(Gunther Schuller) The Compleat Conductor PDF

The Compleat Conductor
This page intentionally left blank

The Compleat
Conductor
GÜNTHER SCHULLE R
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

New York Oxfor d
Oxford Universit y Press
Oxford Ne w York
Athens Aucklan d Bangko k Bogot á Buc'iio s Aire. s Calcutt a
Cape 'Ibwn Chcnua i Da r e s Salaa m Delh i Florenc e I long Kon g Istanbu l
Karachi Kual a l.iunpu r Madri d Melbourn e Mexic o Cit y Muniba i
Nairobi Pari s Sa o Paul o Singapor e 'laipc i Toky o 'Ibront o Warsa w
und ûHMicidted campameu in
Berlin Ibiida n
Copyright © 199 7 by Günther Schuller

Kirs t published b y Oxford Universit y Press, Inc., 1997
Kirst issue d as an Oxfor d Universit y Press paperbaek, 199 H
Oxford ¡ s a registered trademar k o f Oxford Universit y Press
All right s reserved. N o par t o f this publication ma y be reproduced ,
stored i n a retrieval system , o r transmitted, in any form o r by any means ,
electronic, mechanical , photocopying , recording , or otherwise ,
without th e prio r permission o f Oxford Universit y Press.
I ,ibrary of Congress Cataloging-iii-Pnblication Dat a

Schuller, Günther.
The compleat conductor/ Günthe r Sehnller.
p. cm .
Includes bibliographical reference s an d index.
ISBN 978-0-19-506377-6 ; 978-0-19-512661- 7 (pbk.)
1. Conducting. 2 . Orchestral Musi c —Interpretation
(Phrasing, dynamics, etc.) I . Title
MT85.S46 199 4
7H1.45 —dc20 9V3Ó06 5
79 1 08 6
Printed i n th e Unite d States of America
Contents
Preface, vii
PARTI
A Philosophy of Conducting, 3
PART I I
A History of Conducting, 67
PART II I
Beethoven: Fifth Symphony, 109
Beethoven: Seventh Symphony, 231
Brahms: First Symphony, 27 9
Brahms: Fourth Symphony, 379
Strauss: Till Eulenspiegel , 42 5
Ravel: Daphni s e t Chloé Second Suite, 459
Schumann: Second Symphony, 49 5
Tchaikovsky: Sixth Symphony, 5 2 J
Postscript, 53 7
Afterword, 54 7
Discography, 54 9
Index, 56 3
Preface
The ide a fo r thi s boo k firs t cam e t o m e som e thirt y year s ag o when , havin g
begun m y own conducting career , I realized, with tota l astonishment , tha t wha t
I ha d bee n aske d t o pla y a s a hor n playe r unde r variou s famous maestri , an d
what I ha d hear d i n hundred s o f performance s a s a listene r an d eager-to-lear n
young composer , ver y ofte n di d no t correspon d a t al l t o wha t composer s ha d
written i n thei r scores . A nobody a t the tim e i n th e worl d of music an d working
with som e o f the mos t famou s and reputedl y best conductor s o f the time , I was
mightily puzzle d b y the discrepancie s betwee n thei r 'interpretations ' an d wha t I
was seein g i n th e score s a s I bega n t o stud y the m fro m a conductor' s poin t o f
view. I knew, of course, abou t tradition s and tha t ther e wer e good one s an d ba d
ones (th e latte r especiall y in opera) . Bu t thes e deviation s fro m th e tex t wer e so
prevalent an d countermande d th e mos t fundamenta l element s o f composition ,
particularly temp o an d dynamics , tha t becaus e o f my aw e o f these conductor s I
was har d pu t t o reconcil e thei r 'interpretations ' wit h wha t I wa s beginnin g t o
appreciate a s th e tru e essenc e o f thos e works , understoo d throug h o r gleane d
from thei r composers ' wonderfull y comprehensiv e notation(s) .
Little b y littl e I bega n t o tak e th e courag e o f m y ow n finding s (whic h wer e
only thos e thing s tha t I foun d clearl y indicate d i n th e score s o f th e masters) ,
and t o insis t in m y rehearsals and concert s o n 'realizing, ' that is , bringing to life ,
that whic h th e composer s i n thei r grea t wisdo m ha d written . I bega n t o experi-
ence th e inspiratio n that wil l com e fro m a thorough , minutel y detaile d stud y of
a scor e an d a n unquestione d respec t fo r it . Sinc e muc h o f what I wa s conduct -
ing i n thos e earl y days was contemporary music—the ne w musi c oftha t tim e —
and sinc e ther e wer e usuall y no establishe d tradition s or recording s t o fal l bac k
upon, I wa s learnin g t o respec t rigorousl y the conten t o f a score—b y whom -
ever—and th e scor e becam e a kin d o f sacre d documen t fo r me . I n al l th e in -
tervening year s I hav e see n n o reaso n t o chang e m y view s o n thi s matter ,
whether i n standar d or contemporar y repertory.
Vlll PREFAC E
I wa s encouraged greatl y along thi s pat h b y working (as a hor n player , not b y
the wa y as a conductin g student ) wit h grea t musician s such a s Rudol f Kolisch
and Edwar d Steuerman n (i n chambe r music ) a s well as Toscanini, Reiner , an d
Monteux, wh o wer e mor e exactin g i n respec t t o basi c notationa l element s an d
more consistent , i.e . self-disciplined , than mos t o f thei r contemporarie s wit h
whom I worked and/or observed . Not tha t Toscanini , Reiner , and Monteu x wer e
in an y wa y automatons wh o rigidly , slavishly, unimaginatively rendered th e mu -
sic. Quit e th e contrary , no t onl y wer e the y appropriatel y flexibl e i n matter s o f
tempo —sometimes tw o of the m eve n perhap s to o much—bu t mor e importan t
for me , I coul d se e clearl y tha t thei r 'interpretations ' cam e ou t of , i.e. , from, a
thorough stud y and understandin g o f the score . Their ego s rarel y interfered with
the music , an d thei r re-creativ e imaginatio n wa s inspired b y th e full content o f
the score .
More troublin g was when conductors , suc h a s Szel l o r Walter, preache d on e
thing an d practice d another . I t took a while t o sor t that out—eventuall y i n favo r
of th e composer . Whe n I als o understoo d tha t Walte r an d Szell , t o nam e jus t
two famou s maestri , als o performe d n o contemporar y musi c — truly contempo -
rary, tha t is , an d perhap s comple x an d difficult— I bega n t o realiz e tha t I was
dealing no t onl y with a certai n personal/musica l phenomenon, but wit h a deep -
rooted professiona l reality, in whic h ne w musi c o f challenge wa s frowned upon,
pushed aside , an d therefor e the lesson s learnable therefro m neve r learned .
I too k u p conductin g rathe r late—i n m y earl y thirtie s —initially conductin g
my ow n works , but soon , encourage d b y th e musician s I worke d wit h i n Ne w
York, generall y the crea m o f the crop , I branche d ou t no t onl y int o othe r con -
temporary music (Babbitt , Carter, Sessions , Várese, Schönberg, Webern , Krenek ,
Stravinsky, etc. , etc. ) bu t als o th e classica l an d Romanti c masterpiece s I love d
so dearl y an d whic h I alread y 'knew, ' althoug h somewha t superficially , fro m
having playe d muc h o f that literatur e (bu t a s I hav e indicated , unbeknowns t t o
me) ofte n i n erroneou s an d misguide d interpretations .
I bega n t o creat e som e smal l consternatio n b y doin g Beethove n symphonie s
in hi s metronome tempo s (o r ver y clos e thereto ) an d eve n mor e b y insisting on
real p' s an d pp's, requirin g th e whol e rang e o f distinction s between th e typica l
eight o r s o dynami c levels , rathe r tha n th e commonl y use d 'loud-soft-and-in -
between' variety . As a composer , subtl e dynami c differentiation s had rea l mean -
ing for me. The y wer e no t jus t som e haphazar d abstractio n tha t coul d b e modi -
fied o r ignored , bu t on e o f the composer' s mos t basi c tools wit h whic h t o color ,
to decorate th e music , t o delineat e for m and structure , to clarif y line s and layers
of music , t o creat e variet y of expression —in short , to creat e rea l music .
Rather quickl y I began t o see , t o m y surprise , that i n mos t o f the conductin g
world 'nobod y give s a dam n abou t th e composer'—livin g o r dead ! I n fact , thos e
very word s wer e initiall y going t o b e th e titl e o f thi s study . Bu t a s I bega n t o
work o n th e boo k I realize d tha t suc h a titl e wa s to o flippant , too provocative ,
and unsuitabl e fo r wha t I soo n als o realize d had t o b e a scholarl y an d exhaus -
tively documente d stud y t o carr y an y weight.
I formulate d th e boo k i n thre e majo r parts , the firs t tw o modes t i n size , th e
PREFACE I X
third rathe r extensive . (Indee d th e thir d par t becam e mor e an d mor e extensiv e
as I worked a t it , mor e extensiv e tha n I ha d originall y planned.) O n th e fac e o f
it, th e listing s an d citing s an d comment s i n Par t II I would , I the n believed—
and stil l believe—b e considered , wer e the y t o appea r alone , th e raving s o f a
grumpy frustrated curmudgeon: t o which th e instan t reactio n woul d be : 'All tha t
can't reall y be true! ' I kne w fro m th e outse t tha t I woul d hav e t o establis h no t
so muc h m y credential s (the y are ultimatel y unimportant) , bu t rathe r th e crite -
ria b y which on e coul d objectively , consistently, reasonabl y evaluate th e wor k of
conductors. Thu s I decide d t o devot e on e chapte r (Par t I ) t o m y ow n idea s
and criteri a abou t th e ar t o f conducting , a s a n interpretive, re-creative art—m y
'philosophy,' a s i t were—an d a secon d chapte r (Par t II ) t o a kin d o f histor y of
conducting, a s writte n an d though t abou t b y som e o f th e greates t practitioner s
of this curiou s an d difficul t performanc e art .
The researc h fo r Part I I led t o man y interestin g surprises, especially in th e re -
reading an d re-stud y o f Wagner' s writing s on conducting , i n m y vie w s o ofte n
misinterpreted an d misuse d fo r variou s polemica l an d ideologica l purposes . I
was als o delighte d whe n i t becam e eviden t tha t mos t o f thos e writings—fro m
Mattheson t o Walter—actuall y confirme d m y ow n thinking , m y ow n 'philoso -
phy' o f conducting .
The result s o f m y finding s (Par t III ) ar e quit e depressing—indee d s o de -
pressing that , predictably , man y reader s will rejec t quickly and completel y wha t
I hav e written . I n tha t event , I invit e thos e individual s to perus e carefull y th e
more tha n 30 0 recording s I hav e listene d t o i n exhaustiv e detail . A singl e lis -
tening t o a Beethove n symphon y coul d tak e tw o hour s o r mor e whil e I kep t
voluminous note s o n al l aspect s o f the performance , positive and negative . I f at
the en d o f suc h a n expenditur e o f tim e an d effor t an d har d listening—no t t o
mention th e purchasin g an d borrowin g o f thes e severa l hundre d recording s —
readers ca n stil l argu e wit h m y findings , I will be trul y amazed. Recording s an d
scores d o no t lie—th e forme r are a s fixed and unequivoca l as the latter .
Fortunately, othe r reader s will salute my work, happy that finally someone ha s
gone t o the troubl e o f sorting these matter s ou t an d havin g the courag e t o differ -
entiate righ t fro m wrong , a s well a s the courage—an d th e challenge—t o nam e
names. (Withou t names , Par t II I coul d b e see n a s a fairl y worthles s exercis e i n
some sor t of indulgent self-gratification. )
A thir d group—perhap s younge r would-b e conductors—wil l (i t i s hoped )
learn muc h fro m thi s book. As I say, the factua l evidence state d i n i t is clear an d
immutable: ther e are the score s on on e sid e and th e documentar y recording s o n
the other . I f w e ca n al l retur n t o trul y believin g i n th e ar t o f conductin g a s a
kind o f mission o f bringing the grea t masterwork s of the pas t and th e presen t t o
life i n respectful , selfless , non-egotistical , ye t imaginativ e an d creativel y re -
creative ways , we wil l have wel l serve d ou r Mus e —Mistress Music .
Since I am a compose r o f some reputation , man y ma y wonde r wh y I did no t
devote m y critica l energie s t o contemporar y o r 20th-centur y works. Th e reason s
are several . One i s tha t contemporar y musi c i s almos t alway s performe d muc h
more correctl y (at leas t technically) , much mor e respectfully , tha n th e famou s
X PREFAC E
classical an d Romanti c piece s o f the standar d literature . Readers—an d compos -

ers—may b e ver y surprise d a t suc h a statement . Bu t i t i s absolutely true—for
simple (althoug h saddenin g an d maddening ) reasons . I n ne w musi c —especially
in premier e performances—conductor s an d othe r interpreter s ar e mor e o r les s
relegated t o 'realizing ' t o th e bes t o f thei r abilitie s wha t a compose r actuall y
wrote, wha t a compose r ha s specificall y notated . Ther e ar e usuall y n o re -
cordings, n o previou s traditions , n o 'interpretations ' b y 'legendar y maestri, ' t o
fall bac k upon , to b e influence d by . Most ofte n th e onl y thin g tha t exist s is th e
score, th e text , wherea s i n olde r musi c typicall y a whol e histor y of traditions, of
received interpretations , tend s t o exist , sanctifie d b y critic s an d othe r pundits ,
with th e ne t resul t tha t hardl y anyon e bother s t o loo k a t th e origina l score ,
certainly no t i n detail .
The secon d reaso n I did not dwel l on th e performanc e of new o r more recen t
music i s that, a s muc h a s I love , admire , an d devot e m y energie s t o th e man y
great work s of th e 20th-century , m y large r concer n i s with th e masterpiece s o f
the past . For not onl y are the y a s great as the masterpiece s o f our tim e —indeed,
most peopl e woul d argu e that the y ar e greater—but also th e famou s older works
of th e pas t constitut e th e foundation , th e legacy , o f ou r musica l literature ,
against which , bot h historicall y and interpretively , ou r present-da y wor k a s re -
creative, performin g musician s ough t t o b e judged . I f w e ca n sho w s o littl e
respect fo r th e masterwork s of th e past , a s i s typicall y the case , w e ca n hardl y
claim t o understan d an d represen t thos e o f the present .
Accordingly, I chose th e eigh t work s discussed herein, partl y because the y ar e
world-famous belove d masterpieces , staple s o f th e symphoni c repertory , an d
partly becaus e the y eac h embody , i n additio n t o genera l interpretiv e issues , spe -
cific conductorial/performanc e problems , i n man y case s uniqu e t o thes e works .
Initially, I ha d planne d t o includ e Beethoven' s Eight h Symphony , the Schuber t
"Unfinished," th e Dvora k "Ne w World " an d G majo r symphonies , Weber' s Ob-
eron Overture , Mendelssohn' s Hebrides Overture , Ravel' s Rhapsodie Espagnole,
and Debussy' s Afternoon o f a Faun. Bu t soo n i t becam e clea r tha t suc h inclu -
sions would make this already sizable book too voluminous and involv e an unac -
ceptable amoun t o f redundancy, give n tha t mos t interpretiv e misdeed s fal l int o
a fe w basic categories .
The forma t an d structurin g o f th e boo k cause d concern , fo r I realize d tha t
built int o th e ver y concep t o f the boo k wa s a certai n amoun t o f redundancy. As
the boo k gre w an d expanded , Oxfor d Universit y Pres s an d I becam e rathe r
alarmed a t the magnitud e o f the expansion . I found i t mor e difficul t tha n I ha d
originally expecte d t o dea l wit h th e (unavoidable ) massiv e attentio n t o detail ,
and t o document irrefutably my findings regarding the interpretation s containe d
in th e hundred s o f recording s by nearl y as man y conductors . Thi s ma y o r ma y
not requir e a n apology , bu t perhap s a n explanation . Inevitably , the boo k i s i n
fact abou t details—detail s o f performance , o f interpretation . A p p i s no t a p ,
anymore tha n a fis a /for a poco rítardando i s a molto ritardando — even though
in th e rea l worl d thes e subtl e differentiation s ar e largel y disregarded . Because
these ar e crucial distinctions, which hav e everythin g to d o wit h th e appropriat e
PREFACE X I
or inappropriat e outcom e o f a performance , i t was essential tha t a grea t par t of

my analyse s of the recording s (i n Par t III) had t o dea l wit h suc h details .
On th e questio n o f specifying names an d providin g considerable detai l a s to
how conductor s 'interpreted ' a particula r passage, tha t becam e absolutel y man -
datory, not onl y because tha t wa s (is) the essentia l rationale of the boo k bu t also ,
if on e i s goin g t o mentio n on e name , i n al l fairnes s on e mus t lis t an y an d al l
others t o th e exten t the y ar e relevant . I t woul d b e patentl y unfai r t o mentio n
(isolate) on e conductor , say , negatively, without mentioning th e other s t o who m
the sam e commen t i s applicable. Hence , th e ofte n longis h list s o f conductors '
names. On e alternative , incidentally , woul d hav e bee n wha t ha s sometime s
been don e i n th e past , namely , t o mentio n jus t a fe w o f one' s favorites—o r
unfavorites—and dea l onl y wit h them . I n m y view , however, suc h a n approac h
is essentially unfair an d meaningless , sinc e i t is , in eliminatin g a priori a hos t of
names, fa r too subjective , indeed incapabl e o f even remotel y claimin g objectiv-
ity. Anothe r alternative—althoug h impossibl e t o seriousl y contemplate doing —
would hav e bee n t o lis t ever y positive an d negativ e critica l observation I mad e
during th e thousand s o f hour s o f painstakin g listenin g t o th e ove r 40 0 re -
cordings—in whic h cas e th e boo k woul d hav e bee n abou t 250 0 page s long !
Indeed I could hav e writte n a smal l boo k o n eac h recording .
Some reader s ma y tak e exceptio n t o m y penchan t fo r occasionall y resorting
to musicians ' colloquialism s i n a n essentiall y seriou s didacti c book . Frankly , I
don't min d mixin g suc h commo n parlanc e no w an d the n wit h a n otherwis e
analytical, scholarl y approach t o th e subject , no t onl y t o bette r mak e th e poin t
but als o to retai n th e flavo r o f such typica l 'musicians-talk' comments .
Finally, b y way not o f apology bu t explanatio n (an d warning) , if some o f m y
writing seem s 'extreme ' —if I appea r t o som e t o b e a 'radical ' —it i s becaus e I
hear an d se e things tha t mos t other s don' t seem t o hea r o r car e about . I believe
it i s high tim e tha t som e forceful , realisti c writing on th e subjec t of conductor s
and conducting—an d interpretation—tak e place .
I ow e thanks t o s o man y wh o hav e i n on e wa y or anothe r helpe d m e wit h thi s

project. Firs t o f all, my loyal staff (i n m y publishing and recor d companies ) wh o
often ha d t o pitch i n wit h various research chores , abov e all, Pamela Mille r an d
my secretary , Dere k Geary , t o who m fel l th e brun t o f typin g u p th e tex t an d
integrating int o i t the hundred s o f music examples . Thes e illustrations , inciden-
tally, becam e necessar y when earl y on I realized that , needles s t o say , not ever y
reader will carry around wit h hi m (o r have acces s to) a score of, say, the Beetho -
ven Fifth . I f my job was to show the differenc e betwee n wha t Beethoven actually
composed an d wha t mos t performance s in fac t deliver , it wa s mandatory tha t I
show wha t Beethove n wrote . Tha t wa y direc t comparison s ca n b e made ; bu t
therefore, also , th e nee d fo r the man y music example s containe d herein .
I shoul d als o like to than k Alic e Abraham, hea d o f the WGB H (Boston ) rec-
ord library , throug h whos e kindnes s I wa s abl e t o liste n t o hundred s o f re -
cordings fo r untold hour s —LPs an d CD s —rather tha n havin g to buy , beg, bor -
row, o r stea l them . I shoul d lik e furthe r t o than k Richar d Dye r fo r lendin g
Xll PREFAC E
me certai n importan t recording s an d out-of-prin t reference book s centra l t o m y

research, an d m y student and friend , Yoichi Udagawa, for help in various organi-
zational an d researc h matters .
I wis h also to tender m y appreciation t o Mr . Arbie Orenstein (fo r his help an d
advice o n th e Rave l segment) , th e librarian s at th e Ne w Englan d an d Oberli n
conservatories an d th e Harvar d Musi c Department , wher e I wa s abl e t o stud y
certain valuable , now-very-rar e 7 8 recording s tha t hav e neve r bee n reissue d i n
any for m an d probabl y never wil l be ; an d likewis e to Davi d Brodbec k fo r identi -
fying th e source s o f certai n crucia l quotation s b y Brahms , Lewi s Lockwood ,
Robert Pascall , George Bozarth and Walte r Frisc h fo r various helpful kindnesses.
Special thank s als o t o Del l Hollingswort h o f th e Harr y Ranso m Humanitie s
Research Cente r a t the Universit y of Texas i n Austin for making availabl e to m e
Ravel's autograph scor e o f Daphnis e t Chloé. Similarly , I owe thanks to Ms . Kat e
Rivers a t th e Musi c Divisio n of the Librar y of Congress fo r help i n reproducin g
the numerou s autograp h facsimile s contained i n th e book .
My thank s als o g o t o Da n Kastne r and Dr . Stanle y Hoffma n o f Score s Inter -
national (Boston ) and thei r staf f fo r producing th e hundred s o f musi c example s
scattered throughou t th e book ; likewis e t o Joh n Scholl , als o i n Boston , whos e
technical know-ho w i n preparin g th e facsimil e plates wa s of enormous help .
Deep gratitud e als o t o Rober t DiDomenica , composer , teacher , an d flutis t
extraordinaire, wh o diligentl y read throug h th e entir e manuscript , an d no t onl y
advanced a number o f excellent suggestion s but als o caugh t a numbe r o f serious
lacunae i n m y over-al l discourse.
I wis h als o t o than k Sheldo n Meyer , m y edito r a t Oxfor d Universit y Press for
over thirt y years , an d edito r Leon a Capeles s fo r thei r belie f i n th e importanc e
of this boo k an d thei r loya l suppor t i n midwifin g i t throug h al l it s various diffi -
cult birthpangs .
Last bu t no t least , I wish to dedicat e thi s boo k t o the memor y o f my late wife ,
Marjorie, wh o wa s a t onc e m y severes t criti c an d m y stronges t supporter , an d
with who m I spen t no t onl y hal f a centur y togethe r i n a n idea l persona l an d
musical relationship , bu t i n consor t wit h whom—a s aspirin g teen-ag e musi -
cians—I ha d m y firs t epiphana l revelations , listenin g t o an d sharin g th e grea t
masterworks o f the pas t (an d th e present ) with eac h other .
G. S .
Newton Centre, Massachusetts
October 1996
NOTE: A s a specia l accessor y t o Th e Compleat Conductor, ther e i s availabl e i n

all majo r recor d store s a C D o f the Beethove n Fift h an d Brahm s Firs t symphon-
ies, recorde d b y th e autho r an d a remarkable , hand-picked Ne w Yor k orchestr a
(CM Recording s (2051) , 16 7 Dudley Road , Newto n Centre , M A 02159) .
Part I
A Philosophy of Conducting
A struggle, mor e o r les s unconscious ,
between th e creato r an d th e interprete r
is almost inevitable . The interes t of a
performer i s almost certai n t o b e
centered i n himself .
-T.S. Eliot , The Sacred Wood
Conducting i s surel y the mos t demanding , musicall y all-embracing , an d com -

plex o f th e variou s discipline s tha t constitut e th e fiel d o f musi c performance .
Yet, ironically , it i s considered b y mos t peopl e —including, alas , most orchestra l
musicians—to be eithe r a n easy-to-acquir e skil l (musicians ) or the resul t of some
magical, unfathomable , inexplicabl e God-give n gift s (audiences) . I t i s actually
neither, th e skill s require d i n conductin g a t the highes t artisti c levels bein g any -
thing bu t eas y t o acquire—man y conductor s neve r achiev e the m a t all—whil e
what th e publi c mostl y perceive s a s the magi c an d majest y o f the bato n is , bu t
only i n th e bes t hands , a resul t o f many year s of intensive stud y and har d work ,
as well a s talent, of course .
Talent i n an d o f itself i s not enough . Talen t i s also a much misunderstoo d o r
misinterpreted commodity . Talen t ma y b e innate , inborn , eve n inherited ; bu t
talent, n o matte r ho w great , need s t o b e developed , nurtured , an d honed . Fo r
the skill s inheren t i n fin e conductin g compris e a whol e networ k o f specifi c
abilities an d attributes : physical/gestural , aural , analytical , intellectua l —even
psychological an d philosophical . Fo r th e conducto r mus t no t onl y kno w al l
there i s to kno w abou t a score , dow n t o th e mos t minuscul e details , bu t mus t
develop th e gestura l skill s t o transmi t tha t informatio n clearl y t o a n orchestr a
and th e psychologica l dexterit y t o relat e effectivel y (especiall y i n rehearsals ) t o
an orchestr a —itself a comple x collectio n o f talente d individuals , personalities,
and artisti c egos.
When audience s overrat e an d musician s underrat e conductors ' abilitie s an d
accomplishments, i t is because th e forme r tend t o confus e conductin g wit h ges-
tural histrionics , and th e latte r wit h mer e tim e beating . Ther e are , o f course ,
skillful tim e beaters , eve n amon g world-famou s conductors, an d equall y skillfu l
3
4 TH E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R
podium exhibitionists . But these fo r the mos t par t demea n th e ar t of conducting ,

making i t muc h les s tha n wha t i t ca n an d shoul d be . T o delineate an d analyz e
what conductin g a s a n art—no t merel y a s a professio n o r a caree r o r a busi -
ness—is an d shoul d be , wil l be th e burde n o f Part I o f this book .
The talent s an d skills—innat e an d acquired—tha t ultimatel y compris e th e ar t
of conductin g ar e awesome . Thi s undoubtedl y explain s why s o fe w conductor s
attain them . Ther e als o ough t t o b e a sens e o f mora l obligation , a sens e o f
unalterable respec t fo r the grea t literatur e comprisin g our Wester n musica l heri -
tage; a sense that th e ar t of conducting mus t b e see n a s a sacred trust to translat e
into a meaningfu l expressive acoustical reality , with a s much insigh t and fidelit y
as i s humanly possible , thos e musica l documents—th e scores , th e texts—lef t u s
by th e grea t composers .
These triple demands—talent , hard work , and a n aestheti c morality—ar e un -
fortunately i n shor t suppl y today . Perhap s the y alway s wer e t o on e degre e o r
another, bu t i t seems t o me tha t i n this age of hype, promotion, publi c relations ,
and careeris m —in a n er a whe n commerc e an d profi t motivatio n dominat e al -
most th e entir e socia l aren a —in suc h a n environmen t conductin g ha s turne d
more an d mor e int o a business , int o a commercia l enterprise , wit h th e predict -
able an d commensurat e lowerin g o f artisti c standards : i n short—apar t fro m a
few gloriou s exceptions—wit h a rathe r seriou s debasemen t o f th e ar t o f con -
ducting.1
Those wil l surel y seem ver y stron g word s t o man y readers , especiall y thos e
who si t a t hom e wit h thei r '50-masterpieces ' recor d collections , idolizin g th e
'rich an d famous ' amon g th e conductors , th e superstars—th e Bernsteins , th e
Karajans—to who m the y attribut e virtuall y god-like qualities . Clos e critica l ex -
amination o f wha t i s actuall y produce d o n mos t podium s o r i n th e recordin g
studios o f th e worl d reveal s tha t muc h o f th e busines s o f conductin g i s mor e
and mor e drive n b y extra-musical , extra-artistic considerations an d motivations .
Not tha t lac k o f talen t an d artisti c integrity , charlatanis m an d musica l fraudu -
lence ar e limite d t o ou r er a o r are someho w a n inventio n of our times . Interpre -
tational excesse s an d abuse s o f th e grea t literatur e hav e lon g existed , probabl y
since conductin g becam e a distinc t profession . Bu t th e financia l an d materia l
stakes o f succes s i n thi s er a o f electroni c communicatio n advance s an d mas s
markets ar e s o muc h highe r today , s o muc h mor e temptin g an d therefor e s o
much mor e potentiall y corruptin g than eve r befor e in ou r cultura l history . Artis-
tic standard s and artisti c integrity have decline d dramaticall y in recen t decades ,
succumbing t o careerist and commercia l pressure s at an alarmin g rate. The ide a
that a musica l artist , a conductor , ough t t o serv e th e musi c —rather tha n th e
music servin g the musician—i s occasionall y give n li p service , bu t i s rarely pu t
into practice .
1. A remarkably knowledgeable an d courageous , no-holds-barre d exposé o f th e seriou s degradation
and venalit y i n th e conductin g business, th e wheelin g and dealin g of the power-brokerin g manage-
ments tha t contro l most of the musi c business, is Norman Lebrecht' s Maestro Myths: Great Conduc-
tors i n Pursuit o f Power (Ne w York , 1991) . I t i s soberin g reading , to sa y th e least , an d i s highl y
recommended t o anyone concerned abou t th e integrit y of the ar t an d professio n o f music .
A PHILOSOPH Y O F CONDUCTIN G 5
Such servic e ough t t o exten d t o th e musi c o f ou r ow n time , an d I beg , no t

just th e firs t decad e an d a hal f o f our century . Th e idea l 'compleat ' conducto r
is also an arden t advocate fo r the bes t i n ne w music , with a deep and unshakabl e
commitment t o performin g the grea t musi c o f his contemporaries . Thi s implie s
taking risks , th e kin d o f risk s courageou s conductor s suc h a s Koussevitsky , Sto -
kowski, Mitropoulos , Reiner , Steinberg , an d Dorat i too k i n varyin g degrees an d
ways. I mus t sa y that I ca n hav e onl y a diminishe d respec t fo r a conducto r o r
any musician , n o matte r ho w good otherwise , who feel s littl e or n o commitmen t
to th e musi c o f his ow n time .
It ma y perhap s surpris e the la y reader tha t ther e i s something lik e a philoso -
phy o f conducting an d tha t th e ar t o f conducting ca n b e defined . But the n i t is
doubtful tha t eve n th e majorit y o f conductor s (an d would-b e conductors ) eve r
think seriously about suc h matters . Indeed , musician s drif t int o conductin g now -
adays withou t muc h though t o f what i n fac t the y ar e undertaking , with littl e o r
no awarenes s o f what th e conductor' s ar t entails—o r shoul d entail . Th e desir e
to lea d a n orchestr a derive s muc h mor e fro m som e ego-drive n ambitio n whic h
has little o r nothing t o do wit h serious music-making, or with a sense o f humility
and devotio n i n servin g th e art . Th e ide a tha t i t i s an enormou s privilege , bu t
also a n awesom e responsibility , t o conduc t Beethoven' s Eroica o r Stravinsky' s
Sacre d u Printemps o r Brahms' s Fourt h Symphony , i s rarel y considered . Mor e
often tha n no t i t is seen merel y a s a stepping ston e i n a career, an d thu s t o fame
and fortune .
It i s much mor e usua l tha t a youn g musicia n on e fin e da y wake s u p t o th e
vague notio n tha t he—o r latel y she—woul d lik e t o direc t an d contro l a musical
performance, rathe r tha n merel y pla y a par t i n it . Typically , thi s vagu e notio n
soon turn s int o a n irresistibl e desire an d the n a drivin g obsession. I n rare r in -
stances, th e decisio n t o tur n t o conductin g i s prompted b y chance, a n acciden t
of fate , a n incidenta l encounter : mos t commonl y whe n a residen t conducto r
becomes incapacitate d an d a musician , wh o ma y neve r hav e conducte d before ,
is quit e suddenl y prompte d t o tak e ove r a t a rehearsa l or—les s frequently—a t a
concert (a s in th e cas e o f Toscanini, fo r example) .
To be sure , ther e ar e thos e wh o are , b y their talen t an d personality , destined
to becom e conductors : musician s who hav e inbor n intellectual , expressive , and
physical aptitude s t o interpre t composers ' works , an d t o elici t suc h interpreta -
tions fro m a collectio n o f orchestral musicians . Bu t eve n tha t grou p o f conduc -
tors rarel y take s th e tim e a t th e firs t hin t o f conductin g impulse s t o analyz e
critically wha t th e art , th e craf t o f conducting , actuall y involves . Rarel y i s
thought give n t o th e immensit y o f suc h a decisio n an d t o th e awesom e chal -
lenges i t entails. I' d like to think tha t i f young aspirin g conductors wer e t o thin k
more deepl y abou t thes e matters , man y woul d b e deterre d fro m pursuin g thi s
particular, mos t demandin g o f musical professions.
As i t is, musicians tend t o declare themselve s conductor s b y merely announc -
ing as much t o the worl d an d ironically—sadly—th e worl d generall y accepts th e
pronouncement withou t question, regardless of whether th e particula r individual
has conductin g talents , regardles s of whethe r th e individua l ha s th e technical ,
0 TH E COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR
intellectual, an d emotiona l capacitie s to translate a musical scor e int o a n appro -

priate interpretatio n vi a appropriate conductorial gestures . Thu s i t i s that youn g
musicians wit h immense, irrestrainabl e egos become 'conductors ' i n a n instant ,
overnight a s it were, whil e more modes t ego s wit h mor e modes t ambition s (bu t
just as much, o r perhaps even more , talent ) remai n relativel y unrecognized an d
anonymous.2
Certainly i t take s a health y eg o t o develo p th e courag e t o stan d befor e a n
orchestra o f seventy-five o r eight y musicians, to impos e hi s o r he r musical/inter -
pretive wil l o n tha t orchestra , t o i n a sens e dominat e thos e musicians , an d t o
dare t o 'interpret ' th e grea t masterpiece s o f the Wester n tradition . When suc h a
'healthy' ego—let' s cal l i t a 'modest ' ego , contradictor y as that ma y sound , o r i n
Bruno Walter' s phrase , a "selfles s ego " —is infuse d wit h a n equall y health y re -
spect fo r and gratitud e toward the musician s who labor and toi l unde r hi s baton ,
then on e i s likely t o ge t wha t I wil l simpl y call fo r the momen t ver y fine , high -
level music-makin g (t o be define d more precisel y in th e ensuin g discourse).
But rathe r tha n dwellin g on the negativ e aspects of the conductin g professio n
and ho w casuall y most musician s ten d t o drif t int o conductin g careers , le t u s
explore i n detai l wha t i n fac t th e ar t o f conducting a t th e highes t level s entails,
what i t means—o r shoul d mean—whe n someon e says , ' I a m a conductor, ' an d
what i s require d i n orde r t o ear n th e righ t t o conduc t th e masterwork s of th e
past and th e present .
As suggeste d earlier , the 'compleat ' conducto r mus t posses s a whol e rang e of
diverse talent s an d acquir e a broa d an d dee p knowledg e o f th e literatur e tha t
goes far beyond that require d for any othe r typ e of performing artist—instrumen-
talist, pianist , singer , whatever . Bu t al l thes e talent s mus t b e encompasse d i n
one all-embracin g basi c attitude : a dee p humilit y befor e th e ar t o f musi c tha t
contains i n i t a profoun d lov e fo r an d unswervin g commitment t o servin g that
art; a humility that consider s it a privilege, an honor , t o brin g to lif e th e master -
works o f our musica l heritage, an d t o communicat e throug h the m t o ou r fello w
human beings . With suc h a n unostentatiou s approach , th e man y other talent s a
conductor need s t o posses s wil l evolve i n prope r perspective .
Ranging fro m th e somewha t philosophica l t o th e specificall y technical, th e
requisite talent s an d skill s neede d t o b e a fine , perhap s eve n great , conducto r
are: a n unquenchabl e curiosit y about th e miracl e o f th e creativ e proces s an d
about ho w work s o f ar t ar e created ; a profoun d reverenc e an d respec t fo r th e
document—the (printed ) score—tha t embodie s an d reflect s tha t creation ; th e
2. I t i s commonplace toda y for any famou s artist—singer , pianist , violinist—to plunge suddenl y into
a conductin g an d recordin g career, fostere d enthusiastically, of course, b y their managements . Th e
fact tha t such artists , commendable i n their origina l careers, ma y be littl e qualified to conduct seem s
to matte r no t a t al l i n th e moder n marketplac e o f music , wher e fam e establishe d i n on e domai n
can apparentl y substitute fo r rea l abilit y i n another . Perhap s th e saddes t manifestatio n of this trend
was th e instan t 'career'—as conductor—o f pianis t Glen n Gould , whos e recordin g of Wagner's Sieg-
fried Idyll i s probabl y the mos t inept , amateurish , wrong-headed rendition o f a majo r classi c eve r
put t o vinyl .
intellectual capacit y t o analyz e a scor e i n al l o f it s myria d interna l detail s an d

