Discussion:
Orchestra sizes in Hogwood's Beethoven symphonies
(too old to reply)
Michael Schaffer
2006-05-07 15:11:04 UTC
Permalink
I just got the set of Hogwood's Beethoven symphony recordings. I dimly
remembered that they used whatever the orchestra size was at the
respective premieres, at least as far as we know. It is very audible
that the orchestra in the last 3 symphonies is very large, but the
Erioca seems to have a few more than the handful of strings (IIRC, 3
1st and 3 2nd violins, 2 violas, 2 cellos, 2 basses) in action here.
The original booklets listed the orchestra sizes for each symphony, but
the budget box I have here doesn't. Does anyone have access to that
info and can check what the sizes for the individual symphonies were?
Steven de Mena
2006-05-07 17:48:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Schaffer
I just got the set of Hogwood's Beethoven symphony recordings. I dimly
remembered that they used whatever the orchestra size was at the
respective premieres, at least as far as we know. It is very audible
that the orchestra in the last 3 symphonies is very large, but the
Erioca seems to have a few more than the handful of strings (IIRC, 3
1st and 3 2nd violins, 2 violas, 2 cellos, 2 basses) in action here.
The original booklets listed the orchestra sizes for each symphony, but
the budget box I have here doesn't. Does anyone have access to that
info and can check what the sizes for the individual symphonies were?
I have the original CD issue of Symphonies 4 and 5 and also the complete box
set (5 CD) 452 551-2, and neither lists the orchestra sizes for each
symphony.

Steve
Michael Schaffer
2006-05-07 17:56:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven de Mena
Post by Michael Schaffer
I just got the set of Hogwood's Beethoven symphony recordings. I dimly
remembered that they used whatever the orchestra size was at the
respective premieres, at least as far as we know. It is very audible
that the orchestra in the last 3 symphonies is very large, but the
Erioca seems to have a few more than the handful of strings (IIRC, 3
1st and 3 2nd violins, 2 violas, 2 cellos, 2 basses) in action here.
The original booklets listed the orchestra sizes for each symphony, but
the budget box I have here doesn't. Does anyone have access to that
info and can check what the sizes for the individual symphonies were?
I have the original CD issue of Symphonies 4 and 5 and also the complete box
set (5 CD) 452 551-2, and neither lists the orchestra sizes for each
symphony.
Steve
Strange, the LPs I listened to (yes, LPs - it was a long time ago) had
a very detailed booklet with even the individual players' names. There
was also a text by Hogwood about the orchestra sizes. The box is the
same I have now, so no suprise there.
Thomas Wood
2006-05-07 19:05:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Schaffer
Post by Steven de Mena
Post by Michael Schaffer
I just got the set of Hogwood's Beethoven symphony recordings. I dimly
remembered that they used whatever the orchestra size was at the
respective premieres, at least as far as we know. It is very audible
that the orchestra in the last 3 symphonies is very large, but the
Erioca seems to have a few more than the handful of strings (IIRC, 3
1st and 3 2nd violins, 2 violas, 2 cellos, 2 basses) in action here.
The original booklets listed the orchestra sizes for each symphony, but
the budget box I have here doesn't. Does anyone have access to that
info and can check what the sizes for the individual symphonies were?
I have the original CD issue of Symphonies 4 and 5 and also the complete box
set (5 CD) 452 551-2, and neither lists the orchestra sizes for each
symphony.
Steve
Strange, the LPs I listened to (yes, LPs - it was a long time ago) had
a very detailed booklet with even the individual players' names. There
was also a text by Hogwood about the orchestra sizes. The box is the
same I have now, so no suprise there.
I have the LP release of the Erocia and the names of all the playes are
listed in the insert:

19 violins
4 violas
4 cellos
2 double basses
2 flutes
2 oboes
2 clarinets
2 bassoons
4 horns
2 trumpets
1 timpanist
1 conductor at the fortepiano

Presumably these forces are meant to approximate those used in the first
public performances, not the private ones at Prince Lobkowitz's palace.

The booklet for the CD I have of Symphonies 4-5 also lists all the
personnel:

16 violins
4 violas
4 cellos
2 double basses
2 flutes
2 oboes
1 piccolo
2 clarinets
2 bassoons
1 double bassoon
3 horns
2 trumpets
3 trombones
1 timpanist
1 fortepianist

Likewise for the CD of Symphony #9:

21 violins
10 violas
10 cellos
8 double basses
4 flutes
2 piccolos
4 oboes
4 clarinets
4 bassoons
2 double bassoons
8 horns
4 trumpets
6 trombones
2 timpanists
3 percussionists (triangle, cymbals, bass drun)

From the notes, I presume the chorus is ca. 24 per part -- so about 100 with
the soloists.

Tom Wood
makropulos
2006-05-07 19:18:56 UTC
Permalink
I wonder why 4 horns in the Eroica? Did hornplayers already have
"bumpers" in Beethoven's day?
Thornhill
2006-05-07 20:27:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by makropulos
I wonder why 4 horns in the Eroica? Did hornplayers already have
"bumpers" in Beethoven's day?
To change the the pitch of a natural horn, you have to take appart and
reconfigure the crooks. So an extra player is needed for coverrage
while one of the horns is doing this. I saw a period performance of the
Mendelssohn 3 which required 5 horn players because of this.
f***@hotmail.com
2006-05-07 21:41:02 UTC
Permalink
I have one question about the string sound on this set - compressed
snippets don't reveal much in that respect, alas.

Which kind of HIP-stringplaying do we have here: the austere, nearly
vibrato-free, bright and somewhat "hard" style like the AAM in Manze's
Handel concerti grossi, or is it closer to the "warmer" Freiburger
Barockorchester, Concerto Italiano or Herreweghe's Orchestre des Champs
Elysées?

Many TIA,
Floor
Riccardo
2006-05-07 21:53:03 UTC
Permalink
.

Which kind of HIP-stringplaying do we have here: the austere, nearly
vibrato-free, bright and somewhat "hard" style like the AAM in Manze's
Handel concerti grossi,

closer to this, but I wouldn' t define it as "hard"

R.
f***@hotmail.com
2006-05-08 05:23:12 UTC
Permalink
Thanks, you just helped save me money! And you are right, of course:
let's say "lean".
Cheers,
Floor
Michael Schaffer
2006-05-08 05:46:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Wood
Post by Michael Schaffer
Post by Steven de Mena
Post by Michael Schaffer
I just got the set of Hogwood's Beethoven symphony recordings. I dimly
remembered that they used whatever the orchestra size was at the
respective premieres, at least as far as we know. It is very audible
that the orchestra in the last 3 symphonies is very large, but the
Erioca seems to have a few more than the handful of strings (IIRC, 3
1st and 3 2nd violins, 2 violas, 2 cellos, 2 basses) in action here.
The original booklets listed the orchestra sizes for each symphony, but
the budget box I have here doesn't. Does anyone have access to that
info and can check what the sizes for the individual symphonies were?
I have the original CD issue of Symphonies 4 and 5 and also the complete box
set (5 CD) 452 551-2, and neither lists the orchestra sizes for each
symphony.
Steve
Strange, the LPs I listened to (yes, LPs - it was a long time ago) had
a very detailed booklet with even the individual players' names. There
was also a text by Hogwood about the orchestra sizes. The box is the
same I have now, so no suprise there.
I have the LP release of the Erocia and the names of all the playes are
19 violins
4 violas
4 cellos
2 double basses
2 flutes
2 oboes
2 clarinets
2 bassoons
4 horns
2 trumpets
1 timpanist
1 conductor at the fortepiano
Presumably these forces are meant to approximate those used in the first
public performances, not the private ones at Prince Lobkowitz's palace.
The booklet for the CD I have of Symphonies 4-5 also lists all the
16 violins
4 violas
4 cellos
2 double basses
2 flutes
2 oboes
1 piccolo
2 clarinets
2 bassoons
1 double bassoon
3 horns
2 trumpets
3 trombones
1 timpanist
1 fortepianist
21 violins
10 violas
10 cellos
8 double basses
4 flutes
2 piccolos
4 oboes
4 clarinets
4 bassoons
2 double bassoons
8 horns
4 trumpets
6 trombones
2 timpanists
3 percussionists (triangle, cymbals, bass drun)
From the notes, I presume the chorus is ca. 24 per part -- so about 100 with
the soloists.
Tom Wood
Interesting, thanks for looking that up! Do you have the rosters for
any of the other recordings?
Thomas Wood
2006-05-08 22:46:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Schaffer
Interesting, thanks for looking that up! Do you have the rosters for
any of the other recordings?
No, I don't own the rest of Hogwood's Beethoven cycle.

