Matthias Arter Beethoven's Fifth
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Matthias Arter Beethoven’s Fifth - a passage to the 19th century 1. Ravel - Immerseel Ladies and Gentlemen, before getting to my main subject, I would like to present you a small excursus, which I prepared for today. As you’ve certainly read, I am examining the first recordings of Beethoven’s Fifth for my University in Berne in order to find significant differences concerning influence, traditions and trends in the time of early recordings, approximately between 1910 and 1933. My object is the history of orchestra playing and, of course, I am not just interested in this period but also in the implications for the time before the recording era. In drawing conclusions we must always bear in mind the gap between Beethoven’s time and the time which provides us with acoustic evidence of musicians habits. To start with, I’m going to take a subject which seems to be more comfortable to talk about because there is not so much guesswork to do, since in the case of Maurice Ravel (and of course others, such as Elgar, Debussy, Richard Strauss or Holst) we do have recordings of strong authoritiy either by the composers themselves or by very close interpreters. In the case of Ravel’s Boléro we have actually two recordings, realized by two different orchestras of the same city, Paris, during the same weeks, just 14 month after the first performance. One of them is conducted by Ravel, the other by Piero Coppola under the supervision of Ravel himself. Recording 1 Le Grand Orchestre de Gramophone - Piero Coppola (supervised by Maurice Ravel) 13 January 1930, Salle Pleyel Paris Recording 2 Orchestre de l’association des Concerts Lamoureux - Maurice Ravel ? January 1930 To give you an idea of my approach towards comparing interpretation I’ve chosen a recent recording which refers explicitly to the two recordings listed right at the top. Jos van Immerseel describes them in the CD-booklet as „old-fashioned“ and „largely tradition- conscious“, and his aim is to get back some of the spirit of the time with his „period- instrument“-orchestra anima eterna. Recording 3 Anima aeterna - Jos van Immerseel October 2005 First I compared the three recordings in detail. I then took two more productions, one realized in the same year as Ravel and Coppola (Willem Mengelberg), the other a modern (or conventional) one with Sir Simon Rattle for additional comparing. Additional recording 1 Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra - Willem Mengelberg 31 May 1930, Concertgebouw Additional recording 2 City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra - Sir Simon Rattle 1990 In my listening analysis I focused on the following parameters: a. tempo and its flexibility b. Rubato and other soloistic features (such as vibrato, glissando, articulation and dynamics) Additionaly I tried to characterize the recordings according to formal aspects, questions of balance and differences in articulation. a. tempo One part of my research project is the development of a computer program, which enables me to format and track the recordings in the same way, in order to compare the various aspects in question with great ease (click&play, by Stephen Lumenta, ©2008 by Hochschule der Künster, Bern). The program also indicates the timing for each track, and in the case of the Boléro it’s the easiest thing to deduct the metronomized average tempo of each part. 2 TIME LIST - Maurice Ravel: Boléro conductor 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 TT Coppola 1930 11.81 50.97 50.16 51.74 51.97 50.97 49.78 51.31 50.29 49.31 50.20 49.80 49.46 49.64 51.63 53.77 48.30 48.16 37.35 42.50 15:49 Ravel 1930 11.74 49.84 50.33 50.77 51.93 51.68 52.05 52.21 52.62 51.45 50.99 52.22 50.81 49.77 50.33 51.88 51.21 50.44 38.61 44.38 16:05 Mengelberg 1930 10.89 46.77 46.87 46.69 47.02 46.64 45.85 47.24 46.26 45.94 45.06 47.30 45.84 44.56 44.81 44.17 43.82 42.64 32.99 36.74 14:18 Rattle 1990 11.30 50.85 50.29 49.70 50.02 50.31 50.44 50.95 50.70 50.03 50.23 50.87 50.15 50.45 51.23 51.74 51.59 51.93 40.20 46.88 16:00 Immerseel 