relationships; a livel y musical, aura l imaginatio n tha t ca n translat e th e abstrac t
musical notation s o f a scor e int o a n inspired , vibran t performance ; an d o n a
more practica l level , a keen , discernin g ea r an d mind ; a versatile , disciplined ,
expressive bato n technique ; a n efficien t rehearsa l technique ; a precis e an d thor -
ough knowledg e o f the specifi c technical limitation s and capacitie s o f orchestral
instruments (strings , woodwinds, brass , percussion, har p etc. ) no t onl y a s func -
tioning toda y but i n differen t historica l periods ; and finall y bu t no t least , a basic
respect fo r th e rol e th e musicians—artist s i n thei r ow n right—pla y i n th e cre -
ation o f the sound s tha t ar e ultimatel y transmitte d t o the audience , artist s with-
out whos e vita l contributio n (a s many conductor s i n thei r self-glorificatio n ten d
to forget ) thei r ow n talent s an d effort s woul d no t b e expressible.
It i s t o b e expecte d tha t som e wil l questio n th e sequenc e i n whic h I hav e
presented thes e conductorial requisites . Some wil l eve n questio n th e ver y notio n
that humilit y migh t b e a primar y elemen t i n a conductor' s make-up , a notio n
(allegedly) irreconcilabl e wit h th e (alleged ) nee d fo r a conducto r t o dominat e
his musicians , t o mak e the m d o hi s musica l bidding . Th e answe r to th e secon d
question, however , i s simple: persuasio n tha t result s fro m a commitmen t to th e
integrity o f th e ar t an d a consummat e knowledg e o f th e musi c a t han d wil l
always brin g ou t th e bes t i n musicians . Moreover , th e artisti c humility I refe r t o
is not (an d nee d no t be ) withou t a health y sense o f the conductor' s ow n worthi-
ness. I t i s simply a humilit y which recognize s tha t th e conductor' s firs t priorit y
is t o serv e the music , t o b e a medium , a vehicle , throug h whic h th e wor k of art
is reveale d an d expressed .
This humilit y the n translate s into a fierc e determinatio n t o kno w completel y
and profoundl y the wor k in al l o f its aspects, t o explor e th e lette r an d th e spiri t
of the work , to plum b it s expressive and emotiona l depths , i n orde r t o revea l its
essence. Give n huma n fallibilit y an d variability , absolute perfectio n i s probably
not achievable . Bu t i t i s certainl y th e goa l tha t conductor s mus t striv e for—i n
order t o hav e th e righ t t o interpret , t o realize , th e work s of th e grea t masters ,
whose geniu s is many, man y times greater than their own .
For i f conductor s arrogat e t o themselve s th e notio n tha t the y ar e goin g t o
interpret th e masterwork s of the pas t an d th e present , the n the y had bette r real -
ize tha t tha t i s no t onl y a staggerin g task , bu t on e tha t impose s a profoun d
responsibility to what Beethove n an d Wagne r s o aptly calle d "di e heilig e Kunst "
('the sacre d art') . An d tha t responsibility—tha t mora l an d aestheti c obligatio n —
in tur n demand s tha t conductor s achiev e thei r so-calle d interpretation s through ,
i.e. fro m within , th e wor k o f art, i n boundles s respec t an d reverenc e fo r it ; an d
that the y not , i n revers e order , willfull y o r inadvertentl y impos e som e self -
indulgent, over-personalize d 'interpretation ' o n tha t wor k of art.
Indeed, i f I ha d m y druthers , I woul d i n thi s contex t abolis h th e term—an d
the ide a of—'interpretation ' altogethe r and , followin g Mauric e Ravel' s sag e
advice, substitut e the wor d 'realization. ' Ravel , one o f history's mos t meticulous,
most precise , most detail-lovin g notators o f music , urged : "I I n e fau t pa s inter -
O TH E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R
prêter m a musique , i l faut l e réaliser. " (On e shoul d no t interpre t m y music , on e

should realiz e it. ) On anothe r occasion , i n a simila r vein, Rave l told Marguerit e
Long, th e pianis t fo r who m h e wrot e hi s G majo r Pian o Concert o (sh e pre -
miered i t i n 193 2 unde r Ravel' s direction) : "J e n e demand e pa s qu e l'o n m'in -
terprète mai s seulemen t qu'o n m e joue. " ( I d o no t as k tha t on e interpre t m y
music, bu t simpl y tha t on e pla y it); 3 th e implicatio n bein g "a s written, a s no -
tated," o r a s Toscanini pu t i t so often: "com e è scritto."
Indeed, a s the term , an d th e ide a of , 'interpretation' ha s evolve d ove r the las t
two centuries , i t has become a dangerou s concept , inimica l an d antagonisti c t o
the ar t of music, les s concerned wit h the music , th e composition s an d thei r tru e
intent, tha n wit h th e interpreter' s self . Interpretatio n i s abou t a s fa r awa y fro m
pure 'realization ' a s i t possibl y can be , wit h basi c respec t fo r th e wor k pe r s e
virtually nonexistent .
Interpretation ha s com e t o mea n i n mos t circles ; 'Don't trus t the wor k o f art;
don't le t i t spea k fo r itself ; we wil l decod e it , explai n i t fo r you. ' Th e modern -
day interpreter , consciousl y o r unconsciousl y (mostl y through arroganc e and/o r
ignorance), i s alterin g th e work , th e tex t without , o f course , eve r admittin g a s
much. H e insist s that he i s only makin g i t 'more intelligible,' giving you its 'true
meaning.' Bu t i n fac t h e i s selectively picking out, emphasizin g a se t o f compo -
nents, o f features , fro m th e wor k a s a whole . I n effect , th e interprete r i s on e
who translate s and transforms .
And a s Susa n Sonta g pointe d ou t lon g ago , "Th e interpreter , [even ] withou t
actually erasin g o r re-writin g th e text , i s alterin g it . Bu t h e can' t admi t doin g
this. H e claim s to b e onl y making it intelligible, by disclosing its true meaning. "
. . . "th e effusio n o f interpretation s o f ar t toda y poison s ou r sensibilities . T o
interpret i s to impoverish , t o deplet e . . . i n orde r t o se t up a shado w worl d of
'meanings.' "4
Indeed, mos t interpretation , a s I se e i t an d a s i t i s practice d nowaday s (an d
was vigorousl y practice d eve n i n earlie r time s b y th e like s o f Billo w an d
Mengelberg) i s nothing mor e tha n a refusa l t o le t th e wor k o f ar t stan d o n it s
own. Whethe r i n hermeneuti c interpretation s b y critics , historians , an d writer s
or actual acousti c re-interpretation s by conductors an d performers , the work , the
composition, i s not permitte d t o b e itself , t o com e t o u s i n a pur e 'realization. '
As a result , hardl y anyone—leas t o f al l audiences—ca n no w really know th e
work itself , distinguis h i t fro m it s myriad interpretation s an d translations .
The sa d irony here i s that anyone who ha s not experience d a true 'realization '
(as oppose d t o a n 'interpretation' ) ca n hav e n o ide a wha t a n incredible experi -
ence an d revelatio n tha t ca n be . I t i s folly t o thin k tha t w e a s performers, a s re-
creators, ca n elevat e th e wor k o f art . I t i s th e wor k o f ar t tha t ca n elevat e us .
And that, onc e encountered , i s th e ultimat e experience , th e ultimat e artisti c
achievement. (Se e als o Feli x Weingartner's thought s alon g th e sam e lines , cite d
in Par t II , p . 102).
3. Marguerit e Long , A u Piano avec Maurice Ravel (Paris , 1971) , p . 21 .

4. Susa n Sontag, Against Interpretation (Ne w York, 1966) , pp . 6,7 .
A PHILOSOPH Y O F CONDUCTIN G V
The stat e o f conducting , alas , i s today—with som e notabl e an d wonderfu l ex-

ceptions—far remove d fro m suc h artistic/moral/ethica l considerations . Musica l
integrity, respec t fo r th e composer' s work , idealism , an d a sens e o f humilit y
toward th e ar t o f music ar e i n ver y short supply. We migh t expec t fro m conduc -
tors a t leas t a simpl e basi c respec t fo r th e dead . Bu t whe n w e spea k o f th e
Mozarts, th e Beethovens , th e Brahmses , th e Debussy s o f our musica l heritage ,
we ough t t o doubl e ou r respec t fo r those particula r dead, an d mak e i t a matte r
of hono r an d prid e scrupulousl y to respec t thei r creations , thei r scores . Th e ar t
of conducting ough t t o consist o f faithfully retracin g the manifol d steps by which
the compose r originall y created th e work , of re-tracing and re-livin g the creative ,
visionary journe y on whic h th e compose r embarke d i n th e first instance.
That i s an immens e challenge , a tas k whic h take s man y kind s o f knowledge
and, i n it s highes t form , extraordinar y skills. Th e integrit y o f tha t re-creativ e
process i s what i s at stake here , an d wha t thi s book wil l be about : an d b y integ -
rity, I mea n a kin d o f 'morality ' o f conductin g a s a n ar t an d a s a coheren t
philosophy, no t a s a mer e professio n or, worse , a business.
But eve n suc h stringen t criteria , a s demandin g a s the y ma y sound , ar e a s a
broad philosoph y stil l to o vagu e an d general , an d ap t t o hid e a plethor a o f
common conductoria l sin s and aberrations . Every conductor, afte r all , thinks of
him/herself a s embodyin g the highes t mora l artisti c integrit y and possessin g all
the requisit e skills t o interpre t th e grea t masterwork s of our literature . We mus t
therefore conside r mor e precisel y the specifi c core skill s with which the conduc -
tor ca n effectivel y respon d to—an d achieve—th e state d challenges .
A simple definitio n o f the ar t o f conducting coul d b e tha t i t involve s eliciting
from th e orchestr a wit h th e mos t appropriat e minimu m o f conductoria l (i f you
will, choreographic ) gesture s a maximu m o f accurate acoustica l results. 5 Bu t i n
order t o kno w wha t thos e "mos t appropriate " gesture s an d "accurat e acoustica l
results" migh t be , on e mus t hav e a precise an d dee p knowledge o f the scor e an d
the creativ e process tha t produce d it . That i s not a s easy a tas k as it might see m
at firs t blush . T o begi n with , w e ar e al l —we conductor s (wit h som e notabl e
exceptions: Ozaw a now , and Reiner , Monteu x i n th e past , come to mind ) —to a
lesser o r greate r degre e limite d b y th e physica l dispositio n o f ou r bodies, ou r
own physica l structures . W e ar e i n a profoun d an d virtuall y inescapable sens e
prisoners o f our bodies . Almos t al l o f us hav e som e mor e o r les s serious limita -
tions a s to wha t we ca n d o wit h ou r hands , ou r arms , ou r shoulders , our head ,
our eye s — in shor t ou r bod y equipment . Almos t al l o f u s ar e t o on e exten t o r
another variousl y inept i n on e are a o r another . A perfect conductin g machine ,
like a n Ozaw a or , i n quit e differen t ways , a Carlo s Kleibe r o r a Reine r o r a
Leinsdorf o r a Bernstein , i s an extraordinar y rarity. Mos t o f us ar e eithe r to o tall,
or to o short ; ou r arm s ar e to o lon g o r to o short , o r to o stif f o r to o loose , o r to o
5. On e o f the mos t remarkabl e conductors o f the recen t past, Frit z Reiner, who ver y much practise d
what h e preached , onc e pu t i t similarly i n a n interview : " . . . the bes t conductin g technique is that
which achieve s the maximu m musica l resul t wit h th e minimu m o f effort " (Etude, Octobe r 1951) .
One wishe s that Leonard Bernstein , Reiner's pupil, but late r one o f the world' s most histrioni c an d
exhibitionistic conductors , would hav e taken his teacher' s advic e to heart.
something. Mos t o f u s ar e no t fre e enoug h i n ou r arm s an d tors o t o contro l

fully th e minutia e o f movement s whic h s o cruciall y affec t th e musical/acousti c
results emanatin g fro m a n orchestra ; an d mos t o f u s ar e to o habituate d t o cer -
tain physica l movement s t o b e fre e a t th e precis e momen t t o alte r o r contro l
them.
Our physica l attribute s profoundl y affec t ou r conductin g abilities , positively
or negativel y a s th e cas e ma y be . Tha t i s no t t o sa y tha t on e canno t learn ,
particularly wit h experience , t o becom e gesturall y mor e controlled , mor e rele -
vant, mor e relaxed , mor e 'appropriate. ' Muc h ca n b e achieve d i n thi s real m
with goo d training , an d ther e ar e man y trick s an d method s b y which on e ca n
learn effectivel y t o re-trai n an d disciplin e one' s body , one' s physica l equipment ,
as i t were . Bu t I believe—an d kno w fro m man y year s o f experienc e an d o f
observing several hundred conductor s (man y of them world-famous ) with whom
I worke d a s a n orchestra l musician—tha t fo r mos t conductor s ther e ar e ulti -
mately som e physica l limitation s o r idiosyncrasie s which , n o matte r ho w on e
tries to overcome them , cannot be entirel y outgrown. Wha t we are thus left wit h
is th e goa l o f developing our physical , manual , gestura l skill s —one o f the essen -
tials o f our conductin g craft—t o thei r highes t possibl e potential , s o that w e ma y
accurately reflec t an d transmi t t o th e orchestr a (an d thenc e t o th e audience )
that which th e musi c require s u s to express.
But that physica l expression is but th e exterio r manifestation of what we know
and fee l abou t th e musi c (th e score) . Al l th e physical , choreographi c skill s i n
the worl d wil l amoun t t o nothin g i f they represen t a n insufficien t (intellectual )
knowledge o f the scor e an d a n inadequat e (emotional ) feelin g fo r th e musi c —
in othe r word s a knowledge of what to represent, of what to 'realize.' A beautiful
baton techniqu e ca n achiev e littl e i f the min d tha t activate s that bato n doesn' t
know what there i s to know in th e wor k and what , in fact , it s notation expresses .
The clea n bato n techniqu e o f a conductor who , for example, doe s no t hea r well
harmonically o r whose min d an d ea r canno t kee p a stead y tempo ma y still be a
beautiful thin g t o watch , bu t fro m a strictl y musical poin t o f view it i s a useles s
skill. I t i s equally true tha t a first-rate mind an d ea r ca n achiev e ver y little i f th e
technique neede d t o expres s what i s in tha t min d an d ea r i s deficient.
Pursuing thi s though t further , w e must therefor e understan d precisel y what it
is we have t o know in a composer's wor k in orde r t o translate i t into a n accurat e
living representatio n an d expressio n o f the music . Th e answe r i n th e broades t
and deepes t sens e is : w e mus t kno w everything i t i s possible t o know . B y that I
mean wha t i s perhaps, i n absolut e reality , an impossibility , but certainl y a mag -
nificent goa l t o striv e for, and t o continu e t o striv e for as one matures . W e mus t
know (o r a t leas t tr y ver y har d t o know ) essentiall y wh y ever y not e an d ever y
verbal annotatio n i n tha t scor e i s there, wha t their meaning s an d thei r functions
are i n th e over-al l work. In tha t sens e th e ar t o f conducting ough t t o b e th e ar t
of collaboration—between conducto r an d composer—eve n dea d composers .
Perhaps no w th e reade r ca n begi n t o appreciat e th e magnitud e o f th e tas k
and th e comple x demand s the ar t o f conducting makes. To know how an d wh y
every not e in , say , Beethoven's Fift h Symphon y i s there; to kno w how an d wh y
A PHILOSOPH Y OF CONDUCTIN G 1 1
those severa l thousan d musica l choice s an d decision s whic h produce d tha t ex-
traordinary masterpiec e wer e made : tha t i s ou r task , an d I woul d say , ou r aes -
thetic/moral obligation . Thi s i n tur n mean s a complet e functiona l harmonic ,
pitch, an d intervalli c analysi s o f th e work ; a n analysi s o f it s thematic/motivi c
content an d inne r relationships ; a n understandin g o f the work' s internal temp o
relationships (withi n movements an d fro m movemen t t o movement) ; it s temp o
stresses an d strain s (mos t likel y induce d b y it s harmonic rhyth m an d expressiv e
needs); it s phrase an d perio d structuring , in th e smal l as well as the larg e sens e
(again intimatel y tie d t o th e underlyin g harmoni c rhythms) ; it s structurin g i n
terms o f primary, secondary, an d tertiar y materials; its homophonic an d (wher e
appropriate) polyphoni c structuring ; its instrumentatio n (includin g a historica l
understanding o f th e then-prevailin g instrumenta l capacitie s an d limitations) ;
an understandin g o f Beethoven' s us e o f dynamic s (bot h a s mean s o f structural
delineation an d expressive , decorative profiling) ; and finally , beyon d th e scor e
itself (t o the exten t tha t availabl e documentation allows) , the backgroun d to th e
creation o f the work , and an y artistic , cultura l (perhap s even social ) influences
on it s creation.
Conductors ofte n delude themselves int o thinking that , our conventiona l mu -
sical notatio n bein g limite d i n som e respects , ther e i s muc h tha t on e canno t
know abou t a work because it s notation simpl y cannot revea l or prescrib e every-
thing. Whil e i t i s true tha t ou r musica l notatio n ha s it s limitations, I would still
argue tha t ther e i s much mor e t o b e gleane d fro m ou r notatio n tha n w e gener -
ally assume . I t i s true tha t th e ultimate , mos t subtl e nuance s an d persona l re -
finements o f interpretatio n ar e i n fac t not , i n a n absolut e sense , notatable . (And
this boo k wil l no t b e abou t suc h subtletie s an d refinement s o f interpretation.)
Indeed, tempo , temp o modifications , dynami c an d timbra i indication s canno t
be absolute o r objectively precise; they remai n relativ e and thu s prone t o subjec-
tive evaluation . But i t i s just as true that they are mor e tha n adequat e t o achieve
an idea l realizatio n o f a wor k and tha t a sensitiv e musicia n wit h soun d musica l
instincts, probin g th e essenc e an d styl e o f a give n work—especiall y i n post -
Haydn/Mozart repertory—ca n extrac t insight s fro m th e notatio n o f th e scor e
that wil l provid e hi m wit h ver y precis e idea s a s t o ho w t o conduc t th e work .
Indeed, th e proble m i n conductin g an d interpretatio n i s not tha t ou r notatio n
is 'inadequate, ' bu t tha t 5 0 percent o f it i s ignored b y most conductors . I n short ,
there i s much mor e reliabl e evidence i n score s than w e generally suspect, espe -
cially i n score s b y lat e 19th - an d earl y 20th-century composers , mos t o f who m
have taken mor e tha n the usua l pains to meticulously expres s their intention s in
their notation. Thi s 'evidence' then i s tantamount t o very specific instructions—
instructions whic h i n m y vie w we dar e no t disregar d o r reject , which w e mus t
respect, o r at leas t try to honor .
I a m no t s o foolish a s to argu e tha t scores , ofte n th e onl y relevan t documen t
left t o u s b y th e n o longe r livin g composer, ar e absolutely reliable . Composer s
do mak e mistakes , often b y omissio n o r i n th e hast e o f creation. Publishers and
editors als o make mistake s an d contribut e error s other tha n thos e mad e b y th e
composer. And som e composer s are extremely precise and detaile d in thei r nota-
tion, whil e others ofte n assum e a prio r knowledg e o f their styl e an d notationa l
habits. Bu t al l tha t notwithstanding , w e ough t a s conductors an d performer s to
honor th e basi c premis e tha t th e scor e i s a precious , unique , sacre d document ,
which i n essenc e shoul d b e relie d o n fo r all the informatio n it can yield.
Generally th e musi c worl d make s a mystiqu e o f conducting , a s i f i t wer e
based o n som e mysterious , divine gift, bestowe d upo n onl y a fe w 'chosen' musi -
cians eac h generation . Th e fac t i s tha t th e highes t level s o f conductin g ar e
achieved b y din t o f har d work , intensiv e study , includin g clos e scrutin y of th e
score, an d a n absolut e commitmen t t o expressin g wit h th e utmos t fidelit y th e
information th e scor e contains . A n interpretatio n tha t doe s no t star t wit h th e
score, that fail s t o evolve out o f the scor e i n al l it s notational, prescriptive details
(not jus t thos e tha t th e interprete r deem s convenien t t o consider) , i n short , a n
interpretation tha t start s with th e interpreter rathe r than th e wor k (th e score ) is ,
I believe , fundamentall y invalid. The premise , to o ofte n affirme d today , alas,—
even b y (o r perhap s especiall y by ) famou s conductor s —is t o star t a t th e othe r
end o f th e process : t o arriv e a t a n 'interpretation ' befor e th e scor e i s full y as -
sessed, or biased by extra-notational influences , such a s a famous (but not neces -
sarily representative ) recordin g o r someon e else' s prio r interpretation , o r som e
handed-down tradition , or—wors e yet—persona l whi m an d fancy . Befor e w e
start 'interpreting' and imposin g ourselves on th e score , befor e we start intruding
upon th e music , w e ough t t o adher e t o th e disciplin e o f thoroughl y studyin g
every note, ever y dynami c marking , every phrase, ever y instrumentational detail
ofthat score . Ou r 'interpretation ' —or 'realization'—mus t ultimatel y be derive d
directly an d primaril y from th e source , aris e ou t o f the score , accumulate , a s it
were, from an d through th e score .
As a workin g method i n th e proces s o f revealin g th e scor e t o th e orchestr a
and thenc e t o th e listener , th e specific s of how al l th e element s o f musi c (th e
composer's tools ) ar e used—harmony , melod y (o r them e o r motive) , rhythm ,
dynamics, timbr e (orchestration) , for m an d structure—mus t b e separatel y and
then collectivel y explore d an d understood . I n general , w e cal l thi s analyzin g
the score . Bu t 'analysis ' ca n hav e differen t meaning s fo r differen t constituents :
musicologists, composers , conductors , fo r example . I wil l therefore b e ver y pre-
cise an d spea k o f analysi s as particularl y applicable t o conducting . I n th e idea l
and fulles t sens e thi s analysi s and understandin g wil l compris e al l th e vertica l
(harmonic) an d horizonta l (melodi c o r thematic) relationships : how these inter -
sect an d influenc e eac h othe r unti l ever y note , ever y rhythm, ever y orchestra -
tional detai l i s seen (an d heard) , unti l th e entir e criss-crossin g networ k o f myr-
iad, kaleidoscopi c musica l interfacing s i s understoo d an d felt . Thus , th e
harmonic rhyth m o f a wor k ca n illuminat e it s phrase structure , o r th e timbra i
or sonori c profilin g o f the wor k can delineat e it s formal an d textura ! aspects, o r
the dynami c refinement s ca n underscor e an d revea l th e orchestra l color s wit h
which a composer i s 'painting' his music. There is no true masterpiec e i n whic h
these element s —these composers ' intellectua l o r intuitiv e choice s an d deci -
sions—do no t symbioticall y interrelat e an d ultimatel y correlat e int o a vas t an d
complex musica l network.
A PHILOSOPH Y O F CONDUCTIN G 1 3
When we say that th e Eroica, the Si . Matthew Passion, Brahms's Fourt h Sym -
phony ar e perfec t masterpieces , wha t w e ar e reall y sayin g is that i n thos e works
(and other s o f tha t calibre ) th e compose r ha s mad e thousand s o f minut e fina l
decisions an d choices , selecte d fro m a veritabl e infinit y o f options , an d whic h
we i n retrospec t upo n hearin g th e wor k hea r a s th e 'bes t possibl e choices, ' a s
'inevitable'—and thu s 'perfect. ' Indeed , tha t i s on e simpl e elementar y wa y of
describing th e composin g process : i.e. , a composer , havin g jus t writte n th e 5t h
or 572n d o r 1003r d note , now has to write the 6t h o r 573r d o r 1004t h note ; an d
out o f all th e possibl e option s i n respec t t o note , pitch , an d rhythmi c choices ,
orchestrational decisions , dynami c considerations , etc. , th e compose r no w se -
lects tha t on e not e h e consider s t o b e 'th e best ' o r th e 'mos t logical, ' th e mos t
consistent wit h wha t ha s com e befor e an d wha t ma y follow . An d whe n tha t
choice, tha t decision , is made b y a Beethoven , a Mozart , a Brahms , a Tchaikov -
sky, a Ravel , a Stravinsky , a Schönberg , a Webern, a Berg , i t i s more ofte n tha n
not a t suc h a leve l o f intuition , intelligence , imagination , vision , originality—
and daring—tha t w e fee l i n retrospec t i t wa s th e onl y 'right ' choice , th e 'best '
choice an d seemingl y 'inevitable. ' (Th e fac t tha t th e compose r migh t te n years
later, a s he develop s and matures , mak e a n eve n 'better ' decision—or , a s some -
times happens , revis e an d 'improve ' a previou s work—doe s no t alte r th e fac t
that a t th e initia l momen t o f inspiratio n an d creation , tha t composer' s choic e
was i n fac t hi s 'bes t choice.' )
It i s a conductor' s jo b t o understan d th e proces s b y whic h a thousan d an d
one suc h 'inevitable ' choice s ar e mad e b y the compose r and , a s I say, to retrac e
those step s o f creation , t o re-creat e i n hi s conductin g tha t decisiona l process ,
not i n som e merel y mechanica l renderin g bu t i n a manne r tha t i s emotionally,
expressively inspire d b y tha t process . Le t m e quickl y add here , les t I b e misun -
derstood, that I am no t hereb y arguin g for an interpretatio n that slavishl y follow s
the lette r bu t ignore s th e spiri t o f the work . Nor a m I saying that there i s some-
how, eve n i f 'one doe s everythin g right,' such a thing as a (le t alone the) 'defini -
tive interpretation. '
On th e first point, a mechanically , technicall y accurat e performanc e ma y be
clinically interesting , bu t unles s it s accurac y als o translate s int o a n emotional ,
expressive experience—fo r th e listener , th e musician s (includin g th e conduc -
tor)—it wil l b e a n incomplet e realization , on e tha t wil l not—indee d cannot—
adequately represen t th e work . On th e secon d point , th e ver y idea o f a 'defini -
tive' renditio n i s a complet e fiction , on e whic h certai n critic s evidentl y lik e t o
accord thei r favorit e interpreter s an d which , I suppose , certai n conductor s fee l
they ar e abl e t o achieve . Nonsense ! Ther e ca n b e n o suc h thin g a s a definitiv e
interpretation, an d fo r man y reasons . To begi n with , it i s impossible for anyon e
to kno w al l ther e i s to kno w about a work , tha t is , to hav e unequivocall y total,
objective knowledg e of a wor k and wha t wa s felt an d hear d i n it s creator's min d
and ear . Thi s i n itsel f ought t o preclud e anyone' s claimin g that a give n perfor -
mance represent s the definitiv e interpretation . All we ca n actuall y get i n musical
judgments an d understanding s is a n opinion ; an d th e bes t w e ca n hop e fo r is
that tha t opinio n b e a richl y informe d one . Furthermore , the word s 'definitive '
and 'interpretation ' ar e self-contradictory , sinc e th e wor d 'interpretation ' b y

definition mean s a particula r renditio n ou t o f several or man y alternatives. Bu t
beyond that , eve n a singl e conductor' s interpretatio n o f a give n wor k wil l no t
be, an d canno t be , totall y consistent . I t wil l b e subjec t t o a hos t o f variables,
starting with hi s ow n constantl y changin g emotiona l an d physica l feelings fro m
day to day, but extendin g to such matter s as the differen t styl e and soun d charac-
teristics o f differen t orchestra s (no t t o mentio n th e highl y variabl e emotiona l
and physica l feelings of the musician s in thos e orchestras) , different acoustic s i n
different halls , th e effect s o f weather an d atmospher e o n huma n being s a s well
as instrument s an d acoustics , an d las t bu t no t least th e variable s i n th e re -
ceptiveness o f differen t audience s o n differen t day s unde r differen t condition s
(including, o f course , thos e ver y sam e critic s wh o fee l th e nee d t o declar e a n
interpretation 'definitive') ; an d s o on, virtuall y without end .
The mos t tha t w e ca n eve r say about a performanc e i s that i n ou r opinion —
already a hug e qualification— a certai n performanc e seeme d 'ideal ' o r 'good, '
and fo r suc h an d suc h reasons . I t i s hope d tha t thos e reason s wil l b e adduc -
able fro m th e score , fro m th e wor k itself , an d no t fro m som e exterio r motiva -
tion.6
So w e shal l no t b e speakin g her e abou t 'definitive ' performances , bu t only ,
where appropriate , abou t 'ideal ' o r 'good ' ones , an d — of course—o f man y 'no t
so good ' ones . Fo r th e moment , however , the poin t i s that, whil e several differ -
ent rendition s o f a give n wor k may eac h b e valid , representative , good, idea l —
if they ar e base d o n a clos e readin g o f the score—al l th e variable s of conditions
and temperament s mentione d abov e ough t no t t o allo w u s t o assum e therefore
that an y arbitrary , personal interpretatio n ca n als o b e vali d an d thu s b e sanc -
tioned. Th e excus e tha t ou r musica l notatio n i s limited o r incapabl e o f 'telling
us all ' wil l simpl y no t do , because , a s alread y mentioned, close r inspectio n o f
our notationa l syste m an d ho w composer s hav e use d i t throug h th e centurie s
will revea l tha t ther e i s alway s muc h mor e tha t i s objectiv e an d clearl y state d
(and therefor e ough t t o b e bindin g t o th e interpreter ) tha n tha t whic h i s lef t
open o r unstated .
I wil l dea l i n considerabl e detai l wit h question s o f tempo, temp o modifica -
tion, an d metronomizatio n late r i n thi s chapter—comple x subjects , to b e sure ,
not t o b e settle d i n som e simplisti c 'yea ' o r 'nay ' argumentations . A s much a s
I ma y plead—alon g wit h Beethove n an d Berlio z an d man y othe r composer -
conductors—for a basi c respec t fo r metronome markings , with all th e attendan t
qualifications, I mus t mak e i t ver y clea r tha t I d o no t believ e tha t a n exactin g
adherence t o metronomi c indication s will by itself guarantee a good , a great , o r
a 'correct, ' performance . (Mr . Norrington , Mr . Gardine r an d a hos t o f others ,
please note! ) Temp o an d temp o modification s are bu t on e o f man y aspect s o f
6. Th e claim s fo r 'definitiv e performances ' ar e constantl y increasing , especiall y i n th e real m o f
recordings, an d mos t especiall y i n connectio n wit h th e 'perio d instrument ' movement . Ever y con-
ductor i s well-advised t o read Richar d Taruskin' s brillian t exposé of the pretentiousnes s and ludicrous
claims made b y Hogwood, Norrington, the Hanove r Band, and som e othe r present-day 'authentidsts'
("The Ne w Antiquity," Opus, (Octobe r 1987) , pp. 31-43 , 63).
'interpretation' which , i n conjunction wit h man y othe r considerations , (suc h a s

dynamics an d color) , ca n ultimatel y produce a n 'ideal ' performance .
Mere 'correctness, ' i n fact , accomplishe s ver y little . Th e trut h i s that I hav e
in m y lifetime heard man y performances wit h which , i n term s o f a certai n kind
of correctnes s an d factua l evidence , I ha d intellectuall y t o disagree—perfor -
mances by , say, Furtwängler , Mitropoulos , Walter , t o nam e a fe w very famous
ones—which nonetheles s wer e i n variou s ways transcendent, eve n sublime , aes -
thetic experience s an d i n som e profoun d way s revelator y performances.
In th e end , m y preferenc e i s ultimatel y fo r a transcendan t renditio n whic h
also involve s the utmos t respec t fo r the compose r an d hi s score. Fo r let u s never
doubt tha t respec t fo r an d ful l explici t knowledg e o f th e scor e ar e compatibl e
with a 'great ' interpretation/realization . I t i s onl y lesse r mind s an d talent s tha t
would hav e u s believe otherwise .
It i s i n thi s real m o f artisti c integrity , transcendan t perception , an d dee p re -
spect fo r th e composer' s creatio n tha t th e conductor' s ar t i n it s highest aspira -
tions an d attainment s wil l distinguish itself . Therein wil l lie th e tru e 'interpreta -
tion.' And suc h conductor s ar e th e rea l poets , th e reall y creative interpreters, th e
visionaries o f the realm .
As stated, thi s book wil l not dea l wit h th e mos t sublim e an d subtl e refinements
of th e ar t o f conducting , an d fo r on e ver y good reason : verba l descriptio n an d
explication canno t effectivel y dea l wit h suc h subtletie s o f expression . They ca n
only b e savore d i n th e realit y of a performance . Fo r i t i s the myster y and powe r
of musi c —in thi s regard , uniqu e amon g th e arts—tha t onl y i n purel y musica l
terms ca n thos e highes t form s of expression b e mad e manifest . The ar t of music
and o f musical interpretatio n a t tha t ver y highes t leve l i s beyond words , even , I
hazard, beyon d thos e o f the greates t poets . Moreover , havin g alread y suggested
that i t i s thos e subtl e variable s o f interpretatio n — as lon g a s the y d o no t g o
against th e lette r an d spiri t of the score—whic h ma y giv e legitimacy to different
performances o f the same piece . I t i s at tha t ver y highes t leve l o f performanc e
that a wealt h o f interpretiv e choice s an d decision s becom e availabl e at leas t t o
the reall y sensitive intelligen t an d imaginativ e re-creator . I t i s in thi s real m tha t
there i s not on e pp , bu t man y subtl y different pp's; no t on e f bu t man y differen t
kinds o f f's; no t on e slu r bu t man y kind s o f legatos , etc . etc . Th e mor e basi c
point, however , i s that i t i s a pp , no t a p o r a mfl
The sam e i s true o f all othe r dynami c distinctions or articulations . Take sf , for
example: ther e ar e many— I a m tempte d t o say—dozen s o f different sf's. A s one
tiny exampl e I offe r th e m.12 8 sf in th e firs t movemen t o f Beethoven's Sevent h
Symphony (an d it s parallel, m.340). This sf ca n b e performe d i n man y differen t
ways, wit h differen t feeling s an d emphases , al l o f the m withi n th e realm—th e
species—of sf . Fo r example , on e ca n giv e this sf a very hard-hitting effec t wit h a
strong, incisiv e attack i n th e string s (i f it were i n th e winds , with a strong , inci -
sively tongue d attack) . Or , on e ca n giv e thi s s f a deepl y expressive , weighty
feeling, infinitesimall y delayed . Or, i t ca n b e a warm, rich singing sf, as one ca n
see Carlo s Kleibe r elicit fro m th e Concertgebou w Orchestr a i n a fil m produce d
by Germa n Unite l television . (Thi s typ e o f s f i s especiall y effective—b y wa y of

contrast—after th e sharpl y iterate d chord s fou r bar s earlier.) Or, on e ca n extrac t
a mor e pointed , lightl y stinging sf fro m th e orchestr a wit h a right-han d stab .
Another exampl e o f ho w s f s ca n hav e varie d meaning s (an d impac t differ -
ently) i n differin g context s i s t o b e foun d i n Beethoven' s Eroica i n th e firs t
movement. I n mm . 2 5-34 Beethove n write s twelv e sf's, whic h i n al l perfor -
mances an d recording s are pounce d o n ff , wit h a vengeance. Suc h a n interpreta -
tion i s wrong—or, a t least , no t necessarily right. An alternat e interpretation , jus t
as reasonabl e an d logical , i s to remembe r tha t sf' s ar e contextuall y related , de -
pending o n th e prevailin g dynamic leve l i n whic h the y ar e situated . Thu s a sf
in p i s not th e sam e a s a s f i n f . Here , i n th e Eroicä, thos e sf's ar e al l containe d
within a basi c p level ; thu s thes e ar e mil d sf's , hardl y mor e tha n slightl y heavy
accents i n p (th e p' s bein g clearl y indicated i n mm.2 3 an d 27) . As further con -
firmation tha t thi s i s at leas t a s viable a realizatio n o f these particula r sforzandi,
is th e indicatio n cresc. i n m.35 , a crescend o whic h lead s t o a full-orchestr a f f
two bar s late r i n m . 37 . If , however, on e i s already deliverin g heavy, pounding ,
all-out sf' s i n mm.28-34 , ho w ca n on e mak e a crescend o i n th e nex t tw o bar s
to a highe r dynami c level ? On e can't .
These ar e bu t tw o smal l example s o f on e commonl y use d expressiv e indica -
tion, bu t b y extension almos t ever y notationa l devic e w e hav e ca n b e expresse d
in subtl y differen t bu t stil l appropriate , legitimat e ways , that are , within th e pa -
rameters o f its intended meaning .
It follow s fro m suc h example s an d consideration s tha t i t i s not i n thi s highe r
(highest) real m o f performance an d interpretatio n tha t th e problem s o f misinter-
pretation an d willfu l disregar d of the composer' s intention s lie . Suc h argument s
as t o whethe r on e shoul d (o r should not ) subtl y linger o n a give n not e t o brin g
out it s special plac e i n a melodi c lin e o r it s harmonic function ; whethe r o r no t
it is permissible in a Trio of a classical symphony' s Menue t or Scherz o to slightly
relax th e tempo ; whethe r o r no t t o subtl y emphasiz e rhythmicall y a particula r
harmonic cadenc e o r ingeniou s harmoni c modulatio n o r sudde n shift ; whethe r
or no t i t i s permissibl e (o r advisable ) t o mak e a subtl e ritardand o i n th e las t
measure o f a developmen t sectio n jus t befor e th e recapitulation—thes e ar e al l
(a) viabl e interpretiv e option s eithe r way ; (b ) a matte r o f individua l taste (goo d
taste, o f course) ; an d (c ) impossibl e i n an y cas e t o refere e i n som e absolut e
unequivocal way . I n mos t suc h matter s w e d o no t hav e har d indisputabl e evi -
dence (suc h a s an earl y 19th-centur y recordin g o r definitiv e written documenta -
tion, precis e description s o f performanc e practice s etc.) . Wha t w e d o hav e ar e
many theories , to o ofte n thos e o f self-appointed pundits , wh o clai m t o kno w th e
answers an d wh o manag e t o promot e thei r idea s a s verified truths .
No, thi s boo k wil l b e abou t muc h mor e elementar y considerations , matter s
which i n fac t ou r notatio n i n mos t case s ca n (an d does ) clearl y reveal, ca n stat e
unequivocally—and, alas , matters whic h man y famou s maestri ignore(d ) (ou t of
ignorance), reject(ed ) (ou t of arrogance), or misunderstan d (stood) (out of inade-
quate study) .
Let u s retur n fo r a momen t t o thos e earlie r mentione d prerequisite s of learn-
ing a score , o f what constitute s fine , intelligent , artisti c conducting : harmonic ,

