EhJayKim
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2005
- Posts
- 248
- Likes
- 0
Does anybody know if there are any recordings with the edits/reorchestrations that Mahler made of Beethoven? I am really curious as to how these sound. Thanks.
-A
-A
Mahler Edits of Beethoven
- Thread starter EhJayKim
- Start date
mbhaub
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2005
- Posts
- 995
- Likes
- 15
Yes there are recordings. The innovative conductor Peter Tiboris has recorded symphonies 3, 5, 7 & 9 on Bridge and Elysium labels. They feature the Mahler retouchings and rescoring. Mnay of his changes became defacto performance standards in the mid-20th century. The most commonly used changes are in the first movement of 5 and the scherzo of 9. Most people wouldn't notice most changes without access to a score. The most noticable changes are in the 9, where Mahler even adds counterpoint!
Is it worth a listen? Absolutely! And Mahler didn't just redo Beethoven, either. His versions of the Schumann symphonies can be had on BIS.
Rescoring music used to be a normal and common practice. Szell, Ormandy, Reiner, Bernstein, Mehta, Paray, Furtwangler, Karajan, Stokowski (!!!) -- they all did it. Nowadays, a conductor who would dare to make alterations would be excoriated for such a travesty. But it still happens, but Beethoven, Mozart, and Brahms are pretty much hands off.
Is it worth a listen? Absolutely! And Mahler didn't just redo Beethoven, either. His versions of the Schumann symphonies can be had on BIS.
Rescoring music used to be a normal and common practice. Szell, Ormandy, Reiner, Bernstein, Mehta, Paray, Furtwangler, Karajan, Stokowski (!!!) -- they all did it. Nowadays, a conductor who would dare to make alterations would be excoriated for such a travesty. But it still happens, but Beethoven, Mozart, and Brahms are pretty much hands off.
EhJayKim
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2005
- Posts
- 248
- Likes
- 0
Do you know what started the move back to period instruments? And what is the difference between the 1985 Version of Beethoven 9 and the Final Version? Thanks.
-A
-A
Doc Sarvis
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2002
- Posts
- 1,283
- Likes
- 10
Quote:
The move to period instruments is part of a trend over the last 30 years or so to more accuracy in reproducing the composer's original intentions, without the influence of intervening musical styles.
As for the "1985 Version" vs the "final version", I'm not sure what you mean. You might be talking about the new Barenreiter Edition, which was a new transcription of Beethoven's works in which previous transcription errors were fixed.
I love the Mahler/Beethoven 9th, as represented by the Tiboris recording.
| Originally Posted by EhJayKim /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do you know what started the move back to period instruments? And what is the difference between the 1985 Version of Beethoven 9 and the Final Version? Thanks. -A |
The move to period instruments is part of a trend over the last 30 years or so to more accuracy in reproducing the composer's original intentions, without the influence of intervening musical styles.
As for the "1985 Version" vs the "final version", I'm not sure what you mean. You might be talking about the new Barenreiter Edition, which was a new transcription of Beethoven's works in which previous transcription errors were fixed.
I love the Mahler/Beethoven 9th, as represented by the Tiboris recording.
Aaron622
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
- Posts
- 236
- Likes
- 10
Quote:
That's what they'd like you to think anyway... Playing something on a period instrument has nothing to do with reproducing a composer's intentions.
| Originally Posted by Doc Sarvis /img/forum/go_quote.gif The move to period instruments is part of a trend over the last 30 years or so to more accuracy in reproducing the composer's original intentions, without the influence of intervening musical styles. |
That's what they'd like you to think anyway... Playing something on a period instrument has nothing to do with reproducing a composer's intentions.
Bunnyears
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Posts
- 5,303
- Likes
- 19
Quote:
Actually, I believe the movement was interested in hearing the music in a form that would have been recognizable by the composer. That meant using period style instruments and performance styles informed by historic scholarship. You may not care for it, but it is a valid performance style, and one that I prefer for certain repertory.
| Originally Posted by Aaron622 /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's what they'd like you to think anyway... Playing something on a period instrument has nothing to do with reproducing a composer's intentions. |
Actually, I believe the movement was interested in hearing the music in a form that would have been recognizable by the composer. That meant using period style instruments and performance styles informed by historic scholarship. You may not care for it, but it is a valid performance style, and one that I prefer for certain repertory.
