Claudio Abbado speaks about Beethoven's symphonies

I recognized our old Santa Cecilia hall in via della Conciliazione.

The musical examples are taken from the recordings of the complete Beethoven symphonies performed in Rome by the Berliners in February 2001.

Obviously I do not know that hall, but when I listened to and watched the video, my memory inevitably went back to that February 2001, when I followed the entire Roman event live on Radio tre.

And I always remember with a great thrill, when the Maestro, interviewed by the radio commentator who had addressed him as 'great', replied: <<Great is Beethoven>>

Abbado's discussion regarding safeguarding (in terms of metronomic tempos) is interesting—not so much the absolute respect for what Beethoven requested for a specific movement, if I understood correctly, but at least the relationships, also in terms of agogics, between one movement and another within the symphony.

On the other hand, I do not agree with the argument regarding the performance of ritornellos always being justified by reasons of form.... architectural form.

There is not only architectural form but also a procedural type of form (that of a narrative/story), and in this respect, many first movements of Beethoven symphonies can be heard. Fabrizio Della Seta's work on the Eroica in this sense is illuminating. If only to plant a seed of doubt in those who have granite-like certainties in this regard.

in other words: a film or a theatrical performance are something that has a form (procedural). And it's not as if we must rewatch the scene that just ended before moving on to the next scene!

Ergo >>> I side with Karajan's choices

- - - - Initial Movements - - - -

Symphonies 1 and 2: still an architectural structure (ritornello ok)

Symphony No. 5: structure of well-defined blocks (ritornello ok)

Symphonies Eroica, 4, 6, 7, 8 procedural form (no ritornello)

.... although regarding the Eighth, I do not agree with Karajan (it is better to do the ritornello)

that being said.... I love Abbado's Beethoven. Very much so.

Dear Luca, I would have wished for one of the many professionals who frequent this forum to respond to you. Thus, to know what they think of this statement and provocation of yours - naturally intended in a good way - but, unfortunately, at least until this moment no one has done so.

Lack of interest? Little time to listen to everything Abbado says? Something else?

Who knows?

And yet the issue you raise is always topical and, essentially, concerns philology with respect to a musical work.

Abbado has already given very good answers to what you assert: what matters is, above all, the composer's will, and if the composer wants those refrains, it is right to perform them, just as it is right to adhere scrupulously to the score.

None of the lovers of classical music - and of Beethoven in particular - would give up Karajan and at least one of his complete cycles. But it is also true that those recordings are an integral part of a past that, from many points of view, is and must remain such.

Harnoncourt was probably the first who, in 1990 - a year after Karajan's death - proposed a philological re-examination of the Beethoven symphonies. Abbado started from these to arrive first with the Viennese and then with the Berliners, proposing his own interpretations different from Harnoncourt's but which moved along that same path. Then, more recently, Chailly arrived with his symphonies using the exact metronome markings desired by the composer.

I do not think I am being presumptuous in telling you that the path taken is now irreversible and today it would be absolutely unthinkable to present oneself to the public with interpretations that go in the opposite direction

dear Daniele, that Karajan's interpretations belong to the past is beyond doubt. But the 'past' - a past even further away - also includes Beethoven's symphonies themselves. The real question is whether that past should also be considered 'obsolete'. Regarding Beethoven's symphonies, I am sure we agree (no!). Regarding Karajan's interpretative choices, I gather your answer is 'yes': they are obsolete.

Regarding the decision on the refrain, whether to perform it or not, I would not be so categorical. I say 'categorical' and not 'philological' because philo-logical, literally, means 'lover of logos', that is, of reflection, of thought, of considered choices (even in the mire of doubt), and not a lover of performance practices adopted because "that's how it must be, that's how it's done".

I reiterate: Beethoven: Eroica Symphony by Della Seta is illuminating - for me - on how far from being obvious the decision on the refrain of the exposition is (pp. 57-61, Perspective: form as architecture and form as process, and pp. 80-82).

Then there are other choices by Karajan that I also consider past and... obsolete, such as the use of a "Mahlerian" sized orchestra for Beethoven's symphonies.

It's not Beethoven, it's Bach, but it is still a matter of ritornellos: not long ago I was leafing through Svjatoslav Richter's Writings and Conversations. Beautiful.

In one of his diaries, Richter criticized Glenn Gould's Goldberg Variations because there are no ritornellos, and this is wrong because it contradicts the composer's will (as Abbado says regarding Beethoven) and also for another reason: because (I am paraphrasing from memory) a complicated composition like the Goldberg Variations needs ritornellos to be understood, otherwise it becomes incomprehensible.