thematic, structura l analysis; tempo an d temp o relationships ; full understandin g
of th e work' s instrumentatio n an d it s dynami c functions . I n on e sens e thes e
skills ar e beyon d question s o f bato n technique , tha t is , thos e set s o f knowledge
are no t acquire d through one' s technique , although , obviously , once acquire d
they nee d t o b e expressed throug h one' s bato n technique , one' s manua l skills .
Those gestura l representations mus t be intimatel y geared to the expressiv e needs
of th e compositions , an d only t o thos e needs . I t follow s therefor e tha t ho w a
conductor move s hi s arms , ho w h e o r sh e expresse s the music' s conten t physi -
cally— choreographically—can onl y b e determine d onc e th e piec e ha s bee n
thoroughly studie d an d understood . Thi s ide a parallels—i t i s anothe r wa y o f
expressing—the earlier-mentione d though t tha t a conductor' s interpretatio n
must develo p ou t o f and follo w a stud y o f the score , no t b e arrive d at before o r
extraneous t o suc h study.
Once tha t intimat e knowledg e o f th e scor e i s achieved , i t i s tim e fo r th e
physical aspect s o f conductin g t o com e int o play . Bu t tha t alon e wil l no t b e
sufficient unt o th e tas k o f realizing th e essenc e o f a score . Th e conducto r als o
needs, a s I mentioned earlier , a keen ear . For, unles s the gesture s through which
a conducto r interpret s tha t scor e ar e als o balance d an d tempere d b y a keenl y
listening ear—listenin g no t onl y fo r wron g note s an d mistakes , bu t fo r al l th e
previously analyzed aspects expresse d in that score—the n those gesture s and tha t
interpretation ma y fal l wid e o f the intende d mark .
I like to think of that listenin g ear as the 'thir d ear,' an ea r which 'sits ' well out-
side the conductor' s bod y and listen s not onl y to the totalit y of what the orchestr a
is producing but als o to the effec t th e conductor's conducting i s having on that or-
chestra and o n th e music . I t is therefore a highly critical, a highly discriminating
ear; it is a regulatory ear. But it must also be a self-regulatory ear . It must be as much
directed at one's sel f (the conductor) a s at the orchestra . Thus the 'thir d ear' is an
ear which, critically assesses whether how and what someone i s conducting corres -
ponds in fact to what is intended b y the compose r i n his score.
One ofte n hear s that a certain conducto r "ha s a terrific ear " (or—mor e often ,
from orchestr a musicians—" a lous y ear") . An d ther e certainl y ar e conductor s
with 'better' ears: better trained , physiologicall y better, mor e innatel y gifted. Bu t
what i s rarely realized—or discusse d o r taugh t i n conductin g classes—i s tha t al l
the 'excellen t ears ' i n th e worl d ar e irrelevan t if those ear s do no t kno w what i t
is they should b e hearing. I n poin t o f fact , one' s ear s ar e useles s equipmen t i f
one's mind , th e musica l intelligence , doe s no t infor m th e ear s what t o hear,
what t o be listenin g for. But beyond that , th e statemen t tha t a certain conducto r
"has a terrifi c ear " i s meaningless becaus e i t i s ambiguous, unles s the statemen t
also define s wha t kind o f ea r i s terrific. Fo r ther e ar e i n m y vie w at leas t seve n
different 'ears'—seve n differen t aura l capacities—whic h a conducto r shoul d
command. Th e realit y is that mos t conductor s hav e at bes t on e 'ear, ' and man y
seemingly none .
The seve n kinds of ear—the seve n hearings , all directe d by the mind—whic h
the complea t conductor has, are for (1) harmony; (2) pitch and intonation ; (3) dy-
namics; (4 ) timbre; (5 ) rhythm an d articulation ; (6 ) balance an d orchestrational

aspects; and (7 ) line and continuity . I cannot thin k of a major conductor, working
today, who possesses all seven, with the possibl e exceptions of Carlos Kleiber, Hai-
tink, Skrowaczewski, and Gardiner .
It is often sai d that Boulez has " a terrific ear. " Bu t Boulez' s terrific ear extend s
only t o pitche s an d t o som e exten t t o intonation . Ther e ar e man y othe r thing s
which Boulez' s ear does no t hear. While Monteux's ea r was much better , in fact ,
phenomenal i n respect to pitch an d intonation , —in his quiet, secure , unostenta -
tious way—he also heard almost everything else that needs to be heard. Stokowski
had an extraordinary ear for sonority, for the sheer sensuality of sound, and virtually
none for pitch and intonation. Hi s mind was not interested in the latter. Some con -
ductors, like Szell, Haitink , Skrowaczewski, for all their difference s i n approach ,
have i n commo n a keen ea r for sonoric an d orchestrationa l balance . Othe r con -
ductors (Furtwängler was one) hav e shown a fantastic ear for line and continuity .
Most conductor s d o no t hav e innatel y th e abilit y to hea r i n th e ful l sens e I
have jus t described . Som e conductor s lear n b y wa y o f year s o f experienc e t o
become mor e accurate , mor e discriminatin g listeners. Since , a s I suggested, th e
ear ca n onl y hear wha t the mind , th e brain , direct s i t to hear , i t follows tha t th e
ear mus t be wid e open an d th e min d clear-thinkin g and uncluttered .
It is one o f the mos t difficul t challenges , fo r conducting students , fo r example,
to b e aurally/mentall y fre e enoug h t o hea r precisely , critically , th e result s o f
their conducting . Conside r th e fullnes s an d complexit y of the conductor' s task.
On th e on e hand , h e ha s t o activat e th e orchestr a b y th e movemen t o f hi s
hands an d arm s i n certai n specifi c way s to produc e th e desire d sounds , whil e
simultaneously listening criticall y to th e orchestr a t o asses s whether i t i s playing
'correctly,' whether the sound s emanating fro m th e orchestr a correspon d t o what
he ha s i n mind , whic h i n tur n will, it is hoped, correspon d t o what the composer
had i n mind . The n i n addition—agai n simultaneously— a 'thir d ear ' (an d eye )
should b e criticall y watching th e conductor , t o se e whethe r wha t th e conductor
is doin g correspond s i n fac t t o thos e "mos t appropriate " gestures , whic h wil l
produce i n th e orchestr a th e idea l desire d result . On e o f th e mos t commo n
faults amon g youn g learning conductors , fo r example , i s to conduc t wit h hug e
emotion-laden beats , whe n th e dynami c th e compose r ha s written is , say, p. N o
orchestra i n th e worl d wil l pla y a tru e p whe n th e conducto r i s belaborin g i t
with three-foot-lon g beat s o r hug e flailin g motions . Wha t i s even wors e i s when
the conducto r the n criticize s the orchestr a for playing too loud !
Since orchestr a musician s are quic k t o criticiz e conductor s fo r no t hearin g a
wrong not e — inadvertently playe d wron g o r mistranscribe d i n th e par t (suc h
things happe n ofte n enough ) —I wan t no w t o defen d th e conductor , no t ever y
conductor, o f course, but th e conducto r i n general . For , whil e conducting , i t is
not alway s possible , eve n fo r th e bes t ear s (an d minds) , t o hea r everything .
When yo u ar e reall y deeply immerse d i n th e feeling , the over-al l expression , of
the music— a give n measure o r passage—yo u ma y not , i n you r intens e feelin g
of th e expression , hear a tin y rhythmic, intonational o r backgroun d not e prob -
lem. I n concentratin g actively on on e matter , i t i s entirely possible for even th e
'best ears ' t o mis s som e othe r matter , becaus e on e i s aurall y distracted b y th e
chosen primar y concern . Fo r example , i t i s reasonabl e an d logica l that , i f a
conductor concentrate s o n on e particula r instrument (o r note, o r ensemble bal -
ance), h e ma y not then hear som e partl y hidden, light mistak e in another instru -
ment o r i n anothe r aspec t o f the work .
A ver y commo n conductoria l proble m i s giving an upbea t i n on e temp o an d
the succeedn g downbea t and furthe r beat s i n another tempo . Thi s drive s orches -
tras crazy ; and th e conducto r i n questio n wil l have totally lost th e respec t o f th e
musicians afte r tw o o r thre e suc h inep t moves , particularl y if he fail s t o realiz e
that th e resultan t rhythmi c shakines s is his fault, no t th e orchestra's .
Orchestra musicians , b y th e way , hav e a conducto r analyze d usuall y within
the first five or te n minute s o f a first rehearsal, a t least i n respec t t o basi c abili -
ties. Musician s als o know that , eve n wit h ver y famou s and popula r conductors ,
many time s they sav e the conducto r fro m seriou s embarrassment b y not playing
what th e maestr o conducts . Th e poin t is—an d al l musician s kno w this , whil e
audiences mostl y don't—tha t a conductor' s bato n make s n o sound , an d a con -
ductor's mistake s therefor e wil l g o unnotice d b y th e audienc e (an d eve n mos t
critics), bu t no t b y the musicians . Bu t if the musician s wer e to actually play th e
conductor's mistakes , everyon e woul d hea r them . I n severa l orchestra s wit h
which I played durin g m y twenty-yea r career a s a hornist, i t was a standing joke :
"If onl y w e ha d th e nerv e t o pla y what som e conductor s conduct , thei r career s
would b e ove r i n a flash."
Orchestra musician s are , o f course, no t alway s paragon s o f righteousness an d
complete devotio n o r commitmen t t o th e musi c —or, fo r tha t matter , t o th e
conductor. Whil e a n orchestra , whe n th e chip s ar e down—a t a concert , a s op-
posed (sometimes ) t o a rehearsal—wil l generall y giv e it s best, concentrate , an d
try t o remembe r al l tha t ha s bee n rehearsed , i n othe r respect s orchestr a musi -
cians, a s a lot—probabl y most—see m t o hav e littl e intellectua l interes t i n th e
music itself . I don' t kno w wh y i t is , for example , tha t i t i s a rar e musicia n wh o
reads th e progra m note s provide d b y the (sometime s excellent) progra m annota -
tor fo r that week' s concert .
I also find it very curious tha t mos t musicians , a s I have mentioned elsewhere ,
are hardl y ever intereste d i n lookin g at o r studyin g a score , excep t perhap s onc e
in a whil e t o correc t a wron g not e i n thei r part . The y generall y see m uninter -
ested i n th e backgroun d o f the compose r an d th e composition , especiall y when
it come s t o ne w (newer ) music . I a m n o longe r amaze d o r surprise d as I use d
to b e i n m y younge r year s at ho w man y orchestr a musicians , whe n asked , wil l
hardly eve n kno w th e nam e o f th e compose r the y jus t playe d (unles s i t i s on e
often o r fiftee n to p names) . I n som e curiou s wa y the musi c o n thei r stan d i s a
kind o f anonymou s abstraction , wit h n o persona l relationshi p t o them , an d o f
only moderat e intellectua l interest . I t i s something t o b e rendered—t o b e con -
sumed, a s it were—and the n promptl y forgotten. O n t o nex t week!
Certain critics—an d man y conductors , soloists , an d chambe r musician s —have

of lat e attacke d th e notio n o f scrupulous faithfulness t o th e score , an d hav e i n
turn airil y defende d th e takin g of individual interpretive libertie s with th e com -

poser's text. 7 Thi s ha s cause d a fai r amoun t o f confusio n amon g performers ,
teachers, an d student s an d ha s tended furthe r to usur p interpretiv e standard s i n
the conductin g profession . Mostly the discussion s have bee n polarize d into tw o
extreme an d opposin g viewpoints : i f you follo w an d respec t th e score , yo u ar e
considered a n "academic, " " a cerebra l intellectual, " a n "unfeelin g conductin g
mechanic"; i f you ar e fre e an d indulgen t i n you r interpretation , yo u ar e likel y
to garne r prais e fo r you r "profoun d interpretiv e skills " an d "musica l insights. "
Specifically, th e typica l argumen t goes : stric t reading s o f th e scor e inevitabl y
equate wit h 'stiff, ' 'inexpressive, ' 'pedantic ' performances , whil e th e individual -
ized, highl y emotional, les s scrupulous reading o f the scor e i s seen a s an inher -
ently desirabl e idea l i n whic h th e conducto r (o r artist) ca n freel y expres s his o r
her vie w of th e work . Such black-and-whit e either-o r formulation s of th e argu -
ment fal l fa r short o f recognizing th e tru e complexit y of the matter ; bu t unfortu-
nately tha t i s how th e subjec t is generally treate d an d argued , almos t alway s on
polemical, ideologica l rathe r tha n objectivel y artistic an d substantiv e grounds .
The trut h i s infinitely mor e subtl e an d complex .
In an y case , ca n w e reall y clai m tha t som e conductor' s versio n o f wha t a
composer wrot e i s automatically, inherentl y bette r tha n th e original ? And wh o is
to say it is better? Can on e logicall y assume and argu e that someone's interpreta -
tion an d 'translation ' o f a tex t i s preferabl e t o wha t wa s originall y created an d
painstakingly writte n dow n b y th e composer ? Ca n w e rightfull y clai m tha t w e
are 'improving ' th e music ? A n automati c 'yes ' t o thi s questio n woul d appea r
rather ironi c and paradoxical , especially in th e cas e of those composer s t o whose
acknowledged greatnes s we al l constantl y pa y lip service .
Obviously, n o on e i n hi s righ t mind—leas t o f al l thi s writer—woul d wis h t o
argue fo r mechanistic , inexpressive , inep t performance s o n th e on e han d o r
indulgently permissiv e one s o n th e other . T o polariz e th e argumen t thu s i s to
miss th e rea l poin t altogether . Th e bes t approach , a s usual, lie s somewher e be -
tween thes e extremes . Fo r ultimately, as suggested earlier , there i s no suc h thin g
as th e absolut e 'definitive, ' 'correct, ' interpretation ; indee d an y piec e o f music ,
any phrase , an y musica l idea , ca n a t th e highes t level s o f performance b e 'cor -
rectly' rendere d i n severa l ways . However , th e difference s betwee n suc h several
justifiable way s ar e ap t t o b e fairl y subtl e and , mor e important , mus t initiall y
be base d o n a n objective , intelligent , enlightened , all-embracing readin g o f th e
score.
The difficult y i n this discussion lie s in the fac t tha t no huma n being , no artist,
no conducto r ca n eve r be totall y objective in artistic/interpretiv e matters , or—t o
put i t another way—ca n eve r avoid being subjectiv e t o some extent . Clearly , th e
argument generall y mounte d b y th e opponent s o f textua l fidelity—t o wit , tha t
7. Th e mos t recen t collectio n o f suc h view s i s containe d i n Jeanin e Wagaf s Conversations with
Conductors (Boston , 1991) , i n which a number o f famous maestri condone an d defen d th e purpose-
ful disregar d o f tempo (especiall y metronome ) indication s and favo r libera l orchestrational re-touch -
ing o f scores .
someone i s to o 'objective ' i n hi s performance , to o cold , to o intellectual , to o

inexpressive, to o relian t o n th e scor e —is itsel f false an d specious , becaus e eve n
that allege d 'objectivity ' i s boun d t o incorporat e a greate r o r lesse r degre e o f
subjectivity. N o decisio n w e mak e a s performer s can eve r b e totall y objective,
bound an d influence d a s w e ar e b y bot h th e limit s an d th e qualitie s o f ou r
talents, b y ou r backgrounds , ou r training , an d ou r cumulativ e experience . A
certain amoun t o f subjectivit y and th e predilection s o f ou r personalit y wil l al -
ways come int o ou r performin g and colo r it , characterize it , in subtl y distinctive
ways. And tha t i s good an d no t t o b e deplored .
We are, afte r all , what we are ; and conductor s ar e what they are. N o conduc -
tor i s purposely ba d o r purposel y good . Ever y conductor i s trying to evolv e ou t
of his talents th e highes t and mos t persona l expression . Unfortunately, this often
fails becaus e (a ) ther e i s amon g conductors ' view s o f themselve s a sizabl e ga p
between perceptio n an d reality , that is , between thei r perceptio n o f themselve s
and th e realit y as seen b y others; and (b ) conductor s no w increasingl y try 'to b e
different' i n orde r t o carv e ou t fo r themselve s som e specia l caree r niche . I n
today's highl y competitive musica l marketplace , monopolize d an d controlle d by
'charisma'-obsessed manager s an d agents a s well a s highly develope d marketin g
and promotio n techniques , t o b e eccentricall y 'different ' i s virtuall y t o assur e
popularity, fame, and th e concomitan t financial rewards .
This alarmin g tren d ca n bes t b e see n an d hear d i n recording s (a s Part II I of
this boo k wil l ampl y show) , i n tha t conductors , battlin g i t ou t i n th e fiercel y
competitive recordin g market , hav e no w learne d tha t the y wil l stan d out , wil l
be reviewe d and discusse d mor e readily , and wil l thu s attrac t mor e attentio n th e
more they can interpret a work differently from the several dozen recordings of
it tha t ar e alread y in th e marke t place . Thi s ha s becom e mor e tha n a tren d i n
recent years : it ha s becom e a n obsessio n an d a specifi c skill , eagerl y supported
by manager s and , o f course, mos t recor d companies . A t that poin t th e compos -
er's score becomes, alas , a total irrelevance , an annoyin g burden. I n this perverse
view o f things, th e musi c become s fai r gam e t o be exploite d fo r whatever career
gains i t can provide . Beyond the immediat e negativ e effect s o f specific persona l
mis-, under- , o r over-interpretation s by conductors , ther e i s a n unfortunat e cu -
mulative effec t a s well: the varie d distinctiv e qualities and characteristic s of th e
great symphoni c masterpiece s ar e submerge d i n on e generalized , (ironically)
depersonalized, generic , amorphous , androgynou s performanc e style. Instead of
the personalit y o f the composer —and th e tru e persona l an d specia l essenc e o f
the wor k i n question—w e ge t th e personalit y o f th e conductor. Whe n severa l
hundred conductor s impos e thei r interpretiv e whim s an d fancie s o n th e work s
of, say , Beethoven, Brahms , Tchaikovsky, Schumann, or Dvorak, all those piece s
begin t o soun d alike ; they ar e covere d b y a blanket of subverting interpretations,
which mak e i t impossibl e t o hea r th e true , dramatic , ofte n startlin g difference s
between an d amon g thos e composers . Beethove n sound s lik e Brahms ; Brahms
sounds lik e Beethoven , an d bot h o f the m soun d lik e Tchaikovsky , and s o on .
The extraordinar y discipline , economy , tersenes s o f constructio n — in a sense ,
even th e simplicit y and directness—o f Beethove n ar e los t an d mad e t o soun d

like th e mor e luxuriant , effusive , romanti c emotionalit y o f Brahms or Tchaikov -
sky. H e wh o ha s no t hear d tha t intrinsi c differenc e betwee n Beethove n an d
Brahms—their occasiona l similaritie s and clos e idiomati c relationshi p notwith -
standing—can probabl y not imagine th e considerabl e gul f between th e two . And
that distinctiveness , the work , after all , o f two totally different personalitie s origi-
nating i n tw o totally differen t periods , ca n b e brough t t o lif e onl y throug h th e
most scrupulous , admirin g an d respectfu l realization—no t interpretation—o f
the text , th e score . The n th e tru e essenc e o f each composer' s musica l languag e
will b e abl e t o sen d it s uniqu e an d distinctiv e message , an d th e listene r wil l
then kno w that th e composers , especiall y the ver y great ones—th e giant s o f our
tradition—knew best what they wanted an d ho w to put i t in a clea r and effectiv e
notation.
The excessiv e personalizin g o f interpretatio n (wit h utte r disregar d fo r th e
score) ha s been allowe d t o fester under th e mistake n notio n tha t the conductor /
performer i s mor e importan t tha n th e composer , tha t th e compose r an d hi s
works ar e ther e t o serv e the career s of conductors, whe n i n fac t i t should b e th e
other wa y around. Littl e recognitio n i s given to th e simpl e fac t that , i f it weren' t
for composer s an d thei r creations , conductor s (an d performers ) woul d hav e
nothing t o conduc t an d t o play . Th e immens e success—meanin g round s o f
applause an d standin g ovations — many conductors garne r conductin g a Brahms
or Beethove n symphon y woul d b e clearl y impossibl e i f Brahm s o r Beethove n
hadn't compose d thos e symphonie s i n th e first place.
Fortunately ther e ar e grea t conductor s wh o approac h eac h scor e an d eac h
performance wit h a n innate , unswervin g respec t an d reverenc e fo r th e score ,
aided an d tempere d by musical intelligenc e an d a never-ending ques t fo r deeper
knowledge, thereb y upholdin g th e highes t standard s o f th e ar t o f music . Bu t
then th e business o f music , unabl e t o tolerat e tha t kin d o f artisti c an d profes -
sional integrity , dismisse s a Haitink , fo r example , a s "lackin g i n charisma, " a s
"unexciting"—in m y estimatio n no t onl y a totall y inaccurate vie w but a n irrele -
vant point. Fo r 'exciting' i n suc h critics ' and audiences ' mind s (audience s bein g
primarily swayed by the critic s in suc h matters ) usuall y means 'different, ' 'flashy, '
'sensational,' 'eccentric, ' 'exhibitionistic'—an d wel l publicized .
This sa d tren d ha s reache d suc h proportion s i n th e las t decad e o r tw o tha t
even relativel y serious an d intelligen t conductor s ten d t o doub t a scor e mor e
than the y trus t it . On e hear s mor e an d mor e fro m conductor s tha t Bartók' s
metronome marking s "are al l wrong" ; Shostakovich' s temp o marking s ar e irrec -
oncilable wit h hi s metronom e indications , an d thu s "ar e quit e unreliable" ;
"Schumann wa s a poo r orchestrato r an d hi s dynamic s ar e mostl y al l wrong "
(this notio n had , o f course , alread y starte d i n Mahler' s an d eve n Wagner' s
times); "composer s mak e mistake s i n thei r score"—th e implicatio n i s tha t al l
composers d o an d d o s o most o f the time — an d therefor e thei r score s "ar e no t
to be trusted" ; "musical notation is inexact" and canno t b e precise, and therefor e
we mus t "reinterpret " and "improve " the scores ; and o n an d on .
For Strauss' s an d Brahms' s music such notion s have ha d a disastrou s effect o n
the performanc e o f their works . Both rarel y used metronom e markings and thei r
music i s subject , therefore , t o a wid e rang e o f tempo interpretation s (misinter -
pretations). I n thi s sam e categor y fal l th e never-endin g argument s abou t an d
widespread disregar d of Beethoven's metronom e markings .
But i t isn' t jus t i n regar d t o temp o an d metronom e indication s tha t compos -
ers' score s ar e bein g challenge d o r ignored . Dynamics—tha t othe r preciou s ele -
ment throug h whic h composer s refin e an d clarif y thei r musica l message—ar e
roundly ignored , rejected , mistrusted , an d subjecte d t o persona l revision . Eve n
worse i s the rampan t disregar d o f phrasing and articulation , especiall y phrasing s
(and therefor e bowings ) i n strin g sections , a situatio n sometime s merel y toler -
ated b y conductors , bu t mor e ofte n tha n no t induce d b y them. 8 Brahms' s sym -
phonies ar e a particula r victi m o f thi s trend , i n whic h twic e a s man y bows ,
producing, o f course, a bigger, louder, mor e 'exciting ' sound, ar e somehow auto -
matically considere d bette r tha n adherin g t o th e composer' s origina l dynamic s
and conception. 9
In thi s an d man y othe r les s obviou s bu t equall y dangerou s ways , man y con -
ductors hav e cumulativel y an d collectivel y sprea d th e notion—wit h littl e resis -
tance, by the way , from orchestra l musicians—tha t the composer' s scor e i s to b e
treated wit h considerabl e suspicion , that i t is quite al l righ t to ignor e th e salien t
details o f a score , an d tha t conductor s usuall y kno w bette r wha t a compose r
intended tha n th e compose r himself . Thi s arrogance , rampan t a s i t i s now , i s
quite indefensibl e an d bring s a degradatio n t o th e ar t o f performin g that mus t
be arreste d befor e w e los e al l sens e o f musical/artistic integrity .
Add to thi s already chaotic situatio n ( 1 ) the recen t record-industry-promote d /
hyped obsessio n wit h so-calle d authenti c instrument s an d allegedl y "historicall y
informed" performances ; (2 ) th e fantasticall y enhance d an d powerfu l promo -
tional marketin g tool s employed toda y by most musica l institution s and manage -
ments (tool s whic h wer e generall y unavailabl e a s recentl y a s fifty years ago); 10
and finall y (3 ) th e gradual , year-by-year , imperceptibl e corruptio n o f ou r ear s
8. Concertmasters , responsible fo r the strings ' bowings i n mos t orchestras , are ofte n no t i n a positio n
to questio n o r resis t a conductor' s interpretiv e wishe s an d quickl y accede t o hi s deman d t o 'pla y
louder' mak e ' a bigge r sound ' o r a 'fatte r tone, ' b y usin g twice a s man y bow s as th e compose r ma y
have indicated . Also , unfortunately , man y Concertmaster s decide thei r bowing s onl y linearly , i.e .
merely o n th e basi s o f th e strin g parts , withou t lookin g a t th e scor e an d considerin g wha t els e i s
going o n vertically , contrapuntally, and contextually .
Incidentally, Concertmaster s (and othe r sectio n soloists ) need t o be constantl y reminde d nowaday s
that not ever y passage marked "solo " is to be playe d loudly. (Solo in Italia n means 'alone, ' not 'loud.' )
This i s especially necessary i n passage s marked p.—an d ther e are thousands o f those —in whic h cas e
perhaps th e conducto r ough t t o intercede , no t t o hav e th e concertmaste r pla y mor e loudly , bu t
rather—God forbid!—t o as k that the accompanimen t b e playe d mor e softly . Wha t a nove l idea !
9. I am quit e awar e of the fac t tha t phrasing s an d bowing s in man y composers ' work s do no t alway s
coincide, an d intelligen t judiciou s bowin g choice s ar e therefor e necessary . Bu t surel y i t i s no t a
defensible (o r the only ) solution t o disregard a priori th e composer' s phrasings/bowing s and automati -
cally 'upgrade ' the m t o louder , more excitabl e decibe l levels .
10. Bu t se e Josep h Horowitz , Understanding Toscanini (Ne w York, 1987) , fo r a bol d an d brillian t
analysis o f ho w a majo r musicia n (Toscanini) was markete d an d promote d i n th e 1930 s and '40 s t o
a culture-go d an d cul t figure .
by eve r louder , artificiall y produce d performin g levels , mad e possibl e b y th e

microphone an d moder n electroni c technology , 11 an d i t becomes clea r tha t we
have in music , but especiall y in th e fiel d o f conducting, wide-sprea d philosophi-
cal an d aestheti c chaos . Wha t sells i s what counts , an d i f the publi c want s th e
music loude r o r faster , wel l wh y not giv e i t to them—an d t o hel l wit h what th e
composer wrote . Nobod y i n th e en d give s a damn !
I shoul d lik e t o mak e clea r onc e agai n tha t I a m no t her e defending , le t
alone advocating , some kin d o f pedantic, lifeless , rigid , mechanistic , technicall y
'accurate' performin g an d conducting . I hav e hear d to o man y suc h perfor -
mances i n m y lifetime, and I abho r them . The y serv e no usefu l purpose . Con -
ducting/performing withou t feeling , withou t expression , withou t imagination ,
without illuminatio n of the score , i s a completel y pointles s musical activity . The
ideal conducto r i s one wh o combine s feelin g an d intellec t i n a symbiotic unity :
when h e think s h e feels , an d whe n h e feel s h e thinks . Indeed , t o som e exten t
the conductor' s personalit y must expres s itself in th e performance , no t onl y be -
cause tha t i s good an d a n importan t par t of music-making, but becaus e i t is—a s
I hav e suggeste d earlier—inevitable , unavoidable . I t i s onl y a questio n o f ho w
much an d wit h what effec t tha t personality will impose itsel f upon th e wor k and
intervene i n it s re-creations . I t is , a s i n mos t thing s i n life , a matte r o f degree .
The secre t o f great artistr y and tru e integrit y o f interpretatio n lie s i n th e abilit y
to brin g t o lif e th e scor e fo r the listene r (an d th e orchestra ) throug h th e fulles t
knowledge o f tha t score , s o tha t th e conductor' s personalit y expresse s itsel f
within th e parameter s of the score . I t illuminates th e scor e t o the fullest ; i t does
not alte r i t o r distor t it . An d th e conductor' s personalit y i s no t substitute d fo r
that o f the composer .
That i s clearly a muc h mor e difficul t challeng e tha n merel y indulgin g one' s
musical whim s and predilections . T o know the scor e full y an d t o prob e it s inner
essence i n the thoroug h manne r suggeste d her e i s a staggering task. It is a muc h
easier (lazier? ) approach t o say : 'Oh, I think I'l l d o i t this way,' an d whe n aske d
why, to respond : 'Well , I fee l i t that way. ' To work from within th e scor e towards
a realizatio n is a formidabl e task . It takes tremendous disciplin e an d conscienc e
to evolv e a n interpretatio n tha t i s faithfu l t o th e specific s of th e score , faithfu l
especially to the dynamic s and t o th e tempos . I t takes considerable disciplin e to
not mak e ritard s too early—o r to o much; to no t mak e crescendo s (o r diminuen -
dos) to o early—or too much; to hold t o the articulation s an d phrasing s the com -
poser ha s written ; t o respec t full y th e meanin g o f th e verba l annotation s th e
composer ha s incorporated i n th e score ; an d t o know the sounds , th e sonorities,
11. Mos t recording s o f strin g quartet s today , fo r example , ar e electronicall y "enhanced " (a s th e
industry euphemisticall y puts it ) and amplifie d so as to soun d a s big an d a s loud a s a ful l symphon y
orchestra i n th e throe s o f th e mos t climacti c moment s o f Strauss' s Alpine Symphony o r Mahler' s
Eighth. Wit h suc h abuses—alon g with the ear-splittin g dynamic level s of rock music, the eve r louder
television commercials , th e eve r noisie r fil m soundtrack s (replete wit h eve r mor e ca r crashe s an d
explosions, buildin g detonations etc.), an d othe r simila r modern acousti c plagues^we ar e wel l o n
the wa y t o ruinin g ou r aura l sensibilitie s altogether. Indeed , t o som e exten t w e probabl y already
have.
the instrument s that th e compose r hear d i n hi s time an d fo r which h e wrot e his

music.12
Most grea t composers , particularl y as on e move s int o th e mid-19t h centur y
(let alon e earl y 20t h century ) repertory , wer e meticulous , precis e notator s o f
their music, at least to the rathe r considerabl e exten t ou r notatio n allows . In th e
scores o f the grea t masters—an d eve n th e mino r masters—ther e i s much mor e
that i s precise, accurate , clear , an d objective , an d therefor e to b e trusted , tha n
there i s vague an d undetermined .
Consider, fo r example , Beethoven' s wid e rang e o f dynamics , fro m pp p
through pp , p , mp, mf t o f , pi ù f , ff , an d finall y fff. Tha t sound s pretty precise
and discriminatin g to me . An d ho w wel l Beethove n kne w huma n nature , hu -
man frailty ; hi s score s ar e peppere d wit h sempre pp's i n th e man y extende d
passages during which th e musi c i s to remain quie t an d sof t throughout . Beetho -
ven kne w wel l tha t mos t musician s (an d conductors ) woul d b e unabl e t o resist
the temptatio n t o increas e th e dynami c leve l afte r a fe w measures. An d h e was
so right ! Beethoven's sempre p p marking s are generall y ignored , o r simpl y con -
sidered dispensabl e an d irrelevant .
Beethoven ofte n structure d hi s form s i n enormou s soun d plateau s wit h a sin-
gle dynamic. 13 Thes e tak e tremendou s disciplin e t o control , an d almos t inhu -
man energ y i n th e cas e o f th e f f plateaus , o r fastidiou s dynami c contro l i n th e
case of the pp's. Mozar t and Beethove n composed muc h o f their music in bloc k
structures, wher e entir e phrase s o r period s ar e se t i n on e dynamic , sa y p, an d
then suddenl y followe d b y a contrastin g sectio n o f f . I t take s a discipline d or -
chestra an d conducto r t o no t anticipat e th e incomin g f wit h a crescendo. 14
Since Mozar t (i n hi s late r works ) an d Beethove n als o wrot e lon g crescend o
passages, leadin g fro m a n initia l p , say , t o a resolvin g an d climaxin g f , i t be -
hooves on e t o observ e carefull y th e differenc e betwee n thes e tw o structura l ap-
12. T o accomplis h a truthfu l renditio n i t i s no t alway s necessar y t o resor t t o "perio d instruments, "
as som e o f th e authenti c instrumen t propagandist s woul d lik e t o mak e u s believe . (Mor e o n tha t
subject later. )
13. See , fo r example, th e lon g p p platea u i n th e developmen t sectio n o f th e Pastorales firs t move -
ment; o r the almos t minute-long , relentles s f f i n th e developmen t sectio n o f the Eight h Symphony' s
first movement, eventuall y toppe d b y a pi ù f an d a climacti c fff.
14. I have , fo r example , almos t neve r hear d th e fou r measure s befor e th e firs t f i n th e Marriage o f
fígaro Overtur e playe d withou t a precedin g crescendo , especiall y i n th e horn s an d oboes . I f onc e
heard withou t suc h a crescendo, tha t is, with a subito fin m.12 , the effec t i s dramatic and unforgetta-
ble. Similarly , I have seldo m hear d correctl y th e thre e dynami c step s that occur twic e in th e secon d
movement o f Schubert' s Unfinished Symphony a t th e en d o f the tw o woodwind solo s (clarine t an d
oboe), i n tha t wonderful sequence of two-bar phrases in p , pp, ppp successively—i n changin g instru -
mentation a s well—followed b y th e dramati c full-orchestra l f. B y way of example, i n a quit e recen t
recording b y a world-famou s conducto r an d a n almos t a s famou s much-praise d orchestra , thes e
particular tw o passage s wer e playe d no t onl y withou t Schubert' s p-pp-ppp dynamics , but wit h suc h
a bold , arrogant , pushy , an d unvarie d m f tha t th e immediatel y ensuin g full-orchestr a fif, which i s
supposed t o represen t a maximu m mood , dynami c an d structura l contrast , becam e completel y
meaningless an d destructive , and woul d no t eve n hav e registere d a changin g effec t a t all , ha d no t
an overl y lou d an d viciou s timpan i hit exaggeratedl y italicized th e moment . Thi s i s great interpreta-
tion?
proaches. The y ar e no t willy-nill y interchangeable. Sinc e thes e grea t masters—

and man y other s i n th e classica l period—used dynamic s no t onl y a s mood an d
character definin g devices, but a s a means o f delineating for m an d structure , w e
do seriou s damage t o thei r wor k when w e ignor e thes e dynami c distinctions. 15
In short , a s a conducto r an d performe r I woul d muc h rathe r d o wit h dynam -
ics, i.e . a stric t and respectfu l attention t o dynamics , what most conductor s wan t
to d o b y distortin g tempos . Th e flexibilit y an d mobilit y that , I suppose , the y
wish t o brin g t o a performance—tha t i s usuall y thei r reason , whe n aske d —is
better achieve d throug h observin g th e composer' s dynamics , whil e playin g
around wit h th e temp o i n an y willful , arbitrar y or (a s s o often ) exaggerate d
degree onl y doe s damag e t o th e music , t o it s form , it s flow , it s continuity , it s
coherence.
But dynamic s ar e no t onl y a composer' s majo r clu e a s t o structur e an d in -
tended mood ; the y als o allow the divers e instrumental color s o f the orchestr a t o
shine forth . I n th e endles s noncommitta l mf o r th e (onl y slightly better ) stereo -
typical 'loud-medium-soft ' dynamic s o n whic h man y orchestra s toda y see m t o
rely entirely—tolerate d o r actuall y encouraged b y their conductor s —instrumen-
tal color s an d th e whol e timbra i rang e wit h whic h grea t composer s invariabl y
infuse thei r work s are simpl y no t realizable . Playin g with undifferentiate d loud
or mediu m dynamic s —one perceptiv e criti c ha s calle d i t th e "moder n
industrial-strength sound"—create s a kin d o f unremittin g timbra i gra y which ,
when i t becomes habituate d i n an orchestra , destroy s one o f the mos t importan t
elements tha t make s orchestral musi c fascinatin g and wort h listening to. Indeed ,
it i s that elemen t that constitute s th e ver y raison d'être of writing for a n orches -
tra: it s multi-colore d timbra i palette . Moreover , whe n sonoric/timbra l refine -
ment o r variet y is suppressed , feelin g an d emotiona l conten t ar e als o quelled .
As on e super b an d famou s jaz z musician , Mil t Jackson , onc e pu t it , "I f yo u
don't ge t th e righ t sound , yo u ca n forge t abou t th e feeling. " Ho w profoundl y
true —and ho w simpl y put!
Also, whe n conductor s continuall y ignor e o r abus e th e dynami c marking s
given by composers, conscientiou s orchestr a musicians—ther e are alway s at least
a fe w i n an y orchestra—fee l defeate d an d eventuall y give u p tryin g to pla y th e
true dynamics . They joi n the pack , a s it were, an d th e resul t is dynamic/timbral
anonymity an d anarchy .
It i s saddening t o observ e ho w man y America n orchestra s (wit h all their tech -
nical virtuosit y and rhythmi c vitality ) suffe r fro m th e diseas e o f dynamic paraly-
sis. I n mos t case s i t i s not entirel y th e orchestr a musicians ' fault , however. I t is
an abus e eithe r directl y engendere d b y the musi c directo r o r tolerate d b y him .
It i s also, a s mentione d earlier , par t o f a large r proble m tha t i n recen t decade s
has seriousl y corrupted ou r aura l sensibilitie s and criteria , a proble m produce d
15. On e o f the mos t brillian t uses o f dynamic/structural delineation occur s i n th e fina l phas e o f the
development sectio n o f th e las t movemen t o f Schubert' s Octe t (m . 223) . Here th e pp p writte n by
Schubert i s not som e accidenta l or arbitrary marking, but i n poin t of fact signal s quite unequivocally
both th e dynami c low-point of the entir e allegro section o f the movemen t an d th e lon g developmen t
section's clim b back t o th e recapitulation.
by moder n electroni c technology , particularl y th e microphone , th e amplifier ,

