This is the recovery from "Groovehandle" of all the posts on the Ninth. I was listening to the 9th the other night for the first time in a while and thinking how marvellously enthralling a piece of music it is, and that it deserves something said about it. There are certainly better advocates than I, but nobody appears to be volunteering. It was the first symphony that included a chorus, it defined the size of a CD (Sony apparently insisted to Philips that the new CD had to be big enough to hold the Ninth – Philips had about 45 minutes in mind – because of its popularity in Japan), and it was Beethoven's last symphony. It was not meant to be the last – there exist sketches for a tenth, a purely instrumental work on the key signature of B-A-C-H, perceptive fella (H is the German notation for the next B up the scale – Bach's B Minor Mass is the Messe in H-moll in German). So, why a choral symphony? Apparently Beethoven was very partial to Schiller's poem “An die Freude†(Ode to Joy) – it described his own feelings of the brotherhood of mankind. Beethoven was very much a product of his age, an age of, as he saw it, enlightenment, of the sweeping away of old structures and the creation of new, better ones, of the liberté, égalité, fraternité ideals of the French Revolution. At first, he idolised Napoleon, intending to dedicate his third symphony to the First Consul, only to tear up the dedication page in rage when Nap declared himself Emperor. As to the famous tune, one of the greatest ever written, a very similar tune can be heard in the Choral Fantasy. In any case, Beethoven felt that what he wanted to express could not be expressed in purely instrumental terms, hence the final, choral movement, in which he used part of the Schiller poem. The Ninth is a long symphony – even the most rocket-propelled versions are around the 67 minute mark and slower versions are over the 70 (with its 75 minute playing time for CD, Sony was taking no chances). There are 4 movements, the first three conventionally instrumental. The first is Beethoven powerful (like a steam engine, as a railway enthusiast friend used to say), the second an engaging scherzo that bounces zestfully along and the third a beautiful largo. However, it is the fourth movement that causes all the fuss, and the controversy. Better to leave with the beautiful third movement in your head, said a contemporary critic, rather than be disappointed by the fourth. And the fourth IS odd. It simply doesn't hang together – it's a collection of bits. But what bits! Nobody ever wrote bits like these! Beethoven had the idea of playing excerpts from the first three movements and then figuratively rejecting them, preparing the ground for the new material. In the end, he never did manage the transition properly, and resorted to the corny device of having the bass soloist sing (more or less), “Hey, guys, let's forget these miserable noises! Let's sing something happy for a change!†(O Freunde, nicht diese Töne! Sondern lasst uns angenehmere anstimmen, und freudenvollere), as the first movement melody tries to make a final comeback. The three themes from the first three movements are played, and then rejected, as we get glimmerings of the fabulous “Ode to Joy†melody. After the bass sings his bit, we get the full “Joy†melody, echoed by the chorus. From that point on, everything goes slightly haywire. Beethoven builds the “Joy†theme up to a great pitch of tension – and then stops it dead and introduces a cute little Turkish march! In comes the tenor soloist with another bit of Schiller and the tension builds again, reaching a choral crescendo, at which point the strings take off in a stupendous run, one of the most exciting bits of string playing I've ever heard. Then it all quietens down again, before erupting in the final hearing of the “Joy†theme, in unison chorus.However, we're nowhere near the end of the piece, but great things are to come – there's a disconnected choral piece (“Seid umschlungen, Millionen!†(O millions! I embrace you)) leading to a tremendous choral double fugue. An odd little bridging passage leads to Something Completely Different, a piece for choir and soloists, with the soloists soaring sublimely alone at the end (in a good version). And then we're off down the home straight, choir and orchestra powering down it in an exhilarating piece of writing to (in a good version) a mighty finish. By the ninth, Beethoven had finally figured out how to bring a symphony to a close – even as late as the eighth, the ending went on forever BOM–bom-BOM-bom-BOMbomBOMbomBOMbomBOMbom-BOM-bom- and then round the block for a few more times like that. The Ninth comes to A Full Stop. At the end of which you sit thrilled exhausted in your listening chair, and slightly amazed to find that you've survived it all. So, which versions? I find to my surprise that I have six different versions, ranging from Otto Klemperer's first stereo version on vinyl ('50s vintage?) to Gardiner and Zinman (Zürich Tonhalle Orchestra). Yet the ones that find their way to CD player or vinyl are the Karajan '62 and '79 versions for DG (I have both in both formats). I don't know what it is about them, but they seem to capture the spirit of the piece better than anyone else ever did. Both are electric, and you wish you could combine the best of both. The performance and soloists of the '79 are better and the piledriver finale has never been bettered, yet the '62 still exerts some sort of magic. It has these lovely little touches – the piccolo rising briefly out of the orchestra as the tension and volume build for the launch into the mighty string run and the fact that you can hear it tootling away as the whole ensemble roars down the home straight. Brilliant stuff. And cheap!!! Both these Karajan version are mid-price at most. Karajan was to do a further complete Beethoven symphonic cycle in the mid-80s but it wasn't up to the others. And the rest? I like both Gardiner and Zinman, but somehow they don't quite cut the mustard with the two Karajans. Both are nicely played and sung, but somehow both lack that je ne sais quoi of Herbie von K. So, any other takers? __________________ Tones The man with the golden ear trumpet, whose Bach is better than his byte (wot's he got? Top of p.4) Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged 3rd-June-2003 13:12 GrahamN MR Motorhead Registered: Dec 2002 Location: Posts: 227 Re: Beethoven; 9th. Symphony (Choral) quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Tones This is an attempt to lure GrahamN into mortal combat over baroque v. romantic! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Strange way of doing it, Mein Herr! as: a) it's not baroque b) it's only arguably romantic c) we agree it's a tremendous piece of music by one of my favourite composers (also one of Dickie's, and particularly of 'Tones B' too) d) we agree that no-one does it quite like HvK did in 1977 (1979 was the release of the full cycle) Agree with every word. If Zinman's recording is anything like his 7th, it's great fun but not a patch on the genuine excitement of the pack leaders (in that case, Carlos Kleiber) Interesting to see what Daniele Gatti does to it this evening. I very much enjoyed his 2nd and 5th a few weeks ago, but another reviewer thought the 5th the worst performance he'd ever heard. Admittedly it did sound more like Mendelssohn's 4th (Italian) than Beethoven ! __________________ Crush vine weevils, because vine weevils are Vile Evils! Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged 3rd-June-2003 18:50 lordsummit Young 'un Registered: Jan 2003 Location: In the frozen north Posts: 24 I'm with you Graham, Beethoven 9 ain't romantic, and also with you Tones, it's a right funny piece. To my mind 7 and 8 hang together much better, and I hardly ever listen to 9. If I want a really big symphony from Mr B I invariably go for no. 3. But when I do it is invariably the 77 Karajan that makes it's way onto the record deck. Anyone heard the new Rattle recordings of the symphonies, I reckon he could probably do justice it. Right any takers for Schubert being the first romantic. The first composer to put really detailed dynamic markings in their scores? __________________ It's bloody cold up here Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged 3rd-June-2003 20:59 GrahamN MR Motorhead Registered: Dec 2002 Location: Posts: 227 Re-reading your comments on the last movement, and listening again tonight, maybe you're being a bit hard on it. I think I could make a fair case for it being a rondo structure with some of the episodes being variations of the main theme. The "Seid umschlungen" theme is clearly a variant inversion of the "Joy" theme, and the tenor solo is a couter-melody to the "turkish march" which is itself a variation of the main Joy theme. The furious fugue prior to the final climax is also constructed on a redoubled version of the "Joy" theme, and then the choir comes back in with "Seid umschlungen" as the counter-subject....so it's all very tightly structured.....really (How about that?...musical analysis at midnight). I certainly think it works much better than the "Agnus dei" to the "Missa solemnis" - now there really is a brainstorm! (And as for the introduction, wasn't Haydn was quite fond of introductions unrelated to the material in the movement itself.) As for tonight's performance, it was a bit hit and miss, but rarely boring. First half was No8, which was pretty good, although let down by a rather lacklustre last movement. The allegretto was nicely mechanical, conjouring up pictures of regiments of toy soldiers merrily marching around the playroom, while the minuet was quite ponderously stately (I couldn't help but imagine it as the accompaniment to Joyce Grenfell's two dowagers sailing majestically round the dance floor - below the aforementioned playroom - while every now and again falling off their heels Dick Emery style as they negotiated a particularly difficult corner), but worked really well. The finale was a bit staid and slow though - once again I'm spoilt by Messers Zinman and vK (1977), any less energy won't do. Maybe the orchestra (RPO) wasn't quite up to a