o mea n tha t th e uniso n E's , especiall y thos e reiterated a s lat e a s th e fift h eight h o f m. 4 b y th e horns , shoul d envelop e an d subtly mas k th e E-majo r entranc e o f th e clarinets . By that readin g the entr y of the clarinet s (an d firs t bassoon ) mus t no t merel y b e trul y p p bu t unobtrusiv e

398 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

and barel y audible . Th e effec t the n i s o f the E majo r risin g quietly out o f th e previous harmonic vagueness , just as an islan d migh t ris e out o f the disappearin g morning mist s in a lake or shoreline scen e (Hea r how wonderful this can soun d on Celibidache' s recording. ) I t takes impeccable contro l o n th e par t of the players, especially the thre e enterin g voice s of clarinets and bassoon , who must ente r as a perfectl y balanced an d blende d trio . I n mos t performances , alas, on e hear s a to o lou d first clarinet—thinking i t has a 'solo'—an d a too sof t an d self-effacin g second clarinet , an d a n eithe r to o lou d o r unblendin g bassoon . Admittedly, this is all very difficult t o manage , as, by the way , any secon d bassoonis t will tel l you, having to enter pp i n m.6 , taking over fro m th e secon d clarinet . The entir e ensuing, quiet, march-like procession must not be disturbed by either the flutes entering too obtrusively in m.8—flutist s ten d generally to overplay, that is, over-compensate i n their low-register passages—or, for that matter, the horn s i n m.13. Thes e shoul d merel y continu e th e softl y flowin g clarine t melodi c line . (Many horn players see this as an importan t 'solo' entrance, and on e seldom hear s a true 'clarinet' pp here.) A beautifully executed transitio n from a clarinet to a horn sonority can b e heard onl y on a few recordings, notably Levine's, Reiner's , Barbirolli's, an d Kempe's . O n Mengelberg' s recording , o n th e othe r hand , th e horn s mindlessly invade the quie t with an implacable, obese mf. As sof t a s the horn s an d bassoon s mus t pla y here , the y mus t nonetheles s sus tain ever y one o f their notes , especiall y in th e importan t harmoni c suspensions , to achiev e th e ful l effec t o f Brahms' s beautifull y melanchol y harmonization . Consider th e typicall y Brahmsian darin g o f th e followin g key points , extracte d and thu s isolate d fro m th e complet e passag e i n Ex.17 . Ex. 1 7 and an

d

Another detai l tha t call s fo r specia l mentio n i s th e exchang e o f overlapping phraselets betwee n firs t bassoo n an d secon d clarine t i n mm.20-21 , bot h to gether providin g the 'bas s line' fo r the entir e phrase . A caution als o for conduc tors t o no t allo w the first clarinet to diminuend o to o earl y or indee d t o pla y th e passage to o softly : i t i s fa r to o ofte n playe d i n a mer e (thoug h mellifluous ) mf , instead o f ful l f . No r shoul d th e typicall y Brahmsian sophistication o f grouping the sixteenth s i n mm.20-21 , i n bot h pitc h organizatio n an d articulation/phras ing, i n si x groups o f thre e b e allowe d t o undermin e th e basi c underlyin g 6/ 8 march-like pulse . In mm.22-2 6 Brahm s conceives one o f the mos t remarkabl e —and origina l — 7. Th e sam e admonitio n must be voice d i n regar d to th e unusua l clarine t phrasin g i n mm . 11-12.

BRAHMS: FOURT H SYMPHON Y

399

musical ideas , fo r which I hav e no t bee n abl e t o fin d a paralle l i n an y music , either b y Brahm s o r an y othe r compose r (a t least i n an y absolute , text-les s mu sic).8 I a m referrin g t o th e gradua l fragmentatio n an d distensio n t o whic h Brahms subject s hi s mai n them e i n mm.22-26 . Th e phras e start s ou t a s expected i n m.22 , but alread y in m.2 3 Brahms excise s a bea t an d a half's worth of theme—compare m. 6 an d m.23—onl y t o continu e late r i n th e sam e measur e as if the phras e ha d bee n full y carrie d through . I n th e process , however, Brahm s subtly drop s th e horn , whic h ha d bee n temporaril y i n th e lead , allowin g th e melody t o revert back to the clarinet , the pizzicat o string s in turn having , almos t unnoticeably, fille d i n th e ga p lef t b y the missin g melodi c fragment . But the n suddenly , i n mm.24-25 , th e mos t extraordinar y thin g happens : Brahms interrupt s th e clarinet' s phras e again, and wherea s i n m.2 3 th e incisio n in th e melod y i s momentary an d doe s no t impai r th e origina l structuring of th e phrase, thi s tim e th e them e come s t o a complet e halt—i n a kin d o f phmsis interruptus. A t first thought Brahm s seem s t o wan t t o liquidat e th e theme ; bu t surprisingly h e pick s it u p exactl y one ba r late r an d continue s wit h i t as if ther e never ha d bee n an y interruptio n a t all 9 (Ex.18).

Ex. 1 8

This uncanny—an d subtl y humorous —bit o f musical legerdemai n i s accomplished wit h suc h sl y skill and ingeniou s artlessness , that on e i s apt t o no t eve n take not e o f it . Jus t a s Brahm s ri d himsel f o f th e hor n i n m.23 , h e no w goe s about eliminatin g (i n m.25 ) th e pizzicat o accompaniment , continuin g th e phrase i n tha t measur e solel y with a quinte t o f winds, without benefi t o f strings. It i s interesting to not e i n th e autograp h scor e a più p i n th e string s on th e sixt h beat o f m.24, as well as a diminuendo wedg e i n m.23 , both marking s confirming his intentio n t o liquidat e th e string s gradually . Brahms , however , crosse d ou t both marking s fo r his final draft , probabl y reasoning that the p p a t m.22 wa s soft enough no t t o requir e furthe r dynami c moderations . Bu t I thin k hi s origina l impulse wa s right—an d I usuall y ask th e string s to pla y eve n softe r here , o r a t least no t le t the m pla y louder, tha t is , soloistically. I hav e n o documente d proo f to corroborat e m y just-related scenario, bu t fro m 8. Suc h exists—as , fo r example , i n th e text - an d scenario-oriente d interruption s i n Beckmesser s serenade t o Ev a i n th e secon d ac t o f Wagner's Di e Meistersinger; o r th e so-calle d ech o ari a i n th e Cantata, "Flösst , mei n Heiland , flöss t dein Namen, " o f Bach's Christmas Oratorio. Bu t I hav e no t found an y i n purel y instrumenta l music . 9. I t remind s m e o f a hilariou s routin e b y th e grea t comedian-musicia n Victo r Borg e i n whic h sentences ar e constantl y interrupte d b y variou s distraction s an d interpolations , onl y t o b e blithel y continued second s late r a s if there ha d neve r ha d bee n an y interruptio n a t all.

400 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

all interna l evidenc e o f th e music , i t seem s t o m e a t least a highl y plausible one. Furthermore , i n th e autograp h facsimil e p.56 , whic h begin s wit h m.2 5 there i s clearl y t o b e see n —unmistakably i n Brahms' s hand— a caesur a sig n || , used b y musician s t o indicat e a brea k i n a phrase . I n an y case , I d o no t recal l in th e man y time s tha t I playe d thi s symphon y a s a hor n playe r an y conductor ever offerin g suc h a n explicatio n o f on e o f Brahms' s mos t ingeniou s devisings , or fo r tha t matte r an y explanatio n a t al l o r eve r stoppin g eve n t o rehears e thi s passage. No r ca n I fin d an y recordin g i n whic h th e performer s see m t o hav e understood tha t somethin g highl y unusua l i s goin g o n her e (possibl y Carlo s Kleiber's, Chailly's , an d Suitner's) . To mak e m y interpretatio n o f thi s passag e clea r i n performance , I as k th e quintet o f wind s i n m.2 5 t o breath e afte r th e quarter-not e (o r a t least t o subtl y interrupt th e phrase) , eve n thoug h they , o f course, hav e n o nee d fo r a breath . But i f Brahms had no t interrupte d an d delaye d th e phrase , tha t is , left i t intact , then a quic k breat h woul d certainl y hav e bee n needed , a s i s th e cas e i n th e original mai n them e a t thi s poin t (m.8) . I als o as k the clarinet s an d bassoo n a s best a s possible to thin k acros s the rest s in m.24-25—t o 'hol d th e thought, ' a s it were—and t o continu e th e them e (i n term s o f attac k an d dynamics ) exactly as the y ha d lef t i t i n m.24 , i n othe r word s a s i f th e phras e ha d neve r bee n interrupted. Before w e leav e thi s passage , on e othe r aspec t call s fo r particula r mention , namely, th e crescend o al l th e wa y to f m m . 27 an d immediatel y back dow n t o p i n m.28 , s o differen t fro m th e initia l statement o f the sam e theme . In th e glorious , warml y singing passag e of mm. 3 0-36, car e mus t b e take n t o bring ou t (o r at least no t underplay ) the highl y unusua l Alt's i n m.3 2 an d m.33 ,

and t o no t ignore th e remarkabl e d i s s o n a n c e i n m.3 3 (fourt h beat).10 Similarly, th e tension-producin g harmoni c suspension s i n th e woodwind s i n m.34 mus t b e wel l sustained—sun g out , a s i t were—t o assur e th e ful l effec t intended b y Brahms . And on e othe r performanc e proble m i n thi s passag e mus t be noted , namel y the crescendoin g 'too-much-too-early ' syndrome . To crescend o prematurely take s awa y fro m th e glowing , quietl y ecstati c beaut y o f th e begin ning o f the secon d subjec t (mm.30-31). Man y conductor s stok e th e crescend o fires immediately (Masur , Janowski , Szell, Mehta , Toscanini , fo r example , and , worst o f all , Furtwängler , wh o reache s a ful l ff b y m.32) . I t i s eve n wors e t o reach a climactic pea k at the beginnin g of m.34, then diminuend o a s the violins ' 10. I hav e fo r man y year s theorize d tha t Stravinsky , wit h hi s remarkabl e harmoni c ear , i n hi s neo classic work s learne d t o tak e chords , suc h a s th e on e jus t displaye d here , whic h h e hear d an d discovered lik e s o man y 'foun d objects ' strew n al l throug h th e grea t classica l an d Romanti c litera ture, an d use d the m withou t resolvin g the m harmonically—a s Brahm s certainl y still ha d t o do .

BRAHMS: FOURT H SYMPHON Y 40

1

line dips down registrally, only to come up agai n a t the en d o f m.35—an inadvertent 'misinterpretation ' whic h unfortunatel y happens fa r too often . Eve n a mod est knowledge o f and sensitivit y to acousti c matter s an d relativ e registra l projection o f instruments ough t t o alert interpreter s t o the realit y that, fo r example, o n a violin, the note s o n th e E strin g project more readil y than note s o n th e thicke r G string . Thus , i n th e passag e i n questio n (mm . 34-3 5) th e firs t fe w note s i n m.34 project well and brilliantly , but a s the lin e descend s i n th e secon d par t of the measure , it s projectio n als o lessens , whil e a t th e en d o f m.35 , a s th e lin e skips bac k u p int o th e hig h register , the projectio n increase s again dramatically. The resul t in notationa l term s i s ,

certainly not

what Brahm s intended. Thi s dynami c roller-coaste r effect i s easily avoided if the initial crescendo , startin g i n m.31 , i s held t o a modes t increase , arrivin g at n o more tha n mf i n m.3 4 an d the n makin g sure tha t a furthe r crescend o i s maintained. Brahms' s phrasin g and bowin g in mm. 34-3 5 lend themselve s excellentl y to suc h a gradua l augmentation o f the dynamic . I t i s sheer lazines s and inatten tion tha t allow s this passag e t o b e 'misinterpreted ' i n th e manne r described . O n recordings, thos e conductor s wh o solve d thi s proble m wel l ar e Maazel , Suitner , Haitink, Reiner , and , abov e all , Skrowaczewski , whos e beautifu l pacing , dy namic control , an d war m singin g sonoritie s in thi s passag e contribute t o making his recordin g o f the Fourt h Symphon y on e o f the fines t ever . In th e soulfu l secon d subjec t 'cello episode' of mm.41-49 care mus t b e take n that (1 ) th e violas , whil e cedin g priorit y t o th e cellos , mus t nonetheles s b e clearly audibl e a s the 'bas s line ' throughout ; an d (2 ) that th e secon d violin s i n m.42 sustai n their fina l note s well—ther e i s no diminuendo ! —so a s to rende r i n its full darin g the extraordinar y clash o f pitches wit h th e viola s and bassoon s o n the las t eighth—actuall y a cluster . We should not e that a s soulful and poignan t a s this cello melod y is , it i s derived fro m it s opposite, a somewha t rhetorical, stubbornl y rhythmi c passag e tha t enter s th e fra y i n m.3 6 (compar e the tw o in Exx.l9 a an d b). 11

Ex. 19 a Ex

. 19 b

One o f m y special interpretiv e bêtes noires is the manne r i n whic h mm . 5759 are usuall y performed, namel y a s if Brahms had written : 11. A t th

e en

do

f thi

s episod

e (m.51)

,I

wis

h tha

t Brahm

s ha

d writte

n

as h e ha d don e i n th e thre e directl y previou s presentations of this motiv e (clarinet an d first violins, m.50 ; bassoon, m.51) . I t would have mad e a more logica l and smoother over-al l line.

402 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

alternating Vln. + Fl. alternatin

g Va. , Vin.

that is , shortening eac h secon d not e i n the descendin g chai n o f note pairs . Apart from th e fac t tha t Brahm s wa s quite capabl e o f putting staccat o dot s ove r note s that h e wante d playe d short—hi s score s ar e ful l o f such examples , bu t her e i n mm. 5 7-59 ther e ar e n o shortenin g dot s —it i s silly an d mindles s to perfor m th e beginning o f the passag e as I have described an d the n hav e the violas , who hav e the ful l continuou s patter n startin g i n th e middl e o f m.59 , pla y i n a sustaine d manner, a s invariabl y happens, absen t an y conductoria l suggestio n t o th e con trary. I t ma y hel p thos e wh o adher e to—o r inadvertentl y permit—thi s typ e o f disjunct phrasin g t o thin k o f Brahms composin g an d playin g the passag e a t th e piano, a s wa s his wont . I t i s highl y unlikel y tha t Brahm s woul d hav e playe d i t in suc h a disjointe d fashion. I n an y case , i f a conducto r feel s som e compellin g need t o interpre t mm.57-5 9 i n tha t erroneou s manner , the n tha t conducto r should als o extrac t a simila r interpretatio n fro m th e viola s an d al l th e othe r strings i n mm.59-63 , an d beyon d tha t i n th e ensuin g win d accompaniment s (mm.64-71). O r i s that to o logical? I pas s quickl y on t o th e recapitulatio n o f th e secon d subjec t i n mm . 88-97. This tim e th e melod y i s in th e firs t violins . Again ther e i s the 'cluster ' clas h i n the secon d ba r (m.89) , B-A-GI , wit h th e Gtt , however , no w i n a lowe r non adjacent octave . Bu t i n Brahms' s re-castin g o f thi s alread y harmonicall y an d contrapuntally rich second theme , h e dispense s with the earlie r descant garlands in th e violins , raises the dynami c level fro m p dolce t o poco fespr., an d enriche s the textur e b y expandin g th e numbe r o f voice s i n th e accompanimen t fro m three t o seven , a t time s eve n eight . Thi s especiall y copiou s an d dens e musica l weave i s made al l th e mor e remarkabl e b y Brahms' s wholl y original us e o f low divided cellos , wit h th e secon d cello s addin g a particularly 'dark' colorin g t o th e entire passage . Unfortunatel y thi s typicall y Brahmsia n soun d i s suppresse d o r ignored i n recordin g afte r recording ; onl y a handfu l o f conductor s (Haitink , Skrowaczewski, Maa/el, Szell , Reiner , Barbirolli) sees the specia l dar k beauty of this unusua l instrumentation . I wil l assum e tha t conductor s an d performer s know b y no w tha t th e specia l magic o f th e woodsy , impressionisti c passag e nea r th e en d o f th e movemen t (mm. 106-10) depend s cruciall y o n everyon e involve d playin g a rea l pp p — noi just 'mezz o softly. ' Th e rustlin g strin g tremolo s an d softl y throbbin g timpan i thirty-seconds combine d wit h veile d horn s an d bassoon s provid e a gossame r sonic carpe t fo r the delicat e p p clarine t an d obo e solos . I f the diminuend o an d smorzando i n m.10 9 ar e observed , presumabl y causin g th e phras e t o en d i n pppp i n m.110 , then th e ful l p o f the recurrin g clarinet them e appear s to bloo m forth wit h th e intende d dynami c an d textura l contrast . Th e poin t i s tha t th e clarinet theme shoul d not hav e to be played more tha n p, les t it lose its nostalgic 'sad farewell ' mood . I t also should no t los e it s feeling o f momentary reanimation after th e near-stillnes s of the previou s pastoral passage ; but tha t canno t happe n

BRAHMS: FOURT H SYMPHON Y

403

if th e latte r i s not playe d a t tha t heart-stoppingl y sof t level . Th e fe w conductor s who realize d thi s passag e (mm . 106-12) beautifull y o n recording s ar e Chailly , DeSabata, Skrowaczewski , and, abov e all , Carlo s Kleiber . After th e pensiv e resignatio n o f th e clarine t phrase , Brahms' s nex t mov e comes as a total surprise , if not actua l shock . Th e ver y opening of the movemen t is recapitulated , bu t no w unequivocall y i n E majo r an d harmonicall y tremen dously enriched . Indeed , th e particula r harmonizatio n i s ver y specia l i n Brahms's canon . I know of nothing lik e i t in th e res t of Brahms's oeuvre; in fact , I canno t quit e explai n th e unmistakabl e Spanis h Andalusia n flavo r o f this cod a (m.113). Th e reade r ma y wel l ask : "Spanish ? Wha t Spanish? " Compare , then , Brahms's

and t

o a simila r quintessentiall y Spanis h Andalusia n

theme, fro m th e "Córdoba " movemen t o f DeFalla' s Nights i n th e Gardens o f Spain t

o cit e jus t on e strikingl y

similar example . (Ther e ar e hundred s i f not thousand s o f other example s i n th e Spanish orchestr a o r guitar literatur e wit h th e sam e harmoni c progression. ) Per haps i t is a mere coincidence , resulting fro m combinin g a phrygian melod y with an E majo r harmonization , th e standar d ke y fo r flamenc o guita r music . Bu t i f it i s coincidence, i t i s certainl y a highl y unusua l one , an d on e t o b e especiall y savored i n performances . What make s thi s cod a passag e eve n mor e strikin g i s th e galvanic , puissan t clash o f th e cellos ' E agains t th e horns ' F o

n th e thir d bea t

of m.113 an d m.114 . And i f one ma y wonder whethe r th e movement' s openin g is i n E o r i n C , Brahm s tell s u s i n th e movement' s conclusio n i t coul d hav e been i n either . Hi s sudde n mov e t o C majo r i n th e middl e o f m.114 , coordi nated wit h th e entranc e o f th e brigh t soundin g high-registe r 'two-foo t stop ' flutes, make s a dramati c harmoni c shift . Brahms , o f course, resolve s back t o th e tonic, althoug h no t withou t lettin g a bassoo n an d viol a F* i ru b agains t a sus taining E i n m.116 : Brahms' s fina l comment , a s i t were , o n th e movement' s ongoing fascinatio n wit h th e juxtapositio n o f E an d F , bot h melodicall y an d harmonically.

404

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

I wil l limi t m y observation s regarding the thir d movemen t t o a fe w of the mos t grievous misrepresentation s o f Brahms's score . I n thi s movemen t w e encounte r once agai n wha t many consider t o be Brahms' s 'shiftin g o f the beat ' or his 'metric ambiguity. ' Indeed , muc h o f thi s movemen t sound s rhythmicall y off-kilter , but tha t i s mostly because o f the wa y it is usually performed —in m y view erroneously. Th e problem s begi n almos t immediately : i f one di d no t kno w tha t th e movement wa s in a lively 2/4 throughout an d hear d th e averag e tradition-bound performance o f th e firs t ninetee n bars , fro m m. 5 o n on e woul d assum e th e music t o hav e bee n compose d i n a metri c patter n o f on e 3/4 , tw o 4/ 4 bars , seven 2/ 4 bars , an d on e fina l 3/ 4 ba r (se e Ex.20) . Clearl y thi s i s no t wha t Brahms wrote or intended (se e Plate IX) , and i t puzzles me mightil y why almost all conductor s conside r th e renditio n (a s i n Ex.20 ) o f Brahms' s scor e i n thi s Ex. 2 0

manner appropriat e or stylisticall y authentic. I have severa l times state d m y reasons wh y suc h a n 'interpretation ' canno t b e i n th e spiri t an d intention s o f Brahms. And, indeed , i f conductor an d player s merely keep Brahms' s 2/4 mete r continually i n mind , feelin g th e weigh t o f th e downbeat s (no t necessaril y accenting them), Brahms' s cross-accents (a s in mm . 10-16) turn ou t to be powerful syncopations . Th e effect , onc e heard , i s infinitel y mor e excitin g an d more original . What I find particularly annoying is the universal , senseless habi t of choppin g of f th e held-ove r note s i n mm . 11,13,15, an d 17 , a s i f Brahm s had writte n . Again, ha d h e wante d suc h an effec t h e certainl y coul d an d woul d hav e writte n a s much , a s indee d h e does i n th e timpan i par t i n m.l l an d m.13 , fo r example . Whe n thes e tied over quarter-note s ar e sustaine d int o th e succeedin g eighth-not e triplets , a t th e same tim e feelin g th e weigh t o f th e downbea t pulse , th e effec t i s electrifying. I kno w o f n o performanc e o r recordin g tha t attempt s t o preserv e th e integrit y of th e basi c 2/ 4 pulse , tha t is , attempt s t o d o justic e bot h t o th e underlyin g meter an d th e shifte d cross-accents . Thi s the n i s anothe r passag e i n whic h Brahms's intention s hav e bee n continuall y and foreve r subverte d an d misrepre sented. How wonderfully Brahm s immediately re-use s his expositional thematic mate rial is seen i n mm. 19-31 in several instances . The four-not e lea d line in mm.68 o f piccolo, oboe , firs t violin s i s re-interpreted lyrically i n mm . 19—23, bu t wit h the harmonizatio n of mm.8—10 . Th e furtiv e eighth-not e figure s i n th e string s i n m.23 (Ex.21 ) ar e obviousl y derived from th e firs t thre e note s o f the movement ,

Plate I X Brahm s Fourt h Symphony , openin g o f the thir d movemen t

406

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

while th e sinuou s violi n figures in mm.21-2 3 an d mm.27-3 1 hav e alread y appeared i n mm.8-10 . And finally the pseudo-recapitulatio n i n mm.35-3 8 i s sim-

Ex. 2 1 ply mm . 1-4 turne d upsid e down : wha t wa s i n th e violin s i s no w i n th e bas s instruments, wha t wa s in th e basse s is now i n th e violins. The brilliant , hurtlin g E majo r passag e i n mm . 133-38 work s best whe n th e two competin g an d orchestrationally/registrall y separate d motivi c fragment s and ar e reconnected , splice d togethe r again, a s it were , by the players . Fascinatingly , there ar e tw o way s o f doing this ; both work , but one—th e first cited —is probabl y preferable over the other . Look ing a t Ex . 22 , a reduce d transcriptio n o f the passage , we ca n se e tha t tw o lines

Ex. 2 2

are constructe d o f th e sam e material , th e 'bass ' lin e representin g th e origina l formation (a s in m.23) , th e 'treble ' lin e representin g it s converse. Becaus e th e phrase jumps , so to speak, across sections o f the orchestra , th e individua l motivic components nee d t o be reunited . Bu t ho w this i s to b e accomplishe d i s impossible fo r the player s to glea n fro m merel y thei r printe d parts . A conductor ha s t o sort i t ou t fo r th e orchestr a i n rehearsal , an d onc e hear d b y th e musicians , th e passage play s in a mor e coherent , cohesiv e way. Because o f the particula r interrelationship of the tw o motivic fragments , there are, a s mentioned , tw o way s o f makin g th e desire d connections . Th e on e i s to make th e first violins and woodwind s aurally aware of their interconnectio n (th e treble lin e i n Ex.22) , and , a s well , th e othe r string s o f their s (lowe r lin e i n Ex.22). Th e othe r way , which I hav e trie d o n occasion—an d whic h als o work s 12. Thes e fragment s ar c derived , o f course , fro m (m.22 further elaborate d (eve n fugally ) i n th e firs t part of th e developmen t sectio n (mm.117-32) .

) an d

BRAHMS: FOURT H SYMPHON Y

407

very wel l —is, o n th e on e hand , t o interconnec t aurall y al l th e sixteenth-not e fragments, an

do n

the othe r hand , th e dotted - eighth - sixteent h material , . W e shoul d not e that,i n an y case , the tw o fragments are furthe r cross-relate d b y virtue o f the fac t tha t the y operat e in octav e unisons : first and las t note s o f the four-sixteent h fragment s coincidin g octavally with th e othe r fragment . As I say, the firs t cite d approac h i s probably preferabl e since i t preserve s mor e the themati c integrit y o f th e origina l phrase . Bu t eithe r approac h produce s a cohesive, incisive , clearl y audibl e result , whic h i s preferable t o th e rathe r mind less helter-skelte r wa y i n whic h thi s passag e i s usually rattled off. Speaking no w to a small detail , I a m puzzle d b y the notatio n dim. i n m.17 5 (see Plat e X) , fo r i f on e follows Brahms' s dynami c marking s strictl y an d i f th e dynamic i n th e wind s i s still assumed t o be th e previou s pp , on e woul d hav e t o either arriv e at a pp p i n m.17 7 (wit h the n a furthe r diminuend o i n m.179) , o r interpret th e p p i n m.17 7 a s a suddenl y slightl y loude r dynamic . Bu t bot h o f these proposition s see m illogica l an d overl y fussy. I suspec t tha t Brahm s simpl y forgot t o indicat e a fres h dynami c fo r th e wind s i n m.174 : p , o r possibl y eve n the strings ' mf, fro m which , o f course , a "dim." t o p p coul d easil y b e made . I have take n tha t approac h (i.e . p i n m.174 ) i n m y ow n performance s o f th e symphony, which i s what mos t orchestra s see m t o d o anyway , quite naturally. What i s much mor e bothersome , however , i s that nin e conductor s ou t o f ten completely ignor e o r otherwis e re-compos e Brahms' s musi c here , includin g th e tempo indication(s) . Ther e i s onl y on e temp o modificatio n indicated : th e un usual bu t ver y explici t markin g poco meno presto ( a littl e les s fast) . Wha t tradi tionally happen s is that this poco meno presto is turned int o a n adagio Romanza. Brahms's molto p sempre (se e Ex.23) , a ver y specia l marking , i s also completel y

Ex. 2 3

ignored, thir d an d firs t horn s usuall y interpreting thei r line s a s expansive 'solos, ' usually aroun d mf . Bu t thi s take s al l th e mystery , all th e patho s an d sentiment , out o f th e passage . Her e w e ar e suddenl y i n th e ke y o f Dl>—min d you , i n a C major piec e —a ver y specia l momen t indee d i n th e over-al l scheme , an d i t i s turned int o a ver y ordinary , maudli n chanson. Furthermore , whe n th e horn s and bassoon s pla y to o lou d here , th e incomin g obo e (m.187) , marke d m f an d

Plate X Brahm s Fourth Symphony , mm.168-18 8 of the thir d movemen t

BRAHMS: FOURT H SYMPHON Y 40

9

which i s therefor e mean t t o to p th e horn s dynamically , canno t possibl y do so , an d Brahms' s carefull y calibrate d progressio n o f gradua l intensification is completel y thwarted . B e i t note d i n passin g tha t thi s lovel y Di > hor n them e is ingeniousl y a lyri c recastin g o f th e explosiv e cross-accen t musi c tha t form s the secon d hal f o f th e movement' s expositor y statement , specificall y mm . 10-17. But eve n befor e the horns ' entranc e i n m.18 1 there i s usually already trouble. If conductor s wonde r abou t ho w t o ge t fro m th e basi c Allegro giocoso tempo t o the poco meno presto, Brahm s havin g no t indicate d an y ritardand o o r caland o anywhere, an d decid e therefor e t o mak e a ritar d betwee n m.17 7 an d m.181 , that i s one thing . (Ho w much ritar d is, of course, anothe r question—th e answer to which shoul d be: Ver y little.') Bu t when conductors—an d mos t d o this (again one o f thos e allegedl y Venerable ' traditions)—star t a hug e ritar d a s earl y a s m.175, tha t i s quite anothe r matter , an d on e fo r whic h I ca n fin d n o justifica tion. I have onl y been abl e t o fin d tw o recordings that mor e o r less navigate the interpretive reef s o f thi s interlud e sectio n well : Barbirolli' s an d Maazel's , al though th e latte r ritard s to o muc h i n m.17 5 (bu t at leas t observe s Brahms' s molto p afte r that) . But th e bes t solutio n i n m y vie w i s t o follo w Brahms' s scor e precisel y (see Plate X) , namely , no t t o mak e an y ritard , eithe r a t m.17 5 o r a t m.177 . Onc e again, Brahm s ha s alread y slowed dow n th e momentu m o f the music , comin g from eighth-note s t o tie d half-note s (i n effec t whole notes) i n mm . 177-80. Clearly, n o furthe r ritardatio n of the temp o i s needed. An d i f one postulate s tha t the basi c allegro giocoso tempo (take n by most conductors ) i s around J = 120 32, the n droppin g to, say, j = 90-10 4 a t the poco meno presto is a very reasonable assumption . I t retain s a nic e flo w i n th e music , i n keepin g wit h th e ide a that thi s movemen t is , afte r all , a kin d o f livel y Scherzo , an d i s thu s muc h preferable t o the portentou s 'adagio Romanza' tha t i s most o f the tim e mad e ou t of thi s lovely , innocen t transitiona l interlude—transitiona l t o th e movement' s recapitulation. Before w e leav e thi s section , i t i s well wort h pointin g ou t tha t thi s Scherzo , constructed rigorousl y i n a combinatio n Rondo-and-Sonat a for m (se e Fig. 1) is one o f Brahms's terses t symphoni c movements , an d tha t therefor e an y exagger ated distending , bloatin g o f th e form—anywhere—i s detrimental . Th e forma l plan exist s o n tw o interlockin g level s simultaneously : one, a Rond o form , th e other a Sonat a form . Th e movemen t thu s partake s of the mos t salien t features of both forms . In th e recapitulatio n o f th e secon d subject' s extensio n (mm.258—81 ) — in ef fect a brie f development sectio n withi n on e o f the Rond o episodes—ther e arise some seriou s performance problems. Th e gentl y liltin g grazios o second subjec t has her e bee n transforme d into a powerfully rhythmi c affirmation. Bu t there ar e problems, mostl y o f balance an d o f sortin g ou t th e intricatel y interrelated thematic/motivic materials . The passag e ca n onl y b e playe d reall y correctly, tha t is, a s originall y conceive d b y Brahms , i f ever y musicia n —and, o f course , th e conductor—understands ho w hi s o r he r particula r par t fit s int o th e over-al l

410

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Fig. 1 Sonata Exposition

Development sectio n

Recapitulation Coda

Rondo A m m 1-18 B m m 19-34 A m m 35-51 C m m 52-88 (als o Sonat a secon d subject ) • A m m 89-117 B m m 118-81 . D m m 182-98 (Interlude ) A m m 199-207 B m m 208-23 , A m m 224-46 C m m 247-82 (Sonat a secon d subject recapitulated ) mm 283-357

[

scheme of things. Again, as so often i n Brahms , i t is deceptively easy and simpl e looking, whe n i n actualit y it i s astonishingly complex. Let u s begi n wit h th e primar y voice : th e thir d horn , i n a staccat o varian t of th e erstwhil e grazioso secon d subject . I t i s embellishe d i n near-uniso n wit h interpolated eighth-not e triplet s i n th e violin s (se e Ex . 24) . Bu t thi s violi n figu ration i s also derive d i n par t fro m th e fanfare-lik e cross-accente d figure s i n th e exposition (mm.10-17) . I n addition , th e uppe r strings ' triplets are anticipate d i n each measur e b y simila r triplet s i n th e cello s an d basses—an d timpani . An d

Ex. 2 4 etc. therein lie s th e rub . Th e timpani , unabl e t o doubl e al l o f the basses ' pitche s — it i s relegated t o jus t thre e pitche s —i s lef t t o merel y hamme r out repeate d notes , an d fo r si x measure s o f thi s 18-ba r segmen t (a s th e musi c modulates t o key s lik e D an d E major ) i s forced t o la y out altogether . Th e firs t problem the n i s to balanc e timpan i wit h cello s an d basse s i n suc h a wa y tha t (a) th e latter' s importan t note s ar e no t obliterate d b y the timpani ; an d (b ) that when th e timpan i stop s playin g (mm.266-71) , i t i s not s o blatantly noticeable . Unfortunately, a s mos t recording s wil l attest , suc h sensibilit y is i n rar e supply ; this passag e i s regularl y ruined b y over-playe d o r over-recorde d timpani . (Th e timpanist i n Fischer-Dieskau' s Czec h Philharmoni c completel y mar s thi s pas sage—and mos t o f th e recording—wit h hi s unmusical , hard , loud , constantl y over-accented playing. ) Thi s i n tur n make s whatever pitch relationship s Brahms has compose d int o hi s triplet s (se e Ex . 25 ) inaudibl e an d pointless . Finally,

BRAHMS: FOURT H SYMPHONY

411

etc.

the regula r reiterate d quarter-note s hav e a s thei r runnin g partner , a s i t were , the eighth-not e triplets . They , too , mus t b e hear d a s a continuou s chai n as shown i n Ex.2 5 by the diagonall y connecting lines . The cod a (m.282 ) mus t begi n wit h a hushed , controlled , suppresse d excite ment. Dozen s o f brie f figures , al l hear d previousl y i n th e movement , ar e scat tered ove r a G peda l point , dartin g out o f the subdue d textur e like so many tiny snake tongues . I t i s as i f the musi c i s slowly gathering forc e again afte r it s previous exertions—ther e i s n o crescend o fo r a t least fourtee n measures ! —and Brahms i s gathering al l th e littl e scrap s o f motivi c materia l togethe r fo r a fina l consummation i n th e elaboratio n o f the coda . Th e sudde n interruptiv e f i n th e horns i n m.29 4 i s usuall y wel l managed , bu t th e answe r i n lo w clarinet s an d bassoons (se e Ex . 26) , bot h a n inversio n and a retrograd e o f the horns , i s rarely heard, particularl y if timpani an d string s are to o lou d here .

Ex. 2 6

In m.31 7 a mos t astonishin g thin g happens , whic h I have , however , neve r heard consciousl y brought t o the for e b y any other conductor : th e lea d note s i n mm.317-25, A-B-C-D-Et, are identica l to the first five lead note s o f the Passaca glia them e a t th e beginnin g o f th e las t movement , transposed . On e migh t b e forgiven fo r no t hearin g o r seein g th e relationshi p for , in th e Scherzo , th e me lodic lin e skip s back an d fort h acros s tw o octave s (Ex.27) . Bu t th e note s (pitc h classes) ar e identica l b y transposition . Th e questio n the n arises : whic h cam e first, the Scherz o o r the Final e theme ? Th e questio n i s complicated b y the fac t

Ex. 2 7

412 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

that w e kno w tha t Brahm s dre w hi s Passacagli a them e i n par t fro m a Bac h chorale (fro m Cantat a No . 150). So , wa s that them e alread y i n hi s min d whil e writing the Scherzo , o r wa s it chance tha t thes e note s cam e t o hi m durin g th e writing o f the Scherz o coda ? O r wa s it the coincidenc e o f Brahms writing thes e notes an d then , by chance, comin g upo n the Bac h chorale , muc h the sam e way that Alba n Ber g lat e i n th e writin g of hi s Violi n Concert o cam e upo n a Bac h chorale whos e firs t fou r note s happene d t o b e identica l t o th e las t four note s o f the Concerto' s tone row ? Or di d Brahm s earl y on kno w tha t h e woul d b e usin g the Passacagli a them e an d simpl y foun d a wa y t o snea k i t int o th e Scherz o movement? W e wil l probabl y neve r know . Bu t i n an y case , i t i s wel l wort h alerting the orchestr a t o this wonderful Brahmsia n touc h and t o bring the them e out i n th e relevan t instruments . What I hav e suggeste d fo r th e earlie r cross-accente d tied-ove r quarter-note s should obviousl y apply a s well t o mm.329-3 1 and , abov e all , mm.337-46 . One fina l suggestio n fo r th e Scherz o movement : th e quic k ru n i n m.35 2 rather under-orchestrate d (i n onl y th e firs t violin s against th e whol e orchestra ) an d therefor e usuall y inaudible , ca n b e helpe d b y having hal f o r eve n a majorit y o f th e sectio n pla y th e note s separate-bow . Th e extra articulatio n make s th e passag e project muc h better . The las t movemen t o f Brahms's Fourt h Symphony , althoug h th e cleares t o f th e four movement s i n it s over-al l for m an d continuity—thirt y variation s o n a n eight-bar Passacagli a theme plu s a coda —nonetheless contains innumerabl e per formance problems , man y o f whic h ar e ver y seriou s an d basic , an d hav e rarel y if eve r been resolve d appropriately . I believ e tha t basi c t o a n authenti c an d informe d performanc e o f the move ment are th e tw o following premises: on e i s the audibl e presenc e o f the Passaca glia them e a t al l times , not , o f course , necessaril y at th e expens e o f othe r pri mary materials , bu t stil l a continuousl y fel t presence ; th e othe r i s th e preservation o f the integrit y o f the 3/ 4 mete r an d it s pulse. Unfortunatel y thes e are precisel y th e tw o element s o f Brahms' s i n som e way s perhap s fines t symphonic achievemen t tha t ar e the mos t neglected , th e mos t ignore d o r misun derstood. I t baffle s m e wh y thes e s o ver y elementar y aspect s o f th e Fourth' s Finale ar e s o thoroughl y disregarded . On e ca n hea r performanc e afte r perfor mance, recordin g afte r recording , i n whic h nar y a shre d o f th e Passacagli a theme i s heard , excep t perhap s i n th e mos t obviou s places ; o r i n whic h th e innumerable rhythmi c an d metri c wonder s o f th e movemen t remai n unhear d and unfelt . I believ e tha t a full y comprehending , intellectuall y an d emotionall y represen tative performance , reflectin g th e fullnes s o f Brahms' s genius , i s no t possibl e without ever y player i n th e orchestr a knowin g the Passacagli a them e an d keep ing i t i n min d throughou t th e performance , no t onl y t o b e immediatel y aware of i t when i t appears i n thei r ow n parts , but , perhap s eve n mor e importantly , to

BRAHMS: FOURT H SYMPHON Y 41

3

know whe n i t i s i n someone else's part an d t o respec t that . I' m afrai d tha t suc h an approac h i s a n idea l whic h wil l rarel y be attained , especiall y i n th e majo r orchestras who mostl y thin k they know th e Brahm s symphonie s thoroughl y an d feel the y hav e reall y nothin g ne w t o lear n abou t them . On e i s mor e likel y to have succes s with the allegedl y 'lesser' o r 'less famous ' orchestras , who ofte n ar e still read y an d eage r t o lear n somethin g abou t th e musi c the y ar e performing . In any case, playing the Fourt h Symphony' s Final e withou t knowin g the Passacaglia them e an d withou t bein g constantl y awar e o f i t i n al l it s myria d incarna tions, i s lik e tryin g t o driv e a ca r withou t knowin g wher e th e steerin g whee l i s and ho w to us e it . Since th e Passacagli a them e (Ex . 28 ) i s at time s partiall y hidden o r disguised or se t i n unexpecte d places—a s wel l a s being , o f course , a t othe r time s clearl y prominent—it wil l b e bes t t o plo t it s cours e a s i t wend s it s wa y throug h th e

Ex. 2 8 movement. I n th e firs t eigh t bar s th e them e i s obviousl y i n th e lea d voice s (flutes, firs t oboe , firs t trombone) , bu t i n th e firs t variatio n (mm.9-16 ) i t i s tucked awa y in th e firs t violins ' pizzicato , whic h i s easily covered an d rendere d inaudible b y overly boisterous horn s and timpani . I n th e nex t variation it i s even more 'hidden, ' give n a n octav e lowe r t o pizzicat o viola s an d firs t cello s (an d temporarily tw o horns). Th e proble m her e i s that mos t conductor s concentrat e entirely o n th e woodwin d lines , leavin g th e Passacagli a them e t o fen d fo r it self—with th e resul t tha t i t i s simply no t present . Th e reade r ca n confir m thi s on dozen s o f recordings. In variatio n 3 (mm.25-32 ) th e them e i s distribute d amon g a numbe r o f in struments. I n th e first four measure s it is to be foun d not onl y in th e first violins' pizzicato chords , bu t als o i n firs t hor n an d trumpe t a s wel l a s th e sol o wood winds, whil e i n th e remainin g fou r measure s onl y i n th e violins , firs t oboe , second flute , and , fo r part o f the phrase , firs t clarine t an d trumpets . Note , too , that th e firs t fou r bar s of variation 3 are played , excep t fo r a few sustained notes , very staccato , wherea s th e woodwind s an d horn s i n th e secon d grou p o f fou r bars ar e marke d marcato an d b y implication mor e sustained . In variatio n 4 , mos t maestr i conduc t th e firs t violins—a s i f they neede d th e conductor's hel p an d woul d otherwis e no t b e heard—i n th e meantim e neglect ing the Passacagli a theme , which i n its powerful octave leap s should b e energeti cally intone d b y th e cellos , basses , an d bassoons . Th e basse s retai n th e them e in th e nex t variatio n i n heav y f f pizzicatos . I hav e foun d tha t bas s section s ar e so thrille d t o fin d ou t tha t the y hav e th e principa l voic e an d tha t a conducto r will occasionall y pay som e attentio n t o them , neglecte d 'underdogs ' tha t the y are, tha t the y respon d enthusiasticall y wit h might y pizzicato strokes , propellin g the entir e accompanying structure forward. The basses ' leadin g rol e continue s i n variatio n 6 a s the y no w sin g ou t th e theme i n a dee p espressivo (mm.49-57) . I n th e nex t variatio n they , along with

414 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

second bassoo n an d contrabassoon , retai n onl y th e slightes t hol d o n th e them e (Ex. 29 , circle d notes), 13 bu t i n variatio n 8 an d 9 the y com e bac k ful l

force (Ex . 30 ) with , remarkably , som e fo r tha t tim e ver y unusua l an d darin g double stops , marke d sf . The basse s finall y relinquis h th e Passacagli a them e i n

Ex. 3 0

variation 10 , handing i t ove r t o a serie s of divers e instruments , virtuall y hidden in th e chorale-lik e chorda l progressio n (Ex.31) , bu t nevertheles s t o b e brough t out o r at least hinte d a t i n performance .

Ex. 3 1

Now cello s an d viola s divide th e them e u p amon g themselve s (Ex . 32) , at least for fiv e measures . Fro m ther e o n vi a a cycl e o f fifths, the cello s han d th e phras e

Ex. 3 2 _

over t o th e sol o flut e an d a chang e fro m 3/ 4 to 3/2 . Se t ove r a quietl y pulsatin g tonic peda l point , th e flut e variation , expanded t o twice the lengt h o f the earlie r variations b y wa y of the 3/ 2 meter , i s one o f the mos t masterfu l (an d memora 13. W e should , however , tak e not e i n passin g o f th e strikin g dissonances , o f virtuall y Stravinskia n modernity, tha t Brahm s ha s squirreled awa y in severa l places, includin g th e followin g gems i n varia tion 7 . Th e second-bea t sixteenth s i n mm . 58, 59 , an d 6 0 compris e th e followin g thre e chords , respectively: Tr

y these o n th e pian o t o full y appreciat e thei r shoc k value.

Since thes e startlin g discordances , i n sixteenth-not e duration s fli t b y i n abou t a n eight h o f a second, nobod y take s notic e o f them—not conductors , no t musicians , no t audiences . The y remai n one o f Brahms's littl e hidden treasures , tiny precious details that he lavishe d on s o many of his works.

BRAHMS: FOURT H SYMPHON Y 41

5

ble) themati c elaboration s i n th e entir e symphoni c literature . I t is , alon g wit h the flut e sol o i n Ravel' s Daphnis e t Chloé, th e mos t notabl e celebratio n o f the flut e a s a lyri c instrumen t i n th e orchestra l repertory . I t i s als o a momen t of repose , o f calm , no t th e 'dramati c climactic ' declamatio n man y flutist s an d conductors lik e to mak e o f it . I n tha t connection , I believe tha t th e pea k o f th e solo i s in m.10 1 (th e theme' s fift h measure ) an d tha t Brahm s forgo t t o indicat e dim. i n m.10 2 (a s he did , however , in th e accompanyin g instruments ) an d that , therefore, th e sol o mus t graduall y reced e dynamicall y toward s it s fina l p ca dence, th e dynamic s i n th e fina l tw o measure s bein g merel y within p phras e nuances. Other sof t woodwind s no w tak e ove r i n variatio n 13 , the musi c stil l floatin g over a n E peda l poin t (wit h slyl y insinuatin g 'lower-neighbor ' Dtt's) , an d th e Passacaglia theme' s note s subtl y disguise d i n th e melodi c an d harmoni c fabric . In th e meantime , fro m th e plaintiv e flut e solo , stil l i n E minor , th e musi c ha s suddenly turned t o the majo r an d a lighter , airie r mood . The sarabande-lik e nex t tw o variation s retur n th e Passacagli a them e t o it s rightful bas s position—it is heard i n th e secon d bassoon . Trombones, tacet since the movement' s firs t fou r them e statements , no w return t o intone, lik e a congregation i n prayer , a solem n chorale . Th e quie t eleganc e o f these tw o variations, clearly a kin d o f sublime , statel y danc e music , i s unfortunatel y almos t always marred b y the lac k of tempo contro l o f most conductors . Th e reade r will find it hard t o believe , bu t o n thirt y ou t o f th e forty-od d recording s th e tw o silen t beats i n mm . 114,116,122, an d 12 4 (se e Ex.33 ) ar e completel y disregarded . It i s shockin g t o fin d famou s maestr i lik e Dohnanyi , Chailly , DeSabata ,

Ex. 3 3

Carlos Kleiber , Haitink , Suitner , Ma x Fiedler , an d Janowsk i bring th e instru ments i n m.11 5 (o r 123 ) a whol e o r a hal f a bea t (o r wors e yet , fou r fifth s o f a beat) early , in othe r word s already in th e previou s measure. A s I have mentione d before, i f an orchestra l musicia n decide d t o come i n on e bea t early , there woul d be hel l t o pay . But whe n conductor s d o i t willy-nilly , unconsciously , incompre hendingly, nothin g i s said—a t leas t no t i n public . (Unfortunatel y such misde meanors ar e neve r eve n notice d b y critics , managers , boar d members , o r othe r taste- an d decision-makers , wh o collectivel y determine wh o ou r orchestras ' nex t conductors wil l be. ) In variatio n 16 , a clos e relativ e o f the origina l them e statement , th e Passaca glia them e i s clearl y i n th e lea d voices , bu t i n th e nex t variationa l phas e (mm.137—44) i t i s heard, half-hidden , i n sof t sixteent h sextuple t tremolo s i n th e cellos. Fo r variations 18 through 2 1 the them e i s transformed —and therefor e for most listener s disguised —into melodicall y altered variants, for example, in varia -

416 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

tion 1 8 o

r i n varia (the origina l primary pitches indicate d wit h x)

ation 21 , chromaticall y altered as:

(simplified, condensed ) In variatio n 2 2 (mm . 177-84) th e them e i s sacrificed , retainin g onl y it s har monic implications . W e fin d instea d i n th e first fou r bars , over a chatty spiccat o E peda l point , a not e patter n i n fallin g third s (Ex . 34 ) whic h i n essenc e i s a reminiscence o f the first movement's mai n subject .

Ex. 3 4

Variation 2 3 put s th e them e squarel y in th e first horn an d first violins, while in th e nex t tw o variation s i t appear s i n dissecte d márcate triplet s i n th e hig h register lea d instrument s (violins , flutes) or first horn (i n variatio n 25). In variatio n 26 the musi c shift s t o C major , jus t as it had don e i n variatio n 3. Along wit h th e ne w key , eac h variatio n no w goe s mor e an d mor e melodicall y afield, leavin g i t mainl y t o th e harmonie s t o carr y the Passacagli a message . I n variations 2 9 an d 3 0 the falling-third s patterns return , i n a hushed , furtiv e p i n the former , in the latte r in stentorian canonic formations . Even her e th e Passacaglia them e i s ingeniously embedde d i n th e serie s o f thirds, show n encircle d i n Ex. 35 . But thes e fallin g thirds , already anticipated eigh t bar s earlier in variation

Ex. 3 5

29, ar e agai n nothin g mor e tha n a transposed , rhythmi c re-workin g o f th e pitches o f the symphony' s openin g mai n subject , transposed (se e pp.380-81). At th e en d o f variation 30 , in th e poco rííczrd14 we hea r th e ol d ambivalenc e 14. Thi s poco rilará i s frequentl y exaggerate d b y conductor s (Skrowaczewski , Carlo s Kleiber , Fischer-Dieskau, fo r example ) int o a hug e molto ritard, i n m y vie w t o rathe r trivia l effect . I be lieve on e shoul d thin k o f thi s ritar d no t s o muc h a s a holdin g bac k o f th e temp o a s a n expansion, a n enlargement, of th e bea t an d pulse , jus t befor e th e oncomin g drivin g Pi ù allegro.

BRAHMS: FOURT H SYMPHON Y

417

between E an d C tha t w e hav e encountere d s o ofte n i n thi s symphony . Th e ritard stems th e relentles s tid e o f the musi c onl y temporarily , boundin g fort h i n the cod a (m.253 ) wit h renewed energ y (più allegro)— and a brand-ne w slan t o n how t o furthe r exploi t th e Passacagli a theme . Afte r a powerful , clear , althoug h re-harmonized an d melodicall y truncate d statemen t o f i t (mm.253-60 ) —in ef fect th e thirty-firs t variation—Brahm s take s th e las t fou r note s o f th e theme , three o f which h e ha d no t use d i n thi s las t variation , an d construct s a remark able contrapunta l design , b y which mean s h e als o modulate s th e musi c t o th e remote ke y o f F major . A s Ex . 3 6 shows , th e complet e contrapunta l gri d i s of considerable complexity , a n intricac y of design, which i s made al l the harde r t o bring ou t i n performanc e becaus e a numbe r o f instrument s enunciat e differen t segments o f th e motiv e (rathe r tha n complet e statement s o f it) , whil e other s share i n onl y tw o o f th e fou r notes . Thu s i t i s imperative , onc e again , fo r th e performing musician s t o kno w precisel y what par t o f the contrapunta l we b the y are representin g and—jus t a s important—whe n the y ar e no t a par t o f it . Thi s can b e achieve d i n extensive , detailed rehearsin g (i f there i s time) o r by marking the part s i n som e elucidatin g way . Unfortunately , neithe r happen s normally , and orchestra s generall y jus t plo w throug h th e passage , energetically , bu t als o mindlessly, wit h Brahms' s ingeniou s contrapunta l desig n lef t t o chance .

Ex. 3 6

418 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Brahms begin s th e passag e wit h a E^, th e expecte d pitc h whic h ha d bee n withheld i n th e previou s eight-ba r variation . Thi s give s hi m a B X^XQXF motivic shape and , b y transposition upward , the succeedin g iteration s of the mo tive. Bu t th e choic e o f transposition i s hardly arbitrary—nothin g i n Brahm s ever is—but rather i s linked to the canoni c respons e o f the first motivic fragment, a response i n the bas s instruments beginnin g i n m.26 3 at a distance of two bars. Th e pitch chose n b y Brahms for the entr y of this secon d voic e is C, i n othe r word s in unison wit h it s canonic partne r at that point . Once this linkage is established, th e whole passag e modulate s its way upward—crab-wise, i f you will—unti l i n twelve bars it has fulfilled on e o f its major functions, namely, to modulate to some remot e key, in this case F. But Brahm s i s apparently no t satisfie d wit h th e resultan t deart h o f harmon y in hi s canoni c construct . Rathe r tha n harmonizin g i t in som e intuitiv e way, he invents anothe r voic e (see n i n th e thir d stav e i n Ex.3 6 above), a B-A-C-H-lik e motive whic h also , crab-wise , wend s it s wa y upward . Considerin g th e multi layered structurin g involved here—tw o of the thre e line s multiplied int o forcefu l three-octave unison s —Brahms's orchestration , wit h a limite d resourc e o f instruments, ca n onl y be calle d masterful . And ye t bringin g i t to correc t acousti c lif e doesn't necessaril y happen b y itself. One woul d lik e t o thin k tha t i f every musician woul d pla y hi s o r he r par t i n a well-balance d integrate d way , the passag e would pla y itself , s o t o speak . Bu t thi s rarel y happens . Al l tha t ha s t o occu r i s that on e playe r o r on e sectio n play s a littl e to o soft—o r a littl e to o loud—an d the whol e contrapunta l hous e o f card s break s down . And , a s prove n b y th e available recordings , it i s indeed a rar e performance tha t render s Brahms' s won drous polyphoni c achievemen t accurately . If w e as k ourselves where befor e hav e w e see n th e note s i n th e declamator y trombone them e pronouncemen t i n mm.273-76 , th e answe r i s i n th e third movement i n tha t remarkabl e premonitio n o f th e Passacagli a them e I referre d to earlie r (se e Ex.27 , p.411). Finally, two more remarkable theme variants call for particular mention. Hav ing exhausted—presumably—virtuall y al l potentia l variant s o f th e Passacagli a theme, Brahms nonetheless, o n the verg e o f the ultimat e dynami c climax of the movement, a s if in triumph , find s on e mor e transmutatio n o f the theme . Bifur cated, th e on e par t th e transpositiona l inversio n o f th e othe r (se e Ex.37 ) an d further harmonize d i n thirds , Brahm s i s apparentl y s o happ y wit h i t tha t h e

repeats i t immediatel y (of course, slightl y altered), thus als o completin g th e ex pected eight-ba r phrasing . Notic e tha t Brahm s manage s t o snea k i n th e firs t

BRAHMS: FOURT H SYMPHON Y 41

9

three note s o f the them e (a s here reconstituted ) i n th e viol a an d trombon e i n mm.291-93. The fina l triumphan t statemen t o f the much-use d them e i s also th e firs t on e that, instea d o f dippin g dow n th e octav e i n it s sevent h bar , stride s confidentl y upward toward s the toni c (Ex . 38) . A simple idea , i n a way , but th e timin g an d

Ex. 3 8

placement o f it at the ver y en d o f the movement—meanin g amon g othe r thing s that Brahm s wa s abl e t o resis t fo r a remarkabl y lon g tim e th e temptatio n t o round ou t th e them e i n thi s ultimat e an d fulfille d form—ar e a mar k o f hi s perfect craftsmanship , his discipline d creativity—i n short , hi s genius. 15 The length y exploratio n abov e o f the arduou s pat h traverse d by the Passaca glia them e was , unfortunately , necessar y give n tha t i n mos t performance s an d recordings thi s seem s t o b e unexplore d territor y fo r conductor s an d orchestr a musicians alike . While tha t theme' s cours e i s a factua l and objectifiabl e matter , and therefor e hardl y arguable , th e othe r majo r fourt h movemen t performance / interpretation issu e I raise d earlie r i s perhap s mor e subjectiv e —more i n th e realm o f pur e interpretation , exegesis , an d connotation . Nonetheless , fo r th e reason I have given several time s previously , I firml y (thoug h modestly ) believe , if no t i n th e 'absolut e correctness' 16 of my theory of metric integrit y in Brahms , in it s possibl e rightful applicability . At th e ver y least , I believ e i t offer s anothe r viable interpretationa l performanc e option . Certainl y th e result s o f such a real ization ar e startling—a s we shall see—especially to anyone wh o ha s never hear d such a 'rightful ' interpretation . Th e premis e i s reall y a ver y simpl e one : t o d o full justic e to Brahms' s extraordinary rhythmic inventiveness , specificall y fully t o honor bot h th e basi c metri c desig n an d pulse , a s wel l a s th e actua l rhythmi c configurations an d thei r particula r feeling. And le t m e emphasiz e tha t this ana lytical exercis e i s no t abou t mathematics , mechanics , abstractions , o r a mani a for precision . O n th e contrary , it is about feeling , expression, about th e sensatio n the musi c create s i n th e listener ; i t is , therefore , abou t th e actua l expressive , communicative conten t o f th e music , no t merel y it s artifact s o f construction . But tha t fullnes s o f expressio n canno t b e achieve d withou t a complet e under standing—and complet e rendering—o f th e creative/intellectua l construction , the technique s o f composition, withou t whic h composer s coul d no t creat e thei r great an d endurin g works. The interpretationa l problem s I refe r t o begi n —in thei r subtles t form , t o b e 15. I t i s interesting t o not e i n th e autograp h scor e tha t a t som e poin t i n th e creatio n o f th e wor k Brahms ha d considere d addin g th e markin g sost. t o th e risin g scalar them e i n m.29 7 an d the n a n accel. fou r bar s late r (m.301) . Bu t evidentl y he soo n change d hi s min d an d crosse d out bot h mark ings—wisely so , I think. 16. Ther e i s no suc h thin g a s 'absolut e correctness ' i n music , jus t a s ther e i s no suc h thin g a s a — or the— 'definitive performance, ' a s 1 have state d earlier .

