# HIP Beethoven 9th Symphony



## bz3

What's your favorite recording? If the question is sacrilege to you then maybe just answer who you prefer on modern instruments but with quicker tempos or some other HIP-related aspect of the performance.


----------



## KenOC

Old-style: Fricsay most definitely.


----------



## realdealblues

I don't like any recordings of the 9th on Period Instruments or with Small Orchestras, not because I think they are sacrilege but because they all sound far too "wimpy" for what I believe Beethoven truly envisioned. 

So, that only leaves me to go by quicker tempos using HIP criteria in which case Wand & Chailly I believe would fall into that category. Bohm, Fricsay & Wand are still my "Top 3" modern stereo recordings. Bernstein (79), Blomstedt, Chailly, Karajan (62 & 77), Klemperer, Kletzki, & Szell would also all be in my "personal favorites" category for stereo recordings.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

I've yet to hear a HIP Beethoven Ninth that I enjoy.

I greatly enjoy Toscanini's 1952 Ninth. Toscanini's tempos are remarkably close to HIP tempos nowadays, but that's about all it has in common with HIP.


----------



## Guest

realdealblues said:


> I don't like any recordings of the 9th on Period Instruments or with Small Orchestras, not because I think they are sacrilege but because they all sound far too "wimpy" for what I believe Beethoven truly envisioned. [...]


You know that when Beethoven premiered the 7th (for one of his "charity concerts in his benefit") he had something akin to the modern forces we are used to today: 14 first violins, 14 second violins, a whole bunch of violas, 10 cellists and a good number of double basses, double winds and so on. I don't have the exact figures to hand but I can get them if you wish. So the "small orchestra/wimpy" objection doesn't hold water. 
More seriously, what really doesn't hold the least drop of H2O is what you believe Beethoven truly envisioned. Do you have some sort of privileged access to his mind that we don't have? Did that "vision" include standardization of concert pitch at A=440? Did that vision encompass the development of metal strings over gut and a whole different series of harmonics that alter the timbre? Did that vision you believe in include the development of valve instruments and a complete rethink of how to write for brass? And so and so forth ...
All you are really doing, RDB, is to project your own expectations onto his works, expectations that have nothing whatsoever to do with what Beethoven's compositional intentions/goals may have been.


----------



## KenOC

I read (somewhere) that LvB said the right orchestra for his symphonies would have about 60 players. I'd guess, though, that he would have liked more for his 9th. I've never seen a description of the orchestra at either of the two concerts with that symphony that took place in Vienna in 1824-25.


----------



## DavidA

Of the recordings I have:

Chailly still sounds rushed to me and Norrington is a bit feeble.
Klemperer has definitely something to say although his road to joy is definitely uphill. But his two performances I have certainly grip.
Harnoncourt is spoiled by a rushed slow movement.
Toscanini is tremendous but lamed by poor sound.
Bernstein has plenty going for it but doesn't quite make it imo.
Gardiner has a great final movement but the slow movement is hopeless. Too fast again.
Karajan (63, 77 and 82) all have their merits, but Karajan 77 is the best all round. A wonderfully intense slow movement. That would be my choice.


----------



## hpowders

I have no favorite HIP recordings. Most of them take the adagio too fast.

With all due respect to Arthur Murray, I don't believe Beethoven intended it to be a lilting waltz.


----------



## hpowders

DavidA said:


> Of the recordings I have:
> 
> Chailly still sounds rushed to me and Norrington is a bit feeble.
> Klemperer has definitely something to say although his road to joy is definitely uphill. But his two performances I have certainly grip.
> Harnoncourt is spoiled by a rushed slow movement.
> Toscanini is tremendous but lamed by poor sound.
> Bernstein has plenty going for it but doesn't quite make it imo.
> Gardiner has a great final movement but the slow movement is hopeless. Too fast again.
> Karajan (63, 77 and 82) all have their merits, but Karajan 77 is the best all round. A wonderfully intense slow movement. That would be my choice.


I agree. Chailly is rushed. His Pastoral is even worse with respect to ridiculous speed.


----------



## Bradius

I like JEG's B9th. 
HIP!


----------



## Gordontrek

realdealblues said:


> I don't like any recordings of the 9th on Period Instruments or with Small Orchestras, not because I think they are sacrilege but because they all sound far too "wimpy" for what I believe Beethoven truly envisioned.


