# The Meiningen Tradition and the Symphonies of Johannes Brahms



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

There have been several active threads, more or less, discussing recordings of the symphonies of Johannes Brahms. One recent recorded cycle of the symphonies is with Thomas Zehetmair and the Orchester Musikkollegium Winterthur, on the Claves label. This recorded set is in line with the so-called "Meiningen Tradition," which until very recently I admittedly did not know very much about, other than that a number of recorded cycles of Brahms symphonies of the past couple decades-from conductors such as Mackerras, Berglund, Dausgaard, Norrington, Gardiner, Chailly, and Zehetmair, among a number of others-have claimed a greater or lesser degree of adherence to this tradition.

The main thing I knew previously was that it involved using smaller string sections than is commonly the case in the "big-orchestra tradition." Some have claimed greater authenticity or at least preference for this supposedly older tradition. The preference of course cannot be disputed, but the claims as to authenticity certainly can be. (Spoiler alter: once again David Hurwitz is _totally wrong_, even when he doesn't contradict himself. But that's a tale for another thread.)

Something else about the Meiningen Tradition, specifically in Zehetmair's recordings, came to my attention recently and piqued my interest. Some commentators on Talk Classical referred to "clipped phrases," which the likes of Bruno Walter "would never allow." A further commentator said that Zehetmair was "brazenly unmusical" and that his interpretation can only be explained by a literal hatred of Brahms. I myself referred to it as "slightly mannered."

What this controversial interpretation is, is the application of a specific articulation, most clearly heard in the opening of Zehetmair's recordings of the Symphony No. 2, where certain quarter notes (crotchets) within the phrase are slightly shortened, creating something of a hesitant affect. To my own credit, I immediately defended this phrase/articulation interpretation as perfectly valid, if not my own preference.

I then decided to undertake a little bit of research into this Meiningen Tradition. If I'm going to argue a point, I want it to be from a solidly informed position. And what I discovered was this. (Link to a pdf.)
https://digital.lib.washington.edu/...1773/15510/3131216.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

What this document is, is a doctoral dissertation by the conductor Jonathan Pasternack (whose recording on Naxos of Brahms's Symphony No. 1 with the London Symphony I praised elsewhere), entitled, "Brahms in the Meiningen Tradition: his symphonies and Haydn variations according to the markings of Fritz Steinbach, edited by Walter Blume : a complete translation with background and commentary." It is free for anyone to download and read.

Here is the dissertation abstract:


Jonathan Pasternack said:


> This dissertation makes available the first complete English translation of *Brahms in der Meiningen Tradition*, by Walter Blume (1883-1933), an important source document relating to the performance of the four symphonies and Haydn Variations of Johannes Brahms (1833-1897). This book was based on the markings Blume found in the scores of his teacher and friend Fritz Steinbach (1855-1916), conductor of the orchestra at the Court of Sachsen-Meiningen in central Germany from 1886 to 1902. Steinbach was a musician profoundly admired by Brahms and considered by his contemporaries to be one of the composer's greatest interpreters and champions. Blume's book is all that remains to testify to Steinbach's art, aside from a small number of letters, criticisms, reminiscences and brief references. The material provided by Walter Blume represents an overall approach to music-making that was favored by Brahms and had the composer's sanction. For this reason, *Brahms in der Meiningen Tradition* ranks among the most significant works of its kind. It will undoubtedly be of great interest to conductors, performers, scholars and enthusiasts, providing a rare opportunity to consider the insights and practices of a significant Brahms interpreter and contemporary.


If anything, Pasternack undersells the significance of this document. It is a primary source document that connects directly to an authentic performance practice as it relates to the intentions and preferences of Brahms and his symphonies, one of the finest that you can find anywhere. It is fascinating!

And what I discovered was that the articulation/phrase choices, that "Walter would never allow" and that were evidence that Zehetmair's choices must derive from "hating Brahms" come directly from this primary source. In fact, from my reading, Zehetmair is more scrupulous in adhering to the observations contained in _Brahms in der Meiningen Tradition_ than any conductor I have yet heard recordings from.

Thus I can say that my own comment about Zehetmair's Brahms sounding "slightly mannered," as well as the other negative comments attacking the interpretative authenticity, or even the conductor's love and respect for Brahms, can be summarily dismissed as coming from a position of ignorance.