Frankly, I wouldn't know who to side with - or rather, on paper Richter is right, but in practice...

I also suspect that another element might be at play: until before the birth of recording, a symphonic concerto had an exceptional character in any case, and not being able to listen to and re-listen to Beethoven's Third Symphony at home (unless playing it on the piano, for those who could), an execution of the ritornellos was undoubtedly welcome. Precisely to understand better.

Furthermore: could the decision to cut the ritornellos also have been suggested by the low capacity of recording media? I don't know much about the history of discography, but I imagine such reasoning was also used. I remember reading somewhere an interview with Glenn Gould where he jokingly asked himself (another paraphrase): will I manage to fit six Mozart Sonatas on a single disc? And so, he cuts the ritornellos - and moreover takes on unbelievable speeds... all the more so since he doesn't like Mozart!

in Bach the ritornello is sacrosanct >>> It is a matter of form-architecture.

Richter is quite right (and, in Bach's case, the words Abbado uses to support the reasons for the ritornello would be more than appropriate).

On what you say regarding the opportunity for re-listening during a concert before the birth of recording, I agree. Indeed!....

As far as the reasons regarding space on the LP vinyl is concerned, instead I would say no....

I have here in my hand my recording of the Eroica (Karajan, Berliner, 1977) and on side A, where the first two movements are, I see that in the center a certain amount of unrecorded space remains....

who knows? Maybe there would have been the ritornello of the exposition... maybe not....

LucaCavaliere wrote:

Regarding the decision on the chorus, whether to perform it or not, I would not be so categorical. I say 'categorical' and not 'philological' because philo-logical, literally, means 'lover of the logos', that is, of reflection, of thought, of considered choices (even in the mire of doubt), and not a lover of performance practices adopted because "that's how it must be, that's how it's done".

And fine, so let us enter into matters of goat wool [trivialities].

From any dictionary of the Italian language, I infer that philology is:

1) A discipline that studies language and literature as they are transmitted from written or oral sources.

2) A discipline whose aim is the reconstruction of a text in its original form, freeing it from subsequent errors and reworkings.

It follows that philological is everything that relates to philology, based on philology.

I have put point two in bold because that is obviously what I am referring to above all. We are not talking about literary texts but musical texts, yet the goal is the same: to reconstruct—where there is a need or possibility to reconstruct—and to perform that music without the sediment, the reworking that, over the centuries, someone else has done in an absolutely arbitrary manner and regardless of the original intentions of the composer.

In the case of Beethoven's Symphonies, precisely because of the importance they have had and continue to have within the scope of performance practice and frequency, this problem has become exponential starting from Wagnerian and Mahlerian arbitrariness, precisely.

Today, the tendency—and I think more than justly—is to free oneself from these burdens of the past to return to the original as naturally as possible.

This, I reiterate, without wanting to take anything away from the importance and also the beauty of interpretations of the past which, however, must be related to, viewed, and listened to within that historical-cultural context that is now forever passed.

There is an interpretive aesthetic that fails to understand the refrain; this happens because the identical repetition of material potentially weakens the tense discourse. Let's say that, in general, the performer has the task of making the refrain less "heavy" and more interesting if they wish to perform it.

If they wish! I say this because, as well highlighted by Red, the refrain had a lot of extramusical functions for which it is part of history... it is no coincidence that in sonatas like cyclic ones (see the one in B-flat minor by Liszt), it makes no sense at all and wouldn't even fit from a constructive standpoint. It is a choice because today the context has completely changed from a listening perspective; therefore, starting from the (entirely subjective) premise that one never gets tired of beautiful things, then I gladly listen to the refrain of a beautiful piece of music, even if it is true that regarding some pages in music history, in terms of listening, we are now only in the refrain phase. We can only listen and listen again... will we get tired sooner or later? I don't know, but in me, curiosity prevails over dystrophy... so perhaps one can even get tired of beautiful things. Who can say?

In musical notation, today as ever, the refrain sign is still there but completely defunctionalized; it can be used to achieve many purposes (but different from those for which it was probably born), such as simplifying or making the writing more intelligible.

danielescarpetti wrote:

Nowadays, the trend - and I think more than justly - is to free oneself from these burdens of the past in order to return to the original as naturally as possible.

Except that Abbado's Beethoven symphonies do not seem like early nineteenth-century style to me.