I enjoy exploring HIPs but in the end there's really no substitute for modern instruments. They are modern for a reason- they usually sound better than the originals (depending on who you ask) because that's why they were developed in the first place. 
As for the interpretation aspect- that too falls under the "modern-for-a-reason" category in most respects- over time musicians find that interpreting something a different way makes it sound better (once again, depending on who you ask!). 
Which raises an intriguing question- would composers be displeased if they came forward in time and heard our interpretations of their work after decades or centuries of aesthetic development, with respect to both instruments and interpretation? It would probably vary from composer to composer, but it seems to me that all we can do is speculate.


----------



## realdealblues

TalkingHead said:


> You know that when Beethoven premiered the 7th (for one of his "charity concerts in his benefit") he had something akin to the modern forces we are used to today: 14 first violins, 14 second violins, a whole bunch of violas, 10 cellists and a good number of double basses, double winds and so on. I don't have the exact figures to hand but I can get them if you wish. So the "small orchestra/wimpy" objection doesn't hold water.
> More seriously, what really doesn't hold the least drop of H2O is what you believe Beethoven truly envisioned. Do you have some sort of privileged access to his mind that we don't have? Did that "vision" include standardization of concert pitch at A=440? Did that vision encompass the development of metal strings over gut and a whole different series of harmonics that alter the timbre? Did that vision you believe in include the development of valve instruments and a complete rethink of how to write for brass? And so and so forth ...
> All you are really doing, RDB, is to project your own expectations onto his works, expectations that have nothing whatsoever to do with what Beethoven's compositional intentions/goals may have been.


I'm very familiar with Beethoven's forces but more importantly I'm also familiar with many HIP recordings which is the question at hand and most of them use "chamber sized" orchestras for the 9th and I know many people who will tell you as I will that they sound wimpy and skimpy! There are also letters as KenOC mentioned that Beethoven stated he imagined his works played by larger forces and more forces that he had at hand which stands as proof that he had far greater visions for his work.

All of your points are moot! Beethoven was very forward thinking in his music as his own words and actions showed, not to mention his music itself. He didn't go backwards and write harpsichord sonatas and concertos. He embraced modern instruments and larger forces in his own lifetime which is a trend that would have continued as music evolved forward and it's illogical to believe otherwise. None of your arguments hold water because the man's actions speak for themselves and has nothing to do with my expectations. I'm sorry Beethoven doesn't speak to you as he does to me. Next time I talk to him over a pint I'll let him know what you said though and I'm sure we'll both have a good chuckle.


----------



## Templeton

Fricsay's my favourite too but for a modern, smaller orchestra, I would thoroughly recommend Paavo Järvi and the Deutsche Kammerphilharmonie, Bremen. I thought that Järvi's choral sequence was particularly strong. Here's a live recording of the Järvi:


----------



## Triplets

I have the Hogwood AAM set, issued many years ago. I don't have a specific recollection of the 9th, as I haven't played it for a while, but my general impression of the entire set was favorable. At first hearing (>20 years ago) the somewhat strident tones of the HIP instruments, particularly the gut strings, put me off, but when I adapted to them I realized that the set has a lot of beauty.
i'll relisten to the Hogwood 9 and and post back here.


----------



## Guest

I really enjoy John Eliot Gardiner's HIP recording. 

My favorite modern recording, which incorporates some HIP practices while not fully jumping in, is the Vanska/Minnesota 9th on BIS.

But to be completely honest, my favorite Beethoven 9ths are the 60's Karajan and the Fricsay on DG.


----------



## Manxfeeder

DavidA said:


> Gardiner has a great final movement but the slow movement is hopeless. Too fast again.


I'd have to agree. I've found myself leaning to the left when I'm listening to this, as if by force of will I can slow it down. It's exhausting.


----------



## SixFootScowl

DiesIraeCX said:


> I've yet to hear a HIP Beethoven Ninth that I enjoy.
> 
> I greatly enjoy Toscanini's 1952 Ninth. Toscanini's tempos are remarkably close to HIP tempos nowadays, but that's about all it has in common with HIP.


Yes I just got the cycle with this Ninth and it is fantastic. I think I may rank it right up there with my all time favorite Ninth: Fricsay.


----------



## SixFootScowl

DavidA said:


> Of the recordings I have:
> ...
> Toscanini is tremendous but lamed by poor sound.
> ...


Which Toscanini do you have? There is one from 1939 and one from the early 1950s? Would think the latter one would be much better sound if properly mastered/remastered.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

I'll go out on a limb and say for hip my favorite all around cycle is Immerseel's. I find his 9th refreshing. A couple of the other symphonies in the set are good enough and the 6th a little better than that. The third is not at all to my liking. Overall not a bad set with good sound quality.


----------



## Pugg

I've yet to hear a HIP Beethoven Ninth that I enjoy.:tiphat:


----------