The listener of course can yet feel free to prefer or not the interpretative choices derived from the observations in this primary source. The listener can even feel free to argue about how effective the conductor is in employing those choices.

What the listener may not justifiably do, however, is reject those choices as inauthentic.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Excellent research, have you ever considered a job in law, Knorfmeister?


Knorf said:


> The preference of course cannot be disputed, but the claims as to authenticity certainly can be. (Spoiler alter: once again David Hurwitz is _totally wrong_, even when he doesn't contradict himself. But that's a tale for another thread.)


Hurwitz is also very wrong about tempi and performance technique in Beethoven (as well as Brahms) but doesn't argue against HIP in Haydn even though evidence is often backed up by the same sources. It's just selection on his part. I cant be bothered arguing with him on his thread.



Knorf said:


> .....And what I discovered was that the articulation/phrase choices, that "Walter would never allow" and that were evidence that Zehetmair's choices must derive from "hating Brahms" come directly from this primary source. In fact, from my reading, Zehetmair is more scrupulous in adhering to the observations contained in Brahms in der Meiningen Tradition than any conductor I have yet heard recordings from.


You hit the nail on the head. What many people now view as the 'traditional' way to play Brahms is the not necessarily what Brahms would have heard (or had in mind) - ie. just because everyone does it that way, and have for some time, doesn't mean it's right.


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

This is just great! Thanks for putting it together. I will most certainly read the dissertation. I am currently listening to the Zehetmair Brahms cycle. I liked the 4th very much. Now I’m listening to 2. Mackerras and Dausgaard are in the bullpen!


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

I'd suggest including Berglund/COE and Chailly/Leipzig as well. Just to make sure you're getting your proper Recommemded Daily Allowance of Brahms Symphonies, of course!


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

Knorf said:


> I'd suggest including Berglund/COE and Chailly/Leipzig as well. Just to make sure you're getting your proper Recommemded Daily Allowance of Brahms Symphonies, of course!


I've got the Chailly but haven't listened to it yet. I'll look for the Berglund. And oh no, I will never be Vitamin B deficient!


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

But, but, but...fortunately, we actually do have recordings of Brahms' music conducted and played by people who knew Brahms, were alive at the times in question and whose work has got to have some degree of authenticity. Weingartner, Toscanini, Walter, Abendroth, Damrosch, Krauss and others cannot be dismissed out of hand just because they did follow the Meiningen traditions or whatever Steinbach is selling. The discussion of the first theme of the fourth symphony, with the emphasis on the upbeats is just ludicrous. If that's what Brahms wanted, I'm pretty sure the Viennese master would have indicated it thusly.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

mbhaub, if you would be so kind, please direct me towards a post that dismisses the likes of Weingartner, Toscanini, Walter, Abendroth, Damrosch, Krauss, et al, as inauthentic in Brahms?

The advocates of the Meiningen Tradition are clearly promoting an _alternate_ and, until the past couple decades, a sadly somewhat dormant tradition, and I see no evidence that any of its advocates are promoting it as exclusively authentic. I, for one, would be staunchly opposed to doing that.

But I would also argue that the likes of Weingartner and Walter are closer to Zehetmair and this Meiningen Tradition than many people seem to want to acknowledge.



mbhaub said:


> ...The discussion of the first theme of the fourth symphony, with the emphasis on the upbeats is just ludicrous. If that's what Brahms wanted, I'm pretty sure the Viennese master would have indicated it thusly.


ETA: mbhaub, the document is linked in my OP and free for you to download and examine. If you have a well-backed primary source that refutes any of it, you can make a career for yourself as a musicologist right now, by publishing it. Good luck.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

There's also a problem with those that interpreted Brahms. Brahms himself wasn't happy with some interpreters of his music and they all performed it very differently. I've read Sherman's paper on it, which used to be free to read online, but sadly only excerpts are available now. There were huge differences in interpretive choices between the composer himself, Richter, Van Bulow, Joachim and a host of early conductors. The earliest accounts of the 3rd symphony by Richter and Van Bulow were 34 and 35 minutes respectively, btw.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Just to clarify - my notes regarding the Zehetmair Brahms 2/I phrasing were not directed at any particular tradition...in the version I heard, it was noted that different sections of the orchestra played the main theme differently - woodwinds played with a short, clipped quarter note, horns played a full, legato quarter note....I wasn't claiming one right, the other wrong, but rather they were played differently, which struck me as oddly inconsistent. Generally, a conductor will want a main theme phrased the same way by all, unless the score specifically provides otherwise.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Merl said:


> There's also a problem with those that interpreted Brahms. Brahms himself wasn't happy with some interpreters of his music and they all performed it very differently. I've read Sherman's paper on it, which used to be free to read online, but sadly only excerpts are available now. There were huge differences in interpretive choices between the composer himself, Richter, Van Bulow, Joachim and a host of early conductors. The earliest accounts of the 3rd symphony by Richter and Van Bulow were 34 and 35 minutes respectively, btw.


