# Period Beethoven... yay or nay?



## Il Seraglio

While I recognise the advantages of the modern performance and understand a lot of the harmonic richness and clarity is lost when an attempt is made at period authenticity at all costs, I have to confess I find myself having very little patience with the way modern orchestras modify a piece's original tempo. One example was when I purchased Anton Dorati's widely lauded cycle of Haydn symphonies with the Philharmonia Hungarica, having been introduced to a couple of his symphonies played at the original faster tempo for which the symphony was intended. Hearing the Presto movement of Symphony no. 22 performed in this style was probably the point at which I fell in love with Haydn. What immediately struck me about Dorati's set was how much he slowed this symphony down, giving it a disappointing, plodding feel.

It will probably be a long time before I decide to splash out on a more faithful rendition of Haydn's complete symphonies, but given that I am a big fan of period performances of Mozart also, I am wondering if you think I will enjoy Beethoven performed in this manner. I'm obviously hesitant about doing this because about half of Beethoven's works are romantic symphonies, which generally lend themselves very well to the modern orchestra and in particular the 9th, of which the likes of Herbert von Karajan, Osmo Vanska and hardened period performance hater Daniel Barenboim have all given stunning renditions. But I am interested in hearing sections such as the first movement of the 'Pastoral' symphony, the third movement of the 7th (well, actually all of the seventh) and the second movement of the 9th played at an unusually fast tempo and must confess I _really_ like the idea.

So what do you think? Can Beethoven work in a 'historically-informed' performance and which recording would you say does a particularly good job at it?


----------



## nickgray

> Can Beethoven work in a 'historically-informed' performance and which recording would you say does a particularly good job at it?


Of course, though I just view it as another interpretation, not as HIP (well, not really, but you get the idea ). I think that the most awesome sets are: P. Jarvi, Norrington (original set, haven't heard the later one yet), Immerseel, Vanska. An honorable mention goes to Mackerras, who made an "in-between" record - with a chamber orchestra, but the tempi (more or less) and the general feeling are not HIP-like.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Frans Bruggen - Orchestra of the 18th Century - Spectacular.


----------



## Weston

I'm more for modern instruments and I even prefer baroque on the piano rather than the harpsichord -- the exception being the harpsichord works really well as part of the continuo. 

For Beethoven, I would really love to hear some sonatas on a period piano though - the kind that can actually move the hammers over a little so as to hit fewer strings rather than our modern damping pedal just muting them. Have I heard correctly that we have largely lost this ability? Or can grand pianos do this?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

It depends upon the work in question... and the actual performance. I quite like John Eliot Gardiner's muscular HIP recordings of Beethoven's symphonies (although I would not want them as my sole version of these works). On the other hand, I found the performances I have heard of Beethoven's piano concertos on period instruments (piano forte) to be greatly lacking in the richness and depth I expect from Beethoven. On the other hand... I quite like some HIP recordings of Mozart's piano concertos.


----------



## scytheavatar

Period Beethoven = yay. Having said that, I am really sick and tired of hearing classical music fans treat the period instruments as some kind of magic sauce that automatically makes any performance good. And that any modern Beethoven performance automatically suck. I think that for some symphonies especially 6th and 7th the advantages of the period instruments is clear, but I am yet to hear a period 9th that has ever impressed me. The modern instruments have a clear advantage on the 9th, especially when so many period sets screw up the tempo of the scherzo. 

And out of all the period Beethoven I have heard I would rank them as:

Bruggen - Spectacular
Immerseel - Good
Goodman - Good
Hogwood - Ok
Gardiner - Awful
Norrington - the worst Beethoven set I have ever heard.


----------



## Artemis

The term “HIP” does not define a single alternative approach to the more traditional approach based on modern instruments and modern performance practice. There are several variants, all loosely called “HIP”, which encompass a range of approaches. They differ chiefly in regard to (i) choice of instruments (period or modern), (ii) performance practice (e.g. use of vibrato, tempo), (iii) size of orchestra/ensemble. 

The only feature in common is performance practice but obviously there is no uniformity of approach as each conductor/ensemble has its own interpretation of the most suitable treatment to match the composer’s intentions consistent with the playing practice of the time. Because of this there is possibly as much variation within HIP versions of famous works as there is between a typical HIP approach and a typical conventional approach. 

The biggest differences between conventional and HIP performances occur in respect of Beethoven symphonies. Beethoven was such a masterful orchestrator who incorporated huge amounts of rhythmic vitality into his works that differences in approach appear to stand out far more prominently than with the generally lighter symphonic material from earlier in the Classical period. This comes through especially clearly in the very high quality of Beethoven's string writing which the best of these ensembles pull off admirably.