Aaron622
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
- Posts
- 236
- Likes
- 10
Quote:
I don't mind period instruments (I actually like the way they sound), and I certainly have no problem with "historic scholarship." I just believe that playing period instruments in and of itself has nothing to do with authenticity and recognizability, and a performance can be "informed" without using period instruments.
| Originally Posted by Bunnyears /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually, I believe the movement was interested in hearing the music in a form that would have been recognizable by the composer. That meant using period style instruments and performance styles informed by historic scholarship. You may not care for it, but it is a valid performance style, and one that I prefer for certain repertory. |
I don't mind period instruments (I actually like the way they sound), and I certainly have no problem with "historic scholarship." I just believe that playing period instruments in and of itself has nothing to do with authenticity and recognizability, and a performance can be "informed" without using period instruments.
SoundsGood
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2005
- Posts
- 152
- Likes
- 12
Quote:
Bingo. I completely agree. All of the period performances are just conjectures of what they thought it would sound like. There is no way we can completely reproduce what a performance would've sounded like in the 1700s. We can make attempts and assumptions, no matter how much research is done.
I think many of the period practice conductors go overboard and end up robbing the music of, well, music. I think it's interesting to hear some period practice performances, but for me, that's about as far as I go. Obviously there are many people out there that enjoy that type of approach. That's fine.
Though, in school, I was told this quote: "If Bach would've had indoor plumbing, he would've used it." An interesting thought.
| Originally Posted by Aaron622 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't mind period instruments (I actually like the way they sound), and I certainly have no problem with "historic scholarship." I just believe that playing period instruments in and of itself has nothing to do with authenticity and recognizability, and a performance can be "informed" without using period instruments. |
Bingo. I completely agree. All of the period performances are just conjectures of what they thought it would sound like. There is no way we can completely reproduce what a performance would've sounded like in the 1700s. We can make attempts and assumptions, no matter how much research is done.
I think many of the period practice conductors go overboard and end up robbing the music of, well, music. I think it's interesting to hear some period practice performances, but for me, that's about as far as I go. Obviously there are many people out there that enjoy that type of approach. That's fine.
Though, in school, I was told this quote: "If Bach would've had indoor plumbing, he would've used it." An interesting thought.
Aaron622
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
- Posts
- 236
- Likes
- 10
Quote:
Wow, seems to be a first around here
Quote:
Yeah, to make a very general statement, I would say that composers tend to be pretty progressive and welcome new instruments and mediums. Who's to say Bach wouldn't have preferred the sounds of a 9 ft. Steinway to a harpsichord? To me, it is more important for a musician to have the awareness that Bach did not write for a modern piano (so don't hold down the pedal forever or whatever) than the piece be performance on a period instrument, if that makes sense
| Originally Posted by SoundsGood /img/forum/go_quote.gif Bingo. I completely agree. |
Wow, seems to be a first around here
Quote:
| Originally Posted by SoundsGood /img/forum/go_quote.gif Though, in school, I was told this quote: "If Bach would've had indoor plumbing, he would've used it." An interesting thought. |
Yeah, to make a very general statement, I would say that composers tend to be pretty progressive and welcome new instruments and mediums. Who's to say Bach wouldn't have preferred the sounds of a 9 ft. Steinway to a harpsichord? To me, it is more important for a musician to have the awareness that Bach did not write for a modern piano (so don't hold down the pedal forever or whatever) than the piece be performance on a period instrument, if that makes sense
Bunnyears
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Posts
- 5,303
- Likes
- 19
Quote:
It's funny, but when a Shakespeare play is performed with an all male cast in Elizabethan costuming in a theater that recreates the original Globe, no one cavils and complains that it's only an approximation or merely a conjecture. People go in and enjoy the feeling of seeing a Shakespeare play as the 16th and 17th century audiences of Shakespeare would have seen it. No one says that if Shakespeare had had women actors he would have written more for women or that if he had had modern lighting and special effects he would have incorporated more of them into his works. Similarly, no one goes around saying that since Shakespeare didn't have women playing roles in his era, that it's incorrect for women to act in Shakespearean plays.