420

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

sure—immediately i n mm.9-16 . Her e th e singl e quarter-not e interjection s i n trombones an d string s shoul d b e playe d wit h tha t particula r feelin g tha t i s unique t o a secon d bea t i n a 3/ 4 meter. 17 Th e differenc e betwee n tha t sugges tion an d th e wa y i t i s universall y played, namely , simpl y a s a lou d f stresse d note, i s subtle bu t crucial . T o simpl y hav e eigh t heav y pizzicat o 'plunks ' i n thi s phrase (th e same proble m occur s i n th e nex t eight-ba r variation , mm . 17-24, as well) i s t o depriv e th e passag e o f it s tru e feelin g an d meaning . Th e problem s intensify i n mm . 16-24. Her e Brahm s ha s superimpose d o n th e Passacagli a theme melodi c woodwin d line s whic h i n term s o f phrasing and articulatio n star t always o n th e secon d bea t o f a measure . Thi s 'construction ' ha s le d musician s for ove r a century , I a m sure , t o pla y th e passag e a s i f Brahm s ha d writte n

instead o f wha t h e actuall y wrot e

etc.

But wit h merel y th e slightes t

stress o n th e downbeats , th e slightes t sens e o f th e expressiv e primac y o f thos e first beats, th e passag e no t onl y take s o n a whol e ne w feeling , bu t i n fac t doe s full justic e t o Brahms' s belove d sens e o f rhythmi c compositenes s an d ambiva lence. Ther e i s anothe r wa y t o argu e th e point , namely , tha t i f th e passag e i s played i n th e usua l off-kilte r manner , i.e . simply shifting th e ba r line s on e bea t later, the n ther e occur s o f necessit y a t th e en d o f th e eight-ba r phras e a disturbing metri c shif t (se e Ex. 3 9 fo r a hypothetica l notation) , whic h Brahm s could certainl y not hav e wanted .

Ex. 3 9

We encounter another categor y o f Brahmsian rhythmi c ambivalenc e —and in genious inventivenes s — in mm.41—4 8 i n th e woodwinds , a passag e which, onc e again, is hardly ever played correctly, that is, as written. Only in Reiner's and Mravinsky's recording s ca n on e hea r a semblanc e o f what Brahm s actuall y wrote . For, some woodwind s hav e th e followin g rhythmi c phras e while at the same time others have —onc

e again Brahms's

17. Se e m y discussio n o f th e hierarchica l distribution of beats withi n certai n basic tim e signatures, 3/4 o r 4/4, and thei r dispositio n in term s o f strong (stressed ) o r wea k (unstressed ) beats (p.110) .

BRAHMS: FOURT H SYMPHON Y 42

1

fascination wit h 'thre e agains t two. ' Obviousl y mos t o f thos e note s shoul d no t sound together , an d ye t that i s exactly what happen s i n recordin g afte r recording , performance afte r performance . A s we sa w in certai n rhythmicall y unusual pas sages i n th e Fourth' s first movement , th e musician s simpl y accommodate them selves in some casua l unthinking way to each other, makin g the passage come out in a blan d rhythmi c uniso n tha t i s not onl y wron g bu t infinitel y less interestin g than wha t Brahms actually wrote. These single-bar phraselet s woul d hav e been eas y to play (and woul d probably be playe d mostl y correctly ) i f Brahm s ha d include d i n eac h lin e a downbea t first not e instea d o f th e eighth-not e rest . Give n th e imprecise , casua l wa y i n which mos t musician s generally play rhythms, an d give n the closenes s o f timing between th e respectiv e first notes i n eac h rhyth m pattern , a matter o f about 10 0 milliseconds (o r one-tent h o f a second), 18 an d give n th e almos t unavoidabl e natural tim e la g betwee n a musician' s impuls e t o pla y a not e an d it s actua l acoustical appearanc e — musicians, afte r all , ar e no t machines—i t i s easy t o se e why thi s passag e i s rarely if ever played correctly . But, o f course, i t can b e done . It takes two things: a n awarenes s on th e musicians ' par t o f the proble m a t hand , and a bi t o f extr a rehearsing , separatin g th e triple t figure s ou t fro m th e dupl e figures. Wit h a littl e attentio n t o th e passag e o f tha t sor t o n th e par t o f th e conductor, i t quickl y yields the righ t results , as I hav e bee n abl e t o experienc e many time s i n m y own performance s o f the work . Before w e leav e thi s fift h variatio n (m.41) , I mus t poin t ou t b y wa y o f re minder tha t the hairpin nuance s •< = • i n the strings extend ove r two measures at a time , bu t i n th e woodwind s ar e containe d i n singl e measures . Whe n per formed correctl y thi s make s fo r a wondrousl y ric h dynami c diversity , a kin d o f polyphony o f dynamics. 19 18. A t a basi c conventional natura l tempo o f J = 108± . 19. Variou s constraints preven t m e fro m dealin g wit h the man y dynamic-related question s and prob lems i n thi s Passacagli a movement . Som e comment s o n a fe w specia l place s ar e nonetheles s i n order an d wil l hav e t o stand fo r all others. Brahms' s scor e i s in thi s regard at times no t entirel y clear. For example , afte r a crescend o i n mm.38-3 9 (fourt h variation ) from a previou s f, th e beginnin g o f variation 5 is lacking in dynami c explicitness . Shoul d th e string s continue a t their jus t newl y arrived at ff ? Surel y not . Th e woodwinds ' markin g o f poco f lead s on e t o thin k tha t th e melodi c string s should star t thei r two-ba r phrase s mf, wit h th e basse s a ful l f o r ff pizzicato . The ensuin g crescend o sempre pi ù (m.45 ) wil l brin g th e string s to ful l f o r /fa t m.49 . This implie s i n tur n tha t th e pi ù f of m.57 represent s th e ultimat e climacti c dynami c thu s fa r i n th e movement . Bu t thi s mean s tha t strings an d woodwind s mus t reced e t o a mer e f an d m f respectively , no t th e bow-breakin g f f wit h which mos t conductor s charg e int o m.65 , variatio n 8 . Th e majorit y o f conductor s unfortunatel y arrive a t a f f b y m.33 , an d sta y at tha t pea k leve l fo r th e nex t thre e minute s o f music , resultin g i n an unrelieve d acousti c org y which render s th e musi c bot h borin g and brutalized . The othe r spo t tha t i s almos t neve r conducte d o r playe d righ t i s th e two-ba r scala r phras e mm.175-76. Rarel y doe s a n orchestr a com e dow n t o a tru e p p afte r th e thre e previou s trombon e 'explosions,' but wors e ye t almost everyon e make s to o muc h crescend o i n m.17 6 an d n o subito p i n m. 177. Admittedly , Brahms' s notatio n i s somewha t ambiguou s here , fo r th e crescend o wedge s i n m.176 fai l t o indicat e ho w muc h crescend o i s t o b e made . I s i t t o f b y th e en d o f th e measure , followed b y a sudde n p o n th e nex t bar , o r i s i t i n th e bras s an d string s a crescend o fro m p p onl y to p ? No on e knows ; and w e wil l probabl y never kno w Brahms's true intentions . But i s it to o muc h to expec t conductor s ocassionall y t o tr y some o f th e alternativ e realization s jus t mentioned , rathe r than th e ver y ordinary , 'mostly ff' solution .

422 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

No rhythmic/metri c problem s occu r unti l variation s 2 4 an d 25 . Bu t thes e have remaine d unresolve d an d ignore d forever , judgin g by th e evidenc e o f recordings. Measure s 193-20 0 represen t a giganti c augmentatio n an d intensifica tion o f the first Passacaglia variation (mm.9-16), especially in terms o f orchestration. Bu t rhythm s ar e als o intensified . Th e secon d beats , originall y simpl e staccato quarter-notes , ar e no w transforme d into—one ca n almos t gues s what — a comple x mi x of duple eighth-note s an d eighth-not e triplets—anothe r skirmish between 'three ' and 'two' : eighths i n the woodwinds , eighth triplet s in the strings (Ex. 40) . A t eve n a moderatel y livel y tempo , le t alon e th e inordinatel y fas t

Ex.40 (continues fo r si x more bars)

ones som e conductor s tak e startin g with variatio n 1 6 (m.129), keeping thos e two rhythms apart , playin g them exactl y right, i s not eas y at all . I t require s a degre e of rhythmi c precisio n o n th e par t o f al l th e musician s involve d tha t i s almost never demanded . An d th e conducto r ca n d o ver y little excep t t o len d hi s ear s and monito r th e result s o f rehearsing . All tha t i s no t t o sa y that wha t Brahm s asks fo r cannot b e achieved , bu t i t will require painstakin g rehearsing, certainly choir b y choir . I hav e i n m y ow n conductin g o f the wor k alway s bee n abl e t o achieve th e desire d result , bu t onl y by din t o f very tough , extensiv e rehearsing , sometimes takin g as much a s ten t o twent y minute s o f precious rehearsa l time. The precis e proble m is , as in som e o f the similarl y complex rhythmi c figurations i n th e first movement, tha t i f the dupl e player s are eve n th e tinies t bit lat e with thei r second eighth-not e and/o r th e string s are , similarly , earl y wit h thei r third triple t note , th e tw o note s com e together . I n mos t orchestra s th e string s play thei r triplet s to o fast , somethin g lik e o r. It i s relativel y easy to er r i n thi s way , because th e string s have n o thir d bea t t o pla y which , i f they did, woul d hel p t o firml y ancho r th e rhythm . I t i s infinitely harde r t o play correctl y t h a n . 2 0 Wha t I hav e ofte n done i n rehearsin g thi s passag e i s to as k the string s to pla y a note—an y note , i t doesn't matter—o n th e thir d beat , whic h afte r a fe w trie s help s them t o hea r what th e correc t speed o f their triplet s should be . Afte r a fe w rehearsings i n thi s fashion, th e crutc h o f the thir d bea t ca n b e take n away , and then—wit h perhap s a fe w relapse s no w an d then—th e triplet s begi n t o b e playe d correctly . A t th e very least th e player s ar e no w intensel y awar e o f a ver y difficul t problem , o f which the y wer e previousl y totally unaware. This unawarenes s is , o f course , th e rea l problem . An d i n truth , wh y shoul d string players , unles s the y ar e scor e reader s and/o r someho w kno w exactl y i n every detai l wha t Brahm s committed t o paper , kno w tha t th e woodwind s have 20. Thi s i s th e identica l proble m a s i n th e las t movemen t o f th e Brahm s Firs t Symphon y i n mm.156-63, wher e the viola s hav e isolate d triple t figures, unanchored i n an y surrounding beats .

BRAHMS: FOURT H SYMPHON Y 42

3

plain eighth s i n mm . 193-200. Similarly , why should win d player s know that th e strings hav e competing , conflictin g triplets . The y certainl y canno t glea n thi s information fro m thei r instrumenta l parts ; an d havin g neve r hear d th e passag e played correctly , the y hav e n o inklin g tha t there i s something wron g i n wha t i s usually played, tha t ther e i s a problem here . But, m y goodness, isn' t the conduc tor, wh o ha s the score , suppose d t o notic e this ? How can on e explai n tha t no t a single conductor—no t Toscanini , no t Furtwängler , no t Dohnanyi , no t Ozawa , not Muti , no t Carlo s Kleiber , no t eve n th e rhythmicall y meticulousl y finicky George Szel l —at least judgin g by the recordings , ha s ever addressed thi s difficul t but fascinatin g performanc e problem. 21 I t ca n b e solved , o f course ; an d I ca n vouch fo r the fac t tha t onc e th e orchestr a musician s hav e hear d ho w the passag e sounds whe n playe d correctly—inevitabl y their first time—they are amazed, an d delighted wit h themselve s fo r achieving wha t a t first they didn' t fee l coul d eve r be done , wha t a t first they didn' t eve n kno w wa s wrong. A s I say , there i s not a single recordin g wher e thi s rhythmi c detail , s o quintessentiall y Brahmsia n an d in th e schem e o f things s o important, i s dealt wit h correctly . The proble m i s exacerbated i n th e nex t variation , a clos e relativ e (b y way of augmentation) of variation 2 . Here (mm.200-208) the violins , violas , oboes , an d bassoons pla y an intensifie d versio n o f what th e woodwind s ha d earlier . An d a s there, her e to o thes e instrument s mus t firml y re-establis h th e 3/ 4 mete r an d downbeat pulse s t o counterac t th e stron g second-bea t attack s o f the entir e res t of th e orchestra . Moreover , t o complicat e matters—bu t reall y t o heighte n th e intensity o f expressio n ove r th e precedin g variation—th e contestin g eight h trip lets an d duplet s ar e redistributed : flutes , oboes , horns , trumpets , an d timpan i i n triplets; trombones , bassoons , cellos , an d basse s i n duples . Again , t o sor t al l this out t o trul y reflect what i s in Brahms' s score , i s very difficul t an d wil l take tim e to rehearse . Bu t i t i s well wort h th e effort ; th e result s are startlin g and exciting ! We end thi s critica l traversal of the Fourt h Symphon y an d it s recorded perfor mances o n a happie r not e b y considerin g a ver y interestin g possibl e notationa l error i n bot h th e printe d scor e an d Brahms' s autograph . I n m.23 3 h e give s th e flute th e lin e i n Ex . 4 1 t o pla y (note , b y th e way , i n a hemiol a configuration) . Obviously th e secon d pai r o f measure s i s a n imitatio n an d variatio n o f th e

Ex.41 first tw o measures , an d a s suc h it s sequenc e o f note s i s perfectl y logica l an d 'correct.' Bu t i f we notic e tha t th e pitche s i n thes e tw o bars, except fo r the thir d beat G i n m.23 5 an d secon d bea t C i n m.236 , are identica l t o the first six notes of th e symphony' s mai n them e (se e Ex . 1) , we ma y b e forgive n for speculatin g 21. Ther e ¡ s a precisel y identica l proble m i n Stravinsky' s Octet wher e i n th e secon d movemen t there ar e triple t eighth s i n th e tw o woodwind s agains t plai n dupl e eighth-note s i n th e trumpets , confined t o on e beat . Ther e too , o n al l recording s and performance s I hav e hear d —and I admi t I have, o f course, no t hear d the m all—thi s passag e i s played incorrectly; in som e mysteriou s way th e musicians accommodat e eac h othe r an d pla y th e rhythm s together rathe r than untogether .

424 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

that thi s G an d C shoul d hav e bee n E an d A respectively . Thu s th e phras e would hav e bee n a s i n Ex . 42; i t would hav e bee n jus t lik e Brahm s t o pla y this

Ex.42

kind o f not e game . Whe n on e the n finds , a s i f to confir m ou r conjecture , tha t eight bar s late r (mm.341-44) , secreted awa y in th e first viola part , th e identica l pitch sequenc e a s th e flut e ha s i n mm.233-3 6 (excep t fo r th e tw o anomalou s notes), i t give s on e paus e fo r thought . I n othe r words , i n th e viol a par t i n mm.243-44 th e pitche s o f th e symphony' s openin g melod y ar e exactl y repli cated—which i n tur n does mak e on e wonde r i f Brahm s mean t t o creat e th e same effec t i n the flute , an d i f not, wh y not. I t is a curious matter and , I suspect, will alway s remai n a n 'unanswere d question. ' Finally, I wish t o poin t ou t t o th e seriou s studen t o f Brahm s score s tha t i n a half-dozen place s i n th e las t movemen t Brahm s contemplated , sometime s be tween th e initia l finalizatio n o f the scor e (i n ink ) an d it s engraving for publica tion, certai n temp o modification s (in heav y pencil). A sost. and largamente wer e added i n m.193 , a tranquillo i n m.217 ; anothe r sost . i n m.249 ; ye t another sost. in m.297 , followe d b y a n accel. i n m.301 . Befor e a conducto r o f th e free wheeling, capriciousl y variable tempo schoo l jump s with th e jo y at thi s discovery, assuming that these annotation s b y Brahms give justification fo r taking those and othe r temp o liberties , I should poin t ou t quickl y that Brahms , before printing an d publicatio n crosse d al l thes e change s out , substitutin g poco rit. fo r on e of the crosse d ou t sost. markings (i n m.249) . These fact s ough t t o serv e a s anothe r reminde r t o u s tha t Brahm s di d no t relish temp o modificatio n i n hi s work s beyond thos e h e specificall y indicates i n his scores . That ough t t o b e sufficien t proo f that h e wa s most inten t o n preserving th e classica l symmetry, integrity, and logi c o f his forms .

Strauss: Til l Eulenspiege l

Strauss's Till Eulenspiegel i s unquestionably on e o f the composer' s mos t popula r works, an d ha s bee n s o sinc e it s premier e unde r Fran z Wullner' s directio n i n 1895. Indeed , bot h Till an d Do n Juan, tha t wondrousl y exuberant, slightl y earlier 188 9 masterpiece , wer e no t onl y outrageousl y popula r righ t fro m th e star t with audience s an d critic s alike , bu t ha d a profoun d impac t o n th e cours e o f music i n tha t bot h works , having mor e o r les s abandone d th e classica l sonat a and variatio n forms , successfull y explored th e ne w free r narrativ e form o f th e 'tone poem. ' Whil e Lisz t wa s the rea l invento r o f the ton e poe m an d Wagne r contributed—for al l hi s respec t an d lov e fo r Beethoven' s symphonie s —enormously throug h hi s opera s t o th e break-u p o f the classica l symphonic forms , i t was Strauss , i n Do n Juan, Till Eulenspiegel, an d som e o f his othe r ton e poems , who brough t thi s literary-oriente d genr e t o worl d center-stage . Th e ton e poe m clearly stoo d i n direc t oppositio n t o Brahm s and hi s classica l forms, an d le d th e revolution, alon g wit h othe r brillian t break-throug h works , lik e Debussy' s L'Après-Midi d'un faune (1892-94) , an d th e virtua l decimatio n o f th e sym phonic form(s ) b y Mahle r i n hi s symphonie s an d Dcz s Lied vo n de r Erde, tha t eventually brough t dow n th e entir e hous e o f classical forms. It i s o f mor e tha n passin g interes t t o us , i n vie w o f th e foregoin g extensive discussion o f tw o o f Brahms' s symphonies , tha t Do n Juan wa s compose d onl y five years afte r th e olde r master' s Fourt h Symphony , an d tha t Till Eulenspiegel was complete d tw o year s before Brahms' s death , whe n Brahm s wa s writin g hi s two elegia c clarine t sonatas. Strauss wa s only thirty-one whe n h e compose d Till, whic h ma y ver y wel l be , along with th e fina l scen e o f Salomé, hi s mos t masterfu l work, certainly its most perfectly constructe d work , with a n econom y o f mean s that , interestingly , rivals Brahms i n thi s respect. As in Brahms' s best works , ther e i s in Till no t a n iot a of extraneous material . I f eve n th e 'leas t significant-looking ' materia l i s exploited for al l i t ca n yield , what ca n w e sa y about th e work' s tw o principa l themes: 425

426 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Ex. l a Es war ein - mal (ein Schelm)

and th e famou s leaping hor n theme :

Ex. I b

Strauss's constan t re-inventio n o f the mai n themati c material s result s i n on e o f the mos t tightl y (and , perfectly ) constructe d work s i n th e entir e 19th-centur y repertory. No t sinc e Mozart' s Jupiter Final e an d Beethoven' s Fift h Symphon y had ther e bee n anythin g quit e a s succinctl y integrate d a s Till. Nor—lookin g forward toward s th e 20t h century—wa s ther e t o appea r anythin g a s rigorously developed a s Till unti l som e o f Webern's score s o f the 1920s . It wil l be countered , undoubtedly , tha t Till Eulenspiegel doe s pa y som e alle giance t o on e olde r form , th e Rondo . Bu t thi s occur s mor e i n nam e tha n i n actual practice . Straus s i s himsel f playin g a roguis h game , a pla y o n words , when i n hi s ful l titl e o f the work , Till Eulenspiegels Lustige Streiche, nach alter Schelmenweise i n Rondeauform fü r groses Orchester gesetzt, 1 h e refer s t o th e 'rondeau form ' use d b y troubadours and poet s i n Frenc h medieva l an d Ar s Nova times, a form whic h bear s only a minima l resemblanc e t o the muc h late r Italian rondo wit h it s rather stric t alternation o f a principa l them e an d variou s second ary episodes . I n th e wor k itsel f Straus s i s —if h e eve r intende d a tru e classica l rondo—so fre e wit h tha t for m a s t o leav e littl e evidenc e o f it s possibl e initia l inspiration. I suspec t tha t whateve r Strauss' s original intention s ma y hav e been , as h e worke d o n th e piece , usin g hi s ow n personall y devised Eulenspiege l sce nario, i n tur n culle d fro m man y differen t extan t version s o f Till's (Tyl' s i n th e original ol d German ) tale , Straus s foun d himsel f followin g those narrativ e im pulses rathe r tha n adherin g t o an y stric t classica l form . Eve n Till's short-live d 'recapitulation,' slightly varied and spli t into tw o episodes (mm.430-3 3 and mm . 466-85), i s more representativ e o f the narrativ e 'tone-poem' conceptio n tha n of the sonata-rond o form . Our admiratio n fo r Till Eulenspiegel mus t t o a larg e exten t als o deriv e fro m Strauss's spectacula r and , fo r th e time , ver y darin g us e o f th e orchestra . An d finally, i t ha s endeare d itsel f to musicians , audience s —and eve n critics—fo r it s restoration o f humor t o music . A s Busoni onc e pointe d ou t abou t Strauss' s Till, not sinc e "Pap a Haydn " ha d an y compose r "handle d lightnes s an d humo r s o masterfully." Ye t fo r al l it s popularit y an d consisten t adoratio n b y th e musica l world, performance s (an d recordings ) o f Till Eulenspiegel hav e o n onl y the rar 1. Till Eulenspiegel's Merry Pranks, after a n Ol d Rogues 'l'aie i n Rondo Form for Large Orchestra.

STRAUSS: TILL EULENSPIEGEL

427

est o f occasion s don e ful l justic e t o th e work . T o thi s da y man y o f Strauss' s most brillian t idea s an d explici t notationa l instruction s remai n largel y ignore d or unrealized , a s we shal l se e i n th e ensuin g discussion . Since s o much o f the wor k center s o n an d derive s fro m Till's hor n theme , ou r discussion mus t o f necessity begi n wit h i t and a n analysi s of its correct rendition . The poin t i s tha t o n non e o f th e forty-od d recording s I hav e sample d i s thi s famous passag e playe d reall y correctly, no r ar e it s man y variant s an d permuta tions throughou t th e piec e rendere d a s intende d b y th e composer . Th e prob lems—apart fro m th e hor n solo' s shee r technica l difficulty 2 —are two-fol d i n that Straus s devise d a them e whos e firs t tw o phras e segment s compris e seve n eighths, overlaid, however, on an underlying 6/8 meter; and , second, tha t in addition, th e tw o parts o f the sol o ar e prescribe d i n ver y explicit, contrastin g temp o terms. Thi s startlingl y novel idea—eve n fo r today , le t alon e 1895—ha s resiste d proper interpretatio n fo r the sam e reaso n tha t metri c ambivalenc e i n Brahm s is generally inaccurately rendered. I t must b e obviou s to any thinking reader—and musician—that i f a 7/ 8 patter n i s overlai d o n a 6/ 8 meter , th e patter n wil l o n each successiv e repea t appea r on e eight h late r i n th e metri c structur e (se e Ex.lb: th e 7/ 8 phras e i s bracketed) . Thus , onc e agai n resortin g t o th e com monly use d 'stressed ' an d 'unstressed ' markings , - * an d "- % th e firs t hal f o f th e horn them e shoul d b e phrase d a s i n (Ex.Za) , thereb y preservin g th e 6/ 8 Ex. 2 a

feeling an d dance-lik e lil t o f th e music . Wha t on e invariabl y hears instea d i s one o r th e othe r o f the followin g versions, i.e . rhythmi c distortion s (Exx.Zb , c) . Far to o often—a s ca n b e confirme d i n literall y dozens o f recordings—th e G # is

Ex. 2 b

2. Th e stor y is told, althoug h i t ma y b e apocryphal , that whe n th e younge r Straus s showed hi s Till Eulenspiegel hor n them e t o hi s father , Fran z Strauss , th e mos t famou s an d reputedl y bes t hor n player i n German y a t th e time , playin g ofte n a t Bayreut h i n Wagner' s operas , Straus s senior com plained bitterl y about th e difficulty , eve n 'unplayability, ' o f th e passage . Straus s i s repute d t o hav e countered with , "But, m y dea r father , I have hear d yo u practis e simila r passages almost ever y day of your life ; i t i s afte r al l base d o n th e horn' s basi c harmoni c series. " Straus s senior , w e ar e told , wa s neither amuse d no r placated ! I remembe r i n m y younger days as a horn playe r tha t th e Till Eulenspiegel them e was still consid ered technicall y ver y difficult , an d w e youn g player s practise d i t man y time s ever y day . The hor n player wh o i n thos e day s coul d pla y the Till them e securel y an d wit h relativ e ease wa s considere d almost phenomenal . Ironically , thoug h nowaday s man y hor n player s ca n perfor m thi s sol o wit h consummate technica l control , an d eve n hig h schoo l student s 'polis h i t off ' severa l time s a day , almost nobod y plays i t correctly conceptually, i.e. rhythmically/metrically .

428 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Ex. 2 c etc.

held onl y two eighth s o r tw o an d a hal f eighths , bu t no t three . Unde r th e cir cumstances, th e conducto r an d th e violin s (with their accompanyin g sixteenth notes) ar e relegate d t o vaguel y following along, hookin g up , i t i s hoped , wit h the hor n playe r at m.10 (th e hig h D) . Indeed, i n th e earl y days , conductor s wer e quit e conten t t o merel y follo w along n o matte r wha t the hor n playe r did, because i n mos t case s the conductor s were relieve d to have a player who coul d ge t all the notes . Any kind of rhythmic distortion was acceptable, an d hor n player s liberally recomposed Strauss' s them e into whateve r wa s most comfortabl e or seeme d safest . Earl y recordings show — for example , Furtwängler' s 193 0 recordin g wit h th e Berli n Philharmonic—tha t in thos e day s hor n player s took a breat h i n th e middl e o f m.8, addin g a whol e eighth an d stil l more rhythmic/metri c distortion to the passage . (Nowadays horn players usuall y pla y th e entir e passag e i n on e breath. ) Straus s himself , a s i s evident fro m hi s 194 4 performanc e wit h th e Vienn a Philharmonic , ha d t o ac cept th e considerabl e restructurin g (including a n altogethe r wron g note) o f the horn solo. 3 Th e poin t i s tha t Strauss' s hor n them e i n Till i s on e o f hi s grea t strokes of genius 4 Moreover, ther e i s a real significance to Strauss' s 7/8 phrasing, for wha t bette r wa y coul d a compose r fin d t o describ e i n musi c Till' s ribal d character. I n on e fel l swoop , Straus s depicts al l o f Till's basi c characteristics : his anti-authoritarian, free-wheeling , irreveren t nature , alway s a t odd s wit h societ y and especiall y with th e pomposit y o f bureaucratic authority—th e 7/ 8 patter n a t odds with th e basi c 6/ 8 metric design ; his nimble quick-footedness , heard i n th e bouncy staccat o o f th e horn' s theme ; hi s "quick-witte d an d elusiv e manner " depicted, a s Norma n de l Ma r ha s pointe d out, 5 i n th e syncopate d shiftin g 7/ 8 pattern; an d finally , Til l a s a fol k her o represente d b y a horn , s o ofte n cas t i n the lat e 19t h centur y a s the idea l instrumen t associate d wit h heroe s (especially , of course , i n Wagner' s works) . Thu s th e 7/ 8 patternin g i s no t som e arbitrary, meaningless gesture , eve n les s a creativ e laps e o n Strauss' s part, 6 bu t rathe r a 3. However , thi s ma y not hav e bothere d Straus s particularly , sinc e h e tende d t o b e rathe r casua l i n his conductin g o f hi s ow n works , a s i s testified t o b y man y observers , fro m Arnol d Rosé , long-tim e concertmaster o f the Vienn a Philharmonic , t o Frit z Busch , a close associat e o f the compose r durin g the man y year s o f successiv e Straus s oper a premiere s (startin g wit h Salomé) a t th e Dresde n Stat e Opera, a s well a s the evidenc e o f his ow n recording s o f his works. 4. I woul d ad d t o thi s th e fina l scene s o f Rosenkavalier an d Salomé, an d th e openin g thirt y bar s of the Alpine Symphony , a remarkable musica l depictio n o f the cloud s (or mists) descendin g upo n an d blanketing a n Alpin e valley . 5. Norma n de l Mar , Richard Strauss, a Critical Commentary o n Hi s Life an d Works, Vol . 1 (Lon don, 1962) , pp.125-26 . 6. I recall giving a talk fo r the Ne w Yor k Philharmoni c Frida y afternoon Pre-Concert Lectur e Serie s many year s ag o o n th e occasio n o f a performanc e o f m y Symphony fo r Brass an d Percussion, whic h features i n th e las t movement a repeate d 9/ 8 patter n i n th e horns , overlai d on a 4/4 (i.e . 8/8) meter . I allowe d tha t I ha d bee n inspire d i n thi s ide a b y Strauss' s Till Eulenspiegel hor n theme , an d

STRAUSS: TILL EULENSPIEGEL 42

9

master stroke , portrayin g i n musi c i n th e mos t succinc t wa y the man y comple x aspects o f Till Eulenspiegel' s characte r and hi s pranksteris h exploits. But ther e i s mor e tha t th e scor e tell s us , al l points , alas , tha t ar e regularl y ignored o r subverte d i n performance . First , Straus s indicate s quit e clearl y tha t the beginnin g temp o o f the hor n sol o shal l b e i n th e exac t relationshi p o f a 6/ 8 dotted quarte r equalin g th e eight h o f th e previou s 4/ 8 (Ex.3) . I n nin e ou t

Ex. 3

of te n recording s (an d performances ) this instructio n i s completely disregarded , the hor n sol o usuall y starting i n muc h to o slo w a tempo . Straus s himself i s on e of th e fe w conductor s wh o doe s th e temp o conversio n righ t (i n hi s Vienn a Philharmonic performance) . Second , Straus s indicate s allmählich lebhafter (gradually livelier , meaning a gradua l accelerando ) i n m.8 , arrivin g at th e ful l tempo b y m.1 3 (Volles Zeitmass, sehr lebhaft [ful l tempo , ver y lively]) . Her e Strauss picture s Til l a littl e hesitan t a t first, as if slyly makin g sur e that th e coas t is clea r befor e venturing forth . Bu t a t m.1 4 h e i s full y confident , wit h th e hor n accordingly no w i n ful l tempo . Strauss' s dynamic s underlin e thi s scenario : th e first 'call ' i s p fo r fou r bars , the n crescendo s a littl e (t o mf o r mp), whil e th e repeat a t m.1 4 start s mf, crescendo s tw o bar s earlie r tha n i n th e firs t phras e al l the wa y to /fat m.19 . Neithe r th e dynamic s nor the temp o indication s ar e gener ally observed , th e firs t 'call ' usuall y (a s mentioned ) startin g to o slow bu t als o crescendoing immediately , an d reachin g th e ful l temp o severa l bar s to o early , the secon d 'call ' usuall y no t reachin g th e bras h ff Straus s call s for. For all th e reason s given, i t i s imperative tha t thi s theme b e playe d absolutely correctly i n al l respects . Instead , betwee n th e rhythmic/metri c distortion s an d the failur e t o hono r th e temp o an d dynami c indications , i n th e vas t majority o f performances an d recording s the entir e meanin g an d essenc e o f the brie f under lying scenari o o f mm.6-19 are lost . On recordings , onl y a few players came clos e t o capturin g bot h th e spiri t and the lette r o f this passage : Chamber s (Bernstein , Ne w Yor k Philharmonic) , Rol f Götz (Masur , Leipzi g Gewandhau s Orchestra) , Sator u Umed a (Paternostro , NHK Symphony , Tokyo) , Gre g Husti s (Mata , Dalla s Symphony) . Eve n so , o n no recordin g i s th e fascinatin g relatio n betwee n th e hor n theme' s 7/ 8 patter n and th e underlyin g 6/8 meter brough t out . As I alread y indicated , Till's hor n them e function s a s th e centra l thematic / motivic materia l throughou t th e entir e work— I coun t som e 5 5 appearance s o f began t o wa x lyrical, almos t ecstatic, about Strauss's ingenuit y i n creatin g thi s remarkabl e theme , so extraordinary i n it s invention , particularly fo r 1895 . I wa s suddenl y brought u p shor t whe n a littl e old lad y i n th e fron t ro w interrupte d m e an d wit h a steel y voic e irritatedl y demande d t o know : "Well, what' s s o great about that? "

430 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

it—in jus t abou t a s man y guise s a s Till i n rea l lif e i s alleged t o hav e assumed . Therefore it s correct renditio n i s important no t onl y in it s four sol o settings , bu t wherever i t appears throughou t th e work. Turning no w t o th e five-ba r prologue , whic h parallels , accordin g t o Straus s himself, th e openin g lin e o f an y fol k o r fair y tale—a s i n "Onc e upo n a tim e . . . " ("E s wa r einmal" ) (i n German)—w e fin d th e othe r Till them e (se e Ex . la) se t i n th e simples t folk-son g manner . Th e theme' s gentl e characte r an d lovely turn-of-phrase nee d t o b e handle d wit h th e utmos t car e an d taste . Unfor tunately thi s them e ofte n sound s straine d an d edgy , a s th e violinist s us e to o much bo w an d to o muc h bo w pressur e wit h a resultan t heav y mf, instea d o f Strauss's p . Mos t annoyin g i s th e striden t accen t o n th e B^ l on e hear s i n man y performances. Thi s i s usually the resul t of aural carelessness , combined wit h th e following bowin g particularly when to o muc h bo w i s used o n th e firs t up-bow , thu s landin g to o lo w o n th e bow fo r th e B , i n tur n causin g a heav y mezzofort-is h sound . Jus t a s annoyin g are th e stretchin g an d distortin g o f the rhyth m an d temp o i n th e firs t measur e (particularly a n over-lon g CI) , whic h goe s agains t Strauss' s gemächlich temp o marking an d th e intende d simplicit y of th e phrase . Th e idea l bowin g i s as fol-

lows: etc

-

The reade r migh t not e her e th e specifi c slu r notatio n , whic h wa s under discussio n i n connectio n wit h the firs t an d secon d movemen t o f th e Brahm s Firs t Symphon y (se e pp . 300 303). I f mos t conductor s an d player s insis t o n separat e bow s i n mm.54-5 7 i n those Brahm s movements, convince d tha t th e phras e markin g ther e prescribe s separated bows , the n th e sam e markin g i n th e openin g o f Till Eulenspiegel ought als o t o resul t i n separat e bows , i.e . , which, of course , n o on e i n hi s righ t min d woul d consider , no r d o I know o f anyone' s ever thinkin g of such a phrasing . Thi s jus t confirm s the inconsistenc y an d con fusion i n interpretatio n whic h thi s particula r phrasin g notatio n seem s t o gen erate. I coun t a s the mos t beautiful rendition s of Till's openin g phras e on recording s those o f Fricsay , Blomstedt , Furtwangle r (1930) , Karaja n (Vienn a Philhar monic), Busch , and Mata . In m. 2 clarinet s and bassoon s have a sfzp marking , which , however, is almost

STRAUSS: TILL EULENSPIEGEL 43

1

always ignored , flattene d ou t int o a mil d non-committa l pseudo-accent . I n m. 4 all violin s and viola s play instea

d o f thu

s ignorin g the intende d over -

lap wit h th e entranc e o f the clarinets . Fo r thei r part , clarinet s rarel y mak e th e (admittedly difficul t bu t no t impossible ) diminuend o Straus s call s for. And wh y do almos t al l clarinetist s make a n accelerand o i n m.4 ? I s it becaus e th e phras e rises i n pitch ? Hardl y a valid reason. Th e sfzp i n th e flute s i n m. 5 ha s a slightly better succes s rat e fo r som e reaso n tha n th e sam e markin g i n m.2 , bu t coul d still stan d improvemen t o n mos t recordings . Thus w e fin d i n jus t five simple uncomplicate d measure s hal f a doze n point s of negligenc e i n mos t performances/recordings , detractin g seriousl y fro m th e beauty an d invitin g enchantment o f this mos t memorabl e an d lovelies t of introductions. What ha s bee n sai d abou t th e hor n them e applies , o f course , t o th e firs t variants oftha t them e i n th e oboe s (m.21 ) an d clarinet s (m.26) . These passages invariably soun d a s if they ha d bee n rhythmicall y notated as :

rather tha n Strauss's :

The integrity , the feeling , o f the underlyin g 6/ 8 puls e mus t b e preserve d a t al l costs; otherwis e Strauss' s particula r notatio n i s rendere d meaningles s an d hi s conception nullified . The subtl e — I woul d ad d sly , Tillia n — metric ambivalenc e Straus s create s here often upset s orchestra and conducto r in the entranc e of bassoons and lowe r strings i n m.30 . Indeed , thi s passage, i n whic h Straus s readjusts th e hor n them e to fi t int o th e 6/ 8 meter , onc e gav e orchestra s tremendou s problems , a s man y shaky performances in earl y recordings o f the wor k attest (althoug h no t i n Albert Coates's excellen t lat e 1930 s Londo n Symphon y Orchestr a recording) . Though eminently manageabl e nowadays , orchestras stil l hav e t o b e o n thei r bes t aler t to execute mm.30-3 3 without a rhythmic hitch . Having negotiate d thes e particula r musica l rapids , man y conductor s no w drive th e orchestr a inordinatel y to achieve , presumably , some kin d o f 'audienceexciting' clima x at mm.39-45. Once again , ha d Straus s wanted suc h a n acceler ation, h e wa s quite capabl e o f indicatin g a s muc h an d writin g another allmählich lebhafter. Bu t i t is in fac t muc h mor e 'exciting ' to let this climax accumulat e through th e orchestration, throug h th e constantl y adde d voice s a s th e phras e rises int o th e uppe r register . The passag e rise s chromatically to a f C 7 chord i n m.39—be i t note d only t o f. 7 Ye t virtually al l conductor s pus h th e orchestr a (o r 7. I n Karajan' s 197 3 recording mm.39/4 0 ar c simpl y left out—cu t (sicl). S o muc h fo r Karajan' s an d producer Han s Weber's musical acumen an d artisti c integrity .

432

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

allow the orchestr a t o race ) prematurel y t o a ful l ff. Th e rea l ff shoul d no t com e until tw o bars later , signalling th e tru e clima x of the 'introduction. ' In m.44 , a totall y differen t proble m arises : intonation . Th e woodwind' s four octave uniso n i s indee d har d t o tun e correctly , althoug h i t ca n b e done , o f course. I t takes a little mor e attentio n tha n mos t player s or conductors ar e appar ently willin g t o giv e it , judgin g b y th e recordings . O n twenty-si x of th e mor e than fort y recording s analyzed, this measur e i s painfully ou t o f tune. A t the sam e time, hardl y an y orchestras/conductor s pla y m.44' s rhyth m correctly . Straus s wrote but (almost ) everybod y plays In m.4 6 w e hea r fo r th e firs t tim e Tilt's othe r theme , a varian t o f th e ver y opening introductor y phrase o f the work , here turne d int o a n irreverent , mock ing, nose-thumbin g gesture , playe d o n th e D clarine t (nowaday s on th e E I» clarinet). The proble m her e i s that nin e ou t ofte n clarinetist s fail t o play this, and all similar places i n th e piece , a s Strauss wrote it , in 6/ 8 (Ex.4a) , but a s if notated a s in Ex.4b .

Ex. 4 a

Ex. 4 b Measures 51-5 4 present n o enormou s problems , othe r tha n tha t man y orches tras play this jaunt y passage—Till at his most carefree , sauntering i n the country side—much to o loud , i n lie u o f Strauss's p. I n mm . 5 5-62, Straus s gives us Till's 'mocking' them e i n th e horns , bu t grossl y fragmente d an d rhythmicall y dis sected, tor n t o shreds , as it were—a remarkabl e ide a whic h th e conducto r mus t ensure i s prominently hear d (Ex.5) . On man y recording s i t i s virtually inaudible through shee r neglect .

Ex. 5

In mm.63-66 , Straus s calls for the distinctio n i n th e string s between primar y motivic materia l (/ ) an d harmoni c accompanimenta l materia l (mf), whic h again, however , i s largel y ignore d b y player s an d conductors . Bu t thes e dy namic shading s are ver y crucial i n makin g Strauss' s relatively complex an d fleetmoving polyphon y texturally clea r (Ex.6) . I n m.6 2 an d m.6 8 w e encounte r th e first of man y place s i n Till wher e woodwin d runs , especially in bassoons , clari nets, an d bas s clarinet , wit h whic h Straus s love d t o fles h ou t hi s allegro pas-

STRAUSS: TILL EULENSPIEGEL

433

Ex. 6

sages,8 are seen i n the scor e but neve r hear d i n performance. We shall encounte r many of these i n Till Eulenspiegel. I n m.62, the El > clarinet's chromatic ru n ca n be made audibl e i f the clarinetis t reall y plays out an d th e othe r instrument s (othe r woodwinds and uppe r strings ) hold bac k jus t a little, savin g their ff for the down beat of m.63. Similarly, the bassoons' and & clarinet' s runs in m.68 (Ex.7) can be

Ex. 7

clearly heard i f they ar e encourage d t o pla y out an d i f Strauss's dynamics— mf's, mostly—are no t over-played , an d i f the horn s i n particula r restrai n themselve s to a tempere d bu t healthil y exuberan t f , no t th e all-ou t f f on e usuall y hears . Attention t o suc h details—an d ther e are thousand s i n Till and , fo r that matter , in al l o f Strauss' s matur e work s —is o f paramoun t importance . Realizatio n o f them full y give s thi s wor k a n entirel y differen t loo k an d feel . A s Mies va n de r 8. Straus s has ofte n bee n accuse d o f overloading hi s score s with 'gratuitous ' passag e work, all man ner o f decorative filigre e an d ornamenta l clutter . Ther e i s some trut h t o th e charges , althoug h w e should recogniz e tha t thi s 'instrumenta l clutter ' i s th e resul t o f a n extraordinaril y fertile musica l imagination, one tha t ofte n was reluctant t o leave an empt y spot o n a score page . And indeed , muc h of this ingenious an d dazzlin g passag e work usually remains unhear d i n performance , buried i n th e always intricate orchestration an d comple x textures . On th e othe r hand , i t is also true that performers (conductors, orchestras ) could d o muc h bette r i n makin g these secondar y ornamental passage s audible. I t takes care an d attention : th e player s involved in suc h passages—usuall y fast runnin g figures must b e mad e awar e o f their relativ e importanc e an d encourage d t o pla y out (no t ignore , a s the y usually do) ; and , second , th e othe r player s i n an d aroun d thes e passage s must restrai n themselves dynamically. Fo r i f th e latte r pla y on e iot a to o loud , th e secondar y material s will , o f course , b e covered an d rendere d inaudible . But thes e ar e agai n thing s th e conducto r mus t hea r an d contro l Unfortunately mos t don't .

434

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

Rohe said , "God i s i n th e details, " an aestheti c messag e mos t conductor s woul d do wel l to take t o heart . In m.73 , w e encounte r th e firs t o f man y ensembl e problem s relate d t o th e timpani part s i n Till Eulenspiegel. Straus s double s th e las t fou r note s o f Tz'/f s 'irreverent, nose-thumbing' theme (Ex.3a) , set here i n lo w strings an d bassoons , in th e timpani , markin g th e latte r wit h th e sam e ff a s th e othe r instrument s (Ex. 8) . Th e proble m i s tha t i f th e timpanis t reall y play s hi s ful l ff , especiall y

Ex. 8

with har d sticks , h e wil l completel y overbalanc e no t onl y th e othe r themati c instruments, bu t i n fac t th e whol e orchestr a a t tha t point . I fin d i t curiou s tha t Strauss, th e maste r orchestrato r an d meticulou s notator , woul d throughou t hi s life mar k timpan i part s i n a doublin g situatio n wit h th e sam e dynami c a s th e other instruments , a practic e whic h man y lat e 19th-centur y composer s ha d be gun t o abandon b y the 1890 s (Mahler , Tchaikovsky , Rimsky-Korsakov). Perhaps for Straus s i t wa s stil l a relevan t notationa l conventio n (a s i n Beethoven) , o r perhaps timpanist s aroun d th e tur n o f th e century , stil l playin g o n calf-ski n heads, simpl y di d no t produc e suc h thunderous , all-obliteratin g sounds 9 tha t modern timpanist s nowaday s no t onl y ca n produc e bu t see m t o enjo y un leashing. Most conductor s als o don't see m t o mind tha t i n a passage such a s just cited (Ex.8) , after th e first three them e note s :, one usually hears onl y timpan i an d nothin g o f th e primar y themati c instruments . I n an y case, i t i s wise —if no t imperative—t o mar k al l suc h timpan i part s a t least tw o degrees lower , i.e. softer , wit h the resul t that th e timpan i note s wil l blen d natu rally int o th e themati c context . Th e sam e wil l appl y t o m.7 5 an d m.7 9 an d dozens o f similar places i n Till. Indee d i n m.75 , a loud timpan i rol l will simply blot out the all-importan t primary thematic materia l in the string s (Ex.9). 10 Her e not onl y th e timpani' s dynami c mus t b e moderated , bu t al l woodwind s

Ex.9 and horn s mus t diminuend o i n tha t measure—perhap s t o mf o r a t least t o f — for the y to o wil l otherwis e cove r th e strings , a s an y numbe r o f recording s wil l 9. Thi s ma y als o b e th e explanation—an d solution—fo r Beethoven' s timpani parts, for example, in many place s in th e Sevent h Symphon y (see pp. 246 , 248 , 254 , 272). 10. Le t th e dynami c adjustment s i n thes e tw o timpani-relate d passages stan d a s solution s for th e balance problem s i n al l simila r situation s (especiall y mm . 149, 243 , 279 , 477-84 , and , abov e all , mm.560-72).

STRAUSS: TILL EULENSPIEGEL

435

attest. Th e onl y recording s o n whic h th e string s ca n b e hear d a t al l ar e Bern stein's an d Toscanini's . Very muc h th e sam e proble m occur s fou r bar s late r i n mm.79-80 . Her e Strauss's fertil e musica l min d devise s a n ingeniou s polyphoni c constructio n (again i n th e strings ) (Ex.10) , al l forge d fro m th e sam e 'mocking ' Till theme . Here th e horn s ha d bette r joi n in th e othe r brass' s diminuendo.

Ex. 1 0

The nex t proble m spo t i s mm.89-90 , wher e th e flee t figure s i n thir d flut e and thre e clarinet s ar e consistentl y covered . I def y an y reade r t o fin d on e re cording (o r identif y on e performance ) i n whic h th e fou r woodwind s (Ex.11 )

Ex. 1 1

2. Cl. are audible . If , as i n mos t performance s and recordings, 11 th e remainin g instru ments d o no t observ e Strauss' s p an d bowings , al l i s lost . I have , fo r example , never conducte d a n orchestr a i n Till Eulenspiegel i n whic h (a ) th e first violin, viola, an d cell o part s weren' t divide d int o tw o bow s (instea d o f one , startin g mid-bow), an d (b ) th e secon d violin s didn't fai l t o observ e Strauss' s pp i n m.8 8 and didn' t avoi d a crescend o i n th e ascendin g ru n o f tha t measur e

Strauss's crescend o wedg e i

n th e

flutes, first violins, an d violas , I mus t admit , doe s no t hel p matters , an d i s bes t suppressed. I t ha s usuall y take n m e fiv e t o te n minute s o f rehearsing—ofte n much resente d b y som e o f th e strin g players—to restor e balance s an d bowing s to th e poin t wher e ever y precious detai l o f those tw o wonderfu l measure s ca n be heard . I t i s certainly worth the tim e an d effort . Similarly , care mus t b e take n that th e wonderfu l thir d flut e par t i n mm.93-9 5 i s clearly heard. 11. Including , alas, Strauss' s own recording ; also Toscanini's , and eve n that of Fritz Busch , who wa s one o f the fine r Straus s conductors.

436

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

In mm.97-102 almost all orchestras rush—especially the flutists—and in addition los e al l sens e o f the 6/ 8 meter . Rarel y does on e hea r anythin g bu t a series of 4/8 measures , a s i f Strauss had merel y writtte n leaving n o sens e o r feelin g of the fac t tha t th e passag e i s set i n a 6/ 8 meter . On e o f the fe w conductors wh o kept thi s passag e in chec k wa s Fritz Reiner . A quit e differen t (an d deplorable ) rhythmi c subversio n o f Strauss' s notatio n and musica l intention s ca n b e hear d i n man y recording s i n mm . 113-22. Strauss's

is usually rendered as (Coates

, Blom -

stedt, Karaja n (Vienna) , Krauss , Maazel, Mackerras , Marriner , Masur , Slatkin , Stokowski, Fricsay , Stock , Sawallisch , and Straus s himself), or eve n mor e oddl y (Bernstein, Ormandy , Solti , Stein berg, Toscanini) , o r simpl y (Reiner

,

Karajan (Berlin) , Haitink) . Th e passag e i s als o rarel y playe d i n a tru e p , an d anything but grazioso: 'spook y an d lumbering ' migh t b e a mor e appropriat e de scription. O n onl y five recordings ca n thi s fascinating passage be hear d correctl y played i n al l respects : Furtwängler' s 193 0 recording , a s well a s those o f Kempe , Henry Lewis , Mata , an d Busch . (Munch , Dorat i an d Szel l ge t th e righ t rhythms, bu t n o grazioso p. ) What I hav e writte n earlie r abou t Strauss' s timpan i part s ca n b e applie d t o virtually al l th e percussio n part s i n Till. A cas e i n poin t i s the cymba l cras h i n m.135, unfortunatel y marke d fff. Th e proble m i s tha t i f th e cymbalis t reall y plays fff, wit h hi s larges t crash cymbal s a t that , on e migh t a s wel l sen d th e El » clarinet player an d th e res t o f the woodwind s and viola s home. Th e poin t i s that all thre e successiv e clarine t entrance s i n mm.133-3 5 (Ex.12 ) an d thei r as cending run s mus t b e well-heard . This depict s Till' s chargin g int o th e town' s

Ex. 1 2

marketplace o n horseback , overturning all th e cart s and tables , with th e wome n screaming (flutes , oboes : mm . 135-36) an d scurryin g around in startle d fright . A forceful, shor t cymbal crash (with medium-sized plates) not only allows the Ei > ciar-

STRAUSS: TILL EULENSPIEGEL 43

7

inet to be heard, but produces a much more dramatic, incisive and surprising effect than the all-obliterating, cataclysmic explosion that has become standard practic e here. On Haitink' s CD th e cymbal crash actually causes a total distortion. With car e an d attentio n o f the sor t mentione d earlie r (i n referenc e t o m.6 2 and m.68) , al l th e run s i n th e bassoon s (m.138 ) an d clarinet s (mm . 141-42, 145-46) ca n be mad e audible. On e usuall y gets to hear onl y the horn s in m.14 1 and m.14 7 and th e ratche t an d flutter-tonguing trumpets. Note th e dynamic s i n m.153 : p i n th e clarinet s an d uppe r strings , bu t a whacking big ff pizzicato G i n th e basses . It i s Strauss's humorous wa y of signaling th e abrup t unceremoniou s en d o f tha t episode , a s Till beat s a hast y retrea t from th e demolishe d marketplace . The basses ' G i s slyl y continue d i n th e contrabassoo n i n m.155 , marke d p . Note tha t al l othe r instrument s her e ar e marke d eithe r p p o r ppp, dynami c differentiations tha t appea r no t t o b e observe d o n eve n a singl e recording. Every tim e I hav e conducte d Till Eulenspiegel I hav e ha d t o cautio n th e cellos (i n mm . 159-60), th e secon d violin s (in mm . 163-64), an d first violins (in mm. 167-68) t o pla y thei r pizzicato s mor e forcefully . Strauss' s p p markin g i s misleading, especiall y sinc e thes e note s ar e se t i n three-par t divisi, 12 meaning very few players on eac h o f the thre e pitches . Even mor e problemati c i s th e eight-ba r transitiona l modulator y passage , mm. 171-78. I a m applyin g the ter m "transitional " becaus e Strauss' s Till i s very much lik e a shor t orchestra l oper a wit h scene s an d quic k scen e changes , eac h describing differen t episode s i n Till' s life . Scen e I start s a t m.51 , fo r example , Scene I I a t m.133 , Scen e II I a t m.155 , Scen e I V a t m.179 , an d s o on . I n be tween, ther e ar e transitiona l 'scene changes, ' suc h a s mm . 111-32 and , a s jus t mentioned, mm . 171—78. Th e performanc e proble m i n th e las t i s on e o f bal ances an d dynamics , an d t o mak e Strauss' s mai n melodi c lin e clea r (se e Ex. 13)—which i t i s unfortunately in onl y thre e o r fou r recordings : Busch' s an d (barely) Masur's , Haitink's , Kempe's an d DeWaart's . I firs t learne d Till, afte r havin g hear d i t a numbe r o f time s i n performanc e and recordin g (particularl y Fritz Busch' s earl y 78 rp m recordin g wit h th e BB C Orchestra), i n m y earl y teen year s from th e composer-approve d pian o reductio n made b y Otto Singer . Ther e on e ca n clearl y see an d hea r th e six-ba r Klangfarben chai n o f running sixteenth-not e figure s (Ex.13) . The performanc e problems here ar e two-fold : (1 ) t o produce , despit e th e half-ba r segmentation , on e lon g connected instrumenta l line , a t th e sam e tim e makin g i n effec t a n over-al l diminuendo fro m f (m.171 ) t o p (m . 176); (2 ) t o preven t the accompanyin g instruments fro m coverin g thi s lin e onc e i t i s i n place . Unfortunately , Strauss' s dy12. A famous German-speakin g concertmaster of the Berli n Philharmonic (wh o shall remain nameless) onc e argue d with m e tha t Strauss' s dreifach markin g indicates a triple-sto p an d that , a s such, the pizzicat o is automaticall y louder, the implicatio n being 'lou d enough. ' Thi s woul d i n fac t b e the case , excep t that dreifach doe s not indicat e a triple-stop , but, rather , quit e th e opposite : divided into three parts. This is proven also by the fact that in the cellos the three notes any way be played as a triple-stop! *^

cannot in

438

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Ex. 1 3

namic notations her e ar e not much help , and nee d t o be slightl y adjusted. Sinc e the player s cannot easil y divine al l thi s fro m thei r individua l printed parts , eve n after the y hav e bee n adjusted , this passag e require s considerabl e rehearsa l tim e to brin g of f correctly, tha t is , to achiev e a clea r balanc e betwee n th e (primary ) melodic lin e an d th e (secondary ) harmonic accompaniment . Th e outlin e o f the latter ca n b e see n i n Ex.14 .

Ex. 1 4

Rather tha n listin g the dynami c adjustment s I'm speakin g o f individually and verbally, i t i s mor e practica l t o sho w the m i n score , a s i n Ex.15 . Not e tha t al l sf s hav e bee n change d t o poco s f and , i n an y case , nee d t o b e playe d i n th e context o f the prevailin g dynamic . I f (1) the dynami c adjustment s here cite d ar e adhered to , an d (2 ) i f every player involve d i n thi s passag e understand s hi s spe cific function(s ) i n it , I ca n almos t guarante e tha t thi s passag e wil l becom e structurally and expressivel y absolutely clear, as opposed t o the ambiguous , arbi trary rendering s on e hear s o n virtuall y all recordings. 13 13. Th e reader , awar e b y no w tha t I a m vigorousl y opposed t o re-orchestratin g th e masterwork s of the literature , ma y wonde r wh y suddenl y I a m makin g a n exceptio n here , 'retouching ' Strauss' s score. Fo r m e t o sa y that I a m i n principle, fundamentally oppose d t o retouchin g i s no t a co p out , because I do hol d strenuousl y to that principle. But ever y rule, every principle, does hav e somewhere along th e lin e a n exception . Furthermore , wha t I a m suggestin g her e i s no t th e wholesal e re touching/re-orchestrating tha t ha s becom e commo n i n Beethove n an d Schumann , eve n Brahm s — while generall y ignoring temp o an d dynami c indication s —but simpl y a mil d (cosmetic ) adjustin g

Ex. 1 5

440

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

of som e dynamic s (upward , b y th e way ) to mak e Strauss' s five-and-a half Klangfarben sixteenth-not e line becom e clear , automaticall y audible . Of course , som e reader s and conductor s wil l say that that' s exactl y what al l conductor s contend : they ar e simpl y tryin g "to hel p th e composer' s intention s becom e clearer. " Tha t certainl y was what Mengelberg, Mahler , Klemperer , an d other s claimed . Bu t ultimately , i n m y vie w i t shoul d b e th e exception, no t th e rule ; als o i t i s a matte r o f degree , tha t i s (a ) a matte r o f what on e i s retouching, (b) ho w much —many o f th e retouching s o f th e pas t constitute d complet e re-composing s o f th e passage, changin g notes , re-instrnmentatin g th e wor k —i.e. i s i t micro-surger y o r majo r surgery ? — and (c ) automatically accepting th e retouching s without eve r questionin g them . In th e exceptiona l exampl e 1 have cite d here , a fe w dynamic s hav e bee n slightly adjusted . Thi s hardly come s unde r th e categor y of re-orchestrating .