and th e loudspeaker . Th e ver y name s o f thes e device s tel l th e story : a micro
sound i s amplified an d sen t ove r a loudspeaking apparatus . While the technolog y
exists i n recordings , radio , television , film , video s t o als o transmi t th e meres t
whisper o f a sound , th e mos t delicat e pianissimo s and refine d dynami c nuances ,
the commerc e an d marketin g o f music us e the technolog y almos t exclusivel y to
intensify listenin g level s a t th e highes t en d o f th e decibe l scale . I a m no t sur e
what pervers e desir e i n th e huma n anima l compel s i t t o celebrat e shee r loud -
ness an d almos t unbearabl e nois e levels . I s i t som e crud e notio n tha t loude r
(and bigger ) i s better? I s loudness a narcoti c t o whic h w e hav e no w becom e s o
addicted tha t w e nee d eve r increasin g dose s o f it ? I s i t tha t w e ar e n o longe r
content t o le t ou r ear s b e th e sol e recipient s o f musica l communication , bu t
that th e res t o f ou r bod y need s literall y t o feel, t o experienc e physically , th e
acoustic vibrations ? O r i s i t tha t w e ar e simpl y reactin g competitivel y an d i n
self-defense agains t th e ever-risin g noise level s in th e materia l worl d around us ?
I don' t reall y know the answer . Mayb e i t i s a combination o f all suc h manifes -
tations. I onl y kno w that , i n th e musica l performin g real m an d th e orchestra l
realm i n particular , musician s are generall y enthusiasti c abou t playin g loudly —
from mf o n up—an d mos t reluctan t (an d ofte n eve n unable ) t o pla y softly .
Distinctions amon g p , pp , an d pp p hav e i n recen t decade s becom e a remote ,
esoteric rarity . I n m y ow n relativel y short life-tim e I hav e see n th e disciplin e o f
observing dynamics gradually deteriorate t o th e poin t wher e toda y aura l sensitiv-
ity to dynami c differentiatio n and coloratio n i s virtually nonexistent. I t has t o b e
rehabilitated an d nurture d almos t everywher e at ever y rehearsal, an d conductor s
who insis t o n dynami c nuancin g ofte n hav e a difficul t tas k ahea d o f them . (I n
extreme cases , wher e dynami c abuse s hav e hel d swa y fo r a lon g time , a gues t
conductor's attemp t to elici t precis e an d refine d dynami c shadings , ma y even b e
deeply resented—a t least b y some o f the musicians. )
A by-produc t o f th e tendenc y o f orchestra s t o pla y a t eve r higher , upward -
spiraling dynamic level s i s the ba d habi t amon g orchestra l strin g players of over-
bowing. I t seem s t o b e expecte d o f strin g player s t o us e th e ful l lengt h o f th e
bow (usuall y at ful l bo w pressure ) regardles s o f the prescribe d dynami c leve l o r
note duration . Thi s is , of course , no t a n entirel y ne w problem. 16 I recal l fro m
my childhoo d m y father , a membe r o f the Ne w Yor k Philharmonic' s strin g sec-
tion fo r forty-two years (1923-65), fumin g about som e o f his colleagues ' undisci -
plined bowing , neve r 'savin g th e bow, ' allowin g unsightl y crescendo s o n rela -
tively shor t up-bows , allowin g prematur e diminuendo s o n down-bows , usin g th e
whole bo w indiscriminatel y from fro g t o ti p i n eve n shor t note durations , an d s o
on. An d thi s was in th e day s of Toscanini (th e ultimat e orchestra l disciplinarian)
and Barbirolli , when orchestra l discipline , bot h persona l an d musical , was gener-
ally a t a highe r leve l than i t i s today.
Today, i n mos t American orchestra s —less so in Europea n ones—good , intelli -
16. Richar d Wagne r complaine d as earl y a s 1869 , i n hi s Über da s Dirigieren, abou t th e careles s
bowing habit s o f strin g player s i n th e Germa n orchestra s o f his time .
gent bo w distributio n is a virtually lost art. Probably it i s very little considere d o r

seriously taught an y more i n ou r conservatories , music schools , and strin g studio
teaching. I n an y case , bo w distribution—spee d o f th e bow , placemen t o f th e
bow, weigh t o r lightnes s o f th e bow—seem s t o b e a n unknow n subject , burie d
under careless , bad habits . This i s amazing sinc e anyone shoul d b e abl e t o hea r
that, i f on a n up-bow , playing, say, a whole-not e a t a moderat e tempo , on e use s
the whol e bo w wit h ful l norma l weight , movin g fro m th e ti p t o th e frog , th e
result will inevitably be a rathe r considerabl e crescendo . I f the not e i n questio n
is t o remai n a t on e dynami c level , then ther e i s a problem—bu t on e o f whic h
most strin g players nowadays seem t o be unaware . Conversely, th e opposit e hap -
pens o n a down-bow , i n whic h case—wit h al l othe r condition s (above ) bein g
equal—the resul t automaticall y wil l b e a diminuendo , a los s o f tone . Further -
more, th e relatio n between weigh t and spee d o f bow movement i s hardly under-
stood an d certainl y rarel y applied; i.e. , i f one want s to us e a ful l bow—withou t
a crescend o —one ca n lighte n th e weigh t o f th e bo w (a s in th e Frenc h o r Bel -
gian schoo l o f violi n playing) . Conversely , i f on e want s t o us e a heav y bo w
weight—again withou t a crescendo—the n on e simpl y ha s t o us e les s bo w an d
less bo w speed .
Unfortunately, strin g playing in thes e respect s ha s deteriorate d s o much sinc e
my father's days in th e Ne w Yor k Philharmonic , le t alon e sinc e Wagner' s da y in
the nineteent h century . Paradoxically , while left-han d techniqu e ha s flourished,
that is , mobility, accurac y and spee d o f left-hand movemen t o n th e fingerboar d
has improve d dramatically over the las t three to five decades, bow distribution—
intelligent contro l o f bow spee d an d bo w length—ha s reache d a leve l of negli-
gence an d disregar d that i s very disturbin g and musicall y destructive. The pres -
ent inattentio n t o bo w distributio n has reache d epidemi c proportion s no t onl y
in thi s country , bu t i n th e genera l cultura l Americanizatio n o f muc h o f th e
world aroun d u s i t is becoming a serious problem eve n i n Europea n an d Asiatic
musical circles . It seems a s if there wer e some kin d o f law that on e must , regard -
less o f the musica l context—long note, short note, loud note , sof t not e —use th e
entire lengt h o f th e bow . Furthermore , strin g player s seem almos t completel y
oblivious o f the fact—th e acoustic , technica l reality—tha t a too-swif t down-bo w
will automaticall y mak e a diminuendo , whil e a too-swif t up-bo w wil l d o th e
opposite, produc e a crescendo. Tha t can , o f course, b e controlle d b y intelligen t
bow distribution , bow speed , bo w weigh t and , abov e all , b y careful , thoughtful
listening. Bu t again , i t seems tha t fa r too man y string players no longe r liste n to
the musical/dynami c result their bowin g produces.
Take a tin y musica l example , on e o f severa l thousan d simila r one s tha t con -
stantly occu r i n music , suc h a s . If , fo r instance ,
the decisio n ha d bee n mad et o bo w th e phras ea s follows :
then, i f the playe r is not careful , tha t is , conscious
of ho w th e bo w distributio n can negativel y (or positively ) affect th e resul t an d

unthinkingly uses full-length bows (fro m fro g t o tip an d vic e versa), the dynami c
result wil l b e . I f th e origina l dynami c an d pre -
ferred bowin g ha d bee n , then, with careles s bow-
ing habits , the resul t wil l b e . Such ba d habit s ar e
rampant no w i n America n orchestras , a proble m t o which , alas , man y conduc -

tors an d musi c director s ar e eithe r payin g n o attentio n o r t o whic h the y ar e
actually contributin g b y encouragin g lou d full-bo w playing . I f no t attende d t o
or i f allowe d t o deteriorat e further , i t wil l resul t i n th e fina l degradatio n o f
quality an d tast e i n musi c performance .
Inevitably, som e readers wil l question : 'What difference doe s it make, i f conduc-
tors start crescendos tw o or three bar s earlier than written ? Doesn't tha t mak e th e
performances mor e exciting , mor e expressive , more human? ' or 'What differenc e
does i t mak e i f conductors prepar e eac h climacti c momen t o r obviou s retur n of
thematic materia l with a big ritardando? Isn't that a natural impulse ? Why i s that
wrong?' 'What difference doe s i t make i f conductors conduc t piece s too slow—or
for that matter, too fast? As long as the orchestr a i s playing all the notes , doesn't th e
music stil l com e through? ' An d her e i s th e trickies t retor t o f all : Yo u say , Mr .
Schuller, tha t tha t performanc e wa s all wrong: it didn't respect the score , i t didn't
reflect the intention s o f the composer . Well , I don't know that score —I don't eve n
read musi c —but I mus t tel l yo u tha t I though t i t wa s a terrific performance ; I
thought i t was exciting an d that conductor—well, he's jus t tops i n m y book.' Ho w
many times I have heard suc h question s and statements, particularl y the last one!
The answe r to all those (ver y typical) questions is : Yes, it makes a big difference.
And all those deviation s from th e scor e d o not necessarily make the performanc e
'more natural, ' 'mor e human. ' They ma y creat e tha t illusion—o r delusion ; the y
may fool the unknowing , unwar y listener into thinking that i t was 'exciting,' 'mov-
ing,' 'authentic,' when i n realit y the excitemen t wa s superficial and th e wor k was
grossly misrepresented. To paraphrase a famous saying about a surgeon and hi s pa-
tient—the conductor ma y have 'had a great personal success but the work he per -
formed o n died.'
No, th e onl y acceptabl e answe r t o thos e question s is : The compose r an d hi s
score have t o b e respected , especiall y whe n tha t compose r i s a Beethoven , a
Tchaikovsky, a Wagner , a Brahms , a Stravinsky , o r an y o f th e othe r fift y t o a
hundred composer s whos e masterpiece s mak e u p th e bul k o f our repertory . To
answer th e questio n eve n mor e provocatively—an d t o answe r i t wit h anothe r
question: Ar e conductor s X an d Y , both worl d famous and popular , really better
musicians tha n Brahm s o r Beethoven ? Ar e the y suc h fantasti c musician s tha t
they hav e th e righ t t o disregar d o r overrid e most o f th e basi c informatio n con -
tained i n a composer' s score ? The answe r is an unequivoca l no ; the y aren't; and

they don' t hav e tha t right !
Let u s tak e thos e no t entirel y hypothetica l question s an d examin e the m on e
by one . T o star t crescendo s tw o o r thre e bar s early—o r t o mak e crescendo s
where ther e aren' t any—make s a bi g differenc e i n th e qualit y o f th e perfor -
mance, no t onl y fro m th e poin t o f view o f correctness , o f fidelit y t o th e score ,
but fro m th e poin t o f vie w o f expression , o f emotiona l response , o f musica l
excitement. An y compariso n betwee n recordings , fo r example , tha t distor t an d
deviate fro m th e score , say , o f th e Brahm s Firs t Symphon y (Bernstein) , an d
those tha t re-creat e prett y faithfull y wha t Brahm s actuall y wrot e (Toscanin i o r
Weingartner),17 wil l revea l tha t th e mor e faithfu l performanc e i s i n fac t th e
more exciting , th e mor e rewarding , an d th e on e tha t wil l sta y i n you r memor y
longer.
And ho w coul d i t b e otherwise ? Brahm s certainl y kne w wha t h e wa s doing .
The evidenc e o f hi s score s i s that the y ar e mos t meticulousl y notated ; virtuall y
every detai l tha t ca n b e capture d i n notatio n i s accounte d for . And a s w e al l
know, thi s wa s a compose r wh o too k nearl y twent y year s t o complet e hi s firs t
symphony, goin g throug h endles s revision s an d rethinking s before presentin g t o
the worl d hi s "Tent h Symphony, " a s Billo w calle d it , referrin g t o i t a s a worthy
successor t o Beethoven' s nin e symphonies . Suc h a compose r i s obviousl y
thoughtful, conscientious , mindfu l o f making the wor k as perfect an d a s clear to
the performe r a s possible . N o on e i n hi s righ t min d wil l wan t t o argu e tha t
Brahms was a careles s composer, give n to slopp y notation , casua l i n hi s musica l
orthography. And the n ther e i s Brahms's sheer musical , creativ e talent, hi s fertile
musical imagination , hi s infallibl e musical instincts . Ca n w e reall y casuall y ig-
nore o r dar e t o questio n that , afte r muc h though t an d carefu l consideratio n o f
all th e alternatives , Brahms put a crescend o i n measur e five of a phras e an d no t
in measur e two ; tha t h e marke d a certai n passag e o r a give n instrumenta l par t
pp rathe r tha n p ( a decisio n ove r whic h h e ma y hav e labore d a hal f hou r o r
even severa l weeks o r months) , a p p whic h w e the n willy-nill y ignor e an d pla y
as mf? No , Brahm s certainl y knew wha t h e wante d an d kne w ho w t o nótat e it .
He kne w i t better tha n an y o f the highl y touted baton-wielder s o f today. Takin g
his scores , say , of the fou r symphonie s o n fait h result s i n performance s tha t ar e
infinitely mor e excitin g tha n th e approximation s an d deviation s tha t presentl y
fill our recor d catalogues .
But le t u s examin e th e questio n o f the 'earl y crescendo ' i n eve n mor e detail .
What i s wron g wit h a prematur e crescend o i s tha t almos t alway s i t peak s to o
early—it almos t ha s to , doesn' t it?—makin g th e arriva l point o f the crescendo ,
its 'resolution, ' s o to speak , whic h i s the whol e purpos e o f the crescendo , no t a
high poin t bu t a n anti-clima x (o r shal l w e cal l i t a prematur e climax? ) More -
over, early , exaggerated crescendos—especiall y i f they ar e habitua l an d occu r a t
every possibl e instanc e —distort th e for m an d continuit y o f th e musi c (mos t
17. Fo r a detaile d discussio n o f thes e (an d man y other ) conductors ' Brahm s Firs t Symphon y re -
cordings, se e Par t II I pp . 279-377 .
likely unbeknownst t o th e casua l uninforme d listener) ; and i f done t o excess , as

is usually the cas e with such self-indulgen t 'interpretations,' they tend t o become
repetitiously tiresome, an d th e constan t exaggerate d an d overdraw n effects even -
tually cance l eac h othe r out .
There i s anothe r aspec t t o crescendo s (an d diminuendos ) tha t i s fascinating
and wort h seriou s consideration . I f on e studie s th e wa y composer s hav e use d
crescendos i n th e las t tw o hundre d years, 18 an d als o studie s th e wa y the bes t
performers an d conductor s hav e rendere d crescendos , on e wil l fin d tha t the y
usually reflec t a geometri c rathe r tha n a n arithmeti c curve . Tha t i s t o say , a
crescendo—the sam e principl e ca n b e applie d t o accelerando s —is usuall y best
carried ou t when th e curve , th e incline , o f the crescend o increase s the longe r i t
lasts; t o pu t i t anothe r way : very littl e a t first and graduall y increasingly more. 19
Graphically, on e ca n represen t th e righ t way , that is , the crescend o mos t ofte n
called fo r a s i n Fig.la , an d th e wron g wa y (i n mos t cases ) a s i n Fig . Ib . Th e
'geometrically' shape d crescend o i s not onl y (i n mos t instances ) mor e elegant ,
more satisfying , but—l o an d behold—mor e excitin g (i f excitemen t i s wha t i s
wanted), becaus e a s th e crescend o i s initially held bac k an d the n graduall y re-
leased t o ru n it s course, it s ultimate resolution , whe n i t finall y arrives , is all th e
more exciting , dramatic, an d rewarding .
But ther e i s another purel y practical, eve n mundane , sid e to thi s question . A
premature crescendo—to o early and to o much—i s wrong from a technical poin t
of view, on th e simpl e groun d tha t i f one ha s crescendoe d to o muc h to o early,
it leave s n o roo m t o crescend o further . On e can't , afte r all , retrac t th e cre -
scendo, di p dow n dynamically , and star t over again . I f one ha s arrive d to o early
at th e to p o f a crescend o curve , on e ha s n o choic e bu t t o remai n i n tha t dy -
namic platea u an d awai t th e poin t wher e th e crescend o reall y shoul d hav e
peaked. Conversely , i f one husband s one' s crescend o curv e and feel s par t o f the
way throug h tha t on e ha s perhap s falle n behind , i t i s always possible , an d quit e
easy, to catc h up. 20
A goo d exercis e fo r musician s (includin g conductors ) woul d b e t o practic e
"Rossini crescendos " fo r fiftee n minute s a da y fo r a fe w weeks . Th e pacin g o f
18. Crescendo s a s a specifi c notationa l devic e onl y cam e int o widesprea d us e i n th e lat e 1700s ,
although the y wer e surely employed i n music , especiall y impromptu , lon g befor e that time .
19. Thi s i s particularl y apt fo r th e markin g crees, poco a poco (a s distinc t fro m merel y cresc.), for
here th e compose r reall y mean s t o indicat e a ver y gradual , well-pace d crescend o ove r a longe r
stretch o f time .
20. B y analogy, the sam e problem s an d solution s exis t in respec t t o diminuendos, accelerandos , an d
ritardandos. Mos t o f th e tim e diminuendos , whe n no t simpl y ignored , ar e don e to o muc h to o
quickly; an d th e sam e wit h accelerando s an d ritardandos . Nor d o mos t performer s and conductor s
pay muc h attentio n t o th e ver y carefu l annotation s o f certai n composer s (amon g the m Brahms ,
Ravel, Schönberg ) wh o distinguis h between , say , poco rit, rit, an d molto rit; o r betwee n poco
stringendo an d molto stringendo an d othe r analogou s markings . Eve n les s consideratio n i s given t o
the questio n o f whethe r a ritardando , for example , retards into a slowe r tempo o r whethe r i t slow s
beyond th e ne w tempo . Admittedly , however , some composer s ar c ambiguou s o r inexplici t about
this particula r temp o modification . Nonetheless , musica l intelligence ca n usuall y deduc e th e righ t
approach fro m th e music' s structural context.
32 THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R
Fig. l a
Fig. I b
these lon g crescendos—ofte n a s long a s sixtee n (o r more ) bars—woul d perhap s

cure musician s o f making hast y crescendos an d prematur e climaxes .
I d o no t kno w wha t physiologica l and psychologica l huma n impulse s caus e
most musician s (and s o many conductors whos e wor k I have studied) to wan t to
crescendo earl y and quickly , to rus h forwar d int o a crescend o withou t eve r con -
sidering ho w fa r tha t crescend o i s to g o (i n term s o f duration) an d ho w hig h i t
is t o ai m (i n term s o f dynami c level) . I s i t som e deep-roote d huma n instinct ,
some uncontrollabl e emotiona l need , o r i s it jus t a lac k o f discipline , a for m o f
carelessness? Perhap s i t i s a combination . Bu t I d o kno w tha t suc h impulses ,
such casua l treatment o f the matter , i s in direc t contradictio n t o ho w composer s
have traditionall y used crescendos , an d tha t suc h erran t impulse s ca n wit h car e
and attentio n b e controlled .
Finally, there is the purel y phenomenological aspec t to this question . By what
logic, b y wha t reasonin g ca n on e asser t tha t startin g a crescend o severa l (o r
many) bar s befor e th e poin t indicate d b y th e compose r i s automatically, inher -
ently, bette r the n adherin g to th e composer' s indications ? By what logi c ca n w e
assume tha t t o d o th e composer' s biddin g i s someho w les s good , is—a s I hav e
heard man y conductor s an d critic s argu e (o r imply)—someho w pedantic , o r
uninspired an d dull ? Th e answe r i s tha t ther e i s n o suc h logic : ther e i s n o
rational argumentatio n tha t ca n establis h tha t th e takin g of unintended, unwar -
ranted libertie s wit h a piec e o f musi c i s inherently preferabl e t o no t doin g so . I
also kno w that , wit h a littl e self-control , training, thoughtfulness—an d respec t
for th e compose r an d th e scor e —one ca n easil y disciplin e onesel f t o rende r
unto th e compose r hi s due , i.e., tha t whic h h e intende d an d calle d fo r i n hi s
notation.
If someon e i s now goin g t o argue , a s surel y some reader s an d critic s will do ,
that thi s i s a muc h to o intellectua l an d cerebra l approach , the n I ca n onl y
respond tha t al l grea t art—al l superio r creativity, and b y extensio n al l superior
re-creativity, i.e . i n ou r presen t context , performing/conducting—i s th e resul t of
an exquisit e balanc e o f th e intellectua l (tha t is , o f th e mind ) an d o f th e

emotional/ instinctua l (tha t is , of the heart , o f the soul , o f the spirit) . I know of
no grea t wor k o f art—music , painting , poetry , cinema , choreography , what -
ever—that wa s no t create d ou t o f a symbioti c interactio n betwee n th e min d
(intellect) an d th e hear t (emotion , feeling , intuition) . The proble m fo r the per -
forming art s i s tha t thi s balanc e o f min d an d sou l mus t als o b e faithfull y ren -
dered an d re-create d i n th e executio n o f th e work , a balanc e which , alas , i t i s
given t o fe w interpreters to achieve .
As fo r th e secon d o f m y quasi-hypothetica l questions—t o mak e a ritardando
before ever y climactic momen t o r significan t retur n o f thematic material , espe -
cially i n th e earlie r Viennese classica l repertory—tha t i s also ultimatel y a distor-
tion o f th e for m an d over-al l continuity , especiall y whe n overdone . Ther e ar e
exceptions, whe n a subtl e relaxatio n o f the temp o befor e a recapitulation—em -
phasis her e o n th e wor d 'subtle ' —is appropriate . I n fact , anything , tha t i s don e
subtly an d no t don e a t every possibl e opportunit y i s likel y t o b e acceptable .
Furthermore, suc h decisions—t o ritar d o r no t t o ritard , fo r exampl e —ought t o
be unde r constan t reconsideration , ough t t o b e handle d wit h a n open , flexible
mind. Wha t I fin d objectionabl e i s whe n conductor s commi t thei r immens e
tempo distortion s automatically , involuntarily , withou t thinking , withou t ques -
tioning. The y institutionaliz e thes e distortions , an d thereb y i n th e end , afte r
endless repetitions , tur n the m int o meaningles s gestures , int o clichés , tha t ar e
stripped o f all convictio n an d significance.
It also makes a big difference i f conductors take pieces at wrong tempos. All good
music i s conceived b y it s composer a t som e particula r basic tempo . I n fact , th e
tempo o f a piece an d th e conten t o f that musi c ar e intrinsicall y interconnected;
one canno t exis t without the other . A certain melod y or theme i s born of a certain
tempo (an d no t an y other) , and conversel y a certain temp o feeling , a pulse , wil l
generate i n a composer a spécifie melod y or theme. Th e tw o are at the momen t of
inspiration creatively interlocked; they arise out of the same musical impulse, an d
they are therefore inseparable once created. Of course, minor or subtle tempo devi-
ations are no t onl y permissibl e an d desirabl e bu t probabl y inevitable . A passage
marked at, say, J = 108 , is not particularly harmed b y being done a t J = 10 4 (or
even 102 ) or J = 112 . Most musicians, indeed, ca n neither control no r hear such
minute temp o variations . What is not permissible, is indeed unforgivable , is when
the temp o take n i s twenty or thirty metronome point s off the mark ; when a n an -
dante is replaced by an adagio, an allegretto by a lento. It represents a serious distor-
tion of the music , when a composer, like Brahms, writes andante, a s he does at the
beginning of the second movement o f his First Symphony, and certain conductors,
instead o f adopting a tempo o f J = 56-69 , conduc t a t a tempo o f J = 30—on e
conductor (Bernstein ) even at J = 24 . Such a slow pulse amounts to one beat every
two seconds, hardl y andante (whic h i n Italia n means walking , from th e ver b an-
daré); i t an d i s more lik e an adagississimo. A t such a slo w tempo, thirt y or mor e
metronome point s away from th e intende d tempo , th e musi c loses all its original
intended characte r an d meaning , an d become s i n fac t a kind o f deranged, over-
blown aberratio n of the original . In any case, when an interpretatio n undermines
and disrupt s (distorts) the construc t an d th e flo w o f the music , the n i t i s simply
wrong, bad and self-indulgent.
Beethoven's metronome marking s have been a particular target of attack by con-
ductors (an d orchestr a musicians ) through th e man y years sinc e hi s symphonies
and strin g quartets entered th e repertory . Various arguments have been (an d con-
tinue to be) presented t o invalidate Beethoven's metronomizations , rangin g from :
(1) hi s use of a faulty metronome, (2 ) his deafness, (3) his belated assigning of th e
metronomic timing s many years afte r th e fact, 21 (4 ) hi s determinatio n o f thes e
tempo setting s at the pian o whe n alread y deaf for many years, all th e wa y (5) to
their allege d 'unperformability ' an d 'impracticability' . On e ca n easil y dispose of
most o f these objections by pointing out tha t the y are speculative , fallacious an d
not based on documentable evidence . Indeed, some of the evidence, conveniently
ignored b y those wh o would prefe r speculatio n t o evidence , clearl y supports the
appropriateness o f Beethoven's metronomizations . Fo r example , th e evidenc e is
that Beethoven's metronome was not faulty. I t still exists and it s accuracy has been
tested and confirmed. 22 Second, if Beethoven's metronome ha d reall y been faulty ,
how i s it that it would have been onl y selectively faulty? Fo r the objection s raised
about his 'too fast' tempo s ar e only in respect to certain movement s o r sections of
his symphonies and quartets . Could th e metronom e hav e been functionin g prop-
erly fo r the las t movement o f the Fift h Symphon y and no t th e othe r three ? Or ,
since many conductors have considered the Fifth' s last movement 'too slow,' could
Beethoven's metronom e hav e bee n wron g i n bot h directions , to o slow i n on e
movement, too fast in another?
As for Beethoven's deafness a s a reason for erroneous metronome markings , it is
an argument even more ludicrous than the one about the faulty metronome. What
makes anyone think that a composer who could create such masterpieces in deaf -
ness—Beethoven surely heard an d conceive d his music i n his inner ea r and obvi-
ously not at the piano, and didn't need to hear it at the piano—would need to hear
them i n acoustical reality to determine what tempo designations they should bear?
Second, h e coul d se e the metronome' s pendulu m swing s and oscillations . Third,
even if Beethoven's metronome wer e malfunctioning, are we to believe that he did
not know that ther e wer e sixty beats (pulses ) to a minute (a t metronome j = 60)
and tha t he was unable to calculate an 8 0 or a 16 6 or a 13 2 from tha t knowledge?
I will not be so foolish a s to argue that Beethoven could not have made a mistake
in his metronomizations, but I seriously doubt that he coul d have erred by twenty
or thirty (or even forty) points, as many conductors would have us believe. All com-
posers hav e probabl y erred i n metronom e setting s a t som e tim e o r other—som e
more than others (the case of Stravinsky is almost always cited as 'evidence' of com-
posers' genera l vagrancy and inconsistenc y in settin g tempos an d themselve s ad-
hering to them).
One o f the mos t outrageousl y exaggerated pronouncements alon g thes e line s
21. B y th e tim e Beethove n sent hi s publishe r th e ne w metronom e markings , hi s firs t seve n sym -
phonies an d te n strin g quartet s ha d al l bee n created .
22. Se e Pete r Stadler , "Beethove n an d th e Metronome, " i n Musi c an d Letters 4 8 (1967) ; als o L .
Talbot, " A Note o n Beethoven' s Metronome," Journal of Sound an d Vibration, Vol . 17, no. 3 (1971).
was uttere d a fe w year s bac k b y Christop h vo n Dohnanyi , a s interviewe d an d

quoted by Jeanine Wagar in her book Conductors i n Conversation, t o wit: "I'm ver y
skeptical o f using the 'correct ' metronome markings in a stubborn way , especially
since there is not one contemporary musician wh o writes the right metronome mark-
ings!' [italic s mine]. The metronom e wa s invented i n Beethoven's time , 15 0 years
ago, an d composers still can't us e it correctly [italic s mine]. Stravinsk y never use d
his ow n marking s literally , an d neithe r di d Schöenberg." 23 (Incidentally , on e
might ask the maestro: "What about Berg and Webern?"—two of Dohnanyi's favor -
ite composers. Doe s h e ignor e their metronome marking s too?)
Composers ar e capable o f errors in metronomization , workin g in th e isolatio n
and abstractio n o f their studio , bu t I dare sa y not t o th e degre e (twent y to thirty
points off ) or i n th e frequenc y (almos t al l the time ) a s so many conductor s (an d
Dohnanyi) contend . S o it i s possible—although certainl y not proven—tha t Bee -
thoven, assignin g metronome marking s to a work written a decad e earlier , could
have misjudged the tempo. But again, I would argue, hardly by the number of met-
ronome point s b y which conductor s ar e won t t o deviate—selectively—fro m hi s
tempo designations .
As for some o f Beethoven's ver y fast metronom e setting s makin g the musi c un -
performable, that , too , i s nonsense. Th e judgmen t o f alleged unperformabilit y is
the resul t of laziness, incompetence , an d lac k of musical imagination. A fair num -
ber o f conductor s (suc h a s Toscanini , Leibowitz ) an d performer s (th e Kolisc h
Quartet) showe d man y year s ago tha t Beethoven' s metronom e marking s ar e al l
technically realizable and expressivel y felicitous. So have a number o f conductors
in mor e recen t times , especiall y among th e younge r bree d o f 'period-instrument
authenticists,' althoug h no t man y o f them hav e manage d 'expressivel y felicitous '
performances.
Many specifi c arguments , allegedl y demonstratin g Beethoven' s metronomi c
incongruities an d discrepancies , hav e bee n mad e b y man y conductor s ove r th e
years. T o examin e the m al l woul d g o beyon d th e scop e an d intention s o f thi s
book—nor d o mos t o f them meri t seriou s rejoinders . Therefore, le t a few exam -
ples stan d fo r virtually all others . On e o f the favorit e metronomi c bêtes noires of
many Germa n conductor s i s th e (t o them ) apparen t 'irreconcilability ' o f th e
Allegro vivace i n th e firs t movemen t an d th e Allegro m a no n troppo o f the Fi -
nale o f Beethoven's Fourt h Symphony , th e forme r marke d ° = 80 , the latte r
J = 80 . What irreconcilability ? Th e bea t i n bot h instance s i s 160 , t o th e half -
note i n th e alia breve openin g movement , t o th e quarter-not e i n th e Final e —
all eminentl y playable , b y th e th e way . Beethoven' s vivace designatio n i s quit e
appropriate i n vie w of the alia breve meter , a reminde r t o th e performe r that a
very livel y temp o i s i n fac t intended . Th e m a no n troppo modificatio n i n th e
last movemen t i s jus t a s logica l an d justifiable , give n th e 2/ 4 mete r wit h it s
constant chatterin g sixteenth-notes . (Note , b y the way , that thes e sixteenth s ca n
actually—and rathe r easily—b e playe d eve n faster ; ther e ar e man y passage s i n
the orchestra l literature that ar e noticeabl y faster. ) Thu s th e eighth-note s in th e
23. Pag e 55 . Such broa d generalizations ar e unworth y of an intelligen t musician such a s Dohnanyi.
first movemen t ar e th e sam e spee d a s th e sixteenth s o f th e Finale . Wha t i s

irreconcilable abou t that ?
Another ofte n cite d exampl e come s fro m Beethoven' s Nint h Symphony , a
work whose metronome marking s evidently irritate and offen d man y conductors .
The particularl y vexatious passage i s the famou s cell o an d bas s recitativ e (m.8 )
in th e Ninth' s Final e —deemed unplayabl e an d allegedl y discrepant with it s vo-
cal counterpar t (m.216) . Wha t discrepancy ? Beethoven's temp o markin g at th e
beginning o f the movemen t i s presto (J . = 66) . A t the recitativ e entrance , th e
score say s "selo n l e caractèr e d'u n Recitative , mai s i n tempo " (i n th e characte r
[manner] o f a recitative , bu t i n tempo) . Th e implicatio n o f this annotation i s to
play th e recitativ e passag e i n a 'freer ' declamator y way , a s i n fac t i n a vocal -
operatic recitative , an d Beethoven' s mais i n tempo i s merel y a n admonitio n t o
maintain bot h th e relativ e rhythms o f the passag e and th e temp o tha t i s adopted
for th e passage . Her e i n tempo doe s no t mea n i n th e tempo o f th e initial 'presto '
(J. = 66) . Th e voca l versio n of the passag e i s in fac t no t notate d differently . S o
again, n o discrepancy.
One migh t als o as k wh y eithe r recitativ e shoul d b e playe d an d sun g a t a
mournful, lugubriou s slo w temp o of , say , J = 9 0 (J . = 30) , a temp o ofte n
taken here . Th e text , " O Freunde , nich t dies e Töne! Sonder n lass t angenehmer e
anstimmen un d freudenvollere " (O h friends , no t thes e sounds ! Rathe r le t u s
sound mor e pleasan t an d joyfu l ones! ) i s no t a funera l oration , bu t a spirite d
call, a n invocatio n t o celebrat e th e "joy s o f human brotherhood. " So , a slightly
more relaxe d basi c tempo , relativ e to th e opening , i s in order—rathe r tha n th e
ponderous distende d tempo s take n her e fo r generation s b y countles s 'interpret -
ers,' nor , incidentally , th e comicall y fas t tempo s take n recentl y b y certai n 'au -
thenticist' conductors .
Such example s brin g u s directl y t o th e mai n issu e regardin g temp o an d
Beethoven's s o ofte n misrepresente d view s o n temp o an d metronomization . I t
is clea r fro m th e evidenc e o f hi s ow n statement s i n hi s letter s an d a s reporte d
by hi s variou s biographers 24 tha t (a ) Beethove n wa s a n enthusiasti c supporte r
of Mälzel' s metronomization ; an d (b ) tha t th e correctnes s o f tempo s i n per -
formance wa s a matte r o f primar y concer n t o him , becaus e h e fel t i t wa s in -
extricably connecte d t o th e ver y essenc e o f the wor k at th e momen t o f creation
and t o th e essentia l characte r o f th e wor k a s realize d i n re-creativ e perfor -
mance.
Beethoven wa s unequivocal i n hi s statements o n thes e matters . He considered
tempo a n intrinsi c part o f his musica l conception , an d fel t tha t th e olde r 18th -
century simpl e temp o designations , wha t h e calle d "temp i ordinari, " wer e n o
longer adequat e t o represen t hi s musica l idea s fully . I n a fascinatin g 181 7 lette r
to Hofra t vo n Mosel , Beethove n write s that h e ha d "though t fo r a lon g tim e o f
giving u p thes e nonsensica l term s allegro , andante , adagio , presto, " addin g fit-
24. Fo r example , Schindle r reporte d i n hi s The Life o f Beethoven (1840 ) tha t "whe n on e o f hi s
pieces wa s performed, Beethoven' s first question was always: 'Ho w wer e the tempi? ' Everythin g else
seemed o f secondary importance t o him. "
tingly, caustically , tha t thes e "fou r principa l temp i d o no t posses s nearl y th e

truth o r importanc e o f the fou r winds. " Beethoven goe s o n t o mak e a distinction
between th e "body " an d th e "spirit " o f the work . "Tempo i s really more th e bod y
of th e piece , whil e thos e term s tha t indicat e th e characte r o f th e piec e refer ,
actually t o it s spirit." 25 H e adds , incidentally , tha t Mälzel' s metronom e give s
composers th e bes t opportunit y t o realize these ideas .
Beethoven wa s thus articulatin g a relativel y new and , fro m th e poin t o f view
of many more conservativ e late 18th - an d earl y 19th-centur y composers , perhap s
radical ide a tha t temp o an d characte r shoul d b e expresse d independently of one
another.26 I t is for this reason tha t Beethove n use d s o many modifiers of the fou r
basic temp o designations , modifier s that becam e mor e an d mor e elaborat e i n
his later years attempting t o be mor e an d mor e exactin g (remember hi s Andante
con moto assai vivace quasi allegretto m a no n troppo) [fro m th e "Kyrie " in hi s
Mass i n C minor] , an d which—a s I contend elsewher e i n thi s book 27 —confirm
the metronom e marking s as much a s the metronom e marking s confirm the Ital -
ian temp o designations. 28
My cred o regardin g temp o an d temp o modification s (tempo rubato) com -
prises: (a ) respectfu l adherenc e t o temp o (includin g metronome ) markings ; (b)
meeting th e inheren t challenge s rathe r tha n discardin g or rejecting them ou t of
hand; and (c ) a subtle temp o flexibility that meet s th e varie d expressive demands
of th e musi c a s i t change s moo d an d character , especiall y i n large r extende d
forms. Th e emphasi s her e i s o n th e wor d 'subtle' ; i t i s a matte r o f degree . I n
other words , temp o modification s mus t neve r destro y th e continuit y an d for m
and thu s th e essentia l meanin g o f th e work , or , a s Brun o Walte r onc e pu t it ,
"noticeable change s i n temp o [speed ] tha t ar e no t demande d b y the compose r
are, therefore , misrepresentations ; whethe r the y resul t fro m intellectua l pre -
sumption o r fro m shee r license , the y deviat e fro m th e composer' s intentions ,
and thu s fro m th e purpose s o f reproductive art." 29
Which brings me t o a related point . Conductors—an d musician s i n general —
should lear n tha t motio n i n musi c an d temp o ar e no t (necessarily ) the sam e
thing. Increase d rhythmi c activit y is often use d b y composer s t o creat e th e im -
25. Beethoven's Sämtliche Briefe, ed . Alfre d Kalischer , Vol. 3 , (London, 1909) , p . 205.
26. Se e i n Par t I I o f thi s boo k ho w Wagne r too k of f o n thi s ide a i n hi s semina l Über Dirigieren
(1869), Ludwi g Spohr , on e o f the mos t celebrate d composer s an d violinist s of the earl y nineteent h
century—and als o on e o f th e firs t baton-usin g conductors—expresse d himsel f quit e firml y o n th e
matter o f tempo an d metronomization . "Whe n on e hear s a wonderfu l musica l work diminishe d i n
its effec t b y a wron g tempo , th e wis h arise s that , finally , th e practic e o f indicatin g tempo s i n th e
manner o f Mälze l o r Webe r woul d becom e widel y used . Then , o f course , conductor s woul d hav e
to conscientiousl y follow suc h instruction s and not , a s now, simpl y follow thei r ow n feelings. "
27. Se e discussio n o f the Italia n tempo designation s of the first two movements o f Beethoven's Fift h
Symphony i n Par t III . (pp. 159-60 )
28. Fo r more o n th e subjec t of Beethoven's metronomization s an d th e consistenc y with which the y
relate t o specifi c characte r an d categor y type s i n Beethoven' s works , se e Rudol f Kolisch' s brillian t
article "Temp o an d Characte r i n Beethoven' s Music, " Th e Musical Quarterly, Vol . XXIX , no . 2
(April 1943) . Reprinted i n a ne w translatio n in Musical Quarterly (Sprin g 1993).
29. Brun o Walter , Vo n de r Musik un d vo m Musizieren (Krankfurt , 1957) . O f Music an d Music-
Making, Englis h translation (London, 1961) , p . 32 .
pression, th e feeling , o f increased momentu m withou t actuall y speedin g u p th e