I would say that among the more interesting complete sets of HIP recordings of Beethoven symphonies there are three that stand out: Vanska/Minnesota, Immerseel/Anima Eterna, Gardiner/ORR. Among these I especially like Vanska’s No 3 and No 6; Immerseel’s 5; Gardiner’s No 9.

My overall favourite versions of all Beethoven symphonies remain: Klemperer/ Philharmonia for No 3; Kleiber/VPO for No 5; Bohm/VPO for No 6; Furtwangler/Bayreuth for No 9. But the HIP versions listed above are very worthy alternatives.


----------



## Elgarian

Artemis said:


> I would say that among the more interesting complete sets of HIP recordings of Beethoven symphonies there are three that stand out: Vanska/Minnesota, *Immerseel/Anima Eterna*, Gardiner/ORR.


I found that listening to Immerseel's recording of Beethoven's fifth was like listening to it for the first time. A symphony that had never much interested me suddenly became not merely fascinating, but exciting, fresh, dynamic, delicate, and pulsing with vitality. There was a sense of being able to hear individual instruments, individual musicians, all working together, where once I'd only heard a kind of mush of sound, smoothed-out. On the basis of hearing an extended clip from the 5th, I bought the box of the Anima Eterna Beethoven symphonies, and it was one of the happiest and most thrilling purchases I've made for some time.










Beethoven on a motor bike, with the wind in your face, instead of Beethoven in a family saloon car with all the windows closed.


----------



## Il Seraglio

Artemis said:


> I would say that among the more interesting complete sets of HIP recordings of Beethoven symphonies there are three that stand out: Vanska/Minnesota, Immerseel/Anima Eterna, Gardiner/ORR. Among these I especially like Vanska's No 3 and No 6; Immerseel's 5; Gardiner's No 9.
> 
> My overall favourite versions of all Beethoven symphonies remain: Klemperer/ Philharmonia for No 3; Kleiber/VPO for No 5; Bohm/VPO for No 6; Furtwangler/Bayreuth for No 9. But the HIP versions listed above are very worthy alternatives.


I wasn't sure until now whether the Minnesota Orchestra's take on the symphonies was HIP or not. The subdued horn sections should have been a clue. I found Vanska's clarity and precision on the 9th to be breathtaking, probably my absolute favourite in fact. His take on the 7th was more of a mixed bag for me. He really manages to inject some serious vitality into the second and fourth movements... something I can't put my finger on, but takes the first and third movements far too slowly for my tastes, he seemed to be playing the presto movement at allegro speed, although his obvious skill and flare are always present. In fact the 7th was what especially put me in doubt as to the fact that Vanska's was HIP (I fully admit to being an inexperienced listener). Is it not true that the original scores for the symphonies contained metronome markings which showed evidence that these pieces were invariably intended to be played faster than the tempi to which audiences have become familiar or is Beethoven an exception?


----------



## Artemis

Il Seraglio said:


> I wasn't sure until now whether the Minnesota Orchestra's take on the symphonies was HIP or not. The subdued horn sections should have been a clue. I found Vanska's clarity and precision on the 9th to be breathtaking, probably my absolute favourite in fact. His take on the 7th was more of a mixed bag for me. He really manages to inject some serious vitality into the second and fourth movements... something I can't put my finger on, but takes the first and third movements far too slowly for my tastes, he seemed to be playing the presto movement at allegro speed, although his obvious skill and flare are always present. In fact the 7th was what especially put me in doubt as to the fact that Vanska's was HIP (I fully admit to being an inexperienced listener). Is it not true that the original scores for the symphonies contained metronome markings which showed evidence that these pieces were invariably intended to be played faster than the tempi to which audiences have become familiar or is Beethoven an exception?


 Of course, the Vanska/Minnesota set is based on modern instruments, yet Vanska quite definitely follows a period approach. This doesn't stand out so much in terms of the lack of vibrato, which one normally associates with HIP renditions, but rather comes over in the fact that the playing is so very clean, tight and very precise that it achieves an energy which any good historically informed approach would aim to achieve.

What I find so impressive about many of the indivual recordings are two aspects. First, is the way Vanska maintains propulsion throughout fast passages despite the difficulties which Beethoven put in the way by fragmenting a lot of his music by chopping up and recycling preceding material. With lesser orchestras/conductors this sense of propulsion is lost and instead a choppy flavour can be easily be imparted. Secondly, this set achieves a warmth and lushness which is very comforting and yet not sacrificing any vitality and colour from the strings which remains strong.