full speed rendition. BTW, tonight's programme note pointed out that that finish (45 chords of F major) was a self-deprecating joke aimed at the critics of the 5th - "if you thought that was bad...listen to this!"). On to the ninth - the first movement was great, but the scherzo was really rather lumpen. Again, possibly the orchestra was shown up to be not the BPO, but I think it was more Gatti going for the heavy peasant approach - which didn't work. There was also a big kerfuffle in the transition to the trio which was a pity. The slow movement started out lovely, but sort of got lost about half way through - Gatti's essentially lyrical approach really didn't give it enough structure. The finale was generally excellent - but with a couple of really bizarre moments. In particular the reprise of the scherzo was taken at about twice the speed he adopted for the scherzo itself and was a complete gabble! The introduction to the "joy" theme was wonderful though - very very quiet, so you hardly noticed it creeping in under the bassoon counter-melody which appeared to be the main interest at the time (and which is really beautiful - I've just never noticed it before). The soloists were again a bit mixed - Alistair Miles his usual excellent self, Amanda Roocroft rather shrill (and mostly dreadfully sharp), and Stephen O'Mara simultaneously underpowered and overemphatic. And in the final rush for the tape - wow, HvK's 1977 would have come a poor second in that one (well, it is marked "fastest")! Interesting and mostly fun, but definitely not a reference performance. Well beats Salonen's very disappointing prom last summer, and wins some and loses some against Mackerras' ridiculously fast effort last December. As for the new Rattle, it gets very mixed reviews. I've only heard the allegretto from the 8th (on the Gramophone cover disc), which I thought absolutely dreadful! As far as I could tell his only element of interpretation was the most basic mistake of "soft=slow, loud=fast" - which is even more criminal in this movement of all pieces. Others I've spoken to who've heard other bits are equally unimpressed. I have to say I have my doubts about Sir Simon in anything 19th cent - he really doesn't seem to have the breadth of vision required to encompass these large structures (I have, and dislike, a couple of his Mahler symphonies, and was at his rather overheated and disjointed Bruckner 9 last Sept). He's much more successful in 20th cent - I have some rather good Britten and Szymanowski - and his Shostakovich 4 is supposed to be pretty good. He is supposed to do a good Haydn 88. (Really don't know enough Schubert to comment about such claims. I still wouldn't dismiss LvB though, the 3rd and 6th must have a fair shot at being the first substantial "romantic" symphonies) PS Tones, you mentioned 6 versions, but only listed 5. What's missing? __________________ Crush vine weevils, because vine weevils are Vile Evils! Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged 4th-June-2003 01:21 Tones Eh? Wassat? Registered: Dec 2002 Location: Zürich, Switzerland Posts: 383 Re-reading your comments on the last movement, and listening again tonight, maybe you're being a bit hard on it. I think I could make a fair case for it being a rondo structure with some of the episodes being variations of the main theme. The "Seid umschlungen" theme is clearly a variant inversion of the "Joy" theme, and the tenor solo is a couter-melody to the "turkish march" which is itself a variation of the main Joy theme. The furious fugue prior to the final climax is also constructed on a redoubled version of the "Joy" theme, and then the choir comes back in with "Seid umschlungen" as the counter-subject....so it's all very tightly structured.....really (How about that?...musical analysis at midnight). What can I say (apart from the fact that I'm MOST impressed by such erudition under such conditions?)? I bow to your superior technical musical knowledge, which is infinitely greater than mine (I have precisely none). I go on gut feeling alone (i.e., I like what I like, often without really understanding why). But whether it does or doesn't hang together, it's a marvellous piece of music. I once heard old Malcolm Sargent speak on it in Australia - he placed it amoung the towering masterpieces (the other three were the B Minor Mass, St. Matt and "Messiah"). PS Tones, you mentioned 6 versions, but only listed 5. What's missing? It should have been more, when I think of it, as I have a couple of others on cassette (recorded from friends' vinyl a long time ago). The one of which I was thinking was a conductor whose name I've never learned to spell properly - Hans Schmidt-Isserstidt or Isserstijt something like that. He did a complete Beethoven cycle in the 60s. Some of them weren't bad, but the ninth was nothing to write home about. At least Klemperer's s-l-o-w version had a sort of rugged grandeur about it - Beethoven warts and all, as a critic described it at the time. P.S. It was Hans Schmidt-Isserstedt - as per here http://www.musikmph.de/rare_music/p...serstedt/1.html