But if this were truly the trend today, I ask myself: for what purpose return to the original?.... If the purpose is 'historical', 'cognitive', 'musicological', then I find such a trend justified.

But if the purpose is 'interpretative' or, more simply, 'musical', I find that a work of art has its raison d'être in the fertile relationship with the eras, even very distant ones, to which it has been destined to arrive.

Then, it is clear that to do this one needs an intelligent performer: one who knows the interpretative traditions that preceded them, both the good ones and those of questionable taste (in order to free oneself from them), and who knows all the more so the good practice of the era and - above all! - the composer's indications.

All this knowledge is necessary for a performer. All this knowledge put together constitutes, in my view, the performer's philological baggage: that is, knowing, for example, about this 17th-century sonata that came into my hands as a musician in 2015, "where" it started from and through which interpretative "environments" it has had to pass. But afterwards, when I perform, for what purpose discard personal instances and those of my era and pretend not to be a man of my time? (for what purpose, I repeat, other than the historical-cognitive-didactic one).

Philology is a good working method (the only valid one, I might say) not THE final result. The final result is a 'musical' interpretation, contemporary. Alive.

For a performer, I believe adopting this kind of perspective is the only way to realize in every new interpretation that motto chosen by the online magazine ilCorriereMusicale: «They call it classical, but it is always contemporary»

LucaCavaliere wrote:

Aside from the fact that Abbado's Beethoven symphonies do not seem to me to be in the early nineteenth-century style.

But if this were truly the trend today, I ask myself: for what purpose return to the original?.... If the purpose is 'historical', 'cognitive', 'musicological', then I find such a trend justified.

But if the purpose is 'interpretative' or, more simply, 'musical', I find that a work of art has its raison d'être in the fertile relationship with the eras, even very distant ones, to which it has been destined to arrive.

Then, it is clear that to do this one needs an intelligent performer: one who knows the interpretative traditions that preceded them, both the good ones and those of questionable taste (in order to free oneself from them), and who knows all the more so the good practice of the era and - above all! - the composer's indications.

All this knowledge is necessary for a performer. All this knowledge put together constitutes, in my view, the philological baggage of the performer: that is, knowing, for example, about this 17th-century sonata that reached my hands as a musician in 2015, "where" it started from and through which interpretative "environments" it had to pass. But afterwards, when I perform, for what purpose discard personal instances and those of my era and pretend not to be a man of my time? (for what purpose, I repeat, other than the historical-cognitive-didactic one).

Philology is a good working method (the only valid one, I might say) not THE final result. The final result is a 'musical' interpretation, contemporary. Long live.

For a performer to adopt this kind of perspective, I believe is the only way to realize in every new interpretation that motto chosen by the online magazine ilCorriereMusicale: "They call it classical, but it is always contemporary"

Sorry Luca, but I wonder where I wrote or implied that I think the symphonies conducted by Abbado are from the early nineteenth century.

I, on the contrary, am here to defend what Abbado says since you criticized him regarding the refrains.

I invite you to reread where I assert that Abbado, starting from Harnoncourt - who was a pioneer of this new interpretative season - arrived at his own interpretation of the Beethoven symphonies, different from his previous ones which were influenced by the great twentieth-century tradition, but also different from that of Harnoncourt himself.

And, please, let us clear the field of another huge misunderstanding. Philology does not clip the wings of interpretation. It simply sanctifies the basic data, which is the data given by the composer. For the rest, interpretation is extremely free - heaven forbid it weren't - to indulge itself. So much so that today we can speak of the Beethoven symphonies of Abbado, Norrington, Noseda, Chailly, and anyone else who wants or will want to challenge themselves with Beethoven's masterpieces.

No Daniele: you didn't write anywhere that the symphonies conducted by Abbado are from the early nineteenth century.

it is just something I wanted to point out to say that an interpretation, specifically Abbado's, which is highly appreciated by both you and me, I see it as being very far from the intention of "returning to the original."

Then regarding what the utility of philology is, we are probably also in agreement. But speaking of a return to the original suggests to me that an 'original' (interpretative model) exists to which it is necessary to strive.

LucaCavaliere wrote:

Then regarding what the utility of philology is, we are probably also in agreement. But speaking of returning to the original suggests to me that an 'original' (interpretative model) exists to which it is necessary to strive.

To return to originality means to eliminate everything that has been added or removed more or less by other hands, and from there to set out with an interpretation that is free but cannot and must not entrench itself in the right to perform things that the score does not provide for, as they were not written and intended by the composer. That is all!