2005 12.18 52.86 53.42 53.71 53.85 53.50 54.48 53.96 53.43 53.30 53.34 52.87 53.48 53.08 53.34 52.95 52.49 51.72 39.42 45.13 16:43 TEMPO (METRONOME MARK) number of beats 12 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 42 48 1020 coefficient 720 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 3240 2520 2880 Coppola 1930 61.0 63.6 64.6 62.6 62.3 63.6 65.1 63.1 64.4 65.7 64.5 65.1 65.5 65.3 62.8 60.3 67.1 67.3 67.5 67.8 64.5 Ravel 1930 61.3 65.0 64.4 63.8 62.4 62.7 62.2 62.1 61.6 63.0 63.5 62.0 63.8 65.1 64.4 62.5 63.3 64.2 65.3 64.9 63.4 Mengelberg 1930 66.1 69.3 69.1 69.4 68.9 69.5 70.7 68.6 70.0 70.5 71.9 68.5 70.7 72.7 72.3 73.4 73.9 76.0 76.4 78.4 71.3 Rattle 1990 63.7 63.7 64.4 65.2 64.8 64.4 64.2 63.6 63.9 64.8 64.5 63.7 64.6 64.2 63.2 62.6 62.8 62.4 62.7 61.4 63.8 Immerseel 2005 59.1 61.3 60.7 60.3 60.2 60.6 59.5 60.0 60.6 60.8 60.7 61.3 60.6 61.0 60.7 61.2 61.7 62.6 63.9 63.8 61.0 Immerseel describes his approach to the tempo matter as follows: „We know that Ravel criticised both Piero Coppola and Toscanini for taking too fast a tempo for his taste in this piece. Ravel’s personal score (Bibliothèque national Paris) gives a metronome mark of crotchet=66 (whereas Durand changed the tempo to 72 in the printed score).“ (Immerseel in the booklet of his recording) We can easily see, that Immerseel goes somewhat overboard in his quest for authenticity. His tempo is considerably slower than Ravel’s proposition and it is not as stable as Immerseel claims it to be. Recording 1 Le Grand Orchestre de Gramophone - Piero Coppola (supervised by Maurice Ravel) 1930 TT: 15.49 (mm between 60 and 68, average: 64.5) Recording 2 Orchestre de l’association des Concerts Lamoureux - Maurice Ravel 193 TT: 16.05 (mm beginning 61 - end 65, average 63.4) Recording 3 Anima aeterna - Jos van Immerseel 2005 TT: 16.42 (mm beginning 59 - end 64, average 61.0) You might say that the difference is marginal, but listen once to one passage and you will see how much the character of the music can change with just this tiny difference! Sound 1 [click here to listen] Ravel’s Boléro, figure 9 Of course it is not just the tempo that is so different, but most notably the rhythmical interpretation of the continuous accompanying motive, that makes the big difference! Ravel does not perform it mathematically, but always with a hint of swing and also dynamic - I would say just naturally dancing! - in contrast we have Immerseel with an absolut rigour of rhythm and without any dynamic response to the emphasis of the barline. Sound 2 [click here to listen] Ravel’s Boléro bars 1 to 4 What we have here is an invitation to dance by Ravel (as it seems to be normal in a dance like a „boléro“ - and in Immerseel’s case really an acoustical digitalised score! 3 For me the one big misunderstandig of Immerseel’s recording consists in confusing a dance rythm with mere mathematical strictness - and consequently of his understanding of the 20s and 30s of the last century. He seems not to have listened accurately but just followed the well known quote that „Ravel did’nt want his music to be interpreted, that it was enough to play it“, as we know from Alfred Cortot. Immerseel unfortunately didn’t consider that the performing tradition of Ravel’s time didn’t know the tempo contancy as a general rule, and Ravel of course just wanted to create a certain distance to this tradition - but which amount of distance? Well, his recordings gives us a very precise answer! b. tempo rubato There is a second and, in my opinion, very important aspect in Ravel’s version of the Boléro: it’s the tempo rubato, on the one hand as a collective flexibility of tempo, on the other hand as indiviual freedom. Immerseel excludes both aspects completely, his understanding of Ravel’s statement of tempo stability is an absolute one and doesn’t allow the slightest freedom. Ravel by contrast provides us with a lot of fine nuances: first of all he makes a clear distinction between the two sections, A and B; In the A-section Ravel (in his recording) makes the musicians play in a very classical way, so very little rubato, not too much swing.