basic tempo. Similarly , decreased rhythmi c activity can be used to give a feeling of
slowing down the music. Performers should therefore not alter the tempo when th e
composer ha s already composed th e acceleration (o r deceleration) int o the music ,
unless th e compose r himsel f ha s indicate d a chang e o f tempo. Fo r instance , i f a
composer ha s slowed dow n th e rhythmi c activit y in the music , a s for example in :
the conducto r shoul d no t ritar d th e basi c temp o (unless , again , th e compose r

has also called fo r that). I n suc h a n example , th e slowin g down—an d th e degre e
of slowin g down—ha s alread y bee n give n b y th e composer , an d n o additiona l
deceleration o f the temp o i s wanted o r required . Thi s seem s t o be a har d lesso n
for conductor s t o learn .
The las t hypothetical bu t al l to o typica l questio n I presented abov e i s at once
the easies t t o answe r i n discussio n and th e mos t difficul t t o resolv e i n practice .
The la y listener wh o doesn' t reall y know wha t th e compose r wrote—wh o can' t
read music , an d wh o probabl y ha s neve r hear d a true , correc t performanc e o f
the work—ha s a righ t t o hi s opinion , o f course , bu t hi s judgmen t i s ultimately
invalid or , a s proof o f anything , irrelevant . Ther e i s reall y n o wa y tha t th e la y
listener ca n kno w tha t th e performanc e th e conducto r jus t gav e wit h suc h con -
viction an d flai r wa s in fac t wrong, and t o som e exten t o r another a misrepresen -
tation o f the composer' s work . There i s little t o b e don e abou t suc h a situation ,
unless tha t listene r b y virtu e o f som e unusua l motivatio n o r outsid e influenc e
(perhaps eve n a critic' s review ) would convinc e himsel f tha t onl y seriou s stud y
of the wor k would enabl e hi m t o have a trustworthy opinion abou t th e relevanc e
of tha t performance . Bu t tha t i s a Utopia n dream . Eve n th e vas t majorit y o f
professional musicians neve r stud y an orchestra l score . Wh y shoul d w e expec t a
lay listene r t o d o so?
The poin t need s t o b e stressed . Th e sa d trut h i s that mos t peopl e wh o hav e
anything t o d o wit h th e performanc e o f music , whethe r a s listener s o r a s per -
formers, hav e a t wors t absolutely n o ide a wha t i t actually say s i n a score , say , of
a Beethove n o r Brahm s symphony , o r a t bes t hav e onl y th e mos t superficia l
acquaintance wit h th e wor k an d it s score . Thi s applie s t o th e la y listener, th e
music critic , managers , boar d member s o f musical organization s (wh o tradition-
ally choose conductor s an d musica l directors) , the run-of-the-mil l orchestral mu -
sician, and, alas , the vas t majorit y o f conductors. Th e problem , therefore , i s that,
since n o one reall y knows or, possibly, cares wha t the grea t masters have actuall y
written i n thei r scores , th e performers—bu t especiall y th e 'dictator s o f th e ba -
ton'—can d o almos t anythin g the y wan t i n thei r 'interpretations, ' an d n o on e
will b e an y th e wiser . Thus a conducto r an d a n orchestr a ca n pla y a passag e
that i s marked pp a t a healthy mf, an d n o on e wil l kno w the differenc e o r object.
Thus a conducto r an d hi s orchestr a can mak e a n accelerand o (o r a crescendo )
too earl y an d to o much—o r mak e on e wher e ther e shouldn' t b e any—an d
hardly anyon e wil l kno w th e differenc e o r object . Thu s a conducto r an d hi s
orchestra ca n pla y a piec e i n a wron g tempo , an d hardl y anyon e wil l b e th e

wiser.
I faul t especiall y th e critic s fo r thi s situation . I n ove r fift y year s o f readin g
musical criticis m i n dail y paper s I hav e seldo m rea d a revie w tha t mention s
specific conductoria l misdemeanors : a wron g dynami c i n suc h an d suc h a pas -
sage, a wron g tempo , a n unwante d o r exaggerate d accelerando , a n orchestra -
tional distortio n or deviation 30 —not offered , b y the way , as a mere opinio n ("th e
conductor too k muc h broade r tha n usua l tempos" ) bu t a s a fact , unequivocall y
represented i n th e score . (Writer s fo r professional journals , magazines, o r quar -
terlies ten d t o d o muc h bette r i n thi s respect. ) Review s o f concerts consis t usu -
ally of generalities, representin g on e performanc e ideolog y o r another, bu t rarel y
are ther e specifics . N o wonde r conductor s fee l the y ca n d o mor e o r les s any -
thing the y wan t wit h a composer' s music .
Musicians, a s a lot , ar e no t muc h better . Thos e relativel y few who hav e actu -
ally studie d a scor e carefull y an d kno w no t onl y what' s i n i t bu t ho w i t shoul d
be performed , generall y ar e no t i n a positio n t o critiqu e th e conductor , excep t
behind hi s back. Th e res t have neve r looke d a t a score , generall y don't kno w or
care what' s in it, and are conten t to follow the biddin g of a conductor, especiall y
a famou s one, throug h wron g or righ t tempos, disregar d of dynamics, distortions
of rhythms , whatever—excep t agai n t o grumbl e abou t thei r lo t an d abou t con -
ductors, bu t neve r specificall y to challenge th e conducto r o n th e basis of what a
composer's score actually prescribes. (In nearl y twenty-five years of playing profes-
sionally i n orchestras , I almos t never hear d a n orchestr a musicia n criticiz e a
conductor o n a specifi c conductoria l misinterpretatio n o n th e basis o f informa-
tion found i n th e score.) Musicians ' complaint s rarel y ris e abov e th e persona l
level, a s fo r instanc e whe n a conductor' s wron g temp o (to o slo w o r to o fast )
makes i t technicall y difficul t t o pla y a give n passage ; i t i s neve r a complain t
based o n th e fac t tha t th e conductor' s temp o wa s intrinsically wrong , i n direc t
contradiction o f the informatio n containe d i n th e score .
Various argument s hav e bee n presente d ove r th e year s on behal f o f the per -
former's righ t t o 'interpret ' th e musi c a s h e o r sh e bes t feel s o r understand s it .
In thes e claim s al l th e argument s o f the 'inadequac y o f musica l notation, ' 'th e
impossibility o f absolut e objectivit y in interpretation, ' an d 'th e impossibilit y of
ruling ou t th e impac t o f the performer' s individua l predilections, capacitie s an d
limitations,' ar e trotte d ou t a s i f the y wer e someho w incontestabl e scientifi c
facts. I n truth , the y ar e usuall y just opinion s tha t ar e shape d int o certai n formu -
lations t o attai n a certai n polemica l goal . Ver y often argument s o n bot h side s —
on behal f o f performers' libertie s o r o n behal f o f faithfulness to th e composer' s
score—are carried onl y so far as to serve that arguer's purpose. Th e debat e rarel y
takes plac e o n a leve l playin g field . M y ow n stanc e i s midway between th e tw o
30. Th e on e exceptio n tha t come s t o min d i s Scot t Cantrell , nowaday s criti c an d classical-musi c
editor o f th e Kansas City Star, wh o ofte n expose s specifi c deviation s fro m dynami c an d temp o
markings i n hi s reviews , a s wel l a s praisin g performer s wh o ar e mor e scrupulou s i n thes e mat -
ters.
opposing arguments , hopin g t o giv e both th e compose r an d th e performe r their

equal due . I f I occasionall y lea n i n th e directio n o f th e composer , i t i s onl y
because I fee l tha t th e composer' s right s hav e bee n mor e trample d upo n tha n
the performer's . It seem s t o m e tha t that i s an almos t unarguabl e point , sinc e
(a) ther e i s no practica l wa y of stoppin g performer s from interpretin g o r misin -
terpreting composers ' works ; and (b ) th e vas t majority o f writing and discussio n
on thi s subjec t ha s bee n (an d stil l is ) primaril y i n defens e o f th e performer' s
interpretive freedom , rarel y in defens e o f the composer .
As I have tried to make clear earlier , polarized emotional argument s o n behalf
of on e viewpoin t o r th e othe r no t onl y achiev e ver y littl e bu t ar e no t eve n
particularly relevant , i n vie w of the fact—thi s ma y see m startlin g to man y read -
ers—that ultimatel y there i s no inheren t incompatibilit y betwee n th e perform -
er's an d th e composer' s right s an d purposes . Bot h ca n b e serve d adequatel y
when th e interpretatio n derive s from th e scor e rathe r tha n apart fro m it . Fo r
fidelity to th e score , th e work , and intelligent , respectfu l interpretation ar e no t
incompatible. Withi n th e confine s o f fidelit y ther e i s considerabl e interpretiv e
freedom an d roo m fo r multiple interpretations , bu t o f course, no t fo r interpreta-
tions tha t subver t th e rea l meanin g an d intentio n o f the composer . Suc h fidel -
ity— inspired b y the score—ultimatel y serve s all constituent s o f music: the com -
poser, th e conducto r (th e performer) , and th e listene r (th e audience) . T o put i t
another way , intelligent , inspire d textua l fidelit y bes t serves , intellectuall y an d
emotionally, th e wor k itself, th e performance , an d th e listener' s aestheti c experi -
ence.
Let u s examin e mor e closel y th e mos t commo n historica l argument s tha t
have bee n presente d o n bot h side s of the issu e over many years. One o f the first
arguments presente d b y performer s (o r critic s defendin g performers ) is tha t a
composer's notatio n i s limited , i s inadequate , i s incapabl e o f precisely , objec-
tively definin g th e composer' s intentions . Th e assumptio n draw n therefro m i s
that thi s gives the performe r a licens e t o interpre t personall y and freel y wha t th e
composer ha s wrought . T o bolste r thi s argumen t man y writer s have pointe d t o
the inconsistencie s foun d i n composers ' score s regarding , fo r example , temp o
markings an d dynamics . A variety of historical informatio n is then trotte d ou t t o
show—or a t leas t t o suggest—tha t eve n composer s d o no t agre e o n th e exac t
meanings o f thei r notationa l practices . I n regar d t o temp o markings , for exam -
ple, i t is pointed ou t (a s the distinguishe d author-critic-historian Ernest Newma n
does i n a fascinatin g article31 ) tha t Mozar t use d th e temp o indicatio n andante
for bot h "L a c i darem " i n Do n Giovanni an d Papageno' s "De r Vogelfänge r bin
ich ja " fro m Th e Magic Flute, bot h i n a 2/ 4 meter , makin g th e furthe r poin t
that bot h piece s canno t possibl y b e sun g i n th e sam e tempo , tha t i n fac t th e
latter song' s andante "call s for a pace somethin g lik e 75 percent faster " tha n th e
former's.
There ar e s o many things wron g with thi s argument , presente d a s some kin d
31. Ernes t Newman , "Interpretation, " The International Cyclopedia o f Music an d Musicians, cd .
Oscar Thompson , Tent h Edition , (Ne w York, 1975) ; pp. 1076-79 .
of 'evidence, ' tha t on e hardl y knows where t o begi n t o answe r it. 32 Fo r starters,
I woul d b e intereste d t o kno w t o whos e performance s o f those tw o Mozart ex -
cerpts Newma n wa s referring . I mus t sa y tha t i n al l th e fiftee n year s I playe d
both o f these opera s at the Metropolita n Oper a wit h conductor s suc h a s Busch,
Walter, Szell , Reiner , Böhm , an d a hos t o f outstandin g Do n Giovanni s an d
Papagenos, I never once heard interpretation s o f these "arias " that wer e so diver-
gent i n temp o a s Newma n cites . I t woul d mea n that , i f Do n Giovann i wer e
singing "L a c i darem " at , say , j = 60 , the n th e 7 5 percen t faste r temp o fo r
Papageno's "De r Vogelfänger " would ha d t o hav e bee n J = 105 , which would
be clearl y impossible . Conversely , i f the latte r piec e wer e sun g a t J = 8 0 (th e
generally accepte d temp o o f thi s arietta) , the n "L a c i darem, " i f 7 5 percen t
slower, would hav e to have bee n a t J = 20 . Both impossibilities , so that o n tha t
score alon e Newman' s argumen t i s fantastically off the mark .
The mos t divergen t tempos i n whic h thos e tw o Mozar t piece s ar e generall y
sung/performed ar e approximately J = 8 0 for "Der Vogelfänger" an d J = 6 0 ±
for "L a c i darem," giving the forme r a 33 g percen t faste r pacin g tha n th e latter ,
not 7 5 percent . An d i f the Do n Giovanni due t wer e sung , say , at J = 7 2 (an d
the othe r remaine d a t J = 80) , the n th e temp o divergenc e woul d be mor e lik e
10 percent an d quit e acceptable . Eve n th e 33 J percent i s acceptable an d reason -
able, fo r le t i t b e state d tha t th e metronomi c rang e withi n whic h a particula r
tempo markin g (adagio, andante, allegro etc. ) ca n vacillat e —and ha s don e s o
since th e metronom e cam e int o us e i n th e earl y 19t h century—allow s fo r about
twenty point s o n th e slowe r end o f the temp o scale , considerabl y more o n th e
higher end , a s i s show n below . (Fig . 2 ) The temp o rang e within , fo r example ,
an andante — over 3 0 points on th e metronome—i s indee d dependent , a s almost
everyone generall y agrees, upo n th e mood , the texture , th e densit y o f the musi c
and, i n voca l music , upo n th e tex t used . Thu s i t i s quite possibl e for an y com -
poser, especiall y in th e 18t h an d 19t h centuries , t o hav e use d th e sam e Italia n
tempo ter m fo r severa l differen t mood s an d rhythmi c textures . Which i s to say
that b y itself the latitud e withi n which certai n composer s ma y have used a given
term doe s no t invalidat e the us e o f tha t term , no r doe s i t necessaril y give per -
formers th e licens e essentiall y t o disregar d it. (Thi s i s th e poin t Kolisc h make s
in a mor e comprehensiv e way ; see footnot e 28.)
It i s als o interestin g t o recal l tha t th e ol d pre-electroni c pendulu m metro -
nomes ha d temp o identification s which equate d temp o term s (lik e allegro and
adagio etc. ) wit h a rang e o f numbers simila r to thos e i n Fig . 2.
Newman i n hi s postulatio n seem s als o t o hav e completel y ignore d th e fac t
that i n Mozart' s cas e th e tw o differen t andantes ar e i n som e degre e influence d
by th e interna l rhythmi c organizatio n o f th e music : "L a c i darem " contain s
sixteenth-notes, whereas "De r Vogelfänger " does no t di p below eighth-note s (ex -
cept i n Papageno' s pan-pip e calls) . Such rhythmi c consideration s quite naturally
32. I f I concentrat e specificall y o n Newman' s articl e at thi s point, an d le t i t stan d fo r man y othe r
such argumentations , I d o s o primaril y becaus e i t i s a s succinc t a summar y of th e variou s disputa-
tions o n th e subjec t a s an y I kno w of , an d i t i s cogently argued, at least , an d presente d i n a majo r
widely rea d musi c encyclopedia and referenc e book .
Fig. 2
largo, largament e | bea t= 40-6 0
adagio, lento , grav e l bea t= 48-6 6
andante, andantin o | bea t= 56-9 0
allegretto, allegro, allegramente bea t= 88-14 4
presto, prestissim o ! bea t= 132-18 0
will affec t a tempo , particularl y i n a voca l piece . Furthermore , i t seems clea r t o

the poin t o f obviousness that i n th e Do n Giovanni piec e Mozar t use d andante
in th e sens e o f 'moving/ 'flowing, ' i n a moderat e tempo , t o reflec t th e urgenc y
of th e mood : Do n Giovanni' s passionat e pleadin g wit h Zerlina , an d Zerlina' s
confused reaction , a s she i s torn betwee n resistin g the Do n an d succumbin g t o
his advances . In th e Magic Flute excerp t Mozar t use d andante t o slow down th e
motion o f th e music , whic h i n it s rhythmi c notatio n a t firs t glanc e look s lik e
lively allegro material . In citin g the Mozar t example Newman seem s no t t o have
realized tha t on e o f th e point s h e i s makin g abou t tempos , namely , tha t the y
tend t o b e contextuall y influenced (which , o f course, i s true) i s not negate d b y
his example, but actuall y neatly confirmed by it.33 In short, Newman's argument
using th e tw o Mozar t andantes i s inaccurate , misguided , an d ultimatel y mean -
ingless.34
What Newma n als o neglect s t o mentio n i s that , i n contradistinctio n t o hi s
point abou t Mozart' s andante , Mozar t was astonishingly precise and inventiv e i n
modifying hi s generic tempo indications . For example, he use d b y my reckoning
at leas t seve n differen t allegros (se e Fig. 3 below) , a whol e continuu m o f alle-
gros, a s i t were , whic h a s a n interpreter , I mus t say , I hav e foun d no t onl y
extremely helpfu l bu t withou t exceptio n i n thei r discret e meaning s unequivo -
cally clear , especiall y in a textua l context , a s in Mozart' s operas .
Newman als o invoke s Car l Mari a vo n Weber' s well-know n listin g o f metro -
nome number s fo r eac h sectio n o f hi s oper a Ewyanthe, pointin g ou t wha t h e
(Newman) regard s as the list' s man y metronomic inconsistencie s and discrepan -
33. I t ma y b e tha t Newma n go t confuse d i n hi s mathematic s o r state d the m clumsily . I t i s possible

that h e mean t t o sa y tha t "L a c i darem, " i f sun g a t a temp o o f J = 60 , woul d b e pace d a t 7 5
percent th e spee d o f "Der Vogelfänger," i f that wa s sung a t a temp o o f J = 80 , rathe r tha n "75%
faster".
34. Hi s statemen t tha t "ther e i s no genera l agreemen t a s to whethe r andantino mean s rathe r faste r
or rathe r slowe r tha n andante" i s equall y confused . Andantino bein g th e diminutiv e o f andante,
clearly indicate s a slightl y faste r andante or , a s Davi d Fallow s i n Grove 6 put s it , " a slightl y mor e
light hearte d andante". It is the case , however , tha t andantino i n th e 18t h and th e earl y 19t h century
was regarde d generall y a s a temp o slowe r tha n andante (see , for example , Nei l Zaslaw' s "Mozart' s
Tempo Conventions, " i n ÍMSC R (1972) , p . 770 . It i s also tru e tha t eve n Beethove n wa s confuse d
by th e ambiguit y o f th e ter m i n hi s time , whe n i t wa s i n fac t stil l use d i n conflictin g ways , a s
Beethoven pu t i t sometime s "clos e t o allegro an d o n anothe r [occasion ] almost lik e adagio" (fro m a
letter t o Georg e Thomson , on e o f Beethoven's publishers , date d Februar y 19 , 1813).
It was soon afte r Beethoven' s er a —and lon g befor e Newman' s writin g in th e 1970s—tha t the ter m
andantino acquire d it s present unambiguou s meanin g a s stated above .
Fig. 3
allegro moderat o
allegro maestos o
allegro spiritos o (allegro con spirito)
allegro molt o (molt o allegro )
allegro d i molt o
allegro vivace
allegro assai
(All terms differentiated fro m allegretto
and presto.)
cies. Weber , fo r example , mark s on e largo J = 84 , anothe r J = 50 ; andante

con moto i s alternatel y 72 , 66 , an d 80 ; allegro i s 10 0 an d 16 0 a t on e extreme ,
60 a t th e other , an d s o on . T o understan d thes e apparen t inconsistencie s w e
must pu t thi s informatio n i n context . I t i s well know n tha t Webe r (unlik e Bee -
thoven) wa s ambivalent abou t metronomizatio n an d provide d th e marking s for
Euryanthe mos t reluctantl y an d onl y unde r duress . Ho w seriousl y an d thor -
oughly h e though t abou t hi s metronom e suggestion s i n eac h instanc e i s thu s
perhaps ope n t o question . Second , i f one look s at the specifi c context s i n whic h
Weber's variabl e metronome marking s occur—context s o f mood, dramatic char -
acterization and continuity , rhythmic/metri c settings , etc.—on e can see that the y
are no t a s vagran t an d a s inconsisten t a s the y appea r t o b e i n bal d numerica l
abstraction, as Newman present s them .
Other writers , historians , an d critic s hav e use d variou s othe r historica l ac -
counts relatin g to metronomizatio n t o poin t t o it s inadequacy and risks : (1 ) such
as Brahms' s lifelon g adaman t rejectio n o f metronom e marks ; (2 ) suc h a s
Wagner's resistanc e t o th e metronomizatio n o f hi s scores ; (3 ) suc h a s Beetho -
ven's irritate d disbelie f i n discoverin g that som e los t metronom e marking s ha d
been replace d b y him wit h other s quit e differen t fro m th e origina l ones , an d s o
on. Wha t Newman an d othe r historia n colleague s disregar d or suppres s in thei r
disputations—this i s wha t I mean t earlie r b y curtailin g th e argumen t a t th e
most propitiousl y self-servin g moment—i s th e fac t tha t composers , startin g i n
Beethoven's tim e an d eve r sinc e then , hav e becom e increasingl y precis e an d
consistent i n thei r notationa l habits , s o that th e furthe r on e proceed s alon g th e
chronological/historical rout e t o th e present , th e mor e on e encounter s a n in -
creased amoun t o f detailed an d reliabl e notationa l information . I n effect , com -
posers hav e learne d t o defen d themselve s agains t th e vagarie s and indulgence s
of performers; or at least they have tried t o do so, notwithstanding the occasiona l
inconsistencies, contradictions , an d anomalie s on e ma y fin d occasionall y wit h
certain composer s (e.g . Schönberg' s sometime s overwrough t fas t metronom e
marks, particularl y in hi s earlie r years; Stravinsky's well-known temp o contradic -
tions, no t onl y i n hi s revision s o f his ow n work s bu t i n hi s ow n performance s of
them). Suc h occasiona l anomalie s d o no t automaticall y invalidat e all metro -
nome markings . Th e fac t i s tha t composers , eve n grea t creativ e geniuses , ar e
fallible, an d occasionall y do make mistake s under variou s time an d energ y con -

straints, an d ar e no t necessaril y entirely consisten t i n certai n matter s ove r th e
span o f a n entir e lifetime . Also, ther e i s n o doub t tha t som e composers , the n
and now , are more careles s in notationa l matter s than others . Bu t all these facts ,
even whe n adde d together , ar e no t sufficien t justificatio n t o argu e tha t therefore
metronome mark s an d temp o indication s ar e inherentl y unreliabl e an d irrele -
vant, t o b e regarde d eithe r wit h grea t suspicio n o r t o b e convenientl y ignored .
Just becaus e a fe w composer s hav e no w an d the n displaye d some huma n fail -
ings, i t ca n hardl y justif y o r rationaliz e th e peculia r notion , fo r example , tha t
certain (o f Beethoven's ) metronom e marking s ar e rejectable , whil e other s ar e
seemingly acceptable . (Example s of this ru n lik e a constan t threa d throug h th e
analysis o f recording s in Par t HI.)
There i s no questio n tha t metronomizatio n i s not a n absolutel y reliabl e pro -
cess; o n th e othe r hand , i t can hardl y be prove n t o b e wholl y useless and falli -
ble. Metronom e marking s are , i n fact , takin g th e entir e literatur e i n accoun t
(not jus t the allege d 'proble m days ' of the earl y 19th century) , mor e ofte n help -
ful an d reliabl e tha n not—b y far . As I hav e alread y mentioned , i t i s no t tha t
they are to be rigidl y mechanicall y followe d —no performer/conductor can guar -
antee tha t anyway—bu t tha t the y offe r valuabl e clue s as to th e relativ e tempo t o
be take n an d i n mos t case s direc t confirmatio n o f the verba l tempo indication s
given b y composers . Tha t composer s i n genera l fo r almos t a centur y regar d
tempo no t a s something rigidl y o r mechanicall y assume d an d maintained , bu t
as somethin g subjec t t o variabl e interpretatio n i s show n b y th e fac t tha t mos t
composers us e th e ter m "ca."—" J = ca . 120 " o r " J = approx . 120"—i n thei r
metronomizations, seriousl y invalidating Dohnanyi's earlier-quote d accusation .
Similar negativ e an d mostl y fallaciou s argument s hav e ofte n bee n presente d
over th e year s in regar d t o dynamics . The sam e Ernes t Newman , fo r example,
argued tha t composers ' varie d an d "inconsistent " us e o f dynamic s make s strict
adherence t o the m b y performer s questionable , o r a t leas t ver y difficul t an d
problematic. Admittedly , dynamics ar e no t 'precise ' i n th e strictes t sens e o f th e
word, an d i n th e prevailin g system of notation cannot , i n fact , provid e a n abso -
lute, unequivocall y explici t representatio n o f dynami c levels . No r ca n huma n
instrumentalists an d thei r instrument s reproduc e wit h total accurac y precise dy-
namic levels , eve n i f we had th e notationa l mean s t o prescribe them accurately .
But t o procee d fro m tha t admissio n via a numbe r o f carefully selecte d example s
by certai n famou s composers, wh o use d dynamic s i n idiosyncrati c or inconsis -
tent ways, to conclude that composers' dynamics , like tempos, ar e largely unreli-
able, an d thu s ough t t o b e regarde d freel y o r wit h suspicion—tha t the y creat e
"insoluble problems " fo r th e performer—i s preposterous . Newma n cite s Verdi' s
use o f pppp an d eve n ppppppp (i n Aida), implying , without quite darin g to say
as much , tha t thi s rathe r negate s th e usefulnes s an d reliabilit y of Verdi's entire
dynamic practice . H e rightl y points ou t tha t Verd i felt compelle d t o us e suc h
extreme dynamic markings to shock hi s generally rather careless and , i n matters
of notation , apatheti c Italia n orchestr a player s t o pla y a norma l p , suggestin g
that a mer e p markin g would probabl y have resulte d i n " a heart y f." Unfortu -
nately Newma n leave s th e poin t danglin g there , neglectin g t o mentio n tha t (a)
the knowledg e alon e o f the reason s fo r thes e extrem e dynamic s shoul d alread y
help i n understandin g ho w t o implemen t them , tha t is , t o tak e the m wit h a
little grai n o f salt, bu t a t the sam e tim e no t entirel y ignor e them ; (b ) that Verdi,
who wa s afte r al l no t a fly-by-night mediocrity an d wa s i n fac t a compose r wh o
was, especiall y i n hi s late r work s suc h a s Aida (an d Do n Carlos, Othello, an d
Falstaff) quit e concerne d wit h a s comprehensiv e an d precis e a notatio n o f hi s
musical idea s a s he coul d muster , stil l use d p an d p p i n hi s scores , fro m whic h
we ca n infe r tha t p an d p p als o stil l mean t somethin g relativel y spécifie to him ,
and tha t fou r p' s wer e intende d t o signif y a comparativel y softe r dynami c leve l
in th e contex t o f that work—eve n i f we ma y hav e t o decid e tha t therefor e hi s p
is slightly louder tha n i t i s with othe r composer s i n differen t land s an d a t differ -
ent epochs. 35
My poin t i s tha t th e fines t musician s (especiall y i n chambe r musi c o r sol o
work) ca n differentiat e more tha n th e usua l eigh t dynamic s (fro m pp p t o fff) —
or the eve n muc h mor e commo n thre e dynamics : 'soft , loud , an d i n between ' —
and i n fac t d o s o instinctively al l th e tim e i n th e subtl e dynami c nuancin g tha t
marks an y trul y fin e player' s performances .
Newman return s t o a simila r point somewha t later , suggestin g "that a p or p p
in a Wagne r oper a doe s no t mea n a t al l th e sam e thin g a s p o r p p in , say ,
[Mendelssohn's] Midsummer Night's Dream Overture. " I a m no t entirel y con -
vinced tha t thi s i s i n fac t true , fo r i t migh t b e nothin g mor e tha n Newman' s
subjective perceptio n o f how Wagner an d Mendelssoh n shoul d soun d o r indee d
were sometime s performe d durin g hi s lifetime . Fo r al l I know , a n exquisit e p p
in Wagner's Tristan shoul d b e th e sam e dynami c leve l qu a dynamic a s in Men -
delssohn's Overture , whil e th e soni c an d acousti c amplitud e migh t vary . Bu t
even i f one grant s Newman' s point , i t surel y does no t mea n tha t musician s an d
conductors shoul d therefor e b e allowe d t o rende r Wagner' s p' s an d pp's a s mf's
or f's — nor fo r tha t matte r t o ignor e dynamic s i n Mendelssohn' s works , wher e
the man y subit o p' s an d pp's, i n hi s Hebrides Overture , fo r example , ar e als o
almost universall y ignored o r compromise d —no t t o mentio n th e p par t i n thou -
sands o f fp's i n Wagner's operas , especiall y Der Ring an d Parsifal.
Finally, I retur n t o th e poin t tha t Newma n an d like-minde d critic s an d hi s
performer-colleagues almos t neve r pres s thei r argument s t o thei r ultimat e con -
35. Similarly , a t th e othe r en d o f th e dynami c scale , Verdi' s score s ar e fille d wit h fiv e an d si x f's.
The implicatio n ther e i s tha t hi s simpl e f i s softe r tha n i n mos t othe r composers ' scores . Thu s i t
may ver y wel l be tha t Verd i made a virtue o f a painfu l necessit y and thereb y arrive d at a muc h mor e
differentiated rang e o f dynamics.
The sam e proble m i s to b e foun d i n Tchaikovsky' s Sixth Symphon y ( a brief discussio n o f which
is found i n Par t III) . It is also wort h noting parentheticall y tha t Milto n Babbitt , an d othe r composer s
such a s Pierr e Boulez , Georg e Perle , Mari o Davidovsky , an d Rober t DiDomenic a hav e als o fre -
quently resorte d t o highl y differentiate d dynamics—as man y a s twelve—i n certai n works , dynamics
which ar c eminentl y playable b y conscientiou s performers, thoug h perhap s no t absolutely reliabl y
and consistently . The iron y her e i s tha t mos t musician s ten d t o complai n bitterl y abou t moder n
composers' us e o f such finel y differentiate d dynami c levels, but the y d o no t complai n abou t Tchai -
kovsky's us e o f virtually th e sam e concept—the y simpl y ignor e hi s dynami c gradations.
elusions, fo r eve n the y se e th e irrationalit y of that . Fo r i f on e begin s b y ques -

tioning th e reliabilit y of th e composer' s notatio n i n respec t t o tempo s an d dy -
namics an d a s a consequenc e suggest s tha t on e ough t t o permi t musician s t o
take variou s liberties wit h the text , the n wher e i s one t o sto p compromising ? A t
what poin t i n th e lin e o f tha t argumen t shoul d on e pu t a hal t t o it ? B y what
criteria i s one t o know how fa r away fro m th e scor e on e ma y o r may no r depart ?
If w e ar e entitle d someho w t o ignor e some o f a composer' s temp o an d dynami c
markings, why not ignor e mor e —or finally all —of them ? Eve n th e mos t arden t
defenders o f performers' privilege s do no t hav e th e courag e o f their conviction s
to pus h th e argument s tha t far . They prefe r instea d t o rais e a fe w smokescree n
questions, loade d wit h dir e implication s an d innuendo , an d havin g gotte n of f
those initia l salvos, hastily retreat int o th e dar k night o f vestigial confusion, wit-
nessing with pleasur e fro m a distanc e th e discomfor t of composers, who , i f they
try t o defen d themselve s an d thei r notations , ar e summaril y regarde d a s bein g
overly defensiv e and paranoid .
Many conductor s an d thei r apologist s (critics , sleeve-note writers , publicists)
have defende d conductors ' libertie s wit h regar d t o temp o an d dynami c modifi -
cations, the retouchin g and revisin g o f scores, by arguing that , in the main , such
conductors ar e onl y tryin g t o hel p th e composer , t o clarif y hi s score s fo r th e
listener, t o brin g out 'importan t details.' Suc h argument s are a s specious no w as
they were whe n Billo w first made the m i n th e 1880s , especially those tha t tr y to
justify th e bringin g ou t o f 'important details. ' There ar e severa l fallacie s hidde n
in tha t benign-soundin g 'rationale. ' For what i t usually means i s that a conducto r
wants t o brin g ou t thos e detail s tha t h e happens t o thin k ar e important , whic h
may no t a t al l coincid e wit h wha t th e compose r though t important . Second ,
what i t unfortunatel y also to o ofte n mean s i s that suc h 'details ' ar e brough t ou t
in a n exaggerate d an d overpersonalize d manner which , again, reflect s mor e th e
conductor's conceptio n o f the wor k than th e composer's. Third , th e italicizin g of
certain detail s may , unde r th e bes t circumstances , illuminat e som e significan t
aspect o f th e wor k o r o f a give n passage , bu t a t th e sam e tim e ma y d o sever e
damage t o anothe r 'detail, ' als o o f significance an d intrinsi c merit . Fourth , th e
bringing ou t o f details almos t alway s seems t o mean—an d listenin g t o th e hun -
dreds o f records i n researchin g for this book ha s certainl y confirmed this—'play -
ing somethin g louder, ' or , i f i t i s a matte r o f a temp o consideration , playin g
something 'muc h slower ' tha n indicate d o r 'muc h faster. ' I t seem s tha t i t rarel y
occurs t o suc h conductor s an d thei r apologists , i f it i s a questio n o f balance o r
dynamics, t o occasionall y mak e th e other parts play softer!
The defens e o f bringing out detail s through dynami c exaggeratio n has o f late
taken o n a curiousl y ironic twist . I t i s now argued , fo r example , tha t give n th e
larger siz e o f today's orchestras , especiall y th e large r strin g sections , certai n 'de -
tails' in , say , the wind s need t o b e brough t t o th e fore , detail s which i n Beetho -
ven's o r Brahms' s smalle r orchestra s coul d readil y b e heard . (Th e sam e argu -
ment, b y the way , is used t o justif y th e doublin g o f wind instrument s in classica l
symphonies.) Ha s i t neve r occurre d t o suc h conductor s tha t ther e ar e a t leas t
two other solutions to the 'problem' ? On e i s to make those oversized , overstuffe d
string section s play softer an d us e les s bow (an d fewer bowings) an d les s vibrato;
the othe r i s to reduc e th e siz e o f the strin g section s t o wha t the y wer e i n th e
19th century . (O n tha t poin t Roge r Norringto n i s absolutely right. 36)
In truth , 'th e bringin g out o f details'— a phras e tha t o n th e fac e o f it sound s
so worthy , an d harmless—ca n hid e a multitud e o f sins . Th e proble m i s tha t
unless i t i s done ver y subtly and judiciously , tempered b y a n innat e respec t fo r
the scor e an d it s composer, i t i s likely to b e anythin g bu t 'harmless. ' I f it i s no t
done wit h a concern fo r the over-al l coherenc e an d integrit y o f the entir e work ,
that is , considered an d balance d agains t man y othe r aspect s o f the work ; if it is
instead merel y a personal , subjective , isolate d fanc y tha t happen s t o hav e at -
tracted th e attentio n o f th e conductor , the n i t i s likely to d o mor e har m tha n
good an d eve n i f th e 'bringin g ou t o f a detail ' i s b y itsel f foun d t o b e helpfu l
and correct , i t ca n b e th e case—an d s o ofte n is—tha t i t damage s o r obscure s
some othe r equall y 'important detail. '
Since discussion s o n thes e matter s ar e almos t alway s couched i n ideologica l
and polemica l generalities , essentiall y meaningless t o the la y reader—a senseles s
bickering amon g opposin g camps— I woul d lik e to avoi d that pitfall , and , a t th e
risk o f anticipating som e o f the comment s an d analyse s i n Par t II I o f the book ,
mention a fe w specific examples o f the danger s o f too subjectively , too thought -
lessly, 'bringin g out certai n details. '
Willem Mengelber g ha s ofte n bee n laudabl y describe d a s a conducto r wh o
preferred isolatin g and emphasizin g detail s i n a score , a s oppose d t o an d eve n
at the expens e o f preserving the consistenc y of the large r aspects an d gran d for m
of th e work . W e shal l se e ho w tha t harmless-soundin g phrase—'isolatin g an d
emphasizing details ' —can b e a euphemis m fo r distortio n an d willfu l arbitrar y
misinterpretation.
In th e firs t movemen t o f Brahms's Fourt h Symphony, 37 Mengelber g fel t tha t
he neede d t o 'brin g out ' the first violins' lin e i n mm . 15-18 (a s if that lin e eve r
needed furthe r 'bringin g out'). H e di d so by (1) having the violin s play consider-
ably louder; an d (2 ) by stretching the temp o enormousl y i n thos e fou r bars . Th e
damage don e b y this emphasizin g o f a certai n 'detail ' i s that th e obo e enterin g
in m.1 7 wit h wha t i s in effec t a continuatio n o f the violins ' line—a n obo e pas -
sage whic h i s unde r th e bes t o f circumstance s difficul t t o hear—ha s no w be -
come virtuall y inaudible. Matter s wer e no t helpe d b y the fac t tha t Jaa p Stotein ,
the Concertgebouw' s obois t o f th e time , ha d a rathe r smal l tone , wherea s th e
Concertgebouw violin s wer e famou s fo r thei r ful l ric h sound . B y bringing ou t
one 'detail, ' Mengelber g completel y obscure d anothe r eve n mor e 'important '
one. Moreover , hi s exaggerated slowin g of the tempo , which Mengelber g proba -
bly fel t woul d hel p delineat e th e forma l outlines o f the symphony' s exposition ,
actually destroye d th e ver y clarit y an d congruit y o f for m h e wa s trying to eluci -
date. I n th e meantim e ther e ar e a hundre d othe r 'details'—o f balance , o f dy -
36. Se e particularl y Norrington' s commentar y o n thi s and relate d performance practic e matters i n
the sleeve-not e for his Brahm s First recordin g (EMI Classics) .
37. Hea r th e recen t re-issue o f Mengelberg's 193 8 Concertgebouw recording.
namics, of articulation, o f form—throughout th e wor k that needed Mengelberg' s