STRAUSS: TILL EULENSPIEGEL

441

It defie s understandin g a s to wh y almost n o orchestra s an d conductor s respec t Strauss's dynamic s in m.17 9 (pi) an d m.18 7 (mf). (Perhap s it i s because Straus s himself di d no t d o s o i n hi s ow n recordings. ) Onl y Fricsay , Blomstedt , an d Kempe (al l basically fine Strauss conductors) do , althoug h i n Kempe' s Dresde n recording, th e dynamic s prematurel y snea k u p i n mm . 18 3-86 t o th e upcomin g mf (m.187) . I t i s importan t t o observ e th e p dynami c i n m.17 9 no t onl y be cause Straus s wrot e i t an d ther e i s n o over-ridin g reason t o ignor e o r adjus t it , but becaus e th e dynami c her e bes t expresse s th e moo d an d characte r o f thi s scene (Scen e I V in the over-al l scenario), which depict s Till, dressed as a monk , joining a processio n o f clerics , spoutin g religiou s platitudes . Till' s sermonizin g is a t firs t unctuousl y devout , thu s p , the n eigh t bar s late r mor e brazenl y bur lesquing, thu s mf . Th e low-registe r line i

n contra -

bassoon, bas s clarinet, tuba , basses , and tw o low horns, depict s th e rea l Till slyl y peeking ou t fro m hi s monk' s cloa k an d laughin g "roguishly " ("schelmisch" ) i n m.191 (El > clarinet). Till's snicker is now imitate d i n the sol o violin (mm. 194-96)—a quirk y caricature o f Till' s 'mocking ' them e (Ex . 16)—as Till , eve r bolder , taunt s th e rea l monks, sneerin g a t wha t h e consider s thei r holier-than-tho u fatuousnes s an d

Ex. 1 6

clerical hypocrisy . I t seem s t o m e tha t Till' s sarcas m i s superbly characterize d by Straus s i n th e sol o violi n passage . An d yet , unfortunately , almos t nobod y plays, i.e . interprets , th e passag e i n th e suggeste d satiri c manner . I t i s usually played a s a romantic , sentimental , vibrato- y solo, completel y a t odd s wit h th e intended sardoni c characterization . No r i s it playe d wit h th e righ t rhythmi c in flections. Furthermore , ther e see m t o b e ver y fe w person s wh o recal l tha t i n some o f th e earlies t edition s o f Till Eulenspiegel th e E' s i n mm . 194-95 wer e marked wit h a smal l circle , meanin g t o pla y th e not e o n th e ope n E-string . When thi s i s done , i t immediatel y add s a grating , sneerin g expressio n t o th e passage whic h i s perfectl y i n keepin g wit h Strauss' s musical-descriptiv e inten tions. Th e onl y concertmasters o n recording s who playe d this sol o rhythmicall y correctly and wit h the ope n E strin g are Coates' s an d Stock' s leaders , an d Rafae l Druian o n Szell' s Clevelan d recording . Oddl y enough , Druian's successor , Dan iel Majeski , play s th e ope n strin g o n onl y th e firs t tw o E's—no t o n th e thir d one—on Maazel' s recordin g wit h th e sam e orchestra . As fo r th e rhythmi c aspect s o f th e passage , i t i s sa d t o repor t tha t the y ar e rarely rendere d correctly . What on e usuall y hear s i s a s i f Straus s ha d writte n :o

r

442 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

=, i n effec t completel y subvertin g an d turning aroun d th e beat , an d turnin g Strauss' s purposel y twiste d phras e int o something quit e ordinar y an d boring . (Se e Ex.1 6 fo r wha t Straus s actuall y wrote.) A tiny accent o n th e hig h D an d a carefu l countin g o f the sixty-fourths and dotte d sixteenth s i n eac h eighth-not e wil l easily rectify th e problem . I truly don't like the accelerando s o many conductors mak e i n mm. 197-98. It is sufficient t o observ e Strauss' s doppelt s o schnell (twic e as fast), withou t escalatin g that wit h anothe r temp o acceleration , especiall y sinc e thes e si x measure s (mm. 196-202) represent i n Strauss's scenario a n ominous premonitio n o f the solemn judgmen t an d deat h sentenc e hande d dow n eventuall y b y the authorities . Hurrying the phrase just makes it sound a bit silly and trivial. Strauss's instrumenta tion here i s rather unusual: muted brass and fou r mute d sol o violins. What is curious is that the bras s are marked mf, whil e the string s are marked pp an d muted . If these dynamic s are taken literally , given the inheren t projectio n capacitie s o f the two type s of instrument s (bras s and violins) , the resul t wil l be a tremendou s dy namic imbalance. Could this be what Straus s had in mind? O r could the violins' pp be an error? Later, in m.605, the violins' notes—both full section s now playing and unmuted—ar e marke d mf. On e o f the mor e interestin g and logica l solution s to the seemin g dilemm a thu s presented i n m.196 is one tha t Frit z Busch turns to, namely, to have the trumpets an d horns play p. This makes sense because, a s I just pointed out , the initia l appearance o f this passage is in the natur e o f a foreboding, a tentative hint of things yet to happen.14 The scor e is , b y th e way , i n erro r i n m.202 . Th e annotatio n wieder noch einmal s o langsam —a curiou s wa y o f putting it , literally : agai n onc e a s slow — should hav e bee n place d i n th e middl e o f m.202 , no t a t th e doubl e ba r o f m.203. For , i f take n literall y a s printed , th e thre e violi n note s i n m.20 3 would hav e t o b e playe d i n th e 'twice-as-fast ' tempo o f m.197—a clear impossibilit y technically an d a bizarre ide a musically . The transitiona l episode (mm.209-22) — after th e famou s chromatic descend ing violi n sol o —is usuall y playe d wel l enough , althoug h perhap s a bi t loudly , especially fo r th e delicat e instrumentatio n i n mm.215-1 8 o f on e flute , thre e oboes, fou r sol o strings , all marke d pp . However , i n th e nex t 'scene ' —in whic h Till fall s i n lov e (mm.229-52) , bu t i s peremptorily rejected , throwin g hi m int o a violen t rag e (m.253 , wütend (furious ) —many smal l an d larg e performance / interpretational problem s abound . Th e entir e scen e i s musically quit e challeng ing, i n term s o f it s myria d instrumentationa l details , dynami c balances , an d structural complexity . As usual, most o f the problem s aris e from conductors ' an d musicians' inattentio n t o wha t th e scor e actuall y prescribes , whil e a fe w prob lems—a ver y few—ar e th e resul t of ambiguous notation . Dealing wit h th e latte r first, I woul d cit e th e crescend o i n trombones , tuba , 14. Fo r th e record , Straus s in hi s ow n recordin g wit h th e Vienn a Philharmoni c has th e fou r sol o violins pla y f t o mor e o r les s matc h th e mute d brass.

STRAUSS: TILL EULENSPIEGEL 44

3

and timpan i i n m.224 . I t woul d hav e bee n usefu l fo r Straus s eithe r t o hav e added poco to the crescend o wedg e (—= ) or—eve n better—t o hav e indicate d a termina l dynamic , lik e p o r mp. Bu t i t would seem t o m e tha t an y intelligen t conductor ough t t o b e concerne d abou t th e degre e o f crescendo i n m.224 . As it is , on mos t recording s th e crescendo , especiall y i n th e timpani , usuall y goes all th e wa y t o f , completel y coverin g th e othe r instruments : flutes , bassoons , string trills. In th e sam e measur e the oboe s an d Englis h hor n shoul d hav e bee n marked mf— no t p— to matc h th e flutes , E\> clarinet , an d secon d violins . Th e solo-viola trill shoul

d als o be marke d mf. I t is audi-

ble o n onl y tw o recordings . I t woul d perhap s als o hav e helpe d i f Straus s ha d given som e dynami c indication s for the 'lov e theme' i n th e first violins, El» clari net an d thir d flute . Give n th e accompanimenta l contex t i n mm.229-44 , I suggest tha t th e dynami c i n m.22 9 shoul d b e p , m.23 3 mp , followe d b y Strauss' s specified m f i n m.23 7 and th e fuithe r crescend o t o /fin m.243—th e increasin g dynamic level s representing Till's mountin g ardo r and passion . The rea l problem i n thi s entire episode is that hardly anybody wants to accep t Strauss's p' s an d pp's, scattere d throughou t th e entir e scene. 15 I a m convince d that Straus s thought o f th e strin g pizzicato s (se e Exx.lT a an d b ) a s a delicat e

Ex. 17 a

15. Le t u s not e th e specia l subtlet y o f Strauss' s dynami c nuancin g here: p whe n th e 'lov e theme ' appears i n G minor , pp whe n i t appears in G major !

444

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Ex. lib

guitar: Till serenading his amour. Th e onl y recordings on whic h thes e dynamic s can be heard correctly are Blomstedt's and Kempe's , both wit h the Dresde n Staat skapelle. (I suspect that this excellent orchestra, so well trained in the Straus s tradition, had these sof t dynamics ingrained in their playing of these passages). As I have mentioned before , for me ther e i s nothing quit e a s exciting as a whol e 85-piec e orchestra playin g a subtle, refine d pp . An d a true collectiv e p p i n mm.245-5 2 is especially ravishing , capturing th e intimac y o f TilPs ardo r an d th e voluptuous , dance-like lilt of the pizzicat o accompaniment, makin g Till's sudden furious ff out burst at m.253 all the mor e exciting and dramati c by contrast. As Till' s fur y mounts , swearin g reveng e o n th e world , Straus s build s t o a n extraordinary clima x i n whic h Till's 'mockin g theme' is elaborately expande d i n rhythmic augmentation , supporte d b y massive , wildl y modulatin g chord s (Ex . 18). Her e a specia l effor t i s neede d i n m.27 6 an d m.28 0 i n th e woodwind s to mak e th e end s o f bot h descendin g run s audible—the y ar e inaudibl e o n al l but on e o r two recordings. The flute s can' t help muc h here , descendin g a s they do, to their weak middle register ; but th e clarinet s certainly can b y crescendoin g as muc h a s possible to thei r fina l notes . In a brie f transitiona l interlud e (mm.287-93) , Til l quickl y forget s hi s anger ,

Ex. 1 8

STRAUSS: TILL EULENSPIEGEL

445

tripping gaily off in searc h o f further mischievou s adventures . A new theme , first heard i n a quinte t o f thre e bassoons , contrabassoon , an d bas s clarine t (Ex.19) ,

Ex. 1 9

is juxtapose d wit h a ne w varian t o f Till's hor n theme . I n thi s scen e (Scen e VI , mm.293-370), Til l i s in a n encounte r wit h th e mos t learne d pedagogue s o f th e land, plyin g the m wit h incomprehensibl e fact-distortin g question s (th e hor n theme variant) , to whic h th e academi c philistine s ca n fin d n o logica l answers . Their confusio n an d dumbfoundednes s ar e depicte d brilliantl y b y Straus s i n various rhythmicall y 'confusing ' passages , th e professor s al l arguin g amon g themselves i n ingeniou s doubl e canon s (mm . 319-29) an d helples s stuttering s (mm.335-46). A t m.30 8 Straus s write s int o hi s scor e abov e Till's them e i n th e violins lustig (merry , comical) , depictin g Til l laughin g heartil y a s th e learne d men—in th e 'bassoo n quintet ' no w doubled b y cellos an d basse s —in all earnestness conside r Till' s ludicrou s questions . Thi s passage , wit h it s conflictin g rhythms, take s a ver y steady , poise d conductoria l hand , whic h i t evidentl y doesn't ofte n get , judgin g by th e man y recording s i n whic h thi s passag e i s very shaky—as confuse d a s the bewildere d professor s it describes. Th e entir e episod e shows Straus s a t onc e a t hi s mos t darin g creativel y an d hi s mos t brillian t an d imaginative i n th e handlin g o f th e orchestra . Thi s make s thi s sectio n als o extremely difficul t t o perform , especiall y i f one i s intent o n realizin g ever y one o f the myria d detail s of the score . Th e tw o canonic episode s mentione d abov e ar e particularly difficult . A s the musica l example s (20 a an d 20b ) show , th e canon s are on e bea t apar t i n th e firs t instance , bu t onl y a n eight h apar t i n th e secon d instance. Thi s darin g rhythmic/metri c dislocatio n o f th e pedagogues ' them e — from t

o —goes beyon d wha t Brahm s wa s do -

Ex. 20 a

446

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

Ex. 20 b

ing i n thi s respec t i n hi s symphonies , an d presage s i n 189 5 wha t Charle s Ivé s was t o d o a decad e o r s o later , takin g thi s ide a o f metri c dislocatio n much , much further. One wonder s ho w musicians—an d conductor s —coped wit h thes e difficultie s in 1895 , fo r the y ar e stil l challengin g t o thi s day 16. Whil e mos t orchestra s ca n now dea l effectivel y wit h th e rhythmi c aspect s o f this section, for the mos t part , dynamics an d balance s remai n elusiv e an d unrealized , especiall y th e thre e su bito p's/pp's (mm.318, 335, and 358). On only a very few recordings—notably Blomstedt's, Kempe' s —are thes e dynami c differentiation s realized an d th e vari ous intricat e contrapunta l line s clarified . At m.344, Straus s again over-marked the timpan i an d bas s drum. I f they really play thei r indicate d ff, th e trombone s an d tuba—le t alon e th e lo w strings — might a s well g o home fo r al l they'r e goin g t o b e heard . Testimon y fo r this ca n be foun d o n innumerabl e recordings . (Hea r especiall y the ridiculousl y thunderous percussio n o n Mata' s an d Karajan' s recordings , makin g even th e trombone s in effec t inaudible. ) The nex t problemati c passag e occur s nea r th e en d o f the scen e (m.362) , i n which a n amazin g serie s of triadic harmonie s (Ex.21 ) leads t o th e clima x of th e scene. Becaus e eac h chor d i s set i n a differen t instrumentation , th e specific s of which canno t b e gleane d fro m a player' s individua l part (onl y from a score) , i t is not eas y to achieve a balance amon g th e discret e chords an d produc e a n over all musica l line . Tha t i s where th e conducto r ha s t o ste p i n and , b y rehearsin g and balancing , creat e a continuit y i n whic h al l th e instrument s involve d ar e properly heard , t o arbitrate , a s i t were , betwee n trombone s an d bassoons , o r trumpets an d clarinets , for example. In mos t recording s the trombone s an d per 16. Som e orchestra s an d conductor s stil l ha d trouble s wit h thes e rhythm s i n ou r ow n time , a s witness Steinberg' s 197 0 Bosto n Symphon y recording oí Till Eulenspiegel.

STRAUSS: TILL EULENSPIEGEL

447

Ex. 2 1

cussion ar e by far the loudest , th e lo w trumpets th e weakest , and th e woodwind s fend variousl y for themselves i n th e melee. Th e proble m o f balancing an d actu ally hearin g th e disparat e harmonie s i s mad e mor e difficul t b y th e spee d wit h which al l o f this i s happening: a lively tempo o f somewhere aroun d J . = 120 . I have foun d onl y a few recordings i n whic h thi s remarkabl y daring and inventiv e passage reflect s wha t Straus s actuall y wrote: Szell's , Solti's , Blomstedt' s (almost) , and Ormandy' s (however , at a sluggishl y slow tempo) . The scen e build s t o a ff-fff clima x with Till derisivel y taunting the perplexe d academics (fou r times ) , dent trille d chord ,

culminating i n a stri which Straus s called "di e gross e Grimasse" (th e

big grimace) : Till thumbin g hi s nos e a t the outrage d professors . Till now flits away (mm.371-74), dashing down the neares t alley and whistling a commo n popula r tune— a Gassenhauer, a s Strauss puts it . It i s amazing t o m e how many conductors ruin this delightfully witty scene by ignoring its most salient features: the accelerand o i n m.372, the p at m.375, and—even mor e important— the pp at m.378. The accelerand o depict s Till's quick escape, the pp his disappearance off into the distanc e — all perfectly realized on Fricsay' s recording. The musi c evaporates , a s i t were , befor e ou r ver y eye s an d ear s int o a shad owy, purposely tenuous passag e (Ex.22) as Till contemplate s hi s nex t move. Th e music i s fragmented , mad e u p o f distorte d bit s o f T¿//' s 'mockin g theme. ' Car e must b e take n t o distinguish clearl y in m.38 9 and m.39 3 between th e extremely short clarine t sixteenth s an d th e longe r full y sustaine d quarter-not e F' s —a dis tinction mad e o n almos t n o recordings . No r i s Strauss's tempo/character admo nition— schnell un d schattenhaft (fas t an d shadowy)—generall y respected , mos t conductors slowin g dow n t o a blan d adagio. Tal k abou t missin g th e 'spirit ' o f the music—a s wel l a s the 'letter' ! Wha t thes e conductor s als o completel y mis s is the ide a tha t thi s musi c i s already distended rhythmically—fro m th e previous eighth-notes t o three-times-as-slo w half-notes—an d therefor e doe s no t nee d an y further slowin g dow n o f th e tempo , an d tha t th e entir e 'shadowy ' episod e i s structurally a bridg e passag e t o wha t wil l eventuall y become th e recapitulatio n of Tz7/' s exposition . Th e poin t i s that th e poco rit. i n mm.408-40 9 shoul d lea d to, i.e . elid e into , th e etwas gemächlicher 17 o f m.410, no t ritar d beyond it , an d 17. Gemächlich, Strauss' s 'tempo ' markin g for th e Prologu e an d use d i n m.41 0 a s a n importan t tempo referenc e point , i s a virtuall y untranslatabl e wor d meanin g somethin g betwee n leisurely , comfortably, an d easy-going.

448

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Ex. 2 2

thereby causin g a kin d o f a tempo a t m.410 . No r shoul d th e basi c temp o prio r to m.41 0 b e s o slo w a s t o requir e a n a tempo there . Moreover , i f th e bridg e passage i s take n to o slow , th e ingeniousl y twisted , distorte d obo e phrase s (mm.403-409)

lose thei r wonderfu l grotesquerie , an d becom e instea d som e sweetl y romanti c solos tha t ar e quit e ou t o f place i n thi s scene . Last , these obo e solo s should no t be gemächlich (leisurely) , fo r the n the y anticipat e an d annu l th e effec t o f th e real, wonderfull y amiabl e gemächlich o f mm.410-28 . Strauss' s etwas gemächlicher i n fac t refer s b y inference t o bot h th e immediatel y precedin g sectio n an d to the temp o o f the work' s opening Prologue . In the first instance, etwas gemächlicher ( a littl e mor e leisurely ) clearly implies tha t th e previou s section mus t b e at a faste r tempo—w e shal l se e i n a momen t ho w muc h faster—an d i n th e second instanc e ha s th e clea r implicatio n tha t th e temp o a t m.41 0 shoul d in deed b e tha t o f the openin g Prologue . State d i n rhythmic notation , th e j . o f the m.410 6/ 8 equals the j o f the gemächlich Prologue . By an y accurate , respectfu l readin g o f th e scor e th e temp o i n mm.375-8 5 (the Gassenhauer tune ) shoul d b e quit e fast—fo r several reasons . I f w e assum e that the basi c 6/8 temp o for Till Eulenspiegel is anywhere betwee n j. = 100 and J . = 120 , the temp o rang e adopte d b y most conductors, the n —obviously— the three-ba r accelerand o mm.372-7 4 wil l pus h th e temp o u p t o a somewha t faster spee d level . At m.375 (2/4 ) Strauss says "leichtfertig j = j . de s 6/8" (frivo lous, 2/ 4 j = 6/ 8 J.). Thi s clearl y means tha t th e 2/ 4 tempo shal l equa l (vi a a J. t o j conversion ) th e temp o reache d a t th e en d o f m.374 . Thi s coul d b e anywhere betwee n J = 11 2 an d 132 . I f w e no w respec t Strauss' s schnell un d shattenhaft (m.393 ) —i.e. avoi d slowin g dow n —and observ e th e poco rit. i n m.408 (no t molto rit.), then w e hav e a temp o uni t relationshi p between m.40 9

STRAUSS: TILL EULENSPIEGEL

449

and m.41 0 of <— J = j . —» . I f the temp o a t m.375 were, for example, j = 13 2 — more o r less the practica l uppe r temp o limi t considering the fas t triple t figures in bassoon an d obo e —or, state d i n hal f notes , J = 66 , the n th e littl e poco rit. i n mm.408-409 might retar d the temp o effectivel y t o j. = 6 0 at m.410. Suc h a sequence o f tempos no t onl y fulfills al l the expectation s o f Strauss's score and nota tion, but has the furthe r virtu e of positioning us in exactly the righ t tempo t o allow for th e retur n o f the mai n hor n them e (m.429 ) t o be a replication o f its original appearance in the exposition—the recapitulation I mentioned earlier . There i s an excellen t wa y from a baton-technica l poin t o f view to achiev e al l of this , namely , t o conduc t m.37 5 throug h m.38 5 i n a fas t 'two ' (having , to b e sure, mad e th e previou s accelerando), g o int o 'one ' a t m.38 6 (maintainin g th e same speed , o f course) , tha t 'one ' convertin g (vi a th e littl e poco rit), int o th e 'two' o f the new , slightl y slowe r temp o a t m.410 . I n mathematical-metronomi c terms th e sequenc e woul d b e state d a s i n (Fig . 1).

Fig. 1 mm.386-407 J = 66

m.408 (rit. ) J = 66, rit. to J = 60

m.410 *-J = J.->

J. = 60

In mm.410-2 8 there ar e two aspects tha t requir e some specia l attention . On e is t o brin g ou t (o r at least no t allo w to b e under-played ) the lovel y cello count ermelody th

e othe r i s to achiev e a

dynamic an d articulativ e equilibriu m betwee n th e first clarinet an d th e tw o violin lines , se t i n canoni c imitatio n (se e Ex.23) . (Notic e th e cleve r recyclin g of

Ex. 2 3

Till's hor n them e (brackete d i n th e musica l example) , se t agains t Till's othe r main them e i n a gemächlich augmentatio n Th

e clarine t

has b y nature , eve n whe n playe d legato, a cleare r notc-by-not e articulation , while th e string s playe d legato ten d inherentl y t o b e muc h smoother . I believe if Straus s had pu t th e secon d an d first violin i n secon d clarine t and flut e respec tively, th e canoni c interpla y between th e thre e line s woul d b e automaticall y

450

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

clear. A s i t is , on e ha s t o admonis h th e violin s t o pla y wit h a certai n kin d o f left-hand articulatio n t o mak e th e intimat e relationshi p betwee n th e thre e line s explicitly clear . (Thes e correspondence s betwee n clarine t an d violin s becom e critical agai n a little late r i n mm.451-64. ) In th e short-live d pseudo-recapitulatio n (m.429) , al l th e points—dynamics , tempo—made earlie r regardin g Till's hor n them e ar e applicabl e again , includ ing, o f course, th e thir d hor n solo : Till's theme , no w i n th e ke y of D. 18 Horns continu e t o dominat e th e entir e nex t sectio n (mm.449-63 ) (se e Exx . 24a,b,c,d); an d whil e hor n player s hav e lon g ag o mastere d thes e 'solos ' techni -

Ex. 24 a Ex

. 24 b

Ex. 24 c Ex

. 24 d

cally19, i t is depressing to note tha t non e attemp t t o pla y the fou r passage s in th e correct rhythmic-metri c configuration ; nor evidentl y do any conductors insis t on any correc t rendering . I t i s as i f Strauss had writte n in m.449 . 18. A s an exampl e o f how traditions—no t necessaril y vali d traditions—ar e formed , I migh t cit e m y own recollection s fro m m y years as a young horn playe r in Ne w York . The Ne w Yor k Philharmonic' s horn sectio n al l throug h th e Mengelberg-Toscanini-Barbiroll i year s was dominate d b y a marvelou s horn player , Bruno Jaenicke : no t th e flashiest technician o n th e horn , bu t th e consummat e expres sive artis t o n th e instrument . Tw o brothers , relate d b y marriag e t o Jaenicke—Adol f an d Rober t Schulze (th e latte r m y teacher)—an d a n Italian , Luig i Ricci , complete d th e hor n section . Stylistically Ricci , originall y hire d b y Toscanini , di d no t fi t int o thi s otherwis e all-German-traine d hor n section, althoug h i t mus t b e sai d tha t Ricc i tried hi s bes t t o blen d tonall y and dynamicall y with hi s three hor n partners . Ricci, lik e man y Italia n horn player s of that era , ha d a fantasti c virtuoso tech nique, a n incredibl y fas t tongue , an d a flashy , pepper y styl e o f playin g that wa s reall y ligh t years removed fro m Jaenicke' s conception . Throughou t m y youn g year s I hear d Till Eulenspiegel, a bi g favorite i n th e Ne w Yor k Philharmoni c repertory , many , man y times ; an d fo r al l thos e year s Ricci played th e D hor n sol o (mm.436—42 ) faste r an d flashie r tha n i t had eve r bee n playe d before . Ricci became legendar y fo r hi s technica l prowess—h e neve r misse d a not e i n thi s sol o (o r i n an y other , for tha t matter)—an d single-handedl y set a tradition, at leas t in Ne w York , o f playing the thir d hor n solo i n Till a s a dazzlin g virtuoso display, a 'tradition ' whic h wa s followe d i n Ne w Yor k orchestra s for decades , an d whic h n o conducto r dare d t o oppose . Th e mora l o f this anecdote i s that a kind of exceptional technica l virtuosit y determine d th e interpretatio n o f the work , while th e wor k itself—it s character, it s musica l essence , it s for m an d continuity , it s stylisti c integrity—becam e interpreta tionally irrelevant , alas . 19. Nonetheless , i t i s surprising ho w man y third horn s mis s th e C i n m.450 , a s any num ber o f recordings will attest .

STRAUSS: TILL EULENSPIEGEL 45

1

In the secon d par t of the recapitulatio n (mm.465-84)— a recapitulatio n some what modifie d i n orchestratio n an d elongate d b y tw o measures—al l previou s comments an d suggestion s shoul d obviousl y apply again. One ca n quibbl e abou t missin g o r ignore d detail s i n th e accompanimen t t o the exuberant , triumphan t transformatio n (mm.485-500) of Till's hor n them e —details lik e the trumpe t fanfare s (no t audibl e o n th e vas t majorit y o f recordings ) an d some o f th e frolickin g woodwin d run s an d trills—but , i n general , thi s passag e is played reasonabl y well. I suggest , however , that ever y effort b e mad e t o brin g out th e tril l i n basse s an d lo w woodwind s i n m.499— a uniquel y Straussia n touch. In th e nex t sectio n (mm.500-573) , leadin g to Till's captur e an d arraignmen t by the authorities , many wonderful details are unfortunately ignored o r misinterpreted. T o begi n with , th e deliriousl y witt y trumpe t par t i n mm.500-50 8 (Ex . 25) i s rarely heard (bu t hea r i t splendidly on Fricsay' s an d Haitink' s recordings).

Ex. 2 5

Strauss lavishe s all o f his dazzlin g orchestrational skill s o n th e fina l climacti c section o f the work . It is masterful in conceptio n an d refinemen t o f detail: noth ing, no instrument , no motivi c idea , escape s Strauss' s attention an d imagination . Indeed, i t i s so ric h i n detai l tha t on e wonder s whethe r an y performanc e ca n ever d o ful l justic e to i t all . I shal l limi t mysel f to som e o f the mor e importan t and consistentl y ignore d o r misrendere d aspects. 20 I n m.51 6 throug h m.527 , 20. I rais e a questio n a s t o th e accurac y o f th e hig h F i n th e bassoo n i n m.514 . I hav e alway s m. 512 wondered i f this shouldn't hav e bee n a hig h C , as i n th e otherwis e absolutel y identica l sol o viol a part . Arguin g for th e hig h C i s th e fac t tha t i t makes a mor e logica l musica l line , an d tha t droppin g suddenl y down t o th e F make s a n awkward jump an d ver y poor 'voic e leading'; i t also better parallel s the viol a part. Arguing against the hig h C is th e fac t tha t i n m.51 4 th e lowes t 'bass ' not e i s tha t ver y same F .

I t i s possibl e tha t

Strauss wante d t o sustai n tha t F , otherwis e represente d i n onl y tw o tin y eighth-note s i n th e tutt i violas. Moreover , the bassoon' s F wa s perhap s considere d b y Straus s a dominan t resolvin g t o th e upcoming (temporary ) tonic o f B t majo r (m.516 )

452

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

in virtuall y all recorde d performances , al l on e ca n reall y hea r ar e th e flute s and th e horns , an d nar y a soun d fro m th e all-importan t 'horn ' mai n them e in th e oboe s an d violins . It is typical of the genera l proble m jus t mentioned, namely , tha t Strauss' s fertile imaginatio n creates a n abundanc e o f polythematic layers , all o f which ofte n have equal statu s and mus t therefore be correctl y balanced an d integrated . This takes a very sharp, caring, an d constantl y monitoring conductoria l ear . I n thi s particular passage all three themati c layer s are marke d eithe r p grazioso (flutes) , o r p p (horns , oboes , violins) an d th e remainin g accompanyin g instrument s (trumpet , violas , etc.). I n nine ou t o f te n performances , however , th e flute s play—an d ar e allowe d t o play—mf, th e hor n somewher e aroun d mp, an d th e poo r oboes , oddl y enoug h playing a rea l pp , reced e int o th e distance. 21 Flutists , b y the way , do no t hel p matters when the y rus h throug h thei r themati c figure s or , in thei r anxiety to ge t al l th e

notes in , ente r on e eight h early , i.e. o n th e downbea t (a s can b e hear d o n innu merable recordings : Toscanini's , Maazel's , Mata's , Steinberg's , Paternostro's , among others) . Hor n player s sometime s als o d o no t pla y Till's them e correctly , adding t o th e rhythmi c confusion . Fo r example , o n Mackerras' s recordin g with the Londo n Philharmonic , th e first horn ingeniousl y converts Strauss's in m.52 0 int o hi s own persona l version: which

, i f an y compose r actu -

j ally wrot e suc h a thin g an d aske d a playe r t o rende r i t accurately, woul d imme diately elici t a stor m o f wrath an d grumblin g disdain. Problems o f thi s sor t aboun d i n thi s climacti c sectio n o f Till. Ther e ar e fa r too man y t o enumerat e here , bu t som e o f th e mor e salien t dereliction s ar e worth mentioning , t o serv e a s examples . Th e fp's i n mm.532-38 , followe d b y crescendos t o ff, ar e ignore d o n al l bu t on e recording : Kempe's . O n al l other s one get s a t bes t a kind o f grudging f - mf 01 an accente d f . No r ca n on e rel y o n the uppe r string s to make the diminuendo s i n their parts in mm.532-39, diminu For a n interestin g paralle l case , wher e Straus s allow s th e ascendin g lin e t o ris e t o it s expecte d high point , se e ram.169-7 1 i n th e viola s an d Englis h horn :

21. Ther e ar e als o many recordings on whic h the whol e orchestr a her e simpl y plays loudly—m f or /"—notably Bernstein's , Karajan's, an d Solti's .

STRAUSS: TILL EULENSPIEGEL

453

endos o f grea t importanc e sinc e the y g o simultaneousl y agains t th e risin g crescendos i n th e lowe r strings , woodwinds , an d horns . A s a resul t o f suc h care lessness in th e dynamics , the fantasti c high woodwin d figurations are all but los t in th e shuffle . Ver y fe w conductor s an d orchestra s mak e th e crucia l dynami c differentiations i n mm.544-4 8 between fff, ff, an d f . Again , only Kempe, Dorati , Reiner, an d Haitin k rende r thes e correctly , whil e Blomstedt , Marriner , Masur , Karajan, Maazel , fo r example, d o not . One o f th e mos t miraculousl y inventiv e passage s i n al l o f lat e 19th-centur y music i s the climacti c sectio n mm.558-65 , a chai n o f forty-tw o contrapuntall y organized, wildl y divergen t chords , playe d b y th e entir e orchestra . Thi s mos t extraordinary harmoni c tou r d e forc e is , however, rarely—i f ever—don e ful l jus tice, mos t ofte n becaus e th e timpani , enterin g i n m . 560, marke d f f an d playin g thirty-five reiterate d D's—note s whic h fo r th e mos t par t d o no t fi t int o an y o f the chords—simpl y obliterate s th e res t o f th e orchestra . Nothin g o f th e won drous harmoni c progressio n is then heard . Tw o things nee d t o be don e i n orde r for thi s extraordinary passage to b e performe d a s originally conceived b y Strauss. First, th e timpan i need s t o b e marke d dow n t o a t least mf, particularl y with th e hard woode n mallet s tha t Straus s calls fo r (fo r rhythmic clarity) . Second , all th e accented themati c notes—variant s o f Till's 'mockin g theme ' (se e Ex.26a ) —

Ex. 26 a

should b e brough t ou t ff , whil e al l othe r non-themati c note s nee d t o b e playe d substantially softer , i n orde r fo r th e mai n lin e o f canonic-motivi c interpla y (Ex.26b) to become aurally clear. I would als o suggest that the conducto r ha s the orchestra pla y through th e entir e passag e i n slo w motio n s o tha t everyon e ca n hear an d savor—eve n tun e an d balance—thi s mos t remarkabl e chor d progres sion.22 It is then al l the mor e excitin g when thi s tonally completely unanchored , almost cacaphonous , musi c i s released int o a pure , brillian t D majo r (m.567) . Among th e bette r realization s of this entir e passag e is Toscanini's, wh o take s th e timpani wa y down, an d Blomstedt's , Reiner's , Fricsay's , Sawallisch' s and Henr y Lewis's. B y comparison , Barenboim's , Solti's , an d Maazel' s 'readings ' o f thi s 22. I hav e don e thi s wit h grea t succes s wit h a numbe r o f orchestras , whe n even th e mos t blas é o f musicians hav e bee n amaze d a t what the y ar e hearin g fo r the first time. I n truth , rattle d throug h a t full speed , especiall y with a cannonadin g timpani, even th e bes t an d mos t intereste d musicia n cannot possibl y hear what Straus s ha s wrough t here. I t i s a pleasure to repor t that, once playe d through very slowl y chor d b y chord , th e passag e make s mor e sens e t o a n orchestr a and, whe n the n playe d at ful l tempo , attain s a harmoni c clarity tha t i s startling and otherwis e unachievable .

454

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Ex. 26 b

passage ar e amon g th e worst : no t onl y raucousl y lou d an d insensitiv e t o th e harmonies, bu t (i n th e cas e o f the latte r two ) almos t fallin g apar t rhythmically (in mm.563-65)— a rea l mess! There follow s th e famou s scene o f Till's being apprehende d an d sentence d t o be hange d o n th e gallows , replet e wit h th e tribunal' s judgment s i n heav y F minor chord s an d th e executioner' s muffle d drums . I a m oppose d t o th e long standing traditio n o f adoptin g a slowe r tempo a t m . 5 77—for a numbe r o f rea sons. Again , th e compose r ha s alread y considerably slowe d dow n th e momen tum o f th e music—fro m th e fas t eighth-note s o f th e previou s sectio n t o heav y dotted half-notes . Second , th e fermata s i n mm.581,58 9 an d th e fermata-lik e elongated chord s i n mm . 596-97,600-601 ar e portentou s an d threatenin g enough s o that furthe r temp o deviation s ar e quit e unnecessary . Third , Straus s calls fo r a n etwas breiter ( a littl e broader ) a t m.602 , a clea r indicatio n tha t th e preceding sectio n shoul d no t b e playe d a t a broade r tempo . I a m als o vehe mently oppose d t o th e 'chea p trick ' o f inserting a subito p a t m.602 , a s one ca n hear, fo r example, o n Blomstedt' s recording. 23 One o f th e wors t instrumenta l abuses , eithe r tolerate d o r aide d an d abette d 23. Blomstedt' s Till recordin g is actually, al l i n all , on e o f the best , on e o f the mos t intelligen t an d notation-respectful, wel l playe d an d beautifull y recorded . Bu t i t i s als o a bi t humorles s an d rarel y captures th e Capriccio characte r of the piece .

STRAUSS: TILL EULENSPIEGEL 45

5

by countles s conductors , i s th e trombones ' an d tuba' s bad , laz y habi t i n th e entire 'judgment ' episod e (mm.577-603 ) of dropping thei r sustaine d dotte d half (drohend) Th e wor d drohend mean s

notes: .

threatening, ominous , an d i t ough t t o b e self-eviden t that th e mor e firml y sus tained thes e 'judges ' pronouncements' ar e intoned, th e mor e effective , th e mor e dramatic thei r musica l impact . Ther e i s simply n o excus e o r reaso n fo r playing (on Munch's , Reiner's , Masur's , Sawallisch's , Lewis's recordings) o r ¡ (a

s o n Slatkin's , Solti's , Ormandy's ) o r

(as on Karajan's , Krauss's , and thos e o f many others). A descendin g sevent h i

n lo w bras s and woodwind s signals

Till's deat h sentence . H e i s hoisted u p o n th e gallow s (m.615), dangling i n mid-ai r a s hi s las t shuddering breath (in the flute) escapes him. Strauss's graphi c depictio n know s n o bounds . Th e grisl y 'gallows ' chord , firs t

heard i n squealin g hig h woodwind s (m.618 ) (incidentall y th e sam e chord tha t i s par t o f Tiff s El > clarine t theme—se e Exx.4a, b —except inverted) , then, afte r Till' s bod y i s brought down , thre e octave s lowe r i n lo w woodwinds and mute d horn s ,

is resolved to F majo r a s Till expires . These two horn

chords (mm.623-24 ) ar

e no t eas y to tune an d balance , espe -

cially a s they ar e muted . Th e F chord , moreover , i s not se t i n th e usua l man ner bu

t i n a n od d voicin g ,

emphasizing th e thir d o f the chord ,

the lowe r A , in a n unusuall y lo w position, an d i s practically inaudibl e o n mos t recordings. The Epilogu e (m.632) , all of it in sof t orchestra l colors, is an expande d variant of the Prologue , on e o f Strauss's most gentl y lyrical creations . It speaks clearly of the affectio n w e have for Till despit e his roguishness—o r perhap s because of it: a kind of German Robi n Hood. In performance it should have the feeling of reminis-

456

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

cence, of a fond farewell and a poignant memory . Th e Epilogue' s temp o markin g Doppelt s o langsam (twic e a s slow) is very important , servin g as an unequivoca l reminder o f what th e relationshi p betwee n th e basi c lebhaft (allegro)—the mai n 6/8-2/4 bod y o f the piece—an d th e Prologue/Epilogu e i s to be. 24 Sinc e Straus s does no t us e metronom e marking s i n Till Eulenspiegel, nowher e doe s h e tel l u s anything precise and specific about what tempo—w e have to divine that fro m th e Prologue's gemächlich, applie d t o the 4/8 meter. Bu t the temp o conversio n at m.6 and the "twice as slow" indication at m.632 tell us at least—and unequivocally so— that whateve r tempo w e do commit ourselve s to at the beginning , i t should deter mine th e lebhaft temp o a s well, i.e. twice as fast as the Prologue . Th e poin t i s that Strauss's Volles Zeitmass (sehr lebhaft) i n m. 1325 is not a precise tempo indication . We only find out nea r the en d of Till, a t the Epilogue , tha t it means twice as fast as the Prologue tempo . Several small , typicall y Straussian details i n th e Epilogu e ar e ofte n neglecte d or misinterpreted . For example, th e singl e triangle note i n m.644—suc h a splen did touc h —is inaudibl e o n numerou s recordings . I n mm.645-4 6 Straus s plays around wit h Till's 'hor n theme , now i n a 2/ 4 context i n subtl y differen t variants. As Ex.2 7 shows , th e fina l tw o note s o f th e motiv e ar e rhythmicall y on e

Ex. 2 7

sixteenth apart . Strauss' s cautionar y = = - i n th e horn s is , unfortunately , rarely observed —it i s har d (bu t no t impossible ) t o mak e a diminuend o int o a hig h note o n th e horn—an d thus , o n mos t recordings , whil e th e clarinet s maintai n their p o r eve n diminuend o int o thei r las t note , th e subtl e rhythmi c pla y be tween th e tw o pairs of instruments i s generally lost : one hear s almost onl y horns . How this shoul d an d ca n soun d ca n b e beautifull y heard o n Kempe' s recording . The sublim e diminuend o int o m.64 0

is bes t

achieved an d enhance d i n th e first violins by staying on th e A string. I am oppose d t o the bi g ritardando that mos t conductor s mak e i n mm.647-48, as i f Strauss's diminuend o wer e no t enough . Th e delicat e suspende d surpris e AI» chord

— just befor e th e rowdy , boisterous fina l eight-ba r coda—i s muc h

24. Toscanin i evidently did no t understan d this relationship. Although his program note write r refers to the identit y of tempi betwee n Epilogu e and Prologu e an d claim s that Toscanini observes this, th e Maestro i n fac t doe s not , takin g an inordinatel y slow tempo i n th e Epilogue . 25. Ful l temp o (ver y lively )

STRAUSS: TILL EULENSPIEGEL

457

more o f a surpris e when i t is not prepare d fo r o r hinte d a t b y an obviou s ritard; it should com e ou t o f nowhere. The other—an d final—vulgaris m visite d upo n Till Eulenspiegel, perpetrate d by man y conductors , i s a i n mm.653-54— a rea l corn y 'Holly wood sho w business ' effect . Hea r it , fo r instance , o n Marriner' s recording . Strauss ha s mad e Till's sneerin g chor d i

n it s fina l appearanc e mor e

interesting b y way of instrumentation: th e trombone s an d tub a dro p ou t i n th e middle o f th e measure , th e secon d hor n quarte t a t th e en d o f th e measur e (Ex.28). Bu t thi s mean s tha t th e remainin g instrument s mus t maintai n thei r ff

Ex. 2 8

at ful l strength . I t als o mean s tha t th e instrument s tha t dro p ou t mus t d o s o accurately an d audibly , i.e . n o diminuend o fading . I n an y case , th e corn y ffp effect i s completely ou t o f place . Why an y conducto r woul d distor t an d re-compos e Strauss' s 6/ 8 rhythm s i n the las t fou r measure s o f th e piec e —or allo w the m t o b e distorte d —is beyon d my comprehension . O n quit e a fe w recordings , mos t shamefull y Karajan' s an d Stock's, th e music , writte n b y Straus s (Ex.29a) , i s re-composed (Ex.29b) . Unbe lievable!

Ex. 29 a Ex

. 29 b

Even i n thi s relativel y exhaustive perusa l o f Till Eulenspiegel an d it s performance/recording history , I hav e bee n abl e t o touc h upo n onl y th e mos t seriou s interpretive problem s an d abuses . Give n th e extraordinar y fertility o f Strauss' s musical imaginatio n an d inventiveness , ther e i s a wealt h o f othe r detai l tha t might b e discussed . Bu t eve n thes e brie f deliberation s ma y giv e a mil d ide a o f not onl y ho w man y hundred s o f musica l detail s a performance , a recording , should hav e t o address , but als o ho w fa r mos t performance s stray fro m th e in tended path , fro m th e notate d score .

This page intentionally left blank

Ravel: Daphni s e t Chlo é Second Suite

It is hard to name a composer wh o was more meticulou s an d detaile d i n his musical notatio n tha n Mauric e Ravel . Debussy , Stravinsky , Prokofiev , Scriabin , Schönberg, Berg , and (especially) Webern are possible contenders, but I doubt that they surpasse d Rave l in th e exactitud e wit h which h e normall y finalized and re fined his scores. The increasin g complexity of music in the first decade of the 20t h century—in the Frenc h school th e subtle use of varied timbrai mixtures , of multiple divis i i n the strings , in the Viennes e schoo l th e dramaticall y increased us e of polyphony, a more fragmented continuity combine d wit h a more instrumentall y individualized chamber music approach, i n the Russia n school th e greater us e of massive harmoni c an d rhythmi c structures , carefully differentiated orchestral/registral layerings—al l thi s virtually compelled composer s t o scripturall y 'fix' thei r musical conceptio n more completel y an d precisel y than had eve r been necessary earlier. Composers suc h a s Bach, Mozart, Beethoven—eve n Liszt and Wagner— could rely on a high leve l of established performing traditions, in which their nota tion stoo d fo r a great deal mor e tha n actuall y appeared o n th e printe d page . Bu t with th e eve r mor e rapidl y developing advance s i n musica l conception s an d th e emergence o f highly differentiated nationalis t styles, stylistic awareness on the par t of orchestra l musician s (an d conductors ) coul d n o longe r b e take n fo r granted . Composers, virtuall y in self-defense, resorted to ever greater precision of notation , hoping t o pin dow n as many minutiae an d detail s of composition a s notation per mitted. Ravel' s Daphnis e t Chloé i s a remarkable exampl e o f such notationa l raffinement an d precision , severa l majo r scriptura l discrepancie s no t withstandin g (more on these later). And yet, considering that the Secon d Suit e from Ravel's ballet i s one o f the mos t popular an d mos t performe d earl y 20th-century scores , i t is staggering to discover that it is rarely played correctly, rarely played as it was written, to o ofte n performe d in considerabl e disregard of the hundred s o f details of instrumentation, dynamics, tempo relationship s Ravel lavished on this, one o f his most brilliant, perfectly realize d creations. 459

460 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

As jus t mentioned , th e Secon d Suit e score , a s printed b y Duran d i n 1913 , i s not withou t error s an d misprints . Som e ar e quit e serious , suc h a s th e wron g metronome indicatio n a t m.10 6 (i t should hav e rea d J > = 66) ; o r th e inten t o f Ravel's retenez i n m.77 . Les s serious , becaus e Ravel' s intention s ca n b e readil y deduced fro m th e prevailin g context, ar e th e missin g dynamic s i n th e string s at m.60 an d i n th e lowe r string s i n m.76 , i n th e pizzicat o string s i n m.124 ; th e missing p p dynamic s i n horns , alt o flute , an d har p a t m.20 , an d numerou s oth ers o f the sam e sort . To reconcile an d clarif y suc h notationa l omission s and ambiguities , th e musi cologist an d conscientiou s conducto r normall y turn to the composer' s autograp h or, alternatively , whe n suc h doe s no t exist , t o a pian o reduction , usuall y pub lished a shor t tim e afte r th e initia l ful l scor e edition . B y an ironi c twis t o f fat e neither o f these sources i s of much hel p in th e cas e of Daphnis e t Chloé. Ravel's autograph l turn s ou t t o no t onl y contai n almos t al l th e sam e error s as the Du rand score , bu t i s ful l o f omission s and discrepancie s whic h were late r rectified in th e printe d Duran d score . Viewin g th e autograph , a s I have , tw o thing s be come clear : th e scor e show s sign s o f grea t haste , a fac t confirme d b y wha t w e know abou t th e circumstance s durin g th e fina l month s befor e Diaghilev' s Bal lets Russe s premier e i n 1912 . Thi s presumabl y migh t explai n th e surprisin g number o f error s an d omissions . Fo r example , muc h o f th e percussio n part s is entirely missin g i n th e autograph , evidentl y intende d t o b e fille d i n a t a late r stage i n th e proces s o f producing th e parts , editing an d printin g th e score . (Th e percussion part s ar e remarkabl y detaile d an d near-perfectl y represente d i n th e Durand score. ) Second, i t i s clea r fro m th e autograp h manuscrip t tha t i t wa s use d b y th e editor an d engrave r a s the basi s for the engravin g of the publishe d score , sinc e every pag e contain s indication s superimpose d i n anothe r han d i n re d penci l o f how man y staves would b e require d fo r each printe d scor e page . This mean s i n turn, a t least conjecturally , tha t eithe r anothe r mor e complet e scor e b y Rave l existed an d wa s used supplementaril y t o arriv e at th e fina l engraving , o r Rave l himself complete d an d refine d th e engrave d scor e i n th e proces s o f proofreading. Bu t thi s i s truly conjectura l o n m y par t since , despit e year s o f researc h i n this matter , I have bee n unabl e t o fin d an y evidenc e tha t suc h a supplementar y score eve r existed , o r an y absolut e evidenc e tha t Rave l actuall y proofrea d th e engraved score . That is , however, a reasonabl e an d generall y accepte d assump tion. As fo r th e pian o reductio n o f Daphnis e t Chloé, mad e b y Rave l himself an d published i n a n unusua l turnabou t i n 1910 , nearl y tw o year s befor e th e pre miere an d thre e year s before th e publicatio n o f the ful l score , i t contain s man y of th e sam e error s an d indee d ha s a fe w o f it s own, no t i n th e orchestra l scor e (see, fo r example, th e andante temp o markin g a t the first entrance o f the Danse générale music , p.9 2 o f the pian o score). 1. Ravel' s Daphnis e t Chloé autograp h i s locate d i n th e Harr y Ranso m Librar y an d Humanitie s Research Cente r o f th e Universit y o f Texa s i n Austin , havin g bee n sol d som e year s ag o t o tha t insitution b y Durand, Ravel' s publisher.

RAVEL: DAPHNIS E T CHLOÉ SECON D SUIT E 46

1

As a resul t w e ar e lef t wit h a conductor' s scor e whic h fo r th e mos t par t i s remarkably detaile d and precise , but whic h a t the sam e time contain s a numbe r of irresolvabl e discrepancie s an d ambiguities , regardin g which n o on e ca n sa y with absolut e certaint y wha t Ravel' s intention s ma y hav e been. 2 (W e shall dea l with thes e question s a t th e appropriat e momen t i n ou r analyti c perusa l o f th e score.) Thi s als o leave s u s wit h th e myster y o f how , b y wha t process , b y whos e hand, th e printe d scor e becam e a much mor e complet e an d detaile d realization of Ravel's work than hi s ow n autograp h score . Measure 1 (rehearsal numbe r 155 ) show s a temp o markin g o f lent J = 50 . This metronomizatio n turn s ou t t o be , upo n close r scrutin y o f th e score , o f crucial relevanc e sinc e man y othe r tempo s i n th e Secon d Suit e are , eithe r explicitly o r implicitly , mathematically relate d t o thi s openin g tempo , a fac t mos t conductors ar e seemingl y unawar e of . I n th e hand s o f man y conductor s an d orchestras, Ravel's Daphnis e t Chloé Secon d Suit e ha s become primaril y a virtuoso showpiece , i n whic h supe r fas t tempo s ar e see n a s a sure-fir e mean s o f 'knocking th e audienc e out ' an d gainin g thei r thunderou s ovation s an d screamed bravos. Although th e famou s Danse générale i s mos t conductors ' favorit e par t fo r pushing th e temp o t o th e edg e o f th e impossible , th e tranqui l openin g o f th e Suite i s n o les s immun e t o temp o distortions . Mos t conductor s ignor e Ravel' s J = 5 0 and, a s Fig. l shows , th e gamu t o f tempos range s al l th e wa y from a n immobilizing, desultor y J = 3 6 (Dervaux ) an d a to o deliberate , to o slow J = 4 2 (Munc h an d Mengelberg ) t o a nervousl y driven J = 6 2 (Thoma s an d

Fig. 1 j = 3 6 Dervau x J = 42 Munch , Mengelberg , Muti , Mehta , Barbirolli , Levi J = 44 Haitink , Casadesus, Barenboim , Martine n (Chicago) , Slatki n J = 46 Toscanini , Ansermet , Commissiona , Previn , Boulez , Schwarz , Gaubert , Nagano, Nowak , Rattle J = 48 Abbad o (LSO) , Skrowaczewski , Dohnanyi, Paray , Ozawa, Sinopoli , Mata, Inbal, Jansons , Levi J = 50 Solti , Dutoit , Rosenthal , d e Burgos , Slatkin, Ormand y J = 5 2 Mackerras , Tortelier J= 54 Kondrashin , Levine, Abbado (BSO ) J= 5 6 Bernstein , Monteux, Stokowsk i (1970), Koussevitsky (1944), Karaja n J = 60 Maaze l J = 62 Koussevitzk y (1928) , Thomas 2. I t i s unfortunate tha t th e severa l errat a list s published i n th e Conductors Guild Newsletter—Vol. 6, No.4 (1985) , Vol. 7, No. l (1986) , Vol. 11 , Nos . 1 & 2 (1990)-although dealin g with a n immens e amount o f valuable notational detai l an d minutia e (includin g wrong pitches) , fail eve n t o allud e to , let alon e resolve , some o f th e major question s an d ambiguitie s referre d t o above . Th e same , alas , needs t o b e sai d abou t th e newl y publishe d scor e b y Clin t Niewig .

462

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Koussevitzky (1928)) . Th e livelie r tempo, apar t fro m bein g disrespectfu l of Ravel's conception , tend s to mak e th e flut e an d clarine t passag e wor k in th e open ing measures sound lik e virtuoso exercises, rather than th e evocatio n o f the quie t beauty o f earl y dawn an d th e gentl e murmurin g rustlin g sound s o f nature . Ra vel's score read s "Aucun brui t qu e le murmure de s ruisselets amassés par la rosé e qui coul e de s roches " (N o soun d bu t th e murmu r o f rivulet s o f de w flowin g down ove r the rocks. ) In m. 2 w e encounte r th e first relatively serious performance problem . Ther e seems alway s to b e considerabl e confusio n a s to wha t note s th e violas ' an d cel los' harmonic s ar e t o produce , eve n thoug h th e scor e i s quit e clea r o n thi s point.3 Second , o n almos t al l recording s thes e viol a an d cell o harmonic s ar e t o all intent s an d purpose s inaudible ; an d third , almos t n o conducto r seem s t o realize tha t th e horn s (muted ) ar e t o blen d an d balanc e wit h thos e strin g har monics. O n onl y a ver y fe w recording s (Mackerras , Karajan , Skrowaczewski , Abbado) ca n som e o f th e viol a an d cell o harmonic s b e hear d a t all , an d the n not reall y blended wit h th e mute d horns . There ar e fou r note s i n th e violas , soundin g al produces produce

s produce

l i n harmonics , s

, an d produce s (Al l these harmonic s ar e produce d on th e C string) . The lowe r staf f i s often interprete d (an d i s so rendered i n th e printed viol a part ) a s whic h woul d produc e Thi s i s defi 4 nitely wrong, bu t i s wha t on e hear s clearl y o n th e recordin g b y Dutoit , a French-speaking conducto r wh o should reall y know better. Why? Becaus e Ravel clarifies th e potentia l ambiguit y by writing 2nds abov e th e C an d 1r s below th e G, verifyin g tha t ther e ar e tw o note s her e (no t one ) an d tha t th e c 1 , thoug h written abov e th e G , i s to b e playe d b y the "seconds " o n thi s staff , actuall y th e fourth par t i n a tota l four-par t divisi. Havin g n o stem s availabl e in whol e notes , this wa s the onl y wa y Rave l coul d indicat e whic h viol a play s wha t note . Thi s disposition o f th e fou r part s i s furthe r confirme d i n m.6 , where—becaus e th e meter i s 3/4 , thu s allowin g fo r not e stems—th e matte r i s unequivocall y clear . But mor e important , i n furthe r answe r t o th e questio n why , i t i s becaus e th e four pitche s i n th e viola , alon g wit h th e tw o harmonic s i n th e cello s an d thre e pitches i n muted horns , combin e to make th e followin g beautifully voiced nine part chor d Th

e cell o note s ar e soundin

g

3. Th e confusio n i s compounded b y th e fac t tha t th e printe d part s do no t correspon d to th e score , leaving th e concerned , inquisitiv e violis t i n eve n mor e o f a quandary. 4. Tha t al l thi s wa s misunderstoo d b y th e origina l editor/engrave r i s clea r fro m th e "e n 3 " i n th e viola an d cell o parts in m.2 , no t i n Ravel' s autograph score.

RAVEL: DAPHNIS E T CHLOÉ SECON D SUIT E 46

sounding bot

3

h playe d o n th e C string . (Not e th e

respective 1r s and 2d s indication s again. ) Th e horn s hav e thre e note s pitches whic h coul d no t b e produce d a s easil y i n strin g harmonics . Th e fac t that th e tw o to p note s o f th e strin g chor d ar e i s confirme d b y th e presence o f these sam e pitche s i n the clarinets ' top notes , i.e . th e first pitches i n each 12-not e gruppetto. This understandin g o f m.2 shoul d mak e conductor s (an d players ) realize tha t the violas , cellos, and horn s shoul d blend int o a single balanced nine-par t chord. This i s rarel y th e case , an d usuall y lef t t o chanc e b y mos t conductors , mos t being unawar e ther e i s even a problem . Usuall y the horns , bu t particularl y th e first horn, overbalanc e th e viola s an d cellos . I t woul d see m obviou s tha t strin g harmonics, havin g a basicall y soft 'muted ' veiled sound , hav e t o b e dynamically adjusted. Ravel , lik e mos t composers , her e indicate s th e resultan t an d desire d dynamic level: pp. I t is likely—disregarding for the momen t such othe r variables as acoustics, th e siz e and strengt h o f the viol a section, th e skil l o f the player s in playing harmonics , th e qualit y o f thei r instrument s i n producin g harmonic s clearly, and , finally, the differen t dynami c level s a t which th e fou r differen t har monics i n th e viola s respond—tha t eac h violis t will hav e t o pla y p o r mp rathe r than pp . Bu t this i s also subject to another variable , namely, the typ e and quality of horn mute s use d an d th e hor n players ' abilit y to produce a n evenl y balance d three-part p p chord . I t shoul d als o b e obviou s tha t th e harmonic s i n mm.2- 6 should b e playe d withou t mutes , which , alas , i s made ambiguou s o r confusing by th e indicatio n t o remov e mute s i n m. 7 an d m.8 , a n indicatio n which , how ever, i s valid onl y i n th e contex t o f the entir e ballet . I strongl y suggest tha t th e violas an d first and secon d cello s pla y without mute s fro m th e beginnin g o f th e Suite. I n an y case , th e fina l resul t shoul d b e tha t th e clarinet s an d viola/cello / horn ensembl e matc h eac h other , al l i n pp ! Exampl e 1 clarifie s ho w th e har monics i n m. 2 procee d t o the nex t measure . On onl y a fe w recording s (Mackerras , Skrowaczewski , Ansermet, Stokowski , Kondrashin, Tortelier , Abbado , Levine ) ca n som e o f these harmonic s b e hear d at al l (usuall y jus t th e viol a G) , an d the n no t reall y blende d wit h th e mute d horns. O n onl y on e recordin g ar e al l fou r viol a notes audible : Karajan's . One fina l point : thes e delicat e harmonic s ar e har d enoug h t o brin g out , even whe n no t muted , an d eve n whe n th e res t o f the orchestr a play s really pp (as prescribe d b y Ravel) . Bu t th e harmonic s hav e n o chanc e o f bein g hear d when th e flutes , clarinets , an d harp s pla y to o loud , a s the y d o i n s o man y re cordings, fo r example , Bernstein's , Mata's , Maazel's , Slatkin's , Kondrachin's , even Toscanini's . A s mentioned , i n Dutoit' s recordin g th e viola s don' t eve n play the right notes, a clearly audible high G was not intended by Ravel. From th e foregoin g i t seem s logica l tha t th e cello s i n th e firs t seve n bar s should als o b e divide d into fou r parts : thir d an d fourt h fo r

464 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

in uniso n (wit h basse s a n octav e lower) , an d firs t an d second a s indicated i n Ex.1 .