Tom Wood
Michael Schaffer
2006-05-08 23:10:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Wood
Post by Michael Schaffer
Interesting, thanks for looking that up! Do you have the rosters for
any of the other recordings?
No, I don't own the rest of Hogwood's Beethoven cycle.
Tom Wood
OK. Thanks for the info you posted!
Dana John Hill
2006-05-08 22:11:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven de Mena
Post by Michael Schaffer
I just got the set of Hogwood's Beethoven symphony recordings. I dimly
remembered that they used whatever the orchestra size was at the
respective premieres, at least as far as we know. It is very audible
that the orchestra in the last 3 symphonies is very large, but the
Erioca seems to have a few more than the handful of strings (IIRC, 3
1st and 3 2nd violins, 2 violas, 2 cellos, 2 basses) in action here.
The original booklets listed the orchestra sizes for each symphony, but
the budget box I have here doesn't. Does anyone have access to that
info and can check what the sizes for the individual symphonies were?
I have the original CD issue of Symphonies 4 and 5 and also the complete
box set (5 CD) 452 551-2, and neither lists the orchestra sizes for each
symphony.
I have the big six disc box (425 696-2) and pages 82-90 list the orchestra
size for each symphony, a list of the players for the symphonies
collectively, as well as the make and year of their instruments.
--
Dana John Hill
Gainesville, Florida
www.danajohnhill.org
Michael Schaffer
2006-05-08 22:15:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dana John Hill
Post by Steven de Mena
Post by Michael Schaffer
I just got the set of Hogwood's Beethoven symphony recordings. I dimly
remembered that they used whatever the orchestra size was at the
respective premieres, at least as far as we know. It is very audible
that the orchestra in the last 3 symphonies is very large, but the
Erioca seems to have a few more than the handful of strings (IIRC, 3
1st and 3 2nd violins, 2 violas, 2 cellos, 2 basses) in action here.
The original booklets listed the orchestra sizes for each symphony, but
the budget box I have here doesn't. Does anyone have access to that
info and can check what the sizes for the individual symphonies were?
I have the original CD issue of Symphonies 4 and 5 and also the complete
box set (5 CD) 452 551-2, and neither lists the orchestra sizes for each
symphony.
I have the big six disc box (425 696-2) and pages 82-90 list the orchestra
size for each symphony, a list of the players for the symphonies
collectively, as well as the make and year of their instruments.
--
Dana John Hill
Gainesville, Florida
www.danajohnhill.org
Mr Wood already listed the orchestra sizes for 3,4,5,9, if it's not too
much work for you, could you list the sizes used for the other
symphonies? That would be great.
Steven de Mena
2006-05-08 22:28:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Schaffer
Post by Dana John Hill
Post by Steven de Mena
Post by Michael Schaffer
I just got the set of Hogwood's Beethoven symphony recordings. I dimly
remembered that they used whatever the orchestra size was at the
respective premieres, at least as far as we know. It is very audible
that the orchestra in the last 3 symphonies is very large, but the
Erioca seems to have a few more than the handful of strings (IIRC, 3
1st and 3 2nd violins, 2 violas, 2 cellos, 2 basses) in action here.
The original booklets listed the orchestra sizes for each symphony, but
the budget box I have here doesn't. Does anyone have access to that
info and can check what the sizes for the individual symphonies were?
I have the original CD issue of Symphonies 4 and 5 and also the complete
box set (5 CD) 452 551-2, and neither lists the orchestra sizes for each
symphony.
I have the big six disc box (425 696-2) and pages 82-90 list the orchestra
size for each symphony, a list of the players for the symphonies
collectively, as well as the make and year of their instruments.
--
Dana John Hill
Gainesville, Florida
www.danajohnhill.org
Mr Wood already listed the orchestra sizes for 3,4,5,9, if it's not too
much work for you, could you list the sizes used for the other
symphonies? That would be great.
A scan of Pages 82-90 would be even better. :) :)

Steve
Michael Schaffer
2006-05-08 22:38:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven de Mena
Post by Michael Schaffer
Post by Dana John Hill
Post by Steven de Mena
Post by Michael Schaffer
I just got the set of Hogwood's Beethoven symphony recordings. I dimly
remembered that they used whatever the orchestra size was at the
respective premieres, at least as far as we know. It is very audible
that the orchestra in the last 3 symphonies is very large, but the
Erioca seems to have a few more than the handful of strings (IIRC, 3
1st and 3 2nd violins, 2 violas, 2 cellos, 2 basses) in action here.
The original booklets listed the orchestra sizes for each symphony, but
the budget box I have here doesn't. Does anyone have access to that
info and can check what the sizes for the individual symphonies were?
I have the original CD issue of Symphonies 4 and 5 and also the complete
box set (5 CD) 452 551-2, and neither lists the orchestra sizes for each
symphony.
I have the big six disc box (425 696-2) and pages 82-90 list the orchestra
size for each symphony, a list of the players for the symphonies
collectively, as well as the make and year of their instruments.
--
Dana John Hill
Gainesville, Florida
www.danajohnhill.org
Mr Wood already listed the orchestra sizes for 3,4,5,9, if it's not too
much work for you, could you list the sizes used for the other
symphonies? That would be great.
A scan of Pages 82-90 would be even better. :) :)
Steve
That would be great, but it's much more work than typing in a few
numbers. so I think it would be too much to ask.
Dana John Hill
2006-05-09 22:18:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven de Mena
Post by Michael Schaffer
Post by Dana John Hill
Post by Steven de Mena
Post by Michael Schaffer
I just got the set of Hogwood's Beethoven symphony recordings. I dimly
remembered that they used whatever the orchestra size was at the
respective premieres, at least as far as we know. It is very audible
that the orchestra in the last 3 symphonies is very large, but the
Erioca seems to have a few more than the handful of strings (IIRC, 3
1st and 3 2nd violins, 2 violas, 2 cellos, 2 basses) in action here.
The original booklets listed the orchestra sizes for each symphony, but
the budget box I have here doesn't. Does anyone have access to that
info and can check what the sizes for the individual symphonies were?
I have the original CD issue of Symphonies 4 and 5 and also the complete
box set (5 CD) 452 551-2, and neither lists the orchestra sizes for each
symphony.
I have the big six disc box (425 696-2) and pages 82-90 list the orchestra
size for each symphony, a list of the players for the symphonies
collectively, as well as the make and year of their instruments.
--
Dana John Hill
Gainesville, Florida
www.danajohnhill.org
Mr Wood already listed the orchestra sizes for 3,4,5,9, if it's not too
much work for you, could you list the sizes used for the other
symphonies? That would be great.
A scan of Pages 82-90 would be even better. :) :)
For a limited time only:

Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
--
Dana John Hill
Gainesville, Florida
www.danajohnhill.org
Steven de Mena
2006-05-09 22:26:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dana John Hill
Post by Steven de Mena
Post by Michael Schaffer
Post by Dana John Hill
Post by Steven de Mena
Post by Michael Schaffer
I just got the set of Hogwood's Beethoven symphony recordings. I dimly
remembered that they used whatever the orchestra size was at the
respective premieres, at least as far as we know. It is very audible
that the orchestra in the last 3 symphonies is very large, but the
Erioca seems to have a few more than the handful of strings (IIRC, 3
1st and 3 2nd violins, 2 violas, 2 cellos, 2 basses) in action here.
The original booklets listed the orchestra sizes for each symphony, but
the budget box I have here doesn't. Does anyone have access to that
info and can check what the sizes for the individual symphonies were?
I have the original CD issue of Symphonies 4 and 5 and also the complete
box set (5 CD) 452 551-2, and neither lists the orchestra sizes for each
symphony.
I have the big six disc box (425 696-2) and pages 82-90 list the orchestra
size for each symphony, a list of the players for the symphonies
collectively, as well as the make and year of their instruments.
--
Dana John Hill
Gainesville, Florida
www.danajohnhill.org
Mr Wood already listed the orchestra sizes for 3,4,5,9, if it's not too
much work for you, could you list the sizes used for the other
symphonies? That would be great.
A scan of Pages 82-90 would be even better. :) :)
http://www.danajohnhill.com/me/music/hogwood-beethoven_pp82-83.jpg
http://www.danajohnhill.com/me/music/hogwood-beethoven_pp84-85.jpg
http://www.danajohnhill.com/me/music/hogwood-beethoven_pp86-87.jpg
http://www.danajohnhill.com/me/music/hogwood-beethoven_pp88-89.jpg
http://www.danajohnhill.com/me/music/hogwood-beethoven_pp90-91.jpg
Dana,

Thank you. I really appreciate having that as I specifically bought this set
for HIP purposes, and knowing the layout of the orchestra is very
beneficial. I hope I can return the favor sometime.

Steve
Michael Schaffer
2006-05-09 23:22:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dana John Hill
Post by Steven de Mena
Post by Michael Schaffer
Post by Dana John Hill
Post by Steven de Mena
Post by Michael Schaffer
I just got the set of Hogwood's Beethoven symphony recordings. I dimly
remembered that they used whatever the orchestra size was at the
respective premieres, at least as far as we know. It is very audible
that the orchestra in the last 3 symphonies is very large, but the
Erioca seems to have a few more than the handful of strings (IIRC, 3
1st and 3 2nd violins, 2 violas, 2 cellos, 2 basses) in action here.
The original booklets listed the orchestra sizes for each symphony, but
the budget box I have here doesn't. Does anyone have access to that
info and can check what the sizes for the individual symphonies were?
I have the original CD issue of Symphonies 4 and 5 and also the complete
box set (5 CD) 452 551-2, and neither lists the orchestra sizes for each
symphony.
I have the big six disc box (425 696-2) and pages 82-90 list the orchestra
size for each symphony, a list of the players for the symphonies
collectively, as well as the make and year of their instruments.
--
Dana John Hill
Gainesville, Florida
www.danajohnhill.org
Mr Wood already listed the orchestra sizes for 3,4,5,9, if it's not too
much work for you, could you list the sizes used for the other
symphonies? That would be great.
A scan of Pages 82-90 would be even better. :) :)
http://www.danajohnhill.com/me/music/hogwood-beethoven_pp82-83.jpg
http://www.danajohnhill.com/me/music/hogwood-beethoven_pp84-85.jpg
http://www.danajohnhill.com/me/music/hogwood-beethoven_pp86-87.jpg
http://www.danajohnhill.com/me/music/hogwood-beethoven_pp88-89.jpg
http://www.danajohnhill.com/me/music/hogwood-beethoven_pp90-91.jpg
--
Dana John Hill
Gainesville, Florida
www.danajohnhill.org
Wow, thanks for taking the time and the effort!
a***@aol.com
2006-05-08 23:45:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Schaffer
Post by Dana John Hill
Post by Steven de Mena
Post by Michael Schaffer
I just got the set of Hogwood's Beethoven symphony recordings. I dimly
remembered that they used whatever the orchestra size was at the
respective premieres, at least as far as we know. It is very audible
that the orchestra in the last 3 symphonies is very large, but the
Erioca seems to have a few more than the handful of strings (IIRC, 3
1st and 3 2nd violins, 2 violas, 2 cellos, 2 basses) in action here.
The original booklets listed the orchestra sizes for each symphony, but
the budget box I have here doesn't. Does anyone have access to that
info and can check what the sizes for the individual symphonies were?
I have the original CD issue of Symphonies 4 and 5 and also the complete
box set (5 CD) 452 551-2, and neither lists the orchestra sizes for each
symphony.
I have the big six disc box (425 696-2) and pages 82-90 list the orchestra
size for each symphony, a list of the players for the symphonies
collectively, as well as the make and year of their instruments.
--
Dana John Hill
Gainesville, Florida
www.danajohnhill.org
Mr Wood already listed the orchestra sizes for 3,4,5,9, if it's not too
much work for you, could you list the sizes used for the other
symphonies? That would be great.
The puzzle for me is why two timpanists in No 9? It is written for one
and perfectly playable by same.

