[78-L] fast Beethoven

[Don Cox]

On 10/03/2011, DAVID BURNHAM wrote:
> Scherchen's Beethoven 4 and 8 are also fast.
> 
> I think they work well at that speed, but the orchestra gets
> breathless in places. But slower renditions such as Klemperer's work
> well too. It isn't just the tempo that matters, but the sharpness of
> phrasing within that tempo.
> 
> Beecham's is another fast Eroica, and very successful.
> 

I couldn't agree more, Don.  I love Celibedache's interpretations which are 
almost invariably slower than the norm.  I love Mravinsky's readings which are 
often at breakneck speed.  and Pletnev recently came out with a Beethoven cycle 
which is quite controversial, (the Pastoral is bizarrisimo), and I've played and 
enjoyed them many times.  But it is a complete package, not just the speeds. 
 Playing very fast or very slow is quite taxing for the orchestra.  The last 
movement of Tchaikovsky's 4th by Mravinsky is very fast and very exciting.  The 
same can be said about Toscanini's reading of the orchestration of the Beethoven 
Septet;  the last movement is taken at a pace that I've never heard a chamber 
group manage.  Likewise, Celibedache's recording of "Bolero" is Magnificent, and 
one of the slowest on records;  I never want to hear that piece done fast again, 
(and I know many music lovers don't want to hear that piece again).  Ravel 
himself apparently said that Bolero should always require 4 sides, not 3.  I'm 
in Florida at the moment but when I get home, I want to see if I have the 
Beethoven 4 & 8 by Scherchen.

db



The 1928 recording of Bolero conducted by Ravel himself is on a Pierian CD, or
some here may have the 78s. He does seem to have preferred it slowish.

But the right tempo depends partly on the acoustic - a dry studio can
permit a faster tempo than a large concert hall with a long reverb time.
The presence, and even the mood, of an audience makes a difference. And
the size of the orchestra.

Regards
-- 
Don Cox
doncox at enterprise.net