Ex. 1

It i s distressin g t o hea r o n th e majorit y o f recording s th e lowe r cello s an d basses draggin g thei r eighth-not e triplet s (i n mm . 1—7). As a result , a t th e down beats o f eac h measure , th e woodwinds , in ful l flo w an d unabl e t o wai t fo r th e low string s —nor shoul d the y hav e t o —are ahea d o f the latter , causin g consider able ensembl e an d harmoni c disarray , as on e ca n hear , fo r example , o n Kara jan's, Abbado's , Solti's , Schwarz's , Mackerras's , Rattle's , Nagano's , an d Janson' s recordings. Eve n wors e ar e th e performance s by Dervaux—wh o actuall y slow s up a t th e en d o f eac h measure—an d Muti , wit h who m th e cello s an d basse s play th e triple t eighth s i n th e spee d o f regula r eighths , forcin g th e flute s an d clarinets t o loite r uncomfortabl y on their las t three o r fou r thirty-second-notes . The openin g o f the Secon d Suit e is , of course, no t onl y abou t correc t temp o and th e prope r realizatio n o f the viola' s and cello' s harmonics . I t i s in fac t on e of th e mos t ravishingl y beautiful an d evocativ e moment s i n al l music , an d I dare sa y nothing lik e i t had eve r appeare d i n musi c before . I t i s all shimmerin g colors and atmosphere . I t seems to m e almos t fail-safe i n it s extraordinarily imaginative orchestration . Eve n so , no t ever y conducto r manage s t o captur e th e magic o f thi s opening . Toscanin i allow s th e flut e an d clarine t 'rivulets ' soun d like a technica l exercise , rathe r 'strangling ' th e music , whil e Bernstein' s musi cians pla y wit h a n exhibitionisti c virtuos o mf (rathe r tha n Ravel' s delicat e pp), thereby makin g any magi c o r atmospher e quit e impossible . In man y recordings the flutes ' an d clarinets ' figures are poorl y coordinated. In Ozawa's , fo r example,

RAVEL: DAPHNIS E T CHLOÉ SECON D SUIT E 46

5

the flutes are both untogethe r rhythmicall y and slowe r than th e clarinet s in m.2. In Rosenthal' s an d Kondrashin' s recordings , the clarinet s are substantially louder than th e flutes , playin g als o wit h a n edgy , brittl e sound , quit e inappropriat e for this passage . Conductors wh o manag e thi s openin g beautifull y ar e Boulez , Haitink, Skrowaczewski , and Previn . The nex t proble m arise s a t m.8 . Almost al l conductor s allo w thi s measur e t o sound p or mp, rathe r than pp . Granted , th e horn s are no w open, and th e 1 . an d 2. bassoon part s are har d t o play really pp. Som e conductor s eve n encourag e th e first bassoo n an d firs t basse s t o 'pla y out / a s i f i t wer e a n importan t 'solo . However, thi s al l goe s agains t Ravel' s intention s o f havin g th e themati c mate rial ente

r unobtrusivel y out o f the mist y sonorities of th e

first seven measure s o f the introduction , eventuall y rising to th e first f clima x (at m.15). Thus , m. 8 represent s a momen t o f elision , no t a n obviou s interruptio n by the mai n theme . In m.9 , car e mus t b e take n tha t th e thre e sol o violin s balance int o three-par t chords. On e ofte n hear s onl y th e to p violin . Moreover , thi s wonderfu l bi t o f Ravelian onomatopoeia , evokin g the first tentative bir d calls at dawn—th e scor e says "O n perçoi t de s chant s d'oiseaux"—se t i n thre e sol o violins , piccolo, an d flute, doe s no t alway s com e of f so well i n performance s an d recordings , mainl y through lac k of attention o n th e par t of conductors. As any numbe r o f recordings attest, som e part s o f thi s passag e ar e usuall y inaudible , b e i t th e violi n trill s i n m.ll an d m.14 , th e piccol o i n mm.12 , 15 , and 16 , or th e violi n harmonic s i n m.12. Th e proble m i s tha t mos t conductor s ar e unabl e o r unwillin g t o kee p Ravel's ver y gradua l crescend o i n mm.8-1 4 fro m peakin g to o early , thereb y drowning ou t th e 'bir d calls, ' especiall y i n th e thre e sol o violins . It i s a shame , because Ravel' s dynami c marking s ar e unequivoca l an d right , pacin g th e cre scendo eve r s o precisely : mm.8- 9 pp , mm.10-1 1 t o p , mm.12 13 mf, m.1 4 t o fin th e 'peak ' measur e 15 . I t i s surprising and disheartenin g tha t eve n o n recordings , wher e balance s ca n s o easily be ad justed, thi s wondrously imaginative passage i s so rarely rendered correctly . Onl y a fe w recording s d o ful l justic e t o it : Skrowaczewski's , Jansons's, Ormandy's , Dohnanyi's, Ansermet's , Previn's , Rosenthal's , Gaubert's , and , abov e all—nearl y perfect—Martinon's Chicag o recording with Walfred Kujala , on e o f the ver y few to pla y the piccol o par t reall y correctly. In m.1 5 over-al l balance ca n easil y be a problem. Horn s an d trombone s mus t not b e allowe d t o pla y mor e tha n thei r writte n f . Th e indiscriminatel y 'loud ' sound s o ofte n hear d her e completel y drown s ou t th e firs t violins , whic h ar e divided a 4 (Ex.2) , meaning tha t i n mos t orchestra s ther e ar e onl y three , a t best four players , pe r individua l part , whic h eve n on e overl y lou d trombon e ca n easily rende r inaudible . Another frequentl y encountere d proble m i s tha t her e (an d i n man y simila r passages, fo r example , mm.38-49 ) th e harpist s pa y n o attentio n t o Ravel' s pre5. I have even see n an d hear d conductor s double th e first hassoon i n m. 8 wit h the secon d bassoon.

466

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Ex. 2

eise glissand o markings . The glissando s shoul d encompas s onl y two octaves (i n the uppe r register) . Mos t harpist s pla y larg e sweepin g four-octav e glissandos, with th e resul t tha t throug h th e greate r spee d o f th e sweepin g hand s an d th e fact tha t no w all the mos t projectin g thicker mid-rang e string s are activated , th e glissandos becom e inordinatel y lou d an d soloistic , thereby obscurin g th e othe r important primar y thematic/melodic material. 6 Too man y conductor s disregar d Ravel's pp i n th e clarine t an d viola s in m.20 , causing a bi g 'dramatic ' entranc e here . Th e resul t i s vulgar and obvious . Ho w beautiful thi s ca n soun d whe n playe d p p ma y be hear d o n Schwarz' s altogether excellent recording . Three bars later a slight crescend o t o p (o r at most mp) wil l suffice, th e highe r dynami c an d slightl y greate r expressivit y being dissolve d i n the collectiv e diminuend o o f m.25. Accordingly, the phrase-endin g dynamic s in m.20 i n th e harp , horns , bas s clarinet, an d alt o flut e shoul d b e pp . Regarding th e piccol o par t (m.26-27) , Rave l intende d thi s t o b e playe d i n staged ballet performances on-stag e or off-stage, (i.e. not i n the pi t or the orchestra), wit h th e directio n "A u loin, u n berge r pass e ave c so n troupeau " (I n th e distance, a shepherd passe s with his flock) . I t is not unequivocall y clear whethe r Ravel's markin g o f mf i s th e resultan t intende d dynami c fo r th e audience , o r whether th e piccol o player , playing off-stage, fo r example , shoul d pla y m f wit h the actua l effec t i n th e audienc e bein g mor e lik e p . (Th e sam e applie s t o th e Et clarine t passag e a t m.31). 7 Arguabl y the latte r resul t represent s Ravel' s tru e intentions, tha t is , a n audibl e p , slightl y abov e th e p p o f th e orchestra . Bu t i f the piccol o par t i s performed on stage , i t should b e playe d p , no t mf . There ar e thre e notationa l error s i n th e piccol o par t i n m.2 6 i n al l thre e sources: autograph , printe d score , an d pian o reduction , namely , th e doubl e do t in th e thir d bea t should obviousl y be a single dot , th e first ascending ru n shoul d 6. Althoug h th e harpist s i n Rosenthal' s recordin g pla y thei r part s quit e correctly , th e secon d har p is seriously umferrecorded , whil e th e firs t har p i s badl y overrecorded , almos t turnin g th e wor k int o a 'Harp Concerto. ' 7. I hav e i n m y ow n concer t performance s o n severa l occasion s ha d thes e piccol o an d & clarine t passages playe d off-stag e wit h wonderfu l effect .

RAVEL: DAPHNIS E T CHLOÉ SECON D SUIT E 46

7

have a modifyin g "9, " whil e th e las t si x sixty-fourth s i n bea t 4 shoul d hav e a modifying "6" : Thi

s i s a moot point , however , since, t o

my knowledge , onl y a fe w rar e player s hav e eve r playe d th e thir d an d fourt h beats rhythmicall y correctly . Instea d o f every body play s somethin g lik e ,

excep t th e piccol o

players i n Barbirolli' s Hall e Orchestra , Gaubert' s Strara m Orchestra , an d Sino poli's World Philharmoni c Orchestra . There i s scarcel y a recorde d performanc e tha t avoid s the self-indulgen t crescendo i n mm.27-2 8 i n th e viola s and clarinets . Rave l wa s perfectly capable o f writing — • or cresc. if that i s what h e ha d wanted . Absen t such a n indica tion, w e hav e th e clea r obligatio n t o perfor m thes e bar s withou t crescendo — until Rave l himsel f call s fo r on e a t th e en d o f m.29. Indee d man y conductor s and violist s change Ravel' s phrasing and bowin g fro m

with, o f course , a resultan t heav y thic k mf. Th e proble m the n i s tha t Ravel' s thirty-second-note 'rivulets, ' which ru n al l the wa y through th e first scene (Lever du jour)—some 7 5 measures!—becom e quit e inaudible . Again, Schwar z i n hi s Seattle recordin g find s th e perfec t balance fo r this magica l passage , and s o does Gaubert i n hi s 192 8 recordin g wit h the Concert s Strara m Orchestra . In bot h Ravel' s autograph an d th e printe d scor e a cresc. i s inadvertently missing i n the first violins in m.30 . By the sam e token , th e first violins' thirty-secondnote passag e a t m.3 1 shoul d b e marke d mf , o r els e i t remains simpl y inaudible. A fairl y seriou s erro r b y omissio n occur s her e (m.31 ) i n bot h autograp h an d the Duran d score . Fortunatel y here th e pian o reductio n come s t o our aid . Sinc e there i s a crescend o i n m.3 5 t o p o r mp i n m.3 6 (se e th e oboe , horn, an d violi n parts), i t i s obvious tha t somethin g i s missing betwee n thos e measure s an d th e last previous dynamic, namely , mfat m.31 . What i s missing is a one-bar diminu endo i n m.3 1 t o a basi c p fo r mm.32-3 4 (thi s i s clearl y indicate d i n Ravel' s piano reduction) . Thi s notationa l oversigh t ha s cause d conductor s t o com e u p with al l kinds of makeshift 'solutions, ' the stranges t of which i s Rosenthal's,8 wh o maintains a vigorous mfin m.31,3 2 an d th e first two beats o f m.33, the n make s a sudde n one-beat diminuendo (= — ) t o p i n m.34 . 8. Manue l Rosenthal , ninety-on e i n 199 6 an d stil l activ e a s a conductor , studie d wit h Rave l an d became th e composer' s leadin g disciple, protege, an d musica l confidant . A s a compose r h e i s best known fo r his symphoni c suites Joan o f Arc an d Musique d e table, but als o as a brillian t orchestrator of som e o f Ravel's songs and work s fo r piano.

468 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

It i s important tha t th e ascendin g chromati c lin e i n th e cello s an d alt o flut e in mm . 3 2-3 5 i s well heard , bot h a s a counter-lin e t o th e viola s an d clarinet s and a s a modifie r of the underlyin g harmoni c progression . (I n m.3 4 th e flute' s G shoul d obviousl y be a Git. ) Measure s 36-3 7 are a clea r instanc e o f the scrip tural lacuna e i n Ravel' s autograp h score , mentione d a t th e beginnin g o f thi s section. Th e dynami c -= : = - w e al l kno w s o wel l an d s o indicate d i n th e Durand score , exist s only i n th e hor n part s in Ravel' s score. Thi s i s clear proo f that som e othe r documen t (anothe r workin g score ) o r proces s (proofreading) intervened t o achieve th e fina l notatio n o f the printe d score . Up t o this point th e basi c tempo o f J = 5 0 should hav e bee n maintained . A slight harmony-resolvin g ritardando (kadenzierend i n German ) i s possible a t th e end o f m.37 , followe d b y a n a tempo a t m.38 , o f course . Bu t here , alas , to o many conductor s allo w themselve s extraordinar y tempo liberties . Th e wors t of these offender s ar e Bernstei n an d Mengelberg . Bot h i n m.1 4 an d late r i n m.37 , Bernstein elongate s th e fina l quarte r beat s t o suc h a n extan t tha t thei r eighth notes are as slow as the basi c quarter beats, so that these 3/ 4 measures become i n effect 4/ 4 measures . Both conductor s mak e matter s worse in th e secon d passag e mentioned, by indulging in a huge—in the cas e of Mengelberg abrupt—accelerando alread y i n m.35 , followed , o f course , b y the aforementione d hug e com pensatory ritard in m.37. These vulgar excesses not onl y totally distort the music , destroying Ravel's superb sense o f pacing an d th e wonderfu l aubade-like serenity of th e introduction , bu t mak e muc h o f th e filigre e passag e wor k completel y unplayable. (Pit y the poo r violinist s in mm . 3 5-3 7 whe n th e conductor' s temp o climbs t o aroun d J = 9 6 i n thos e measures! ) I n addition , man y conductor s disregard th e seductiv e p a t m.38 , allowin g (or urging ) th e violin s to pla y much louder, followin g it with a big crescendo i n mm.39-40. Again, as in mm.26-27 , this passag e i s much mor e expressiv e and poignan t whe n playe d withou t a cre scendo. O n th e othe r hand , o n som e recordings , lik e Levine' s (Vienna ) an d Abbado's (Boston) , the choru s and mos t of the orchestr a sin g and pla y so loudway beyon d Ravel' s p— that on e ca n barel y hea r th e beautifu l mai n them e i n the violins. The proble m w e encountered i n mm.27-2 8 recur s i n it s reorchestrated vari ant i n mm.45-46 . Ther e ar e ver y few recordings tha t avoi d the immediat e cre scendo i n th e strings , a crescend o Rave l withhold s unti l m.48 . Agai n Bernstei n and Mengelber g completel y ignor e Ravel' s p , substitutin g a n unsubtl e heav y molasses-like mf. Amon g th e fe w recordings i n whic h thi s passag e is beautifully realized ar e Rosenthal's , Gaubert's , Previn's , Schwarz's , an d Pau l Paray' s alto gether superio r renditio n wit h th e Detroi t Symphon y i n 1961 . Sinc e th e string s will start wit

h an up-bow , there is , if they us e th e ful l bow , th e

automatic, virtuall y unavoidabl e result of a crescend o o n thos e tw o notes . Thi s is the n usuall y followe d b y a ful l down-bo w o n th e Ft t i n m.46 , an d anothe r crescendo o n th e succeedin g fou r eighth-notes . However , al l o f thi s unwante d increased soun d i s easil y avoidable , if th e strin g players realize tha t the y must

RAVEL: DAPHNIS E T CHLOE SECON D SUIT E

469

not us e heav y full-length bows here, wit h whic h th e aforementione d crescend o bulges ar e virtuall y inevitable. In mm.43-4 4 Rave l devise s on e o f the mos t sublim e an d ye t mos t simpl e of harmonic progression s i n al l o f music : th e mov e fro m D ma''7 an d D 6 t o C 6 (Ex.3). Par t o f th e magi c o f thi s passag e derive s fro m Ravel' s imaginativ e an d

Ex. 3

highly origina l instrumentation , fo r th e softer dynami c (p) a t m.4 4 i s achieve d with a larger orchestra : trombone s an d choru s ente r her e a s ne w additiona l voices. Unfortunately , on numerou s recording s thi s superna l effec t i s ruine d b y poor ensemble . The beaut y of the passag e i s all the mor e strikin g when conduc tors d o no t indulg e i n a ritardand o i n m.43 ; there i s an adde d sens e o f surprise and revelatio n whe n th e C majo r harmon y arrive s i n tempo. A ritar d i n m.4 3 complicates matter s considerably, because no w the fou r woodwind s have t o slow their thirty-second-not e figure s t o confor m t o th e ritar d as they d o clearl y in th e Jansons recordin g (force d als o to adjus t agai n i n th e nex t measure) . Mos t wood wind sections , however , d o no t adjus t t o th e conductor' s ritard , wit h th e resul t that the y arriv e at thei r C majo r well befor e th e res t o f the lingerin g orchestra. (The wors t example o f this ca n b e hear d o n Ozawa' s an d Levi' s recordings.) Ravel compose d a suddenl y surgin g crescendo fro m p t o fin on e ba r (m.48) , a muc h mor e interesting , inventiv e us e o f dynami c coloratio n an d phrase building tha n th e gradua l crescend o on e usuall y hear s i n thi s passage . Ex. 4 shows th e desire d bo w positions fo r the entir e passag e (mm.45-48) .

Ex.4

In m.4 9 th e bras s ar e easil y to o loud , coverin g bot h th e string s an d wood winds. O n man y recording s (includin g Boulez' s an d Martinon's ) th e latte r two sections ar e virtuall y inaudible . Th e secon d bea t particularly , i n th e strings , is usually los t completely . Th e standar d bowin g does no t wor k wel l here, especiall y

470 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

since 9 0 percen t o f all strin g players use almos t th e whol e ful l bo w o n th e firs t quarter-note alone, makin g the secon d bea t automatically muc h to o weak . Sav ing bo w o n th e firs t bea t wil l help , o f course , bu t a stil l bette r solutio n i s th e following bowin g (firs t violins , Ex.5a , 2n d violins , violas , cellos , Ex.5b) . Thi s bowing/phrasing i s certainl y justified , sinc e Ravel' s lon g slu r ove r thre e bar s

Ex. 5 a

Ex. 5 b

is clearly a phrasing indicatio n o f a long legato , no t a bowing . Grievous sin s are committe d i n mm.52-5 4 by almost all conductors . Ver y few recordings sample d revea l an y respectfu l treatmen t o f Ravel' s dynami c indica tions here . Viola s an d clarinet s ar e marke d p wit h sligh t hairpi n nu ances pe r beat , no t th e commonl y hear d nervou s mf o r f. Thes e thre e measure s (mm. 5 2-54) shoul d evolv e subtly (though, o f course, clearly ) out o f the previou s three-bar diminuend o passag e —more i n th e sens e o f an elisio n tha n a n abrup t new start . The othe r distortio n visited upon thi s passage is that i t i s often playe d too fast , that is , with a sudde n pi ù mosso. Apar t fro m th e fac t tha t Rave l wa s perfectl y capable o f indicatin g plus vite o r pressez i f that's wha t h e wanted—ther e ar e dozens o f secondar y temp o change s i n th e Secon d Suit e alone , an d hundred s in th e entir e Daphnis e t Chloé ballet—th e thirty-second-not e group s i n th e first violins are a clear indication tha t th e temp o shoul d remai n a t the basi c J = 50 , in keepin g wit h al l th e othe r previou s thirty-second-not e runs . Furthermore , Ravel ha s ingeniousl y give n th e thre e bar s (mm.52-54 ) a faste r feeling—but i n the sam e tempo—b y th e subdivisio n o f the musi c int o si x eighth-note beat s pe r bar, i n effec t doublin g th e tempo . A t an eighth-not e o f «h = 100 , thi s passage is fast an d anguishe d enough ; n o additiona l temp o increas e i s needed. Finally , if a plus vite i s taken here , m.5 4 ha s t o ritar d i n orde r t o ge t bac k t o th e origina l tempo a t m.55 . Al l o f thi s i s unnecessar y an d unwanted . True , Rave l write s angoissé i n th e score ; bu t tha t i s a stag e directio n fo r th e danc e pantomime , hardly a specifi c indicatio n o f a temp o change . No r i s i t a licens e t o pla y th e whole three-ba r passag e f o r mf , a s s o man y orchestra s ar e encourage d (o r al lowed) t o do . O f th e recording s sampled, only Haitink' s (wit h th e Bosto n Sym phony), Skrowaczewski's , Paray's, Rosenthal's , Ansermet's , Jansons's , an d Ab bado's brin g thi s somewha t difficul t passag e of f quit e well , whil e Bernstein's,

RAVEL: DAPHNIS E T CHLOÉ SECON D SUIT E 47

1

Mengelberg's, Barenboims's , an d Mackerras' s ar e rough , loud , an d messil y played. Bu t eve n thos e performance s tha t observ e Ravel' s pp a t m.5 2 an d main tain th e correc t temp o ar e almos t al l flawe d b y tha t alread y often-mentione d careless habi t o f dropping las t note s befor e a rest . Rave l writes in th e viola s an d

in th e violins . Bu t o n al l recording s th e las t notes i n eac h phras e segmen t (circle d i n th e examples ) ar e totally inaudibl e — in Kondrashin' s recordin g wit h th e Concertgebou w a s i f Rave l ha d writ ten Having traverse d th e firs t fifty-plu s measure s o f th e Secon d Suit e i n som e detail, I believ e i t i s necessar y t o sho w i n a summar y sequentia l manne r ho w some conductor s ar e ignoran t o f or choos e t o ignor e wha t th e composer' s scor e indicates. I f Muti' s an d Karajan' s recording s o f Daphnis e t Chloé wer e excep tional, on e migh t b e abl e t o disregar d the m a s singula r aberrations . Th e sa d truth i s that thei r performance s ar e typica l o f the customar y misrepresentation s of Ravel' s score . I n bot h recording s cello s an d basse s dra g th e triplet s i n th e opening measures , i n Muti's , a s already mentioned, to the poin t wher e th e flutes and clarinet s hav e t o slo w u p drasticall y thei r fina l thre e o r fou r thirty-second notes, obviousl y seriousl y interrupting th e intende d flo w o f the music . I n m.6 , as i n almos t al l recordings , th e lo w Ft t i n cello s an d basse s i s sharp , a s th e musicians, no t understandin g th e bitona l harmon y o f G 7 ove r FU , inadvertentl y reach hig h t o fi t thei r Ft t into th e G o f th e C majo r chord . Mut i no w take s a much slowe r temp o i n m.8 , an d bot h conductor s crescend o muc h to o early , thereby drownin g ou t th e all-importan t bird-son g material . Karaja n reache s mf as earl y a s m. 10—see Ravel' s indicate d dynami c sequenc e (p.465 ) fo r compari son—while Mut i reache s a ful l f b y m.13 . In m.2 0 Mut i an d Karaja n ignor e Ravel' s pp , enterin g wit h a beef y thickis h mf i n the violas , tha t completely misses the quie t early-dawn awakening-of-natur e atmosphere o f th e music . Mut i make s matter s wors e b y stretchin g hi s alread y painfully slo w temp o t o a lugubriou s J = 32 . Al l upcomin g p' s an d pp's (mm.27,32,38,46) ar e ignored , favorin g instea d a heav y mf , wit h th e resul t tha t in Muti' s recordin g i t i s impossibl e t o hea r an y o f th e ripplin g thirty-second note figure s i n th e violins . At least Karaja n avoid s Muti' s hug e vulga r ritards in mm.37,43,48—the las t 3/ 4 bar re-compose d b y Muti int o a 4/4 bar . Measures 52-5 4 mus t coun t a s possibly th e mos t maltreate d thre e measure s in th e entir e work . Muti' s an d Karajan' s distortion s are typical . Bot h conductors , 9. Whe n thi s them e return s i n augmentation , rhythmicall y slightly altered , i n th e Danse générale in m.269 , th e sam e performanc e proble m occur s (se e pp.492-93).

472 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

ignoring Ravel' s delicate p an d pp , lung e int o m.5 2 wit h a n aggressive , offensiv e f an d a t a suddenl y faste r tempo . Muti' s Philadelphian s struggl e throug h thes e (complex an d difficult ) thre e measure s mor e o r les s successfully , but Karajan' s Berliners, completel y throw n b y his 'interpretation ' an d hi s vague beat , produc e an incredibl e mess . To continu e no w wher e w e previousl y left of f (around mm.52-54) , tw o usefu l changes (improvements ) ca n b e see n i n Ravel' s autograph . Accordin g t o th e manuscript, onl y on e obo e wa s intended t o pla y i n m.5 3 (a n excellen t ide a t o achieve th e desire d p dynamic) , an d Rave l ha d marke d th e horn s (i n m.53 ) handstopped ( + ). Great car e mus t b e take n t o mak e accuratel y an d naturally/organicall y th e transition fro m a dupl e divisio n of the bea t i n m.5 4 to, i n effect , a triple division of th e bea t i n Ravel' s 9/ 8 i n m.55 . (I t i s ver y shak y o r unclea r i n man y re cordings.) I n addition , t o give full meanin g to Ravel' s E minor 71-9' chord a t m.55, the D i n the thir d hor n an d secon d trombone—th e onl y instrument s sustainin g the importan t 7t h o f the chord—mus t b e clearl y projected . Thi s becomes eve n more importan t whe n th e Cl' s i n th e bassoons , strings , an d thir d trumpe t i n m.56 clash momentaril y wit h th e sustainin g D. Jus t as the transitio n fro m dupl e to tripl e beat-divisio n i s critica l a t mm.54-55 , s o th e revers e a t m.5 7 i s jus t a s crucial. For som e reaso n man y conductor s (an d firs t violi n sections ) lik e t o mak e a huge crescend o i n mm.60-61 , endin g f a t m.62 . Thi s i s quit e wrong , fo r th e following thre e reasons : (1 ) The dynami c a t m.6 2 i n al l othe r instrument s is pp, clearly indicatin g tha t th e alt o flut e an d first violins' dynamic mus t relat e t o this underlying sof t sound . Thu s th e solutio n i s certainly no t a beef y f , bu t a t mos t a mp, mor e likel y a p . (2 ) The firs t violin s ar e double d i n th e alt o flute . Ther e is n o alt o flutis t i n th e worl d who ca n produc e a f Fi t (concert ) comparabl e t o a whole violi n sections ' f , an d certainl y no t withou t takin g a hug e breat h befor e the previou s B k Therefore , logi c compel s on e t o conclud e that , i f Ravel' s alt o flute doublin g i s to hav e an y meanin g (an d an y chanc e o f bein g heard) , the n the violins ' crescendo mus t b e kep t t o a moderate increase . (3 ) The usua l violi n f a t m.6 2 completel y cover s th e p p entranc e o f the bassoon , secon d cellos , an d first basses wit h wha t i s unquestionably a n importan t primar y theme. The first entranc e o f any percussion occur s here : timpani i n m.62 , suspende d cymbal i n m.66 . A relatively high-pitched shimmerin g cymba l soun d i s wante d here, s o tha t th e tw o percussio n instruments—th e cymba l high , th e timpan i low—embrace th e entir e orchestr a i n a graduall y encroachin g wav e o f soun d which break s and peak s at m.70 . Ravel mount s hi s bigges t clima x a t m.7 0 wit h a f f i n al l instruments . Thi s should mak e clea r tha t th e previou s dynamic peak s (a t mm. 15, 49, and 55 ) must never b e allowe d to over-reach , les t th e effec t o f the ultimat e clima x a t m.7 0 i s reduced t o a n anti-climax . Her e i t i s ofte n necessar y t o exhor t th e celest a an d glockenspiel (Rave l preferre d th e keyboar d jeu d e timbre, a rar e instrumen t i n the Unite d States ) t o pla y reall y ff , t o preserve , alon g wit h th e triangl e an d tw o harps, th e ful l brilliant , scintillating , iridescen t effec t o f thi s climax . (Fo r th e

RAVEL: DAPHNIS E T CHLOÉ SECON D SUIT E 47

3

record, on not on e recordin g are the celesta , jeu de timbre, and triangl e audible.) There i s also a t m.7 0 a fantasti c sens e o f release and affirmation , a s Rave l con firms the music' s basi c tonic tonalit y of D major . The temp o distortion s tha t usuall y occur her e (especiall y m.69) ar e extreme . Most conductor s tur n th e 3/ 4 int o a 4/ 4 b y stretchin g th e las t tw o eighth s int o quarter-notes, amon g the m Bernstein , Dutoit , Rattle , Jansons , Barenboim , Der vaux, Koussevitzk y an d Boulez . Maaze l an d Slatki n distor t th e measur e eve n more grotesquely . Instead of Maaze a,

l contort s th e measur e int o

whil e Slatki n deform s i t eve n further :

But Mehta' s disfiguremen t o f thi s measur e i s th e mos t blatan t o f all : startin g m.69 a t J = 3 4 (instead o f J = 50) , he make s tw o huge fermata s on th e two eighth-notes o f th e thir d beat , th e secon d o f whic h i s four seconds long, i.e . longer tha n on e entire measure at Ravel' s designated tempo ! Care mus t b e take n a t mm.70-71 tha t th e whol e orchestr a doe s no t diminuendo, tha t i t sustain s the ful l intensit y o f the climax , fo r at leas t tw o an d a hal f measures. A t the sam e time , som e attentio n mus t b e pai d t o no t coverin g th e main melod y i n th e firs t violins , violas, alto flute , oboes , an d Englis h horn . As the mai n them e subsides

, fallin g t o eve r lowe r octav e

positions and reache s th e thir d violas in m.76—th e divisi en 3 of m.74 continue s into m.7 8 — it i s well t o mar k the viola s p an d dim. (missin g in scor e an d parts) . Ravel's retenez in m.77 is one o f the mos t consistently misinterpreted markings in th e entir e score , for it has been erroneousl y assumed b y several generations of conductors that this retenez refers only to m.77, and that somehow Ravel forgot to indicate an au Mouv* at m.78. The resultan t a tempo (o r even piu mosso) i n m.7 8 which on e ca n hea r o n man y recordings (Munch's , Dervaux's , Ozawa's, Dutoit's , Jansons's, Rosenthal's , Martinon's , Solti's , d e Burgos's , Rattle's Kondrashin's , and Barbirolli's, for example) has always sounded awkwar d and abrup t to my ears, and seems to me to be a complete misconstructio n of Ravel's intentions. A much mor e plausible interpretation i s that Ravel's retenez indicates the beginnin g of a subtle , eleven-bar graduate d ritardand o whic h lead s eventuall y to th e 6/ 8 J ^ = 10 4 at m.88. There are several reasons that argu e fo r such a realization; most importan t (1) th e four-ba r repetitiv e thematic phras e i n th e clarinet s startin g m.76; (2 ) th e lack of a tempo modification in m.87 to lead to the explicit /) = 10 4 in m.88; and finally (3) the meaning of the Frenc h term retenez. To tak e th e firs t point , i t make s littl e sens e t o hav e th e clarinet s pla y one measur e slo w (m.76 ) an d th e nex t measur e fas t (m.77) . Indeed , matter s are mad e wors e i n tha t someho w man y conductor s fee l compelle d t o jum p to a muc h faste r temp o a t m.78 , instea d o f at leas t retainin g the basi c J = 5 0 (J. = 5 0 i n 9/8) . The y d o s o probabl y because the y se e m.7 8 a s a bran d ne w episode i n th e over-al l continuity , and fee l impelle d t o mak e tha t audibl e with a bran d ne w tempo . Bu t i t i s no t a ne w phase ; i t i s instea d th e fina l outgoin g

474 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

phase o f th e Suite' s Lever du Jour (Daybreak ) introduction. I n tha t view , Ravel uses on e o f his favorit e device s of elision in m.78 , where on e primar y theme (i n the clarinet ) overlaps and elide s with a new incomin g motiv e (in th e oboe) . Hi s intention wa s not to make a n obviou s structural break here, bu t rathe r a smooth , subtle transitio n fro m on e musica l ide a t o another . I t doe s no t hel p matter s either whe n th e oboist s ar e allowe d (o r encouraged ) t o pla y mm.78-8 5 a s a grand solo, ofte n a t a m f dynami c level , whil e a t th e sam e tim e th e a t leas t equally importan t mai n them e i n th e clarine t i s ignored o r suppressed. O n sev eral recording s (Haitink , Munch , Solti , Dutoit ) thi s clarine t melod y i s literally inaudible; i t i s as i f it had neve r been writte n b y Ravel . The liltin g lulling obo e motive10 i n thi s (my ) interpretatio n i s graduall y slowe d dow n unti l i t elide s with a rhythmicall y augmented versio n in th e clarinet . At this point th e music' s movement come s almos t t o a standstill—almos t i n th e sens e o f a cadentia l fermata—to b e quietl y reanimated i n th e thre e oboe s a t m.88. A secon d stron g clue a s to the intende d eleven-ba r ritard is given b y Ravel in the las t ful l bea t o f th e firs t an d secon d obo e part s i n m.87 , wher e th e fina l sixteenth-note (i n 9/8 ) i s obviously intended t o matc h th e sixteenth s i n m.88. 11 If on e accept s th e usua l interpretatio n o f a 9/ 8 j . = 5 0 at m.78 , a sixteent h i n that temp o woul d equat e wit h 30 0 o n th e metronome . I t make s littl e sens e t o have thi s sixteent h a t 300 , bu t th e one s a t m.8 8 J i = 208 . Mos t conductor s sense this , o f course , an d ge t aroun d th e proble m b y makin g a ritar d aroun d m.86, a ritard , needles s t o say , no t indicate d b y Ravel . Thi s substitut e ritard , furthermore, seem s quit e gratuitou s an d inappropriate , sinc e Rave l ha s already composed a relaxatio n of the music' s pac e b y means o f rhythmic augmentation in th e clarine t (m.86)—th e clarinet' s note value s are mor e tha n twic e a s slow as the precedin g oboe' s note s —making a n additiona l sudde n belate d ritar d quit e unnecessary an d unjustified . The thir d reaso n for my suggested gradual relaxation of tempo betwee n m.7 7 and m.88 , i s the ter m retenez itself . Note tha t Rave l use s th e imperativ e form , not th e pas t participle retenu o r ralenti, clearly indicating an instructio n t o 'hold back,' implyin g a continuing , ongoin g holdin g back . I n thi s conceptio n on e ritards imperceptibly per measur e to arrive in m.87 a t the J (J. ) = ccz.3 4 tempo , thus allowin g a subdivisio n of th e las t bea t o f m.8 7 int o thre e eighth s i n 9/8 , each eight h equallin g Jl = 104 , th e temp o give n b y Ravel for the nex t formal episode. A handfu l o f conductor s interpre t th e retenez mor e o r les s i n th e manne r suggested here , includin g Dohnanyi , Schwarz, Boulez, Barenboim, Paray, Tosca10. Gaubert' s 192 8 recordin g (mad e unde r Ravel' s supervision ) i s th e bes t proo f tha t thi s temp o destortion i s wrong an d unwanted . Thi s obo e motiv e i s derived fro m th e firs t measur e o f the Suite , being a distillatio n an d simplificatio n o f the firs t flut e part' s thirty-second-not e openin g runs , essen tially preservin g th e flute' s origina l rang e an d contour s i n th e oboe . 11. Th e Englis h hor n par t shoul d hav e bee n rewritte n a s o

ras

RAVEL: DAPHNIS E T CHLOÉ SECON D SUIT E 47

5

nini, Stokowski , Mackerras, and , suprisingly , Mengelberg , wh o ca n s o ofte n b e idiosyncratically expressiv e and willfu l i n hi s tempo modifications , but wh o her e (mm.78-87) maintain s hi s basi c slo w temp o J (J. ) = 40 . Unfortunately , he undermines hi s ow n concep t o f th e passag e b y irrationall y jumpin g suddenl y to J = 5 0 at the entranc e o f the clarine t i n m.85 . Boule z doe s exactl y the sam e thing, a s do man y other conductors . Koussevitzk y in hi s 192 8 Bosto n Symphon y recording, on e o f the firs t eve r o f Daphnis e t Chloé, take s a differen t approach . He adopt s a temp o o f J (J. ) = 5 2 at m.78 (afte r a subtl e ritar d in m.77) , hold s that temp o throughou t th e succeedin g te n bars , an d the n simpl y double s th e tempo a t th e 6/ 8 é 1 = 10 4 in m.88 . Hi s interpretatio n is , however, marre d by the curiou s anomal y tha t th e oboe s an d Englis h hor n pla y an eighth-not e pick up i n m.87 , rather than Ravel' s sixteenth. Finally, I offer ye t another rational e for my interpretation o f the score' s retenez as a n ongoin g eleven-ba r ritardando . I n additio n t o th e elisional , transitional character o f thi s passage , ther e i s a n importan t harmoni c progressio n here , which carrie s the musi c vi a three ingeniousl y chose n harmonie s fro m D majo r to the ne w implie d ke y of B minor a t m.88. Thi s tonality will basically dominate the entir e nex t sectio n o f the work , the so-calle d Pantomime episode , includin g the magnificen t flut e sol o o f Chloé' s danc e (mm . 106-30) o n th e secondar y dominant Fi t minor, resolvin g eventuall y dow n a fift h t o th e toni c B majo r a t m.207.12 Th e thre e harmonie s Rave l uses t o modulat e fro m D majo r (m.78 ) t o B mino r (m.88 ) (o n a secon d inversio n peda l poin t Fit ) ar e C 7*4 (m.80)— A minor (m.82 ) — Ft9 (m.83) , al l harmoni c station s prominentl y encountere d i n the firs t (lent) sectio n o f th e Suite . Furthe r tyin g thi s passag e t o th e openin g Daybreak musi c i s th e reappearanc e o f th e four-not e motiv e (a t mm.79 80 an

d m.82-83 ,

heard

earlier i n mm.60-62 , no w slightl y varie d an d re-orchestrated . Note , too , tha t the harmoni c progressio n her e (mm.78-83 ) —D - C 7 - FÏ 7 —is a condense d microcosmic varian t of the tw o basic alternatin g harmonie s o f the Suite : D ma jor 9 (m.l ) an d th e bitona l mixtur e of C an d Fi t major 13 (m.2) . I t is by means of that C/F Ï mixtur e that Rave l arrives ultimately a t the 'dominant ' Ft peda l point , mentioned earlier , i n m.84 . However , thi s F t sound s virtuall y inevitable t o ou r ears, sinc e i t i s constantl y presen t an d reiterate d i n th e obo e part s mm. 78-8 5, the thir d o f th e ke y o f D thu s bein g transmute d int o th e fift h o f the ne w ke y of B minor . Al l o f thi s combine s t o confir m unequivocall y tha t th e passag e 12. Th e Suite' s fina l tumultuou s Danse générale i s basically in A major , thu s yieldin g an over-al l four-part harmonic/forma l scheme fo r th e entir e Suit e of : D major—F t mino r (flut e solo)— B mi nor/B major— A major . 13. Thi s bitona l chor d i s often referre d t o a s the "Petrushk a chord " becaus e o f its prominent us e i n Stravinsky's famou s 191 1 ballet—althoug h i t should be note d tha t Fran z Lisz t used the sam e bitonal harmony, distinctiv e and unresolve d (in F an d B major) , a s earl y a s his 183 1 Malediction Concerto when h e wa s jus t twent y years old(!) .

476 THE COMPLEAT CONDUCTOR mm.76—88 i s (1 ) transitional , comprisin g a crucia l harmoni c modulator y func tion; (2 ) was intended t o relax—t o 'cadence,' a s it were—gradually int o th e ne w section a t m.88 . The flute' s F t i n mm.85-8 6 is often playe d to o loud wit h a luxuriant vibrato , as i f it were som e importan t sol o passage . It is instead a subtle, quie t pedal poin t extension o f the clarinet' s Ft , an d shoul d b e playe d mor e i n th e manne r o f a string harmonic . It i s amazin g ho w conductor s hav e ignore d an d continu e t o ignor e Ravel' s tempo markin g J> = 10 4 at m.88, mos t o f them b y a very wide margin, as Fig.2 shows. Clearly , the y can' t al l be right ! It has long been a tradition variously to distort and dres s up th e fou r measures , mm.91-94, wit h exaggerate d rubato s an d gratuitou s glissandos . Especiall y an noying an d unmusica l i s the silly , uncalled fo r Luftpause hesitatio n between th e last tw o sixteenth s o f m.92 . Thi s phrase , obviousl y a harmonic , thoug h no t a rhythmic, varian t of the oboe/Englis h hor n passag e fou r bar s earlier , should no t be phrase d an y differently . Ravel' s separatio n o f int

o

two slurs gives no licens e t o distort the give n rhythm. I t is a cute, 'sexy ' seductiv e idea tha t someone (wa s it Koussevitzky?) starte d and , lik e weeds i n a n untende d garden, ha s bee n impossibl e t o stam p out . Again , Rave l was capable o f writing some hesitatin g Luftpause rhythm , i f he wante d to , a s he demonstrate s handil y

Fig. 2 J> = 64 Nagano , Lev i Jl = 70 Stokowsk i (1970 ) Jl = 72 Koussevitsk y (1928) , Mackerras , Sinopoli , Skrowaczewsk i /) = 74 Bernstein , Barenboi m ,h = 76 Boulez , Janson s J} =78 Abbad o (Boston) , Ormand y J) = 80 Muti , Dohnany i J) = 82 Ozawa , Previ n Jl = 84 Levine , Maazel , Haitink , Martinen , Inbal , Rattl e .h = 86 Karajan , Mehta , Abbado (Londo n Symphony) , Nowa k .h = 88 Koussevitsk y (1944), d e Burgos , Slatkin , Janson s «h = 90 Mat a «h = 92 Tortelier , Schwar z «h = 94 Munch , Toscanini, Para y «h = 96 Slatkin , Mengelberg , Kondrashi n J)= 100 Solti , Dutoit , Monteux , Casadesu s J)= 104 Commissiona , Gauber t .h =106 Rosentha l J) =112 Dervau x Jl= 128 Anserme t .h =138 Barbiroll i

RAVEL: DAPHNIS E T CHLOÉ SECON D SUIT E 47

enough in m.97 OJ

7

—surely a first in musical his-

tory i n rhythmi c raffinement an d meticulousnes s o f notation . H e coul d easil y have don e somethin g simila r i n m.92 , bu t didn't . No r i s there an y justificatio n for th e long-standin g aberratio n an d misinterpretatio n o f Ravel' s très ralenti in m.93 . Th e passag e i s usuall y playe d This commo n distortio n o f Ravel' s notatio n i s har d t o explai n i n an y rationa l terms, fo r what Rave l wrote i s quite clea r an d simpl e (Ex.6) . Notice, b y the way,

Ex. 6

the pas t tens e (très ralenti), meanin g "ver y held back " (no t "holdin g back") , i n effect a meno mosso — indicating a slowe r temp o fo r th e entir e thre e bar s o f mm.93-95. Rave l di d no t forge t a n a u Mouv ' i n m.94 , a s so many conductor s seem t o hav e arbitraril y assumed . H e di d pu t i t tw o bar s late r i n m.96 . Wha t possible reaso n i s there t o doub t an d chang e thi s conception ? I n addition , Ra vel's = = — i n th e latte r hal f o f m.9 3 bring s th e dynami c bac k t o p p a t m.94 , where i t shoul d remai n unti l th e las t eight h o f m.95 . Al l o f thi s make s totall y inexplicable th e subito p p usuall y heard i n m.94 . That all these tempo, dynamic, and phrasing distortions were established i n the first decade o f the work's existence—by whom I do not know— is proven by the fac t that they can already be heard on one of the two earliest recordings of the Daphnis et Chloé Secon d Suite , Koussevitzky' s 192 8 Bosto n Symphon y recording . The y can not be heard o n Gaubert's recordin g of the sam e year, recorded unde r Ravel's supervision. I t i s a remarkabl y faithful, intelligent , clea r an d (fo r the time ) stun ningly well-played performance.14 Ho w unmannere d an d warml y expressive this beautiful Pantomime passag e sounds , whe n rendere d withou t al l th e aforemen tioned distortions , ca n als o b e hear d o n Toscanini's , Stokowski' s (1970) , an d Mengelberg's recording s (the last's, however, marred by the Concertgebouw' s pic colo and flute players moving to their D^ l in m.95, three whole beats (J.) early!). 14. Phillipp e Gaubert (1879-1941) , probably best remembere d toda y by flutists for his many beautiful flut e composition s (h e himsel f was a leadin g flutis t i n Franc e aroun d th e tur n o f the century) , was als o on e o f France' s fines t an d mos t activ e conductor s i n th e decade s betwee n th e tw o world wars, leadin g both th e Pari s Conservatoire and Pari s Opera orchestras . His man y fin e recording s all made i n th e lat e 1920 s and earl y 1930 s comprised mostl y French repertor y (Debussy's Nocturnes, Dukas's L'Apprenti Sorcier, Franclc' s D Mino r Symphony) , in man y case s firs t recording s of suc h works.

478 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

The a u Mow* i n m.9 6 refer s t o th e temp o a t m.88 , i.e . J > = 104 , a fact prett y muc h ignore d b y mos t conductors . (On e o f th e odde r interpreta tions o f thi s a tempo i s Skrowaczewski's , who , afte r havin g selecte d a ver y slow temp o fo r th e oboe/Englis h hor n tri o o f m.88-9 1 (j > = 72) , a t th e a u Mouv* o f m.9 6 return s no t t o tha t slowe r tempo , bu t t o a muc h faste r one , •h = 92. ) Many conductor s (fo r example, Previn , Dervaux , Kondrashin , Solti ) d o quit e the opposite , takin g a fairl y livel y tempo a t m.88 , the n slowin g dramaticall y for m.92, som e (lik e Dutoit ) addin g a hug e silen t fermat a (/r\ ) i n th e middl e o f m.91, causin g th e musi c t o com e t o a dea d stop . I n Mehta' s Lo s Angele s re cording, i n m.9 6 th e obois t manage s t o recompos e th e phras e fro m

apparently with the blessing s of both th e conducto r an d th e recordin g producer . The ritar d i n m.9 7 i s als o ofte n exaggerated , particularl y by Bernstein , Previn , Dohnanyi, Rattl e —even Paray , wh o a s a Frenchma n shoul d certainl y hav e un derstood Ravel' s ver y specia l markin g cédez très peu, meanin g i n essenc e "ver y little ritard " (literally : yieldin g ver y littl e [i n tempo]) . Indeed , th e tw o scor e pages encompassin g mm.96-10 5 ar e amon g th e mos t performance-abuse d o f the entir e work , thi s i n spit e (o r i n defiance ) o f Ravel' s mos t detailed , precise , and unambiguou s notation . Apart fro m th e frequentl y exaggerate d ritar d i n m.97 , th e tin y paus e a t th e end o f that measur e i s often hel d muc h to o long . (Ca n anythin g b e cleare r tha n Ravel's très court?—ove r a thirty-second-not e rest! ) Ho w arbitrar y and illogica l conductors ca n b e i n thei r 'interpretations ' i s shown b y comparin g th e passag e here unde r discussio n i n tw o recording s b y tw o conductor s presumabl y exper t and knowledgeabl e i n th e Frenc h repertory , Boulez an d Martinon . Th e forme r /f\ seemingly can' t rea d French , becaus e h e make s a ver y long fermat a 7 i n m.9 7 when th e scor e clearl y say s très court. Martinon , o n th e othe r hand , doe s a very shor t fermata, but the n ignore s Ravel' s cédez très pe u i n th e sam e measure , making a huge ritardando . I n m.9 8 rarel y i s th e a u Mouv 1 reall y a tempo; equally rarel y i s th e p dynami c i n m.99 , contrastin g wit h m.96' s mf, re spected. The pressez of m. 100 is generally misinterpreted to refe r onl y to the obo e run , which i s additionally taken to o fast , an d the n followe d by some kin d o f slower a tempo a t m.101 . Ravel' s pressez, signifyin g a gradua l 'pushin g th e tempo, ' i s eventually cancelle d ou t i n m.10 5 b y the complementar y retenez. Thi s mean s in simpl e languag e that , startin g a t th e secon d hal f o f m.10 0 ther e i s a poco a poco accel. unti l th e ritar d i n m.105 . A further mor e precis e refinemen t oftha t idea suggest s that , i n effect , th e pressez o f m.10 0 cancel s ou t th e immediatel y previous cédez, thereb y restorin g th e temp o t o a tempo (J > = 104 ) i n m.101 . From ther e th e temp o continue s t o pres s forward . A good thin g too , fo r i n th e muted string s i t i s al l bu t impossibl e t o maintai n a stron g f in m.10 2 o n th e

RAVEL: DAPHNIS E T CHLOÉ SECON D SUIT E 47

9

long note , even a t an accelerate d tempo. 15 The oboes ' Ct majo r arpeggi o is no t onl y generall y played to o fas t bu t wit h a n enormou s crescendo , instea d o f Ravel's fina l pp . T o matc h th e oboes ' near-forte hig h notes , conductor s the n arbitrarily chang e th e firs t violins ' pizz. t o f — as i f tw o wrong s woul d mak e a right. Althoug h thi s obo e passag e i s difficult , i t ca n b e playe d correctl y wit h Ravel's dynamics , especiall y if not playe d to o fast. 16 15. Typica l o f th e disregar d o f composers ' detaile d notatio n b y conductor s i s th e recordin g o f Daphnis e t Cúloé b y th e lat e Kyri l Kondrashin , a conducto r ofte n praise d fo r hi s "precis e an d faithful reproductio n o f th e score. " H e wa s als o notoriou s wit h orchestras , s o on e i s told , fo r de manding pianissimo s an d diminuendo s fro m hi s players . Hi s book, Di e Kunst de s Dirigierens, is , as I hav e mentione d earlier , a valuable an d insightfu l manua l o n "th e ar t o f conducting." Bu t evidentl y Kondrashin was , lik e man y conductors , no t on e t o practic e wha t h e preached . Th e dozen s o f important pianissimos i n th e Danse générale o r the crucia l p' s in th e Lever du Jour, say , in mm.20 , 27 , 45 ar e anythin g but p , mor e lik e mf, even f ! In th e Pantomime sectio n Kondrashi n i s anything bu t 'precise ' an d 'faithful ' t o th e score . A s one instance, havin g take n a tempo o f J) = 9 6 for the 'obo e trio ' mm.88-91, h e no w drops th e temp o precipitously t o J > = 8 8 at m.92 , causin g som e confusio n an d poo r ensembl e i n th e orchestr a (th e Concertgebouw, no t generall y a rattleabl e orchestra) . Then , i n th e middl e o f m.9 2 Kondrashi n makes a huge ritard , suddenly snap s back int o temp o i n th e beginnin g o f m.93, followed b y another ritard i n th e secon d hal f o f that measure . I n m.9 4 h e continue s th e ritar d (Ravel' s très ralenti), bu t then irrationall y indulge s i n a hug e accelerando i n th e piccol o an d flut e i n mm.94-95 , jumpin g to J l = ca . 100. A quic k glanc e a t Ravel' s scor e wil l sho w tha t non e o f thes e yoyo-lik e temp o distortions can b e foun d therein . Incidentally, wh y d o thos e conductor s wh o indulg e i n rhythmi c distortion s i n m.9 2 refrai n fro m doing th e sam e i n m.102 . (Actually , Bernstei n an d Sinopol i do , makin g matter s eve n worse. ) A wor d abou t Bernstein , on e o f the mos t famou s and revere d conductor s o f al l time , i s perhap s in order— a wor d tha t man y o f th e million s o f Bernstein' s fan s wil l undoubtedl y rejec t summarily. The trut h i s that o n th e on e sid e Bernstei n wa s at onc e on e o f the mos t remarkabl e musical talent s ever to be bor n i n thi s country (o r anywhere els e fo r that matter) an d yet , o n th e othe r side , a n ofte n confused an d even tragi c figure , wh o wa s in man y way s tor n apar t by hi s man y talents . Althoug h a multi-gifted pianist , composer , conductor , musica l televisio n evangelist , h e seriousl y misuse d an d abused hi s talents throug h hi s ego-drive n distortions , exaggerations , podium histrionics , ignorings of the composers ' texts—no t always , bu t mos t o f the time . Recent biographie s of Bernstein have dealt with his drinking, his often outrageou s behavior , his pursuit of the trend y and chic , hi s bisexuality, as well as the genius , th e brilliance , the charm . An d wha t emerges i s a picture o f a life of frustrations, non-fulfillments , of a man wit h almost too much talent, too profusely squandered i n too many directions. Bernstein had ver y little discipline and n o shame. H e seemingl y needed t o be loved passionately by millions o f music lovers . And insofa r a s he continuousl y catere d t o thes e extra-musica l demands— a moth draw n t o the flame—h e wa s much th e lesse r artis t for it . As someone wh o kne w Bernstei n ex tremely well—since 194 3 when we first met—I can attest to the veracity of these comments. A t his best he was a brilliant all-around virtuoso; at his worst his influence was dangerous and damaging . Bernstein constantl y vacillate d i n hi s praise an d recollection s o f his two main teachers , Koussevitzky an d Reiner , dependin g o n expediency , place , an d occasion . H e sometime s claime d Reine r a s his mos t importan t teacher , sayin g among othe r things , "Reine r i s responsible fo r my ow n ver y hig h standards" (n o modest y there!) . Yet Bernstein's podiu m antic s an d athleti c exhibitionism , wonderful for audience s an d television , giv e th e li e t o tha t myth . Indeed , afte r on e o f Bernstein' s telecast s i n which h e ha d give n one o f his more physica l conducting displays , Reine r was heard t o remark , "He didn't lear n that fro m me " (quote d i n Phili p Hart' s Fritz Reiner: A Biography (Evanston , 1994) , p . 66).—Levi unmute s th e uppe r string s a t m.101 . Why ? 16. Th e Gt t (pizzicato ) i n th e first violin s i n m.10 1 i s spurious, nonexistent in th e autograp h score; it shoul d b e eliminated .

480

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Ravel was , o f course , on e o f th e suprem e orchestrator s o f al l time , an d Daphnis e t Chloé is replete wit h one remarkabl e orchestrational innovatio n afte r another. I t i s beyond th e scop e an d inten t of this book to dea l exhaustivel y wit h this aspec t o f Ravel' s oeuvre, excep t wher e especiall y relevan t t o th e structurin g and continuit y o f the musi c and , therefore , particularl y relevant t o the conduc tor. A case i n poin t i s the passag e presentl y unde r discussion , i n whic h Rave l ingeniously prepare s fo r th e arriva l of th e ke y of F t mino r an d th e famou s extended flut e solo . Over a Ct t peda l poin t (th e dominan t V o f the upcomin g key ) Ravel weave s a serie s of sevent h chord s (Ex.7) . To reinforc e the Ct peda l

Ex. 7

point, Rave l add s thre e furthe r Ct' s i n harps , woodwinds , an d cellos , droppin g from th e highes t piccol o C t ove r fou r octave s t o th e cello' s Ct t (Ex.8) . It i s a n

Ex. 8

idea Rave l was very fond of , using i t in man y differen t format s in man y o f his orchestral works , and first used in the Secon d Suit e in mm.88-91 (Ft peda l point) , reiterated i n mm.92-9 3 (viola s an d harps) , an d no w varie d an d extende d i n mm.102-105. While Ravel's orchestrational devisings usually work by themselves, requiring little help from the conducto r or the players , th e C t passag e under discussion require s a littl e extr a attention . Th e proble m i s the cello' s C t harmoni c (marked wit h a smal l circl e i n Ex.8 ) i n mm.104-105 . Th e effec t o f descendin g octave leap s i n different overlappin g instrumentations shoul d wor k perfectly well, except fo r the fac t tha t (1 ) the cello' s C t harmoni c project s rather feebly; and (2 ) most cellist s i n an y give n orchestr a (a s well a s their conductors ) ar e usuall y un aware of the crucial linking function ofthat not e and that they must take that not e over from the flute in the middl e of m. 104. I n mos t performances an d recording s one can usually hear the piccolo, oboe , and harps well enough, bu t in the next bar the flute and Englis h hor n ar e often underplayed, thes e player s not realizing that they ar e th e middl e lin k i n a three-wa y chai n o f descending Ct's . But , a s men tioned, eve n les s audibl e usuall y i s th e cell o harmoni c i n m.104 , whic h mus t emerge fro m th e flute' s fina l C t i n Klangfarbenmelodie fashion . I n orde r fo r this passage t o com e of f as intended, th e cello s ma y hav e t o pla y mf rathe r tha n th e score's mp. Onl y o n Stokowski' s London Symphony , Paray' s Detroi t Symphony , and Nagano' s recording s is this cello Ct effectivel y projected. Chloé's danc e —Ravel's inspire d flut e solo , on e o f hi s crownin g achieve ments—is also , alas, one o f his most misinterpreted , both b y flutists and conduc -

RAVEL: DAPHNIS E T CHLOÉ SECON D SUIT E

481

tors. The mos t conspicuou s misrepresentation s occu r i n the real m o f tempo an d rhythm. Ther e ar e th e usua l interpreter s —flutists an d conductors—wh o righ teously believe that since i t is a major solo , akin to an entir e slo w movement i n a mini-concerto, any interpretiv e libertie s an d rhythmi c freedom s ar e permissible. Happily ther e ar e als o thos e wh o rightl y interpret th e whol e episod e a s a stately dance (i n tempo) , perhap s i n th e manne r o f ancient Gree k dram a an d dance , in keepin g wit h th e basi c sourc e o f th e ballet' s origin , th e legen d o f Daphnis and Chloé a s told b y the third-centur y A.D. Gree k poe t Longos . A degree o f interpretive uncertainty and divergenc e o f views ca n undoubtedl y be lai d a t Ravel' s feet, o n tw o accounts . First , al l thre e sources , th e autograph , the printe d Duran d scor e an d th e pian o reduction , contai n a majo r erro r in th e tempo markin g a t m.106 , namely , th e metronom e indicatio n J = 66 , whic h even a t a firs t glanc e seem s discrepan t wit h Ravel' s temp o markin g très lent. Second, i n m.10 8 th e scor e read s suivez l e solo ("follo w [o r accompany ] th e soloist"), a n admonitio n tha t has , o f course, give n man y a flutis t an d conducto r leave t o perpetrate an y license tha t migh t com e t o mind . As fo r th e metronomizatio n a t m.106 , i t i s easil y prove n t o b e wron g b y de duction an d a littl e sleuthin g i n th e score , althoug h oddl y onl y retroactivel y from th e vantag e poin t o f a late r passag e i n th e work . I n m.139 , a s mentione d earlier, ther e i s a temp o indicatio n vif (lively) , an d J = J\ précédente, meanin g that th e quarte r beat s i n m.13 9 shal l b e equivalen t to th e sixteenth s o f the pre ceding tempo . This , however , i s clearl y technicall y impossibl e i f tha t previou s tempo i s J = 66 ; and , sinc e al l th e prio r temp o fluctuations , mostl y slow ing dow n th e pulse , ar e cancelle d i n eac h instanc e b y au Mouv 1 ( a tempo), w e must assum e tha t m.13 8 i s in th e origina l m.10 6 tempo . W e als o alread y know that J = 6 6 i s not a possibl e temp o fo r th e immediatel y precedin g eigh t mea sures, fo r th e variou s sixty-fourt h not e run s i n th e flute s i n mm . 132, 134 , an d 138 (se e Ex.9a , 9b , 9c ) ar e als o unplayabl e a t tha t temp o (i t i s impossibl e t o

Ex. 9 a

Ex. 9 b

Ex. 9 c

482

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

play eigh t note s i n th e tim e o f an eighth-not e a t 138 , eve n mor e s o in mm . 13 2, 134, wher e th e scor e say s pressez, i.e . accelerando) . Something , therefore , i s drastically wrong . Bu t i f w e assum e tha t th e score' s J = 6 6 i n mm . 106—38 should hav e bee n J ^ = 66 , everythin g fall s int o plac e an d everythin g Rave l wrote becomes possible and playable . It, of course, means as well that the metri c modulation i n mm . 138/139 ^-J^ J _ > i s in fac t quit e correct . Incidentally, on e ca n easil y see ho w Rave l was misled int o thinkin g that th e flute's eigh t sixteenth s i n m.13 9 coul d neatl y matc h it s eigh t sixty-fourth s i n m.138, a s long a s at tha t momen t h e ha d i n min d th e slowe r Ji = 6 6 tempo . Turning the metri c equatio n th e othe r way , if the temp o in m.138 were indeed J = 6 6 and on e hel d t o the J ^ = J metri c modulation , the n th e entir e ensuin g section o f flut e run s become s absolutel y impossibl e t o play , sinc e the n th e tempo a t m.13 9 would hav e t o b e J = 264 ; an d tr y playing septuplet sixteent h runs a t that tempo , no t t o mentio n dealin g wit h th e severa l plus animés an d e n animants that ar e scattered throughou t the nex t several score pages, culminatin g in th e spectacula r piccolo-to-alto flut e descendin g four-octav e run i n mm . 180 82. Thus b y retrograd e calculatio n w e ca n safel y establis h tha t m.10 6 an d th e ensuing flute solo was meant t o be se t in a tempo o f J^ = 66 . This i s confirmed by Ravel's indication très lent i n m.106 . Fo r if in hi s nomenclature h e call s J = 50 (th e Suite' s openin g tempo ) lent, the n très lent coul d easil y be J = 3 3 (or Jl = 66) . That tempo als o suits well the entir e flute solo conceived, a s I suggested, by Rave l a s a ver y statel y danc e o f Gree k antiquity , an d whic h als o contain s several sixty-fourth-not e groups. I a m convinced , to o tha t Rave l meant i t t o b e played a s a dance , tha t is , with a stead y pulse. Th e evidenc e fo r thi s i s i n th e score, bot h explicitl y and b y inference : (a ) i n mm . 124, 126 , an d 12 7 the com poser clearl y indicates temp o variations , in tur n signifyin g tha t a t othe r point s he doe s no t expec t any ; an d (b ) th e flut e sol o alread y ha s al l th e rhythmi c variation i t ca n possibl y contain . Thu s an y furthe r temp o deviation s ar e no t only no t needed bu t woul d actually cancel ou t an d subver t Ravel's extraordinary rhythmic invention . A passag e which ha s i n i t sixtee n differen t division s of th e

beat hardl y requires , o r ca n tolerate , an y furthe r rhythmi c addition s o r liber ties. It i s astounding tha t thi s majo r notationa l erro r wa s neve r correcte d b y Du rand i n scor e an d parts, 17 considerin g the enormou s success , innumerable per17. I t i s rn y understandin g that a ne w revise d scor e (an d parts ) i s no w bein g produced by Durand , to b e availabl e i n th e nea r future .