We know that at the premiere in 1824 (from Beethoven's notebooks) he
had at his disposal "44 professional musicians" (named) plus amateur
musicians which he did not note down so we do not know accurately the
size of the orchestra.

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Thomas Wood
2006-05-09 01:09:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@aol.com
The puzzle for me is why two timpanists in No 9? It is written for one
and perfectly playable by same.
We know that at the premiere in 1824 (from Beethoven's notebooks) he
had at his disposal "44 professional musicians" (named) plus amateur
musicians which he did not note down so we do not know accurately the
size of the orchestra.
According to Hogwood's notes, in a conversation book of March 1824, Anton
Schindler wrote that there were "24 violins, 10 violas, 12 basses and
cellos" at the first performance, made up of professionals from the
Ka:rtnertor Theatre, plus volunteers, both professional and amateur. It was
determined at rehearsals that the winds were not powerful enough for this
large string section, so the wind, brass and timpani were doubled, as was
done at performances of Beethoven's 7th and 8th symphonies in 1813/14.

Tom Wood
a***@aol.com
2006-05-09 01:34:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Wood
Post by a***@aol.com
The puzzle for me is why two timpanists in No 9? It is written for one
and perfectly playable by same.
We know that at the premiere in 1824 (from Beethoven's notebooks) he
had at his disposal "44 professional musicians" (named) plus amateur
musicians which he did not note down so we do not know accurately the
size of the orchestra.
According to Hogwood's notes, in a conversation book of March 1824, Anton
Schindler wrote that there were "24 violins, 10 violas, 12 basses and
cellos" at the first performance, made up of professionals from the
Ka:rtnertor Theatre, plus volunteers, both professional and amateur. It was
determined at rehearsals that the winds were not powerful enough for this
large string section, so the wind, brass and timpani were doubled, as was
done at performances of Beethoven's 7th and 8th symphonies in 1813/14.
Tom Wood
So most HIP is all wrong then? Far from wanting less, Beethoven wanted
more?

Blimey. There's a turnup for the HIP book, then?

That's sonic bollocks. You never need to "double timpani" for starters
unless you are writing notes one player cannot reach on his or her own.
And "double" the timp part in 7/8/9? Blimey!

That makes no sense at all to me. You mean Beethoven's timpanist (with
his HIP wooden or leather HIP sticks) could not sound over a string
wind brass section like that? Surely you are joking or Schindler was?

You can do that with Morbey medium hard felt mallets never mind wooden
or leather.

If you are right, HIP is obviously more, not less. That's going to
come as a terrible, terrible shock to some on this group I would think.


Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Simon Roberts
2006-05-09 18:41:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@aol.com
If you are right, HIP is obviously more, not less. That's going to
come as a terrible, terrible shock to some on this group I would think.
To those who have no idea what Hogwood is trying to do, perhaps. If you think
those Beethoven forces are large, take a look at the booklet to his Creation....

As for two timpanists in 9, (i) they don't both play all the time; and (ii) I'm
pretty sure I saw a broadcast of a performance by Karajan which involved two
timpanists - can anyone confirm if he ever did such a thing?

Simon
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
f***@hotmail.com
2006-05-09 20:20:17 UTC
Permalink
He did do it in his Bruckner IX from Vienna 1977 - one of the best
Bruckner IX IMHO. And it has terriffic impact: it's very loud,of
course, but it also gives a more evened-out sound than one timpanist
can produce.
Cheers,
Floor
Michael Schaffer
2006-05-09 23:28:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@hotmail.com
He did do it in his Bruckner IX from Vienna 1977 - one of the best
Bruckner IX IMHO. And it has terriffic impact: it's very loud,of
course, but it also gives a more evened-out sound than one timpanist
can produce.
Cheers,
Floor
I also recall a performance of Bruckner 9 in Berlin in 1985 in which
the timpani were doubled - and there were also 5 of each wind
instrument (instead of 3 each) plus 8 horns. I don't remember if he
also doubled the tuba. The strings were 18-16-14-12-10.

I also heard Beethoven 9 with him, that must have been in 1984 or so,
in any case, when the recording was made for the last DG cycle. I am
not absolutely sure about the timpani, but I don't think they were
doubled, but the winds all were, as was his custom in all Beethoven
symphonies. The strings were 16-12-14-10-8.
a***@aol.com
2006-05-10 00:56:27 UTC
Permalink
And it has terriffic impact: it's very loud,of
Post by f***@hotmail.com
course, but it also gives a more evened-out sound than one timpanist
can produce.
Cheers,
Floor
With great respect, I would think any number of timpanists all around
the world would take issue with you in that statement.

Bruckner was written for one and it is perfectly playable by one and I
regard Bruckner as the greatest symphonic writer for the timpani that I
have so far encountered. No one matches his subtlety in writing for it
(in my opinion). Beethoven (my number two) also totally playable
by one.

Of course if any interpreter wishes to change such orchestrations that
it is their right to do so but it is my belief that these great
kettledrum parts are best effected by playing the dynamics as written
in both cases.

I cannot imagine a single work by either Beethoven or Bruckner in which
you would need a second timpanist.

The music and the possibilities of same are all there for one. Both
wrote for it perfectly balanced with the rest of the orchestra or so I
think.

What others think may be different but those are my views as a player,
in this case, of the "particular" instrument involved.

I would also only comment that "very loud" is not normally helpful to
the timpani whose best voices are below that, something I believe
recognised by both Mr Bruckner and Mr Beethoven which is possibly why I
believe they are two very significant writers for them.

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
f***@hotmail.com
2006-05-10 08:23:13 UTC
Permalink
I fully agree with you here and surely I do not intend to pontificate
about the merits of Bruckner's or Beethoven's writing for timpani: they
knew their business, and I am happy to be able to read a score
passively (i.e. without a sonical "image" in my head) to follow
recordings. Knowing these my limits I limit myself to comments about
how I feel something sound and let others with more knowledge and
talents discuss wheter it's "correct" or not.

But, two timpanists DO sound different. I don't say you need them or
that they do sound better, but they sound markedly different. And
Karajan did not use them to overpower the whole orchestra by mindlessly
beating away like Brahms' timpanist in the first performance of the
requiem.

I think he liked the more spacious, much more diffuse, softer yet
bigger sound. Of course, that's not what Bruckner had in mind, and it
veils the textures considerably. But I think that's what he was after.

BTW, have you heard Herreweghe's new recording of Bruckner IV/2? There
one of your colleagues, Peppie Wiersma, is producing really wonderful
sounds: never heard the ending of the second movement sound so magical
- this has to be calfskin, for sure. But I would appreciate your
opinion very much, of course. I love his playing, for this is the first
time in any Bruckner recording that I can really hear what you write
about Bruckner's writing for timpani. It's true, and it's fascinating,
too!

Cheers,
Floor
Michael Schaffer
2006-05-10 11:28:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@hotmail.com
I fully agree with you here and surely I do not intend to pontificate
about the merits of Bruckner's or Beethoven's writing for timpani: they
knew their business, and I am happy to be able to read a score
passively (i.e. without a sonical "image" in my head) to follow
recordings. Knowing these my limits I limit myself to comments about
how I feel something sound and let others with more knowledge and
talents discuss wheter it's "correct" or not.
But, two timpanists DO sound different. I don't say you need them or
that they do sound better, but they sound markedly different. And
Karajan did not use them to overpower the whole orchestra by mindlessly
beating away like Brahms' timpanist in the first performance of the
requiem.
I think he liked the more spacious, much more diffuse, softer yet
bigger sound. Of course, that's not what Bruckner had in mind, and it
veils the textures considerably. But I think that's what he was after.
I think you can hear more or less what Bruckner had in mind when you
listen to the timpani of the WP. They haven't changed all that much
since then.
Regarding Karajan, I think he may have wanted a soft, "diffuse" sound
in some places, but mostly in p. In ff, they timpani in his Bruckner
were *very* loud and not at all diffuse, but rather used to set very
clear accent marks in the textures. But that impression comes from only
one Bruckner performance I heard, the 9th in Berlin in 1985. But that
was generally his sound concept in larger orchestral pieces - as you
know, his basic sound didn't change all that much with the different
composers.
Post by f***@hotmail.com
BTW, have you heard Herreweghe's new recording of Bruckner IV/2? There
one of your colleagues, Peppie Wiersma, is producing really wonderful
sounds: never heard the ending of the second movement sound so magical
- this has to be calfskin, for sure. But I would appreciate your
opinion very much, of course. I love his playing, for this is the first
time in any Bruckner recording that I can really hear what you write
about Bruckner's writing for timpani. It's true, and it's fascinating,
too!
Cheers,
Floor
f***@hotmail.com
2006-05-10 12:26:40 UTC
Permalink
Well, this is going to become way too specific for me to be able to
contribute anything of real worth. But be assured, the (marvellous)
timpani on Herreweghes Bruckner IV sound very different from all I have
heard until now: they are very clearly audible (surely also because the
rest of the orchestra, especially the brass, sounds much "smaller") and
sound much darker, rounder and richer than their modern counterparts I
have heard so far.

They fit perfectly into the rich, warm, full yet marvelously
transparent sonorities of Herreweghe's Bruckner IV. Interpretation is
another manner - I found his in some spots a bit too "romantic", but I
am very happy with this CD nevertheless. Right up there next to
Klemperer for me.

Of course, I agree with you on your comments on Karajan's basic sound
and his timpani in general. To point out just one recording, I
absolutely love the first entry of the timpani in his 1978 recording of
Bruckner VIII with the BPO: very loud, hard, bright and
"plastic"-sounding, but at this point I love this sound. Leaves the
preceding heavy brass section in the dust - and I think this handful of
timpani notes to be a very crucial point in the structure of this
finale, and Karajan's decidedly unauthentic sound which is also
contrary to my usual preferences here just fits how I feel the function
of these timpani notes.

YMMV, of course.