As for your query about tempi, I wasn't aware of any problem issues with any of the symphonies. The interpretations are, as far as I know, well informed using the latest Jonathan Del Mar "Barenreiter edition.

All in all it's a set worth obtaining, especially for someone who maybe isn't too sure about delving into the farther reaches of HIP but who wants a very good modern set, based on modern instruments which follows a period approach.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

Hear is the 6th symphony. I am surprised at how much I like it.


----------



## scytheavatar

Artemis said:


> Of course, the Vanska/Minnesota set is based on modern instruments, yet Vanska quite definitely follows a period approach. This doesn't stand out so much in terms of the lack of vibrato, which one normally associates with HIP renditions, but rather comes over in the fact that the playing is so very clean, tight and very precise that it achieves an energy which any good historically informed approach would aim to achieve.
> 
> What I find so impressive about many of the indivual recordings are two aspects. First, is the way Vanska maintains propulsion throughout fast passages despite the difficulties which Beethoven put in the way by fragmenting a lot of his music by chopping up and recycling preceding material. With lesser orchestras/conductors this sense of propulsion is lost and instead a choppy flavour can be easily be imparted. Secondly, this set achieves a warmth and lushness which is very comforting and yet not sacrificing any vitality and colour from the strings which remains strong.
> 
> As for your query about tempi, I wasn't aware of any problem issues with any of the symphonies. The interpretations are, as far as I know, well informed using the latest Jonathan Del Mar "Barenreiter edition.
> 
> All in all it's a set worth obtaining, especially for someone who maybe isn't too sure about delving into the farther reaches of HIP but who wants a very good modern set, based on modern instruments which follows a period approach.


If you want to bring in a discussion about modern instruments in the period style, you'll need to talk about other fine sets like the Zinman's or most importantly the Abbado set, which is inspired by the HIP movement by varying degrees. The Vanska set pales in comparison to the above mentioned 2 sets.


----------



## nefigah

Elgarian said:


> Beethoven on a motor bike, with the wind in your face, instead of Beethoven in a family saloon car with all the windows closed.


This description sold me. Buying.


----------



## Elgarian

nefigah said:


> This description sold me. Buying.


Play the 5th first. And don't forget to wear a crash helmet.

There's an extended clip available somewhere. I'll see if I can find it.

*Later*
.... well, I can't find what I was looking for, but there are lots of samples at the Zigzag website, here:

Beethoven on a motorbike

If track 21 doesn't get you out of your seat and cheering, then nothing will.


----------



## Sorin Eushayson

Elgarian said:


> Play the 5th first. And don't forget to wear a crash helmet.
> 
> There's an extended clip available somewhere. I'll see if I can find it.
> 
> *Later*
> .... well, I can't find what I was looking for...







Period performance is our specialty! 

Hmm, I guess I had better comment on this thread now...  I used to listen to a lot of modern instrument Beethoven, but now I can barely stand it; it just can't compare with the richness and balance of a period performance. Modern instruments almost always sound tinny and sharp to my ears, not to mention the warbly vibrato and blatting brass. In fact, I generally avoid recordings of pre-20th century works that do not use authentic instruments; my entire Mendelssohn collection, for example, is HIP-only. In my experience those who dislike period instruments usually grew up hearing music on modern instruments and are simply deep set in their preferences. Yes, I realise that these are controversial statements. Of course, tastes vary, so follow your ears!


----------



## Artemis

Sorin Eushayson said:


> (link to competing web-site removed) to the rescue:


It was bound to happen sooner or later.


----------



## scytheavatar

Sorin Eushayson said:


> CMM to the rescue:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Period performance is our specialty!
> 
> Hmm, I guess I had better comment on this thread now...  I used to listen to a lot of modern instrument Beethoven, but now I can barely stand it; it just can't compare with the richness and balance of a period performance. Modern instruments almost always sound tinny and sharp to my ears, not to mention the warbly vibrato and blatting brass. In fact, I generally avoid recordings of pre-20th century works that do not use authentic instruments; my entire Mendelssohn collection, for example, is HIP-only. In my experience those who dislike period instruments usually grew up hearing music on modern instruments and are simply deep set in their preferences. Yes, I realise that these are controversial statements. Of course, tastes vary, so follow your ears!


I hate to say this, but there are a lot of bad things you can say about the period instruments too... To me there are 3 big problems with the HIP Beethoven:

a) Tinny and sharp more accurately describes the period instruments, but more importantly they almost always lack the power of the modern instruments. For some Beethoven, especially the late period Beethoven and some romantic-period leaning music like the 3th Symphony, the modern instruments are superior IMHO.

b) Far too many period instrument conductors flat out suck... I am talking about Gardiner and Norrington. Norrington in particular deserves hate for starting the stupid "vibrato is a 20th century disease" nonsense which has never been proven to be true.

c) The whole fiasco concerning Beethoven's tempo markings is another problem... people seem to forget that Beethoven was completely deaf by the time he made his metronome markings. And that he never was a strong believer in the metronome in the first place.