Period performance practices of music are as valid as any others and the scholarship has gone far beyond conjecture. Deciding whether one performance practice is better to the detriment of another is a futile and foolish exercise. Better to applaud great performances without adding caveats about the style. There is more than enough mediocrity and worse in the world and excellence is still a very rare quality. Criticize poor performance all you wish, just don't cavalierly dismiss a style of performance (either period or modern) because it may not be to your personal taste.
| Originally Posted by SoundsGood /img/forum/go_quote.gif Bingo. I completely agree. All of the period performances are just conjectures of what they thought it would sound like. There is no way we can completely reproduce what a performance would've sounded like in the 1700s. We can make attempts and assumptions, no matter how much research is done. I think many of the period practice conductors go overboard and end up robbing the music of, well, music. I think it's interesting to hear some period practice performances, but for me, that's about as far as I go. Obviously there are many people out there that enjoy that type of approach. That's fine. Though, in school, I was told this quote: "If Bach would've had indoor plumbing, he would've used it." An interesting thought. |
It's funny, but when a Shakespeare play is performed with an all male cast in Elizabethan costuming in a theater that recreates the original Globe, no one cavils and complains that it's only an approximation or merely a conjecture. People go in and enjoy the feeling of seeing a Shakespeare play as the 16th and 17th century audiences of Shakespeare would have seen it. No one says that if Shakespeare had had women actors he would have written more for women or that if he had had modern lighting and special effects he would have incorporated more of them into his works. Similarly, no one goes around saying that since Shakespeare didn't have women playing roles in his era, that it's incorrect for women to act in Shakespearean plays.
Period performance practices of music are as valid as any others and the scholarship has gone far beyond conjecture. Deciding whether one performance practice is better to the detriment of another is a futile and foolish exercise. Better to applaud great performances without adding caveats about the style. There is more than enough mediocrity and worse in the world and excellence is still a very rare quality. Criticize poor performance all you wish, just don't cavalierly dismiss a style of performance (either period or modern) because it may not be to your personal taste.
Masolino
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2005
- Posts
- 688
- Likes
- 10
Quote:
If Bach had a 9ft. Steinway handy, you bet his music would have been written in a very different style than what we have from him today. Enough said in defense of playing his music on the kind of instruments he knew, aka period instrument performances.
ps. There is a period instrument recording of Mahler's edit of Beethoven. Check out an album recorded by Kenneth Slowik/Smithsonian Chamber Players called "Transfiguration" - in which Mahler's "vingt-quatre-violons-du-Roi" treatment of the Quartetto Serioso received a fabulous reading, and in sound that would have been more recognizable to Mahler himself than with today's steel-stringed, steely-sounding instruments.
| Originally Posted by Aaron622 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yeah, to make a very general statement, I would say that composers tend to be pretty progressive and welcome new instruments and mediums. Who's to say Bach wouldn't have preferred the sounds of a 9 ft. Steinway to a harpsichord? To me, it is more important for a musician to have the awareness that Bach did not write for a modern piano (so don't hold down the pedal forever or whatever) than the piece be performance on a period instrument, if that makes sense
|
If Bach had a 9ft. Steinway handy, you bet his music would have been written in a very different style than what we have from him today. Enough said in defense of playing his music on the kind of instruments he knew, aka period instrument performances.
ps. There is a period instrument recording of Mahler's edit of Beethoven. Check out an album recorded by Kenneth Slowik/Smithsonian Chamber Players called "Transfiguration" - in which Mahler's "vingt-quatre-violons-du-Roi" treatment of the Quartetto Serioso received a fabulous reading, and in sound that would have been more recognizable to Mahler himself than with today's steel-stringed, steely-sounding instruments.
Users who are viewing this thread