RAVEL: DAPHNIS E T CHLOÉ SECON D SUIT E 48

3

formances, an d therefor e tremendous royalt y income, Daphnis e t Chloé ha s en joyed. A s alread y mentioned , th e recen t Niewe g scor e an d th e variou s Conductos Guil d Newsletter s unfortunatel y offe r n o ne w o r valuabl e informa tion on , this majo r notationa l error . In 1922 , Ernest Anserme t evidentl y sent Rave l a telegra m askin g for clarifica tion o f the temp o questio n a t m.106. Rave l responde d indirectl y to Ansermet i n a lette r t o Jacque s Durand , date d Marc h 23 , 1922, 18 allowin g tha t "complet e lunacy" [un e loufoqueri e intégrale ] reigne d ove r the temp o indications . "A t the très lent i t shoul d rea d é 1 = 66, " the n addin g tw o additiona l revisions : a n a tempo a t m.136 and "l e double plus vite" (doubl y faster) a t m.136. "Therefore a t m.139 (vif) th e J equal s the precedin g ^." Somehow—and unfortunately—Rav el's clarificatio n to Anserme t neve r wa s widely published an d neve r ha d muc h currency. Thus the confusion s throughout thi s section continu e t o this day. As fo r th e indicatio n "suivez l e solo" i n m . 108 (incidentally , not i n Ravel' s autograph), i t is , admittedl y somewha t confusing , and ha s give n man y a flutis t license t o tak e Ravel' s written rhythmi c variant s rather lightly . It i s conceivable that Rave l —in 191 2 —realized tha t thi s sol o migh t caus e it s earl y protagonist s some performanc e problem s an d thu s fel t incline d t o allo w fo r som e colla parte freedom . This goe s alon g wit h hi s furthe r annotatio n "expressif e t souple." But I can't believ e tha t eithe r o r bot h o f these indication s were mean t t o com pletely annu l o r re-arrang e Ravel' s richl y imagnativ e an d ingeniou s rhythmi c invention. As fo r th e dynamics , Rave l mark s th e sol o initiall y p, meaning , o f course , a 'solo p.' I don' t thin k i t i s to o muc h t o as k tha t flutist s observ e thi s dynamic , instead o f the usua l heavy-breathin g f. For , playin g the sol o a t a highe r dynami c level tha n indicate d create s considerabl e breathin g problems , tha t i s to say , th e louder a wind playe r plays, the mor e h e wil l ten d t o ru n ou t o f breath. Thi s fac t has through th e year s force d man y a conductor t o speed u p i n tempo t o accom modate th e flutis t (especiall y at mm . 115-116, 117 , 118 , an d 124-25) . At m.115 a sligh t crescendo —or a t leas t ful l maintenanc e o f the soun d —is suggested , no t only leadin g t o Ravel' s clearl y indicate d mf a t m.11 6 bu t parallelin g th e cre scendo i n th e strings. The accompanimen t i n strings , harp, an d tw o horn s i s almost neve r realize d in it s ful l harmoni c beaut y an d ingenuity . As we hav e seen , tw o sevent h chord s (B7 an d Ctt 7 ) i n mm.104-10 5 lea d chromaticall y t o a D 7 chor d i n m.10 6 i n the uppe r string s (arc o an d pizzicato) , suspended ove r a doubl e peda l poin t o f Ctts an d Ftts . Afte r si x bar s o f D th e harmonie s progres s i n subtl e chromati c alteration throug h on e o f Ravel's mos t inspire d harmoni c creation s (se e Ex.10) . The Ct t in the secon d cellos , secon d hor n an d secon d har p in mm.106—111 mus t be clearly heard, clashing with the D and C directl y above and below. But beyond that most of the abov e chords clash with the pulsatin g bass Ftt and Ct t pizzicatos. It is ver y usefu l t o rehears e thes e strin g harmonie s (mm . 106—26) slowly , tempo 18. I a m indebte d t o Arbi e Orenstei n fo r thi s information , containe d i n hi s Maurice Ravel: Lettres Écrits, Entretiens (Paris , 1989) , p.217 .

484

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Ex. 1 0

rarily playin g al l pizzicat o note s arc o t o hea r bette r th e poignantl y dissonan t clashes.19 There ha s bee n ove r th e year s considerabl e controvers y o r confusio n ove r the openin g scal e o f th e flut e sol o (m.108) . Ther e ar e thos e wh o insis t an d claim t o kno w tha t th e scal e shoul d contai n a Dt , som e other s argu e fo r a D t and a n Et . Th e fac t i s tha t nobod y reall y know s wha t Rave l intended , fo r al l three source s offe r a differen t version . Th e pian o reduction , th e earlies t pub lished source , ha s both th e D t an d Ett . Ravel' s autograph scor e ha s only th e Dl . The Duran d scor e ha s neithe r D t o r Et , Dï an d E> 1 instead . Th e D t o f th e autograph, makin g i t a melodi c mino r scale (i n F t minor ) i s a possibility, except that i t clashes wit h th e man y very clear DN' s i n th e accompaniment . I t is for that reason tha t som e conductor s hav e argue d fo r the "harmoni c minor " scal e (D^ Et). Thi s latte r choic e woul d see m als o t o b e confirme d b y Gaubert' s 192 8 recording, recorde d a s mentione d wit h Rave l i n attendance . I t seem s tha t through th e variou s stage s o f compositio n an d publishing , Rave l revise d an d refined th e passage , finalizin g i t i n th e las t proof s fo r th e printe d editio n a s we see i t i n tha t scor e (Dk - E*l) . There have been a number of fine recorded performances of the flute solo, notably Moyse's with Gaubert, Kincaid' s with Stokowski and the Philadelphias, Colin Fleming wit h Tortelier an d th e Ulste r Symphony, Pete r Lloyd with Previn, James Pellerite wit h Paray , an d a n unidentifie d flutis t wit h Sinopoli' s Worl d Philhar monic. Bu t ther e hav e als o been rendition s ful l o f willful temp o distortion s an d idiosyncratic liberties . Th e mos t commo n deformatio n i s th e accelerand o i n mm. 115-16, where many flutists, not preparing for this long Ct, ru n out of air. The conductor the n oblige s the m b y making a bi g accelerando: Haitin k an d Dorio t Dwyer (i n a n otherwis e well-played though overl y intens e solo), 20 Sidne y Zeitli n 19. G\ agains t Fi t i n mm.116-17 , D agains t Ct t i n mm . 117-20, E l agains t Fi t i n mm.121-22 , G and C agains t F t an d Ctt , respectivel y in mm.124-25 . I n m.12 4 a p p i s missing i n bot h scor e an d parts i n th e first violins, second violins , first violas, an d secon d cellos . 20. Changin g the openin g ru n fro m t

o

is als o hardl y a justifiabl e o r necessar y 'interpretation'.

RAVEL: DAPHNIS E T CHLOÉ SECON D SUIT E 48

5

with Skrowaczewski , Dwyer (again ) with Munch , an d Joshu a Smit h wit h Doh nanyi (th e las t make s matter s wors e b y makin g a hug e ritardand o i n m.114) . Though Bernstei n rushe s mm . 115-16 tremendously , hi s flutis t (Juliu s Baker) , still canno t sustai n th e C t fo r it s ful l writte n duration. 21 Bu t th e stranges t an d most inep t renditio n o f al l recording s sample d occur s o n Mengelberg' s 193 8 performance. Mengelber g apparentl y wante d t o believ e th e erroneou s J = 6 6 metronome markin g i n m.106 . Hi s flutist bravely embarks upo n th e solo , how ever—in self-defense—startin g on e eight h early . Bu t b y m.11 0 h e ha s pulle d back the tempo , realizin g that m. l 11 i s quite unplayabl e at J = 66 . Thence th e solo lurche s an d wobble s forwar d an d backward—th e flutis t basicall y playin g each firs t bea t o f a give n measur e i n tempo , th e secon d bea t hel d back . Th e result i s a completel y distorted , na y re-composed , flut e solo , whic h make s n o musical sense . I t mus t hav e ha d th e poo r bas s players , tryin g t o sta y wit h th e erratic beat , o n tenterhooks . Th e pizzicat o violin s an d viola s also ha d n o ide a where t o plac e thei r notes . Actually , conductors startin g the danc e a t a relatively lively temp o —although no t a s livel y a s Mengelberg's—i s a fairl y commo n oc currence. Th e flutist s inevitabl y are forced t o pull th e conducto r bac k i n m. l 10 or m. l 11, as can b e hear d on , amon g others , Muti's , Mehta's , Rosenthal's , Du toit's, Sinopoli' s recordings . Karajan' s attemp t t o live n u p th e flut e sol o i s almost comical. H e start s a t a bris k jl = 76 , bu t hi s flutist, Karlheinz Zöller , quickl y pulls hi m dow n t o ¿> = 58 . So does Christin a Smit h i n Levi' s recording . Another on e o f the mor e amazin g distortion s ca n b e hear d i n m.l3 0 i n Bern stein's recordin g (wit h Baker) , in whic h afte r a makin g a bi g gratuitou s ritar d i n m.l22, but a t the sam e tim e ignorin g in m.l2 4 Ravel's retenu légèrement, m. 130 is deforme d int o In m.l2 9 horn s ar e ofte n rathe r laz y an d slo w abou t quietin g dow n t p immediatel y afte r thei r entrance , mos t hor n section s doin g s o muc h late than indicated . I n tha t sam e measur e th e Duran d scor e ha s misplace d th f i n th e flut e part ; i t shoul d b e a t th e beginnin g o f th e measur

o r e e

The a u Mouv" o t m.lil reters—i t should b e obvious—to the Hut e solo's basic tempo (J i = 66) . I mention thi s because almos t all conductors tak e this passage too fast , mor e o r les s i n th e wron g temp o o f J > = 132 , som e a s fas t a s / > = 150, on e (Rosenthal ) eve n a t J^ = 180 . I t is , of course, quit e impossibl e t o play the secon d flut e par t i n m.l3 2 (Ex.11 ) a t suc h fas t tempos . Ther e i s no flutis t on eart h wh o can play sixteen sixty-fourth-note s in one J=7 0 or J = 9 0 beat . 21. Lauren t and Koussevitzk y 'solve ' th e proble m i n thei r 192 8 recordin g by having the second flut e hold th e Ct t i n in.115-1 6 fo r th e firs t flut e (als o th e Al t in m.124) , whic h i s no t a n unreasonabl e idea, excep t when i t i s done a s unsubtl y and noticeabl y as i n thi s recording.

486 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Ex. 1 1

But th e fac t that , i n consequence , flutist s ar e force d t o fak e thei r wa y throug h the passage , usuall y leaving ou t a t least hal f the writte n notes—hea r Cleveland' s flutist completel y swallo w th e las t si x note s —doesn't see m t o bothe r Maazel , Nagano, Chailly , Levi , Slatkin , o r Meht a a t all . I n onl y Muti' s an d Mata' s re cordings, take n a t to o fas t bu t a t leas t a playabl e temp o ca n on e hea r al l th e notes Rave l wrote. More troubl e a t m.138, where agai n Ravel' s eight sixty-fourths cannot b e playe d a t th e fas t tempo s conductor s tak e here . Th e resul t i s a mes s of on e kin d o r another : th e sixty-fourth s change d t o thirty-second s (i.e . twic e as slow) o r eve n t o sixteenth s (Ansermet) , garblin g th e note s badl y (Commissiona , Slatkin, Karajan , Levine) , o r leavin g som e ou t (Jansons , Rattle , Mata : fou r o f the eighth-note s totall y missing) . Boulez 'solves ' th e proble m b y makin g a bi g ritard i n mm . 13 7-3 8 an d i s als o wrong . Ho w wonderfu l thi s entir e passag e sounds whe n don e a t th e righ t temp o ca n b e hear d o n Toscanini' s an d Paray' s recordings.22 Th e slowe r (correct ) temp o o f jl = 6 6 als o work s beautifully for mm.136-37, giving time fo r the tw o echoes, f - mf- p , to be controlle d an d wel l heard. I n thos e tw o measure s th e flut e shoul d obviousl y als o hav e a two-ba r diminuendo. The nex t episode , marke d vif. i s usually rendered fairl y correctly , a t least unti l mm. 148-51. Here flutists pay no attentio n t o Ravel' s very special dynamics , playing the passag e the sam e wa y as in mm . 142-45 (assuming , I suppose, tha t Ravel 'must have mad e a mistake') . Whereas th e dynamic s o f the earlie r four measure s naturally sui t th e flute' s lac k o f projectio n i n th e lowe r register , therefor e p i n m.143 an d m.14 5 ( f i n m.14 4 an d m.146) , Rave l ask s the absolut e opposit e i n mm. 148-51: th e hig h note s (mm.148,150 ) soft , th e lo w note s (mm . 149,151) loud. I hav e no t hear d a singl e recordin g wher e thi s remarkabl e ide a wa s cor rectly realized , althoug h apparentl y Haitin k an d hi s Bosto n flutist s a t least trie d to achiev e th e desire d effect , without , however , full y succeeding . (Ozaw a i n hi s innumerable performance s o f th e Daphnis e t Chloé musi c ha s consistentl y ig nored thi s typicall y Ravelian raffinement.) Much o f the nex t (mostl y flute-led ) episod e offer s n o seriou s interpretational / re-creative problems . W e shoul d onl y quickl y not e tha t a p dynami c i s missin g in scor e an d part s i n m.154 ; an d indee d hardl y an y wind s an d string s pla y a p here, forcin g the sol o flut e i n self-defens e t o als o pla y f . I n mm . 184 an d 188 , we ofte n hav e th e revers e problem , namely , tha t th e mute d hor n canno t b e heard a t all . Followin g the acceleratin g animez an d e n animant o f mm. 170 and 174, respectively , Ravel follows wit h a moins animé a t th e clima x of the passag e 22. I n m.13 2 ther e i s also a dange r o f coverin g u p th e run s o f th e secon d flute . I sugges t tha t th e harp's dynamic s be change d t o p —= : mf .

RAVEL: DAPHNIS E T CHLOÉ SECON D SUIT E 48

7

(m. 180). I t i s a goo d ide a t o thin k o f a specifi c metric modulatio n i n preparin g for thi s sudden an d difficul t temp o change . If , for example, on e ha s arrive d at a tempo o f J = 17 5 at m.179 , an d i f one though t o f the septuple t sixteenth s i n mm. 180-82 a s being th e sam e spee d a s the previou s plai n sixteenths , the n th e moins animé temp o woul d b e J = 100. 23 Thi s flut e ru n i s impeccably playe d by th e fou r flutist s o n Schwarz' s recording . The temp o i n m.18 3 (très lent) i n Ravel' s autograph an d pian o reductio n i s j = 4 0 (missin g i n th e Duran d score) . Als o missin g i s a diminuend o wedg e , for the second beat of m.182 in the alto flute, and a /"at the beginning of m.183 , bot h item s i n Ravel' s manuscrip t score . I n m.18 4 an d m.186 , i t i s a rare occasion i f the flute s pla y what i s written:

What on e usuall y hear s i s .

Also o n man y re -

cordings i n m.18 4 th e Dt t o f the alt o flut e (writte n Gi ) i s not full y hel d ou t t o the en d o f the measure , tha t is , beyond th e releas e o f the piccol o an d flutes . I n Bernstein's recordin g the alt o flut e i s inexplicably not hel d throug h (m.186) an d over int o m.187 . Apart fro m th e fac t tha t almos t n o on e observe s th e p p i n m.18 7 an d m.193 , the nex t bi g performanc e proble m occur s i n mm.191-9 2 an d it s parallel place , mm.197-98. Her e fo r some reaso n n o one—absolutel y n o one 24 —pays an y attention t o Ravel' s unusual dynamics , despit e th e fac t tha t th e score' s indication s are unequivocall y clear—and , I migh t add , remarkabl y inventive . A s Ex.1 2 shows, the orchestr a i s divided into tw o separate an d distinc t rendering s o f these two-bar phrases , bot h rhythmicall y an d dynamically . A s intende d b y Rave l — although ignore d b y everyone—woodwind s an d tw o horn s hav e tw o quic k un usual dynami c swellings , whil e th e string s an d secon d an d fourt h hor n hav e a long six-bea t diminuendo fro m f t o pp , no t th e usua l Also, mos t conductor s mak e matter s wors e b y imposin g a ritardand o o n thes e two measures, in n o wa y intended b y Ravel; also by making two one-bar phrases , rather tha n on e two-ba r phrase . Just a s universall y ignore d i s Ravel' s ver y clea r retenez—peu—à—peu i n mm.201-206. Wit h bu t fe w exception s (Koussevitzk y (1928) , Toscanini , Paray , Stokowski (1970) , Mackerras , Casadesus ) th e majorit y o f conductor s an d con certmasters mak e a ritar d i n mm.201-20 2 (Ravel' s retenez), ofte n ver y substan23. A t J = 175 , . = 700 ; at tempo j = 100 , ,= 700 ; therefore m.179= m.ISO' s 24. Gauber t doc s no t quit e succee d either , although there i s evidence on hi s recordin g that h e an d the orchestr a trie d t o realiz e Ravel' s unusua l dynamics . Gaubert's renditio n o f these measure s is, in any' Ocase , the leas t distorted o f all extan t recordings

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Ex. 1 2

tial, but then make a considerable accelerando (sic) in the risin g violi n line , jus t where th e scor e clearl y says pe u à peu, meanin g unequivocall y t o continu e th e ritard littl e b y little.' Ravel's a u Mouv t i n m.20 7 i s marked J = 8 0 in the autograp h scor e an d th e piano reduction , bu t i s inadvertentl y left ou t o f the Duran d score . Al l kind s of tempos hav e bee n attempte d here , rangin g al l the way from Dervaux' s j = 50 , Koussevitzky's j = 63 , and Munch's j = 68 , to Solti's J = 108 , an d the most ridiculous (becaus e virtuall y unplayable i n flutes/clarinets and completel y ou t of context), Bernstein' s J = 120 . The lent metronom e markin g a t m.21 2 i s an importan t one , fo r i t no t onl y refers bac k t o th e openin g temp o o f th e Suit e an d forwar d t o th e nex t lent, m.221 (als o marked j = 50) , but, I firmly believe, i t also offer s a strong clue , if not absolut e proof pe r se , that th e animé o f the Danse générale was intended t o be taken at J = 15 0 that is , three time s the spee d o f the variou s lents. (I n purely metronomic term s the equation is : lent J > = animé j , or lent j = animé J.) . There i s additiona l substantiatio n o f thi s concep t i n mm.290-303 , wher e th e climactic passag e o f mm . 5 5-59 i s recapitulated , althoug h transposed , slightl y varied rhythmically , an d reconstitute d i n a differen t mete r (Se e Exx.B a an d b) . To be a n exac t replicatio n o f the origina l phrase i n th e ne w mete r an d tempo ,

Ex. 13 a

RAVEL: DAPHNIS E T CHLOÉ SECON D SUIT E 48

9

Ex. 13 b

it woul d hav e ha d t o hav e bee n writte n a s i n Ex.l3c , bu t th e resemblanc e i s obviously clos e enoug h t o justif y th e assumptio n tha t th e tw o passage s shoul d

Ex. B e etc.

be mor e o r les s identica l i n tempo , whic h the y wil l be i f the Danse générale5/4 is take n a t J = 15 0 (J . = « J 50 , J = 75) . Anothe r clue , suggestin g suc h a tempo relationship , ar e th e las t eighth-not e triplet s i n m.216 , whic h equa l th e quarter-notes i n m.21 7 (4/ 4 J 3 = 5/ 4 J). The lent o f mm.212-16 i s generally played ver y well, 25 a s is indeed th e entir e rest of the Secon d Suite . Perhap s th e reaso n i s that th e Danse générale i s technically ver y demanding , a virtuos o tou r d e force , leavin g ver y little , i f any, roo m in it s inexorabl e rhythmi c driv e fo r an y interpretiv e deviations . Generally , th e only majo r departur e fro m th e scor e i s in fac t i n th e real m o f tempo. Fo r mos t conductors tak e a muc h faste r temp o tha n th e on e I hav e suggeste d i s inheren t in Ravel' s conception , undoubtedl y thinkin g tha t th e fastes t possibl e temp o i s the mos t 'exciting, ' the mos t likel y to 'thrill' the audienc e int o a rousing standing ovation. I thin k tha t conceptio n actuall y sell s Ravel' s magnificen t scor e short . I would argu e tha t whil e th e faste r temp o doe s creat e a kin d o f superficial excite ment, i t als o lead s t o a fai r amoun t o f 'faking ' i n th e orchestra , wherea s a t a tempo close r t o J = 15 0 any fin e orchestr a ca n pla y Ravel' s dazzlin g passage work wit h crystal-clea r clarify , incisiv e excitin g articulations , an d a greate r con trast o f texture an d dynamics . One possibl e reaso n fo r the adoptio n o f thi s faste r animé temp o ma y b e th e tempo markin g animé j = 16 8 at m.217 i n the pian o reductio n fo r four hand s (although I a m no t a t al l convince d tha t man y conductor s hav e looke d a t tha t publication). Paradoxically , the sam e measur e i n th e two-hand pian o reductio n has th e completel y irrationa l markin g andante j = 68 , obviousl y a complet e misreading b y th e engrave r an d no t detecte d i n proofreadin g (b y Rave l o r th e editor). The slowes t Danse générale tempos o n th e fifty-five recordings I sampled wer e Barbirolli's ( J = 144) , Ansermet' s an d Paray' s ( J = 152) , an d Previn' s (J = 156) , while the fastest wer e Bernstein's and Schwarz's , a ridiculous j = 20 4 and j = 200 , respectively , wit h mos t conductor s mor e i n the middl e t o uppe r 25. Mengelber g i s the gran d exception . Fo r som e implausibl e reason , h e fel t th e nee d t o stri p th e trumpet part s her e o f al l thei r slurs , offerin g instea d a harsh , quit e out-of-context , heavil y tongue d marcato o n ever y note .

490 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

170s. At least those ar e th e tempo s wit h whic h thes e conductor s start the animé. Most (Koussevitzky , Munch , Toscanini , Jansons , Rattle , Monteux ) settl e dow n by m.24 1 t o a less franti c j = 156-62 , a tempo muc h close r t o Ravel' s inten tions. Bernstein' s supe r fas t J = 204 , mostl y unplayabl e eve n b y the remarkabl e virtuosos o f th e Ne w Yor k Philharmonic , graduall y bog s dow n t o a stil l ver y swift J = 184 . Boulez , ofte n toute d a s the parago n o f conductors i n th e reper tory o f Debuss y an d Ravel , i s oddl y waywar d in temp o i n th e Danse générale. Starting ou t wit h a goo d an d reasonabl e j = 15 6 at m.221 , h e the n slow s to j = 14 4 in th e secon d hal f o f the Danse (m.304) , pushe s u p t o J = 15 0 by m.218, bu t a t th e en d (aroun d m.362 ) goe s al l ou t fo r a 'flas h finish ' a t j = 176 . S o much fo r inexorableness o f tempo! These fas t tempo s caus e anothe r immediat e proble m i n that , i f the conducto r wants t o adher e t o th e J = 5 0 lent i n m.221 , h e wil l hav e t o ritar d int o tha t measure a t th e en d o f m.218 , a ritar d which , o f course , i s no t i n Ravel' s scor e and surel y no t envisione d b y him . Most o f th e othe r performanc e dereliction s o r misinterpretation s ar e i n th e realm o f dynamics, a s can b e hear d o n virtuall y all Daphnis recordings . Ravel's important dynami c nuance s ar e s o universally ignored tha t the y ca n b e summa rized an d liste d a s follows : 1) the crescendo , especiall y in th e flute s an d oboe s fro m mf t o f in m.22 3 2) th e subito p p fo r al l player s in m.22 4 3) th e clearl y marke d p p subito i n m.22 9 (Solti , Previn , an d Rattl e ar e th e only one s t o observ e this wonderfu l pp). 4) th e p p i n m.25 0 (secon d beat ) 5) th e subito p i n m.25 8 (secon d beat) , sometime s don e sor t of half-heartedl y 6) th e p i n m.26 9 (o n virtuall y all recording s thi s i s playe d wit h a vigorous, insensitive m f or, a t best, mp). 7) th e p p a t m.306 ; th e p a t m.31 1 (Casadesu s an d Janson s ar e amon g th e few conductor s wh o observ e thes e dynamics) 26 8) th e p a t m.316 , a s well as the ensuin g m f in m.31 7 9) th e subito p p i n m.31 8 (again , Casadesus doe s thi s well) 10) only p a t m.32 1 11) th e p i n m.32 6 (secon d beat) , sometime s don e bu t half-heartedly ; simi larly m.33 0 26. I ca n remembe r a s a young teenag e hor n playe r notin g tha t i n al l recording s and performance s of Daphnis I hear d i n thos e year s th e mute d horn s i n m.308— a passag e I ha d alread y diligently practiced—were alway s frustratingly inaudible . I ingenuousl y reasone d tha t Rave l ha d marke d th e horn part s to o sof t an d tha t w e hor n player s simpl y ha d t o pla y the passag e loude r i n orde r t o b e heard. What I didn't realiz e unti l I studied th e scor e mor e carefull y year s later wa s that Ravel' s horn dynamics wer e quit e perfect , an d tha t i t wa s conductor s an d th e othe r instrument s (bas s clarinet , bassoons, an d lowe r strings ) tha t wer e alway s to o loud , ignorin g Ravel' s pp— their actua l m f o r / " automatically obscurin g th e mute d horns . The sam e proble m occurred—an d stil l occur s t o thi s day—i n th e nex t measur e where th e alt o flute canno t b e hear d i f the othe r instrument s do no t observ e Ravel's p dynamics . Instead o f paying attention t o that , man y conductor s simply change Ravel' s orchestratio n and pu t th e alt o flute part in m.30 9 i n on e o r tw o clarinet s — a quit e unnecessar y revision .

RAVEL: DAPHNIS E T CHLOÉ SECON D SUIT E 49

1

12) subito p an d p p i n m . 362, usually only approximated (excep t on Skrowac zewski's recording ) Additionally, o n man y recording s th e E I» clarine t an d firs t trumpe t (i n mm.245-47, 248-49 , respectively ) fai l t o mak e th e per-ba r diminuendo s (Ex. 14a). Solti' s discipline d Chicagoan s ar e ver y goo d here , wherea s wit h Hai -

Ex. 14 a Ex

. 14 b

tink's Bostonian s it remains a split decision: th e & clarine t make s the := = —, the first trumpe t doesn't . I n Bernstein' s recordin g a unifor m f prevails , whil e on Karajan' s recording , hi s El » clarine t playe r rearrange s th e par t a s i n Ex.l4b. Another commo n failing , presen t o n al l bu t a fe w recordings (Sinopoli's , for example), i s the tota l suppressio n o f the eighth-note s i n th e basse s in th e entir e passage, mm.304-33. All one ca n hea r i n th e vas t majority o f performances an d recordings ar e th e quarter-note s ( a reverse bowing i s very helpfu l here). In m y discussion of the firs t movemen t o f Brahms's First Symphon y I referred to th e confusio n tha t surround s th e markin g (se

e p.300) . Her e i n

Ravel's Daphnis th e proble m surface s agai n —in m.31 2 (trumpets) , mm.313-1 4 (woodwinds)—for man y conductor s erroneousl y make their player s play the las t note i n tongued , whil e other s (correctly ) have the m pla y the las t note staccat o bu t slurre d into . A curiou s anomal y i s the omissio n o f a timpan i par t i n m.28 6 i n scor e an d parts. I t i s probably impossible t o kno w definitively a t thi s lat e dat e whethe r th e omission wa s intentional , o r t o kno w ho w thi s 'error ' (i f i t i s one ) cam e t o b e made, give n the fact , a s mentioned earlier , that Ravel' s autograph scor e i s virtually devoi d o f timpani an d percussio n parts . On e possibl e reaso n fo r th e empt y measure i s that Rave l may hav e though t i t wa s necessary in orde r t o tun e fro m the El » an d G t o f m.28 5 t o th e D an d G o f m.287 . However , thi s i s rathe r remote sinc e (a ) Rave l wa s writing fo r chromati c timpan i an d (b ) th e tw o sec onds tha t m.28 6 last s d o no t offe r al l tha t muc h extr a tim e anyway . To repea t m.285 i n m.28 6 i s entirely possible o n moder n timpani , an d I strongly urge tha t this 'correction ' b e made . O n onl y a fe w recording s (Mehta' s an d Karajan's ) does th e timpan i pla y in m.286 . Ravel's magnificen t fanning-out harmoni c progression s (Exx . 15a an d b ) ar e often poorl y balanced, especiall y i n th e brass , because eac h o f the twelv e bras s players canno t easil y tel l fro m hi s par t ho w h e fit s int o th e over-al l crescend o and harmoni c scheme . (Bernstein' s recordin g typifie s ho w conductor s an d or chestra ca n sai l uncomprehendingl y throug h thes e passages. ) I hav e foun d tha t playing throug h these harmoni c sequences slowly in rehearsa l helps the orches -

492

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Ex. 15 a

Ex. 15 b

tra tremendously i n understandin g wha t is going on , t o really hear an d fee l thes e remarkable chor d progressions . There i s often amon g conductor s an d bras s players som e confusio n regardin g certain mutin g indication s i n the Danse générale. The first trumpet shoul d tak e the mut e ou t i n m.25 0 (th e printe d scor e i s i n erro r here) . Som e conductors , like Muti an d Levine , hav e th e trombone s (no t the tuba ) mistakenl y play mute d in m.277 , presumabl y because th e trumpet s ar e marke d muted , a s i f that wer e sufficient reason . Th e markin g ôtez l a sourdine i n m.31 4 refer s onl y to th e thir d trumpet, leavin g the first and secon d trumpe t mute d throug h mm.318-22 . One o f th e worst intonatio n problem s ofte n occur s i n th e trombone s i n mm.256-57. Along wit h th e othe r bras s and woodwinds , th e trombone s pla y an Alt mino r (o r B I» minor ) chor d her e agains t an A majo r bass— a strikin g example of Ravelia n bitonality . Unles s th e trombonist s kno w an d hea r thi s i n it s tru e harmonic function , ther e i s hardl y an y wa y tha t the y ca n pla y thei r note s i n correct intonatio n (excep t by accident) . Finally, ther e i s on almos t al l recording s a blatan t droppin g o f fina l note s i n the string s i n mm.269-7 0 (violins , violas), mm.273-74 (cellos) , a sloppines s of phrasing tha t dissect s wha t shoul d b e two-ba r phrase s int o fragmente d one-ba r units. Ravel writes

but what we usu-

ally ge t t o hea r i s ,

with the las t G' s

RAVEL: DAPHNIS E T CHLOÉ SECON D SUIT E 49

3

virtually inaudible . Only o n Gaubert' s 192 8 recordin g ca n thes e tw o passages be heard a s Ravel actually wrote them . Let u s close thi s discussion o f the Daphnis e t Chloé Secon d Suit e b y pointing to th e mos t bizarr e performanc e aberratio n s o fa r impose d upo n thi s piece . Stokowski, lik e Bernstein , alway s fel t compelle d t o rearrange , recompose , reor chestrate, an d 'improv e upon ' th e work s h e conducted . I n hi s 197 0 recordin g of the Secon d Suite , Stokowsk i adds after Ravel's last ba r a trash y Hollywood end ing: a long-sustained ffA . majo r chor d i n th e choru s a capella (sic). A s the saying goes: "Folks , I don't mak e thes e thing s up ; I jus t repor t what I hear." Hea r i t for yourself i f you don' t believ e me .

This page intentionally left blank

Schumann: Second Symphony

The performanc e an d interpretationa l problem s i n Schumann' s symphonies — or bette r said , alleged problems—hav e bee n a matte r o f discussio n and contro versy almos t eve r sinc e th e work s wer e writte n i n th e 1840s , continuin g wel l into ou r ow n day . Suc h discussion s hav e generall y centere d o n tw o aspect s o f Schumann's symphoni c oeuvre: hi s orchestration—mostl y negative—an d th e in fluence o f Beethoven's symphonies—mostl y positively. Through th e year s many conductor s (a s well a s critic s an d composers ) hav e contended tha t th e grea t fla w i n Schumann' s orchestra l musi c wa s his "poor, " "weak," eve n "inept " orchestration , premise d o n primaril y the notio n tha t hi s music wa s intrinsically pianisti c an d i n hi s symphonie s wa s not translate d int o truly orchestra l music . A s a resul t o f suc h thinking , Schumann' s symphonie s have been instrumentall y re-touched, re-written , re-orchestrated no t onl y by major conductor-composer s suc h a s Mahler an d Weingartner , but b y virtually every significant lat e 19th - and earl y 20th-century conductor. Whethe r such alterations really constitute 'improvements ' remain s questionable , or at least arguable. As fo r th e questio n o f Beethoven' s influenc e o n Schumann' s symphoni c works, althoug h i n genera l positivel y viewed, I fee l i t i s on th e on e han d over stated—Bach's and Schubert' s work s had muc h greate r impac t o n mos t o f Schumann's musi c —and, o n th e othe r hand , curiousl y disregarded i n precisel y such works wher e Beethoven' s influenc e was quite specifi c an d profound . In vie w of the unavoidabl e redundancy i n th e analysi s and evaluatio n of th e six previousl y discussed majo r work s and thei r recordings—unavoidabl e mostl y because o f th e endles s recurrenc e o f th e sam e interpretationa l transgressions and ba d habit s —it shoul d not b e necessar y to inflic t upo n th e reade r a blow-byblow accoun t o f ho w th e Schuman n Secon d Symphon y has suffere d (o r bene fited) a t th e hand s o f generation s o f greate r o r lesse r conductors . I wil l limi t 495

496 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

myself therefor e t o a discussio n o f the tw o topics mentione d above : th e on e i n need o f a more thoroug h airin g than th e clich é o f Schumann's "poo r orchestra tion" generall y receives, the othe r (Beethoven' s influence ) a matte r o f very spe cific concer n i n regar d to the Schuman n Second' s Final e movement—an d onl y that movement . The reade r ma y hav e gathere d fro m th e abov e tha t I d o no t entirel y agre e with th e commonplac e 'wisdom ' that Schumann' s orchestratio n i s 'inept' and i n constant nee d o f 'improvement. ' I t i s to o sweepin g a generalization , an d on e particularly inapplicabl e t o th e Secon d Symphony . Conside r th e ravishingl y beautiful an d imaginativ e us e o f woodwinds in th e Symphony's slo w movement , its idiomati c us e o f horn s an d trumpets , an d abov e al l th e luminous , ecstati c quality of the strin g writing (especially in th e slo w movement's tw o great surging climaxes); th e fin e orchestrationa l symmetrie s and contrast s i n th e tw o Trios o f the secon d movement ; ' th e inspire d dialogu e betwee n clarine t an d pian o i n Schumann's Pian o Concerto ; the darin g adventurousnes s of the hor n writin g in the Konzertstück fo r Four Horns an d Orchestra; the solem n beaut y o f the trom bones i n th e slow movement o f th e "Rhenish" Symphony—t o nam e jus t a few outstanding examples . I d o no t believ e i n al l instances , especiall y in hi s orchestra l work s from 184 5 on, tha t th e homogeneit y an d uniformit y of orchestral soun d w e hea r i n man y Schumann work s ar e th e resul t o f 'ineptitude,' bu t rathe r I fin d the m t o b e a n integral par t o f hi s particula r soun d world , sound vision . That thi s timbra i uni formity wa s in par t a reflectio n of the coloristicall y limited palett e o f his favorit e instrument, th e piano , ca n hardl y be denied . Bu t I think thi s wa s not merely — and certainl y no t always—du e t o a n inadequat e knowledg e o f th e orchestra l instruments, bu t rathe r a purposefu l choic e t o se t of f by contras t thos e specia l orchestral color s an d texture s tha t are , i f on e b e hones t abou t it , scattere d throughout hi s works , even hi s earlies t ones . I a m convince d tha t Schuman n often strov e for a certai n ric h an d consisten t instrumenta l palett e i n plac e o f th e more differentiate d contrastin g color s o f th e earlie r classical , sa y Mozartean , orchestra. I believ e thi s becaus e h e trie d t o reflec t th e singula r ye t overtone abundant sonorit y of the piano , an d als o because tha t soun d t o him wa s the ric h mixed-color sound , whic h embodie d th e Romanti c fantas y aestheti c tha t h e helped t o advance an d establis h in th e earl y 19t h century . Schumann' s concep t of a n orchestrall y blende d soun d i s the sonori c analogu e t o hi s notio n o f th e new Romanticism , unifyin g an d combinin g th e poetic , literary , fantastic , an d humanistic. Indeed , h e referre d t o thi s concep t a s "tiefcombinatorish " (pro foundly combinatorial) , an d i t i s th e instrumenta l conbinatorialit y i n muc h o f his orchestra l writin g tha t i s i n fact—righ t o r wrong—Schumann' s distinctiv e sound world . This als o answer s directly to Schumann' s oft-criticize d —I believ e over-criticized—tendency o f multiple doublin g o f individual melodic o r contra puntal lines. 1. I n Tri o I th e primar y voice s o f wind s ar e answere d b y strings , i n Tri o I I th e exac t reverse , bot h trios i n tur n contrastin g wit h th e full-orchestr a whirlwin d o f the Scher/ o proper .

SCHUMANN: SECON D SYMPHON Y 49

7

In an y case , tha t i s part an d parce l o f Schumann' s soun d aesthetic , ver y spe cial an d characteristi c i n it s ow n way ; an d i t ough t no t t o b e automaticall y dismissed o r tampere d with . For , althoug h i t ma y no t nee d "improvement " i n re-orchestration, i t ma y indee d nee d improvemen t i n performanc e an d realiza tion. (Mor e o f that below.) I a m no t s o foolis h a s t o argu e tha t Schumann' s us e an d knowledg e o f th e orchestra wer e alway s the mos t accomplishe d an d natural , let alon e inspired . I n his earlies t orchestra l works 2 w e ca n discer n th e sign s of struggle as he i s trying to wea n himsel f awa y fro m th e 'mother' s milk ' o f th e piano . Clearly , som e o f these firs t foray s int o th e orchestra l real m constitut e a fairl y routin e note-for note orchestratio n o f ver y pianisticall y idiomati c pian o music . I t shoul d b e noted, however , that, paradoxically , Schumann' s pian o music , eve n hi s earliest , is replet e wit h instrumenta l coloration s an d associations . Obviousl y i t too k hi m some year s an d som e experienc e t o translat e thes e sonoritie s successfull y int o an orchestra l garb . As with almos t an y compose r strikin g out i n ne w directions , some experience s i n Schumann' s cas e prove d misleading . H e wa s not th e onl y composer i n th e histor y o f musi c wh o change d th e instrumentatio n o f thi s o r that passage in a given piece , misle d b y a n inep t first rehearsal o r a poor perfor mance. W e know thi s happene d t o Schumann , eve n i n hi s matur e years , a s his friend Brahm s testifies. Th e latter , writin g about th e first version o f Schumann' s D mino r Symphony , o f which h e owne d th e score , recall s how upset Schuman n was "b y a first reading, whic h wen t s o badly" tha t som e tim e late r h e fel t com pelled t o re-orchestrat e th e work . Brahm s continues : "th e origina l scorin g ha s always delighted me . I t is a real pleasure to see anything so bright an d spontane ous expresse d wit h correspondin g eas e an d grace . Everythin g [i n it ] i s so abso lutely natura l tha t yo u canno t imagin e i t different." 3 By distinguishin g betwee n th e first and earlie r orchestra l work s and th e later , more matur e ones , I als o wan t t o remin d u s tha t aroun d 1845 , th e yea r o f th e creation o f the Secon d Symphony , Schumann , accordin g t o hi s ow n diary , began "t o creat e an d wor k ou t everythin g i n m y head , developin g thu s a whol e new way of composing."4 The greate r latitud e an d innovativ e spirit in the instru mentation o f Schumann' s late r work s ar e undoubtedl y ascribabl e t o thi s ne w development. As I suggeste d earlier , th e 'allege d problems ' wit h Schumann' s symphoni c 2. Symphon y No.l , Overture , Scherzo , an d Final e an d Symphon y No.4 (bot h writte n i n 184 1 bu t later substantiall y revised), as well as the incomplete d earlie r 183 2 G Mino r Symphon y an d several unfinished pian o concertos . 3. Containe d i n a letter b y Brahms to Heinric h vo n Herzogenberg , October , 1886 . I n anothe r lette r (dated two months later) , this tim e writte n t o his close friend , th e conducto r Fran z Wullner , Brahms expresses himself even mor e emphatically : " I fin d i t enchanting ho w this lovely work sounded [origi nally] i n it s loveliest , mos t fittin g garment . Tha t Schuman n wa s late r induce d t o bedec k i t ["be hängt"] s o heavil y ha s undoubtedl y t o d o wir h th e ba d performanc e b y th e Düsseldor f orchestra . Unforunately al l th e symphony' s beautiful, unfettere d an d gracefu l freedo m o f movemen t ha s be come impossibl e in th e ne w unwield y garment. 4. Berthol d Litzmann, Clara Schumann, Künstlerleben; Nach Tagebüchern un d Briefen, Vol. 1 (Leipzig, 1902 ) pp.372-73.

498 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

works may , i n fact , no t li e wit h thei r orchestratio n bu t wit h ho w the y ar e per formed. Give n th e specia l natur e o f Schumann' s instrumentation , a s detaile d above, i t takes a specia l sensitivit y in matter s o f timbrai blendin g an d balancin g to realiz e full y Schumann' s intentions . I have neve r fel t th e nee d actuall y to re orchestrate o r re-voic e an y o f Schumann' s symphonies . I als o fin d th e re touchings, eve n thos e o f Weingartner, Mahler , Klemperer , Szell , Masur , Schur icht, Mehta , Celibidache , an d other s no t s o muc h 'improvements ' a s changes , which drasticall y alter an d ofte n subver t th e ver y natur e an d characte r o f th e music. While suc h re-orchestration s ma y i n a purel y technical sens e (an d fro m a poin t o f vie w wholly differen t fro m Schumann's ) constitut e "improvements, " "enhancements," "corrections " o f th e material , the y ar e reall y a negatio n an d refutation o f th e ver y essenc e o f Schumann' s music . Wha t I hav e don e —and what i t seem s t o m e i s sometimes necessar y to do—i s t o adjus t i n minut e an d subtle way s balances , dynamics , inne r voices , and harmoni c details , i n orde r t o bring ou t instrumenta l colors , importan t harmoni c shifts , polyphoni c lines , as the cas e ma y be. Thi s i s not t o rewrit e or re-orchestrate th e musi c (b y doubling or addin g instruments) , but merel y subtly to clarif y wha t i s already there. But beyon d tha t i t i s absolutely essentia l tha t i n Schumann' s musi c performers, especiall y i n th e woodwind s an d brass , no t onl y blen d an d balanc e i n th e usual sens e but , whe n needed , merg e thei r sound s i n a symbioti c "combinato rial" rappor t which , a s a resul t o f th e merging , produce s entirel y ne w an d dis tinctive sonorities. 5 Thi s i s no t a s eas y a s i t sounds , an d take s sensitiv e an d caring musicians , no t th e s o ofte n unintereste d bored-with-Schuman n player s one find s i n mos t famou s orchestras . Incidentally , non e o f these thing s ca n o r will happe n i f conductors conduc t onl y th e to p o r mos t obviou s melodi c line s in Schumann' s work s (usuall y the violins) . The conducto r mus t be awar e of and elicit ever y subtl e adjustmen t an d calibration , constantl y monitorin g th e re sults—again, m y "thir d ear. " To giv e a mor e precis e ide a o f what I mean , le t m e briefl y elaborat e o n tw o passages i n th e firs t movemen t o f th e Secon d Symphony . ( I wil l dea l wit h th e last movemen t mor e extensivel y furthe r on. ) Th e firs t excerp t comprise s mm.73-104 (se e Plate s XI, XII). In m.7 3 th e degre e o f sf mus t b e well-considere d an d balance d i n th e flut e and uppe r strings , the former' s sf i n it s most projectin g highest registe r an d th e latter's s f i n a mor e flexibl e rang e mus t b e adjuste d t o eac h other . I n m.7 4 the othe r woodwind s line mus t b e balance d dynamicall y an d sonoricall y with the cello s an d basse s (o r vic e versa) , whil e th e horn s mus t subtl y under-pla y their implie d f s o as no t t o interfer e with th e mai n melodi c material . All o f th e above wil l apply , o f course , t o al l th e succeedin g pair s o f measures , wit h th e addition tha t th e tremolo s i n violin s and viola s startin g i n m.7 8 mus t b e down graded t o mf, or , i n an y case , mus t b e playe d i n a lyrical , melodic , non 5. Thi s i s no t onl y necessary and tru e fo r Schumann , bu t man y othe r earl y Romanti c composers , such a s Mendelssohn , Cherubini, Bellini, Donizetti , Hummel , Clementi , an d Chopi n (i n hi s or chestral works) .

Plate X I Schumann , Symphon y N° 2 , first movement, mm.77-9 0

Plate XII Schumann , Symphon y N ° 2 , first movement, mm.91-10 2

SCHUMANN: SECON D SYMPHON Y 50

1

boisterous way , lest the y overpowe r th e woodwinds . Th e trumpet s enterin g i n m.79 mus t moderat e thei r f t o fi t int o th e over-al l dynami c context , paire d a s they ar e (i n m.79 ) wit h two clarinets. To ski p t o m.85 , agai n th e s f i n th e violin s has t o b e though t about . I n m y view i t i s a moderat e sf , i n th e basi c dynami c of , say , mp. Tha t wil l allo w th e three sol o woodwind s to b e wel l heard, eve n i n p . Car e mus t b e take n tha t th e clarinets an d horn s balance/blen d int o a singl e clearl y hear d harmon y The strin g sf's i n mm.90—9 1 mus t b e graduate d within the over all crescendo , i.e . i n m.9 0 i n mp , i n m.9 1 i n mf. In m.9 2 thing s ge t eve n mor e complicated . Th e firs t violin s mus t no t b e allowed t o dominate o r overpower the legato woodwind quarte t of two flutes and two oboes , whil e a t th e sam e tim e th e conducto r mus t kee p a n ea r o n th e secondary staccat o counte r lin e i n th e secon d violins . I n m.9 6 th e bassoon s must b e allowe d t o com e t o th e fore , bringin g out a new color , whic h wil l only happen i f the entir e res t o f the orchestra—wind s an d tremoloin g strings—care fully moderat e their f's (an d sf's). I n mm . 100-104, it seems to me tha t it is well to emphasiz e an d brin g out th e entir e win d section, whil e makin g sure tha t th e timpani blen d wit h cello s and basses , and no t overpowe r them. In th e secon d passag e (mm . 126-42, se e Plate s XIII, XIV)—an d it s transposed partial recapitulation (mm.l50-ccz. 166 ) —our concerns mus t be slightly different. Here the conducto r mus t make sure that the eigh t woodwinds are not only all dynamically balanced bu t ar e alike in their phrasing, so that Schumann' s fine alternating colorations are faithfully represented , an d tha t out of the mosaic-lik e structuring, lon g eight-ba r Klangfarben line s ar e created . Meanwhile , th e seemingl y fragmented lin e i n th e violin s must also be pulle d togethe r int o a single musical idea. Again, precise identica l dynami c balancin g an d phrasin g will produc e th e desired result . In mm . 134-42, both section s o f violins must merel y (softly ) colo r the woodwinds , and thei r fp 's (as well as those o f the woodwinds ) must b e gently expressive in p, not the hard, harsh fp's on e hear s here so often. The reade r ca n no w wel l imagin e th e exten t o f th e performin g challenge s Schumann's Secon d Symphon y presents. I have her e deal t wit h onl y some fiftyodd measures ; bu t ther e ar e 39 1 in th e first movement alone . Thes e challenge s have nothin g t o d o wit h 'poo r orchestration' ; the y merel y represen t th e subtle r interpretive refinement s one mus t brin g to thi s piece—in actuality , of course, to any kin d o f fine , special , an d origina l music . Tha t proces s begin s wit h under standing an d really caring! 6 The influenc e o f Beethoven i n Schumann' s wor k can b e see n mos t explicitly in th e Final e o f the Secon d Symphony , i n particula r the direc t influence of the first movemen t o f Beethoven' s Fifth . Havin g herei n previousl y examine d an d analyzed tha t work , i t wil l b e interestin g t o se e ho w i t serve d a s a mode l fo r 6. Anyon e wanting to hear how magnificen t Schumann' s orchestral musi c is and ca n sound , without re-orchestrating it , shoul d liste n t o Levine' s super b recordin g of Schumann' s Symphon y No.l (th e "Spring" Symphony ) with the Philadelphi a Orchestra.

Plate XII I Schumann , Symphon y N° 2, first movement, mm . 126-5 3

Plate XI V Schumann , Symphon y N° 2, first movement, mm . 154-7 8

504 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

what i s arguably, in certai n respects , Schumann' s mos t Beethovenia n work . I a m referring, o n th e on e hand , t o the movement' s basi c phras e structurin g and , o n the other , t o th e characte r o f som e o f it s melodic/themati c material , especiall y the lyrica l second subject . And jus t a s the specifi c phrase structurin g in Beetho ven's Fift h i s generally disregarde d an d subverted , s o i t i s in mos t performance s of th e Schuman n Second . A t best , conductor s an d player s ar e diml y awar e o f some sor t o f four-bar phrase structuring , bu t ar e appallingl y unawar e o f exactly where th e four-ba r phrase s fall . Th e result , a s an y numbe r o f recording s wil l attest, i s that th e weight s an d stresse s withi n phrase s ar e all—o r mostl y al l —in the wron g place . I thin k thi s proble m arise s here fo r basically the sam e reaso n i t also occurs i n performances o f the Beethove n Fifth : a ver y fast temp o notate d i n a mete r an d note value s which mak e whol e stretche s o f measures loo k absolutel y alike , pro viding n o instantl y obviou s wa y of distinguishing phras e structuring , phras e be ginnings, an d phras e endings . Beethoven' s first movement , th e reade r wil l recall , was writte n i n 2/ 4 « J = 108 , Allegro co n brio. Schumann' s Final e movemen t i s written i n 2/ 2 (<^ ) 0 = 85 (actuall y J = 170) , Allegro molto vivace. Th e onl y difference i n performance i s that the Beethove n is conducted in 'one,' the Schu mann i n 'two ' —although certai n section s o f i t ca n als o b e (an d shoul d be ) conducted i n 'one. ' Schumann' s somewha t slowe r tempo allow s the musi c t o b e conducted i n 'two ' —in man y place s i t demand s it—an d i t i s jus t slo w enoug h to admi t th e us e o f sixteenth-not e passages , a s i n th e ver y firs t measur e (There ar e n o sixteenth s i n th e first movement of Beethoven's Fifth.)7 There ar e n o seriou s interpretiv e problem s regardin g phras e structurin g an d periodization i n th e firs t 13 7 measures, thes e bein g constructed , wit h bu t thre e exceptions, entirel y o f four-ba r phrases , whic h a t time s accumulat e variousl y into eight-ba r o r even sixteen-ba r entities . Th e thre e exception s ar e two nine-ba r phrases (mm . 13-21 an d mm . 109-17) an d on e five-ba r phras e (mm.22-26) , which, combine d wit h th e firs t on e i n nin e bars , simpl y restore s th e periodiza 7. Th e tw o temp o marking s i n questio n her e ar e illustrativ e of the variabilit y with whic h differen t composers specif y relativel y simila r temp o situations , dependin g o n th e particula r rhythmi c an d melodic conten t (se e discussion o f this matte r i n Par t I ; also Rudolf Kolisch's aforementioned articl e on Beethoven' s metronom e markings) . On th e fac e o f it, Schumann's Allegro molto vivace ¿ = 170 looks quit e a bi t faste r tha n Beethoven' s Allegro co n brio à = 108 . Bu t i n realit y the Schuman n sounds a t time s muc h faste r tha n i t looks, fo r the metronomizatio n (170 ) refer s t o the two-beats-per bar basi c puls e o f the music . O n th e othe r hand , th e feelin g o f the musi c whe n conducte d i n on e beat pe r ba r i s considerabl y mor e relaxed , i.e . slower , tha n i n th e Beethoven , showin g agai n tha t what counts is not the nomenclatur e per se, but th e actua l rhythmi c content and inheren t pulse of the music . For th e recor d mos t conductor s tak e th e movemen t clos e t o Schumann' s metronom e temp o (usually aroun d J = 160) , but some ar e off (slower) by a mile: Klempercr J = 120 , Kubelik, Anser mct J = 132 , Mehta, Marrine r J = 136 , Patanc , Zinman , Commission a J = 144, Sawallisch , Sem kow J = 148 .

SCHUMANN: SECON D SYMPHON Y

505

tion t o binar y structuring, puttin g th e nex t 8 6 bar s firml y bac k o n th e four-ba r phrase track. 8 The secon d nine-ba r phras e constitute s th e closin g o f th e firs t par t o f th e exposition an d lead s directl y into wha t appear s at first hearing to be a recapitulation o f th e ver y openin g o f th e movement , onl y no w o n th e dominan t rathe r than th e tonic . Bu t Schuman n quickl y steers thi s 'deceptive ' recapitulatio n i n a quite differen t direction : rapi d canoni c imitatio n i n th e string s (Ex.1) , whil e above the m woodwind s 'sing' in beautiful sustained chorale-lik e harmonies . Th e

Ex. 1

etc

contrast betwee n th e statel y wind s an d th e agitate d strin g scales—whol e notes agains t sixteenths—i s quit e wonderfu l whe n full y exploite d i n perfor mance. O n man y recording s (Janowski's , Mehta's, Pfitzner's , Celibidache's , an d Klemperer's, fo r example ) th e wind s ar e barel y present , an d al l on e hear s i s strings.9 I digres s to poin t ou t tha t i n thi s symphony , a s in s o many earl y 19th-century , early-Romantic works, horns and bassoon s must b e absolutely matched i n perfor mance, dynamicall y and , a s muc h a s possible , sonorically . I n th e per-measur e alternation o f quarter triplets startin g i n m . 134, for example, horn s an d bassoon s must for m a continuou s rhythmi c chain . Thi s take s o n especia l importanc e be 8. Agai n ther e i s on e exception , a six-ba r phras e (mm.75—80) , whic h i s merely—ver y muc h a s i n Beethoven's Fifth— a two-ba r extensio n o f a four-ba r phrase . 9. Masur , Schuricht , Mehta , an d Patan e don' t hel p matter s her e a t al l by adding trombones . That helps t o brin g ou t th e winds ' 'chorale ' al l right , bu t add s a dar k low-registe r colorin g t o th e soun d which fill s i n (an d muddie s up ) th e orchestra l mid-range , an d thereb y completel y vitiate s Schu mann's conceptio n o f registra l an d timbra i contrast : luminou s wind s agains t darksom e strings . How beautiful thi s passag e ca n soun d ma y b e hear d o n Zinman' s altogethe r excellentl y playe d Baltimor e recording.