attention, but tha t h e completel y ignore d o r misinterprete d o r was unaware of.
In th e sam e symphony' s secon d movemen t recapitulatio n (beginnin g m.64) ,
after takin g an alread y intolerably slow tempo i n th e mai n them e (i n the violas),
Mengelberg make s an enormou s ritar d in m.71 , followed by a horn an d bassoo n
quartet playin g mfto f — Brahms's markin g i s pp (!)—whic h i s then intende d t o
be followe d b y a ful l contrastin g f i n alternatin g win d an d strin g choirs .
Mengelberg's variou s dynami c an d temp o distortion s ar e her e presumabl y in -
tended t o 'brin g out ' significan t 'details ' o f form , but , apar t fro m showin g a
rather astonishin g contemp t fo r th e score , the y achiev e quit e th e opposit e re -
sults: the forma l outline, s o beautifully reflected i n Brahms' s score, is completely
convoluted an d subverted .
A third exampl e o f misguidedly 'makin g a point,' a very common on e favore d
by many , many conductors—an d le t thes e thre e illustration s stand a s well as for
hundreds i f no t thousand s o f others—ca n b e foun d i n th e las t movemen t o f
Brahms's Firs t Symphony . Whe n th e beautifu l choral e i n trombones , horns ,
and bassoon s i n th e introductio n (mm.47-51 ) return s i n th e allegro coda, mos t
conductors have , evidentl y fo r generations , slowe d dow n t o a temp o clos e t o
that o f the chorale' s first appearance. Thi s i s done presumabl y t o poin t ou t an d
emphasize tha t relationshi p for the listener , to produce a formal , expressive link
between th e tw o occurrence s o f th e chorale . I t ma y hav e achieve d tha t goa l
with listeners—on e can' t eve n b e sure , a t that—bu t i n th e meantim e i t ha s
completely subverte d Brahms's intentions , hi s goal . I n tha t cod a Brahm s indi -
cates n o ritardatio n o f th e tempo , intendin g fo r th e 'chorale, ' thi s tim e i n a
totally differen t musical , expressiv e (an d tempo ) context , t o b e a brillian t song
of triumph , o f exultation . Thu s th e (perhap s eve n well-intentioned ) 'bringin g
out' o f a formal , themati c detai l ca n b e see n t o b e i n th e en d a tota l distortio n
and perversio n o f Brahms's intentions , s o clearl y expressed i n th e score .
Are suc h 'interpretations ' th e resul t o f ignorance , malevolence , thought -
lessness? I don' t thin k so . I t i s a matte r o f ego, an d no t th e "selfles s ego " Brun o
Walter ofte n spok e of . Earlie r I hav e writte n o f th e counterproductiv e conse -
quences o f a conductor' s eg o imposin g itsel f o n th e orchestra , o n hi s fello w
musicians. But there i s another conductor' s ego , eve n mor e harmful : that whic h
assumes i t ca n impos e it s ow n ideas , it s ow n fancie s an d whims , o n th e scor e
and th e wor k o f th e composer . Conductor s wh o perpetrat e thes e imposition s
really thin k the y kno w bette r tha n th e compose r wha t th e compose r 'ha d i n
mind,' an d ho w th e compose r 'shoul d hav e notate d th e work. ' I n tha t sens e i t is
thoughtless, als o insensitive to th e right s of the composer . An d wh o suffer s fro m
all this ? The audience , dupe d b y the erran t conductor/interpreter , an d th e or -
chestra; although , sa d to say, many orchestr a musician s don' t know or no longe r
care. The y hav e com e t o realiz e tha t complyin g wit h th e conductor' s whim s
and distortion s is an unavoidabl e part o f their job.
When w e spea k about exactitud e of interpretation and fidelit y t o th e score , it
is wel l i f interpreter s (conductors , performers , players , musicians , singers ,
coaches) understan d tha t al l composing , bu t especiall y a t th e highes t inspira -
tional levels , involve s no t onl y th e creativ e facultie s o f th e compose r bu t hi s
critical an d self-critica l facultie s a s well . Composin g consist s a s muc h o f re -

jecting—critiquing certai n ideas , certai n possibilities—a s i t doe s o f thinkin g of
them, creatin g them , i n th e firs t place . A compose r i s always, at ever y ste p i n
the creatio n o f a piece, makin g choices ou t o f an infinit e numbe r o f possibilities.
This process involve s acceptance a s well as rejection of ideas. The greates t com -
posers hav e th e abilit y t o kno w instinctivel y whic h musica l idea s comin g t o
them ar e suitable or acceptable t o the piec e (o r more precisel y to that particular
moment i n tha t piece ) an d whic h ar e no t suitabl e o r acceptable, an d therefor e
to b e rejected . Thi s applie s no t onl y t o th e large r concept s an d design s o f a
piece, bu t eve n t o it s minutes t details . Ever y notationa l specificatio n i s sifte d
through th e composer' s mind , ear , an d musica l instincts , ultimatel y leading to a
final choice, whethe r i t be i n regar d t o a note , a rhythm , a dynamic , the place -
ment o f a crescend o o r an accelerando , o r whatever.
What thi s mean s fo r u s performer s and conductor s i s that w e mus t conside r
reliable (an d i n som e sens e perhap s eve n definitive ) wha t a composer , afte r
much exactin g selfscrutin y o f hi s ideas , bot h larg e an d small , ofte n acceptin g
some an d rejectin g others an d comin g t o a 'best' decision, ha s written unless we
have overwhelmin g documentar y evidenc e t o th e contrary . T o pu t i t anothe r
way, i f th e compose r ha s pondere d thes e thousand s o f question s an d decision s
and resolve d the m i n a specifi c way , then w e conductor s an d performer s ough t
to tak e the m o n faith , an d disciplin e ourselve s t o re-creat e thos e ideas , thos e
conceptions an d thos e feelings , a s faithfull y a s possible . Fo r mysel f I canno t
express adequately enough i n word s what a thrill i t is— a profoun d pleasure an d
honor—to do exactl y what Brahms (or Beethoven o r Tchaikovsky or Schumann )
wants an d ha s notated .
I a m awar e o f th e fac t tha t latel y i n Americ a i n man y circle s certai n terms ,
like 'discipline ' an d 'intellectual, ' ar e considere d t o b e dirt y words. To exercis e
artistic, musical , persona l disciplin e i s considered b y some t o b e 'square' , 'dull, '
'uninspired,' 'elitist,' and eve n somehow 'un-American. ' Suc h attitude s are unfor-
tunate, becaus e the y ar e contradictor y t o th e ver y concep t o f ar t an d artisti c
creation, whic h ar e unachievabl e withou t a high degre e o f discipline. Fo r let u s
not los e sigh t o f the fac t tha t composin g a t th e highes t leve l i s also i n par t a n
act o f discipline. And thi s aspect of discipline i n creativit y must be reflecte d an d
manifested i n ou r interpretation s an d mad e audibl e fo r ou r audience s i n ou r
performances. I n tha t respec t th e ac t o f re-creating , o f conducting, i s perhap s
even mor e fraugh t with difficultie s tha n th e ac t o f creating . For , a s I hav e sug -
gested earlier , i f al l trul y great creativity—al l trul y grea t work s of art—embod y
in perfec t balanc e th e highes t manifestation s of both emotio n (feeling ) and in -
tellect, o f individua l musica l instinct s an d techniqu e (o r craft) , then , b y an y
reasonable standard s an d criteria , re-creation s (performances ) o f thos e work s
ought als o fully t o reflect those twi n impulses. That, of course, i s easier said tha n
done, fo r whil e w e ma y eventuall y b y virtu e o f painstakin g stud y thoroughl y
comprehend a musica l composition, it i s still anothe r matte r t o reveal and brin g
to life th e feeling s tha t li e behind th e bar e notes , behin d th e technica l structure,
and t o connect th e intellectua l substanc e t o the emotiona l essence .
It i s on tha t premise tha t m y philosoph y o f the ar t o f conducting i s ultimately
50 TH E COMPLEAT CONDUCTOR
based. Bu t perhap s Weingartne r sai d i t best 38 i n speakin g o f the homogeneit y o f

conception i n a grea t musical wor k and o f the relationshi p between feelin g an d
intellect i n bot h th e creatio n an d th e re-creatio n o f music: "I f this feeling is not
strong enough , the n th e intellec t take s it s place , assume s a predominan t role ,
and lead s t o a n excessivel y analytic approach . I n th e opposit e instance , feelin g
takes ove r i n a n unhealth y wa y an d lead s t o unclearness , fals e sentimentalit y
and emotiona l nonsens e [Stimmungsduselei]. I f neithe r feelin g no r intellec t i s
strong enough , the n ther e results , accordin g t o th e prevailin g fashion , eithe r
mere metronomi c time-beatin g o r a mindles s mani a fo r [contrived ] nuance s
[Nuancierungswut]. Neither , however , has anything to do wit h art , whose lofties t
expression i s th e attainmen t o f tha t delicate , mor e intuitiv e tha n calculated ,
balance betwee n feelin g an d intellect , whic h alon e ca n len d a performanc e it s
vitality an d authenticity. "
Very earl y i n thi s discours e I allude d briefl y t o th e conductor' s eg o an d it s
place i n th e conductor' s arsena l o f 'talents. ' A s on e o f th e mos t controversia l
and, ofte n i n th e past , mos t sensationa l an d mos t publicize d aspec t o f the con -
ductor's image , i t i s a subjec t to whic h w e nee d t o return—comple x a s i t is . I t
is clea r tha t a certai n degre e o f conviction, based , on e woul d hope , o n compre -
hensive knowledg e an d talent , i s a necessar y par t o f a conductor' s equipment ,
so t o speak . I t i s necessar y i n orde r t o impos e a particula r poin t o f view , a
particular 'interpretation, ' upo n a n orchestra , i n itsel f mad e u p o f a collectio n
of distinc t individual s and artisti c egos. I us e th e wor d 'conviction ' deliberately ,
because I would lik e to distinguis h betwee n convictio n an d ego . I n fac t I would
like t o mak e a furthe r distinctio n betwee n th e huma n eg o and th e huma n ego -
tist. A conductor's conviction s an d a health y ego—a s I referre d t o i t earl y on—
can b e an d shoul d b e conveye d b y persuasion, no t b y domination. Th e abilit y
to persuad e musician s i n tur n shoul d deriv e fro m a respec t fo r th e conducto r
based o n hi s talent, hi s knowledge, an d hi s behavior towards them, especiall y in
rehearsals.
Such a conditio n i s obviousl y a fa r cr y fro m th e situatio n whic h pertaine d
half a centur y ago , whe n conductors ' tempe r tantrums , thei r powe r t o hir e an d
fire virtuall y a t will , thei r generall y dictatoria l attitude s dominate d th e field . I
played a s a hornist in thos e year s with mos t o f those tyrants—Toscanini , Stokow -
ski, Reiner, Szell , Leinsdorf, Rodzinski, Dorati, Barzin , Morel39 —and ca n testif y
first hand t o th e feeling s of fea r an d insecurit y (professiona l and financial ) wit h
which w e musician s lived almos t ever y day. I als o playe d wit h man y fine , eve n
great, conductors—lik e Monteux , Mitropoulos , Goossens , Perlea , Busch , Ru -
dolf, Kempe , Beecham—whos e behavior and attitud e towar d musicians can onl y
be describe d a s benign, gentle , and courteous , wh o di d not hav e t o shout a t and
terrorize u s t o ge t th e mos t wonderfu l musical results . Bu t wha t i s interesting i s
that amon g th e conductor s o f both type s ther e i s no clea r correlatio n betwee n
38. Weingartner , Über da s Dirigieren 1905 , p.16; Englis h translation On Conducting, translate d b y
Ernest Newman , 1906, p . 17.
39. I f the y wer e no t absolut e tyrants , the y wer e (lik e Leinsdorf , Dorati , Barzin ) a t leas t extremel y
short-tempered, althoug h i n thei r later year s the y all mellowe d somewhat.
their personalitie s o r behavio r an d th e qualit y o f thei r talent : i n bot h group s

there wer e greate r an d lesse r conductors , som e wh o ha d inflated , domineerin g
egos an d other s who m I woul d describ e a s havin g (i n Brun o Walter' s phrase )
"selfless egos. "
A conductor's attitude—whethe r benig n o r autocrati c —is, o f course, counter -
balanced b y an orchestra' s collective attitude , whic h ma y likewise run th e gamu t
from docilit y to hostilit y an d belligerence . Man y orchestr a musician s regar d al l
conductors a s thei r 'natura l enemy, ' an d i n man y famou s orchestra s th e musi -
cians' ego s ma y b e a s highly develope d an d aggressiv e as the conductor's . I t i s a
fact tha t virtuall y ever y conductor, eve n i f famous or generally respecte d o r pop -
ular, encounter s a t on e tim e o r anothe r a n orchestr a wit h whic h h e come s t o
grief, i n whic h th e workin g relationshi p wit h th e orchestra , fo r ofte n inexplica -
ble reasons , simpl y turns sour . I t i s one o f the grea t mysterie s of the conductin g
profession—as wel l a s one o f its realities—that a conductor ma y b e deepl y loved
by on e orchestr a an d despise d b y another .
One o f the mos t annoyin g mythologie s i n the real m o f conducting i s the notio n
of 'specialists' in one field or another. Thu s we have 'Mozar t specialists,' 'Stravin-
sky specialists,' 'Bruckne r specialists, ' 'Janáce k specialists, ' 'Frenc h repertor y spe-
cialists,' 'Russia n repertor y specialists, ' 'Baroqu e specialists, ' etc. , etc. . Wha t thi s
often means , alas , i s tha t th e 'specialist ' i n questio n i s (a ) mor e o r les s limite d
in hi s repertor y t o tha t specialty ; an d (b ) allow s himsel f majo r interpretationa l
liberties i n hi s 'specialty' by virtue of his assumptio n o f the mantl e o f 'authority.'
And becaus e o f this assume d authorit y an d it s attendant renommé, othe r musi -
cians an d critic s accep t uncritically—an d eve n applaud—whateve r th e 'special -
ist' maestr o produces .
I a m not , o f course , arguin g agains t conductor s havin g particula r passions,
particular predilections , particula r stylisti c or historica l interests . Al l conductor s
are likel y t o hav e these ; indee d i t i s to b e ferventl y hope d tha t the y hav e som e
such passion s an d predilections . Bu t I woul d distinguis h thi s fro m th e sor t o f
specialization mentione d above . Th e fac t i s tha t specializatio n i n conducting ,
like ba d tradition , i s usuall y base d mor e o n lack s an d limitation s —deficiencies
(technical, aural , intellectual)—tha n o n an y presume d specia l insight s int o th e
subject t o b e specialize d in .
The trut h i s that i f conductors woul d reall y lear n an d full y respec t wha t i s in
the score s o f th e grea t composers—al l composer s (no t jus t a selecte d few) , in-
cluding b y th e wa y a wid e rang e o f contemporar y composers—the y coul d b e
'specialists' i n th e entir e availabl e repertory. 40
40. I suppose , give n th e limite d notationa l possibilitie s of th e mor e remot e repertor y of , say , Ba -
roque, Renaissance , an d Medieva l music , on e migh t excus e conductor s fro m becomin g 'expert ' i n
those tradition s a s well . I t i s a moo t poin t i n an y case , sinc e th e earl y musi c repertor y hardl y eve r
figures i n symphoni c concerts , an d i s now—especiall y lately—lef t t o th e no t alway s tende r car e o f
the 'earl y musi c specialists. ' Bu t i n reality , wit h diligen t study, appropriat e researc h and reading , and
healthy musica l intuitions , eve n tha t mor e 'remote ' literatur e could (can ) become a par t o f a con -
ductor's activ e repertory.
There i s not s o much vita l informatio n normally t o b e foun d outsid e a com -

poser's scor e tha t woul d vitiat e th e primar y knowledge tha t th e scor e itsel f al-
ready contains. To put i t another way , what a conductor need s t o know to repro-
duce a wor k faithfully is , especially in th e repertor y from th e earl y 19t h centur y
to the present , generall y already contained i n tha t score . Additional useful infor -
mation ma y sometime s b e gleane d fro m supportiv e source s —letters t o an d b y
the composer , contemporar y account s o f performances , an d such—bu t the y
rarely ar e importan t enoug h t o supplan t th e informatio n already contained i n
the composer' s notation s i n hi s scores. No r ar e suc h alternativ e source materials
always reliable . The relianc e o n informatio n beyond th e scor e i s to o ofte n a n
'impressive' camouflag e with which 'specialist ' conductor s manag e t o hid e thei r
limitations an d deficiencies .
In thi s connection , i t i s necessary t o assai l th e eve n mor e widesprea d notio n
that 'great conductors' generall y do not—and i n man y minds, shoul d not—nee d
to dea l wit h contemporar y musi c o r th e mor e comple x musi c o f our time . Thi s
is th e greatest myt h o f al l surroundin g th e conductin g profession . I t i s littl e
understood an d appreciate d tha t a thorough knowledg e o f and versatilit y in con -
temporary musi c o n th e par t o f a conducto r wil l actuall y hel p him/he r gai n
important insight s into—and a respect for—the olde r masters ' works (unless that
conductor i s a 'contemporar y musi c specialist ' wit h n o affinit y fo r olde r styles ,
which is , alas, als o often th e case ; that kin d o f specialization is , i n m y view , as
much t o be decrie d a s the othe r kinds) .
The majo r lesso n t o b e learne d fro m th e conductin g o f contemporary score s
(or, t o qualif y i t a little , th e best , th e masterpieces , o f contemporary music ) i s a
greatly increase d awarenes s of the meticulou s car e an d extraordinar y notational
refinements whic h 20th-centur y composer s generall y lavis h o n thei r scores .
Through tha t awareness , an y conducto r i s bound t o becom e mor e scrupulou s
in hi s respect for an earlie r composer' s notation . Eve r sinc e th e importan t early
works o f Stravinsky, Schönberg, Berg , Webern, Bartók , Prokofiev, Szymanowski ,
Ravel (to name a few), 41 score s by 20th-century composers hav e become increas -
ingly precise , evermor e awar e o f ever y interpretationa l eventuality—an d there -
fore inten t a s best a s possible o n precludin g an y unwante d interpretiv e choices .
In thi s respect , i n fact , 20th-centur y composer s hav e bee n quit e successfu l i n
perfecting thei r notationa l skills , t o th e poin t tha t interpretatio n i n th e willful ,
deviant, undiscipline d wa y to whic h th e 19th-centur y repertor y i s so ofte n sub -
jected, i s virtually precluded . Ther e i s just too muc h detailed , precis e informa -
tion containe d i n a contemporar y scor e t o b e simpl y ignored . Indeed , mos t
conductors, i t would appear, seein g suc h scores , become discouraged i n contem -
plating th e necessar y technica l contro l an d intellectua l disciplin e th e conduct -
ing o f suc h work s requires , an d quickly—an d forever—disassociat e themselve s
from contemporar y music , returnin g t o th e 'relativ e safety ' an d interpretationa l
liberties o f the 19th-centur y Romanti c repertory .
41. I t shoul d b e adde d here , however , tha t Brahm s too wa s a mos t meticulou s an d precis e notato r
of hi s music , especially in hi s fou r symphonies , leaving very littl e t o doub t o r speculation . And ye t
how shabbil y Brahms has bee n treate d i n matter s o f temp o an d dynamic s by mos t conductor s an d
interpreters! (Se e Par t III.)
In a long life of performing with and observin g famous (and not so famous) con-
ductors occasionall y venturin g int o contemporar y musi c —by tha t I mea n trul y
contemporary music , representin g ou r ow n time, say , the lat e 20t h centur y (an d
not som e trendy , anachronistic , neo-Romanti c stylisti c pleasantry) —I hav e bee n
startled to discover that eve n relativel y fine conductors ar e unable t o perform th e
most elementar y function s i n conductin g a contemporary work , such a s holding
and controllin g a tempo , accuratel y renderin g a metri c modulation , obtainin g
rhythmic and dynami c accuracy, to cite but a few examples.
It is impossible to conduct a work by, say, Elliott Carter, Milto n Babbitt , George
Perle, Jacob Druckman, Donal d Martino , Pierr e Boulez, Hans Werner Henze, Ol-
iver Knussen , an d dozen s o f othe r composer s withou t having , fo r example , th e
technical/intellectual/emotional contro l t o kee p a n absolutel y stead y tempo , n o
matter what the metric or rhythmic/durational or contrapuntal complexitie s of the
music might be . T o conduct Carter' s Double Concerto for Harpsichord an d Piano
or hi s Penthode fo r five instrumental quartets , fo r example, o r Perle' s Short Sym-
phony require s the abilit y to maintain thorough temp o contro l at (or very close to)
the state d metronom e indications : her e ther e i s no saying , 'Oh, well, he couldn' t
have mean t tha t metronom e marking ; s o let's jus t d o i t a little slower'—whic h is
what most conductors do with Beethoven's metronom e o r Brahms's tempo indica -
tions. Moreover , sinc e i n these Carte r an d Perl e work s all other temp o variations
are determine d an d controlle d throug h metri c modulations , ever y on e o f suc h
tempo change s mus t als o b e rendere d precisely , les t th e whol e continuit y o f the
piece be subverted and annulled . Le t me emphasiz e that this is, in the cas e o f the
Carter an d Perl e works mentioned—and, needless t o say, hundreds o f other simi -
larly structured works by many other fin e composer s — not merel y a matter of'get -
ting prett y close ' to the temp o o r 'mor e o r less' managin g thos e metri c modula -
tions. Sinc e th e whol e wor k i s structure d i n term s o f thes e myria d temp o
relationships—nay, is composed through them , and represents the very content an d
essence o f the work—an y deviatio n fro m th e basi c called-fo r tempo s o r from th e
metric modulation s tha t constantl y modif y the m destroy s th e ver y essenc e an d
structure of the work, rendering the performance not only wrong but pointless .
Similarly, i n singl e temp o work s lik e thos e o f Babbitt's— Composition fo r
Twelve Instruments o r Relata I come to mind—wher e al l rhythmi c variatio n an d
complexity ar e alread y compose d int o th e wor k an d constitut e it s very essenc e
(at leas t on e crucia l elemen t o f it s essence) , wher e ever y rhythmi c detai l i s
precisely calibrated an d controlled , an d thu s constitute s th e rhythmi c continuit y
and flo w an d lin e o f the work , th e conducto r canno t deviat e fro m o r abando n
the basi c tempo . Thi s happen s t o require considerabl e conductoria l temp o con -
trol, but i s not b y any mean s impossibl e t o achieve. 42
42. I t should no t b e though t tha t suc h example s a s cited her e ar e a peculiarit y of the 20t h century ,
a resul t (as some woul d hav e u s believe) o f the 'mathematicization ' and 'excessiv e intellectualization '
of moder n music . Precis e tempo relationship s and interrelationship s betwee n movements , sections ,
set piece s o f opera s ar c a s muc h a par t o f Mozart' s Marriage o f Figaro an d Debussy' s Pelléas e t
Melisande o r an y numbe r o f classica l symphonie s as an y contemporar y 20th-century work. An d a s
for 'metri c modulations, ' the y g o al l th e wa y back t o th e Ar s Nova o f th e 14t h an d 15t h centuries,
not t o mentio n Beethoven' s symphonies , string quartets , an d pian o sonatas.
In a quit e differen t way , the matur e work s o f Webern ar e base d o n th e strict -

est, mos t precise , tempo s an d temp o relationships , whic h includ e eve n suc h
sophisticated concept s as , for example, notatin g an d definin g rubatos, or execut -
ing ritardando s durin g pause s an d measure s o f rest , thu s eve n determinin g th e
durations o f silences i n th e music . Again , thes e subtletie s o f tempo contro l ar e
so built int o th e ver y structure an d essenc e of the musi c tha t an y tampering wit h
them—or failur e t o execut e them—lead s automaticall y to a seriou s distortion o f
the music .
What ha s bee n sai d her e regardin g a conductor' s obligation s i n respec t t o
tempo an d rhyth m i n moder n work s could , b y analogy , b e claime d a s wel l i n
the real m o f dynamics, where agai n man y of our greates t composers—fro m Stra -
vinsky an d Schönber g t o th e present—nótat e dynamic s wit h a previousl y un -
known subtlet y o f differentiatio n an d precision , dynamic s ofte n functionin g
structurally, no t merel y decorativel y o r expressively , an d whic h mus t thu s b e
respected absolutel y i n a wa y that perhap s i n th e performanc e o f 19th-centur y
music, i f ignored, i s not quit e a s structurally damaging .
The health y disciplinin g o f one's conductoria l craf t throug h th e performanc e
of ne w musi c i s no t onl y a n intrinsicall y worth y pursuit , bu t ca n be , a s sug -
gested, a n ey e and ea r opene r fo r the conducto r i n term s o f the 18th - an d 19th -
century repertor y a s well . I t i s sa d t o realiz e tha t mos t conductor s avoi d th e
more challengin g moder n repertor y lik e th e plague , and , o f course , ar e eve n
further dissuade d fro m touchin g i t b y thei r manager s an d handlers . An d onc e
again, a doubl e standar d i s applied a s between conductor s an d musicians . Con -
ductors ar e permitted , eve n encouraged , t o avoi d th e contemporar y repertory ,
are quickl y forgiven if , when the y d o i t at all , the y hav e don e i t badly . (Indeed ,
who generally , excep t fo r th e musician s an d th e composer , eve n know s tha t a
contemporary wor k was inadequately rendere d b y the conductor? ) O n th e othe r
hand, musician s ar e no t permitte d t o avoi d contemporar y music , fo r whe n i t is
programmed, th e musician s simpl y have t o perfor m it ; the y hav e n o choic e i n
the matter . Moreover , the y ar e expecte d t o pla y thei r part s perfectly . And wha t
they play—o r b y chanc e fai l t o play—ca n b e clearl y heard , while , o f course ,
what th e conducto r doe s ca n b e heard , an d thu s b e assessed , onl y b y the mos t
sophisticated, mos t knowledgeabl e o f observers ; t o th e res t i t wil l g o b y unno -
ticed.
To pursu e thi s trai n o f thought further , i t i s rarely brought ou t tha t ther e i s a
kind o f injustic e i n a situatio n whic h allow s conductor s virtuall y an y kin d o f
liberty of interpretation, whil e orchestra l musician s ar e expecte d t o perform wit h
absolute precisio n an d accuracy , allowin g fo r n o deviation s fro m th e tex t al -
lowed—except fo r those impose d o n the m b y the conductor . Th e iron y here is
that musician s ar e expecte d t o perfor m 'perfectly ' eve n withi n th e relativel y (or
totally) distorte d interpretation s i n whic h s o man y conductor s indulge . Mor e
than that , musician s are not onl y expected t o be technically precis e an d accurat e
in thei r performing , but pla y with grea t expression , warmth , interpretiv e insight,
particularly, o f course , i n sol o passages , whilst bein g locke d int o a renditio n —
too fast , to o slow , to o loud , to o soft , to o something—whic h doe s no t correspon d
to th e scor e t o begi n with . I t i s amazing t o m e tha t thi s doubl e standard—on e

for conductor s (an d singers , by the way) , another fo r orchestral musician s —is a n
accepted norm , i s maintaine d throughou t th e musica l world , tacitl y justified ,
and rarel y questioned—sad t o say , even b y musician s themselves.
I ca n testif y t o th e virulenc e an d widesprea d acceptanc e o f this doubl e stan -
dard i n orchestra l performanc e mos t personally . For , i n m y earlier career o f over
twenty year s a s a hor n playe r i n a numbe r o f majo r America n orchestras, 43 in
most instance s a s principa l horn , I wa s expecte d t o perfor m flawlessly , bot h
technically an d expressively , ofte n enoug h withi n conductors ' interpretation s
that wer e severel y at odd s wit h th e informatio n i n th e respectiv e scores . An y
number o f musicians , the n an d now , ca n testif y t o th e sam e experience . Mor e
than now , w e musician s o f the 1930 s throug h th e 1960 s wer e i n n o positio n t o
protest thes e waywar d interpretation s i n whic h w e wer e s o ofte n imprisoned ,
because on e coul d ge t fired by the conducto r durin g a rehearsal, a t the en d o f a
concert, no t a t the en d o f a season wit h recourse t o appeals, defens e by orchestra
committees, arbitration , and s o on. I t was simply understood—and i s still largely
accepted t o thi s day—tha t a musicia n wa s (is ) to perfor m more o r les s flawlessly
in respec t t o rhythm , tempo , attac k (an d release ) o f notes, dynamics , ensembl e
blending a s ordained by the conductor , whethe r hi s interpretation corresponde d
to th e informatio n i n th e scor e o r not . I n addition , a s alread y mentioned, w e
were (are ) expecte d t o pla y wit h grea t feeling , wit h interpretiv e flexibility—no t
beyond th e limits , se t by the conductor , o f course—and t o contribut e someho w
meaningfully t o hi s interpretation . An d ho w w e sweate d an d worried , torture d
ourselves, t o achiev e thes e ofte n artisticall y dubious results . I now marve l at th e
skill an d chameleon-lik e adaptabilit y with whic h th e bes t musicians—the n an d
now—walk thi s precariou s musica l tightrope .
If a rendition deviatin g from th e tex t i s allowable for conductors , wh y i s it no t
also, permissibl e fo r orchestra l musicians ? Why can' t a musicia n pla y in wron g
tempos, inser t rubatos, ignor e dynamics , mak e crescendo s to o early , arbitrarily
accelerate th e temp o durin g crescendos , whe n conductor s see m t o asser t suc h
privileges unquestioningly , automatically? Not tha t musician s are entirel y free o f
such musica l misconduct . Mos t are similarl y inclined t o take unwante d liberties
with th e musi c whe n lef t t o their ow n devices (a s in chambe r music) . But none -
theless a different , muc h toughe r standar d pertains for them whe n they are in a n
orchestral situation , where the y ar e forced t o adhere precisel y to the conductor' s
interpretations an d whims , n o matte r ho w aberrant.
I believ e tha t conductor s wh o hav e com e ou t o f fin e orchestras , wh o hav e
had t o perfor m a t a hig h leve l i n th e kin d o f discipline d ensembl e I hav e de -
scribed, are ofte n thos e whos e interpretations are least willful , least arbitrar y an d
self-indulgent. Conductor s wh o hav e been first-rate orchestral instrumentalist s —
cellist (Toscanini) , violis t (Monteux) , obois t (Mackerras) , violinis t (Munch ) —
43. Th e Cincinnat i Symphon y Orchestra , th e Ne w Yor k Philharmonic , th e Metropolita n Oper a

Orchestra, a s wel l a s numerou s other permanen t o r free-lanc e orchestra s and recording s (wit h con -
ductors suc h a s Reiner , Stokowski, Walter , Leinsdorf , etc.).
tend t o b e thos e wh o trea t composers ' score s wit h a n innat e lov e an d respec t
and understanding . O n th e othe r hand , i n mos t case s conductor s wh o neve r
played a n orchestra l instrumen t professionally o r wh o ar e (were ) pianists—thus
rarely, performin g in ensemble , generall y limite d t o performin g soloistically, in-
dependent of any outside contro l —seldom posses s those skills and feelings . That
is wh y I d o no t necessaril y subscrib e t o th e widesprea d notion , propagate d b y
many piano-playing conductors, tha t the pian o i s the preferre d —or eve n manda -
tory—instrument fo r conductor s t o learn . I t i s obvious , o f course , tha t skill s at
the keyboar d wil l facilitat e score readin g a t th e piano , learnin g score s throug h
piano transcription s and pian o reductions . Th e pian o i s also, obviously , a useful
instrument t o maste r i n th e long-standin g Europea n traditio n o f trainin g con -
ductors i n th e oper a houses , startin g as Chorrepetitors (coaches) , working up t o
substitute an d assistan t conducto r positions , an d eventually , i n som e cases , t o
the positio n o f Erster Kapellmeister o r Generalmusikdirecktor. Ye t all thos e obvi -
ous advantages of being a proficient pianist and sight-readin g score reader—Solt i
and Szel l com e t o min d a s outstanding master s o f these skills—ar e outweighe d
by the muc h harde r to obtain experience s i n ensemble discipline s that the pian o
almost preclude s an d basi c orchestra l instrument s offer .
Be tha t a s i t may , th e fac t remain s tha t th e ofte n low-leve l imprecisio n an d
willfulness o f mos t conductin g i s i n drasti c contras t t o wha t i s expecte d o f or -
chestral musicians : absolute precisio n an d adherenc e t o the scor e (th e part ) and
the conductor .
Another much-discussed—eve n much-belabore d — issue i s th e questio n o f
whether t o conduc t fro m memor y o r not . Thi s shoul d b e a matte r o f secondary
importance, bu t unfortunatel y i t ha s bee n mad e int o a majo r issu e b y som e
critics, writers , conductors (obsesse d wit h th e fetis h o f conductin g fro m mem -
ory) an d thei r publicists . In m y view it is very much a matte r o f personal choice ;
so I d o no t se e an y particula r virtue attache d t o conductin g fro m memory . As
someone onc e put it , a great performance from a score is better tha n a mediocr e
one don e fro m memory . I t i s als o axiomati c tha t a grea t performanc e i s grea t
whether i t is conducted fro m memor y o r not. And there have been i n m y experi-
ence very , very fe w conductor s wh o ha d o r have , whil e conductin g fro m mem -
ory, mor e tha n a superficia l knowledg e o f the score . Virtually all 'fro m memory '
conductors who m I hav e observed , o r whos e recording s I hav e studied , kno w
only th e mos t obviou s surface o f the musi c an d a fe w inner detail s that happe n
to b e o f particular interes t t o them . Tha t complet e intimat e knowledg e tha t I
uphold a s th e idea l —that understanding, no t necessaril y th e memorization, o f
every minuscul e detai l o f a scor e — I hav e see n i n onl y a ver y fe w score-les s
conductors, an d the n onl y amon g thos e wh o hav e (had ) a limite d repertor y or
specialize(d) i n a certai n repertor y which the y conduct(ed ) dozen s o r hundred s
of times. Bu t even so , they als o sometimes overlook(ed ) important compositiona l
and performanc e details.
The vas t majorit y o f conductor s whe n conductin g fro m memor y primarily
conduct th e obviou s melodic o r thematic line s (mostl y those i n th e uppe r regis-
ter), som e o f the dynamic s (at least the bes t amon g the m do) , but ar e rarel y o r
only intermittentl y aware of harmonic o r tonal-functiona l aspects, structura l fea-

tures, interestin g countermelodie s o r motives , timbra i balances , intonation , un -
usual orchestrationa l details . I n othe r words , I hav e no t see n i n th e majorit y
of memorizin g conductor s a clos e correspondenc e betwee n memor y an d tru e
knowledge. Nor a m I particularly impressed b y someone conducting th e Beetho -
ven Sevent h Symphon y fo r th e ninety-fift h tim e an d conductin g i t withou t a
score. I f that conducto r doesn' t kno w the scor e b y then—at least superficially —
he o r she ha s n o righ t to ste p ont o a podiu m an d stan d i n fron t o f an orchestr a
and a n audience .
Audiences, o f course, ten d t o b e impresse d b y conductors wh o conduc t fro m
memory, littl e realizin g that fo r som e peopl e memorizatio n come s ver y easily,
especially whe n i t i s mere surfac e memorization . Th e fac t i s that som e peopl e
have a n innatel y good an d reliabl e memory , whil e other s simpl y do not . Som e
people ar e capabl e o f quic k memorization , bu t als o forge t ver y quickly . Audi-
ences als o d o no t realiz e ho w muc h o f wha t i s i n th e composer' s scor e suc h
conductors ar e i n fac t missing . Som e o f th e bes t conductors—lik e Monteux ,
Reiner, Solti—knew/kno w thei r score s ver y well , bu t nonetheles s alway s
work(ed) with the score . Other s claim the y have to memorize an d conduc t with -
out a score 44 becaus e the y fin d workin g with a score , includin g turnin g pages ,
a hindrance , eve n a distraction. Stil l others—fa r to o many in m y view—conduct
without a scor e ou t o f vanity and t o impres s th e audienc e (an d th e critic s an d
the musicians).
There i s also th e fac t tha t conductor s workin g without a scor e d o mak e mis -
takes, some mor e tha n others , eve n Ozawa , whos e memory i s the mos t phenom-
enal (an d inexplicable ) i n th e recen t histor y o f conducting , eve n fa r beyon d
Toscanini's o r Mitropoulos's . Bu t Ozawa' s memor y is also no t infallible , and hi s
knowledge o f many score s i s often o f the across-the-surface-of-the-musi c superfi -
ciality I referre d t o earlier.
One o f th e rea l problem s wit h conductin g fro m memory , especiall y i n th e
case o f conductors wh o fee l the y hav e t o conduc t everything—entir e programs ,
entire seasons—fro m memory , is that the y ten d t o be s o busy remembering wha t
comes nex t i n a piece o f music tha t the y d o no t full y hea r wha t i s being playe d
at tha t momen t b y th e orchestra , o r t o pu t i t mor e precisely , ho w i t i s bein g
played. Th e huma n brai n ca n onl y dea l wit h on e menta l activit y at a time ;
some specia l mind s perhap s wit h one-and-a-hal f o r two . Wha t thi s mean s i n
point o f fact i s that, i f the brai n i s concentrating, a s perforce it must do , i n split -
second timing s o n th e nex t upcomin g moment s o f music—le t u s cal l the m
point B — it canno t als o concentrat e wit h absolut e clarit y on wher e th e musi c
actually i s at th e moment—poin t A . The reaso n fo r this i s that musi c bein g o n
the on e han d a n aural , auditor y ar t an d bein g onl y trul y appreciabl e throug h
the ear , bu t o n th e othe r han d th e ea r bein g connecte d t o th e brai n an d it s
44. I fin d mysel f compelled t o poin t ou t tha t 'conductin g fro m memory ' an d 'conductin g without
a score ' are no t necessaril y the same . The latte r ma y mean—and , alas , ofte n enoug h does—tha t th e
conductor i n question , far fro m havin g memorized th e score , especially in al l it s fullness , i s simply
conducting 'withou t a score. '
receptivity bein g governe d b y the brai n (tha t is , the brai n provide s what i t i s to
hear), i f the brai n i s at point B , it can hardl y direct the ea r t o hea r what i s going
on a t poin t A . I n othe r words , thi s ineluctabl e fac t prevent s th e conductors ,
intent o n rememberin g wha t comes nex t in a piec e o f music, from payin g atten -
tion t o and conductin g i n detai l that which i s being playe d a t that very moment .
This i s ho w an d wh y man y memorizin g conductor s fai l t o conduct , o r the y
overlook, o r simpl y ar e no t awar e of , importan t aspect s o f th e musi c a t tha t
precise moment . Thi s als o explain s wh y a conducto r lik e Ozaw a conduct s a
performance i n a pre-programme d (i.e . memorized ) way , including memoriza -
tion o f the planne d conductoria l gestures , and ca n therefor e not mak e instanta -
neous adjustment s o r change s o f gestur e t o correc t o r balanc e something , o r
influence th e performanc e correctivel y at an y specifi c moment . Indeed , Ozaw a
has develope d an d propounde d a whole theor y of conducting whic h i s based o n
the notio n tha t th e conducto r nee d not , should not, i n a performanc e adjus t
dynamics o r dynami c imbalance s beyon d wha t ma y hav e bee n rehearsed . I t i s a
theory o f conductin g whic h avoid s confrontatio n wit h th e actua l realit y o f a
performance i n progress . I n thi s wa y o f conducting , th e performanc e an d th e
conducting constantl y pas s eac h othe r by , never reall y becoming one , neve r th e
one influencin g th e other , eac h goin g it s rehearse d pre-programme d way . I n
such conductin g i t woul d see m ver y difficul t o r downrigh t impossibl e t o really
'get inside ' th e music , t o achiev e th e kin d o f spontaneit y tha t result s fro m th e
conductor an d orchestr a creatin g th e performanc e together i n a continuou s se -
ries o f subtl e give-and-tak e interactions . I n suc h pre-programme d conducting ,
the conducto r canno t suddenl y adjus t t o brin g ou t spontaneousl y a not e tha t is
being playe d to o softly—say , th e E thir d i n a pp C majo r chord—o r t o subdu e
an overl y loud trumpe t i n a n ensemble , o r to bring out a bass line tha t need s t o
be hear d mor e prominently .
Conducting wit h a scor e doe s not , o f course, i n an d o f itself guarantee tha t a
conductor wil l b e abl e t o mak e suc h instantaneou s adjustments ; th e ea r ha s to
hear such imbalance s before the min d ca n tel l it s conductor t o make the correc -
tive gestures . Bu t i t i s my experienc e tha t mos t score-les s conductor s ar e muc h
less likely to hea r suc h momentar y deviations , becaus e al l thei r concentratio n i s
absorbed b y the ac t o f remembering .
Obviously I fee l ther e ar e som e risks—a t th e ver y least , potentia l risks—an d
some seriou s disadvantages to conductin g fro m memory . At worst, its practice i s
designed t o impress gullible audiences , managers , agents, board s of trustees, an d
perhaps eve n som e critics . A t best , i n th e hand s o f a fe w highl y exceptiona l
musician conductors , i t may b e effectiv e bu t stil l no t withou t risks . M y persona l
best suggestio n i s to kno w th e scor e completel y dow n t o it s minutest detai l —in
essence t o kno w i t 'fro m memory'—bu t nonetheles s t o hav e th e scor e o n th e
stand, a s a potential refreshe r o f the memory , a s a support element tha t i s there,
45. I recal l a t time s experiencin g th e sam e kin d o f locked-in, ' unyieldin g feeling a s a n orchestra l
musician playin g unde r Toscanin i i n th e 1940 s an d 50s , a feelin g I neve r experience d with Reiner
or Busc h o r Monteux , fo r example , wh o alway s use d a score , althoug h they kne w th e musi c com -
pletely an d thoroughly.
should i t suddenly b e needed . Th e idea l i s to b e fre e fro m th e page , bu t stil l t o