----------



## handlebar

I own many Beethoven Symphony sets and consider Gardiner's one of the best. To my ears it is far from tinny and toy like.Each person has a certain audio/hearing range and so hence the various opinions.

The period movement produced some very fine recordings and the anti-period establishment hate to admit it. Why is this so difficult? There is plenty of room for both encampments.

I admit I admire the Rattle set which did not garner very good reviews. To each his own.

Also... I adore the Hogwood Haydn Symphonies as well as the Fischer and Bruno Weil series on Sony.

So there it is.If others hate it then fine. It does not affect me one way or t'other.

Jim


----------



## Sorin Eushayson

Artemis said:


> It was bound to happen sooner or later.


Of course; anything I can do to help guide people toward excellent recordings! 



scytheavatar said:


> a) Tinny and sharp more accurately describes the period instruments, but more importantly they almost always lack the power of the modern instruments. For some Beethoven, especially the late period Beethoven and some romantic-period leaning music like the 3th Symphony, the modern instruments are superior IMHO.


I don't know what you're hearing, but to me it's exactly the opposite! Modern instruments always come across as shallow and metallic to me in those (or other) instances. Keep in mind modern orchestras have to beef up numbers to handle what period ones did.



scytheavatar said:


> b) Far too many period instrument conductors flat out suck... I am talking about Gardiner and Norrington. Norrington in particular deserves hate for starting the stupid "vibrato is a 20th century disease" nonsense which has never been proven to be true.


Gardiner maybe, though I don't think one will find a more satisfying version of his recording of the Ninth out there! Norrington's LCP set is my favourite, though; the Fifth and Ninth aside, he gets everything right.



scytheavatar said:


> c) The whole fiasco concerning Beethoven's tempo markings is another problem... people seem to forget that Beethoven was completely deaf by the time he made his metronome markings. And that he never was a strong believer in the metronome in the first place.


Well, the issue with the metronome markings most believe to be a clerical error. We certainly don't see any hindrance in his composition around that time due to his hearing trouble. Interpretational discernment is needed in these instances; Norrington, for example, later admitted he was wrong about the tempo in the March and you can hear a more reasonable timing in his new recording with the SWR (not on period instruments, unfortunately  ).


----------



## World Violist

Period Beethoven (if you mean with the original instruments blah blah blah) is only a "yay" as far as I'm concerned if it's darn good--and it'd better be _darn_ good.

That said, Paavo Jarvi's is _darn_ good. Possibly some of the greatest Beethoven I've ever heard.


----------



## scytheavatar

Sorin Eushayson said:


> I don't know what you're hearing, but to me it's exactly the opposite! Modern instruments always come across as shallow and metallic to me in those (or other) instances. Keep in mind modern orchestras have to beef up numbers to handle what period ones did.


That the modern instruments are designed to be more powerful than the period instruments is not an opinion or what I hear, it's a fact. I quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamber_music#From_home_to_hall :

"At the beginning of the 19th century, luthiers developed new methods of constructing the violin, viola and cello, that gave these instruments a richer tone, more volume and more carrying power. Also at this time, bowmakers made the violin bow longer, with a thicker ribbon of hair under higher tension. This improved the projection of the instrument, and also made possible new bowing techniques."

While I can't confirm that this is true for all modern instruments, from what I know it's the general trend for modern instruments to be designed less for small scale chamber music and more for concert performances in a large concert hall. What you must realize is that the modern instrument is designed for a different aim than the period instrument. So to claim that "modern orchestras have to beef up numbers to handle what period ones did" is wrong; modern orchestras are designed for the rich romantic/20th century classical music and for power. That is why the period orchestras can never hope to match the modern orchestras when it comes to power, what they win the modern orchestras at is precision, clarity and polish.



handlebar said:


> The period movement produced some very fine recordings and the anti-period establishment hate to admit it. Why is this so difficult? There is plenty of room for both encampments.


At the same time, the modern instruments produced some very fine recordings and the anti-modern establishment hate to admit it. Why is this so difficult? There is plenty of room for both encampments. Just because you are using modern or period instruments doesn't automatically make your recording good or bad, at the end of the day each has its strengths and weaknesses. I don't come across modern instrument elitist who hate all period movement sets, at least nowhere near as much as I do from the period movement supporters who hate all modern instruments.