506

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

ginning i n m.142 , whe n horn s an d bassoon s for m a n unbroke n ripplin g line o f reiterated D' s (Ex.2) . Unfortunately , i n th e vas t majorit y o f performance s th e

etc. horns seriousl y overbalanc e th e bassoons , s o tha t n o continuou s lin e i s heard . How wonderfu l and excitin g this ca n soun d ca n b e hear d t o excellen t effec t o n Haitink's, Mehta's , Sawallisch's , an d Kubelik' s recordings . In m.13 9 Schuman n break s into th e b y now well-established binary (four-bar ) structuring with a three-bar phrase. This i s brought abou t b y one o f Schumann' s favorite devices : elisio n an d overlappin g o f phrases . A s Ex. 3 shows , th e viola s and cello s ente r i n m.140 with a marcato half-not e motive (derive d from mm.2 4 i n th e exposition) , forcing , i n effect , a truncation—a n incompletion—o f th e

Ex. 3

violins' an d basses ' intende d four-ba r phrase . Tha t i s to say , the latter' s phras e would hav e finishe d i n m.142 . Bu t wit h th e violas ' an d cellos ' 'early ' entranc e in m.14 0 overlappin g an d elidin g with the outgoin g phrase , th e whol e structure is shrun k b y on e measure . I t i s imperative , i n orde r t o d o ful l justic e t o th e music, tha t conducto r an d player s understan d th e (i n effect) intricat e polymetri c

SCHUMANN: SECON D SYMPHON Y

507

structuring here . Thi s i s especially urgen t fo r th e viola s and cello s a s the y cu t across th e phras e constructio n o f the res t o f the orchestra . Furthermore, i f thi s structurin g i s no t appreciated , i n al l likelihoo d Schu mann's nex t remarkable idea i n the succeedin g measure s will also be completel y missed an d misunderstood . I refe r t o th e successiv e sf's, startin g in m.15 0 an d continuing fo r over twenty measures. One i s startled to discover that all these sf' s are o n 'twos ' an d 'fours ' i n th e four-ba r structuring, acting therefor e a s powerful syncopations, not th e heav y 'downbeat' accent s a s they ar e almos t alway s universally played. The interlockin g canonic , stretto-lik e constructio n her e (se e Ex.4 ) produce s a

Ex.4

ten-bar edific e (no t countin g th e anticipator y viola/cell o entranc e o f m.140) , which Schuman n elaborate s int o a prolonge d climacti c passage , relentlessl y spiked wit h s f syncopation s an d cross-accent s (Ex . 5a) . Tha t thes e ar e trul y Ex. 5 a

syncopations ca n perhap s be bette r see n whe n re-notate d wit h smaller note values (a s in Ex . 5b).

508 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

Ex. 5 b

This typ e o f syncopated cross-accent s was , o f course, no t origina l with Schu mann. Beethoven was the first to consistently use them as a powerful, expressive — not merely rhythmic —device. Examples abound, but, suffic e i t to mention onl y a few outstanding instances: Beethoven's Seventh , Eighth, an d Ninth symphonies. Let m e emphasiz e tha t i n th e Final e o f Schumann' s Secon d Symphon y w e are no t a s likely to se e thes e sf's immediatel y as off-beat accents , because o f th e particular alia breve notatio n o f half-notes and whol e note s stretche d acros s four measures, rather than i n eighth- an d quarter-note s contained i n a single measure (as i n Ex.5b) . I t i s onl y whe n on e engage s i n th e kin d o f structura l analysi s I have undertake n her e tha t on e ca n discove r the tru e characte r an d meanin g o f these sf's . An d wha t a differenc e it make s t o hea r thes e sf' s playe d a s 'two' an d 'four' syncopations . It gives an entirel y new an d fres h feelin g to the music , muc h more interestin g tha n th e ordinar y 'one' an d 'three ' stresse s on e usuall y hears here. Ho w wonderfu l thi s passag e ca n soun d whe n playe d correctl y ca n b e heard, alas , o n onl y a fe w recordings , thos e o f Ansermet, Masur , Mehta , Sem kow, Haitink , Paray, and o n Pfitzner' s rathe r excellen t ol d 192 8 Berli n recording. Schumann continue s t o pla y with suc h off-bea t syncopation s i n th e mos t re markable ways . Fo r example, i n m.16 5 we see—and this shoul d b e mad e clearl y audible —an ide a firs t explore d b y Beethove n i n th e expositio n o f th e Sevent h Symphony's Finale , namely , wha t I called i n th e discussio n of that wor k 'double syncopations.' We can se e the similarit y clearly by comparing the thre e following music example s (Ex.6a , Beethoven , an d Exx.6b,c , Schumann) , reduce d her e t o their essentia l rhythmic/metri c configurations) ,

Ex. 6 a

Ex. 6 b

or Ex.6 b reduce d t o Beethoven' s rhythmi c units:

SCHUMANN: SECON D SYMPHON Y

509

Ex. 6 c upper registe r lower register

etc.

Note, b y th e way , ho w Schuman n pointedl y assert s th e ide a o f thes e doubl e syncopations conceptuall y an d instrumentall y b y reinforcin g flute s an d oboe s with trombones , who—t o furthe r emphasiz e th e point—mak e thei r firs t en trance i n th e movemen t here , Schuman n havin g saved them unti l now . Second, th e sf's i n m.17 2 an d m.17 6 tur n ou t t o b e 'twos, ' off-bea t syncopa tions i n th e phras e structuring—no t 'ones, ' a s they ar e usuall y rendered. Thes e accentuations ar e the n develope d i n diminution , whe n accent s —in effec t th e former sf's—no w appea r ever y ba r o n th e 'weak, ' i.e . secon d beat , a furthe r rhythmic/expressive intensificatio n o f th e musi c a s i t reache s th e en d o f th e exposition. Wherea s i n mm . 149-72 th e cross-accen t syncopation s occurre d every two bars (see again Ex.5a) , now in m.17 9 they occur i n every measur e (Ex.7),

Ex. 7

as th e harmonie s fa n ou t i n i n contrar y motion . Note , too , th e extraordinar y Beethovenian dissonance s alon g th e wa y (marked x i n Ex.7) , further energizin g the cross-accents. 10 In m . 19 1 Schuman n introduce s th e firs t o f tw o 'secon d subjects.' 11 I t i s presented her e a s th e primar y themati c material , dominatin g th e entir e nex t phase o f the movemen t (mm.191-279) . Bu t w e hav e hear d thi s elegantl y ellip tical melod y before , no t onl y earlie r i n thi s movemen t (partl y hidde n i n th e contrapuntal fabric) , bu t lon g befor e tha t a s th e mai n them e o n whic h th e 10. Celibidache , wh o i s fond of'improving ' Schuman n scores , allow s himsel f th e terribl e an d taw dry ide a o f addin g a crescendoin g twelve-ba r timpan i rol l (o n D— a not e t o whic h Schuman n di d not hav e acces s i n thi s symphony) . 11. Remarkably , th e Final e o f Schumann' s Secon d Symphon y ha s n o developmen t section , bu t instead tw o lyric second subjects . It also honors the cyclica l conception o f thematic linking s between movements b y recapitulating , in (wha t amount s to ) th e coda , th e 'signal ' theme , firs t hear d i n th e brass i n th e ver y openin g o f the symphony .

510

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

beautiful slow movement i s built. There th e melod y appear s i n it s primary form in C mino r a t the hea d o f the movemen t (Ex . 8a) , then immediatel y transpose d to El > majo r in th e obo e (Ex . 8b) .

Ex. 8 a

Ex. 8 b

In th e Final e th e hea d note s o f this them e appea r quit e suddenl y an d unexpectedly i n m.6 3 i n th e violas , cellos , bassoons , an d lo w clarine t (Ex.9) , o f

Ex.9 course, i n rhythmi c augmentatio n an d ye t significantl y faster tha n i n th e slo w movement. W e als o hea r th e theme' s second-through-fourt h note s i n a kin d o f hocquet patternin g i n mm.80-8 9 (Ex.10 , reduced i n outline) .

Ex. 1 0

i

A littl e bi t late r (m.191 ) Schuman n present s thi s sam e them e i n th e sol o clarinet i n inversio n (Ex.11) . Whil e th e clarinet' s presentatio n o f th e them e i s

Ex. 1 1

obviously positione d s o a s t o confor m t o th e underlyin g four-ba r nexus , when Schuman n give s i t t o th e violins , flutes , an d oboe s twent y bar s late r (m.211) —answered i n it s prim e (uninverted ) for m b y cello s an d basse s i n m.213 —h

e varie s an d elaborate s th e them e i n

SCHUMANN: SECON D SYMPHON Y 5

11

such a wa y a s t o provid e a recapitulatio n o f th e off-bea t syncopation s hear d earlier. Again , thei r off-beat-nes s i s not readil y discernible fro m a casua l perusa l of the score . On e ha s t o analyz e th e over-al l substructur e t o realiz e tha t th e sf's starting i n m.22 0 i n violin s and cello s ar e onc e agai n 'twos ' an d 'fours ' (respec tively): agai n syncopation s agains t the beat , no t th e 'downbeat ' stresse s one usu ally hear s in performance . Here agai n tha t universa l ba d habi t o f droppin g o r choppin g of f last phras e notes come s t o th e for e (mm.211-25) , especiall y i n th e strings . I t make s th e music soun d nervous , fragmente d an d disjointed , whe n i n fact—eve n wit h th e bars rest—w e nee d t o creat e long , archin g melodi c line s (spannin g sixtee n t o twenty-four bars) , i n which , indeed , th e silen t bar s ar e a s muc h a par t o f th e melody (th e music ) a s the note s i n th e playe d bars . Ho w fulfillin g an d singin g this passag e sound s whe n playe d correctl y ca n b e hear d o n onl y a fe w re cordings, notabl y Barenboim's , Pfitzner's , Celibidache's , an d also , partially , o n Masur's. Bu t o n th e last-name d onl y th e upper-rang e instrument s sustai n th e last phras e notes , whil e th e answerin g cellos an d basse s do not . It i s truly beautiful ho w Schuman n no w manage s t o wor k th e fina l measure s of th e Adagio's mai n them e an d it s obo e varian t int o th e Finale . Measure s 227-30 com

e directl y fro m th e violi n them e

(compare wit h mm.5- 6 o f Ex.Sa) , whil e th e nex t fou r measure s (mm.231-34 ) are a varian t o f th e oboe' s las t ba r (compar e with Ex.Sb) . I n al l thi s time , th e Viertaktigkeit, a s i n Beethoven' s Fifth , ha s never bee n disturbed . Comparin g th e las t tw o musi c example s directl y above , each comprisin g a four-ba r phrase , w e ca n readil y se e ho w Schuman n shifte d his fp's aroun d withi n a phras e i n orde r t o achiev e a syncopate d effec t (mm.227-30), whil e a t othe r time s (mm.231-34 ) h e shift s th e stresse d note s t o their norma l hierarchica l position . If on e follow s th e four-ba r structurin g systematicall y throug h t o th e en d o f this sectio n o f the movement , on e wil l see that th e C mino r resolutio n i n m.27 4 falls squarel y o n a 'one, ' wit h onl y on e six-ba r phras e extensio n (mm.267—73 ) needed—as i n Beethoven—t o arriv e a t th e toni c (Ex.12) . I f thi s i s no t under stood, i n al l likelihoo d th e entir e res t o f th e movemen t wil l b e metrically ,

Ex. 1 2

structurally ou t o f kilter . O n no t a singl e recordin g hav e I hear d an y perfor mance tha t seeme d t o understan d where thes e fou r C mino r chord s fal l phrase -

512

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

wise. The y ar e usuall y playe d vaguely , amorphously , indiscriminately , mad e worse o n numerou s recording s b y a n enormou s ritar d (Sawallisch , Karajan , Muti, Kubelik , Semkow , Szell , Mehta , Janowski , Masur , Barenboim , Celibi dache) lz —not asked for by Schumann—as if the movemen t ha d com e t o a final cadence. I t i s anything bu t that ; i t is instead a mer e temporar y hal t i n the musi c (Exx. 13a,b), t o b e immediatel y followe d b y th e second 'secon d subject ' them e (m.280). Th e bes t wa y to realiz e th e inten t an d feelin g of this interi m cadentia l resolution i s t o us e th e bowing s indicate d i n Ex . 13a. A n easie r wa y t o

Ex. 13 a

catch tha t 'inten t and feeling ' i s to see i t notate d i n 4/ 4 a s in Ex.l3b .

Ex. 13 b

Now w e com e t o th e mos t fascinating , unusual , an d origina l par t o f the Fi nale—and, I mus t add , the mos t consistentl y misinterpreted . For , the phrasin g from her e t o th e en d o f th e movement—som e 300-plu s measure s —is shifte d one ba r of f fro m where , a t firs t glance , th e periodizatio n appear s t o be . Th e oboe's phras e positionin g (mm.380-83 ) i s no t but rathe r

Just looking at the phras e

12. Man y conductor s ar e quit e confuse d b y the empt y "G.P. " (genera l pause ) measure s an d som e (like Meht a an d Karajan ) eve n mak e hug e fermata s o n th e empt y measure s o r o n th e C mino r chords —or bot h —not realizin g that th e empt y measure s ar e a n integra l par t o f th e musi c an d it s continuous flow . Hea r ho w wonderfu l thi s C mino r cadenc e sound s whe n playe d i n temp o o n Paray's excellen t recording.

SCHUMANN: SECON D SYMPHON Y 51

3

in th e score , a phras e precede d b y pause measure s an d seemingl y ambiguously placed toni c chords , also encompassed b y a single phrase slur , one i s apt quickly to assum e tha t th e structurin g i s a s i n exampl e (a ) above . Bu t close r scrutin y and analysi s of the metri c substructur e revea l tha t i t i s in fac t a s i n exampl e (b ) above, makin g m.38 0 a n anacrusi s (upbeat ) measure. 13 That thi s i s so i s further confirme d i n m y min d b y th e clos e resemblanc e o f this lovel y theme t o the 'secon d subject ' them e i n th e first movement o f Beetho ven's Fifth . I a m firml y convince d tha t Schuman n wa s directl y influence d b y Beethoven's theme , jus t a littl e shor t o f reveren t plagiarization . (Fo r anothe r reference t o Beethoven , se e belo w p . 516). I f we compar e th e tw o theme s (Exx . 14a an d b)—th e Schuman n exampl e (14b ) altere d notationall y t o b e i n th e

Ex. 14 a

Ex. 14 b Schumann

•yv ' ~

P

same metric/rhythmi c format—w e se e tha t bot h hav e th e sam e genera l shap e and contour , wit h th e melodi c hig h poin t comin g i n th e thir d ba r (th e secon d in th e phras e structure) . An d i f w e hypotheticall y chang e th e E t i n th e firs t measure o f Beethoven' s them e t o a C (Ex . 14c), th e similarit y become s eve n

Ex. 14 c

more striking— a similarit y emphasize d stil l mor e whe n Schumann' s 'secon d subject' them e i s conducted i n 'one, ' whic h i t almos t alway s is. In an y case , see n fro m thi s poin t o f view , no t onl y i s m.28 0 a n anacrusi s measure, bu t s o ar e mm.284 , 28 8 (i n th e strings) , m.29 2 (flut e an d clarinet) , and m.296 . I n m.30 1 an d m.309 , Schuman n recapitulate s th e doubl e syncopa tion passag e o f m . 165, re-orchestratin g i t i n th e proces s (Ex.15) . I t i s crucial t o follow (an d observ e i n performance ) th e four-ba r structuring , an d probabl y t o annotate th e orchestr a musicians ' part s accordingly . Fo r i t i s otherwise impossi 13. Onl y a fe w conductors (an d oboists ) see m t o understan d th e phras e structurin g here . I n fact , of all th e recording s I sampled , onl y o n Haitink's , Patane's , an d Paray' s i s this passag e playe d correctly . Pfitzncr phrase s i t right , bu t ruin s i t al l b y droppin g t o a lugubriousl y slo w (J = 108 ) tempo , th e only majo r aberratio n i n wha t i s fo r th e mos t par t a ver y fin e interpretatio n an d whic h contain s much fin e playin g b y th e orchestr a (Neu e Sinfoni e Orcheste r Berlin) , especiall y for 1928 . I t wa s probably th e first recording o f the Schuman n Secon d Symphony .

514 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Ex. 1 5 ble fo r th e violin s to know"jus t fro m thei r part s th'a t m.31 6 (sub.p) i s a 'four, ' o r for the bras s to kno w tha t m.32 4 an d m.32 8 are 'upbeat ' measures . I t i s curious that mos t conductor s an d orchestra s feel thi s passag e (mm.301-32) , with it s syncopated cross-accents , correctly , eve n thos e wh o interpre t mm.289-9 9 incor rectly. The y manag e this—probabl y unknowingly—b y adjustin g t o a five-ba r phrase (mm.296-300) . Thi s i n tur n put s the m o n th e righ t phras e footin g i n m.316, th e aforementione d subito p—a dynami c which , unfortunately , i s no t observed b y th e majorit y o f conductors , wh o op t instea d fo r a beefy , inelegan t mf. (Scor e an d parts , b y th e way , ar e obviousl y wron g i n th e horn s i n 316-17 . The p shoul d b e i n m.316 , clearl y a printing error . And ye t o n recordin g afte r recording th e erro r i s perpetuated fo r posterity.) The temptatio n t o crescendo i n m.33 1 i s enormous, especiall y with th e risin g melodic line . Bu t tha t shoul d b e strenuousl y resisted—a s wel l i n m.339—fo r th e real crescend o doe s no t com e unti l m.343 . I t i s a temptation ver y few orchestras and conductor s ar e abl e t o resist , judgin g b y th e recordings . Onl y Barenboi m and Para y manage t o kee p th e p mor e o r les s unde r control . In m.35 9 an d th e entir e succeedin g forty-od d measure s th e performe r (con ductor) i s face d wit h ver y seriou s scriptura l problems , unfortunately , I believe , of Schumann' s making . Th e cresc. marking s i n mm.367-6 8 an d m.37 6 mak e little sense , i f the earlie r crescend o startin g i n m.34 3 i s to brin g th e musi c t o a fat m.359 . Ho w can ther e b e tw o more extended crescendo s afte r that , starting from a f base , an d arriv e onl y a t a ff i n m.391 ? Th e answe r obviousl y i s tha t there canno t b e and , accordingly , th e scor e mus t b e wron g a t m.359. I think th e error lie s i n th e fac t tha t th e f p w e se e i n th e horn , trumpet , an d timpan i part s was mistakenl y lef t ou t i n al l th e othe r parts . Thi s i s born e ou t fo r m e i n tha t the flute , oboe , an d violi n part s hav e n o f , whic h presumabl y woul d b e th e terminal dynami c afte r th e previou s fifteen-ba r crescendo . I f one interpret s th e sf's i n th e scal e passage s a s sfp's (Ex.16 ) or , bette r yet , startin g i n m.36 0 a s sf's

Ex. 1 6

in p , the n th e tw o late r (aforementioned ) crescendo s ca n mak e sense , an d i n fact ca n b e use d t o brin g th e musi c t o it s firs t majo r mid-movemen t clima x (Ex.17). I t woul d als o allo w th e man y successiv e sf' s t o b e interprete d i n th e context o f th e ever-escalatin g crescendo . Thi s woul d mean , fo r example , tha t the sf' s i n m.37 5 woul d b e i n mp, reac h a m f level by , say, m.383, an d th e ful l f sf onl y i n m.387 . Th e beaut y o f thi s approac h i s tha t th e clima x a t m.392 ,

SCHUMANN: SECON D SYMPHON Y

515

Ex. 1 7

when i t finall y explodes , s o t o speak , i s al l th e mor e meaningfu l an d ex citing afte r a prolonge d twenty-five-ba r build-up.14 Le t u s note , too , that th e sf's in mm.374-8 0 ar e al l o n 'twos ' an d 'fours, ' thu s agai n phras e syncopation s i n effect, followin g ver y muc h th e sam e patter n Schuman n presente d earlier , i n mm. 149-86. I thin k th e musi c tha t no w follow s i s some o f the mos t beautifu l Schuman n ever achieved . I t i s simpl y masterfu l th e wa y th e musi c build s graduall y bu t inexorably to it s ultimate clima x and affirmation . Th e majo r performanc e prob lems her e ar e (1 ) not t o allo w the musi c t o ris e to it s highest dynami c level s too early; (2 ) to preserv e the integrit y and feelin g of the four-ba r phras e structuring. As fo r th e firs t point , conducto r (an d orchestra) should no t b e carrie d awa y by Schumann's—perhaps too many—crescendos an d piu f's, which, I suspect, were added (understandably ) in th e shee r excitemen t an d whit e hea t o f creation. As seen i n th e score , the y ca n b e misleading . I t i s best t o not e tha t th e firs t sig n of a crescend o doe s no t com e unti l m.426 , and tha t th e firs t rea l f doe s no t occu r until m.474—an d a /f not unti l thirty-fiv e bar s after that, in m.508 ! The dynami c pacing mus t therefor e b e ver y wel l controlled , especiall y i n th e brass , whos e dynamic markings , i t shoul d b e noted , ar e alway s slightl y under—i.e . softe r than—the rest of the orchestra. 15 (I t is only in th e coda , which I place a t m.537, that th e ful l bras s and timpan i begi n t o dominate , wit h th e timpan i havin g th e 'final word ' i n th e las t five bars of the movement. ) After th e grea t dominant-sevent h climax—o n th e dominan t (G)—th e soft , gently swaying melody i n m.39 4 (Ex. 18a) ha s a remarkabl y calming an d seren e

Ex. 18 a

14. I presen t this suggestio n a s at leas t a s interestin g an d viabl e a n alternativ e a s simply playin g th e whole passag e unrelievedl y lou d fo r thirty-thre e measures . Evidentl y Zinma n an d Anserme t ar e o f the sam e mind—th e onl y ones—judgin g b y the recording s sampled . 15. T o clarif y thi s ver y gradua l ris e i n dynami c leve l fo r th e bras s players , I sugges t markin g th e entire sequenc e a s follows : m.44 5 — p; mA61—mp; m.46 9 — mf; m.481 — poco f ; an d m.489— f (a s written b y Schumann) .

516 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

effect.16 (I t shoul d therefor e b e conducte d i n 'one.' ) I t i s eve n mor e beautifu l when th e performer s understan d tha t m.39 4 i s an anacrusi s (upbeat ) measure . More ofte n tha n no t i t i s playe d a s i f i t wer e a 'downbeat, ' a 'one ' (Ex.lSb) , even changin g Schumann' s phrasin g an d bowing . I n strin g players ' partia l de -

Ex. 18 b

fense i t mus t b e sai d tha t Schumann' s phrasings , i.e . slurs , whic h readil y ca n be take n a s bowings , ca n b e misleadin g i f onl y viewe d fro m th e part , rathe r than fro m th e scor e an d th e music' s phras e infrastructure . A phras e suc h a s or

will obviousl y be see n a t first glance a s starting on th e 'ones ' o f four-bar phrases. But the fac t i s that i n this work phrasings/bowings and th e metri c understructur e do no t alway s coincide ; indeed , the y ar e ofte n totall y a t odds . Similarly , flutists might b e forgive n if , seein g -espe

-

cially afte r twelv e bars ' rest—i n thei r parts , they assum e thi s t o be a typical four bar phras e startin g o n 'one. ' An d ye t i t isn't ; i t start s o n a 'four ' wit h a lightl y syncopated upbea t feeling . In an y case , ver y fe w conductor s attai n th e righ t phras e feelin g her e (mm.394-417). T o m y ears , onl y Mehta , Pfitzner , Szell , Ansermet , Schuricht , and Janowsk i do, bu t th e latte r fiv e partiall y spoi l thing s b y disregardin g Schu mann's p dynamic . Th e accente d E (m.402 ) an d th e woodwinds ' fp's (mm.406 , 410) ar e 'fours, ' sligh t accents—no t aggressive fp's —in the prevailin g p dynamic . Two six-bar phrases interven e i n th e otherwis e systemati c four-ba r structuring. The extr a two bars are needed fo r the brasses ' 'signal ' theme, borrowed fro m th e very openin g o f th e symphony , t o modulat e th e musi c i n th e firs t instanc e t o the supertoni c ( D minor) , an d i n th e secon d instanc e bac k t o C major . Without disturbin g th e four-ba r structuring, Schuman n no w overlay s a wood wind them e i n tripl e mete r (Ex . 19) , agai n borrowe d fro m th e firs t movemen t 16. Man y musician s have observe d th e similarit y of thi s phras e t o a lin e i n th e las t son g o f Beetho ven's A n di e feme Geliebte : Whethe

r thi s wa s

consciously a near-quotation b y Schumann o r whether th e melod y was , as I suggest, inspire d instea d by th e Fift h Symphony' s firs t movemen t 'secon d subject'—o r bot h —is har d t o prov e or , fo r tha t matter, t o disprove , there bein g n o documentar y evidenc e t o suppor t either thesis . Bot h idea s wil l have t o remai n conjectural.

SCHUMANN: SECON D SYMPHON Y

517

Ex. 1 9 (m. 15), o n to p o f th e basi c continuin g 2/ 2 (al l obviously conducted i n 'one') . When th e 'triplet' 17 overlay s are abandone d an d th e alia breve secon d subjec t returns i n th e woodwinds , i n m.474 , i t i s answere d canonicall y i n th e violins , the latte r startin g on a 'two, ' the forme r on a 'four. ' After severa l more six-ba r interspersions, 18 th e mountin g wave s of sound hav e reached f , marke d co n fuoco (wit h fire). This exhortatio n doe s no t mea n t o 'pla y as lou d a s possible'—as , unfortunately , i t i s usually interpreted—bu t merel y t o play i n f wit h grea t intensit y an d passion , no t necessaril y a matte r o f sheer volume. (Conducto r an d orchestr a mus t sav e somethin g fo r the /fa t m.508. ) Thi s triumphant passag e occupies mor e o r less th e sam e plac e i n th e over-al l form of the movemen t a s the ver y simila r passage nea r th e en d o f the Beethove n Fifth' s first movement (m.439) . Melodically/thematicall y ver y similar, it als o hint s a t a similarly fragmented instrumentatio n (Ex.ZOa) , although no t a s contrastingly varied a s in Beethoven' s exampl e (Ex.20b) . Ex. 20 a Schuman

Ex.20b Beethove

n

n

17. Althoug h writte n i n tripl e mete r (3/2) , th e effec t i s tha t o f triplet s ove r a dupl e base : or .

Musica l notatio n happen s t o allo w thi s t o b e writte n eithe r way . (Se e

Schumann's us e o f the triplet s i n mm.560-70. ) 18. Measure s 455-60 , 469-75, 487-92.

518

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

A vulgar tempo distortio n i s perpetrated her e b y man y conductor s (mm . 51415): a hug e ritar d and , eve n worse , a n immens e fermat a o n m.51 5 (Semkow , Kubelik, fo r example) . Apar t fro m no t bein g calle d fo r i n Schumann' s scor e — which ough t t o b e reaso n enoug h no t t o d o it—suc h a holdin g bac k o f th e tempo destroy s th e whol e momentu m an d forwar d thrus t o f th e music , whic h has bee n buildin g for man y minutes , i n fact—i f th e equall y unwarranted ritar d in mm.273-7 9 i s not taken—sinc e th e ver y beginning o f the Finale . This temp o pull-bac k als o serve s the nex t passag e (mm.516-36 ) ver y poorly , for i t take s al l th e surpris e out o f th e sudde n subito p i n m.51 6 an d th e glori ously inventiv e chain o f abrupt modulation s tha t ensue s (Ex.2la , b) . I t also kills

Ex. 21 b

The sam e passag e seen i n harmoni c abstract . the surprisin g effec t o f th e entir e passag e bein g off-kilte r structurally/rhythmi cally. Bot h th e phras e beginning s an d harmoni c shift s ar e o n 'fours ' —not o n 'ones,' a s unfortunatel y virtually al l recording s interpre t it . Indeed , thi s glorious passage seem s t o b e a signa l fo r conductor s t o indulg e i n variou s interpretive excesses. Eve n i f they hav e observe d the sub. p o f m. 516—so startlin g and excit ing afte r th e precedin g eighty-ba r crescend o build-u p t o ff (mos t conductor s simply ignor e it)—the y tend t o crescendo too-much-too-early , s o that th e nexiff, to b e reache d onl y i n m.53 7 (heraldin g the arriva l o f the coda) , climaxe s abou t sixteen bar s too early , rendering th e rea l f f a meaningles s anti-climax. Another terribl e distortio n o f this passag e i s perpetrated b y Szell , wh o make s eight successiv e two-ba r crescendo s instea d o f on e lon g nine teen-bar graduate d crescendo . Th e othe r favorit e indulgenc e i s to acelérat e th e tempo tremendously , I suppose , t o achiev e som e audience-electrifyin g rac e t o the finis h line. 19 Al l tha t i t reall y achieve s i s t o degenerat e thi s strikin g an d 19. Man y conductor s — such a s Barcnboim , Sawallisch , Celibidach e — rush th e temp o eve n muc h earlier, a s earl y a s m.359 . Marrine r outdoe s everybod y else, however , b y takin g a n unbelievabl e tempo o f J = 22 0 a s early a s m. 394.

SCHUMANN: SECON D SYMPHON Y

519

inherently nobl e passag e t o a chea p 'effect ' (wha t Beethove n ha d alread y calle d Effekthascherei). Her e agai n th e sf s startin g i n m.52 6 mus t b e graduated , logi cally a s follows: m.526—sf i n mp , m.530— sf i n mf, m.534— sf i n f . The four-ba r structurin g continue s al l throug h th e coda . Bu t rathe r tha n let ting tha t b e a constrain t o n hi s rhythmi c inventivenes s an d imagination , Schu mann keep s thing s livel y and ful l o f surprises (a s he ha s al l alon g i n thi s move ment) b y means o f cross-phrasings and off-bea t accentuation s an d syncopations . These appea r t o b e confusin g o r incomprehensibl e t o mos t conductor s an d or chestras, wh o generall y reac t arbitrarily , intuitively, with whateve r seem s t o b e the easies t o r most comfortabl e interpretation . T o be sure , ther e i s not muc h a n orchestra musicia n ca n glea n fro m th e instrumenta l par t alone; a s the bar s rush by, a t breaknec k tempo , the y al l loo k structurall y alike . Bu t th e conducto r should hav e n o suc h excuse , a s any basi c analysi s of the wor k will readil y reveal its intrinsi c structuring. An d ye t i n recordin g afte r recordin g on e hear s 4

instead of

. To achiev e

the desire d resul t i n th e firs t violins , th e followin g bowing i s advisable (Ex . 22).

Ex. 2 2

At poin t 0 (m.550 ) car e mus t b e take n t o remai n mor e o r less a t mid-bow ; in any case , th e thrus t an d directio n o f th e phras e mus t g o t o th e whol e notes .

520 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

These tie d whol e note s i n mm.552-5 3 woul d certainly , at a quic k glance , lea d one t o thin k tha t the y ar e 'one-two ' i n a phras e (o r a t leas t a 'three-four') , bu t they ar e neither . They are a 'four-one. ' Schumann's fina l inspiratio n i s to plac e wha t look s lik e a phras e beginnin g (m.560) no t o n a 'one, ' bu t o n a 'two ' —another phras e syncopation , analogou s to a n accen t o n th e secon d bea t o f a 4/ 4 bar . (Measure s 553-5 8 ar e a six-bar phrase.) We should not e tha t th e timpani' s final bar mean

s t o indicate ,

in al l likelihood , that th e tril l (o r roll ) shoul d sto p o n th e secon d bea t a s i s th e case a s well i n m.393 . (Th e fermat a i s there pr o forma, a s i t were , becaus e th e entire orchestr a ha s a fermat a for the whol e bar.) I hav e shown a t considerabl e lengt h an d i n som e detai l the tru e structurin g and periodization o f Schumann' s Final e movement . I f performed with a n awareness throughout o f this basi c infrastructure, 20 th e entir e movemen t wil l soun d com pletely differen t fro m th e usua l ordinary renderings, infinitel y more interesting — virtually like a brand-new piece—and i n fac t lik e the remarkabl y original masterpiece i t is.

20. O f al l th e 2 8 rendition s sampled, onl y tw o conductors—Para y i n hi s Detroi t recordin g an d Bernardi i n hi s Calgar y recording—get almos t the entir e movemen t right .

Tchaikovsky: Sixth Symphony

There ar e certai n aspect s of Tchaikovsky's Sixt h Symphony that ar e ver y special , if no t unique , t o thi s wor k an d t o thi s composer' s conception , tha t i n tur n re quire ver y specia l car e an d attentio n i n performance , i n 'interpretation. ' Thes e unusual interpretiv e problem s com e i n additio n t o al l th e mor e conventional , general interpretational/notationa l issue s a t stak e i n an y majo r orchestra l sym phonic work . That bein g th e case , I will not reiterat e all those fundamental an d customary performanc e issue s alread y extensively examined herein , but , rather , address onl y thos e whic h ar e peculia r t o Tchaikovsky' s Sixt h Symphony . These performanc e an d notationa l aspect s are , onc e again , primaril y in th e realm o f tempo an d dynamics , th e notatio n o f whic h Tchaikovsk y had b y th e end o f his lif e refine d an d expande d t o a remarkabl e degree , t o m y knowledg e more tha n an y othe r prio r compose r o r compose r o f hi s generation . Thi s ma y surprise man y readers , becaus e Tchaikovsk y i s generall y regarde d a s a highl y emotional, unreservedl y expressive , eve n a t time s unsurotl e composer , an d no t given t o tidy , fastidiou s subtletie s o f thought, le t alon e t o intellectua l precision . It i s common knowledg e tha t man y 'intellectuals ' i n music—historians , critics , theorists, an d suc h —consider muc h o f Tchaikovsky' s musi c incline d t o vulga r emotionalism, thu s irresistibl e t o a mas s audience , an d therefore , almos t b y definition, a musi c devoi d o f any discipline , refinement , an d discriminatin g intelligence. Indeed , most performance s — interpretations — of Tchaikovsky tend i n that direction , wallowin g indulgentl y i n ever y expressiv e effect , wearin g thei r emotionalism ostentatiousl y on thei r sleeve , and disregardin g those aspect s o f his music tha t reflec t th e working s o f a brilliant , discipline d mind . I n fact , man y conductors hav e mad e entir e career s o f exploitin g th e mor e obviou s superficial emotional effect s o f Tchaikovsky's music , some (Bernstein , for example) throug h incredible exaggeration s and distortions , findin g ne w depth s o f vulgarity tha t ar e nothing mor e tha n a n offens e t o th e musi c an d t o Tchaikovsky's genius. Bernstein's Tchaikovsk y renderings represen t an extreme , however. Still , mos t

521

522 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

conductors, pas t an d present , approac h Tchaikovsk y performances—especiall y of his last three symphonies—a s a kind of emotional 'fiel d day, ' where all whims, liberties, an d indulgence s ca n b e safel y indulged . Suc h performance s ar e i n general stubbornl y blin d an d dea f t o th e intellectua l an d notationa l rigo r wit h which Tchaikovsk y no t onl y sought t o balanc e an d tempe r th e emotiona l con tent o f his musi c but , i n m y view, brilliantly succeeded i n doin g so—i f onl y we would perfor m faithfull y wha t h e wrote . Indeed , I woul d argu e tha t precisel y because Tchaikovsky' s musi c i s so inherently emotionall y highly charged, tha t i t is al l th e mor e necessary , no t s o muc h t o restrai n ourselve s expressively , as t o unequivocally respec t thos e ver y markings and indication s with whic h Tchaikov sky himself refine d an d discipline d hi s art. Let m e la y ou t th e mai n point s o f contentio n here . I n th e real m o f temp o and temp o modification s Tchaikovsky, in hi s Sixt h Symphon y (an d man y othe r late works , lik e hi s Sleeping Beauty an d Nutcracker balle t scores ) evolve d a highly subtl e an d explici t cod e o f notation , i n tur n supporte d an d comple mented b y metronome marking s of grea t precisio n an d variety . Analogously , in the real m o f dynamics, Tchaikovsky refine d and elaborate d hi s notation t o com prise eleve n an d twelv e dynami c gradations , no t th e usua l si x or eigh t use d b y the vas t majorit y o f 19th-centur y composers . Th e sa d trut h i s that i n thes e tw o fundamental respects , Tchaikovsky' s notation s ar e eithe r roundl y ignore d or , by many conductor s considere d a typicall y Tchaikovskian notationa l excess , which in tur n i s re-interpreted t o allo w the performe r any license h e ma y wish to take. In hi s eve r mor e subtl e temp o distinction s Tchaikovsk y was merely elaboratin g on wha t Beethove n i n hi s lat e work s had begu n t o explore : a wa y of notatin g in a n increasingl y precise manner—bu t stil l wit h conventiona l Italian-languag e indications—the subtl e variation s o f tempo s tha t earl y 19th-centur y composer s were hearin g an d incorporatin g i n thei r music . I t wa s nothin g mor e tha n a n attempt a t definin g for the performe r through notatio n Beethoven' s "Temp o de s Gefühls." An d jus t lik e Beethoven , Tchaikovsk y use d metronom e marking s t o confirm an d giv e substance t o his Italian-language verbal annotations. Th e won derful variet y and subtlet y of his temp o indication s ca n b e appreciated , virtually at a glance, i n th e followin g table (Fig.la , b). Notice ho w logica l an d consisten t i s th e relatio n betwee n th e verba l temp o indications and thei r respectiv e metronom e markings , as well as the us e o f modifying term s lik e poco, molto, mosso, quasi (a s in quasi adagio), no n troppo, no n tanto. Taken al l together, Tchaikovsk y provides us with a networ k o f tempos an d tempo relationship s whic h i s no t onl y intrinsicall y clear but , whe n it s compo nents ar e see n i n relatio n t o on e another , i s consisten t an d logical , an d thu s should leav e n o roo m fo r misunderstanding. We should als o note tha t Tchaikov sky i s consistent i n nomenclatur e an d metronom e markin g fro m movemen t t o movement. Moderato assai ( J = 88 ) i s use d bot h i n th e firs t an d las t move ments, a s is andante ( J = 69) . Whil e th e fac t tha t both allegro vivo and allegro con grazia ar e define d b y a metronomizatio n o f J = 14 4 ma y a t firs t see m

TCHAIKOVSKY: SIXT H SYMPHON Y

523

Fig. l a vivace allegro molt o vivace (152) allegro viv o (144) , allegr o co n grazi a un poc o pi ù animat o (132) allegro no n tropp o (116 ) moderato moss o (100 ) moderato assa i (88 ) andante moss o (80 ) andante (76) , andante giust o (76 ) andante (69 ) andante no n tant o (60) quasi adagio adagio moss o (60) , adagi o poco men o ch e prim a (60) adagio (54) , adagio lamentoso (54)

Fig. I b stringendo molt o stringendo affrettando un poc o animand o animando incalzando più moss o

ritenuto rallentando poc o rallentando ritardando molt o

strange, i t i s really quit e logical , for the forme r i s a livel y allegro 4/ 4 wit h a puls e of fas t quarter-notes , whil e th e allegro co n grazia (Ex.1 ) o f th e 5/ 4 secon d

Ex. 1

movement i s actually fel t i n a muc h mor e leisurel y puls e o f half-note s an d dot ted half-note s ( J = 7 2 and J . = 48 , respectively). 1 1. Thi s i s th e sam e interestin g issue , namely , th e sam e temp o indicatio n allowin g fo r differen t tempo feelings and , conversely , differen t temp o indication s permittin g similar temp o feelings , a s discussed a t som e lengt h i n Par t I (pp . 40-43).

524 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

Let i t be noted , finally, that Tchaikovsky' s tempos fo r the Sixt h Symphon y ar e in on e sens e al l quit e conventional . Th e basi c tempo s rang e fro m adagio t o allegro an d allegro vivo, the metronom e marking s from J = 5 4 to J = 152 . In other words , we d o no t fin d i n thi s scor e an y indicatio n a t al l o f extrem e tem pos—fast o r slow—o r o f an y o f th e excessiv e supe r slo w an d supe r fas t tempo s taken i n thi s wor k b y the majorit y o f conductors . The y see m t o fee l tha t ther e is som e har d evidence—evidenc e certainl y no t i n th e score—tha t Tchaikovsky was inten t o n expandin g th e rang e o f tempos , somethin g tha t actuall y can b e said o f Beethove n bu t clearl y no t o f Tchaikovsky. Th e questio n the n remains : why d o mos t conductor s fee l justifie d i n takin g tempo s thirt y o r mor e metro nome point s slowe r than Tchaikovsky' s marking s (i n slo w tempos ) an d similarl y proportionately faste r i n fas t tempos ? Typica l example s are : fo r th e andante (J = 69) , firs t movement , m.8 9 (se e Ex.2 ) J = 3 8 (Furtwängler , Bychkov , Celibidache, Martinon , Ormandy , Giulini) ; fo r th e nex t moderato mosso (m.101, J = 100 ) J = 6 2 (Celibidache) , J = 8 6 (Coates, Ormandy , Giulini) ; for th e en d o f th e Scherz o movemen t J = ca.18 6 instea d o f Tchaikovsky's J = 15 2 (Martinon, Furtwängler) ; for the andante J = 7 6 in the Final e (m.37 ) j = ca.4 6 (Furtwängler , Monteux , Celibidache , Martinon , Ormandy) , J = 3 6 (Giulini); fo r the nex t pi ù mosso (m.71 ) j = ca.11 2 (Monteux , Furtwängler ) instead o f J = 9 6 (Monteux , Furtwängler) ; fo r th e moderato assai (m.116 , J = 88 ) J = 14 4 (Furtwängler, Barenboim). As I pointe d ou t i n connectio n wit h th e widesprea d floutin g o f Beethoven' s metronomizations, I would argu e i n th e cas e o f Tchaikovsky that, i f a conducto r has a n antipath y fo r metronom e marking s an d feel s compelle d t o ignor e o r change them , that i s one thing ; i t is quite another t o read int o th e ter m moderato assai ( a Very moderate ' tempo ) a temp o tha t clock s i n a t J = 144 ! The ultimat e iron y o f al l thi s i s tha t Tchaikovsky' s temp o an d metronom e markings ar e perfect : th e slo w tempo s ar e no t to o slo w and th e fas t tempo s no t too fast . Indeed , i f faithfully adhere d to , the y give his symphonie s a mor e power ful expression , a tensil e strength , an d a forma l clarity , unity, balance , an d pro portion, a sense o f unfolding drama, tha t al l the usua l exaggerations , distortions, and distension s of form ca n neve r achieve . Analogously , the pervasiv e disregard of Tchaikovsky' s dynamic marking s is similarly destructive o f th e tru e qualit y of his work . Th e utte r banalit y an d crudenes s o f interpretatio n tha t resul t whe n the Sixt h Symphony' s dynamic s are reduce d t o the usua l one-dimensiona l thre e levels o f 'a s lou d a s possible, ' 'relativel y soft, ' an d a mediocr e 'in-between, ' ar e such tha t eve n thi s great wor k ca n barel y withstand it. Admittedly, Tchaikovsky's rarefied scal e o f dynamics is not s o eas y to achieve , certainly no t withou t som e rea l effor t an d concentratio n an d chang e o f playing habits. Bu t wha t i s s o exasperatin g i s tha t hardl y an y conducto r seem s eve n t o recognize tha t ther e i s a problem here , a very interestin g on e a t that, technically and conceptually ; exasperatin g also tha t thes e dynamic s ar e eithe r casuall y dismissed a s unrealizable or a s the meaningles s aberrations of a compose r give n t o excessive extremes . No r i s ther e an y justificatio n fo r th e notio n hel d b y som e

TCHAIKOVSKY: SIXT H SYMPHON Y

525

conductors, wh o hav e a t leas t note d Tchaikovsky' s unconventiona l dynami c markings, tha t h e wa s obviously intent o n expanding th e dynami c rang e o f th e orchestra, tha t h e wante d t o produc e eve n loude r climaxe s an d eve n mor e whisper-soft pianissimos. The fac t i s that Tchaikovsky' s us e o f fiv e an d si x p's (ppppp an d pppppp) a t one en d o f the scal e an d quadrupl e fs (ffff) a t the othe r en d ha d nothin g t o d o with playin g louder o r softer . No r coul d i t i n reality . For al l instrument s hav e finite limitation s o f their dynami c range ; an d a compose r coul d writ e fiftee n f s for al l that an y instrument coul d pla y any louder than it s natural acousti c limitations permit—except , o f course, through th e ban e o f amplification . Tchaikovsky wa s fascinate d wit h somethin g muc h mor e interestin g tha n merely playin g loude r o r softer : i t wa s t o achiev e mor e refined , mor e dis criminating gradation s o f dynami c levels , whic h h e ha d note d th e bes t play ers (i n chambe r music-playing , fo r example ) coul d command , an d i n fac t used quit e naturall y i n givin g subtle r profil e t o thei r phrasin g and musica l expression. I t i s thos e in-betwee n dynamics—betwee n f a n d mf, betwee n p an d mp—which ever y goo d musicia n use s all the time , tha t h e wante d t o capture i n notation.

Fig. 2

A= Usua l dynamic levels (8) B = Tchaikovsk y Sixth Symphony's dynamic level (12 ) (o n a scal e of 1 to 1000 )

526 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

To decod e an d correctl y expres s thi s mor e refine d notatio n require s som e adjustment fro m th e norma l usag e o f dynamics. As Fig.2 shows , since th e oute r dynamic level s remai n th e same , al l th e dynamic s i n betwee n tak e o n ne w positions i n th e twelve-ste p scale. 2 Thi s i s only logical, fo r i f Tchaikovsky's ffff i s to correspon d t o th e usua l fff, an d hi s pppppp i s to equa l th e usua l ppp, the n a f i n hi s notation , fou r level s awa y fro m th e ffff, wil l have t o b e somethin g mor e like a mf; conversely , a p , si x levels above ppppp, wil l hav e t o b e mor e lik e a n mp. I a m no t advocatin g tha t Tchaikovsky' s twelv e dynami c shading s shoul d be—or i n fac t ca n b e —produced wit h absolut e scientifi c accuracy , bu t rathe r that th e f s i n hi s score , fo r example , b e no t th e usua l all-ou t full-forc e powe r blasts (especiall y in th e brass ) that on e usuall y hears, bu t a modifie d f, a poco f , allowing fo r thre e additiona l subtl y delineate d dynami c level s befor e reachin g the maximu m level . Th e sam e adjustmen t woul d appl y t o th e lowe r dynamic s where, i n Tchaikovsky' s score, th e p woul d hav e t o b e mor e lik e a mp, t o allow for anothe r fiv e o r si x dynamic gradation s belo w tha t leve l t o reac h th e softes t possible sound . When approache d thi s way , Tchaikovsky' s Sixt h Symphon y take s o n classi c proportions an d a transcenden t quality , a variet y o f expressiv e shading s an d a glow o f orchestra l colors , tha t th e usua l 'slam-bang ' 'get-the-audience-aroused into-a frenzy-of-applause ' performance s ca n neve r achieve . How detaile d an d carefu l Tchaikovsk y coul d b e i n hi s notation—an d there fore i n hi s clea r definitio n o f ho w h e intende d a give n passag e t o soun d — is seen i n ou r first excerpted example : th e famou s and justifiabl y popula r andante theme fro m th e Sixt h Symphony' s first movement (Ex.2) . Even a cursor y glance at th e exampl e reveal s tha t every measur e ha s th e mos t exactin g dynami c nu ances. Analogously , i n th e twelv e bar s i t comprise s ther e ar e fou r temp o modi fications, apar t fro m th e initia l andante ( J = 69) . Tha t temp o markin g is , alas, one o f the mos t ignored . Indeed , mos t o f Tchaikovsky's andantes ar e turne d into adagios. I f a n orchestr a an d it s conducto r reall y faithfull y observ e Tchai kovsky's dynamic s an d tempo s here , th e musi c take s o n a plasticit y and subtl e expressiveness tha t i s fa r remove d fro m th e prevailin g over-sentimentalized , maudlin interpretation s on e usuall y encounters . Not e tha t th e accompanyin g instruments (horns , bassoon , clarinets , secon d violins , violas , basses ) ar e al l marked on e dynami c leve l lowe r tha n th e mai n them e (i n mute d firs t violin s and cellos) . If scrupulously followed, Tchaikovsky's temp o modification s also add tellingl y to th e originalit y of this passage : not merel y some obviou s sentimental popula r tune. Th e incalzando (pressin g forward ) mus t b e don e gradually , stretched ove r two bar s (mm.93-94) , an d the n cancelle d i n perfec t symmetr y b y tw o bar s of ritenuto (mm.95-96) . (Th e come prima i n m.9 7 refers , o f course , t o th e incal-

2. Actually , Tchaikovsky uses th e ful l rang e o f twelve dynamics in th e Sixt h Symphony , at th e lo w level a six-fol d p (pppppp), use d onl y onc e fo r th e fou r bas s clarine t note s befor e th e firs t move ment's allegro vivo.

Ex. 2

528

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

zando o f m.93). This passage return s two mor e times , onc e wit h th e ful l orches tra (mm.130-41) , an d th e las t tim e a s a sof t clarine t sol o accompanie d onl y b y quiet string s an d timpani . I t i s intende d t o b e a distan t reminiscenc e o f th e music's firs t appearance , no w marke d adagio mosso ( J = 60 ) — no longe r an dante—and i n th e softest dynamics, gradually fading away (ppp m.153 , pppp m.157, pppp m.159 , an d finall y si x p's in th e bas s clarinet i n m.160) . A degre e o f cautio n an d restrain t i s advisable i n som e o f the mor e climacti c brass-heavy moment s o f th e work , a s fo r exampl e i n mm.189-9 7 (Ex.3) . I t i s

Ex. 3

very tempting for the brass , seeing ff f i n thei r parts , to play their absolut e loudest , not realizin g a t the momen t tha t ther e ar e several eve n mor e climacti c passage s marked ffff, i n th e symphony . Th e sam e cautio n applie s t o mm.242-4 7 (Ex.4) , where, despit e th e ffs an d ff f s , a balanc e mus t b e achieve d s o tha t al l thre e choirs o f th e orchestr a (woodwinds , brass , an d strings ) ar e equalized . (I n mos t performances brasse s overwhel m th e res t o f the orchestra. ) A tempo questio n arise s around m.22 0 t o m.225 , wher e hundred s o f conduc tors hav e traditionall y impose d a hug e ritard , presumabl y unde r th e influenc e of—and a s a paralle l to—th e prolonge d fourteen-ba r diminuend o afte r th e cli max o f m.214. 3 This automati c correlatin g o f diminuendo an d ritardand o is , of 3. W e shoul d note , a s a n exampl e o f Tchaikovsky's mcticulousness an d conscientiousnes s i n nota tion, tha t i n m.21 6 h e write s dim. u n poco, no t merel y dim., i n th e hope s o f preventing too muc h and to o quic k a diminuendo , a ver y commo n faul t amon g player s an d conductors . Tchaikovsky' s

TCHAIKOVSKY: SIXT H SYMPHON Y

529

Ex.4

course, on e o f the mor e universall y practiced ba d habits , and som e conductors , like Furtwängler , fo r example , buil t a n entir e caree r o n thi s mistake n notion. 4 When w e consider that (a ) here Tchaikovsk y indicates no temp o change—ther e is no ritardand o or ritenut o i n th e score—an d (b ) that i n dozen s o f other place s in thi s symphon y ther e ar e numerou s eve n mor e subtl e temp o modification s clearly given , b y al l logi c i t doe s rais e th e questio n whethe r w e ough t t o allow ourselves t o indulg e i n suc h unindicate d re-interpretations . Moreover, shouldn' t we pa y som e respec t t o th e fac t tha t th e themati c materia l i n thi s passag e (mm.230-37) i

s the sam e a s a t th e

intentions ar e confirme d b y th e cautionar y f i n m.21 7 an d m.218 . Not e als o tha t th e composer , realizing that th e secon d an d fourt h horn s ar e resting i n m.216, reiterates th e dim. u n poco especiall y for the m i n m.217 . No t man y composer s oftha t er a too k car e t o b e s o explicitly clear. 4. Furtwängler , i n hi s man y way s wonderfu l an d remarkabl e 193 8 Berli n Philharmoni c recordin g of th e Sixt h Symphony , drops some fort y metronom e point s betwee n m.21 4 and m.229 . The corres ponding crescend o tha t follow s is, of course, als o accompanie d b y a tremendou s accelerando !

530 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

beginning o f the movement' s first allegro and fo r tha t reaso n alon e ough t t o retain som e semblanc e o f a livel y allegro character, no t th e lugubriou s andante one hear s so often? I suppose that a slight relaxation of the temp o aroun d m.22 9 is appropriate — although I woul d emphasiz e no t absolutel y necessar y (th e p p dy namics alon e ca n giv e the rea l meanin g an d expressio n to the passage) 5 —but to drop fro m twent y t o fort y metronom e point s i s a willfu l deconstructio n o f th e music. Another temp o distortio n tha t ha s becom e traditiona l occurs a t m.276 . Again Tchaikovsky's scor e doe s no t indicat e an y chang e (slowing ) of tempo , an d ye t countless conductor s indulg e i n a tremendous stretching of the temp o here . Th e fact i s tha t Tchaikovsk y ha s alread y composed a slowe r feeling int o th e music . From fast moving sixteenth-, eighth-, and quarter-notes—the basic pulse in quarternotes—Tchaikovsky drops to half-notes and whol e notes, a slowing of the momen tum o f the musi c by a factor of two or three at least (if one relates it to the precedin g turbulent sixteenths) . When mm.276-303 are kept i n tempo, that is , allegro, but felt in J or o, the musi c takes on an overwhelming power of expression that canno t be matched b y the various adagio versions one usually hears. This is not some tearful maudli n exercis e i n bathos , bu t rathe r a musi c o f extrem e anguish , an d o f anger, a desperate outcry of pain, culminating in the quadrupl e f(ffff) o f m.298. What make s th e usua l over-distende d temp o stretching s her e s o ludicrous— and I might add virtuall y impossible to perform from a technical, practica l point of view , especially i n th e brass , wh o hav e t o tak e untol d number s o f breath s t o get throug h th e passag e —is th e fac t tha t n o playe r i n th e worl d ca n pla y mm.298-99 i n tha t adopte d slow temp o an d stil l adher e t o Tchaikovsky' s dyn a m i c s D o z e n s o f recording s attes t t o this , i n which on e ca n hea r eithe r a sudde n speedin g u p o f th e temp o i n thos e tw o measures o r a dro p t o p a s earl y a s th e thir d bea t o f m.298 . I f kept i n tempo , Tchaikovsky's extrem e dynami c expressio n i s difficult, bu t entirel y possible . The Scherz o o f th e Sixt h Symphon y i s eve n today , a hundre d year s afte r i t was first performed, technically an d conceptuall y challengin g enoug h tha t i t is treated wit h considerabl e aw e an d respec t and , a s a result , usuall y played rela tively well . I wil l therefor e limi t m y comment s t o onl y three somewha t specia l interpretive/performance problems . Th e firs t o f these— a misreadin g o f th e text—would hardl y be wort h mentionin g i f it weren' t suc h a n annoyingl y careless mistak e an d s o universall y and blatantl y misrendered . I hav e ye t t o hea r a single recordin g o n whic h th e mai n them e hear d nea r th e beginnin g o f th e movement (mm.9-16 ) i

s played a s written.

5. I n fact , playin g m.229-3 6 reall y p p bu t i n ful l fas t temp o ha s it s own wonderfu l dramati c excitement, whic h th e slowing-dow n interpretatio n can neve r achieve.

TCHAIKOVSKY: SIXT H SYMPHON Y 53

1

The usua l rendition , successivel y i n oboes , trombones , an d horns , i s .6 D o no t Slatki n an d al l th e othe r famou s maestri wh o hav e th e privileg e o f recordin g thi s grea t symphoni c masterpiec e hear tha t thei r musician s ar e playin g something othe r tha n wha t th e compose r wrote? Evidentl y they don't , o r else the y don' t care . The secon d question— a muc h mor e interestin g on e —involves bowin g i n th e strings i n m.9 7 (als o mm.101 , 105 , 109-10) . Th e scor e indicate s successiv e down-bows: an

d.