Cheers,
Floor
Michael Schaffer
2006-05-10 13:21:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@hotmail.com
Well, this is going to become way too specific for me to be able to
contribute anything of real worth. But be assured, the (marvellous)
timpani on Herreweghes Bruckner IV sound very different from all I have
heard until now: they are very clearly audible (surely also because the
rest of the orchestra, especially the brass, sounds much "smaller") and
sound much darker, rounder and richer than their modern counterparts I
have heard so far.
They fit perfectly into the rich, warm, full yet marvelously
transparent sonorities of Herreweghe's Bruckner IV. Interpretation is
another manner - I found his in some spots a bit too "romantic", but I
am very happy with this CD nevertheless. Right up there next to
Klemperer for me.
THis should be something that should interest me massively, but I am
hesitant - I didn't find the 7th that good, somehow mechanical and
undercharacterized, and I didn't think Herrweghe made good use of the
clarity. There could have been much more epressive and illuminated
counterpoint fine detail.
Post by f***@hotmail.com
Of course, I agree with you on your comments on Karajan's basic sound
and his timpani in general.
Those were of course very general comments, but based on what I heard
from them in many live concerts.
Post by f***@hotmail.com
To point out just one recording, I
absolutely love the first entry of the timpani in his 1978 recording of
Bruckner VIII with the BPO: very loud, hard, bright and
"plastic"-sounding, but at this point I love this sound. Leaves the
preceding heavy brass section in the dust - and I think this handful of
timpani notes to be a very crucial point in the structure of this
finale, and Karajan's decidedly unauthentic sound
I don't know how "unathentic it is" though. The Viennese timpani sound
rather hard and bangy here, too, and I think they are very close to
what instruments of the day sounded like. The BP *never* play on
plastic haeds, BTW. I know you just said "plastic" to illustrate what
you meant, but I just wanted to point that out.
If you think the timpani here is loud and bangily aggressive, you
apparently haven't heard Harnoncourt with the same orchestra yet - it
will make you fall off the couch.
Post by f***@hotmail.com
which is also
contrary to my usual preferences here just fits how I feel the function
of these timpani notes.
YMMV, of course.
Cheers,
Floor
f***@hotmail.com
2006-05-11 05:50:48 UTC
Permalink
Dear Mr. Schaffer,

thanks for this additional information. I would never have thought that
those timpani in Karajan's BPO Bruckner 8 had calfskin heads, I really
thought they did not only sound but were in fact plastic. Thanks for
making this clear.

And indeed I think them to be "loud and bangliy aggressive", but that's
what makes me like thme so much! I fear that I won't be exploring the
Harnoncourt recording anytime soon - funds are severely limited here
and there are just too many CDs of repertoire to buy which I do not
already have in multiple versions...

About Herreweghe's Bruckner:

I agree with you on some of your criticisms of his Bruckner 7, it was
no more transparent than Karajan's VPO recording, which it also
resembled very much in terms of interpretation. It is also afflicted
with technical problems of orchestral execution (least so in the
finale). But I did not find it mechanical at all - just listen to the
finale again - these bouncy celli alone are worth the whole CD.

All of these problems are absent in his Bruckner 4. The orchestra shows
no technical weaknesses and the textures are much more transparent than
in his Bruckner 7. But don't expect anything like the lean,
transparent, agile Bruckner Russell Davies records with his
Brucknerorchester Linz, Herreweghe clearly strives for a warm, dark,
well-blended sound rather than for maximum clarity. This does not
however mean that he would not be very careful about balances and
articulation. Every phrase is really "spoken" with tiny rhythmical
liberties to make the rhythms clearly audible - for me, this makes it
all sound very "alive" and lets the music breathe.

Nevertheless, the distinct timbres, spot-on intonation and great care
for dynamic levels make his Bruckner 4 transparent as well as warm and
full-bodied: I think he found a good coincidentia oppositorum here.

But keep in mind that I have a penchant for warm, sensual, full-bodied,
dark, well-blended orchestral sonorities which simply does not allow
for maximum clarity. But personally I am very happy with this new
Herreweghe Bruckner 4: it gave me just the Bruckner-sound I wanted to
hear but couldn't find anywhere else. It's neither as brilliant (one
could also say "aggressive") as modern orchestra sound (especially in
the brass section) nor is it as lean and bright (one could also say
"scratchy") as much HIP tends to be (Manze's Handel concerti grossi
being my last big disappointment in this respect). But that's a
personal matter of taste, of course.

Because of this my sonic taste I am very happy with the recent trends
in HIP to strive for a warm, full-bodied sound, like Herreweghe or
concerto italiano or the Freiburger Barockorchester or Concerto Köln
in their Handel with Jacobs...

Thanks again for your info,
cheers,
Floor
Michael Schaffer
2006-05-11 12:40:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@hotmail.com
Dear Mr. Schaffer,
thanks for this additional information. I would never have thought that
those timpani in Karajan's BPO Bruckner 8 had calfskin heads, I really
thought they did not only sound but were in fact plastic. Thanks for
making this clear.
And indeed I think them to be "loud and bangliy aggressive", but that's
what makes me like thme so much! I fear that I won't be exploring the
Harnoncourt recording anytime soon - funds are severely limited here
and there are just too many CDs of repertoire to buy which I do not
already have in multiple versions...
I agree with you on some of your criticisms of his Bruckner 7, it was
no more transparent than Karajan's VPO recording, which it also
resembled very much in terms of interpretation. It is also afflicted
with technical problems of orchestral execution (least so in the
finale). But I did not find it mechanical at all - just listen to the
finale again - these bouncy celli alone are worth the whole CD.
All of these problems are absent in his Bruckner 4. The orchestra shows
no technical weaknesses and the textures are much more transparent than
in his Bruckner 7. But don't expect anything like the lean,
transparent, agile Bruckner Russell Davies records with his
Brucknerorchester Linz, Herreweghe clearly strives for a warm, dark,
well-blended sound rather than for maximum clarity. This does not
however mean that he would not be very careful about balances and
articulation. Every phrase is really "spoken" with tiny rhythmical
liberties to make the rhythms clearly audible - for me, this makes it
all sound very "alive" and lets the music breathe.
Nevertheless, the distinct timbres, spot-on intonation and great care
for dynamic levels make his Bruckner 4 transparent as well as warm and
full-bodied: I think he found a good coincidentia oppositorum here.
But keep in mind that I have a penchant for warm, sensual, full-bodied,
dark, well-blended orchestral sonorities which simply does not allow
for maximum clarity. But personally I am very happy with this new
Herreweghe Bruckner 4: it gave me just the Bruckner-sound I wanted to
hear but couldn't find anywhere else. It's neither as brilliant (one
could also say "aggressive") as modern orchestra sound (especially in
the brass section) nor is it as lean and bright (one could also say
"scratchy") as much HIP tends to be (Manze's Handel concerti grossi
being my last big disappointment in this respect). But that's a
personal matter of taste, of course.
Because of this my sonic taste I am very happy with the recent trends
in HIP to strive for a warm, full-bodied sound, like Herreweghe or
concerto italiano or the Freiburger Barockorchester or Concerto Köln
in their Handel with Jacobs...
Thanks again for your info,
cheers,
Floor
Sounds interesting. I think I will check it out, if not right now,
though.
a***@aol.com
2006-05-10 22:55:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@hotmail.com
I fully agree with you here and surely I do not intend to pontificate
about the merits of Bruckner's or Beethoven's writing for timpani: they
knew their business, and I am happy to be able to read a score
passively (i.e. without a sonical "image" in my head) to follow
recordings. Knowing these my limits I limit myself to comments about
how I feel something sound and let others with more knowledge and
talents discuss wheter it's "correct" or not.
But, two timpanists DO sound different. I don't say you need them or
that they do sound better, but they sound markedly different. And
Karajan did not use them to overpower the whole orchestra by mindlessly
beating away like Brahms' timpanist in the first performance of the
requiem.
I think he liked the more spacious, much more diffuse, softer yet
bigger sound. Of course, that's not what Bruckner had in mind, and it
veils the textures considerably. But I think that's what he was after.
BTW, have you heard Herreweghe's new recording of Bruckner IV/2? There
one of your colleagues, Peppie Wiersma, is producing really wonderful
sounds: never heard the ending of the second movement sound so magical
- this has to be calfskin, for sure. But I would appreciate your
opinion very much, of course. I love his playing, for this is the first
time in any Bruckner recording that I can really hear what you write
about Bruckner's writing for timpani. It's true, and it's fascinating,
too!
Cheers,
Floor
He was a truly great writer for the instrument. Can you give me
details of this recording? I would love to hear it.

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
f***@hotmail.com
2006-05-11 05:29:14 UTC
Permalink
Dear Mr. Watkins, I gladly oblige:

Bruckner Symphony No. 4 (version 1878/80 ed. Nowak)
Orchestre des Champs-Elysées
Philippe Herreweghe
harmonia mundi France HMC 901921

amazon.co.uk link:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000ELL0QS/qid=1147325235/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-2536625-3605438

Hope you enjoy this recording as much as I did - and I would like to
read about your opinion on this recording very much.