----------



## Elgarian

scytheavatar said:


> At the same time, the modern instruments produced some very fine recordings and the anti-modern establishment hate to admit it. Why is this so difficult? There is plenty of room for both encampments. Just because you are using modern or period instruments doesn't automatically make your recording good or bad, at the end of the day each has its strengths and weaknesses. I don't come across modern instrument elitist who hate all period movement sets, at least nowhere near as much as I do from the period movement supporters who hate all modern instruments.


The difficulty in all these areas, it seems to me, is that we spend a lot of time trying to rationalise what is really no more than a personal preference. A lacklustre performance played on _any_ kind of instruments is going to remain a lacklustre performance. I'm a newcomer to the whole HIP exploratory process, so I can't speak with wide experience, but Pinnock's Mozart symphonies, for instance, for all their HIPness, seem to me more like bloodless documentations of the music than life-enhancing performances of it - though I know they have their devotees.

As in most areas of art criticism (even of life in general), if we elevate one critical factor above all others, we'll come unstuck sooner or later. But speaking on a purely _personal_ basis, I can't imagine ever being fully satisfied by a modern instrument performance of a Beethoven symphony, now that I've discovered the Immerseel rock & roll interpretations.


----------



## scytheavatar

Elgarian said:


> The difficulty in all these areas, it seems to me, is that we spend a lot of time trying to rationalise what is really no more than a personal preference. A lacklustre performance played on _any_ kind of instruments is going to remain a lacklustre performance. I'm a newcomer to the whole HIP exploratory process, so I can't speak with wide experience, but Pinnock's Mozart symphonies, for instance, for all their HIPness, seem to me more like bloodless documentations of the music than life-enhancing performances of it - though I know they have their devotees.
> 
> As in most areas of art criticism (even of life in general), if we elevate one critical factor above all others, we'll come unstuck sooner or later. But speaking on a purely _personal_ basis, I can't imagine ever being fully satisfied by a modern instrument performance of a Beethoven symphony, now that I've discovered the Immerseel rock & roll interpretations.


And what modern instrument Beethoven performances have you heard? There are plenty of good rock and roll Beethoven too on modern instruments, have you heard Zinman or Abbado?


----------



## Sorin Eushayson

scytheavatar said:


> That the modern instruments are designed to be more powerful than the period instruments is not an opinion or what I hear, it's a fact. I quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamber_music#From_home_to_hall :
> 
> "At the beginning of the 19th century, luthiers developed new methods of constructing the violin, viola and cello, that gave these instruments a richer tone, more volume and more carrying power. Also at this time, bowmakers made the violin bow longer, with a thicker ribbon of hair under higher tension. This improved the projection of the instrument, and also made possible new bowing techniques."


This just confirms to me that instruments changed to meet practical needs, not quality-related sound. Of course, this Wikipedia author is taking some liberties when declaring that modern instruments have a "richer tone"; it's counter-intuitive that metal would sound better than earthy guts (or in the case of pianos, wood v. iron). Maybe that's just me.


----------



## Elgarian

scytheavatar said:


> And what modern instrument Beethoven performances have you heard? There are plenty of good rock and roll Beethoven too on modern instruments, have you heard Zinman or Abbado?


No, I haven't heard those. For a long time I struggled on with Mackerras/RLPO - which performances are generally highly regarded I think; but they always seemed rather tepid to me (having not been, in any case, particularly fond of Beethoven in general); and I readily believe you when you say there are some splendid performances on modern instruments out there that I've not discovered. I'm not, as I explained, a HIP fetishist, except insofar as I've experienced something of a Damascene Beethoven conversation after listening to some HIP performances, so am quite excited about that. I wonder, though, how modern instruments could ever achieve that raw, rough-hewn sound that I find so attractive in Immerseel's performances.

About HIPsterism in general, I feel more comfortable talking about Handel than Beethoven, purely because I've heard a lot more: for instance, the most exciting two recorded performances of 'Dopo notte' that I know are by Janet Baker (from the 70s), and Magdalena Kozena (from just a few years ago). The former is distinctly unHIP, but Dame Janet and Raymond Leppard rock like Elvis, despite the silky-smooth modern strings. The latter, recorded with the HIP Venice Baroque Orchestra, offers an entirely different approach - the equivalent maybe of a younger, punkier Elvis. But both are capable of blowing anyone's roof off, and no one is going to take my JB version away from me, HIP or no HIP. I think this is the case you're trying to make, isn't it?


----------



## handlebar

It all comes down to ears. If we like what we hear, then all is right wit the world. If not, we move on to others.

Simple as that. Both sides have their positives and negatives.

Jim


----------