 We also know that Brahms was not dogmatic as to how his music should be performed and was quite open to different approaches . So those who claim the "Meiningen tradition " is THE way to do the symphony are guilty of blind dogmatism .


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Heck148 said:


> Just to clarify - my notes regarding the Zehetmair Brahms 2/I phrasing were not directed at any particular tradition...in the version I heard, it was noted that different sections of the orchestra played the main theme differently - woodwinds played with a short, clipped quarter note, horns played a full, legato quarter note....I wasn't claiming one right, the other wrong, but rather they were played differently, which struck me as oddly inconsistent. Generally, a conductor will want a main theme phrased the same way by all, unless the score specifically provides otherwise.


This inconsistency is what I originally called "slightly mannered." And, if I'm honest, I'm not sure I love it.

But it is clearly intentional. It is also consistent top to bottom of the score in each bar when the shorter quarter notes are called for, horns and woodwinds the same, but yes at different places in each phrase, for reasons explained in the dissertation. Zehetmair pretty scrupulously matches Fritz Steinbach's score annotations found in _Brahms in der Meiningen Tradition_.

What this articulation is not: Zehetmair being arbitrary, weird, incompetent, or hating on Brahms. It comes from valid historical scholarship.

But I'm still not sure I love it. I'm going to give it time and see whether I get used to it. In the meantime, I still have other favorites for the smaller-band Brahms, especially Berglund/COE and Chailly/Leipzig.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

superhorn said:


> We also know that Brahms was not dogmatic as to how his music should be performed and was quite open to different approaches . So those who claim the "Meiningen tradition " is THE way to do the symphony are guilty of blind dogmatism .


No one is doing that. No one is claiming that. I wrote above, "The advocates of the Meiningen Tradition are clearly promoting an _alternate_ and, until the past couple decades, a sadly somewhat dormant tradition, and I see no evidence that any of its advocates are promoting it as exclusively authentic. I, for one, would be staunchly opposed to doing that."

In fact, what I observed and why I made this thread _was the exact opposite_. I.e. certain commentators attacking performances with greater or lesser adherence to the Meiningen Tradition as inauthentic, unmusical, Brahms haters.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Interesting to know about, and as I’ve said before I can appreciate all sorts of approaches to this timeless music. But I have a hard time believing that Brahms would have liked how Zehetmair shortchanges the opulent, lyrical melodies of the slow movements with clipped, hurried phrasing. The light, buoyant, texturally rich and detailed faster movements are a delight, but Zehetmair seems to treat the slow movements like how HIPsters conduct Mozart and Haydn slow movements, and it just doesn’t work as well IMO.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Knorf said:


> This inconsistency is what I originally called "slightly mannered." And, if I'm honest, I'm not sure I love it.
> But it is clearly intentional. It is also consistent top to bottom of the score in each bar when the shorter quarter notes are called for, horns and woodwinds the same, but yes at different places in each phrase,.


It is the same note in the phrase - the 2nd note (quarter note following the half note)...the woodwinds play it short/clipped, the horns play it full value/legato..there is no marking in the score to denote a different length or phrasing...maybe it is intentional, but I don't see anything in the score to indicate it...maybe it's upholding some tradition(??)...you got me(??)...but it struck me as oddly inconsistent.


----------



## EricCulver (Jul 13, 2021)

I was very happy to hear the Max Fiedler recording of the first movement of the 2nd symphony regarding this exact point: Bar 465-468 sequence: very often, most often, elided into bar 469, but for once there is a big breath for everyone to interrupt the sequence, even the second violin and viola last eighth notes (usually treated as leading into the next downbeat)
The effect of this might suggest “clipping“ but it is trochaic: the phrase marking confirms this. Fiedler’s Berlin players all define the 469 downbeat as a fresh phrase, without anacrusis.


----------



## EricCulver (Jul 13, 2021)

Correction made


----------