I f playe d

with tha t bowing , th e actua l acoustica l resul t wil l no t b e bu

t

or o r dependin g o n th e degree o f laziness with whic h th e performer s approach thi s passage . (Th e 'retak ing' o f the bo w an d th e maintainin g o f the soun d fo r the longes t possibl e dura tion take s a lo t o f extr a effor t an d concentration. ) However , whe n th e sam e passage i s recapitulate d late r o n i n th e bras s an d woodwind s (mm.253 , 257 , 261), ther e obviousl y bein g n o bowing s involved , th e half-note s o n th e fac e o f it ar e mean t t o b e full y sustained . Thi s i s i n m y vie w further confirme d b y Tchaikovsk y a fe w bar s late r when , developin g an d ex panding upo n thi s themati c fragment , h e change s th e rhythm s (durations ) un maintaining that rhythmic version for an equivocally to entire si x measure s (mm.265-70) . Clearly , Tchaikovsk y mean t t o differentiat e between thes e tw o settings . Bu t tha t bein g th e case , ho w d o w e reconcil e th e fully sustaine d half-note s in th e bras s with th e impossible-to-sustai n half-note s i n the string s earlie r on ? Di d Tchaikovsk y expec t t o hea r a differenc e i n th e tw o renditions? O r di d h e expec t th e bras s to emulat e th e string s by shortening th e half-note durations ? Tha t make s littl e sens e i n vie w o f hi s ow n varyin g of th e rhythm i n m.265 . I t i s hard t o imagin e tha t Tchaikovsk y di d no t realiz e tha t i t is physicall y impossibl e full y t o sustai n thos e half-note s wit h successiv e down bows. O r di d these down-bow marking s originat e not with Tchaikovsky , bu t wit h the edito r o f the firs t publication ? There ar e n o easy , obviou s answers to thes e questions , an d therefor e n o easy , obvious way s t o resolv e th e performanc e proble m involved . M y ow n suggestio n is t o abando n th e successiv e down-bo w ide a an d bo w th e passag e a s i t come s ( n v n v n v ) ; or, at the ver y least , conductor s wh o wish to retai n th e specia l articu lative feelin g o f th e all-down-bo w version , shoul d exhor t thei r strin g player s t o not tak e ful l bow s with eac h stroke . Fo r if they do , an d th e mor e the y do so , th e bigger th e gap s between th e individua l note s wil l perforce become. Conversely , 6. Not e tha t Tchaikovsk y present s thi s them e i n variou s durationa l alternatives , , fo r example , includin g (mm.214 distinguish an d discriminat e between al l these alternat e J versions.

, 216) , obviousl y wishin g t o

532 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

the les s lengt h o f bow on e takes , th e les s tim e i t wil l tak e t o 'retake ' th e bow . And her e one-tent h o f a secon d make s a bi g difference . No r shoul d th e string s play with al l thei r forc e and might—th e passag e i s marked (only ) ff, wit h fff an d ffff stil l in th e offing. 7 The just-mentione d bras s an d woodwind s passag e (mm.265-70)—an d it s close relative , mm . 301-08—is m y thir d exampl e o f Scherz o passage s tha t re quire specia l car e an d attention . A s alread y noted , Tchaikovsk y write s . Thi s i s actuall y a relativel y rarel y use d notation ; mos t composers, fo r convenience's sak e and t o sav e time, writ e How ever, th e latte r notation , althoug h identica l i n meanin g t o th e alternativ e ver sion, is , for reason s I d o no t full y understand , usuall y played ver y sloppily, amr

biguously, imprecisely . The mos t commo n rendition s are an d Interestingly, i f th e pitc h change s o n th e eighth-note , mos t player s will , o f course, mak e that not e chang e audible , If , however, th e pitc h remain s th e sam e on th e eighth-not e (a s i n ou r Tchaikovsk y example) , i t i s usuall y droppe d dy namically, losin g whateve r harmoni c an d rhythmi c impac t i t i s intende d t o have.8 I t i s even wors e whe n composer s writ e p. Tha t Tchaikovsk y went t o th e trouble o f writin g twelv e time s i n eightee n differen t part s mean s t o me tha t he mean t th e tied-int o eighth-not e t o be clearly heard harmonicall y and rhythmically. (Th e onl y notatio n I kno w t o mak e tha t cleare r i s or I

n an y case, if so played, the passag e i n questio n take s on a tremen-

dous firmness, a surging power, that th e rathe r lame versio n ca n neve r achieve.9 The Final e o f th e Sixt h Symphon y i s ful l o f performanc e challenges , espe cially i n respec t t o temp o an d dynami c questions . Takin g th e forme r first , i t should b e perhap s sufficien t t o reiterat e tha t Tchaikovsk y here mark s his scor e with remarkabl e detail an d precision , a subtlety o f notation tha t one wil l find in very few (if any) 19th-centur y composer s unti l th e adven t of Strauss and Mahler . In a mere ninetee n scor e pages (comprisin g 17 1 measures) ther e are , apart fro m 7. Furtwängle r an d hi s Berli n Philharmoni c string s manag e thi s proble m superbly , usin g a s littl e bow a s possibl e with a moderat e ff . Furtwängler's recordin g of the Tchaikovsk y Sixt h Symphon y i s an altogethe r astonishin g achievement, i n man y way s on e o f the ver y finest recordings eve r made . Althoug h on e canno t agre e wit h some o f hi s interpretiv e ideas , especiall y i n regar d t o tempo , h e present s hi s interpretatio n i n suc h a convincin g manne r an d wit h suc h a magica l sens e o f line an d continuity , that on e i s irresistibly drawn t o hi s conception . Bu t abov e all , i t i s th e super b playin g o f th e orchestr a tha t make s thi s recording suc h a magnificen t listenin g experience . Th e playin g rival s tha t o f th e bes t America n orchestras o f the tim e (Ne w York , Philadelphia , Boston) , a fac t difficul t t o contemplat e an d diges t when on e realize s that by 193 8 th e personne l o f the Berli n Philharmoni c consisted , i n the majority, of Nazi Part y members . 8. I have already referred t o thi s proble m i n connectio n with simila r rhythmic/articulativ e questions in th e las t movemen t o f Beethoven's Sevent h Symphony . 9. Simila r performance/notational problem s occu r i n mm.323-26 .

TCHAIKOVSKY: SIXT H SYMPHON Y 53

3

the initia l Adagio lamentoso, twenty-nin e temp o marking s (temp o changes , tempo modifications) . T o sa y tha t these , includin g th e movement' s basi c tempo j = 54 , are generally ignored o r rather arbitraril y treated i s to understat e the matte r considerably . It wil l b e har d t o convinc e th e reade r (an d m y conducto r colleagues ) tha t Tchaikovsky's tempo indications , inclusiv e of his metronome markings , are won derful an d perfect , becaus e I canno t poin t t o an y recording s excep t (t o som e extent) b y Giele n an d Rozhdestvensky , i n whic h th e indicate d tempo s ar e re spected an d adhere d to . I onl y know from m y ow n performance s o f the work — and incidentall y th e positiv e (an d amazed ) reaction s o f th e musician s in volved—that Tchaikovsky' s temp o marking s wor k perfectl y well —in fact , really perfectly. As for the dynamics , rangin g i n thi s movemen t fro m on e ppppp (m.146 ) t o a number o f fff 's: the y als o "wor k perfectly. " Indeed , the y giv e th e music , wit h all it s expressio n o f anguish , sorrow , an d resignation , a plianc y an d nobility , a humaneness, tha t i n mor e crudel y undifferentiated performance s simpl y canno t come t o realization . Beside s the norma l contro l o f dynamics tha t an y great mu sic require s o f us performers , in th e Sixt h Symphon y w e hav e t o b e eve n mor e careful no t t o overpla y the f s an d ffs, fo r example—the y shoul d no t incu r th e loudest possibl e playing—whil e th e p' s and pp's shoul d hav e enoug h bod y an d substance t o allo w for still softe r an d mor e refine d lower dynamics. Thus th e ver y openin g o f th e Final e wit h it s remarkable , a t th e tim e ver y innovative, voic e crossing s i n th e strings, 10 nee d no t b e playe d 'a s lou d a s possible,' bu t rathe r wit h a full-bodied , unforce d soun d an d a n intens e inner expression. Othe r point s fo r cautio n ar e mm.39 , 47 , 54 , an d 63— pp, p , mf , an d f , respectively—important expressive differentiations I have rarel y heard mad e cor rectly.11 The entir e openin g passag e (mm . 1-18) is , o f course , on e o f th e mos t pro foundly expressiv e moment s i n 19th-centur y music . I t i s also remarkabl y 'modern' i n conception , no t onl y i n th e twistin g chromati c harmonie s o f m . l an d the plangen t dissonance s i n mm.5 , 7 , 9-12 , encircle d i n Ex.5 . It i s essential, i n order t o giv e thes e dissonance s thei r ful l expressiv e meaning , t o maintai n a n absolutely equa l dynami c balanc e betwee n string s and woodwinds . This ca n b e achieved b y the string s not bein g loude r o r heavier tha n th e woodwind s and b y the latte r sustainin g thei r suspensio n note s (th e encircle d note s i n Ex.5 ) at th e full require d level . I also feel that , althoug h th e string s appear t o hav e the domi nant voic e a t first, by measur e 5 the role s begi n t o chang e an d th e woodwind s gradually becom e primary , th e string s graduall y accompanimental. M y reaso n for suggestin g a s muc h i s tha t th e woodwinds ' risin g lin e take s o n increasin g melodic character , unti l a t m.1 2 i t clearl y dominate s a s th e primar y themati c material. Furthermore , i n tw o o f th e thre e recapitulation s o f thi s subject , i t i s 10. Interestingly , in th e otherwis e exact recapitulation of these openin g measures in m.90, Tchaikovsky relinquishe s the voic e crossing s and use s instead th e mor e conventiona l paralle l voicing. 11. Th e annotatio n co n lenezza e devozione i s partl y i n error . There i s n o suc h wor d i n Italia n a s lenezza; i t wa s probably meant t o b e lentezza (slowness) .

534

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Ex. 5

again th e wind s (bassoon s an d horn s respectively ) tha t dominat e melodically thematically.12 Last, I shoul d lik e t o poin t t o th e remarkabl e dark , torture d harmonie s i n every alternat e measur e i n th e las t sixtee n bar s o f the movement , al l th e mor e anguished fo r being se t in the lowes t orchestra l registe r (see Ex.6). The appropri ately melancholy , gloom y moo d o f thi s mos t extraordinar y endin g (o f a sym phony) depend s no t onl y o n renderin g i t i n th e righ t (Tchaikovsky's ) dynami c levels, includin g it s moderate , deepl y expressive , singin g sf's, bu t als o a dar k sonic coloratio n i n al l th e instrument s a s wel l a s lettin g th e harmoni c disso nances (marke d x i n Ex.6 ) assert their mos t anguishe d expression . While ther e i s much , muc h mor e tha t coul d b e sai d abou t th e Tchaikovsk y Sixth Symphony' s interpretiv e problem s an d demand s an d ho w thi s grea t work has been cheapene d an d bowdlerize d b y generations o f conductors i n the indul gence o f every possible Effekthascherei, th e recountin g o f it would merel y reiter ate s o much o f what ha s alread y been se t forth . 12. I recal l whe n conductin g th e Sixt h Symphony some year s ago with th e Ne w Yor k Philharmonic that som e o f the strin g player s (especially i n th e firs t violins ) wer e deeply offended a t th e suggestion that the y give u p thei r 'primar y role ' t o th e woodwind s around m.5 .

TCHAIKOVSKY: SIXT H SYMPHON Y

535

Ex. 6

Even th e fe w point s I hav e raise d i n thi s brie f discussio n o f th e Sixt h Sym phony ough t t o awaken in u s a deep concer n fo r respecting Tchaikovsky's metic ulous attentio n t o detail , especiall y i n regar d t o temp o an d dynamics . T o put i t another way , ho w dar e w e question—an d reject—wha t thi s grea t maste r wrot e in th e las t anguished month s o f his life ! It ca n onl y be hope d tha t th e overwhelmin g factua l (no t anecdotal ) evidenc e presented herei n wil l arous e conductor s an d performer s of al l stripe s t o rededi cate themselve s t o serving , rathe r tha n using , th e ar t o f musi c —espousing th e notion an d principl e tha t a grea t composer' s creation s ough t t o b e inherentl y respected an d cherished . Perhap s on e coul d the n supplan t th e mott o "nobod y gives a dam n abou t th e composer " wit h th e mor e benign , gracious—an d sim ple—"all fo r the composer. "

This page intentionally left blank

Postscript

If th e reade r ha s faithfull y followe d m e throug h th e foregoin g analyse s o f th e recordings o f eigh t majo r work s o f th e symphoni c repertory , he/sh e wil l hav e had t o com e t o th e sa d conclusion (a s I have ha d to ) tha t i n th e cumulativ e w e have hundred s (i f not thousands ) o f recording s an d performance s whose mai n and commo n characteristi c i s that they ignor e virtuall y all the basi c information contained i n th e score s o f the grea t composers . A s orchestras hav e becom e dur ing thi s century—sinc e th e adven t o f symphoni c recording s i n th e teen s an d twenties—in increasin g measur e technicall y proficien t and flexible , th e over-al l artistic resul t is the parado x of a plethora o f incorrect, willful , imperfect interpre tations, fo r the mos t par t technicall y perfectly performed . The consummat e skil l with whic h orchestras , especiall y nowadays , follo w an d realiz e an y interpreta tion, n o matte r ho w aberran t o r unmusica l o r incorrect , i s nothin g shor t o f amazing. I t i s also saddening . Fo r i t mean s i n tur n tha t orchestra s hav e littl e o r no interpretiv e sa y i n th e re-creatio n o f a work , give n th e condition s o f thei r employment, an d tha t the y fo r the mos t par t don' t care—o r probabl y also don't know anymore—wha t a correct , appropriate , respectful-of-the-compose r realiza tion migh t be . Excep t fo r th e occasiona l personalizatio n o f a sol o passag e by , say, a win d solois t o r th e concertmaster , orchestr a musician s dutifull y follo w the conductor' s ever y whi m an d wish , n o matte r ho w righ t o r ho w wron g o r illogical. Given th e hundred s o f example s presente d herei n o f incontrovertible , de tailed evidenc e o f how conductor s mis-interpret , over-interpret , under-interpret , the grea t work s o f Beethoven , Brahms , Strauss , Tchaikovsky , Ravel , Schu mann—and b y extensio n th e res t o f th e classical-Romanti c repertory—th e reader ma y no w understan d wh y I wa s originall y tempte d t o entitl e thi s boo k "Nobody Give s a Dam n Abou t th e Composer, " a title, I am sure , considere d b y most reader s at first glance quite outrageou s and off-putting . Bu t i f anything, the general knowledg e I hav e ha d fo r a lon g tim e tha t conductors , b y an d large , tend no t t o kno w o r choos e t o ignor e wha t i s actuall y stated i n a composer' s 537

538 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

score, wa s painfull y confirme d i n th e cours e o f writin g thi s book ; an d I no w find m y origina l title postulatio n t o b e rathe r mild . I t hardly doe s justic e to th e situation an d th e actua l stat e o f affairs . The majo r proble m remain s th e same : th e averag e audience , eve n man y mu sic professional s an d 'experts, ' ha s littl e o r n o ide a what , say , a Brahm s scor e really contains , wha t i t really says . A s a result , i f th e orchestr a play s a perfor mance technicall y wel l —meaning essentiall y n o obviou s wrong notes—a n audi ence i s likely to assum e (ho w ca n i t d o otherwise? ) tha t wha t the y ar e hearin g corresponds t o wha t th e compose r wrote , especiall y i f the y hav e gotte n som e emotional charg e fro m th e performance . (A s I hav e explaine d man y time s i n the cours e o f this book, th e emotiona l charg e a n audienc e ma y get fro m a given performance ma y no t b e on e intende d b y th e composer , an d ma y b e quit e extraneous t o th e music , ma y indee d b e a substitutio n b y the conductor. ) Th e audience, th e averag e listener , i s lef t onl y wit h th e abilit y to measur e a perfor mance b y a sens e o f whether i t was 'exciting' o r 'not exciting. ' The writin g o f thi s boo k ha s been , o f course , a tremendous , i f somewha t depressing, learnin g experienc e fo r me . An d ho w I wis h I coul d hav e instea d written a boo k fille d wit h prais e o f conductors , o f orchestras , o f thei r music making, an d o f their interpretations ! O n th e on e hand , eve n I became shocke d at the depth s o f musical/interpretive debasemen t s o many recording s revealed — including man y recording s I ha d someho w no t previousl y encountered. Eve n I was no t prepare d fo r th e amazin g rang e o f misinterpretation s tha t conductor s are capabl e of . On th e othe r hand , I cam e t o tw o interesting—an d rathe r positiv e —realizations: 1 ) that b y an d larg e 20th-centur y music , especiall y newe r contemporar y music, i s performed muc h bette r an d muc h mor e respectfull y than ar e the 19th century classics ; (2 ) m y origina l sens e tha t th e conductor s o f the earlie r par t of this century—th e conductin g superstar s o f th e 1930s , '40s , an d '50s—wer e i n general inherentl y an d consistentl y superio r t o th e reignin g conductor s o f today is a notio n I n o longe r fin d tenable . Indeed , man y o f m y forme r heroes—Furt wängler, Toscanini , Klemperer , Walter—hav e falle n fro m thei r hig h pedestal s on which , a s a young musician , I had place d them . I n ligh t o f the close , critica l scrutiny t o whic h I hav e subjecte d thei r recordings—a s clos e an d critica l a s I have scrutinize d th e wor k o f today' s conductors—onl y no w substitutin g precis e analysis fo r m y earlie r mor e generall y impressionisti c reactions , man y o f th e 'great ones ' o f the pas t ar e reveale d a s being pre y to th e sam e foible s and weak nesses a s the presen t generation(s ) o f maestri —or perhap s eve n mor e so . Some wil l argue tha t evaluatin g the wor k of conductors solel y o n th e basi s of recordings give s a fals e pictur e o f thei r actua l qualit y a s musicians . Ther e i s a kernel o f truth i n this , althoug h onl y i n respec t t o some conductor s and , mor e important, no t enoug h trut h t o negat e th e whol e ide a tha t official , commercia l recordings ar e i n th e vas t majority o f cases accurat e representation s o f a conduc tor's basi c interpretation. 1 Also , som e o f th e mor e famou s conductors, pas t an d 1. Th e recording s o f Furtwängle r ar e perhap s a cas e i n point . I t i s surprisin g to realiz e ho w fe w studio recording s Furtwängler mad e i n hi s lifetime , give n hi s extraordinar y fame . Th e majorit y o f

POSTSCRIPT 53

9

present, have ha d a chanc e t o recor d man y o f the majo r staple s o f the repertor y several times , i n th e cas e o f Karajan, Solti , Bernstei n or Stokowski , for example , four o r fiv e times . T o argu e tha t non e o f thes e recording s ar e representativ e of their interpretiv e intentions i s disingenuous. Older reader s with fond memorie s o f Toscanini o r Furtwängle r o r Walter per formances an d recording s ma y themselve s b e rathe r surprise d t o fin d i n revis iting thei r recording s o f th e 1930 s t o '50 s tha t thes e ar e no t entirel y unflawed , and tha t th e nostalgi a of the 'goo d ol d past ' ma y indee d clou d thei r judgment . There i s also the fac t tha t i n th e concer t hal l mos t listener s ar e mor e inten t o n watching a conducto r tha n jus t hearing th e music . That , however , i s what on e is pe r forc e oblige d t o d o i n listenin g to a recording . I have ofte n wondere d wh y people ar e s o draw n t o watchin g a conductor , a s i f there wer e ove r a spa n o f a forty-minute symphon y somethin g al l tha t excitin g t o watch . Th e worl d woul d be a muc h bette r place—an d conductor s woul d no t b e see n a s suc h god-lik e mythological creature s —if audience s didn't watc h th e conducto r i n suc h a mes merized fashion , if they close d thei r eye s o r bowe d thei r head s an d jus t listened to th e music . Granted , Toscanin i an d Furtwängle r wer e rathe r fascinatin g to watch, eac h i n hi s totall y differen t way , bu t I maintai n tha t a t th e sam e tim e watching them coul d easil y b e distractin g from fully , clearl y hearing th e music . The fac t i s that th e averag e audienc e wil l hea r mostly—o r perhap s only—tha t to whic h th e conducto r i s specifically, visuall y addressing his attention. 2 In an y case , I don' t thin k th e earl y decades o f this centur y ha d som e kin d of monopoly o n 'grea t conductors, ' an d tha t w e ar e no w i n a n er a uniquel y beref t of major conductoria l talents . There i s only more competitio n i n th e fiel d today, because ther e ar e man y mor e peopl e conductin g no w tha n ther e wer e i n th e past; an d man y fin e conductor s ar e fo r on e reaso n o r anothe r no t i n majo r positions with majo r orchestra s and majo r recordin g contracts . As for the poin t tha t th e moder n orchestra l literatur e is played infinitel y bette r than th e bi g 19th - centur y repertory , I had a di m sens e o f this som e tim e befor e writing this book. But listening t o the hundred s o f recordings that comprise d th e main researc h i n thi s effort , an d comparin g the m wit h a simila r numbe r o f Furtwängler's recording s available today are no t studi o recordings but taping s of 'live' performances, in man y case s poorl y o r inadequatel y recorded, and/o r no t necessaril y representativ e of hi s bes t work. His fines t recordings are i n fac t som e o f his 'studio' recording s (Tchaikovsky's Sixth, Schubert's "Great" C major , Beethoven' s Fifth) , bu t i t is known that he himsel f was dissatisified wit h a number of others . A simila r situatio n exist s wit h th e recording s of Mitropoulo s and DeSabata , wit h bot h o f whom there ar e mor e 'live ' concer t performance s than 'studio ' recordings . And ther e is , o f course , th e special cas e o f Celibidache , wh o has , sinc e th e earl y day s o f hi s career , refuse d t o mak e an y com mercial recordings , which, however , hasn' t prevente d a floo d o f pirate d recording s o f hi s concer t performances fro m bein g issued. 2. Televisio n and th e televisin g of concerts , that is , th e pre-arranged , pre-determined visualizatio n of performances, ha s mad e matters eve n worse. Fo r no w i t i s the televisio n directo r wh o i s directing and controllin g the watchin g audience's attention to limited, specific, pre-selecte d aspect s of a piece, not t o other s an d no t t o al l o f th e piec e (excep t perhaps i n certai n camera lon g shots) . An d i t is well know n tha t the averag e listene r hear s mostly, o r only , tha t which h e sees .

540 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

recordings an d performance s o f contemporar y musi c i n m y regula r lif e a s a very activ e conductor , composer , an d publishe r (o f new music) , thi s poin t wa s unequivocally substantiated . Th e reason—o r reasons—fo r thi s i s actually quit e simple. Firs t o f all , mos t o f th e famou s maestr i wh o trave l al l ove r th e worl d with thei r bi g recordin g contract s an d thei r memorize d repertor y of about thirt y pieces don' t touc h an y musi c o f a certai n modernit y o r complexity . The y cer tainly avoi d an y contac t wit h mos t musi c sinc e 1945 , unles s i t i s an occasiona l easy-to-listen-to neo-classica l o r neo-Romanti c piece , especiall y i f it i s schedule d to be a world premiere. B y and large , they avoi d like the plagu e th e repertor y of the Secon d Viennnes e Schoo l an d an y o f their stylisti c offspring, a s well a s any truly comple x an d challengin g moder n musi c o f an y othe r school. 3 Fo r the m such musi c i s indeed a plague , a s it i s also fo r mos t o f their audiences , wh o ar e usually gratefu l t o thei r musi c directo r i f he doesn' t d o to o muc h "o f that mod ern stuff"—bette r i f he doe s none . The exception s t o this , lik e Abbado , Mehta , Dohnanyi , Levine , Slatki n (among a fe w others ) —in earlie r day s th e gran d exception s wer e Mitropoulos , Koussevitzky, an d Stokowsk i —intelligently blend a fai r amoun t o f new an d 'dif ficult' musi c int o thei r programming . The y d o thi s partl y out o f convictio n fo r the validit y of the bes t o f the contemporar y repertory , and partl y ou t o f a sens e that the y owe it to thei r audience s an d th e youn g generation s o f musicians com ing along , t o infor m the m o f the lates t an d bes t o f the ne w musi c an d it s direct early 20th-centur y antecedents . Except fo r thes e fe w just-mentione d valian t souls, th e fiel d o f contemporar y music —'contemptible music, ' a s som e wag s woul d hav e it—i s lef t t o th e 'con temporary musi c specialists, ' t o thos e relativel y numerous mostl y younge r con ductors wh o labo r i n th e orchestra l minor league s o r who lea d th e hundred s of contemporary musi c ensembles , an d wh o no t onl y don't hav e the bi g recordin g 3. Brun o Walter' s rational e fo r no t conductin g contemporar y musi c i s a s lamentabl e a s i t i s widespread amon g conductors . Walter , lik e s o man y o f his colleagues , hide s behin d a serie s o f specious arguments, whic h neve r even adjoi n th e rea l issue . Tryin g t o justif y hi s avoidanc e o f ne w music , especially i n hi s late r post-193 0 career , Walte r invokes—rathe r self-righteously , i t seem s t o m e — ranking "m y responsibilit y toward s th e art , t o whic h m y lif e i s dedicated , highe r tha n m y dut y towards the present ; and i t would hav e been wron g for me t o make mysel f the advocat e o f tendencie s which, I am convinced , ar e leadin g t o it s corruption." Ignorin g the remarkabl e achievement s i n th e realm o f ne w musi c o f conductor s suc h a s Koussevitzky , Reiner, Goossens , Stokowsk i an d Mitro poulos, an d blamin g "atonalit y and dodecaphony " for causing "th e deca y o f music," h e indict s suc h music o f "abstractness " an d o f bein g "divorce d fro m life. " H e accuse s composer s o f thi s persuasion of "lacking i n fundamenta l musicality," substituting constructivism, intellectualism, "th e artificia l fo r the artistic, " turnin g "fro m musi c t o non-music. " Zigzaggin g bac k an d fort h betwee n a genera l condemnation o f new musi c an d disingenuou s protestations o f his "feeling s of responsibility towards and profoun d interes t i n th e present, " h e feel s tha t h e "coul d no t bea r t o witnes s [music's ] abuse , still les s abe t it. " H e paint s the presen t a s merely "transient, " invokin g his nee d t o remai n "mindfu l of the unchanging demand s o f yet higher powers " (Italic s mine). Finally , i n a holier-than-tho u pos e he claim s tha t "i n spit e o f m y attempt s t o d o justic e t o th e present , I alway s endeavore d t o lif t m y eyes up " —one ca n se e hi s hal o —"above th e distressin g contemporar y scen e toward s th e regio n whence com e t o u s thos e timeles s sources of strength." (Walter , O f Music an d Music-making (Ne w York, 1957) , pp.206-11.)

POSTSCRIPT 54

1

contracts bu t wh o wil l never ge t them fro m th e Sony's , BMG's , EMI's , Telarc's , Philips's, etc. , precisel y because the y d o "to o muc h moder n music. " The y ar e then als o presume d t o hav e n o abilitie s i n th e classica l repertory . Bu t thes e conductors have , b y and large , a keen respec t fo r the composer' s score , realizin g on the on e han d tha t composer s toda y for the mos t par t are meticulousl y precis e and conscientiou s i n notatin g thei r works—Mr . Dohnany i t o th e contrary—an d on th e othe r han d that , ther e bein g n o traditio n (ba d o r good ) o r previou s knowledge o f the wor k to fal l bac k on , thei r onl y salvatio n is to d o (a s best thei r talents allow ) what the compose r ha s written . I fin d tha t eve n th e 'world-famou s maestri, ' whe n fo r som e od d reaso n o r other the y ar e force d to venture fort h int o th e reall y modern repertory , becom e all o f a sudde n ver y respectfu l o f th e composer' s scor e —again t o th e limit s o f their abilitie s (which limit s ar e ofte n rathe r circumscribing) . Their attitud e sud denly changes ; eve n thei r conducting , i.e.. , their bato n technique , becomes sud denly simpler and clearer , and les s exhibitionistic, less directed towards audience pleasuring. As opposed t o assuming that they know everything about th e Beetho ven Fift h o r Brahm s First , fo r th e rar e an d occasiona l difficul t ne w piec e —I don't mea n Barber' s Adczgzo-they usuall y realize tha t the y know nothing, an d i n a reall y ne w piec e actuall y can , o f course , hav e n o prio r knowledg e o r experi ence. Thei r onl y salvation , then , is , as bes t the y can , t o d o wha t i t say s i n th e score. Suddenl y Toscanini' s come è scritto takes o n rea l meanin g fo r them, an d becomes a kin d o f professional/philosophical life-raft . In an y case , I have notice d fo r years that th e musi c o f the earl y 20th century , say, th e fin e work s of Bartok, Prokofiev, Milhaud, Honegger , Stravinsk y (except for Th e Firebird), Walton , Nielsen , Szymanowski , Respighi, an d th e lik e —even late Debuss y (lik e Jeux an d Sa n Sebastian)—aie conducte d wit h infinitel y mor e deference an d accurac y tha n an y Beethove n o r Brahm s o r Tchaikovsk y sym phony eve r receives . An d th e mor e recen t ne w musi c (o f the las t fifty years) is even mor e respectfull y treated.4 Again the reason s ar e quit e simple . Mos t o f th e music o f the 20th-centur y ha s no t ye t been betraye d b y false tradition s and fals e interpreters. Wha t al l thi s ironicall y comes dow n t o i s that th e mor e a wor k is played, th e mor e familia r i t is , the mor e popula r i t becomes , th e mor e likel y it is t o b e bastardize d an d vulgarized , and it s composer' s intention s disregarded . The ne w challengin g musi c o f today has no t ye t had th e misfortun e of acquiring such a n 'elevated ' popula r status . There i s anothe r interesting , thoug h disappointing , revelatio n tha t ha s emerged ver y clearly fo r me fro m th e wor k and researc h o n thi s book ; i t seem s 4. I t wa s no t alway s thus , o f course . I ca n easil y recal l tha t eve n fift y year s ago , i n m y youth , performances o f contemporar y music—o f almos t an y ilk—wer e quit e disma l an d inept . No t onl y were mos t conductor s unabl e t o grappl e wit h th e ne w musi c o f th e time , bu t man y orchestra l musicians als o had grea t problems wit h it , from a technica l poin t o f view as well as dealing wit h th e newer comple x 'irrational ' rhythms , th e extravagan t instrumenta l gestures and wide-rangin g lines, with intonatio n problems, in short , with a whole spectru m of new musica l concepts. Sinc e then , o f course, ther e ha s bee n a remarkabl e revolution in thes e respects , and mos t professional s toda y take all form s o f contemporary demands pretty much i n stride .

542 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

that th e mor e explici t composer s ar e wit h thei r notation , th e mor e expressiv e marks they use, the mor e precisel y they try to monitor th e structur e and continu ity o f a piece , th e mor e roo m fo r error , fo r negligence , ther e seem s t o b e i n carrying ou t thes e intentions/instructions . I sometime s ge t th e impressio n that , paradoxically, Bach' s music , wit h it s minimu m o f performanc e informatio n — relatively fe w and rathe r imprecis e dynami c indications , rarely even an y temp o markings—is generally better serve d i n performanc e than Beethove n o r Brahms. Am I on slipper y ground whe n I say that? Yes, of course, fo r we may neve r really know explicitl y how Bac h intende d hi s musi c t o b e performed . W e believe we have com e a considerabl e wa y in recen t time s i n understandin g his musi c an d grappling wit h it s performanc e practice . Bu t suc h informatio n stil l remain s rather conjectural , which—then—allow s interpretiv e imagination s — healthy, strong ones—t o flesh out th e bar e notation i n myria d and ofte n ver y compellin g ways. And wh o i s to sa y that on e o r th e othe r Baroqu e interpretation/realization is wrong, i s bad? Well, n o on e —really. But whe n i t come s t o post-Mozart/Hayd n literatur e with it s much mor e pre cise notationa l paraphernalia , we can begin—rightl y so—t o invok e the compos er's tex t a s a specifi c guid e t o a certai n kin d o f interpretatio n o r realization — not on e interpretation , no t a definitiv e on e (ther e i s n o suc h thing) , bu t a n interpretation whic h operate s withi n certai n prescribed/describe d limits . Th e problem her e i s that, whil e Bac h force s yo u t o us e you r bes t intelligenc e an d musical imagination—failin g that, performances of Bach ar e really deadly—Beethoven specificall y challenge s yo u a s a re-creato r i n ways , a s th e recor d show s (pun intended) , mos t interpreter s ar e incapabl e o f meeting , fo r al l th e reason s given i n thi s text . Anothe r wa y o f statin g thi s i s t o sa y th e margi n fo r error , neglect, abus e i s muc h greate r becaus e i t i s mor e measurabl e —measurable against th e mor e prescriptiv e text. As I hav e stated , mos t 20t h centur y musi c (say , Prokofiev , Bartók , Britten , Copland, Carter , e t al. ) i s ultimatel y performe d mor e accurately—a t leas t re spectfully—than th e grea t literatur e o f the 19t h century . That i s not t o sa y that there isn' t roo m fo r improvemen t o n tha t fron t (especiall y th e mor e modern , complex atona l literature) ; but a s a genera l truis m i t i s valid an d stand s u p t o close scrutiny . My argumen t o n tha t poin t ha s been no t s o much tha t therefor e there i s more understandin g o f contemporar y musi c —in specialize d contempo rary ensemble s tha t i s sometime s th e case , bu t i t canno t b e broadene d t o a n industry-wide generalizatio n —just tha t newnes s an d unfamiliarit y force s a cer tain degre e o f respectfulness and blin d relianc e o n th e text , a t leas t technically , while over-familiarit y wit h th e classic s breeds a kind o f willfulness, arbitrariness, interpretive self-indulgence , ego-driven interference , tha t i s deeply disrespectful and damaging . What is the answe r to thes e problems ? A group o f answers come t o mind : (1 ) a better , mor e thorough , mor e discriminatin g education—for performer s as well as composers; (2 ) a bette r mor e painstaking , detailed educatio n o f composers i n the meaning , th e effect , th e ramifications , and th e possibilitie s of notation. To o many composer s toda y kno w too littl e abou t th e vas t fiel d o f musica l notation,

POSTSCRIPT 54

3

or o n th e othe r han d ar e hell-ben t o n inventin g ne w notationa l device s and/o r systems, ignorin g o r erroneousl y duplicatin g wha t ha s alread y bee n give n an d used fo r decades , re-inventin g th e whee l a s i t were ; (3 ) highe r industr y stan dards, mor e artisti c integrit y an d honest y i n th e field ; a mor e discriminating , (again) bette r educated , mor e culturall y literat e audienc e an d critica l frater nity—goals an d dream s o f which w e hav e falle n severel y short i n recen t times . I shoul d als o ad d a t thi s point , fo r th e benefi t particularl y o f thos e reader s whose 'favorit e conductor(s) ' I have ha d t o treat wit h somethin g less than praise, that almos t al l the conductor s referred to i n thi s boo k hav e mad e both ver y good and ver y ba d recordings—b y th e way , to reiterat e m y earlie r point , onl y rarel y poorly played b y th e orchestras . Fo r i t i s a realit y tha t almos t al l conductor s ar e weak i n som e repertor y area s an d stron g i n others . I also hav e no t bee n abl e t o discover amon g an y o f th e fines t conductor s an y wh o ar e (o r were ) entirel y artistically consistent , eithe r i n thei r approac h t o certai n work s o r acros s th e range o f their repertory. 6 There ar e man y conductor s wh o ma y b e wea k o r fee l uncomfortable i n th e classica l Germa n repertory , bu t wh o ar e quit e excellen t in th e brilliant , splash y earl y 20th-centur y orchestra l repertor y (Ravel , Bartók , Prokofiev, etc.) . And the n ther e ar e thei r opposites . Thus, I would ventur e t o say that i f I criticized negativel y a reader' s favorit e conductor her o in , say , a Beetho ven o r Brahm s recording , th e chance s ar e tha t tha t conducto r ma y have don e a 5. A striking example o f this kind of artistic dissociation is the cas e o f Mengelberg, whos e work doe s not com e of f very well in thi s book but whos e recording of Strauss' s Ein Heldenleben, mad e i n 1928 with th e Ne w Yor k Philharmonic , i s unquestionabl y one o f the greatest , mos t beautifull y 'interpre ted,' mos t perfec t recording s ever made . 6. I a m tempte d t o exclud e fro m thi s lis t o f fin e bu t inconsisten t conductor s a fe w lik e Roge r Désormière, Lovr o von Matacic , Issa y Dobrowen , Ataúlfo Argento. Bu t I ma y be o n slipper y ground here, fo r these conductor s an d other s mentione d belo w either recorde d relativel y little—to o smal l a sampling t o mak e a fai r judgment—o r recorde d non e (o r little ) o f th e bi g majo r repertory , such a s that deal t with i n thi s book, b y which ultimatel y any conducto r mus t finally be judged. This i s a goo d momen t t o mentio n tha t I wis h tha t I coul d hav e brough t int o th e discussio n a number o f other fine conductors, who, like the fou r name s mentione d directl y above, recorded non e of th e eigh t work s unde r consideratio n herein . Apar t fro m Désormière , Matacic , Dobrowe n (th e latter tw o amon g othe r thing s super b accompanists) , an d Argento , m y lis t woul d includ e Frit z Stiedry an d Jone l Perle a (bot h o f whom I worked with a t th e Metropolita n Opera) , Bohda n Wodic zko, Walte r Straram , Kar l Muck , Sigmun d Hausegger , Oswal d Kabasta , Paav o Berglund , Vaclav Talich. I t would als o hav e bee n fascinatin g t o includ e Henr y Wood an d Lando n Ronald , tw o turnof-the-century Englis h conductors , wh o i n th e ver y earlies t day s o f recording s contribute d signifi cantly t o th e establishmen t o f criteri a an d highe r standard s i n th e performanc e an d recordin g o f classical music . Finally, in th e categor y of more o r les s 'obscure' conductors , a s far as popularity and eminence goes , there i s Ernst von Schuch , a highl y respected, even revered , conductor i n th e earl y years o f this century who, however, neve r recorde d a t all. Many reader s wil l hav e noticed tha t there i s no mentio n o f women conductor s i n thi s book. Th e reason i s simple : I kno w o f n o wome n conductor s wh o hav e recorde d (commercially ) the eigh t works unde r discussio n here, wit h th e exceptio n o f Victoria Bond, wh o jus t recentl y ha s recorde d Tchaikovsky's Sixt h Symphon y wit h th e Shangha i Symphon y Orchestra . Havin g had a numbe r o f talented wome n student s i n m y conductin g classes a t Tanglewoo d an d i n m y summe r Festiva l i n Idaho, 1 have n o doub t tha t wome n conductor s —many o f the m ar e a s goo d o r bette r tha n thei r male counterparts—wil l i n th e futur e occup y prominent conductin g positions an d b e contracte d by record companie s to recor d the majo r work s o f the repertory .

544 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR

superb recordin g o f a Walto n o r Vaugh n William s symphony , o r a Rave l L a Valse o r a Rimsky-Korsakov Scheherezade, o r whatever—works that I happen no t to hav e discusse d i n thi s book . By th e sam e token , th e man y musica l interpretiv e misdemeanor s committe d by conductor s describe d herei n represen t onl y a tiny sampling o f what is perpe trated acros s th e widt h an d breadt h o f th e entir e repertory . What occur s tim e and tim e agai n i n th e performance s o f the eigh t work s discussed i n Par t III ca n also b e hear d i n th e severa l hundre d othe r work s that roun d ou t th e standar d symphonic repertory . I n othe r words , th e example s cite d herei n mus t stan d fo r all th e other s i n th e res t o f the repertory ; they ar e certainl y no t limite d t o th e eight work s discussed here. Fo r the reade r will hav e note d tha t th e performanc e problems cite d i n thi s accoun t ar e consistentl y th e sam e an d fal l int o a fe w broad categories : respectin g tempos , dynamics , th e ful l valu e of rhythms, details of articulatio n an d phrasing , an d respectin g th e meanin g an d feelin g o f meters and tim e signatures . But collectivel y an d briefl y stated , the y al l come dow n to a basic disrespec t fo r an d disloyalt y to th e score . An d the y ar e al l a matte r o f attitude an d o f ethical conscience, no t necessaril y of capability. To put i t another way—simple an d dramatic : i f these matter s wer e attende d t o mor e respectfull y and precisel y b y conductors an d orchestras , thi s boo k woul d neve r hav e ha d t o be written. This i s analogous t o th e though t I hav e ofte n ha d tha t i f musicians an d con ductors coul d b e counte d o n t o rende r accuratel y the first time—or a t least th e second time—wha t composer s hav e written , ther e woul d b e n o nee d fo r extensive rehearsing . On e coul d ge t almos t immediatel y t o th e hear t o f th e matter , namely, th e essence , th e tru e expressio n of the musi c a t hand, an d eliminat e all those second , third , an d fourt h rehearsal s mos t orchestra s hav e pe r week , i n which s o much tim e i s spent i n dealin g with merely technical matter s and weed ing out ba d habits (an d bad traditions) . This way one coul d eve n mak e th e dail y life o f orchestra l musician s mor e enlivening , mor e inspiring , mor e resistan t t o the potentia l doldrum s o f day-in, day-out , year-in, year-out routine . Am I assuming too much? And what about the technica l difficultie s containe d in th e music ? What technical difficulties ? I ca n hardl y think o f a singl e work in the standar d repertory , u p t o an d includin g th e earl y 20th-centur y 'moderns, ' which present s technica l problem s t o th e musician s sittin g i n ou r orchestras , especially the orchestra s of today. There i s nothing i n an y Beethove n o r Brahms or Tchaikovsk y o r Dvora k symphon y o r Straus s ton e poem , jus t t o mentio n a fe w examples , tha t an y musicia n in , say , th e Chicag o Symphon y o r Berli n Philharmonic o r Concertgebouw Orchestra , o r even th e Cincinnati , BBC , Stutt gart, NHK , an d Reykjavi k symphonie s canno t instantl y rende r wit h technica l ease. The y hav e lon g ag o —dozens i f not hundred s o f times—conquered thos e technical problem s tha t perhap s stil l gave musician s trouble a hundre d o r eve n fifty years ago. I personall y eve n know—an d hav e know n i n th e past—quit e a fe w musicians who play(ed ) thei r individua l parts perfectly , technicall y an d musically , every time, especiall y in th e standar d repertory. And I know there ar e on e o r two such

POSTSCRIPT 54

5

musicians i n ever y orchestra worth mentionin g i n thi s context . An d i f they ar e not eve n remotel y th e majorit y o f musicians , the y ar e sufficien t i n numbe r t o prove that th e totall y accurate an d respectfu l rendition o f a given orchestral par t is absolutel y withi n th e real m o f possibility. (Suc h musician s occasionall y eve n manage t o pla y their part s absolutel y correctl y an d perfectl y in defiance o f thei r conductors—a remarkabl e an d laudabl e accomplishment , i f one think s about i t and wha t tha t entails. ) No, clearly , the problem s wit h th e standar d repertor y do not li e i n th e real m o f instrumenta l techniqu e an d virtuosity , with digita l an d embouchuric skills . They d o resid e i n al l th e othe r musical , interpretive , intel lectual aspect s o f musical re-creation , includin g th e fac t tha t th e readin g of music, familia r o r unfamiliar , by mos t orchestr a musician s ha s bee n turne d i n re cent decade s int o a visual rathe r tha n a n aural skill . That i s to say , musicians nowadays rea d musi c technicall y wit h a spee d an d note-accurac y unhear d of , say, fift y year s ago : definitel y a n enormou s gain . However , thi s ha s bee n achieved a t a n enormou s loss , for , at th e sam e time , mos t musician s n o longe r hear harmonically , no r wit h an y sensibilit y or accurac y regardin g dynamics , le t alone (al l bu t th e mos t obvious ) ensembl e aspects . Ther e i s now almos t every where a singula r (an d impressive ) abilit y t o sight-rea d fast , t o concentrat e o n 'getting the notes, ' an d gettin g the m mor e o r less technicall y 'perfect, ' bu t a t the expense o f hearin g an y othe r aspect s o f musi c re-creation : harmony , dynamics , instrumental an d sonori c balances , al l manne r o f musical/structura l interrela tionships. Mos t player s are littl e island s unt o themselves—i n th e vas t se a o f th e orchestra — concentrating solel y o n thei r ow n part s (linearly/technically) , with virtually n o interes t in , curiosit y about, o r knowledg e o f what i s going o n i n th e rest o f th e orchestr a aroun d them , i n voice s abov e an d belo w them , i n wha t precedes o r succeed s them . N o wonde r tha t i n thi s challenge-les s proces s an d routine, man y musician s ge t bored—or e bored—an d fin d lif e i n a n orchestr a somewhat les s tha n enlivenin g an d inspiring . Fo r al l thei r technica l prowess , most orchestr a musician s se e and hea r onl y the meres t surfac e of the music . Add t o tha t a plethor a o f bad o r laz y habits, amon g whic h I lis t mos t promi nently: (1 ) droppin g las t note s (rhythmicall y and/o r dynamically ) before a rest ; (2) similarly , not sustainin g long o r hel d note s (especiall y string players), always making little hole s (caesuras , Luftpausen) i n phrases ; (3) a general lac k of atten tion t o dynamics , abov e al l t o differentiation s between , say , p an d p p o r f an d ff; (4 ) rhythmi c inaccuracies , an d ver y littl e attentio n t o th e subtle r detail s o f rhythmic differentiations ; (5) a remarkabl e unconcern fo r how on e end s (leaves ) a note , muc h attentio n bein g give n t o ho w on e enter s o r attack s a note , bu t almost non e t o ho w on e exit s a note ; and , finally , (6 ) makin g crescendo s (a s well a s diminuendos) muc h to o quickl y and to o early. But, ultimately , th e rea l problem s li e no t wit h th e musician s bu t wit h th e conductors. Fo r i t i s they wh o hav e th e obligatio n an d responsibilit y to no t le t bad playin g habits—of whatever kind—become th e performanc e norm. An d beyond that , i t i s the y wh o finall y shap e an d contro l a performanc e (an d re cording). I t i s they who eithe r elici t from thei r musicians erroneous misinterpretations o r tolerat e th e ba d musica l habit s man y musician s ten d t o acquir e i n

546 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

their lif e i n a n orchestra , or , alas , ten d t o brin g wit h the m t o a n orchestr a fo r lack o f a prope r an d complet e musica l training . The conductor' s role , hi s mission , a s i t were , ough t t o be—an d i t s o rarely is—to interpre t accuratel y an d respectfully , i.e . re-creat e th e work s the y hav e chosen t o conduct , an d a t the sam e tim e teac h th e musicians , to the exten t tha t it becomes necessary , t o trea t thei r wor k with th e sam e accurac y an d respect . And s o w e hav e com e ful l circl e t o th e sens e o f humility , love , an d respec t which conducto r an d musician s shoul d brin g t o thei r respectiv e tasks , th e thought wit h whic h I bega n many , man y page s ago . Fo r I trul y believ e tha t the musica l interpreter—conductor , instrumentalist , singer , whoever—i s give n a unique privilege : tha t o f re-creatin g an d re-producin g th e masterpiece s greate r geniuses tha n w e interpreters ca n eve r be, hav e give n us . And with tha t privileg e and hono r com e a profoun d obligatio n an d commitmen t t o humbly , faithfully 'realize' thos e works , t o brin g the m accuratel y to acoustica l life , an d thereb y t o serve th e ar t o f music . Fo r i f we musician s serv e th e ar t o f musi c an d it s grea t creative visionarie s with humility , i n th e deepes t sens e w e als o bes t serv e our selves an d thos e wh o pu t thei r fait h i n us—ou r audience s an d fello w huma n beings.

Afterword

As a fina l denouemen t o f the complex , almos t encyclopedi c plottings , analyses, critiquings presented i n thi s book, I want to offe r on e illustratio n that represents , indeed epitomizes , i n a summar y fashio n s o muc h o f wha t I hav e been , alas , constantly force d t o asser t i n thi s book . I t i s a recording , a performance , o f Strauss's Till Eulenspiegel b y th e world-famou s Concertgebou w Orchestr a o f Amsterdam conducte d b y Bernar d Haitink . Clearly , Haitin k i s on e o f th e ver y best conductor s aroun d today—innatel y musical , well-trained , intelligent , no t given t o ego-drive n extreme s o f over-personalize d interpretations , a musicia n o f taste an d balance—obviousl y a t th e zenit h o f a mos t distinguishe d an d cele brated career . Th e Concertgebou w i s similarl y one o f th e great , venerabl e or chestras o f the world , wit h it s own distinguishe d histor y reaching bac k wel l int o the nineteent h century . Their recordin g o f Tz7 / unde r Haitink , mad e i n th e gloriou s acoustic s o f th e orchestra's home hall , the Concertgebouw , i s one tha t ever y music lover , recor d collector, Straus s aficionado woul d wan t t o own—an d probabl y does . Th e play ing o f th e orchestr a i s magnificent, th e soun d o f th e recordin g state-of-the-art : clean, rich , beautiful , thrilling—all-in-al l a splendi d soni c feast . I ca n wel l un derstand ho w anyon e hearin g thi s recordin g o n th e radi o woul d fee l immedi ately compelled t o want t o own this CD . The proble m fo r me—and fo r anyone wh o really know s the scor e an d know s in detai l wha t Strauss' s score actuall y contains —is tha t thi s technically magnifi cently rendere d performanc e simpl y ignore s and/o r reject s many , man y im portant compositional/notationa l aspect s o f the work . Leaving asid e th e earlier mentioned embarrassin g digital/electroni c distortio n cause d b y th e overl y lou d cymbal crash— a mino r split-secon d technica l blemish , of ultimately little conse quence—the 'interpretation ' b y th e orchestr a and/o r conducto r represent s ex actly th e dilemm a tha t ha s been , i n effect , th e mai n thesi s o f thi s book : th e relative interpretationa l willfulness an d lac k o f respec t fo r th e wor k itself , th e text, whic h embodie s bot h th e spiri t an d th e lette r o f Strauss' s remarkable cre 547

548 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

ation. Man y dynamic , rhythmic , balance , ensembl e detail s ar e blithely , care lessly, tha t is , incorrectly , rendere d —and the n superbly played. Unfortunatel y superb playin g o f somethin g tha t i s wron g o r imperfectl y interpreted doe s no t make i t right o r good . With i t all, Haitink' s recordin g o f Till i s still comparativel y one o f the best , i f we allow , in thi s context , fo r a somewha t restricte d meanin g o f that wor d 'best, ' which i s als o t o sa y that ther e ar e man y muc h wors e recordings . Bu t i t i s em blematic o f what ail s this conductin g profession , even a t th e higher/highes t lev els, an d th e closel y relate d activitie s o f orchestr a performanc e an d recording . And I only wish i t were otherwise .

Discography

This discograph y represent s al l th e recording s studie d an d analyze d i n th e writing o f this book . The y ar e liste d a s CDs unles s otherwis e noted : + fo r 78s , * fo r LPs . Fo r convenienc e sake , I hav e liste d quit e a fe w recording s a s CDs , even thoug h I ma y hav e listene d t o th e work s i n questio n o n 78 s o r LP s (be cause o f their superio r technical , sonori c quality). Discographical listing s hav e becom e quit e comple x i n recen t decades, * no t only becaus e th e numbe r o f recor d companie s ha s multiplie d a hundredfold , but als o becaus e man y recor d companie s hav e merge d i n recen t years , whil e others hav e spli t int o variou s subsidiar y labels ; stil l other s hav e change d name s several times—th e forme r Columbia Record s first became CB S an d then , mor e recently, Sony . Furthermore , i n th e vas t reissue program s of the las t three an d a half decades , initiall y fro m 78 s t o LPs , an d late r fro m LP s t o CDs , eac h ne w format acquire d ne w numberin g systems . T o mak e matter s mor e complicated , during th e L P er a man y o f th e mos t popula r recording s wer e reissue d severa l times, eac h tim e wit h a ne w catalogu e number . Thus , i n th e cas e o f th e fiv e Beethoven Fift h recording s mad e b y Karaja n betwee n 194 9 an d th e 1980s , many wer e no t onl y reissue d several time s o n LP , alway s with a ne w number , but additionall y reissue d (i n bot h L P boxe d set s an d C D formats ) i n variou s collections, comprising , fo r example , severa l (o r sometime s all ) Beethove n sym phonies. I believe that i f one wer e to list ever y reissue o f all five Karajan Beetho ven Fift h recordings , th e listin g would fil l a n entir e page . In addition, many previously available records (LPs as well as CDs) ar e presently no longer i n stock. Also very few record companies lis t and sell recordings in perpetuity. Mos t label s tak e record s ou t o f their catalogu e afte r a certai n time , eithe r dropping them altogethe r or , if reissued, giving them new numbers. *In 194 1 Irvin g Kolodin' s Guide t o Recorded Music liste d onl y eigh t recording s o f th e Beethoven Fift h Symphony . Some recen t Schwan n Catalogue s hav e listed as many as one hundred. B y my estimat e thi s work ha s bee n recorde d commerciall y nearly 17 0 times. 549

550

THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

Under all these circumstances, if one wants to keep a discography brief, it is hard to know by which of many possible numbers on e shoul d identif y a certain much reissued work. Even the latest numbering may be obsolete i n a few months. All o f thi s i s t o sa y tha t th e catalogu e numbe r b y whic h a reade r know s a certain recordin g ma y no t b e th e on e liste d i n thi s discography . Further , i t would hav e bee n pointless , wastefull y complex , an d exhaustin g t o lis t al l pas t and presen t editions , versions, and reissue s of any given performance . It shoul d als o b e note d tha t no t ever y recordin g liste d her e i s necessaril y mentioned i n th e text , although most , o f course, are . It woul d hav e take n eve n mor e exhaustiv e research t o accuratel y establis h i n what yea r a recordin g wa s made . I hav e contente d mysel f wit h datin g ( I hop e accurately) onl y certai n recording s mad e befor e th e 1960 s an d recording s o f historical importance . BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y

Conductor Orchestra Abbado Ancerl Ansermet Ashkenazy Beecham Bernstein Bernstein Böhm Böhm Boulez Boult Brüggen Cluytens Davis, C . DeSabata Dohnanyi Dorati Dorati Ferenczik Fricsay Furtwängler Gardiner Giulini Haitink Haitink Hanover Ban d Harnoncourt

BPO

Czech Phi l Suisse Romand e Philharmonia Royal Phi l NYP NYP VPO BPO New Philharmoni a Philharmonia Orch 18t h Cen t BPO BBC

NYP

Cleve Minn LSO Hung Stat e Orc h BPO

BPO

Orch Revolutionair e LA Concertgebouw

LPO

Ch Orc h Europ e

Record Label/Number Date DGG 427306^ 2 Supra 11193 7 *Lon ST S 1546 4 *Lon 7104 0 *EMI 764 4 6523 CBS MY K 3671 9 *ColM 3181 0 DGG 439681- 2 "Decca 994 2 *Col M 3008 5 "Vanguard 35 9 Philips 434087-2 *Seraphin 607 1 'Philips 6500.46 2 Melodram ''Telare 8016 3 *Merc 5001 7 *Merc 1401 6 *Danube 1 1457 *DGG 1881 3 +RCA 426 Archiv 439900-2 *DGG 253204 9 Philips 42054 0 'Philips 950006 7 Nimbus 500 7 Teldec 2292-46452- 2

(1960) (1951)

(1960) (1960)

(1960) (1957) (1963) (1962) (1938)

DISCOGRAPHY

Conductor

Orchestra

Herbig Hickox Hogwood Jochum Jochum Karajan Karajan Kempe Kleiber, C . Kleiber, E . Klemperer Kletzki Knappertsbusch Koussevitsky Krauss Krips Kubelik Leibowitz Leinsdorf Maazel Maazel Markevitch Masur Mehta Mengelberg Mitropoulos Monteux Munch Muti Nikisch Norrington Ormandy Ozawa Paita Previn Prince's Orc h Reiner Rodzinski Sanderling Sawallisch Sawallisch Schalk Scherchen Schuricht Schwarz Solti

BBC

North Sinfoní a (England ) Acad Anc' t Musi c Concertgebouw Bavar (Munich )

BPO

Philharmonia Munich Phi l VPO Concertgebouw Philharmonia Czech Phi l BPO BSO VPO LSO Bavar (Munich ) Royal Phi l BSO Cleve VPO Lamoureux Leipzig NYP Concertgebouw NYP LSO BSO Philadelphia BPO Lon Classica l Philadelphia BSO Philharmonia LSO Chicago PSO Londo n Berlin Symp h Orc h Concertgebouw NHK (Tokyo )

VPO

PSO Londo n Conservatoire (Paris )

LSO

Chicago

Record Label/Number IMP 9123 ASV QS 605 4 Oiseau 42 5 644- 2 Philips 657016 6 DGG 427195-2 *DGG 41905 1 * Angel 35231 * Seraphim 6093- 4 DGG 4 1 5861-2 Lon LL91 2 *EMI Classic s CD M 6386 8 Supra 110619- 2 *Arkadia 72 3 4-RCA LM 102 1 [*Cam 103] *Koch "Yorkshire 27000 DGG 253540 7 Menuet 16 0 019-2 *RCA 7745-2 *CBSM5K 45532 *CBSIM 36711 Theorema 12121 9 Philips 434 156-2 *Col 3589 2 *Philips 676700 3 Música Viv a 90031 (cassette) *Lon 443479- 2 RCA 6803- 2 Angel CD C 4744 7 *DGG 272 1 070 EMI 749816-2 ; 74956- 2 "Col M 3163 4 *Telarc 1006 0 *Lodia 78 1 "Angel 3692 7 +Col A 542 2 (Andant e only) *RCA LM 234 3 "West WST 1400 1 Capriccio 10018 EMI Classic s CDC 754504- 2 RCA 60534-2 + HMV 7105 *WestXWN 18310 "Trianon 33.33 5 Délos 302 7 Lon 21580- 2

551

Date

(I960) (1957) (1953) (1957) (1967) (1956) (1944)

(1962) (1960) (1959) (1940) (1957) (1961?) (1957) (1913) (1957)

(ca.1911) (I960) (1948?)

(1928) (1957) (1959)

552 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y (continued)

Conductor

Orchestra

Solti Steinberg Stokowski Stokowski Stransky Strauss Suitner Szell Szell Thomas Toscanini Toscanini Van Otterlo o Victor Concer t Orch Walter Wand Weingartner

VPO

Record Label/Number

Berlin Stat e Oper a Staatskapelle Berlin Cleve Concertgebouw Eng C h Orc h NBC NBC Sydney

*Lon 4101 6 *SQN 145/ 7 Stokowski So c LSS CD 4 *Lon 430218- 2 +Col A 595 4 (Andant e only) Koch 3-7115-24 1 Denon 801 3 *Epic L C 319 5 'Philips 80276 9 *Col 3728 8 *RCA LM 175 7 +RCA D M 640 *Chandos GBR 4001

Col Symp h NDR LPO

+RCA 1812 4 (Andant e only) Col M L 536 5 RCA 09026-61930-2 Music Memori a 3037 8

Pitts All Amer Youth

LPO NYP

Date (1957) (1940) (1974) (1917) (1928) (1957) (1967) (1951) (1920) (1960) (1935?)