Cheers,
Floor
Michael Schaffer
2006-05-10 11:23:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@hotmail.com
And it has terriffic impact: it's very loud,of
Post by f***@hotmail.com
course, but it also gives a more evened-out sound than one timpanist
can produce.
Cheers,
Floor
With great respect, I would think any number of timpanists all around
the world would take issue with you in that statement.
But maybe they shouldn't. I have only heard a very few timpani players
who could play a really even, smooth fff roll. Really only very few.
Most of them have some inconsistencies in the sound.
Post by f***@hotmail.com
Bruckner was written for one and it is perfectly playable by one and I
regard Bruckner as the greatest symphonic writer for the timpani that I
have so far encountered. No one matches his subtlety in writing for it
(in my opinion). Beethoven (my number two) also totally playable
by one.
Of course if any interpreter wishes to change such orchestrations that
it is their right to do so but it is my belief that these great
kettledrum parts are best effected by playing the dynamics as written
in both cases.
So, what do the dynamics "as written" mean? What do they mean in the
context of the kind of instrument they had back then? In the kind of
hall they played back then?
I am surprised a little by these comments from you who has often
contributed historical information about the timpani and siad he would
like to write a book about the subject.
I don't know what the story is behind the doubling in Hogwood's
recording, if he just thought it was needed or would be a nice effect,
or that is what was done at the premiere, and if so, why? Maybe people
back then just liked a real overpowering, "noisy" effect in some places
rather than the "refined" nearly inaudible timpani playing you often
hear on modern performances of classical music? These are all questions
we should ask.
Post by f***@hotmail.com
I cannot imagine a single work by either Beethoven or Bruckner in which
you would need a second timpanist.
The music and the possibilities of same are all there for one. Both
wrote for it perfectly balanced with the rest of the orchestra or so I
think.
What others think may be different but those are my views as a player,
in this case, of the "particular" instrument involved.
I would also only comment that "very loud" is not normally helpful to
the timpani whose best voices are below that, something I believe
recognised by both Mr Bruckner and Mr Beethoven which is possibly why I
believe they are two very significant writers for them.
Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Thomas Wood
2006-05-10 23:27:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Schaffer
I don't know what the story is behind the doubling in Hogwood's
recording, if he just thought it was needed or would be a nice effect,
or that is what was done at the premiere, and if so, why? Maybe people
back then just liked a real overpowering, "noisy" effect in some places
rather than the "refined" nearly inaudible timpani playing you often
hear on modern performances of classical music? These are all questions
we should ask.
Hogwood indicates in the notes to the Beethoven recordings that the doubling
of wind and timpani was done on occasion in the composer's time, and
apparently with his sanction. It seems the "extra" instruments mostly played
in ff-fff sections, presumeably to give more "oomph" to the sound. He writes
that some surviving wind parts for the symphonies have "tutti" markings,
showing when the extra instruments played.

I don't think Hogwood decided to do it on a whim -- there's good evidence
that it was done at the premieres of LvB's last three symphonies.

And certainly there was a trend in the early 19th century to strive for a
more powerful orchestral sound -- again, look at what Berlioz was
experimenting with in terms of orchestral forces in the years immediately
following Beethoven's death. It was that quest for power that, in part,
drove the development of orchestral instruments as we now know them.

In today's orchestras, this doubling isn't really "needed" -- but in
Beethoven's day, when instruments produced less volume, it was felt that it
produced an impressive effect.

Tom Wood
Michael Schaffer
2006-05-10 23:51:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Wood
Post by Michael Schaffer
I don't know what the story is behind the doubling in Hogwood's
recording, if he just thought it was needed or would be a nice effect,
or that is what was done at the premiere, and if so, why? Maybe people
back then just liked a real overpowering, "noisy" effect in some places
rather than the "refined" nearly inaudible timpani playing you often
hear on modern performances of classical music? These are all questions
we should ask.
Hogwood indicates in the notes to the Beethoven recordings that the doubling
of wind and timpani was done on occasion in the composer's time, and
apparently with his sanction. It seems the "extra" instruments mostly played
in ff-fff sections, presumeably to give more "oomph" to the sound. He writes
that some surviving wind parts for the symphonies have "tutti" markings,
showing when the extra instruments played.
I don't think Hogwood decided to do it on a whim -- there's good evidence
that it was done at the premieres of LvB's last three symphonies.
And certainly there was a trend in the early 19th century to strive for a
more powerful orchestral sound -- again, look at what Berlioz was
experimenting with in terms of orchestral forces in the years immediately
following Beethoven's death. It was that quest for power that, in part,
drove the development of orchestral instruments as we now know them.
In today's orchestras, this doubling isn't really "needed" -- but in
Beethoven's day, when instruments produced less volume, it was felt that it
produced an impressive effect.
Tom Wood
I disagree - modern wind instruments are louder, but so are the
strings. In a modern orchestra with, say 14 or 16 first violins, the
woodwind at least should be doubled, but only in tutti, not in solo
passages, the horns too.
One thing we have learned for sure from HIP is that in an orchestra of
typical ca 1800 dimensions, the winds would be *much more* prominent
than they are in typical late romantic orchestra before these were also
stocked up to more horns and double woodwinds and all that.
Thomas Wood
2006-05-11 03:35:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Schaffer
I disagree - modern wind instruments are louder, but so are the
strings. In a modern orchestra with, say 14 or 16 first violins, the
woodwind at least should be doubled, but only in tutti, not in solo
passages, the horns too.
One thing we have learned for sure from HIP is that in an orchestra of
typical ca 1800 dimensions, the winds would be *much more* prominent
than they are in typical late romantic orchestra before these were also
stocked up to more horns and double woodwinds and all that.
I'm not sure we really disagree that much -- it's clear that in Beethoven's
time the desired orchestral balance was wind-heavy by later standards, and
that helps explain why the winds were often doubled when an especially large
string section was on hand.

But are winds and horns often doubled in performances of LvB with
modern-instruments orchestras?

Tom Wood
Simon Roberts
2006-05-11 15:32:22 UTC
Permalink
In article <6iy8g.78739$***@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Thomas
Wood says...
Post by Thomas Wood
But are winds and horns often doubled in performances of LvB with
modern-instruments orchestras?
Don't know about "often" but they are in the various Karajan videos I've seen.

Simon
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
Michael Schaffer
2006-05-11 16:21:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Roberts
Wood says...
Post by Thomas Wood
But are winds and horns often doubled in performances of LvB with
modern-instruments orchestras?
Don't know about "often" but they are in the various Karajan videos I've seen.
Simon
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
I think he always did that. All the Beethoven symphonies I saw with him
had doubled winds (And in Brahms, he would usually double the
woodwinds).
As we have seen, this was not at all uncommon in Beethoven's time, and
I believe earlier, too, and later - Mahler did it, too. I don't know
about Furtwängler, but I wouldn't be surprised at all. I am trying to
remember if Bernstein did it in his cycle in Vienna which was also
filmed. I think he did, but maybe only in the "bigger" symphonies.
f***@hotmail.com
2006-05-11 17:47:15 UTC
Permalink
I've read in Hayworth's Klemperer biography that Klemperer switched
between the two approaches. Hayworth cites a program note OK wrote for
a performance of Beethoven 9 where he stated that he would do it
without doubled winds this time, but that he felt unable to "be
dogmatical about this".

Cheers,
Floor
f***@hotmail.com
2006-05-11 05:54:03 UTC
Permalink
I guess I'll have to cut the money out of my ribs and get this cycle
after all.
One final question: how does it compare to Gardiner's?

Cheers,
Floor
Michael Schaffer
2006-05-11 12:45:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@hotmail.com
I guess I'll have to cut the money out of my ribs and get this cycle
after all.
One final question: how does it compare to Gardiner's?
Cheers,
Floor
I haven't heard all the symphonies since I recently bought this cycle.
My impressions at this point lean towards liking it more than Gardiner.
I was never really impressed by that cycle. Well executed, but stiff
and mechanical, underphrased and bass light. Hogwood is definitely less
refined and more rolled up sleeves. But also quite musical. I think the
HIP cycle I still like best is Norrington, even though his theatralics
may be over the top in some places. But his readings have a rhythmic
spring and eloquence of phrasing I miss in Gardiner's performances. But
from what I have heard so far, Hogwood is really quite good. The
recorded sound is also rather good.
I think Hogwood and Norrington are two good "concept" cycles, Hogwood
more because of the way he tries to reconstruct the orchestra sizes of
the premieres, Norrington more because he explores the theatralic and
rhetoric side of the symphonies.
Ian Pace
2006-05-11 12:44:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Schaffer
Post by f***@hotmail.com
I guess I'll have to cut the money out of my ribs and get this cycle
after all.
One final question: how does it compare to Gardiner's?
Cheers,
Floor
I haven't heard all the symphonies since I recently bought this cycle.
My impressions at this point lean towards liking it more than Gardiner.
I was never really impressed by that cycle. Well executed, but stiff
and mechanical, underphrased and bass light. Hogwood is definitely less
refined and more rolled up sleeves. But also quite musical. I think the
HIP cycle I still like best is Norrington, even though his theatralics
may be over the top in some places. But his readings have a rhythmic
spring and eloquence of phrasing I miss in Gardiner's performances. But
from what I have heard so far, Hogwood is really quite good. The
recorded sound is also rather good.
I think Hogwood and Norrington are two good "concept" cycles, Hogwood
more because of the way he tries to reconstruct the orchestra sizes of
the premieres, Norrington more because he explores the theatralic and
rhetoric side of the symphonies.
What do you think of the Harnoncourt/COE set of the symphonies?

Ian
Michael Schaffer
2006-05-11 13:43:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Pace
Post by Michael Schaffer
Post by f***@hotmail.com
I guess I'll have to cut the money out of my ribs and get this cycle
after all.
One final question: how does it compare to Gardiner's?
Cheers,
Floor
I haven't heard all the symphonies since I recently bought this cycle.
My impressions at this point lean towards liking it more than Gardiner.
I was never really impressed by that cycle. Well executed, but stiff
and mechanical, underphrased and bass light. Hogwood is definitely less
refined and more rolled up sleeves. But also quite musical. I think the
HIP cycle I still like best is Norrington, even though his theatralics
may be over the top in some places. But his readings have a rhythmic
spring and eloquence of phrasing I miss in Gardiner's performances. But
from what I have heard so far, Hogwood is really quite good. The
recorded sound is also rather good.
I think Hogwood and Norrington are two good "concept" cycles, Hogwood
more because of the way he tries to reconstruct the orchestra sizes of
the premieres, Norrington more because he explores the theatralic and
rhetoric side of the symphonies.
What do you think of the Harnoncourt/COE set of the symphonies?
Ian
It is da bomb. A musical dream come true. But I didn't include it here
because I thought the poster was asking specifically about cycles
played on period instruments.
f***@hotmail.com
2006-05-11 15:19:55 UTC
Permalink
"It is da bomb. A musical dream come true."

Fully seconded - 1 and 2 could sparkle a bit more, though. After all,
I'll give Hogwood a try.

Cheers,
Floor
Matthew Silverstein
2006-05-11 13:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@hotmail.com
I guess I'll have to cut the money out of my ribs and get this cycle
One final question: how does it compare to Gardiner's?
I have both, and the only item in the Hogwood set I listen to at all
regularly is his performance of 4, which I like quite a bit. I think
Gardiner is better in every respect: better played, better conducted, and
(much) better sung in the finale of 9.