And how could I forget Roger Norrington? I haven't any recordings of his, but I've heard some of his stuff on the radio, including his 9th. Tremendous energy, but somehow I still prefer Herbie... __________________ Tones The man with the golden ear trumpet, whose Bach is better than his byte (wot's he got? Top of p.4) Last edited by Tones on 4th-June-2003 at 09:21 Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged 4th-June-2003 07:56 Paul Ranson Young 'un Registered: Apr 2003 Location: Posts: 28 Last Sunday the Times reviewed 'Beethoven's Ninth: A Political History' by Esteban Buch. I don't have the ISBN but the review appears to be available online here. (I only have the CFP/LPO/Mackerras 5CD bargain box, and no erudite commentary. It was mere coincidence....) Paul Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged 4th-June-2003 13:21 HenryT Senior Groover Registered: Jan 2003 Location: UK Posts: 427 quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Tones I bow to your superior technical musical knowledge, which is infinitely greater than mine (I have precisely none). I go on gut feeling alone (i.e., I like what I like, often without really understanding why). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, I find it very interesting that both you and Graham both own as well as like the same performance i.e. the HvK version. Well, I've not compared many performances of the 9th, but have heard a brief extract from the 70's HvK when Graham brought over the CD and vinyl version to a bake off at mine last year. I think the local library have a copy, so I'll have to borrow their CD at some point. I have an 80s recording of Abbado/VPO which I haven't listened to for quite some time - probably not as electrifying as some of the more well regarded versions I would guess - his more recent BPO versions are better? Last year I bought the Harnoncourt/COE Beethoven symphony cycle boxset (you also get the Violin concerto, Missa Solemnis and Overtures included in this 9CD set). Bought it mainly because it was on offer for £30 so why not! I dragged out the 9th from this boxset lastnight for a listen after being inspired by this thread. Again, to be honest, I don't know if this performance is any good, but I certainly enjoyed it (having played it before). I've since found out that the orchestra uses a mixture of modern strings with period winds, so I'd imagine it's not going to have as much ultimate dynamic power in the fff swings as an all modern instrument band but there were plenty of moments where I found myself turning around from the PC and just being drawn into the music. __________________ Cheers, Henry. Wot you got! - Page 4 Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged 4th-June-2003 15:18 Tones Eh? Wassat? Registered: Dec 2002 Location: Zürich, Switzerland Posts: 383 I've never heard Nicky's version, Henry, but I recall his complete Beethoven cycle with the COE receiving good reviews. (Was there also a "Gramophone" award?). And for thirty quid, you really can't miss. __________________ Tones The man with the golden ear trumpet, whose Bach is better than his byte (wot's he got? Top of p.4) Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged 4th-June-2003 15:39 HenryT Senior Groover Registered: Jan 2003 Location: UK Posts: 427 Hi Tones, Not sure about any acolades the Harnoncourt set might have received, but as you said, for 30 quid it couldn't be missed. Had a listen to the Abbado/VPO version last night and I do prefer the Haranoncourt overall. Just seems to flow that much better, and the quite accented playing (in comparison to Abbado/VPO) appears to make up for the comparative (but not total) lack of dynamic range from using period instruments in certain instrument ranks. __________________ Cheers, Henry. Wot you got! - Page 4 Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged 5th-June-2003 20:32 titian Trainee Groover Registered: Jan 2003 Location: Switzerland Posts: 61 Well if you are talking about interpretations of the 9th symphony I would like to add the following Complete symphonies with: - Solti /Chicago SO - Kubelik with different orchestras - Masur / Gewandhaus - Bernstein / Wiener Philarmoniker - Ormandy / Philadelphia Orch. - Maazel / Cleveland Orch. The last two are in my listening queue so I cannot tell much about them, but I must say that the others including also the mentioned Klemperer's, the Isserstedt and the Abbado's version have very nice and interesting passages and overall are not less good as Karajan's 77. I simply don't see why the 9th symphony should be so electric and so do most of the conductors on this earth. There are several passages in his 9th which reflect the many different moods of Beethoven during his life and it is IMO not really fair to talk about the passages where everybody start to "scream" (spetacular parts) and ignore other. I am very happy that most of the conductors try to spend lots of time in analyzing deeply the other parts too. and in this context I would also mention two other names: Ozawa (new philarmonia orchestra) and Giullini.