BEETHOVEN: SEVENT H SYMPHONY

Conductor

Orchestra

Record Label/Number

Abbado Ansermet Ashkenazy Barenboim Batiz Beecham Bernstein Bernstein Böhm Boult Bruggen Cantelli Casals Celibidache Cluytens

VPO

DGG 423364- 2 *Lon C M 904 3 Lon 430701- 2 Sony SK4583 0 Várese 1000-16 0 Music & Arts CD-281 *Col M L 543 8 *DGG 274021 6 *DGG 437928-2 »Vanguard 2005 Philips 426846-2 "EMI 2D2M B 8821 7 Sony SM K 4589 3 ArkadiaCDGI 737.1 Angel 3552 6

Suisse Romand e Philharmonia BPO LSO Royal Phi l NYP

VPO VPO

Promenade (Lon ) Orch 18t h Cen t Philharmonia Marlboro Stuttgart BPO

Date (I960)

(1959)

(1960) (1956) (1964) (1960)

DISCOGRAPHY

Conductor Collegium Aureum Davis, C . DeBurgos Dohnanyi Dorati Ferencsik Fricsay Furtwängler Furtwängler Furtwängler Gardiner Giulini Haitink Haitink Harnoncourt Hogwood Jochum Jochum Karajan Karajan Karajan Keilberth Kempe Kleiber, C . Kleiber, E . Klemperer Kletzki Krips Kubelik Leibowitz Leinsdorf Maazel Masur Mehta Mengelberg Monteux Muti Norrington Ormandy Paray Previn Previn Reiner Sanderling Scherchen

Orchestra LSO LSO

Cleve Minn Hungarian Stat e Orc h BPO BPO BPO VPO Orch Revolutionär e Chicago Concertgebouw LPO Ch Orc h o f Europ e Acad Anc't Mu s Bavar (Munich ) Coneertgebouw

BPO

Philharmonia VPO BPO Munich VPO Concertgebouw Philharmonia Czech Phi l LSO VPO Royal Phi l BSO Cleve Leipzig LA Concertgebouw LSO Philadelphia Lon Clas s Philadelphia Detroit LSO Royal Phi l Chicago Philharmonia V S t Oper a

Record Label/Number »Pro Arte 12 3 »Philips 950021 9 Collins 3019 2 Telare 8016 3 *Mercury »Qualiton 1179 1 *DGG 13875 7 »DGG 427775-2660 *Fonit Cetr a (Arkadia ) FE 4 *Electrola 9001 6 Archiv 439900-2 *Angel 3604 8 Philips 420540- 2 *Philips 674730 7 Teldec 229 2 46452-2 Oiseau 425695-2 *Quint 712 8 »Philips 750501 0 DGG 41 5 12 1 *Angel 3500 5 *RCA L M 253 6 *Tele 804 0 »Seraphim 6093- 6 DGG 4 1 5862-2 *Lon ST S 1547 4 »Angel 3533 0 »Mus He r 16 9 »Yorkshire 2700 0 »DGG 274015 5 Menuet 16 0 020-2 RCA 7997-2 »Odyssey YT 42484 »Philips 657004 8 »Lon C S 687 0 »Philips 6767.00 3 Lon 443479- 2 »Angel 3753 8 EMI CD C 749816- 2 »Col 3ML401 1 »Merc 5002 2 Angel 3711 6 RCA 7748- 2 RCA 6376- 2 DuMaurier 523 9 »West 1831 9

553

Date

(1962) (1950)

(1957) (1961) (1961)

(1957)

(1962) (1963)

(1940)

(1957) (1957) (1960) (1957?)

5 54 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

BEETHOVEN: SEVENT H SYMPHON Y (continued)

Conductor

Orchestra

Schuricht Solti Solti Steinberg Stokowski Strauss Suitner Szell Täte Thomas Toscanini Toscanini Walter Weingartner

Conservatoire (Paris ) Chicago VPO Pittsburgh Philadelphia Berlin Stat e Oper a Staatskapelle Berli n Cleve Dresden Eng C h Orc h NBC NYP Col Symp h VPO

Record Label/Number

Date

"Trianon 3333 7 Lon 425525-2 *Lon 609 3 *SQN 14 5 +RCA 17 Koch 3-7115- 2 Denon 703 2 Sony SB K 481 58 Berlin Classic s 109 5 CBS MD K 44789 *RCA LM 199 1 *Camden 35 2 *CBSMK 4201 3 +Col 260

(1936) (1960) (1938?)

Date

(1953) (1960) (1928) (1926)

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHONY *

Conductor

Orchestra

Record Label/Number

Abbado Abravanel Ancerl Anonymous Ansermet Barbirolli Bernstein Bernstein Böhm Boult Celibidache Chailly Dohnanyi Dorati Furtwängler Furtwängler

BPO

DGG 4 3 1790-2 "Vanguard 1011 7 Supra 11194 1 Critics Choic e CCD 9 1 3 *Lon ST S 1514 4 *Angel SD C 373 2 DGG 4 3 1029-2 *Col M L 560 2 *DGG 271101 7 SQN 13 9 Arkadia CDG I 764. 3 Lon 421295- 2 *Teldec 24497 2 *Merc 5026 8 DGG 4 1 5662-2 *Odeon 14 7 50336

Utah Czech Phi l Anonymous Suisse Romand e VPO VPO NYP VPO LPO Milano Concertgebouw Cleve LSO BPO VPO

(1962) (1957) (1961) (1961) (1959)

(1947)

*A remarkabl y goo d performanc e o f th e Brahm s Firs t Symphony , issue d o n Critic s Choice (CC D 913 ) i n 1990 , i s played by an otherwis e unidentified orchestr a called "Th e English Philharmoni c Orchestra." N o conducto r i s listed (sic).

DISCOGRAPHY

Conductor

Orchestra

Giulini Haitink Herbig Horenstein Janowski Järvi Jochum Karajan Karajan Karajan Kempe Kertesz Klemperer Klemperer Kletzki Kondrashin Krips Kubelik Lehel Leinsdorf Levine Maazel Masur Mehta Mengelberg Mravrinsky Munch Munch Muti Norrington Ormandy Ozawa Paita Reiner Rowicki Sanderling Sawallisch Scherchen Skrowaczewski Solti Steinberg Stokowski Suitner Szell Tennstedt Toscanini

LA

Record Label/Number

*DGG 253205 6 «Philips 651422 8 BBC Collins 3049 2 LSO *Quint 702 8 Liverpool ASV CD 53 1 LSO Chandos 865 3 LPO ''Angel SD C 384 5 DGG 423141- 2 BPO VPO Lon ST S 1519 4 Philharmonia * Angel 3500 1 Cap G-720 8 BPO VPO Lon C S 683 6 Berlin Stat e Oper a Koch Legac y 7053- 2 Philharmonia * Angel 3548 1 "Angel 3561 9 Royal Phi l Concertgebouw *Philips 412071- 1 VPO *Lon ST S 1514 4 Bavar (Munich ) "Orfeo 07083 4 MagyarRadio (Budapest) *Hungar 1227 3 BSO *RCALM2711 Chicago *RCAARL 1-132 6 Cleve *Lon 700 7 Leipzig "Philips 676900 9 VPO *Lon C S 701 7 Concertgebouw Philips 416210- 2 Leningrad *Memoria 991.00 6 Orch d e Pari s * Arabesque 805 8 BSO RCA7812-2 Philadelphia Philips 426299- 2 Lon Clas s EMI CD C 754286- 2 Philadelphia Col 3 ML 447 7 BSO *DGG 253089 9 Nat Phi l *Lodia 77 9 Chicago *RCA Warsaw *MusHerORB251 Dresden Eurodisc 69220- 2 LPO EMI Classic s 754359- 2 V S t Opera "West XWN 1844 8 Halle *MCA 2518 8 Chicago *Lon C S 719 8 Pittsburgh *SQN 774 4 Philadelphia +RCA D M 30 1 Staatskapelle Berli n Ars Vivendo Cleve *Epic L G 337 9 LPO 'Angel D S 3804 1 NBC RCA L M 170 2

555

Date

Concertgebouw

(1957) (1960) (1928) (I960) (I960) (1957) (1983) (1964)

(1933) (1950) (1957) (1957)

(1957) (1961) (1927) (1957) (1957)

556 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHONY (continued)

Conductor

Orchestra

Record Label/Number

Date

Van Beinu m Walter Wand Weingartner

Concertgebouw Col Symp h NDR LSO

*Epic L C 360 3 *Col MS 6389 *Pro Arte SD S 62 6 Centaur CR C 212 4

(1959) (I960)

Date

(1939)

BRAHMS: FOURT H SYMPHONY *

Conductor

Orchestra

Record Label/Number

Abbado Abravanel Amsermet Anonymous Barbirolli Barenboim Bernstein Böhm Boult Celibidache Chailly Davis, C . DeSabata Dohnanyi Dorati Fischer-Dieskau Furtwängler Giulini Haitink Janowski Järvi Jochum Jochum Karajan

BPO

DGG 435349- 2 Vanguard SV C 172 0 *Lon ST S 1538 3 Critics Choice CCD9 13 Seraphim TOCE 7 1 37 Erato 4509-9 5 194-2 DGG 410084- 2 DGG 271 1 017 Angel 3703 4 Arkadia CDG I 764. 3 Lon433151-2 RCA 60383- 2 *DGG 4237 1 5-2 Teldec 244972- 2 *Merc S R 9050 3 Quint PM C 709 4 *Electrola 9099 5 *DGG 429403- 2 Philips 434991- 2 ASV DC A 53 3 Chandos CHA N 859 5 *Angel SD C 384 5 Memories H R 4246 DGG 4 3 1593-2

Utah Suisse Romand e Anonymous VPO Chicago VPO VPO LPO Milano Concertgebouw Bavar (Munich ) BPO Cleve LSO Czech Phi l BPO VPO BSO Liverpool LSO LPO BPO BPO

(1959) (1939) (1976)

(1951)

*A remarkabl y good performanc e o f th e Brahm s Fourt h Symphony , issue d o n Critic s Choice (CC D 913 ) in 1990 , i s played b y an otherwis e unidentified orchestra called "Th e English Philharmoni c Orchestra. " N o conducto r i s listed (sic).

DISCOGRAPHY

557

Conductor

Orchestra

Record Label/Number Date

Karajan Kempe Kempe Kertesz Kleiber, C . Klemperer Krips Kubelik Lehel Leibowitz Leinsdorf Levine Maazel Masur Mehta Mengelberg Mitropoulos Mravinsky Munch Muti Ormandy Paray Previn Reiner Rowicki Sanderling Skrowaczewski Slatkin Solti Steinberg Stokowski Suitner Szell Toscanini Van Beinu m Walter Wand Weingartner

Philharmonia Munich Phi l Royal Phi l VPO VPO Philharmonia LSO Bavar (Munich ) Magyar Radi o (Budapest) Royal Phi l BSO Chicago Cleve Leipzig NYP Concertgebouw NYP Leningrad BSO Philadelphia Philadelphia Detroit Royal Phi l Royal Phi l Warsaw Dresden Halle St. Loui s Chicago Pittsburgh New Philharmoni a Staatskapelle Berli n Cleve NBC Concertgebouw Col Symp h NDR LSO

*Angel 3529 8 *BASF 2022394- 9 * Pantheon 1842 8 *Lon C D 683 8 DGG 400037- 2 EMI Classic s COM 6964 9 *Lon L L 20 8 *Orfeo 07083 4 *Hungar 1227 6 (1982 Chesky 6 (1963 *RCALSL3010 *RCA ARL 1-262 4 *Lon C S 709 6 »Philips 676900 9 Col 3583 2 Teldec 24 3 724- 2 Hunt 3402 0 Memoria 99100 6 «RCA LM 229 7 Philips 422377- 2 *Col 3163 6 (1960? *Merc 5005 7 Telare 8015 5 *Quint 718 2 Mus He r OR B 25 4 Eurodisc 69220- 2 IMP Classic s PC D 89 7 'Telare DG-1005 3 *Lon C S 720 1 SQN 13 9 "RCAARL 1-071 9 ArsVivendo2100170 *Odyssey HB3 X 45823 *RCALM 171 3 Epic L C 356 3 (1960 Odyssey MB K 44776 (1959 Har Mu n 56 7 169530 2 Centaur CR C 212 8 (1938

) )

)

) ) )

558 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

STRAUSS: TILL EULENSPIEGEL

Conductor

Orchestra

Abbado Ashkenazy Barenboim Bernstein Blomstedt Böhm Busch Celibidache Coates DeWaart Dohnanyi Dorati Dorati Fricsay Furtwängler Furtwängler Haitink Järvi Jochum Karajan Karajan Kempe Koussevitsky Krauss Lewis Maazel Mackerras Markevitch Marriner Masur Mata Munch Ormandy Paternostro Previn Reiner Rodzinski Sawallisch Slatkin Solti Solti Steinberg

LSO

Cleve Chicago NYP Dresden BPO BBC Stuttgart LPO Minn Cleve Detroit Minn

BPO BPO BPO

Concertgebouw Scottish Na t Concertgebouw BPO Philharmonia Dresden BSO VPO Royal Phi l Cleve LPO Radio Franc e Stuttgart Leipzig Dallas BSO Philadelphia Tokyo VPO VPO NYP Philadelphia LPO Chicago VPO BSO

Record Label/Number *DGG 253209 9 Lon 42 5 112-2 Erato 2292-45621- 2 *Col M S 716 5 Denon 7380 1 *DGG 2535208 +RCA 1172 4 Arkadia 48 7 RCA 927 2 Virgin 5923 4 Lon 43 6 444- 2 *Lon 7102 5 Merc 43 4 348- 2 *Decca D L 952 9 DGG 274026 0 (rehearsal ) DGG 274026 0 Philips 44 2 281- 2 Chandos 857 2 *Epic 303 2 DGG 253034 9 *Angel63316 EMI 6434 2 *Camden 10 1 *Lon 2320 8 *Lon SP G 2105 4 CBS MD K 44909 *SQN 200 7 Angel D-3544 2 Capriccio 1 0 36 9 ???? Pro Arte 403 *RCA LS C 256 5 *RCA AGL 1-140 8 Koch 31117 7 Angel D S 3775 3 *Lon ST S 1558 2 *Col M L 4884 EMI 5518 5 *RCA 5959- 1 *Lon C S 697 8 *Lon 2632 1 *RCALSC 3155

Date

(1936) (1962)

(1955) (1930) (1930)

(1945)

(1946?)

DISCOGRAPHY

559

Conductor

Orchestra

Record Label/Number

Stock Strauss Szell Toscanini

Chicago VPO Cleve NBC

Chicago Symp h (1s t 10 0 years) (1940) * Vanguard 32 5 (1944) *Col M Y 36721 (1952) RCA 09026-60296- 2

Date

RAVEL: DAPHNIS E T CHLOÉ

Conductor

Orchestra

Record Label/Number

Abbado Abbado Ansermet Barbirolli Barenboim Bernstein Boulez Cantelli Casadesus Chailly Commissiona DeBurgos Dervaux Dohnanyi Dutoit Furtwängler Gaubert Haitink Inbal Jansons Karajan Kondrashin Koussevitsky Koussevitsky Levi Levine Maazel Mackerras Martinon Martinon Mata

BSO LSO Suisse Romand e Halle Orch Pari s NYP Cleve Philharmonia Lille Concertgebouw Houston New Philharmoni a Colonne (Paris) Cleve Montreal

DGG 253003 8 DGG445519-2 *Lon ST S 1509 2 'Vanguard S-17 7 "DGG 253204 1 *Col M Y 3671 4 *CBS M 3065 1 Testament 101 7 HarmMun 39006 4 Lon 443934- 2 "Vanguard 2502 2 *Angel S-3647 1 *SQN 777 4 Teldec 97439- 2 *Lon 7102 8 DGG 427783- 2 In Syn e C-41 34 (cassette ) Philips 42 6 260- 2 Denon 179 6 EMI 749964- 2 DGG 427250- 2 'Philips 412071- 1 RCA D M RCA 09026-6 1 392-2 Telare 80352 DGG 4 1 5 360- 2 *Lon C S 689 8 Centaur 209 0 Quint PM C 701 7 RCA L M 280 6 *RCA 345 8

BPO

Straram (Paris )

BSO

Orch Na t Franc e Oslo BPO Concertgebouw BSO BSO Atlanta

VPO

Cleve LSO Orch Pari s Chicago Dallas

Date

(1963)

(1944) (1928)

(1928) (1942)

(1965)

560 TH

E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R

RAVEL: DAPHJV/ S ET CHLOÉ (continued)

Conductor

Orchestra

Record Label/Number

Mehta Mengelberg Monteux Munch Muti Nagano Nowak Ormandy Ozawa Paray Previn Rattle Rodzinski Rosenthal Schwarz Sinopoli Skrowaczewski Slatkin Solti Stokowski Szell Tortelier Toscanini

LA

*Lon 669 8 KICC 206 1 *Lon ST S 1509 0 *RCA 1 1674 *Angel DS-3788 5 Erato 4509-91712- 2 ASV DC A 53 6 *RCAARD 1002 9 *DGG 2530567 Merc 434306- 2 (1961) "Angel 3786 8 EMI 7 54303-2 *Col 3M L 4884 (1957) ADES 1407 4 Délos 311 0 Valois 460 1 *Vox Bo x CD X 503 2 Telare 8005 2 Chicago Symp h (1s t 10 0 years) *Lon SP C 2105 9 *OdysseyY31928 Chandos 150 4 RCA 09026-60322-2

Concertgebouw LSO

BSO

Philadelphia LSO LSO Philadelphia BSO Detroit LSO Birmingham Cleve Nat Oper a Orc h (Paris ) Seattle World Phi l (Japan) Minn St. Louis Chicago LSO Cleve Ulster

NBC

Date

SCHUMANN: SECON D SYMPHON Y

Conductor Orchestra Ansermet Barenboim Bernard! Celibidache Celibidache Commissiona Haitink Janowski Karajan Klemperer

Suisse Romand e Chicago Calgary Rome Stockholm Houston Concertgebouw Liverpool BPO Philharmonia

Record Label/Number Date *Lon 1528 5 *DGG 253 0 939 CBC 506 7 Nova Er a 013.632 7 ArkadiaCDGI 373.1 Pro Art e 39 4 •Philips 412852 ASV 608 4 "2530170 "Angel S-3660 6

DISCOGRAPHY

Conductor

Orchestra

Record Label/Number

Kubelik Mackerras Marriner Masur Mehta Mitropoulos Muti Paray Patane Pfitzner Sawallisch Schuricht Semkow Solti Szell Weingartner Zinman

BPO LSO

*DGG2535 117

Stuttgart

LPO VPO

Minn Philharmonia Detroit Hung S t Orch Berlin Stat e Oper a Dresden Conservatoire (Paris ) Warsaw

VPO

Cleve LPO Baltimore

Centaur 100 7 Capriccio 1099 7 Teldec 229 2 46446-2 *Lon 720 6 Nickson N N 100 8 *Angel 3760 2 "Mere 5010 2 Qualiton 1227 8 Koch 3-7039- 2 'Arabesque 810 2 *SQN 14 3 *Muza 132 9 *Lon2310 *Epic 115 9 Música Memori a Telare 8018 2

561

Date

(1940) (1957) (1928)

(1933)

TCHAIKOVSKY: SIXT H SYMPHON Y

Conductor

Orchestra

Bernstein Bond, Victoria Bychkov Celibidache Coates Dorati Furtwängler Ciclen Giulini Jansons Martinen Mengelberg Monteux Ormandy Reiner Rodzinski Rozhdestvensky Slatkin

NYP

Shanghai Concertgebouw Milano

BPO LSO BPO

SW Germa n Radi o Philharmonia Oslo VPO Concertgebouw BSO Philadelphia Chicago PSO Lo n LSO St. Loui s

Record Label/Number

Date

Sony SM K 476 3 5 Protone 220 5 Philips 4341 50-2 "Melodram ME L 21 7 Beulah 1PD 6 Merc 434353- 2 +RCA553 [His t Per f HPS8 ] Gielen IN T 860.92 3 * Seraphim 7243 5 68531-2 Chandos 844 6 *Lon ST S 1501 8 Teldec 4509-93673- 2 *RCA Vies 100 9 RCA 09026-60908-2 RCA 09026-01246- 2 WestXWN 1804 8 IMP Classic s PCD 87 8 RCA 09026-60438- 2

(1964) (1959) (1945) (I960) (1938)

(1948) (1955) (1957)

This page intentionally left blank

Index

Note: Boldfac e indicate s extensiv e discussion . Baker, Juliu s (flutist) , 48 5 Ballets Russes , 46 0 Bamberger, Carl , 94n Barber, Samuel , 53 9 Barbirolli, Si r John, 27 , 103 , 398 , 402 , 409, 450n , 467 , 48 9 Barenboim, Daniel , 71 , 232 , 235, 244 , 272n, 273 , 278 , 311 , 453 , 471 , 473 , 511, 514 , 518n , 52 4 Bartok, Bêla , 22 , 52 , 171 , 539-4 1 Barzin, Leon , 5 0 Batiz, Enrique , 232 , 243 Baton technique , 7 , 17 , 59-61, 62, 71 , 78, 78n, 119,297,449,54 1 Beecham, Si r Thomas, 5 0 Beethoven, Ludwi g van , ix , x, xi, 5 , 7, 9 , 11, 13 , 14 , 21-23, 25 , 29-30, 34-38 , 42n, 43-44, 46, 53 , 53n , 59 , 61, 63 , 69, 71 , 74n , 75-77 , 82 , 85, 87, 90, 94-98, lOOn , 100-102 , 106-107 , 109-278, 279-81, 286n , 287-88, 291n, 297 , 300 , 308-310 , 312 , 318 , 331, 335 , 338 , 350-51 , 352 , 357n , 368, 392 , 425-26, 434 , 438n , 459 , 495-96, 501 , 504 , 508-509 , 511, 515n, 517 , 524-25 , 537 , 541-4 4 First Symphony, 120n , 181 , 28 1 Second Symphony, 77

Abbado, Claudio , 107 , 200n , 202 , 235 36, 237n, 238 , 244 , 253 , 273, 276 , 307-308, 317-18 , 325 , 336n , 342 , 345, 355n , 359 , 371 , 462, 464 , 468 , 540 Abravanel, Maurice , 300 , 309 , 315 , 325, 340, 342 , 345 , 35 2 Academy of Ancient Music , 220 , 222 n Albrechtsberger, Johan n G. , 273 n Analysis, 62 , 11 2 Ansermet, Ernest , 161 , 168 , 179 , 211 , 218, 254 , 272n , 465 , 483 , 489 , 502n, 508 , 515n , 51 6 Argento, Artuolfo , 543 n Ars Nova, 53n , 22In , 255 , 426 Artistic integrity , 15 , 22-24, 10 7 Ashkenazy, Vladimir, 161 , 168 , 179 , 193n, 211 , 235 , 262n, 26 5 Authenticists, 14n , 25n , 35-36 , 69 , 170 , 185, 210 , 219n , 229 , 308 n Babbitt, Milton , viii , 45n, 53 , 63n Bach, Car l Phili p Emmanuel , 76 , 225 Bach, Johan n Sebastian , 13 , 71, 73 , 88n , 158-59, 189 , 245 , 267 , 285n , 319n , 326n, 399n , 412 , 418 , 459 , 495 , 54 2 Si. Matthew Passion, 13 , 88 n

563

564

INDEX

Beethoven (continued) Third ("Eroica") Symphony, 13 , 16 , 79 , 94,98, 130n , 181 , 193 n Fourth Symphony, 26 , 35 , 28 1 Fifth Symphony, 10 , 34 , lOOn , 105n , 109-229, 286n , 291n , 308-309 , 331, 335, 357n , 392 , 426, 504-505 , 506n , 509, 513 , 517, 54 1 Sixth ("Pastorale") Symphony, 25n , 192, 35 1 Seventh Symphony, 15 , 95, 181 , 231 278, 280 , 287n , 508 , 533 n Eighth Symphony, 25n , lOOn , 50 8 Ninth Symphony, 36 , 96, 353 , 508 Egmont Overture, 85 Fidelio, 152n , 266n Leonore Overture No. 3 , 90, 100 , 270 n MUSS i n c minor, 3 7 Berg, Alban, 13 , 35, 52,412,45 9 Berglund, Paavo , 543 n Berlin Philharmonic , 119 , 130n , 185 , 238, 243 , 272n , 331 , 352 , 386, 389 , 426, 433 , 437n , 531n , 543 Berlioz, Hector , 14 , 67, 69 , 79 , 99 , 101 , 175, 198 , 219n , 264 n Corsair Overture , 133 n Bernard!, Mario , 518 n Bernstein, Leonard , 4 , 9 , 9n , 30 , 33 , 69, 71, 89n , 122n , 126 , 129 , 136n , 138, 153-54, 159 , 161 , 166 , 167n , 168 , 207,211,227,237,257,271,298, 305, 324 , 334 , 336 , 340 , 342 , 345n , 346, 353 , 371, 375 , 429, 435-36 , 452n, 464 , 468 , 470 , 473 , 478 , 479 , 487-89, 491, 493 , 521 , 539 Blomstedt, Herbert , 430 , 436 , 441 , 444 , 446-47, 453-54 Böhm, Karl , 41, 134 , 176 , 194 , 207 , 218, 234, 266 , 340 , 34 6 37 1 Bond, Victoria , 543 n Borge, Victor, 399 n Boulez, Pierre , 18 , 45n, 53 , 181 , 461 , 465, 469, 473 , 475, 478, 48 6 Boult, Adrian, 146 , 232 , 241 , 284 , 306 , 344, 35 2 Bowing/bow distribution , 23 , 23n , 27 , 27n, 2 8 Bozarth, George , 295 n

Brahms, Johannes, 5 , 9, 13 , 21-22 , 29 , 31n, 33 , 38,43,46,48, 52n , 53 , 59, 61, 63, 86n , 91n , 98 , 102 , 106 , 133n, 207n , 228 , 233 , 256 , 270n , 279-424, 425, 430 , 445 , 491 , 497 , 536-37, 540-4 3 First Symphony 30 , 33 , 47n, 48 , 233 , 279-377, 379 , 381 , 389 , 422n , 430 , 491, 53 9 Second Symphony, 291-93 , 39 9 Third Symphony, 37 9 Fourth Symphony, 13 , 47, 270n , 288n , 320n, 323n , 329n , 379-424 , 425 Double Concerto, 364-6 5 Horn Trio, Op . 40 , 29 2 Britten, Benjamin , 54 2 Bruckner, Anton, 94 , 190 , 26 5 Brüggen, Frans , 129n , 137n , 161n , 164 , 176, 197 , 219n Billow, Han s von , 8 , 30 , 46, 70 , 79, 84 87,90, 102 , 102n , 1 1 In, 121n , 123 , 133, 138 , 221, 265, 316n, 34 0 Burk, John, 15 9 Busch, Fritz , 41, 50 , 58 , 194 , 428n , 430, 435n, 436-37, 442 Busoni, Ferrucio, 42 6 Bychkov, Semyon , 52 4 Canisius, C. , 192 n Cantelli, Guido , 233 , 253 , 271, 272 , 272n Cantrell, Scott , 39 n Carse, Adam , 73 n Carter, Elliott , viii, 53 , 63n, 54 2 Caruso, Enrico , 120 n Casadesus, Jean-Claude , 459 , 485 , 48 8 Casals, Pablo , 232 , 251, 257 Celibidache, Sergiu , 96n , 231 , 239-40, 244, 275n , 283 , 286 , 302 , 304 , 307 , 317, 324 , 340, 354 , 384 , 386 , 394 95, 398 , 498 , 505 , 509n, 511 , 518n , 524, 539 n Chabrier, Emmanuel , 288 n Chailly, Riccardo , 308-309 , 311 , 315, 317, 335 , 342, 394,400,403,41 5 Cherubini, Luigi , 498n Chopin, Frederic , 74 , 286n , 498 n Clementi, Muzio , 498n

INDEX

Coates, Albert, 431, 436 , 44 1 Collegium Aureum , 233 , 241-42, 252, 272 Color (timbre) , instrumental, 26 Commissiona, Sergiu , 461, 504 n Concertgebouw Orchestra , 15 , 47, 131 , 249n, 25In , 266 , 268 , 272n , 335, 477, 479n , 54 4 Conducting prerequisites , 6-7 , 9 , 18 Conductor's ear , 17-1 8 Conductor's ego , 6 , 48, 50 , 101-10 3 Conductors Guild , 46In , 483 Contemporary music , viii, ix , 15 , 541-43 Copland, Aaron, 542 Dannrenther, Edward , 74 n Davidovsky, Mario , 45 n Davis, Si r Colin, 170,211,234-3 5 De Burgos , Fruhbeck , 235 , 256 , 47 3 Debussy, Claude , x , 9, 53n , 61, 100 , 160 , 332, 34In , 396 , 425 , 459 , 477n , 490, 54 1 Jeux, 54 1 The Martyrdom o f St . Sebastian, 54 1 DeFalla, Manuel , 40 3 Definitive interpretation , 13-14 , 20 Del Mar , Norman , 1 1 In, 428 n Dervaux, Pierre , 461, 464 , 473 , 478 , 488 De Sabata , Victor , 159 , 168 , 386 , 389 , 403,415, 539 n Désormière, Roger , 543 n Dessoff, Feli x Otto, 102n , 316 n DeWaart, Edo , 43 7 Diaghilev, Serge , 46 0 Dickson, Harr y Ellis, 320 n DiDomenica, Robert , 45 n Dobrowen, Issay , 543 n Dohnanyi, Christop h von , 35 , 44, 107 , 159, 168-69 , 181 , 235 , 237, 252 , 257, 278 , 306-307 , 309 , 339-40 , 343, 353 , 370-72,415,423,465, 478, 485 , 540-4 1 Dolmetsch, Arnold, 221n , 223 , 223n Donington, Robert , 221n , 223 , 223n Donizetti, Gaetano , 498 n Dorian, Frederick , 266 n Dorati, Antal, 5 , 50 , 107 , 171 , 174 , 179 ,

565

197, 204 , 218 , 248 , 262n , 271 , 273 , 278, 436 , 453 , 45 7 Druckman, Jacob , 5 3 Druian, Rafael , 335 , 441 Druschetzsky, Georg , 264 n Dukas, Paul , 477 n Durand, Jacques , 482n , 483 Dutoit, Charles , 461-63 , 473-74, 478 Dvorak, Antonin, x , 21, 133n , 288-89n , 379, 54 4 New World Symphony, x , 133n , 288 89n Dwyer, Dorio t (flutist) , 484-8 5 Dynamics, viii , 17 , 18 , 23-27, 48 , 54 , 58 , 62-63, 94, 98-100, 106 , 112n , 128 130, 142 , 161 , 163 , 169 , 222 , 225 227, 240 , 282 , 286 , 309 , 320-21 , 324-25, 327-28 , 333 , 336-37, 347 48, 350-51 , 354 , 372 , 374 , 380 , 401 , 407, 415 , 421 , 424 , 432-33 , 434n, 435, 438n , 441 , 446 , 449-50 , 459 60, 477, 483 , 486 , 490 , 498 , 521 , 524-26, 532-35 , 542 , 544 Ear, 17-19 , 23 , 166n , 267 , 312 , 324, 452, 498 Edison Company , 295 , 295n Ego, 6 , 50-51 , 101 , 103 , 18 0 "Elastischer Takt" ("elasti c time") , 69 , 71-72, 98 , 222 , 337 Epstein, David , 281n , 290 , 291n , 295 , 316 Ewen, David , 8 7 Fellinger, Richard , 295n Ferenczik, Janos , 233-35 , 23 7 Fétis, François , 19I n Fiedler, Max , 415 Fischer, Johan n C. , 264 Fischer-Dieskau, Dietrich , 394 , 410 , 41 6 Fitzpatrick, Horace , 222n , 224n Fleming, Coli n (ñutist) , 484 Forkel, Johan n Nikolaus , 74n Franck, César , 228 , 477n Fricsay, Perene , 233 , 235, 243, 254 , 266 , 272n, 278 , 420, 436 , 441 , 447 , 451 , 453 Frisch, Walter, 290 , 29 5

566

INDEX

Furtwängler, Wilhelm, 15 , 18 , 67, 70-71, 84-85,94,98, 109 , 113 , 113n , 115, 115n, 126 , 126n , 128n , 136n , 153 , 161, 173 , 176 , 194,211,218,232 , 234, 241 , 243, 265-66 , 283 , 298-99, 308, 311 , 315 , 317, 330-31, 338 , 340-41, 345 , 348 , 353 , 371, 384-85, 394, 400 , 423 , 428 , 430 , 522 , 524, 529n, 532 , 538-39 Gardiner, John Eliot , 14 , 18 , 107 , 137n , 161, 164 , 176 , 181 , 218 , 219n , 221n, 229 , 235 , 237 , 239n, 244 , 250, 252 , 276, 27 8 Gaubert, Phillippe , 461, 465 , 467-68 , 477, 484 , 487n , 49 3 Geiringer, Karl , 295n Gericke, Wilhelm , 320 n Gershwin, George, 109 n Giulini, Carl o Maria , 71 , 177 , 290n , 298 , 324, 340 , 345n , 353 , 37 1 Gluck, Christop h W , 99 , 100 Goosens, Eugene , 50 , 540 n Gould, Glenn , 6n Graupner, Christoph , 264 n Greenberg, Noah , 22 1 n Grove, Si r George, Hi n Gülke, Peter , 146n , 155n , 174n, 192n , 195, 198 n Habeneck, Françoi s Antoine, 69, 96, 97, 265 Haitink, Bernard , 18, 22, 107 , 163-64 , 166, 177 , 179 , 218 , 244 , 247 , 280 , 284, 324-25 , 352 , 377, 401-402, 415,436-37,451,453,465,474, 484,486, 506 , 508 , 513n , 54 7 Haie, Philip , 320n Handel, Georg e Frederic , 73 , 161 , 19 0 Hanover Band, 14n, 170 , 173-74, 220-28 Harnoncourt, Nikolaus , 137n , 159 , 163 , 169, 176 , 210 , 219n, 221n , 234, 239n, 252-53 , 271-7 2 Hart, Philip , 479 n Hausegger, Sigmund , 54 1 n Haydn, Fran z Joseph, 11 , 73 , 74n , 76 , 85n, 98, 118 , 127 , 129 , 157 , 161, 190, 223 , 225, 262, 268-69 , 281, 311,426, 54 2

Hemiola, 288 n Henze, Han s Werner , 53 Herbig, Günther, 308 , 311 , 317 , 359 , 366 Herseth, Adolph, 38 9 Hess, Willy , 192 n Hickox, Richard , 19 7 Hiller, Ferdinand , 102 n Hitchcock, Alfred, 323 n Hoffman, E.T.A. , 13 8 Hogwood, Christopher, 14n , 168 , 170 , 174, 181 , 197 , 222-25 , 227-2 8 Honegger, Arthur, 541 Horenstein, Jascha , 283, 298, 307n , 315, 337, 34 0 Horowitz, Joseph, 23n , 85 Hugget, Monica , 22 0 Imbrie, Andrew , 145-46 n Inbal, Eliahu , 461 Ivés, Charles , 287n , 388 , 44 6 Jackson, Milt , 2 6 Jaenicke, Bruno , 450n Janowski, Marek , 308-309 , 314n , 317 , 325, 327 , 352,415 , 505 , 516 Jansons, Mariss , 461, 464-65 , 470, 473 , 490 Järvi, Neemi, 298 , 300 , 311 , 317 , 325, 340, 34 5 Jochum, Eugen , 69 , 94, 176-77 , 204, 207, 217 , 249n , 271 , 300 , 307-309 , 317, 332n , 345n, 352 , 354 Junker, Kar l Ludwig , 68-69, 72 , 74-77, 85n, 101 , 180 Kabasta, Oswald , 543 n Kalliwoda, Wilhelm, 102 n Karajan, Herber t von , 4, 130n , 131, 134n, 169 , 173 , 185 , 197 , 200n , 204, 217 , 221, 243, 252 , 273, 329 , 340, 345n, 430 , 436 , 446 , 452n , 453, 455, 457, 462-64, 471, 485 , 491, 512n , 53 9 Keilberth, Joseph, 23 3 Kempe, Rudolf , 50, 398, 436-37, 441 , 444, 446 , 452-53 , 45 6 Kertesz, István , 329 , 342, 349, 352 , 366 Keys, Ivor , 38 2

567

INDEX

Kincaid, William (ñutist) , 48 4 Klangfarbenmelodie (tonecolo r melody) , 133, 136n , 257 , 329 , 384 , 393-94 , 437, 480 , 50 1 Kleiber, Carlos , 9 , 15 , 18 , 107 , 129n , 131, 133 , 161 , 166 , 189 , 193-94 , 203-204, 235-36 , 241 , 252-53 , 257 58, 271 , 276, 278 , 280 , 385 , 400, 403, 415 , 416n, 42 3 Kleiber, Erich , 71 , 107 , 131 , 134 , 136n , 161, 163 , 169 , 194 , 249n , 252 , 258, 268 Klemperer, Otto , 122n , 164 , 170 , 180 , 200n, 204 , 218 , 235, 247, 258 , 269 , 272n, 298 , 308 , 315 , 316n, 317-18 , 335-38, 343 , 346 , 366n , 370 , 440n , 498, 504n , 505 , 538 Kletzki, Paul , 184n , 190n , 220 , 247, 271, 278 Knappertsbusch, Hans , 168 , 177 , 179 , 184 Knussen, Oliver , 5 3 Kohon, Benjamin , 120 n Kolisch, Rudolf , viii , 35 , 37n , 41 , 502 n Kondrashin, Kyril , 62 , 300 , 317 , 337-40 , 343, 345 , 358 , 364 , 377 , 465, 471 , 473, 47 8 Koussevitzsky, Serge , 5 , 122 , 170 , 217, 461, 473 , 475-77, 479n, 485n, 487 88, 490 , 54 0 Krauss, Clemens , 436 , 45 5 Krenek, Ernst , vii i Kretzschmar, Hermann , 198 , 198 n Krips, Josef , 147 , 159 , 161,21 7 Kubelik, Rafael , 137 , 176-77 , 239n , 504n, 506 , 51 8 Kujala, Walfri d (flutist) , 46 5 Lachner, Franz , 102 n Lang, Pau l Henry , 74n La Scal a Orchestra , 118 n Laurent, George s (flutist) , 485 n Lebrecht, Norman , 4 Lehel, György , 298 , 370 , 38 9 Leibowitz, René , 35 , 129n , 146-47 , 159 , 179, 23 4 Leinsdorf, Erich , 9, 50 , 55n , 70, 271, 283, 309 , 315 , 327, 340, 342 , 353, 370, 375 , 377

Leppard, Raymond , 221 n, 22 9 Levi, Hermann , 8 7 Levi, Joel, 461, 469 , 476 , 479n , 485 Levine, James , 317 , 335 , 337, 349 , 352 , 389, 398 , 463 , 468 , 486 , 492 , 501n , 540 Lewis, Henry , 436, 453 , 455 Liszt, Franz , 85 , 102n , 425, 475 n Lloyd, Pete r (flutist) , 48 4 Löhlein, George Simon , 225 London Classica l Players , 220, 225 Long, Marguerite , 8 Maazel, Lorin , 161 , 255 , 257, 262, 272, 396, 401-402 , 409, 436 , 441 , 452 53, 463 , 473 , 486 Mackerras, Charles , 54 , 221n, 223n, 229, 436, 452 , 462, 464 , 469 , 475 , 48 7 Mahler, Gustav , 22 , 24n , 70 , 87 , 99, 100 , 105, 106n , 130 , 152 , 219, 226 , 265, 319n, 338 , 397 , 425, 434, 440n , 495, 498 , 53 2 Majeski, Daniel , 44 1 Malcolm, George , 22 1 n Mälzel, 22 4 Markevitch, Igor , 121n , 155n , 192n , 207n, 21 3 Marpurg, Friedric h Wilhelm , 73 , 76 Marriner, Si r Neville, 436, 453 , 457, 504n, 518 n Martino, Donald , 5 3 Martinon, Jean , 465, 469 , 473 , 478 , 52 3 Masur, Kurt , 153 , 161, 171 , 204 , 239n , 278, 400 , 429 , 436-37 , 453 , 455, 498, 505n , 508 , 511 Mata, Eduardo , 429-30, 436, 446 , 450 , 463, 48 6 Matacic, Lovr o von, 543 n Mattheson, Johann, ix , 67, 69, 71-72, 101, 18 0 Mehta, Zubin , 129n , 137 , 180 , 211 , 218, 381, 394 , 400 , 473 , 478 , 485-86 , 491, 498 , 504n , 505-506 , 508 , 512n ,

516, 54 0

Memorization, 56-5 9 Mendelssohn, Felix , x, 45, 69 , 87 , 87n , 88, 96n, 102n , 113 , 152-53n, 191n , 228, 319n , 498 n Hebrides Overture , 45, 87 , 87n , 8 8

568

INDEX

Mengelberg, Willem , 8 , 47-48, 70 , 147 , 159, 163 , 167 , 167n , 170 , 177-78 , 200, 204 , 249n , 254 , 257 , 266 , 268 69, 272n , 273 , 277n, 395 , 398 , 440n, 450n, 461 , 468 , 471 , 475 , 477, 485 , 489 , 543 n Methfessel, Ernst , 102 n Metric modulation , 481-8 2 Metric placement/displacement / ambivalence, 286 , 289-91 , 290n , 293,295, 310,427,431,445-4 6 Metronomization, viii , 14 , 20n, 22-23 , 34-37, 42-44, 53 , 73, 78-79, 85, 87-88, 121 , 123 , 124n , 158-161 , 176-77, 179-80 , 211-12, 221n , 224 , 226-27, 232-33 , 252 , 259, 264-66, 280-81, 315-20 , 334 , 336 , 343-47, 354-56, 448-49, 456, 461 , 479 , 481-83, 485-90, 504n , 522-24 , 526 , 530, 53 3 Metropolitan Opéra , 40 , 543 n Milhaud, Darius , 54 1 Mitropoulos, Dimitri , 5 , 15 , 50 , 57 , 60n , 147, 158 , 539n , 540 , 540 n Molter, Johann , 264 n Monteux, Pierre , viii , 9 , 18 , 50, 55 , 57 58, 71, 490, 52 4 Monteverdi, Claudio , 22I n Morel, Jean , 50 Moyse, Marcel , 48 4 Mozart, Leopold , 73 , 95, 95n, 22 5 Mozart, Wolfgan g Amadeus, 9 , 11 , 13 , 25, 40-42 , 53n , 73-77, 80 , 85n, 98 , 102n, 127 , 129 , 133n , 151, 169 , 198, 223 , 225, 247, 268-69 , 281 , 286n, 311 , 319n, 367n , 426 , 459 , 496, 54 2 Don Giovanni, 40-41 , 77n Magic Flûte, The, 40-4 1 Marriage o f Figaro, Overtur e 25n , 53n , 77n Muck, Karl , 70, 543 n Müller-Reuter, Theodore , Hin , 122 n Munch, Charles , 54 , 211, 337-38 , 436 , 455, 461 , 473-74 , 485 , 488 , 49 0 Munrow, David , 22I n Mussorgsky, Modest , 1 3 On

Muti, Riccardo , 129n , 146 , 181 , 197 , 247,254, 266 , 269,298 , 311 , 338,

349-50, 353 , 371, 423, 464 , 471-72 , 485-86, 492 Mvravinsky, Evgeny , 385 , 396 , 42 0 Nagano, Kent , 476 Newman, Ernst , 40-45, 50 n New Yor k Philharmonic , 120n , 2 0 5 n, 244, 273 , 278 , 322n , 394 , 428n , 450n, 490 , 534n , 543 n Nielsen, Carl , 53 9 Niewig, Clint , 46In , 483 Nikisch, Arthur, 70, 85 , 87 , 119-20 , 126 , 131, 138 , 155 , 162, 178 , 180,24 1 Norrington, Roger , 14n , 47 , 116 , 122n , 160, 164 , 171 , 181 , 197 , 218 , 220 21, 224-30 , 265 , 281 , 286 , 299 , 312 , 315n, 316 , 338, 340 , 348 , 349 , 37 4 Notation, musical , 11 , 14 , 14n , 22 , 25 , 30, 39,40 , 52 , 105-106, 11 2 Nottebohm, Gustav , 121 , 192 n Nowak, Grzegorz , 46 1 Orenstein, Arbie , 48 3 n Ormandy, Eugene, 147, 208, 211, 309, 318, 332n, 352-53, 436, 447, 455 , 465 Ozawa, Seiji , 9 , 57 , 58 , 197 , 283 , 340 , 345n, 353 , 423, 464 , 469 , 48 6 Paita, 314n , 34 0 Paray, Paul , 461, 468 , 478 , 480 , 484 . 486-87, 489 , 508 , 512-13n , 514 , 520n Passacaglia, 379 , 411-20 , 421n , 42 2 Patane, Giuseppe , 504n , 505n , 513 n Paternostro, Roberto , 429 , 45 2 Pellerite, James, 48 4 Period instruments , 14n , 35 , 130n , 219n , 220-21, 235 n Perle, George , 45n , 5 3 Perlea, Jonel , 50 , 541 n Petri, Johan n Samuel , 73 , 76 Pfitzner, Hans , 70 , 505 , 508 , 511 , 513n , 516 Physical attributes/limitations , 9-1 0 Präger, Heinric h Aloys , 78 Prausnitz, Frederick , 59n , 67 Previn, Andre, 234 , 247 , 278 , 465, 468 , 478, 484 , 489-9 0

569

INDEX

Prince's Orchestra , 120 n Prokofiev, Serge , 52 , 459, 541-4 3 Quantz, Johann Joachim , 73 , 225 Rameau, Jean Philippe , 269 , 285 n Rattle, Simon , 461 , 464 , 473 , 478 , 49 0 Ravel, Maurice , x-xi , 7-8, 13 , 31n , 52 , 59, 288n , 396 , 415 , 459-493, 537 , 543 Daphnis e t Chloé, 415, 459-493 Reger, Max , 29 5 Reimann, Heinrich , 8 7 Reinicke, Carl , 102 n Reiner, Fritz , viii , 5 , 9, 9n , 41 , 50 , 55n, 57-58, 70, 107 , 179 , 181 , 190n , 204 , 207,211,217-18,234,236,243, 247, 250 , 265 , 278 , 280 , 385 , 398 , 401-402, 420, 436 , 453 , 455, 479n, 540n Respighi, Ottorino , 54 1 Retouching o f scores/reorchestration , 20n, 46 , 184n , 210 , 220 , 438n, 493 , 498

Rhythmic dislocation , 291-95 Ricci, Luigi , 450 n Richter, Hans , 8 7 Riemann, Hugo , 1 1 In Rietz, Julius, 102 n Riezler, Walter, 192 n Rimsky-Korsakov, Nicolai , 434, 54 3 Rodzinski, Artur, 50 , 70, 146 , 14 8 Ronald, Si r Landon, 543 n Rosé, Arnold , 428 n Rosenthal, Manuel , 461 , 465 , 466n , 467 68, 48 5 Rossini, Giacchino , 3 1 Rousseau, Jean , 7 2 Rousseau, Jean Jacques , 72 n Rowicki, Witold, 290n , 303 , 306 , 311 , 315, 318 , 334 , 338 , 37 2 Rudolf, Max , 50 , 59n , 6 7 Salieri, Antonio, 264n , 277 n Sanderling, Kurt , 233-34, 243 , 247 , 266 , 286, 308 , 342 , 366 , 39 5 Sawallisch, Wolfgang, 324-25, 335 , 504n, 506, 518 n Schalk, Franz , 15 3

Schenker, Heinrich , 107 , lll-13n , 120n , 124, 127 , 130n , 134-35 , 144-46 , 149-51, 184 , 191-92n , 197n , 205n , 211,213, 22 0 Scherchen, Hermann , 59n , 67 , 190n , 198 Schiller, Gottfried , 7 7 Schindler, Anton , 36 , 77, 95 , 120n , 12 1 Schönberg, Arnold, viii , 13 , 31n, 35 , 43 , 52, 54 , 232-33, 256n , 297 , 305n , 365, 373 , 45 9 Schubert, Franz , x , 25n-26n, 160 , 195n , 255,297, 319 , 353,495 , 539 n Octet, 26n , 195 n "Unfinished" Symphony, 25 n Schuch, Erns t von , 541 n Schulze, Adolf , 450n Schulze, Robert , 450 n Schumann, Clara , 329 , 34 6 Schumann, Robert , 21-22 , 68-69, 87, 130, 133n , 228 , 297 , 319n , 438n , 495-520, 537 First Symphony, 504 n Second Symphony, 495-52 0 Schuricht, Karl , 134 , 149 , 169 , 183 , 221 , 498, 505n , 516 Schwarz, Gerard, 461 , 464 , 466-68 , 487 , 489

Seriaban, Alexander, 459 Seidl, Anton, 26 5 Semkow, Jerzy , 504n, 508 , 51 8 Sessions, Roger , vii i Seyfried, Igna z von , 77n , 9 5 Shostakovich, Dimitri , 22 , 39 7 Simpson, Robert , 192 n Singer, Otto , 437 Sinopoli, Giuseppe , 461 , 467 , 479n , 484 , 491 Skrowaczewski, Stanislav , 18 , 107 , 280 , 283-84, 290 , 298 , 309 , 315 , 332, 337, 342 , 350 , 352-53 , 358 , 370-72 , 374-75, 377 , 385 , 401-403, 416n , 462, 465 , 478 , 485 , 49 1 Slatkin, Leonard , 436 , 455 , 473, 486 , 531, 54 0 Solti, Si r George , 56-57 , 159 , 166 , 168 , 170, 184 , 189 , 208 , 253 , 257, 434, 445, 450n , 453 , 455, 464, 478 , 488 , 490-91, 53 9

570

INDEX

Smith, Christin a (flutist) , 48 5 Smith, Joshu a (flutist)' , 48 5 Sontag, Susan , 8 Specialization, 5 1 Spohr, Ludwig , 37n, 78 , 95, 198 , 264n Spontini, Gaspare , 7 8 Stadler, Peter , 34 n Stamitz, Johann , 76 , 94 Steinberg, William , 5 , 70, 164 , 197 , 207 , 218, 218n , 257 , 267, 273 , 436 , 446n, 452 Steuermann, Edward , vii i Stiedry, Fritz , 543 n Stokowski, Leopold , 5 , 18 , 50 , 54n , 89n , 161, 167n , 168 , 183 , 184n , 190n , 215, 218 , 220, 227 , 232, 235, 237, 237n, 238 , 241 , 257 , 258n, 259 , 272n, 273 , 278 , 280 , 282-85 , 298 , 300, 303-304 , 306-307 , 316n , 318 , 325, 337 , 339-40, 342 , 344 , 345n , 350-52, 358 , 370 , 373 , 375 , 377 , 436, 480 , 484 , 493 , 540-4 1 Stotein, Jaap , 47 Stransky, Josef , 120 n Straram, Walter, 543 n Strauss, Franz , 427 n Strauss, Richard , 22, 67, 69, 75, 89-90, 100-101, 130 , 133 , 138 , 152-53 , 160-61, 163 , 167n , 168-70 , 181 , 194, 197 , 218 , 245 , 255 , 258, 266 , 268, 273 , 288 , 341n , 425-457 , 532, 537, 543n , 54 4 Alpine Symphony, 24n , 428 n Don Juan, 42 5 Ein Heldenleben, 543 n Salomé, 425 , 426 n Till Eulenspiegel, 288 , 425-457 , 547 Stravinsky, Igor , viii, 5 , 13 , 29, 34-35 , 43 , 52, 54 , 171 , 288n , 338 , 365 , 400n, 414n, 423n , 459 , 475n , 54 1 Octet, 423 n Petrushka, chord, 475 n Sacre du Printemps (Rite of Spring), 288n, 388 , 388 n Suitner, Otmar , 107 , 162 , 168 , 280 , 283 84, 286 , 290 , 291n , 298 , 300 , 308 , 325, 327 , 335, 339-40, 350 , 352, 371, 377,400-401,41 5

Syncopation, 269-71 , 303 , 328-29, 356 , 370 Szell, George , viii , 18 , 41, 50 , 56 , 70 , 137,208,211,218,252, 335 , 340 , 366n, 402 , 423 , 436 , 441 , 447 , 498 , 516, 51 8 Szymanowski, Karol , 52 , 53 9 Talich, Vaclav , 543n Taruskin, Richard , 14n , 74 n Täte, Jeffrey , 240 , 243 , 25 6 Tchaikovsky, Piotr , 13 , 21-22, 29 , 45n , 85, 100 , 270n , 285n , 434, 521-35 , 537, 543n, 54 4 Sixth Symphony, 85 , 270n, 521-35 , 539n, 543 n Tempo, viii , 14 , 17-18, 23-24 , 26 , 33, 36, 47-48, 53-54 , 62-63, 68-69, 71, 73, 84 , 89, 93-94, 97, 106 , 112 , 121 , 154, 161 , 167n , 179 , 222 , 226-27, 231-32, 235 , 241, 264 , 278 , 280 283, 315-18 , 333n , 334 , 342 , 346 , 354, 356n , 380 , 429 , 447-49 , 455 56, 459, 464 , 468 , 473 , 476-77 , 481-82, 489 , 504n , 518 , 522-26 , 528-29, 532-33 , 535 , 544 Tempo modification/relationships / fluctuations, 14 , 17 , 71-76, 78-82, 84,88-89,91,94, 101 , 132 , 154, 190, 222 , 229, 341n , 343 , 380 , 395 , 407, 424 , 473 , 522-23 , 527 , 533 Tempo rubato , 37 , 71, 72, 73n, 74 , 7677, 79 , 82 , 85 , 87n , 90 , 95 , 173 , 222, 232 , 266 n Tennstedt, Klaus , 309, 311 , 317 , 32 4 Textual fidelity , 19-21 , 30 , 40, 48, 70 , 84-85, 88n , 89,91,93,98 , 211, 221, 223 , 229, 237 , 241 , 27 2 Thayer, Alexander , 74n, 192n , Thomas, Michae l Tilson , 134 , 167 , 177 , 179, 189 , 221 , 268 , 273 , 461 Tortelier, Yan Pascal, 461-62, 48 4 Toscanini, Arturo , viii, 5 , 8, 23n , 27n , 30 , 35, 50 , 55, 57-58, 60n , 69-71 , 84 85, 87 , 88n , 89 , 98 , 101 , 102n , 107 , 120n, 122n , 126 , 129 , 134 , 142n , 161, 168 , 183 , 197 , 211,217,221 22, 232 , 243-44, 254 , 265 , 267-68 , 273, 278 , 280 , 283-84 , 298 , 300 ,

INDEX

311, 321 , 331 , 335 , 337-38 , 340 , 342, 345n , 346 , 348 , 350 , 355n , 371, 375 , 377 , 381 , 396 , 423 , 435 36, 450n, 452-53 , 456n, 464 , 477 , 486-87, 490, 539-4 1 Tovey, Si r Francis , 31 7 Townsend, Douglas , 319n , 326 n Turk, Danie l Gottlob , 73 Van Beinum , Eduard , 300 , 315 , 324, 340, 37 0 Van de r Rohe , Mies , 433-3 4 Vaughn-Williams, Ralph , 543 Verdi, Giuseppe , 44 , 45n, 28 0 Vienna Philharmonic , 131 , 208 , 236-38 , 243-44, 283 , 299 , 329-30 , 353, 428-30, 442n, 468 Von Herzogenberg , Heinrich , 497 n Wagar, Jeanine , 20n , 35 , 228 Wagner, Richard , ix, 6n, 7 , 22, 27n, 28 29, 37n , 43, 45 , 59 , 61, 69 , 75-77 , 79-86, 88 , 88n, 90 , 94, 96-102, 119n, 120 , 132 , 152 , 171 , 180 , 190 , 231, 263 , 273 , 280 , 296-97,336n , 395, 399n , 425, 427n, 428, 45 9 Die Meistersinger, 80, 82 , 399 n Parsifal, 8 2 Siegfried Idyll, 6 n Tristan un d Isolde (Prelude) , 96 , 336 n Über da s Dirigieren, 27n , 37n , 50n , 79-85, 90, 94 , 97n-101n, 11 9 Walter, Bruno , viii , ix , 6, 15 , 37 , 41, 48 , 51, 55n , 67, 69 , 75 , 90 , 103 , 108n ,

571

131, 137-38 , 140 , 142n , 1 5 In, 159 , 162-63, 167 , 170 , 177 , 194 , 211, 218, 272n , 273 , 281, 284 , 288n , 298, 311 , 340 , 342-43 , 346 , 351n , 366, 381 , 395 , 539-4 0 Walton, William , 541 , 54 3 Wand, Günter , 136n , 153 , 308, 340 , 343 , 346 Weber, Car l Mari a von, x, 42, 43 , 67 , 77-80, 87n , 9 0 Freischütz Overture , 80-82 , 89 Oberon Overture , 8 0 Weber, Gottfried , 7 8 Weber, Hans , 43I n Webern, Anton , viii , 13 , 35 , 52 , 54 , 426 , 459 Weingartner, Felix , 30 , 50 , 67, 69 , 71 , 75 , 78, 85 , 87 , 89-90, 100 , 102 , 104 , 108n, 109 , 1 1 In, 113 , 118n , 138 , 163, 181 , 210 , 218 , 232 , 300 , 302 , 327, 377 , 386 , 495 , 49 8 Über da s Dirigieren, 78, 85 , 87 , 102n , 104, 108 n Wodiczko, Bohdan , 543 n Wood, Henry , 543 n Wüllner, Franz , 425, 497n Yannatos, James, 288 n Zaslaw, Neal , 42n Zeitlin, Sydne y (flutist) , 48 4 Zelter, Kar l Friedrich , 88 n Zinman, David , 504n , 505n , 515 n Zöller, Karlhein z (Outist), 48 5