have i t ther e a s a comfort . T o m e a scor e b y Brahm s o r Beethove n o r Wagne r
or Rave l i s a thin g o f beaut y i n itself . T o see , eve n i f onl y i n a split-secon d
glance, tha t inspire d (an d inspiring ) document , tha t lovingly , painstakingl y de-
fined text , directl y a t hand—no t jus t i n th e mind' s eye—communicatin g it s
beauties t o us , i s a n exquisit e experienc e al l b y itself , an d a marvelou s emo -
tional/intellectual confirmatio n o f one' s gras p o f th e score . I t i s lik e havin g a
close, intimate , truste d frien d a t one' s side . That , I believe , i s the mos t honest ,
unpretentious, unostentatiou s approac h t o conducting .
I hav e no t thu s fa r discussed th e manual-technica l aspect s o f conducting, th e so -

called bato n technique . An d I d o no t inten d t o d o s o now, 46 excep t t o examin e
two specifi c technical questions : (1 ) th e respectiv e functio n o r function s o f th e
two hands, an d (2 ) the widesprea d habi t o f conducting continuall y wit h upwar d
motions. Regardin g th e firs t question , ther e appea r t o b e tw o basi c bu t quit e
divergent theories . State d i n it s simples t form , th e on e theor y propound s th e
notion tha t th e time-beatin g functio n i s directe d b y th e righ t hand , whil e
the expressio n of the musi c an d th e contro l o f dynamics li e in th e lef t hand ; th e
other theor y hold s tha t bot h hand s ma y be involve d i n bot h functions , bu t tha t
the righ t hand mus t i n an y case conve y the entir e characte r an d meanin g o f the
music a s wel l a s th e bea t an d tempo . Th e latte r theor y suggest s tha t a goo d
conductor o f that metho d coul d conduc t wit h onl y th e righ t hand , expressin g
by the siz e and characte r o f the bea t al l tha t i s contained i n th e music .
I ver y muc h recommen d an d suppor t th e secon d approach , no t onl y becaus e
it seem s t o offe r th e mor e complete , th e mor e flexible , th e mor e expressiv e
possibilities, bu t becaus e mos t o f the bes t conductor s I either playe d for or hav e
observed throug h th e year s were (o r are) o f the latte r school. Th e beaut y of this
concept lie s fo r m e i n th e fac t tha t th e righ t han d expresse s and embodie s al l
that i s essentia l t o th e music' s correc t characterization , leavin g th e lef t han d
free t o confirm , t o highlight , t o mak e mor e specific , t o isolat e som e musical -
compositional detail , t o 'decorate ' an d refine , as it were , th e basi c conductoria l
gestures o f the righ t hand . Thi s ca n rang e al l th e wa y from bot h hand s locke d
in identical , symmetrica l (confirming ) gesture s throug h separat e an d divers e
(highlighting, decorating ) gesture s t o tota l inactivit y of the lef t hand. 47
The reade r ma y hav e note d tha t I di d no t mentio n th e contro l o f dynamics
as par t o f th e lef t hand' s duties . Th e reaso n i s tha t tha t mus t b e alread y con -
46. Fo r detailed informatio n on thes e matters , I refe r th e reade r an d th e conductin g studen t t o any
of th e followin g instructiona l books, al l o f superio r qualit y and fille d wit h highl y usefu l (althoug h
not necessaril y alway s concurring ) information : Ma x Rudolf , Th e Grammar o f Conducting (Ne w
York, 1950 , 1980) ; Frederic k Prausnitz , Score and Podium (Ne w York, 1983) ; Herman n Scherchen ,
Lehrbuch de s Dirigierens (Leipzig , 1929), an d i n Englis h translation , Handbook o f Conducting (Lon -
don, 1933,1989) .
47. I a m wel l awar e o f the fac t tha t th e eyes , th e facia l expression , indee d th e whol e demeano r o f
the body , ar e important , eve n crucia l expressiv e element s o f th e ar t o f conducting . However , they
are beyon d the scop e o f this discussion, being fa r to o personal , too subtle , too diverse , t o permi t an y
coherent generalization s o r suggestions.
tained i n th e functionin g o f th e righ t hand . I n fact , i t i s a crucia l elemen t o f

fine conducting , eve n o f merel y technicall y competen t conducting . For , i f th e
right hand is , for example, rigorously , abstractly beating time 48 —especially with,
say, overl y large beats—the n al l th e attempt s a t nuancin g o f dynamics with th e
left han d wil l be o f no avail . A very commo n failing , fo r example, amon g youn g
or inexperience d conductor s i s to conduc t a p passag e wit h hug e uncontrolle d
right-hand beat s while irritatedly shushing the musician s with the lef t hand . Th e
two hand s can , i n additio n t o confirming , discriminate an d subtl y differentiate ,
but the y mus t no t contradic t eac h other . A n orchestr a wil l the n mechanicall y
follow th e righ t han d or—mor e likely—ignor e th e conducto r altogether .
The secon d questio n —conducting continuall y wit h upwar d vertica l ar m mo -
tions—is perhap s eve n mor e problemati c i n tha t i t i s a habi t whic h i s very eas y
to sli p int o an d ver y difficul t t o ge t ou t of ; an d a s mentioned , i t i s very wide-
spread amon g conductors , especiall y amon g Germa n o r German-traine d con -
ductors. Technically, i t consist s o f pulling the hand s an d arm s precipitousl y up -
ward o n th e beat—i n it s worst form o n each bea t (whethe r in 4/4 o r 3/ 4 or 5/ 4 or
any othe r pattern ) — instead o f delineatin g th e bea t wit h downwar d o r sideward
movements. Graphically , th e incorrec t an d correc t movement s coul d b e show n
as follows : say , in 4/4 , (se e Fig . 4a , b , c ) (a ) repeate d fou r time s mor e o r les s i n
the cente r o f the beatin g zon e wit h fou r fas t vigorou s upward thrust s (d indi -
cates the bato n stoppin g abruptly) instead o f (b), or much better , (c) . The incor -
rect movements , a s i n (4a) , ar e wron g fo r tw o basi c reasons : First , the y inher -
ently prevent the us e o f any lateral , horizontal han d movement s (lef t t o right , as
in (4b ) and (4c)) ; second , becaus e the y d o so , they mak e i t impossibl e to creat e
any musica l line . Eac h motion , especiall y if beat vigorousl y (as i n a f passage) ,
produces a punch y staccat o gestur e whic h emphasize s an d isolate s eac h beat .
There i s no orchestr a i n th e worl d tha t ca n pla y a musica l line , a phrase , with
such a flailing , upward-thrustin g beat. Th e orchestr a i s virtually forced t o pla y a
series o f hard-hittin g beats, rathe r tha n a sustaine d directiona l line — unless, o f
course, i n self-defens e i t were no t t o loo k a t the conducto r ( a recourse t o whic h
many musician s resort).
The disus e of lateral beat-patter n movements , i.e . th e avoidanc e o f using th e
entire arms'-lengt h widt h o f th e conductin g zone , i s probably th e mos t seriou s
and widesprea d proble m amon g conductor s fro m a technica l poin t o f view. If it
were merel y 'technical,' i t might b e tolerable , bu t unfortunatel y it produces th e
most unmusical , inexpressive , mechanical results .
It i s bad enoug h tha t meter s suc h a s 2/4, 2/2 , 2/8—and eve n worse , 1/4—allow
48. I f Toscanini's bato n techniqu e ha d a flaw, it wa s that i n hi s desir e t o obtai n absolut e rhythmi c
control i n hi s musicians ' performances , hi s righ t han d becam e a n inexorabl e dominatin g time -
beating an d tempo-controllin g device , whic h sometime s coul d become—especiall y i n fas t tempo s
and lou d passages—constrictin g an d stiflin g o f expression.
Of course , lik e man y grea t conductors , Toscanin i conducte d mor e wit h hi s eye s tha n wit h hi s
hands, hi s eye s ofte n offsettin g th e occasiona l rigidit y an d unyieldin g sternness o f hi s beat . Fo r
Toscanini's eye s wer e lik e burnin g coals , holdin g hi s musician s totally i n thei r swa y and , throug h
their intens e concentration , energizing the musi c in a wa y that I never felt quit e s o powerfully wit h
anyone else , except perhap s with Mitropoulos .
A PHILOSOPHY OF CONDUCTING 61
Fig. 4 a
for littl e o r no latera l beat movement . Th e hand s are relegate d simpl y to movin g
vertically dow n an d up . A t least i n an y bea t patter n o f three o r more , th e hand s
can mov e laterally , expressing through th e shap e o f the curve d horizonta l move -
ments th e mood , th e character , th e motio n an d directio n o f the music . I n thi s
context i t i s wel l t o remin d ourselve s tha t th e mos t importan t thing , fro m a
technical poin t o f view , i s wha t a conducto r doe s between th e beats . Beatin g
time i s somethin g tha t almos t anybod y ca n do—an d unfortunatel y too man y
conductors ar e merel y 'time-beaters'—bu t th e rea l ar t o f conductin g reside s i n
how yo u shap e th e music , giv e i t it s appropriat e characte r an d moo d an d es -
sence b y how you mov e fro m bea t t o beat , wha t you d o between th e beats .
And finally , a word abou t tradition s is perhaps als o i n order . Traditions are , t o
be sure, a complex subject , for there ar e bad tradition s (especially in the operati c
world) an d ther e ar e goo d traditions . T o kno w whic h ar e goo d an d whic h ar e
bad, whic h t o follo w an d whic h no t t o follow , i n itsel f takes almost a lifetim e of
study. Bu t knowledg e o f the tradition s i s a mos t importan t par t o f a conductor' s
training an d study , eve n i f onl y i n th e en d t o rejec t som e (o r most ) o f them .
The stud y o f performin g tradition s mus t b e tempere d b y stud y o f th e score ,
although conversel y th e stud y o f the scor e ma y als o b e informe d b y a stud y of
the accumulate d attendan t traditions . Ther e i s n o eas y solutio n t o thi s vexin g
problem, fo r i n th e en d intelligence , commo n sense , a stud y of prevailing per -
formance style s an d practice s a s wel l a s reliabl e sourc e material s ar e th e onl y
solution, o n th e basi s o f whic h th e conducto r mus t the n simpl y us e hi s bes t
judgment. I n an y case , t o conduc t a Brahm s o r a Beethove n symphon y o r a
Wagner o r Debuss y wor k withou t a n awarenes s of the respectiv e receive d tradi -
tions associate d wit h suc h works , is almost t o forfei t one' s righ t to conduc t thes e
works, eve n if—a s I say—fo r goo d an d prope r reason s on e decide s ultimatel y to
reject som e o f those tradition s o r som e aspect s o f them .
Tradition i s sometimes nothin g mor e tha n ba d habit s o r technical limitation s
ossified int o permanence . Bu t ther e ar e als o goo d traditions , importan t tradi -
tions, whic h som e superio r musicia n o r grou p o f musician s evolve d ou t o f re -
peated experience s wit h a give n piec e o f musi c o r a give n phrase . I n year s o f
studying variou s tradition s —historical, regional , nationa l —I hav e realize d tha t
those tradition s that w e conside r valid and usefu l ar e usuall y one s tha t aros e ou t
of th e demand s o f the score , the musi c itself , no t ou t o f the demand s o r limita-
tions o f a particula r performe r o r grou p o f performers . In an y case , t o lear n t o

distinguish betwee n ba d an d goo d tradition s i s another importan t obligatio n a
conductor mus t assume, regardles s of how arduou s tha t tas k may be. M y advic e
would b e t o initiall y consider al l tradition s wit h grea t suspicion , n o matte r ho w
venerable o r highl y championed, tha t i s to say , not t o accep t automaticall y any
of them, bu t t o study and researc h the m a s to thei r origin—whe n an d b y whom
they wer e initiated—an d apprais e them, especiall y as to how , why , and t o wha t
extent the y deviat e fro m th e composer' s score . Wit h tha t an y reasonabl y intelli-
gent conducto r ca n asses s which tradition s ar e vali d an d whic h ar e groundles s
falsifications.
The reade r wil l b y now , i t i s hope d agre e wit h m e tha t conductin g i s a mos t
demanding and challengin g artisti c discipline, particularly , a s an interpretiv e re-
creative art , an d tha t i t doe s no t permi t o f th e kin d o f casua l flirtatio n and/o r
egocentric involvemen t whic h mos t conductor s giv e t o th e task . I t wil l also , I
hope, hav e becom e clea r tha t bato n technique—ba d o r goo d —is no t th e mos t
important facto r i n producin g a performance , le t alone a 'great ' o r recognizably
'authentic' performance. A good, clean, sensible technique does help—it is espe-
cially helpfu l t o orchestra l musician s an d make s thei r lif e a littl e easier—bu t
hundreds o f conductor s (ove r mor e tha n a centur y an d a half ) wit h poo r o r
problematic technique s hav e prove n tha t performanc s ar e no t thereb y com -
pletely hindered , no r doe s tha t facto r i n an d o f itself predetermine th e typ e an d
quality o f interpretation/realizatio n o f a give n work . The fac t i s that conductor s
with poo r techniques hav e given great, profoundly moving interpretations , while
conversely, conductor s wit h excellen t (clear , clean ) technique s hav e give n
empty-headed (o r wrong-headed), willfull y waywar d performances .
That i s why I have hardl y dwelt a t all o n conductin g technique s i n thi s book ,
concentrating muc h mor e o n conductin g a s a n interpretiv e art . I n summary ,
much o f wha t I hav e thu s fa r writte n abou t an d postulate d a s a basi c require -
ment o f goo d o r grea t conductin g amount s t o scor e analysis , although I hav e
avoided tha t particula r ter m sinc e i t can , i n th e wron g hand s an d minds , b e
construed a s 'academic' an d 'overl y intellectual. '
Analysis t o m e i s simply the thoroug h stud y of the score , o f it s specific nota -
tion i n al l it s elements : melodic/thematic , harmonic , rhythmic/metric , struc -
tural, textural , orchestrational , formal , etc . Analysi s i n tha t sens e i s a n all -
encompassing retracin g of the step s o f composition, yieldin g the fulles t possibl e
understanding o f what wen t int o th e piec e i n th e first instance an d wha t there -
fore need s t o b e 'realized ' i n performing/re-creatin g it . Analysi s ca n als o fre -
quently tell th e performe r what no t t o do. Analysis i n tha t ful l sens e wil l inform
the conducto r no t to emphasiz e on e thin g onl y t o obscur e another ; no t to exag-
gerate th e mos t obviou s and commonplace ; no t t o impai r th e expressio n of the
spirit and essenc e o f a piece which , be h e reminded , shoul d b e th e su m tota l of
all th e aforementione d interrelated element s an d parts ; not t o overstres s what is
secondary or tertiar y i n structura l importance, especiall y at the expens e o f some-
thing primary , and thereb y destroying or subvertin g the composer's vie w o f these
balances and interrelationships.
I hav e emphasize d question s o f tempo, o f dynamics , an d o f articulation , be -

cause thes e thre e realm s ar e amon g the mos t basi c requirement s o f a balanced ,
correct interpretatio n an d becaus e the y ar e th e thre e area s tha t ar e th e mos t
abused, ignored , an d falsel y rendered . Temp o question s relat e no t onl y t o basi c
or openin g tempo s (o f movements) give n b y the compose r bu t t o temp o modi -
fications within movement s o r pieces no t necessaril y indicated b y the composer .
I ca n onl y reiterat e b y wa y o f summar y t o al l tha t ha s bee n sai d abov e tha t
tempo consideration s o f all kinds , includin g basic initiating tempos, requir e ful l
respect fo r the score , thoroug h study of the wor k and it s (possibly) varying tempo
modifications; fo r the elemen t of tempo bears mos t profoundl y and criticall y on
the shape , continuity , an d characte r o f the work . The fac t tha t a few, rare, sensi-
tive, an d experience d performer s (conductors) ca n intui t a righ t temp o b y 'feel -
ing', a s wonderfu l a s tha t ma y be , i s stil l insufficien t a s a basi c approach , be -
cause i t leave s a margi n o f uncertainty whic h ca n onl y b e resolve d an d uphel d
to scrutin y by study and analysis.
No les s critica l an d decisiv e ar e dynamics , fo r her e th e conductor's/perform -
er's careles s o r willfu l intervention , alterin g th e dynamics , ca n b e severel y dam-
aging t o the characte r an d essence o f the work—unbeknowns t t o the audience ,
mind you . Th e sam e ca n b e sai d for articulation, phrasings , bowings etc .
My having emphasized thes e thre e performanc e elements shoul d no t lead th e
reader t o believ e tha t th e othe r elements—structure , texture ; orchestratio n (i.e .
timbre, tonecolor , sonority) , form , an d continuity—ar e o f littl e o r n o conse -
quence i n th e re-creatio n o f a work . Indeed , th e ultimat e achievemen t o f a
performance ough t t o b e th e reproductio n o f a wor k i n it s totality, tha t is , a s I
have postulate d it , th e retracin g o f al l th e compositiona l step s an d bringin g t o
acoustic lif e th e myria d interrelated , bot h smal l an d large , decision s a compose r
makes i n creatin g a work . Eve n th e smalles t interpretiv e decisio n mus t b e in -
formed an d illuminate d b y a n intelligen t an d supportable , clearl y articulate d
concept o f the large r frame ; th e smal l event s mus t hav e thei r correc t plac e i n
the concep t o f th e whole . An d i n term s o f harmonic/melodi c understanding ,
the conductor—an d i t i s hoped throug h him—th e player s must hav e a n aware -
ness o f the distinctio n betwee n primar y tona l element s i n th e harmoni c fram e
of referenc e an d th e mor e secondary , perhap s decorativ e o r elaborative , ele -
ments. To o man y conductor s concentrat e onl y on , eve n exaggerate , thes e pri -
mary tonal elements , which ar e already all too obvious—havin g their own inher -
ent prominenc e an d needin g n o furthe r 'bringin g out,'—thereb y ignorin g les s
obvious tona l deviation s (chromaticism , dissonance , suspension ) tha t ar e ofte n
the mos t origina l an d darin g inspiration s of a compose r and , i n m y view, there-
fore requir e specia l intercedenc e b y th e conducto r an d performers. 49 A s I hav e
said earlier , i t i s tha t strange ne w note , o r unusual voic e leading , o r daringly
original orchestratio n b y a Beethove n o r a Brahm s tha t ma y requir e ou r specia l
attention, rathe r tha n conductin g th e alread y obvious.
When al l o f these interrelate d elements ar e i n thei r righ t place, meanin g th e
49. Thi s ma y no t b e tru e i n certai n types o f atonal contemporar y works (b y say Babbitt or Carter),
where the intentio n and assumptio n of the compose r ar e tha t al l elements , al l voices, are t o be seen
and hear d a s having equa l prominence an d relevanc e i n th e totalit y o f the work .
composer's 'right ' place , then—an d onl y the n —can ther e b e a trul y moving ,
illumined an d illuminatin g performance . Fo r there come s a moment—ver y rare
though i t ma y be—wher e pur e feeling , base d o n a complete understandin g o f
the text , take s over . Th e whol e ensembl e i s sustaine d an d transporte d b y no t
even th e conductor , bu t b y the inheren t conten t o f the musi c a s committed t o
notation b y th e composer , speakin g directl y t o us . I t i s suc h a performanc e
which, mor e tha n merel y 'correct,' i s inspired b y the correc t reading , an d whic h
can the n reac h height s o f sublimity, and b e a trul y revelatory experience fo r al l
concerned: conductor , orchestra , an d audience .
Having herei n state d m y ow n philosoph y o f the ar t o f conducting, bot h a s a
prescription an d a définition, i t will be interestin g t o see i n Par t II what conduc -
tors, composer-conductors , an d othe r writer s have writte n o n thes e matter s ove r
the severa l centuries since conductin g develope d a s a distinct musical discipline.
Part II
A History of Conducting
Imperfection ca n spoi l muc h mor e
than perfectio n ca n create .
—Arnold Schönber g
A ma n paint s wit h hi s brain s an d

not wit h hi s hands .
— Michelangel o
Art hat h a n enem y calle d ignorance .

— Ben Jonso n
It i s instructive and fascinatin g to stud y the variou s treatises, pamphlets , articles ,

books, an d writing s o n conductin g tha t hav e appeare d throug h th e year s sinc e
Johann Mattheso n publishe d hi s Der Volkommene Capellmeister i n 1739 , a time
when th e ar t o f conducting wa s still in it s relative infancy. Wha t i s fascinating is
how perspective s o n conductin g shifte d ove r th e year s an d wit h variou s au -
thors—like Weber , Berlioz , Wagner , Strauss , Weingartner , Furtwängler ,
Scherchen, Walter , an d mos t recentl y Ma x Rudolf , Frederic k Prausnitz , an d
Kyrill Kondraschin—bu t also how certai n fundamental s of the ar t o f conductin g
have bee n perceive d a s constant an d inviolate .
Mattheson (1681-1764 ) di d no t tak e th e titl e o f hi s boo k (Th e Complet e
Capellmeister, wit h emphasi s o n th e wor d "complete" ) lightly . Indee d th e titl e
page announce s tha t th e boo k wil l "giv e thoroug h notic e o f al l thos e thing s
which h e wh o woul d presid e ove r a n orchestr a wit h hono r an d efficienc y mus t
know an d mus t kno w completely. " Mattheso n characterize d th e conducto r o f
his tim e —at leas t the idea l conductor—a s a broadl y educated artist , who wa s as
knowledgeable i n literature , poetry , painting , philosophy , an d language s a s i n
the variou s realms of music: harmony, counterpoint, orchestration , composition,
and th e ar t o f singing . I n wha t I thin k convey s remarkabl y modern insight s
into th e aestheti c an d psychologica l aspect s o f conducting—fo r example , th e
67
conductor's relationshi p wit h hi s musicians , dee p commitmen t t o th e musi c o f

his time , an d eve n th e ethic s an d moralit y o f th e profession—Mattheso n pre -
sented a n all-embracin g view of the ar t and professio n of conducting that , to m y
knowledge, ha s rarel y been expresse d quit e s o comprehensively an d s o penetrat-
ingly. In it s encyclopedic proportion s (nearl y one thousan d page s in the Englis h
translation),1 thi s remarkabl e tom e deal s wit h virtuall y all practical , theoretica l
and aestheti c precept s which , accordin g t o Mattheson , th e 18th-centur y Capell-
meister neede d t o understan d an d command .
Perhaps Mattheson' s loft y vie w o f conductin g wa s expresse d mos t challeng -
ingly an d mos t succinctl y i n hi s dictum : "Al l sciences [an d arts] 2 ar e linke d
together chain-lik e i n a circle . H e wh o know s onl y hi s [one ] craft , know s noth-
ing, fo r h e i s bu t a pedant , eve n wer e h e a general. " ("All e Wissenschafte n
hängen Ketten - ode r Glieder-weis e i n eine m Kreis e aneinander. We r nu r allei n
sein Handwer k weiss , de r weis s nichts , sonder n is t ei n Pedant , wär e e r auc h
gleich ei n Feldherr"). 3 Thes e sam e thought s wer e echoe d nearl y a hundre d
years late r b y Rober t Schuman n when , i n hi s "Übe r Dirigieren " h e wrote :
"What th e compose r create d ou t o f hi s inne r sel f mus t b e recognize d b y th e
conductor, wh o ca n onl y achiev e understandin g throug h vas t knowledge . Th e
spiritual greatnes s o f musi c canno t b e apprehende d solel y by learnin g th e fig -
ured bass , or by studying and servin g an apprenticeship , bu t b y diligent stud y of
every scienc e connecte d wit h music." 4
In contras t t o Mattheson' s immens e tome , a muc h slimme r volum e b y Car l
Ludwig Junke r —onl y som e forty-eigh t page s i n th e origina l German—pub -
lished i n 1782 , som e fort y year s later tha n Mattheson' s work , concentrates spe -
cifically o n th e conducto r a s conductor , separat e fro m th e composer . I n fou r
chapters, Junker deals brilliantly and succinctl y with fou r aspect s o f conducting:
(1) tunin g a n orchestr a (evidentl y in th e lat e 18th-centur y stil l a ne w practice ,
much i n nee d o f instruction an d training) ; (2 ) the placemen t an d dispositio n of
the orchestr a o n stage ; (3 ) tempo ("Vo n de r Bewegung") , an d (4 ) the politic s of
conducting (! ) ("Vo n de r Politi k de s Kapellmeisters")—th e las t a subjec t which
Mattheson ha d als o explored . Junker' s mos t importan t chapter—an d a subjec t
of centra l concer n t o hi m (an d us ) —deals wit h question s o f tempo , bot h th e
establishment o f tempos an d th e flexibility within tempos . But , lik e Mattheson ,
Junker als o deal s wit h th e philosophy , the moralit y of conducting, an d th e con -
ductor's relationshi p wit h hi s players . H e vigorousl y upholds th e ar t o f musi c
and o f conducting , deplorin g al l commercialism : makin g music , playing , con -
ducting merel y "fo r money " ("Überhaup t sol l di e Kuns t nich t nac h Bro d
1. A ver y crampe d 50 0 page s i n Germa n Steilschrift i n th e origina l publication . De r Volkommene

Capellmeister (Hamburg , 1739) ; i n Englis h translation , (An n Arbor , 1981) .
2. I n 18th-centur y terminolog y th e science s (Wissenschaften) include d th e arts .
3. De r Vollkommene Capellmeister p.103 . Englis h translatio n p. 253.
4. Rober t Schumann , "Obe r Dirigieren, " Neue Zeitschrift fü r Musik, 1836 .
5. Car l Ludwi g Junker , Einige de r vornehmsten Pflichten eines Capellmeisters oder Musikdirektors
(Winterthur, 1782) .
A HISTOR Y OF CONDUCTIN G 6 9
gehen") 6 —and i n severa l amazin g passage s w e fin d ou t tha t certai n aspect s o f

musical lif e an d musicians ' behavio r haven' t change d a n iota. 7
While Berlio z an d Wagne r als o sa w the ar t o f conductin g a s a sacre d trust ,
presupposing th e broades t contact s wit h othe r arts , the y bot h expresse d thei r
views i n mor e specificall y stylistic, interpretationa l an d technical , eve n polemi -
cal an d criticall y negative , terms . Berlioz' s occasiona l diatribe s agains t Habe -
neck 8 an d Wagner' s mor e tha n occasiona l fulmination s agains t Mendelssohn ,
while t o som e exten t possibl y justified , rathe r narrowe d th e discussio n fro m
where Mattheso n an d Junke r had lef t i t a centur y earlier . O f course , Mattheso n
was no t speakin g o f conductors i n th e narrowe r sense, bu t o f the Capellmeister
as composer , conductor , all-roun d Musicus an d artist/scientist/philosopher . B y
the earl y 1800 s man y o f th e social , professional , aesthetic condition s o f music -
making, th e statu s of composers an d performers , ha d change d dramatically . Per -
formers, composer s an d thei r musi c ha d bee n largel y liberated fro m servitud e to
aristocratic (an d ecclesiastical ) establishments . A new professionalis m an d artis -
tic autonom y wer e developing , wit h eve r greater , mor e specific , mor e comple x
demands o n performer s an d composer s (especiall y the former) . As a result , th e
composer-conductor a s philosopher-scientist—whic h Mattheso n an d othe r ear -
lier writer s and theorist s ha d proclaime d a s the ideal—wa s givin g way gradually
to th e mor e specialized , mor e narrowl y focused artist/professional . Both Berlio z
and Wagne r emphasize d th e interpretationa l aspect s o f conducting fro m a later,
particularly 19th-centur y 'Romantic ' poin t o f view, i n which , oddl y enough, lit -
erary an d poeti c inspiratio n n o longe r claime d a s primar y a rol e a s i n Matthe -
son's writing . The bul k o f their discours e deal t wit h specifi c technical problem s
(often i n relatio n t o specifi c works), conductorial misdemeanor s an d ba d habit s
of variou s kinds, an d abov e al l wit h question s o f temp o an d temp o libertie s —
justified an d unjustified . Th e las t subject , i n fact , run s lik e a constan t refrai n
through virtuall y all writin g o n conducting , fro m Mattheson , Junker , Berlioz ,
and Wagne r throug h Weingartner , Strauss , Walter , Toscanini , Jochum , eve n
Bernstein. I t i s the on e subjec t tha t almos t al l writin g on conducting , whethe r
prescriptive, analytical , didacti c o r critical , focuse s on—an d a subjec t which t o
this da y stil l provoke s lively debate, especiall y i n regar d t o Toscanini' s legac y a s
well a s th e mor e recen t effusion s o f th e 'earl y musi c authenticists, ' wh o hav e
6. "I n n o wa y may ar t b e determine d b y the pursui t o f bread," i.e . o f money .

7. On e o f the mor e fascinatin g and priceles s o f these commentarie s pertain s t o th e careless , nois y
tuning o f an orchestra , evidentl y a s much a ban e i n th e lat e 18t h centur y as in ou r ow n time. "Very
annoying i s th e abuse, " Junke r writes , "s o commo n wit h man y orchestras , o f no t maintainin g th e
necessary peac e an d quie t i n tuning . Everybod y argues , make s noise s an d run s around ; an d many ,
who ough t t o produce onl y a single, simple ton e fo r purposes o f tuning, indulg e at that very momen t
in al l sort s o f leap s an d cadenza s o n thei r instrument " ("Ärgerlic h is t noc h de r be y s o manche r
Kappelle gewöhnlich e Misbrauch : Da ß di e be y de m Stimme n schlechterding s nötig e Ruh e un d
Stille nich t z u finde n ist , daß alle s räsoniert , un d lauft , und manche r de r blo s de n simple n To n der
Zusammenstimmung angebe n sollte , sic h z u ebe n de r Zeit , allerle y Sprüng e un d Cadenzc n au f
seinem Instrumen t erlaubt"). Plus ç a change!
8. Françoi s Antoine Habeneck , Frenc h conductor , th e firs t t o conduc t Beethoven' s symphonie s in
France.
now gon e wa y beyond th e lat e Baroqu e an d earl y classic literatur e t o invad e th e

Romantic Beethoven , Schumann , an d Brahm s repertory.
It i s illuminating—and ough t t o provid e persuasive instructio n t o conductor s
of ou r time—tha t there i s in almos t al l o f the earlie r writing a remarkabl e con -
sensus o n th e subjec t of tempo flexibility , wha t Beethove n earl y on calle d "elas -
tischer Takt" ("elasti c time " or "elasti c beat") . Thi s consensu s i s in strikin g con-
trast t o th e mostl y oversimplifie d and polarize d discussion s on e encounter s i n
many quarter s nowadays . Moreover , i t i s ofte n confuse d wit h anothe r conten -
tious subject , the questio n o f textual fidelity. Th e proponent s o f faithfulnes s t o
the score— a philosoph y Toscanin i epitomize d i n thre e words : "com e è scritto "
("as written")—ten d t o equat e rigorou s adherenc e t o th e scor e wit h relentles s
steadiness o f tempo , whe n i n fac t th e tw o approache s d o no t necessaril y have
anything to do with eac h other . Textua l fidelity does not imply , let alone dictate ,
rhythmic rigidity—eve n though , o f course , som e misguide d conductors , per -
formers, an d critic s may make tha t assumption .
Let us examine the questio n mor e extensively , and tr y to establish once an d for
all what exactly is meant b y 'flexible tempo,' 'textual fidelity,' what the originators
of these concepts actually ha d in mind and what, therefore, w e ought to use as our
guidelines a s interpreters of 19th-centur y orchestra l literature . But first let u s dis-
pose o f the simplisti c and polarize d arguments on e ha s encountered s o often, in
which on e sid e i s accused o f being pedanticall y rigid in temp o continuity , whil e
the othe r side is counter-accused o f being willfully free . Epithet s are flung around
to bolster each side' s arguments: 'intellectual, ' 'cold,' and 'unfeeling ' fo r the one ;
'indulgent,' 'permissive, ' 'overl y emotional ' fo r the other . Partie s on bot h side s of
the debate set up straw men—most commonly Toscanin i on one side, Furtwängler
on the other—wh o become eas y targets for polemical attacks .
Leaving aside the two major types of conductorial mediocrities , (1) those whose
lack o f talent prevent s the m fro m realizin g a flexibl e 'tempo o f feeling,' an d (2 )
those who cannot maintain any semblance o f a coherent tempo control (citin g the
worst example s neve r gets a debat e anywhere) , we fin d whe n w e liste n carefull y
and without prejudice to the best conductors representing each side, say, Toscanini
and Furtwängler , tha t th e forme r wa s neve r a s inflexibl e a s hi s detractor s con -
tend(ed) o r as textually faithful a s his admirers maintain(ed), while the latte r was
not alway s as freel y indulgen t a s the anti-Furtwängle r factio n would hav e u s be -
lieve, or as profoundly expressive as his adoring public claim(ed). Both conductor s
had to o muc h respec t fo r composers an d thei r scores either to rigidif y th e flow of
the musi c o r sacrific e al l structura l coherence. Wha t the y actuall y did interpre -
tively depended a great deal o n the repertor y being conducted . Bot h ha d remark -
able strengths and weaknesses, and stron g and wea k areas of repertory.
Sometimes simila r argument s o f pro-fre e an d pro-stric t temp o ar e cas t i n
terms o f earlie r conducto r generation s (usuall y meaning Germa n 'Romantics '
such a s Muck , Nikisch , Mahler , Mengelberg , Pfitzner ) vis-à-vi s younge r post -
Toscanini generation s (Reiner , Szell , Leinsdorf , Steinberg, Rodzinski) . Th e as -
sumption i s usually tha t thos e Germa n idealists , in th e traditio n of Wagner an d
Billow, indulge d i n excessivel y subjectiv e tempo liberties , a s well a s slow , slug -
gish, heav y basic tempos, whil e the younge r mid-centur y conductors, much in -
A HISTOR Y O F CONDUCTIN G 7 1
fluenced b y Toscanini an d hi s phenomenal success , wer e th e exponent s o f con -

trolled, objectiv e literalism , absolute precision , an d streamline d brigh t tempos .
But thes e are , again , facil e oversimplifie d generalizations tha t d o no t alway s
stand u p t o closer scrutiny . The actua l evidenc e o f performances an d recording s
suggests tha t placin g th e above-mentione d conductor s i n tw o opposin g camp s
turns ou t t o b e mostl y inaccurate , misleading , an d unfair . Th e evidenc e rathe r
suggests that ther e wa s considerable variability and diversit y of approach o n both
sides, an d tha t a truer pictur e ca n onl y b e gaine d i n a case-by-cas e analysis, i.e.
conductor-by-conductor, eve n work-by-work . The assertio n tha t ther e wer e tw o
monolithic, lock-ste p school s o f conducting i s simply not tenable . Jus t as Tosca -
nini's performance s revea l countles s example s o f subtl e temp o modification s
(largely informe d b y hi s Italianate , opera-influence d 'singing ' conception) , s o
also man y o f hi s bes t disciple s were skillfu l practitioner s o f a judiciou s tempo
rubato. O n th e othe r hand , listenin g t o a broa d samplin g o f performances an d
recordings b y th e 'Germa n Romantic ' schoo l o f conductors , on e wil l find —
surprising, I a m sure , t o man y a reader—plentifu l example s o f stric t temp o
maintenance a s well a s astonishingly lively basic tempos .
No, th e argument s ove r fre e temp o versu s stric t tempo , whe n reduce d t o
the twi n polarization s of an older , earlie r (subjective ) vis-à-vis a younger , newe r
(objective) generatio n ar e simpl y no t tenable . No r ar e th e simila r argument s
when cas t i n Ol d Worl d versu s New Worl d terms . Fo r who conduct s i n slower ,
stretched-to-the-breaking poin t tempo s nowaday s than Giulini ; o r who was given
to mor e rubato excesse s than Bernstein ; o r wh o ha s s o consistently twisted Furt -
wängler's elastischer Takt int o trivializin g mannerisms tha n Barenboim ? An d
who was , o n th e othe r hand , mor e 'classically ' consisten t i n matter s o f temp o
and puls e tha n Monteu x o r Eric h Kleibe r or eve n Weingartner ?
Perhaps i t i s tim e t o examin e wha t exactl y th e origina l mentor s o f thes e tw o