Matty
Thomas Wood
2006-05-12 05:41:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@hotmail.com
I guess I'll have to cut the money out of my ribs and get this cycle
after all.
One final question: how does it compare to Gardiner's?
Hogwood's recordings features more spacious recorded sound than Gardiner's
(the live 5th in his cycle sounds very dry indeed). The orchestral ensemble
in Gardiner's is tighter and more accurate -- almost to the point of
sounding perfectionist, cold and clinical. Hogwood's conducting often gives
a rather square and stiff impression. But the sheer sound of his often large
ensemble, so well recorded, is magnificent.

I think Gardiner's 3rd and 9th are better than Hogwood's. I also enjoy
Gardiner's 7th and 8th, but I haven't heard Hogwood's (I'd like to have
them). Hogwood's 4th and 5th are very well done -- his 4th is superior to
Gardiner's, but the 5th is perhaps not as strong (Gardiner sustains the
momentum in the finale better than almost anyone).

The 6th always seems to sound better with modern instruments and a more
conventional Romantic approach -- give me Cluytens. HIP recordings of the
Pastorale always seem rushed and charmless.

Tom Wood
f***@hotmail.com
2006-05-12 10:42:20 UTC
Permalink
Thank you Mr. Wood for your enlightening comments. Sound is pretty
important for me, so I'll get it as soon as sufficient funds are
available again...

Cheers,
Floor
Michael Schaffer
2006-05-12 11:09:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Wood
Post by f***@hotmail.com
I guess I'll have to cut the money out of my ribs and get this cycle
after all.
One final question: how does it compare to Gardiner's?
Hogwood's recordings features more spacious recorded sound than Gardiner's
(the live 5th in his cycle sounds very dry indeed). The orchestral ensemble
in Gardiner's is tighter and more accurate -- almost to the point of
sounding perfectionist, cold and clinical. Hogwood's conducting often gives
a rather square and stiff impression. But the sheer sound of his often large
ensemble, so well recorded, is magnificent.
I think Gardiner's 3rd and 9th are better than Hogwood's. I also enjoy
Gardiner's 7th and 8th, but I haven't heard Hogwood's (I'd like to have
them). Hogwood's 4th and 5th are very well done -- his 4th is superior to
Gardiner's, but the 5th is perhaps not as strong (Gardiner sustains the
momentum in the finale better than almost anyone).
The 6th always seems to sound better with modern instruments and a more
conventional Romantic approach -- give me Cluytens. HIP recordings of the
Pastorale always seem rushed and charmless.
Tom Wood
Have you also heard Norrington's or Brüggen's or Goodman's
contributions, or whoever else is out there, too?

Like I said, I have a gneral problem with Gardiner's Beethoven
symphonies because I find them too stiff and ineloquently phrased. That
never appeared to me to be a problem with JEG's Mozart though.
f***@hotmail.com
2006-05-12 14:03:14 UTC
Permalink
"Have you also heard Norrington's or Brüggen's or Goodman's
contributions, or whoever else is out there, too?"

No. Having "converted" to HIP only fairly recently I just copied
Gardiner's recordings from a friend. I rarely listen to them, because
the sound just as you said.

Therefore, I only listen to my COE/Harnoncourt set these days, but it's
not on period instruments (whose richer sound I prefer by a vast
margin) and, even worse, it's not in the traditional orchestra setup
with the violins facing each others and the celli in the middle. Of
course, my Klemperer stereo cycle provides for this, to my ears
superior, setup, but I happened to find the playing of his Philharmonia
Orchestra more and more of a liability the more often I listened to it.

Rattle's cycle with the VP also was a big disappointment - it sounded
interesting in the first run, but I soon cooled down on it
considerably. And well, it has some problems that also ruined many of
Karajan's recordings for me (his basic, evened-out, polished and "lush"
approach is a fully valid way for me, BTW): the violins have this nasty
"spread" in intonation (some kind of permanet microtonal cluster),
which may give them a lovely silvery sheen and increase their
voluminosity in concert, but which on my Stax headphones just sounds
rusty and out of tune. I am VERY sensitive to this phenomenon, and it
ruined most older recordings for me. Not only those, of course: there
is also much the "austere" HIP faction produces which sounds quite sour
for me just for this reason - Manze's Handel concerti grossi being such
a case. That's what I like so much about the COE violins: their
intonation is spot-on, no "spread" and this makes them produce some
ravishing overtones next to enabling them to play with unheard levels
of differentiation.

I liked Goodman's Schubert quite a bit, even though the orchestra is a
big mess sometimes (take the finale of the 3rd symphony, one of my
favourites) and intonation can be highly questionable (the celli in the
9th!). Immerseel's Schubert, on the other side, boasts a faultless
orchestra, but I find his lean, "classical" approach best suites the
earlier symphonies. For nos 8 and 9 I'd like to have fuller sonorities.
But Immerseel opened my ears for nos 5 and 6 which I had neglected
until now. But number 3 remains unexplainably close to my heart: maybe
because it's second movement just sounds like I would like to feel most
of the time: happy in a very serene, apollinian (or is it apollinic???)
way.

Therefore, what I would like most is to have a cycle which resembles
Harnoncourt in interpretation but uses period instruments in the
traditional placement of the instruments.

And I do not necessarily prefer a "thin" string sound, quite to the
contrary. I like it full-bodied, warm and sensual. As I already have
said elsewhere, just like the strings play on Herreweghe's Bruckner IV.

Well, I'm young and hope to have time to wait for such a recording...

Cheers,
Floor
fl.traverso
2006-06-05 12:06:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@hotmail.com
I liked Goodman's Schubert quite a bit, even though the orchestra is a
big mess sometimes (take the finale of the 3rd symphony, one of my
favourites) and intonation can be highly questionable (the celli in the
9th!). Immerseel's Schubert, on the other side, boasts a faultless
orchestra, but I find his lean, "classical" approach best suites the
earlier symphonies. For nos 8 and 9 I'd like to have fuller sonorities.
But Immerseel opened my ears for nos 5 and 6 which I had neglected
until now. But number 3 remains unexplainably close to my heart: maybe
because it's second movement just sounds like I would like to feel most
of the time: happy in a very serene, apollinian (or is it apollinic???)
way.
Therefore, what I would like most is to have a cycle which resembles
Harnoncourt in interpretation but uses period instruments in the
traditional placement of the instruments.
And I do not necessarily prefer a "thin" string sound, quite to the
contrary. I like it full-bodied, warm and sensual. As I already have
said elsewhere, just like the strings play on Herreweghe's Bruckner IV.
Well, I'm young and hope to have time to wait for such a recording...
Cheers,
Floor
Jos van Immerseel's Schubert set is excellent for its price and so
worth
a try.
f***@hotmail.com
2006-06-05 13:59:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by fl.traverso
Jos van Immerseel's Schubert set is excellent for its price and so
worth
a try.
Indeed it is - I copied it from a friend a few weeks ago and have liked
very much what I heard so far - symphonies nos 1-6. Very "classical"
interpretations, swift tempi and lots of Haydn-esque esprit. I never
cared that much for nos 5 and 6, but Immerseel made me "get" them now.
And the orchestral playing is in a different league from the Hanover
Band, too. And this sparkling, cheerful, witty no 3!

Cheers,
Floor
Matthew Silverstein
2006-06-05 14:03:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@hotmail.com
Indeed it is - I copied it from a friend a few weeks ago and have liked
very much what I heard so far - symphonies nos 1-6.
Then why not buy them? They're available in a very inexpensive edition from
Sony France.

Matty
f***@hotmail.com
2006-06-05 14:27:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Silverstein
Then why not buy them? They're available in a very inexpensive edition from
Sony France.
Matty
Because my imminent move to London won't do anything to increase my
budget, you know. If I could afford it, I'd pay for it, and cheerfully,
too.

Cheers,
Floor
fl.traverso
2006-06-05 14:14:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@hotmail.com
Post by fl.traverso
Jos van Immerseel's Schubert set is excellent for its price and so
worth
a try.
Indeed it is - I copied it from a friend a few weeks ago and have liked
very much what I heard so far - symphonies nos 1-6. Very "classical"
interpretations, swift tempi and lots of Haydn-esque esprit. I never
cared that much for nos 5 and 6, but Immerseel made me "get" them now.
And the orchestral playing is in a different league from the Hanover
Band, too. And this sparkling, cheerful, witty no 3!
Cheers,
Floor
When you decide to get the set, do read the very simple
booklet that comes with it. While the English translation
is as concise as it can be, the French (which I take to be
the original) goes on in some detail the performance
practices used - the texts, the size of orchestra, instruments,
playing pitch etc. Interesting stuff for those who care.

FangLin
f***@hotmail.com
2006-06-05 14:29:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by fl.traverso
Post by f***@hotmail.com
Post by fl.traverso
Jos van Immerseel's Schubert set is excellent for its price and so
worth
a try.
Indeed it is - I copied it from a friend a few weeks ago and have liked
very much what I heard so far - symphonies nos 1-6. Very "classical"
interpretations, swift tempi and lots of Haydn-esque esprit. I never
cared that much for nos 5 and 6, but Immerseel made me "get" them now.
And the orchestral playing is in a different league from the Hanover
Band, too. And this sparkling, cheerful, witty no 3!
Cheers,
Floor
When you decide to get the set, do read the very simple
booklet that comes with it. While the English translation
is as concise as it can be, the French (which I take to be
the original) goes on in some detail the performance
practices used - the texts, the size of orchestra, instruments,
playing pitch etc. Interesting stuff for those who care.
FangLin
Yes, I have read it. I did not know before that there were so many
issues about the performing material - that Brahms made some 1500
corrections to the score of no 9, for example. I've added you Scarlatti
recommendation to my list for better times, too.
Floor
Gerard
2006-06-05 14:36:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by fl.traverso
Post by f***@hotmail.com
Post by fl.traverso
Jos van Immerseel's Schubert set is excellent for its price and so
worth
a try.
Indeed it is - I copied it from a friend a few weeks ago and have
liked very much what I heard so far - symphonies nos 1-6. Very
"classical" interpretations, swift tempi and lots of Haydn-esque
esprit. I never cared that much for nos 5 and 6, but Immerseel made
me "get" them now. And the orchestral playing is in a different
league from the Hanover Band, too. And this sparkling, cheerful,
witty no 3!
Cheers,
Floor
When you decide to get the set, do read the very simple
booklet that comes with it. While the English translation
is as concise as it can be, the French (which I take to be
the original) goes on in some detail the performance
practices used - the texts, the size of orchestra, instruments,
playing pitch etc. Interesting stuff for those who care.
The real original notes (with the original Sony set) were written in German by
Ulrich Hübner, in French by Jos van Immerseel and Yves Senden, in English by
James Munro, Martin Root, Alan Emslie, Jane Gower, and in Dutch by Johannes
Leertouwer and Maarten van Weverwijk. I have no idea what's left of these
articles in the Sony France reissue.
fl.traverso
2006-06-05 14:52:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerard
The real original notes (with the original Sony set) were written in German by
Ulrich Hübner, in French by Jos van Immerseel and Yves Senden, in English by
James Munro, Martin Root, Alan Emslie, Jane Gower, and in Dutch by Johannes
Leertouwer and Maarten van Weverwijk. I have no idea what's left of these
articles in the Sony France reissue.
The reissue booklet only contains an extract (I assume) of the French
notes
and a partial translation of that extract in English, pretty sad, I
guess. Oh well,
the "price" to pay for getting great stuff at beer budgets.

FangLin
Gerard
2006-06-05 18:19:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by fl.traverso
Oh well,
the "price" to pay for getting great stuff at beer budgets.
Agreed. One of the advantages of being on the internet is that there's so much
information available that it's impossible to read it all. I think there's a
lot to find about these (Schubert's) symphonies too.
BTW wasn't it Abbado who did a lot of research on these symphonies and found
about all those "corrections" by Brahms? He wrote a part of the notes with his
recordings himself.
ArturPS
2006-05-12 15:12:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Schaffer
Have you also heard Norrington's or Brüggen's or Goodman's
contributions, or whoever else is out there, too?
I have Brüggen's and heard, over the Beethoven Reference Site, quite a
few moments from Norrington's and Goodman's. I own (and am thrilled
about this thread, for I was considering starting it myself) the
Hogwood and Gardiner set, the Hogwood is next to me right now at work.
I like Gardiner's, Hogwood's and Brüggen's differently, for me they
are very different approaches that really aren't exclusive. Like
Klemperer and Karajan.
Brüggen's set is more human, but he also has the "omg is teh
drums"-moments, specially on the 3 last ones, the finale of the 8th is
a force to reckon with. I bought it at amazon (on those used and new,
fortunatelly it was new) and am very happy with it.
Goodman's set has the nimbus sound (with is even more nimbus sound on
the Schubert set, which I also own). I like Goodman's better than
Norrington's, which I find almost cynical. For a straight comparison,
search for the cd on virgin with the 2nd and 8th symps. and the Egmont
and Coriolanus overtures, and compare them directly to Hogwood's.
Norrington's Egmont is almost totally devoid (to my ears) of nobility,
that majesty that comes with the first chords. It's just fast, Hogwood
is excellent in that overture.
I still am trying to buy Goodman's, I liked it much. As for Gardiner
and Hogwood, I'm a huge fan =D.

Also worth trying is Hogwood's recording of the piano concertos, even
though the final cd comes only with the 5th and no filler. Even though
I'm a *HUGE* fan of Gardiner, here Hogwood takes the lead easily, and
the merit goes to the pianists, in Gardiner's case, the failure is most
Levin's fault, for the pianofortes didn't need to be such lousy ones,
and vice-versa with Lubin and Hogwood. For example, try the Choral
Fantasy with Gardiner, excellent orchestra, (the usually) outstanding
chorus, wtf?? piano.
Alan P Dawes
2006-05-11 14:23:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Wood
Hogwood indicates in the notes to the Beethoven recordings that the
doubling of wind and timpani was done on occasion in the composer's
time, and apparently with his sanction.
To all intents and purposes Beethoven was deaf by this time with residual
'hearing' due to vibrations through his body similar to those described by
the deaf percussionist Evelyn Glennie. The 'rumble' of an extra timp may
have been one of the things he was aware of but he would have had to rely
on the ears of others for the balance of the orchestral sound in a concert.

Alan
--
--. --. --. --. : : --- --- ----------------------------
|_| |_| | _ | | | | |_ | ***@argonet.co.uk
| | |\ | | | | |\| | | ***@riscos.org
| | | \ |_| |_| | | |__ | Using an Acorn RiscPC
a***@aol.com
2006-05-11 01:46:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Schaffer
Post by f***@hotmail.com
And it has terriffic impact: it's very loud,of
Post by f***@hotmail.com
course, but it also gives a more evened-out sound than one timpanist
can produce.
Cheers,
Floor
With great respect, I would think any number of timpanists all around
the world would take issue with you in that statement.
But maybe they shouldn't. I have only heard a very few timpani players
who could play a really even, smooth fff roll. Really only very few.
Most of them have some inconsistencies in the sound.
Post by f***@hotmail.com
Bruckner was written for one and it is perfectly playable by one and I
regard Bruckner as the greatest symphonic writer for the timpani that I
have so far encountered. No one matches his subtlety in writing for it
(in my opinion). Beethoven (my number two) also totally playable
by one.
Of course if any interpreter wishes to change such orchestrations that
it is their right to do so but it is my belief that these great
kettledrum parts are best effected by playing the dynamics as written
in both cases.
So, what do the dynamics "as written" mean? What do they mean in the
context of the kind of instrument they had back then? In the kind of
hall they played back then?
I am surprised a little by these comments from you who has often
contributed historical information about the timpani and siad he would
like to write a book about the subject.
I don't know what the story is behind the doubling in Hogwood's
recording, if he just thought it was needed or would be a nice effect,
or that is what was done at the premiere, and if so, why? Maybe people
back then just liked a real overpowering, "noisy" effect in some places
rather than the "refined" nearly inaudible timpani playing you often
hear on modern performances of classical music? These are all questions
we should ask.
Post by f***@hotmail.com
I cannot imagine a single work by either Beethoven or Bruckner in which
you would need a second timpanist.
The music and the possibilities of same are all there for one. Both
wrote for it perfectly balanced with the rest of the orchestra or so I
think.
What others think may be different but those are my views as a player,
in this case, of the "particular" instrument involved.
I would also only comment that "very loud" is not normally helpful to
the timpani whose best voices are below that, something I believe
recognised by both Mr Bruckner and Mr Beethoven which is possibly why I
believe they are two very significant writers for them.
Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Am currently out on the road with Carousel (aka When The Children Are
Asleep or When I Marry Mr Snow as in "brushes, lightly" yup, got that
Mr Rodgers)

When I am not I will endeavour to come back with a detailed response.

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Jon Alan Conrad
2006-06-05 15:33:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@aol.com
Am currently out on the road with Carousel (aka When The Children Are
Asleep or When I Marry Mr Snow as in "brushes, lightly" yup, got that
Mr Rodgers)
As Mr. Rodgers (like almost every other composer of musicals) didn't do
his own orchestrations, you probably want to be addressing yourself to
Mr. Walker. Or (if it really is When the Children Are Asleep) Mr.
Spialek. Or (if it's the reprise of Mr. Snow) Mr. Jones. Or, in a
couple of other short sequences, Mr. Bennett or Mr. Glover.

Sorry, I gave a presentation on the restoration of the correct
orchestral score of CAROUSEL at a conference in March at Univ of
Bristol, so I happen to be up on this at the moment. Carry on.

JAC
Thomas Wood
2006-05-09 21:28:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@aol.com
Post by Thomas Wood
Post by a***@aol.com
The puzzle for me is why two timpanists in No 9? It is written for one
and perfectly playable by same.
We know that at the premiere in 1824 (from Beethoven's notebooks) he
had at his disposal "44 professional musicians" (named) plus amateur
musicians which he did not note down so we do not know accurately the
size of the orchestra.
According to Hogwood's notes, in a conversation book of March 1824, Anton
Schindler wrote that there were "24 violins, 10 violas, 12 basses and
cellos" at the first performance, made up of professionals from the
Ka:rtnertor Theatre, plus volunteers, both professional and amateur. It was
determined at rehearsals that the winds were not powerful enough for this
large string section, so the wind, brass and timpani were doubled, as was
done at performances of Beethoven's 7th and 8th symphonies in 1813/14.
Tom Wood
So most HIP is all wrong then? Far from wanting less, Beethoven wanted
more?
Blimey. There's a turnup for the HIP book, then?
Hogwood's recordings don't prove HIP is wrong -- they ARE HIP. HIP does not
equal "small ensemble." HIP means, in part, applying historical evidence to
performance. There's evidence that Beethoven's symphonies were, at least
sometimes, performed by very large orchestras. So why not see what that
sounds like? I don't think Hogwood, or anyone else, is saying those
symphonies MUST be performed by such an orchestra. He would point out, I
suspect, that symphonies in Beethoven's day were being played by orchestras
both large and small (look at the Eroica: the first private performances
were done by a very small orchestra; but the first public performances were
done by a full-scale ensemble).
Post by a***@aol.com
That's sonic bollocks. You never need to "double timpani" for starters
unless you are writing notes one player cannot reach on his or her own.
And "double" the timp part in 7/8/9? Blimey!
As Simon pointed out, I'm not sure when or if both sets of timpani are
sounding at the same time. Hogwood's notes hint that they might only both be
playing at a few "fortissimo" points.
Post by a***@aol.com
If you are right, HIP is obviously more, not less. That's going to
come as a terrible, terrible shock to some on this group I would think.
I'm not shocked -- Hogwood and others have been doing this sort of thing for
years now. And why not?

Tom Wood
a***@aol.com
2006-05-10 01:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Wood
Post by a***@aol.com
Post by Thomas Wood
Post by a***@aol.com
The puzzle for me is why two timpanists in No 9? It is written for one
and perfectly playable by same.
We know that at the premiere in 1824 (from Beethoven's notebooks) he
had at his disposal "44 professional musicians" (named) plus amateur
musicians which he did not note down so we do not know accurately the
size of the orchestra.
According to Hogwood's notes, in a conversation book of March 1824, Anton
Schindler wrote that there were "24 violins, 10 violas, 12 basses and
cellos" at the first performance, made up of professionals from the
Ka:rtnertor Theatre, plus volunteers, both professional and amateur. It was
determined at rehearsals that the winds were not powerful enough for this
large string section, so the wind, brass and timpani were doubled, as was
done at performances of Beethoven's 7th and 8th symphonies in 1813/14.
Tom Wood
So most HIP is all wrong then? Far from wanting less, Beethoven wanted
more?
Blimey. There's a turnup for the HIP book, then?
Hogwood's recordings don't prove HIP is wrong -- they ARE HIP. HIP does not
equal "small ensemble." HIP means, in part, applying historical evidence to
performance. There's evidence that Beethoven's symphonies were, at least
sometimes, performed by very large orchestras. So why not see what that
sounds like? I don't think Hogwood, or anyone else, is saying those
symphonies MUST be performed by such an orchestra. He would point out, I
suspect, that symphonies in Beethoven's day were being played by orchestras
both large and small (look at the Eroica: the first private performances
were done by a very small orchestra; but the first public performances were
done by a full-scale ensemble).
Post by a***@aol.com
That's sonic bollocks. You never need to "double timpani" for starters
unless you are writing notes one player cannot reach on his or her own.
And "double" the timp part in 7/8/9? Blimey!
As Simon pointed out, I'm not sure when or if both sets of timpani are
sounding at the same time. Hogwood's notes hint that they might only both be
playing at a few "fortissimo" points.
Post by a***@aol.com
If you are right, HIP is obviously more, not less. That's going to
come as a terrible, terrible shock to some on this group I would think.
I'm not shocked -- Hogwood and others have been doing this sort of thing for
years now. And why not?
Tom Wood
Beethoven wrote perfectly balanced music for one timpanist. Why would
he need two do you think?

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
MINe 109
2006-05-10 01:30:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@aol.com
Beethoven wrote perfectly balanced music for one timpanist. Why would
he need two do you think?
Too many strings? Or the extra timpanist was part of a package deal for
the extra winds.

Stephen
Thomas Wood
2006-05-10 06:09:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@aol.com
Beethoven wrote perfectly balanced music for one timpanist. Why would
he need two do you think?
To make more noise at the fff moments? Look what Berlioz was trying just a
few years later...

Tom Wood
Simon Roberts
2006-05-10 12:11:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@aol.com
Beethoven wrote perfectly balanced music for one timpanist. Why would
he need two do you think?
Why do you keep using the word "need"?

Simon
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
t***@gmail.com
2015-03-12 19:24:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven de Mena
Post by Michael Schaffer
I just got the set of Hogwood's Beethoven symphony recordings. I dimly
remembered that they used whatever the orchestra size was at the
respective premieres, at least as far as we know. It is very audible
that the orchestra in the last 3 symphonies is very large, but the
Erioca seems to have a few more than the handful of strings (IIRC, 3
1st and 3 2nd violins, 2 violas, 2 cellos, 2 basses) in action here.
The original booklets listed the orchestra sizes for each symphony, but
the budget box I have here doesn't. Does anyone have access to that
info and can check what the sizes for the individual symphonies were?
I have the original CD issue of Symphonies 4 and 5 and also the complete box
set (5 CD) 452 551-2, and neither lists the orchestra sizes for each
symphony.
Steve
I was thinking of buying the complete set of Beethoven's symphonies by Christopher Hogwood and wondering whether it would be better to buy them as a box set (Decca L'Oiseau-Lyre 452 551-2) or to just collect the original, individually released discs. The latter are very cheap now, but shipping would be more this way. My reason for hesitating is that I'd like to know if the box set has has a booklet with it that includes a lot of the same information as you get with the originals? at least, in English...
Lionel Tacchini
2015-03-12 19:35:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@gmail.com
My reason for hesitating is that I'd like to know if the box set has
has a booklet with it that includes a lot of the same information as
you get with the originals? at least, in English...
The box I have (425 696-2, a different one - this is the original white
box in 6 CDs) has an extra booklet with the exact same texts as found in
the separate CDs with Symphonies 1,2 & 9 (which I happen to have
double). The texts are extensive and very interesting.
--
Lionel Tacchini
Norman Schwartz
2015-03-13 16:38:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lionel Tacchini
Post by t***@gmail.com
My reason for hesitating is that I'd like to know if the box set has
has a booklet with it that includes a lot of the same information as
you get with the originals? at least, in English...
The box I have (425 696-2, a different one - this is the original
white box in 6 CDs) has an extra booklet with the exact same texts as
found in the separate CDs with Symphonies 1,2 & 9 (which I happen to
have double). The texts are extensive and very interesting.
That's not my experience in the cases of the releases I own, L-Lyre box
452551 and the single CD, L-Lyre 417615, containing Symphonies Nos. 4 & 5.
The single CD identifies the orchestra's personnel and then goes on to
describe the their instruments, e.g.: "Violins Simon Standage-David Rubio
1984 (Stradivarius)", and next violinist, "Graham Cracknell instrument-
Richard Duke 1787". For the two Double Basses: "Amanda MacNamara - Josef
Wagner Germany 1773" then the second double bassist, "Anthony van
Kampen -Tomassso & Lorenzo Carcassi 1760". Nothing of that nature is found
in the booklet in the box, perhaps if present, I've yet to discover it.
Possibly the information contained in booklets for the single CD issues vary
amongst themselves.
Good luck,
Norman
Lionel Tacchini
2015-03-13 16:44:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Schwartz
That's not my experience in the cases of the releases I own, L-Lyre box
452551 and the single CD, L-Lyre 417615, containing Symphonies Nos. 4 & 5.
This is the box the OP is asking about which I suppose is a later,
cheaper issues without the original booklet.
--
Lionel Tacchini
t***@gmail.com
2015-03-13 17:57:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lionel Tacchini
Post by Norman Schwartz
That's not my experience in the cases of the releases I own, L-Lyre box
452551 and the single CD, L-Lyre 417615, containing Symphonies Nos. 4 & 5.
This is the box the OP is asking about which I suppose is a later,
cheaper issues without the original booklet.
--
Lionel Tacchini
Lionel, do you know whether or not your older, box set includes the 2 Overtures ('Coriolan' & 'Egmont' )? ...the down side is that the older box set is also more than double the price of the newer re-issue.
Lionel Tacchini
2015-03-13 18:03:08 UTC
Permalink
On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 1:44:24 PM UTC-3, Lionel Tacchini
Post by Lionel Tacchini
Post by Norman Schwartz
That's not my experience in the cases of the releases I own,
L-Lyre box 452551 and the single CD, L-Lyre 417615, containing
Symphonies Nos. 4 & 5.
This is the box the OP is asking about which I suppose is a later,
cheaper issues without the original booklet. -- Lionel Tacchini
Lionel, do you know whether or not your older, box set includes the 2
Overtures ('Coriolan' & 'Egmont' )? ...the down side is that the
older box set is also more than double the price of the newer
re-issue.
Yes it does, it is the original 6 CD box as seen here:
http://www.amazon.de/dp/B00000E456

And I assume the one you are considering is this:
http://www.amazon.de/dp/B000004CYT

Both have the overtures, btw, but the symphonies are organised
differently to save a disc.
--
Lionel Tacchini
Norman Schwartz
2015-03-13 18:28:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lionel Tacchini
Post by Norman Schwartz
That's not my experience in the cases of the releases I own, L-Lyre
box 452551 and the single CD, L-Lyre 417615, containing Symphonies
Nos. 4 & 5.
This is the box the OP is asking about which I suppose is a later,
cheaper issues without the original booklet.
I apologize for perhaps not being clearer. All I meant to convey is that the
booklet in this later and cheaper box lacks the information that the OP
asked about. OTOH the single disc containing the Symphonies ## 4 and 5, not
only has the size and identities of the performers involved, but
additionally their instuments as well!
Since I have only one of the original single issues (as referred to above),
I have no information regarding what can be found in the booklets of the
other single issues.
Lionel Tacchini
2015-03-13 18:36:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Schwartz
Post by Lionel Tacchini
Post by Norman Schwartz
That's not my experience in the cases of the releases I own, L-Lyre
box 452551 and the single CD, L-Lyre 417615, containing Symphonies
Nos. 4 & 5.
This is the box the OP is asking about which I suppose is a later,
cheaper issues without the original booklet.
I apologize for perhaps not being clearer. All I meant to convey is that the
booklet in this later and cheaper box lacks the information that the OP
asked about. OTOH the single disc containing the Symphonies ## 4 and 5, not
only has the size and identities of the performers involved, but
additionally their instuments as well!
Since I have only one of the original single issues (as referred to above),
I have no information regarding what can be found in the booklets of the
other single issues.
I think it was clear, to me at least. I have two of the single CDs and
they both have that kind of information, which is all included in the
old box as well. The newer one has less. The 1st CD with symphonies 1 &
2 has a couple of illustrations which are not in the box.

The music is on Spotify.

The original issues may retain some collecting value, the later box will
barely have any.
--
Lionel Tacchini
t***@gmail.com
2015-03-13 17:58:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Schwartz
Post by Lionel Tacchini
Post by t***@gmail.com
My reason for hesitating is that I'd like to know if the box set has
has a booklet with it that includes a lot of the same information as
you get with the originals? at least, in English...
The box I have (425 696-2, a different one - this is the original
white box in 6 CDs) has an extra booklet with the exact same texts as
found in the separate CDs with Symphonies 1,2 & 9 (which I happen to
have double). The texts are extensive and very interesting.
That's not my experience in the cases of the releases I own, L-Lyre box
452551 and the single CD, L-Lyre 417615, containing Symphonies Nos. 4 & 5.
The single CD identifies the orchestra's personnel and then goes on to
describe the their instruments, e.g.: "Violins Simon Standage-David Rubio
1984 (Stradivarius)", and next violinist, "Graham Cracknell instrument-
Richard Duke 1787". For the two Double Basses: "Amanda MacNamara - Josef
Wagner Germany 1773" then the second double bassist, "Anthony van
Kampen -Tomassso & Lorenzo Carcassi 1760". Nothing of that nature is found
in the booklet in the box, perhaps if present, I've yet to discover it.
Possibly the information contained in booklets for the single CD issues vary
amongst themselves.
Good luck,
Norman
Thanks to both of you for your reponses. Very helpful.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...