(allegedly) opposin g philosophie s o f temp o conceptio n expressed . T o a larg e
extent i t reall y al l starte d wit h Beethoven , wh o wa s on e o f the firs t t o us e th e
terms "elastische r Takt " an d "Gefühlstempo"(temp o o f feeling). But eve n befor e
Beethoven's time , w e hav e indication s tha t temp o fluctuation s withi n move -
ments wer e beginnin g t o b e considere d a sine qu a no n o f goo d performance .
Even Mattheson , writin g as earl y as 1739 , dwell s o n th e subjec t (althoug h les s
copiously tha n late r writers) , presumably becaus e i n hi s time—th e earl y 18t h
century—tempo modifications were not ye t a consistent practic e (excep t perhap s
in voca l music) . Thi s i s t o som e exten t confirme d b y th e fac t tha t orchestra s
were the n preside d ove r b y eithe r th e leade r o f th e firs t violin s or th e residen t
harpsichordist (o r both) . I t was , i n fact , th e earl y 19t h century' s liberatio n fro m
the previou s classic and pre-classi c form s an d temp o conception s tha t le d t o th e
decisive establishmen t an d absolut e nee d o f baton conducting , b y a conducto r
not sittin g i n th e orchestra . Indeed , Baroqu e music , mos t importantl y Johan n
Sebastian Bach's , wa s stil l s o closel y tied t o popula r danc e form s se t i n steady ,
virtually danceabl e tempo s that , again , ther e wa s n o tremendou s nee d fo r a
separate conducto r an d time-keeper .
Nonetheless, Mattheso n doe s allud e briefl y t o th e subjec t o f temp o an d
tempo flexibility . Afte r establishin g th e differenc e betwee n th e "measure " an d

the "beat " within a measure, o n th e on e hand , an d "movement, " tha t is , tempo,
on th e othe r hand , h e point s ou t tha t th e latte r i s commonly modifie d by adjec-
tives lik e affettuoso, co n spirito, addin g somewha t cryptically , bu t nevertheles s
sagely, that "ther e would b e mor e t o understan d through suc h description s tha n
is written." 9 Moreover , movemen t (tempo)—wha t Junke r some fort y year s later
would cal l Bewegung (motion ) —to quot e Mattheso n again , "ca n hardl y be con -
tained i n precept s an d prohibitions : because suc h depen d primaril y on th e feel -
ing an d emotio n o f eac h composer , an d secondaril y on goo d executio n o r th e
sensitive expressio n of the performer. " Mattheson explain s that th e mer e indica -
tions o f allegro, lento, adagio, vivace are to o genera l t o giv e precis e temp o defi -
nitions. "Her e eac h on e mus t reac h int o hi s ow n sou l an d fee l wha t i s i n hi s
heart, sinc e the n . . our performin g will to a degre e acquir e a n extraordinar y or
uncommon movement , whic h neithe r th e actua l mensuratio n [meter ] i n an d of
itself no r it s perceptibl e holdin g bac k o r acceleratin g ca n impart , bu t whic h
stems from a n imperceptible impetus " (italic s Mattheson's). "Th e effec t i s observ-
able, bu t withou t knowin g how i t happened."
Mattheson continues: "I say observable because essentially th e melod y will b e
more o r les s altere d i n it s subtl e movemen t [tempo] , appearin g t o b e eithe r
faster o r slower . Bu t nothin g appreciabl e wil l b e take n awa y o r adde d t o th e
mensuration o r the not e values." 10
Mattheson the n praise s and cites Jea n Rousseau' s ' 'Methode claire, certain et
facile pour apprendre à chanter l a musique ( A clear, sure , an d eas y metho d t o
learn t o sin g music) , published i n 1678 . Reiteratin g an d confirmin g his notio n
of tempo flexibility, Mattheson quote s Rousseau: "Within the sam e mensuration ,
the temp o ma y tur n ou t quit e differently : fo r i t i s sometimes mor e lively , some-
times mor e languid , accordin g t o th e variou s passions which on e i s to express .
Thus i t i s not enoug h fo r the performanc e o f a piec e o f music t o giv e th e bea t
and maintai n i t according to the prescribe d temp o indications , bu t th e conduc -
tor mus t also gues s th e meanin g o f th e composer , tha t is , h e mus t fee l th e
various impulse s whic h th e piec e i s intended t o express." I2
Mattheson's ow n last word on th e matter—i n chapte r 26 , his final chapter—is:
"Giving the beat is the main function of the conductor i n performance. Such beat -
giving must not only be done precisely, but as circumstances may require . . . the
conductor can and should make little changes in the tempo, delay the pulse, yield,
or i n consideratio n o f a certain specifi c feelin g [Gemiithsneigung] an d othe r rea -
sons, accelerate th e beat somewhat and drive it harder than previously." 13
From bot h Mattheson' s an d Rousseau' s statement s i t can b e seen that Beetho -
9. Mattheson , De r Vollkommene Capellmeister, p . 171 ; Englis h edition , p . 365 .

10. Ibid. , p . 18 3 (p . 367) .
11. Th e Jea n Roussea u referre d t o b y Mattheso n i s no t th e mor e famou s composer-encyclopedist-
author-philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, but a n earlie r Jean Rousseau, the foremos t Frenc h gam -
bist o f th e lat e 17t h century , whos e her e mentione d Methode, republishe d n o les s tha n si x times
(the las t i n 1707) , was of considerable influence o n th e Europea n continent.
12. Ibid. , p.17 3 (p.368).
13. Ibid. , pp . 481-82 (p . 866) .
ven's "tempo o f feeling" an d "elasti c beat"(tempo rubato) wer e no t entirel y un -

known eve n a s early as the secon d quarte r o f the 18t h century , that is , in Bach' s
and Handel' s time . Bu t by the en d o f the 18t h centur y we begin t o hav e indica-
tions tha t temp o conception s wer e loosene d eve n mor e t o allo w fo r a greate r
degree o f tempo modification . Suc h tendencie s centere d o n th e so-calle d Affek-
tenlehre (literally , the teachin g o f affections), 14 whic h b y th e lat e 18t h centur y
developed int o a musica l aestheti c wit h a far-rangin g influenc e o n interpretiv e
practices. Eighteenth-centur y theorists , suc h a s Johan n Samue l Petr i an d
Friedrich Wilhel m Marpurg , bega n t o spea k o f th e expressio n o f 'affections '
affecting th e temp o during th e cours e o f a compositio n o r movement , o n th e
assumption that , sinc e musi c shoul d closel y reflec t it s emotional content , an d
since n o two emotions o r passions can b e alike, the temp o canno t b e metronom -
ically consisten t throughou t a work . Accordingly, the temp o mus t b e modifie d
to reflec t the variou s contrasting 'affections ' o r moods : sad , melancholy , angry ,
energetic, joyous , and merry .
Both Johan n Joachi m Quant z an d Leopol d Mozart , bot h highl y influentia l
composer/theorist/teachers i n thei r time , als o proclaime d th e ne w temp o af -
fections. Th e elde r Mozar t writes : "Jede s Tempo , langsa m ode r schnell , ha t
seine Schattierungen" 15 ('Each tempo , slo w or fast , ha s it s gradations'). Quant z
went s o fa r a s t o stat e tha t "a n absolutel y consisten t temp o i s nonsensical." 16
Daniel Gottlo b Turk , too , i n hi s Clavierschule (1789) , write s extensively about
tempo modifications.
Unfortunately w e hav e littl e detaile d evidenc e o f ho w Hayd n an d Mozar t
conducted or—mor e precisely—how , i n thei r conducting 17 an d interpretation s
14. Th e Germa n wor d Affekt combine s int o a singl e concep t th e term s "affecting " and "emotion" .
15. Leopol d Mozart , Versuch einer gründlichen Violinschule (Augsburg , 1756), p.30; English editio n
translated b y Edith a Knocker , A Treatise on th e Fundamental Principles of Violin Playing (London ,
1948), p . 33 .
16. Johan n Joachi m Quantz , Versuch einer Anweisung di e Flöte traversiere z u spielen (Breslau ,
1752), p.261 . Th e officia l Englis h translatio n read s "absur d an d impossible. " "Ic h verlang e nicht ,
daß ma n ei n ganze s Stüc k nac h de m Pulsschla g abmesse n sollte ; den n diese s wäre ungereim t un d
unmöglich."
Quantz, surprisingly , wrote relativel y littl e abou t tempo rubato— he actuall y mention s th e ter m
only onc e (p . 146)—but muc h o f wha t h e teache s i n hi s Versuch einer Anweisung carrie s such a n
implication, i n a n attemp t t o arriv e i n performanc e at the tru e expression and 'affect ' (Leydenschaft)
of the music . Perhaps , becaus e o f an increas e in temp o an d expressiv e liberties by performers in hi s
time, and, conversely , a worrisome tendency among younge r musicians as well as professionals bein g
unable t o maintain a good tempo , Quant z spend s muc h mor e tim e an d effort s o n thos e concerns .
17. Hayd n an d Mozar t 'conducted ' mostly , if not entirely , from th e keyboar d or th e Konzertmeister
position. As Adam Cars e pointe d ou t i n hi s splendid stud y The Orchestra in th e 18th Century (Cam -
bridge, 1940) , "conducting a n orchestra , as we understand i t now, was unknown i n th e 18t h century.
Misunderstanding easil y arises whe n th e wor d 'conducting ' i n 18t h centur y literature is interpreted
in it s present-day sense, an d i s associated wit h th e us e o f the baton. " Mozart , Cars e adds , "di d no t
hand ove r th e bato n t o anothe r conductor, " a s som e 20th-centur y writer s hav e suggeste d (see , fo r
example, Annett e Kolb , Mozart [Chicago , 1956] , p . 340) , fo r "h e ha d non e t o han d over " i n tha t
he wa s leading from th e harpsichor d or th e pianoforte .
Carse als o cite s a lette r b y Mozart, dated Octobe r 19,1782 , i n whic h h e write s tha t when h e fel t
the orchestr a i n Vienn a i n hi s Entführung wa s getting a bi t sleepy , h e decide d t o resum e his place
"at th e Klavie r an d conduc t it."
of thei r own works , they dealt wit h th e questio n o f tempo modification . But w e
do hav e clea r indication s fro m Mozar t i n hi s letter s tha t h e feature d a pro -
nounced tempo rubato i n hi s pian o playing , a rubato which , i t turns out, i s th e
same on e w e associate with Chopin. 18 In a letter to his father date d Octobe r 24 ,
1777, Mozar t writes: "In tempo rubato in a n adagio, the lef t han d shoul d go o n
playing i n stric t time , wher e th e lef t doesn' t kno w anything about it " ("das s di e
linke Han d nicht s daru m weiss") , th e implicatio n bein g i t wa s fo r th e sak e of
expression.
It i s clear fro m thi s and othe r evidenc e tha t th e Tempo de s Gefühls wa s not a
19th-century inventio n bu t a fairl y well-establishe d interpretativ e practice lon g
before that .
Junker's aforementione d handbook o n conducting , i n a chapter entitle d "Vo n
der Bewegung " ("Abou t Tempo"), 19 als o make s i t quit e clea r tha t earlie r prac-
As for Haydn, w e have Johan n Nicolaus Forkel' s wor d (i n hi s Musikalischer Almanack) tha t Haydn
at Esterhazy "spiel t zugleic h di e erste Violine" ("a t th e sam e tim e h e play s the first violin"), meaning
that h e le d hi s symphonie s wit h th e violin ; whil e a t Salomon' s concert s i n London , w e kno w tha t
Haydn wa s engaged t o "presid e a t th e pian o fo r hi s ne w symphonies. "
18. Chopi n characterize d hi s concep t o f tempo rubato a s follows : "Th e singin g han d ma y deviate ,
[but] th e accompanimen t mus t kee p time . . . The grace s ar e par t o f the text , an d therefor e par t of
the time . . . Imagin e a tre e wit h it s branches swaye d b y th e wind ; th e ste m represent s th e stead y
time, th e movin g leave s ar e th e melodi c inflections . Tha t i s wha t i s mean t b y tempo an d tempo
rubato" (cite d b y Edward Dannreuthe r i n hi s Musical Ornamentation, II, London , 1895 , p.161) .
19. Junker , Einige de r vornehmsten Pflichten eines Cappellmeisters oder Musikdirectors, pp . 20-43 .
Junker was , lik e Mattheson , versatil e an d broadl y trained , a prolifi c write r an d composer . Althoug h
a minor figur e i n the latte r realm , h e wa s otherwise extraordinaril y versed i n a wide range o f subjects,
including theory , aesthetics , philosophy , th e visua l art s an d iconography , belles-lettres, world popula -
tions, a s wel l a s bein g a n avi d chronicle r o f musi c an d music-makin g i n hi s time . Thaye r i n hi s
biography o f Beethoven include s a n importan t accoun t written b y Carl Junke r o f the youn g Beetho-
ven i n a 179 1 performanc e wit h th e cour t orchestr a o f the Electo r o f Cologne. I n a communicatio n
to Bossler' s Musikalische Correspondenz, date d Novembe r 23 , 1791 , Junke r wrot e (excerpte d here) :
"I als o hear d on e o f th e greates t o f pianists—th e dear , goo d Bethofen . I hear d hi m improvis e i n
private; yes , I wa s even invite d t o propos e a them e fo r hi m t o vary . The greatnes s o f thi s amiable ,
light-hearted man , a s a virtuoso , ma y i n m y opinio n b e safel y estimate d fro m hi s almos t inexhaust -
ible wealt h o f ideas , th e altogethe r characteristi c styl e o f expressio n i n hi s playing , an d th e grea t
execution tha t h e displays . I know , therefore , no t on e thin g tha t h e lack s tha t conduce s t o th e
greatness o f a n artist . Bethofen , i n additio n t o th e execution , ha s [great ] clearnes s an d weigh t o f
idea, an d [much ] expression . I n short , h e i s mor e fo r th e heart—equall y great , therefore , a s a n
adagio o r allegro player. Hi s styl e of treating hi s instrumen t i s so differen t fro m tha t usuall y adopted ,
that i t impresse s on e wit h th e ide a that , b y a path o f his ow n discovery , he ha s attaine d tha t heigh t
of excellenc e whereo n h e no w stands " (cite d i n Thayer' s Life o f Beethoven [Princeton , 1964] ,
pp.104-5).
I first came upo n Junker' s splendid littl e volum e i n th e Librar y of Congress i n th e lat e 1940s . No t
as yet involve d wit h conducting, much o f Junker's boo k seeme d t o me a t the time , although fascinat -
ing, o f little practica l relevance . Mor e recentl y I have, however , com e t o cheris h thi s rar e an d earl y
documentation o f conducting practices , an d wa s particularly pleased t o not e tha t Richar d Taruski n
a fe w years ago quote d Junke r extensively ("Resistin g th e Ninth, " 19th Century Music, Sprin g 1989) ,
pp. 252-54) , a t th e sam e tim e correctin g Paul Henr y Lang' s earlie r misquotes and/or out-of-contex t
citations o f Junke r o n th e subjec t o f stead y tempo s i n a n articl e o n Beethove n symphonies . (A n
English translatio n o f Junker' s handboo k i s bein g prepare d an d wil l soo n b e publishe d i n thi s
country.)
tices o f regular, steady tempos, t o the exten t the y existed , were bein g questione d
and challenged . Indeed , Junke r gives the subjec t of tempo flexibility a thoroug h
treatment, wit h thought s tha t are—an d therei n li e thei r importanc e —echoed
decades an d eve n centurie s late r by, among others , Beethoven , Wagner , Strauss ,
Weingartner, an d Walter . Junke r initiate s th e subjec t o f temp o b y th e obviou s
suggestion tha t i t i s th e compose r wh o determine s th e temp o o f a wor k o r a
movement: "whethe r i t is lively or slow " ("in s o ferne[die Bewegung] geschwin d
oder langsa m ist"). 20 "Bu t eve n i f the composer, " s o writes Junker, "can indicat e
various temp o gradation s withi n thes e basi c livel y or slow tempos , ho w man y
modifications li e nonetheles s betwee n th e tw o whic h h e canno t indicat e be -
cause h e ha s as yet no notatio n (Charaktere) fo r them."21 Junker continues: "Fo r
the conductor . . . an allegro cannot b e tied t o a single all-embracing fas t temp o
concept (Begriff vo n Geschwindigkeit), jus t a s a n adagio canno t b e tie d t o a
[single] slow one. Th e precis e determinatio n o f tempo rest s finally on goo d taste ,
rests on it s own feeling of Tightness" (literally truth [Wahrheit]), "whic h ca n onl y
be fixe d (fixirt) throug h previou s study of the score." 22
After urgentl y recommending th e us e o f the score , a stil l very rar e practice i n
the day s when performance s wer e mor e ofte n tha n no t le d by the concertmaste r
or harpsichordist , readin g respectivel y fro m a violi n o r continu o part , Junke r
characterizes on e "wh o woul d conduc t fro m a scor e withou t knowin g i t well ,
which h e ha s no t studied , whic h h e ha s no t rea d throug h thoroughly, " i s a
"windbag (Windbeutel)." 2^ A t anothe r poin t Junke r put s th e questio n thi s way:
"Must ever y piec e b e performe d throug h t o th e ver y en d a t th e state d tempo ,
never eve n approachin g greate r spee d o r slowness ? O r migh t thi s tempo , eve n
in th e middl e o f a piece , b e slightl y modified, might i t b e accelerated , migh t i t
be hel d back?" 24
Junker i s not satisfie d t o have these concept s remai n a s questions. H e answers,
it seems t o me, wit h remarkabl e precision an d succinctness . "T o answer the first
of the tw o questions positivel y without qualificatio n would mea n t o depriv e th e
art o f music o f one o f its most powerfu l mean s o f expression and emotio n (Rüh-
rung); an d woul d remov e fro m he r [th e ar t o f music ] al l possibilit y of differen t
gradations an d modification s o f expressiv e movemen t (tempo , Bewegung). T o
answer the secon d questio n positivel y without qualificatio n would hav e th e rive r
overflow it s banks, would caus e a thousand disorderlinesse s (Unordnungen), an d
would depriv e musi c o f it s truth . Bu t a s soo n a s th e las t sentence " —meaning
Junker's secon d question—"i s qualifie d an d limited , i t ca n b e answere d i n th e
positive."25
20. Junker , Einige de r vornehmsten Pflichten . . ., p . 20 .
21. Ibid. , p. 21 .
22. Ibid. , p . 21 .
23. Ibid. , p . 22 .
24. Ibid. , p . 36 . "Muss jede s Stück , gan z bi s z u Ende , i n de r nemliche n Bewegung , di e sic h nie -
mals, wede r eine r grösser n Geschwindigkei t noch Langsamkei t nähert , vorgetrage n werden? Ode r
darf diese Bewegung, selbst in de r Mitt e de s Tonstücks, etwas abgeändert, darf si e beschleunigt , darf
sie zurüc k gehalten, werden?"
25. Ibid. , pp.36-37.
Junker nail s hi s poin t dow n b y statin g tha t "bot h compose r an d performe r

[conductor] mus t wor k han d i n hand , an d tha t modificatio n o f tempo a s a sec -
ond ar t remain s absolutel y necessary." 25 Finally , h e adds : "Furthermore, a s little
as I hol d wit h th e us e o f a n unqualifie d tempo mbato (becaus e i t i s s o ofte n
misused t o produc e a n ea r splittin g racke t [literall y "clanking," halsbrechendem
Geklirr], I nonetheles s insis t tha t i n a goo d orchestr a tastefu l temp o variation s
are i n orde r wher e appropriate , an d wher e unde r certai n circumstance s the y
can hav e a goo d effect." 26
Refining hi s point eve n further , Junker writes: "We admit tha t ther e i s in thes e
matters muc h opportunit y fo r misuse . Bu t w e hav e mad e thes e suggestion s o f
tempo flexibilit y onl y wit h th e mos t appropriate an d scrupulous qualifications
and limitations (italic s added). We say it again: onl y to him wh o i s in al l respect s
a reliabl e virtuos o can suc h imperceptible modification s o f musica l progressio n
be entrusted ; tha t suc h modification s ar e permissibl e only a s a requisite o f th e
composition, no t a s a need o f th e performer" (agai n italic s added ) (als Bedürfnis
des Stücks selbst, nicht al s Bedürfnis de s Spielers). Junke r add s ver y wisel y tha t
"just a s slight expressiv e nuances ca n neve r b e applicabl e t o th e sam e degre e i n
an allegro as they migh t b e i n a n adagio, s o too the temp o rubato i s less applica-
ble an d tru e i n a n allegro than a n adagio. A n adagio," Junke r reasons , "offer s
the performe r more beautie s i n detai l (Schönheiten de s Detail), mor e nuances ,
than a n allegro." 27 T o bolste r hi s argument s Junke r suggest s tha t "ther e i s n o
passion [feeling ] whos e movemen t woul d b e s o circumscribe d a s t o b e abso -
lutely regula r [uniform] ; i t constantl y range s throug h variou s modification s o f
tempo" 28 — echoes o f Petri an d Marpurg .
Thus, apar t fro m bein g on e o f th e earlies t ful l discussion s o f th e subjec t of
tempo rubato, i t is also one o f the cleares t an d mos t detailed . I n s o far as Beetho -
ven an d Wagne r (a s well a s later conductors ) echoe d Junker' s thoughts , includ -
ing hi s warning s agains t excesse s an d abuse s o f tempo modifications , on e won -
ders whethe r thes e composer-conductor s kne w Junker' s writings . Perhap s not ;
but i n an y case, th e late r author s confirm , bot h i n conceptio n an d detail , wha t
is one o f the mos t importan t aesthetic-philosophica l tenet s o f the ar t o f conduct -
ing, on e whic h is , alas, nowaday s widely misunderstood and/o r abused .
The publicatio n dat e 178 2 o f Junker's pamphle t i s the sam e yea r th e twenty -
six-year-old Mozar t compose d his Die Entführung aus dem Serail, as wel l as
three o f his five early pian o concertos , an d th e sam e yea r Hayd n compose d hi s
six Op . 3 3 string quartet s an d symphonie s N ° 7 6 throug h 78 . On e wonder s t o
what exten t Junke r was influenced i n hi s writing s b y observin g th e performin g
practices o f Mozar t o r Hayd n i n Vienna , o r Car l Phili p Emmanue l Bac h i n
Berlin, o r indeed , Stamit z an d compan y i n Mannhei m —jus t a s h e observe d
Beethoven a s a pianist.
Interestingly—and seemingl y contradictorily—Wagner , nearl y ninet y year s
26. Ibid. , p. 38 .
27. Ibid. , pp . 39-40 .
28. Ibid. , p. 37 . "Es gibt keine Leydenschaft , dere n Bewegung , sich selbs t immer gleichartig , abgez-
irkelt sey n sollte; si e walzt sich durc h verschieden e Modifikatione n der Bewegun g hindurch. "
after th e publicatio n o f Junker's pamphlet, wrot e i n hi s O n Conducting abou t

Mozart's "naiv e allegro" (or at othe r time s "absolut e allegro"), contrasting i t with
Beethoven's newer , expande d allegro concept, whic h Wagne r calle d "sentimen -
tal." (Wagne r explaine d tha t hi s term s "naive " an d "sentimental " wer e adopte d
from a well-know n essa y b y Gottfrie d Schille r abou t "naiv e an d sentimenta l
poetry," th e term s equatin g i n 20th-centur y Englis h mor e wit h 'simple ' an d 'ex -
pressive' respectively). 29 Wagne r wa s obviousl y under th e impressio n tha t Mo -
zart's (an d presumabl y Haydn's ) allegro movements , includin g hi s oper a over -
tures—Wagner especiall y mention s th e Figaro an d Do n Giovanni overtures -
were performe d i n on e steady , relentless tempo , an d ver y fast. H e cite s Mozart' s
remark tha t thes e overture s "canno t b e playe d fas t enough, " corroboratin g th e
point furthe r wit h th e well-know n anecdot e abou t Mozart , i n rehearsa l o f th e
Figaro Overture , havin g finall y drive n hi s desperat e musician s t o achiev e th e
full desire d presto, then commende d the m encouragingly : "That wa s beautiful !
But thi s evenin g stil l a littl e faster!"
We shall retur n momentaril y to Wagner's pronounce d view s on tempo rubato,
only t o not e no w i n passin g tha t h e clearl y ascribe d thi s concep t t o Beethove n
and hi s innovativ e symphoni c masterpieces , whic h h e fel t coul d n o longe r b e
played i n on e temp o pe r movement , i n th e manne r o f what h e somewha t pejo -
ratively calle d Mozart' s "naiv e allegro" and wha t Beethove n ha d alread y called
the "temp i ordinari " o f the "barbarou s period o f music. "
As fo r Beethoven himself , there i s abundant evidenc e tha t h e considere d th e
tempo rubato a sine qu a no n o f high-level music-makin g in hi s time. An d man y
contemporaries of Beethoven have testified to the notion that for Beethoven metro-
nome marking s wer e vali d "nu r fü r di e erste n Takte , wei l Gefühl e ih r eigene s
Tempo haben" (only for the first measures, as feelings have their own tempo).
The musi c directo r o f Vienna' s Theate r a n de r Wien , Igna z vo n Seyfried ,
testified tha t Beethove n "wa s ver y particula r abou t expression , th e delicat e nu -
ances, th e equabl e distributio n o f light an d shad e a s well a s an effectiv e temp o
rubato. . . ." 30 Beethoven' s frien d an d biographe r Anto n Schindle r i n hi s Life
of Beethoven^ 1 wen t s o far as to annotat e a 21-ba r sectio n o f the secon d move -
ment o f Beethoven' s Secon d Symphon y wit h variou s poco accelerandos, poco
lentos, tempo l's, an d additiona l crescendos , reflectin g what he claime d th e mas -
ter di d whe n h e conducte d th e wor k himself . I f wha t Schindle r recalle d o f
Beethoven's performanc e i s accurate —and w e kno w tha t Schindle r wa s no t al -
ways a reliabl e witness—then Beethove n di d indee d appl y the 'temp o o f feeling'
to hi s ow n works . Bu t befor e w e allo w ourselve s t o indulg e i n ever y arbitrar y
tempo whim , justifie d an d vindicate d b y n o les s tha n a Beethoven , le t u s not e
the subtlet y o f Schindler' s annotation s an d ho w frequentl y poco occur s i n hi s
transcription—a poin t t o whic h I will have reaso n t o retur n agai n an d again .
Carl Mari a vo n Webe r wa s one o f the mos t brillian t of the earl y conductors ,
29. Wagner , Über da s Dirigieren (Leipzig , 1869), p . 31 .
30. Igna z von Seyfried , Beethoven Studien (1832) , cited i n Sonneck , Beethoven Impressions of Con-
temporaries (Ne w York, 1926) , p. 41 .
31. Anto n Schindler , Life o f Beethoven (Münster , 1840) , p.164-65 .
and als o one o f the first, along with Spoh r an d Spontini , t o us e the baton. 32 H e
was ver y muc h a n advocat e o f flexibl e temp o an d th e flexibl e beat , no t onl y
clearly implied i n his operas and chambe r musi c works , but als o lucidly revealed
in a lette r t o th e violi n virtuoso-composer-conducto r Heinric h Aloy s Präger . As
quoted b y Feli x Weingartne r i n hi s Über da s Dirigieren, Webe r wrot e t o
Präger: "Th e bea t (th e tempo ) mus t no t b e a tyrannically impeding o r driving
hammer [Mühlenhammer], bu t rathe r [shoul d be ] t o a piece o f music wha t th e
pulse-beat i s to th e lif e o f man . Ther e i s n o slo w tempo i n whic h ther e aren' t
passages tha t deman d a quicke r motion , i n orde r t o preven t a feelin g o f drag -
ging. Conversely , ther e i s no presto that doe s no t nee d a t som e point s a quiete r
delivery, s o as not t o preclude , throug h rushing , th e mean s o f expressiveness."
"What I hav e her e sai d shoul d not , fo r Heaven' s sake , giv e an y singer"—t o
which Weingartne r append s a footnot e t o sa y "th e same , o f course , goe s fo r
conductors"—"the right to the performanc e lunacy of willfully distortin g individ-
ual measure s an d thereb y produc e i n th e listene r th e unbearabl e sensatio n aki n
to seein g a contortionis t forcibl y contor t al l hi s limbs . Th e forwar d movemen t
of temp o a s wel l a s th e holdin g bac k o f tempo , bot h shoul d neve r produc e a
feeling o f jerking th e temp o around , o f moving abruptl y and forcibl y b y fits and
starts [das Gefühl de s Ruckenden, Stoßweisen oder Gewaltsamen erzeugen]. I n
other words , [temp o modification ] in a musical-poeti c sens e ca n onl y occu r i n
terms o f phrases an d periods , informe d b y the particula r expressions o f passio n
and emotio n [Leidenschaftlichkeit]."
"For al l o f thi s w e hav e i n musi c n o mean s o f notation . Thes e li e solel y i n
the feeling s of man's hear t [Menschenbrust]: an d i f they canno t be foun d there ,
then neithe r th e metronome , whic h ca n onl y preven t th e crudes t o f blunders,
will hel p no r wil l such a t best incomplet e indication s as I migh t b e prepare d t o
incorporate t o enric h m y materia l [m y notation], wer e I not warne d agains t this
by man y experience s a s a resul t o f which I a m force d to conside r thes e already
as superfluou s an d useless , an d fea r the m a s bein g misrepresentative. " Fo r al l
that, Car l Mari a vo n Webe r di d ver y muc h advocat e th e us e o f metronom e
markings. I n speakin g o f th e T e Deum o f hi s composer-theoreticia n colleagu e
Gottfried Weber 34 (n o relation) , h e wrot e "I t i s ver y muc h hope d tha t othe r
composers wil l follo w Her r Weber's lea d i n thi s matter." 35
32. Th e us e o f a baton i n conductin g di d no t tak e hol d a s a consistent , commo n practic e unti l th e

third decad e o f th e 19t h century . Befor e that , performance s wer e le d b y musicians—mor e ofte n
than no t th e compose r o f the wor k being performed—either fro m th e keyboar d or the concertmaste r
position (sometime s bot h simultaneously) , or wit h th e directo r o r Kapellmeister usin g a variet y of
methods, implements , devices , tool s an d instruments : violi n bows ; three - o r four-foot-lon g batons ,
used t o kee p tim e b y stampin g the m loudl y o n th e floor ; roll s o f pape r (silentl y or , whe n struc k
together, audibly) ; various-size d pieces o f wood ; divers e vocal sound s (grunts , hisses , etc.) ; rappin g
on th e musi c stand ; and , o f course, foo t stamping .
33. Feli x Weingartner, Über da s Dirigieren (Leipzig , 1895) , p.80-89; (1905) , p.43 .
34. Gottfrie d Weber's T e Deum (1814 ) seem s t o hav e bee n th e firs t publishe d score t o us e metro -
nome temp o markings ; an d i n 181 7 h e publishe d a n article , "Übe r chronometrisch e Tempo Be -
zeichnung" (O n chronornetri c temp o indications) .
35. Car l Mari a von Weber , Writings o n Music, Englis h edition , Marti n Cooper , ed . Joh n Warrack
(Cambridge, 1981 ) p. 128 .
Weber her e i s anticipatin g th e sam e concern s expresse d b y Wagne r a fe w

decades late r i n hi s Über da s Dirigieren (se e below) , i n whic h h e repeatedl y
warns agains t th e excesse s o f arbitrar y and unfounded , egotisticall y motivate d
distortions of tempo, thereby i n tim e "totall y mutilatin g our grea t classical music
beyond recognition," 36—a predictio n which , alas , cam e tru e i n th e Billo w an d
post-Billow era .
While Berlio z mentione d matter s o f temp o onl y briefl y i n hi s L'Art d u chef
d'orchestre, Wagner, a s we shall see, dwel t on th e subjec t at considerable length .
Berlioz wa s greatly intereste d i n composers ' adherin g t o metronom e markings ,
and urgentl y recommended tha t conductors "consul t th e metronom e indication s
and stud y them thoroughly. " Bu t the n h e adde d quit e judiciously : "Naturally I
do no t mea n t o sa y by this tha t on e shoul d imitat e th e mathematica l regularit y
of th e metronome ; al l musi c execute d i n suc h a manne r woul d hav e a n ic y
frigidity an d stiffness" ; an d eve n mor e wisely : "I eve n doub t whethe r i t woul d
be possible t o maintain suc h empt y uniformit y for more tha n a few measures.'
And finally , an d perhap s mos t important : "Th e metronom e i s nevertheles s a n
excellent ai d i n determinin g th e initia l tempo o f a piece an d it s main shadings"
(italics added). 38
Wagner echoe d the sam e thoughts, bu t pu t them eve n more forcefully . (Sinc e
Wagner's thought s i n Über da s Dirigieren hav e been frequentl y misread, misun -
derstood, an d eve n mistranslated , I inten d t o dea l extensively—no t selectively ,
as ha s ofte n bee n done—wit h th e fullnes s o f hi s comment s o n question s o f
tempo an d temp o modification. ) After dealin g wit h th e genera l questio n o f "th e
right tempo " at som e length , declarin g tha t thi s questio n "i s the poin t a t whic h
it become s clea r whethe r a conducto r i s suite d o r unsuite d t o th e task," 39 h e
moves o n t o th e subjec t o f tempo rubato, declarin g tha t temp o modificatio n is
"of immeasurable importance fo r the prope r renderin g of our classica l music". 40
Wagner the n cite s a numbe r o f works—the first and las t movement s o f Beetho -
ven's Eroica, th e Egmont Overture , Weber' s Freischütz Overture , hi s ow n Meist-
36. Wagner , Über da s Dirigieren, p . 54 .

37. Hecto r Berlioz , L'Art d u chef d'orchestre (Paris, 1844). Englis h edition , Th e Orchestral Conduc-
tor. Theory o f hi s Art, Mar y Clarke, (London , 1856) .
38. Ibid . Berlioz wrote abou t conducting in generall y broader terms. How thoroughly he understoo d
the ne w aesthetic s o f conducting—ne w a s oppose d t o th e older , merel y time-beatin g functiona l
approach—can b e gleane d fro m hi s Mémoires, (1869 ) i n whic h h e liste d th e "qualitie s necessar y to
produce a goo d conductor " a s "precision , flexibility, passion, sensitivenes s and coolnes s combined ,
together wit h a n indefinabl e subtl e instinct " (Hecto r Berlioz , Mémoires d e Hector Berlioz, Paris ,
(1869); Englis h translatio n by Rachel an d Eleano r Holmes , Ne w York , (1932) , p. 199) . Berlio z was
one o f th e firs t t o emphasiz e i n writin g that th e bea t i n conductin g ha d t o acquire , apar t fro m it s
time-beating function , an expressive/aestheti c significance, combining th e technica l wit h the expres-
sive.
39. Wagner , Über da s Dirigieren, p . 28 . Indeed , Wagner' s boo k ha s becom e a polemicist' s football,
'interpreted' t o suppor t whateve r theorie s o r practice s o f conductin g a particula r write r want s
(wanted) t o defend . This become s al l th e mor e possibl e in th e absence , obviously , o f no t onl y an y
recordings b y Wagner bu t als o surprisingl y fe w account s of hi s conductin g and interpretations . I t is
only throug h a stric t an d correc t readin g of hi s tex t tha t Wagner' s ver y detaile d writing s ca n b e
properly understoo d and appreciated.
40. Ibid. , p.3 9
ersinger Overtur e (the n onl y a fe w year s old) , a s wel l a s several o f Beethoven' s

string quartet s an d sonatas—detailin g ho w temp o modification s can b e applie d
to thes e works , and are , i n hi s view, absolutely essential to thei r correc t interpre -
tation. Severa l o f these ar e especiall y interesting fo r our purpose s here . Fo r on e
thing, sinc e Wagner' s conductin g an d temp o conception s have , a s mentioned ,
often bee n misunderstoo d o r misinterprete d i n orde r usuall y to support o r attack
one theor y o f conducting o r another , i t will b e usefu l t o conside r ver y carefully
what precisel y h e di d say . Fo r another , th e particula r work s I hav e chose n t o
single out here—Weber's Freischütz an d Wagner's ow n Meistersinger overtures-
will giv e u s specifi c an d detaile d insight s no t onl y int o Wagner' s concep t o f
tempo rubato but , i n th e cas e o f the Meistersinger Overture , int o th e ver y con -
struction o f the work , and thu s ho w h e intende d i t t o b e performe d i n respec t
to tempo considerations .
Taking of f fro m hi s earlie r point , tha t is , o f differentiatin g between Mozart' s
"naive allegro" an d Beethoven' s "sentimental allegro," an d ascribin g t o these two
types o f inherentl y differen t expressiv e characteristic s and , therefore , o f perfor -
mance needs , Wagne r details , amon g othe r things , ho w in particula r the allegro
section o f Weber's Freischütz Overtur e ough t t o be paced . Usin g one o f his own
performances (i n Vienn a i n 1864 ) a s a mode l for , as h e claimed , th e "correc t
interpretation" o f the work , Wagner state s that, "afte r thus restorin g to th e intro -
ductory adagio it s frighteningly mysterious dignity, 1 was abl e t o allo w th e wil d
allegro temp o t o ru n it s passionate course , withou t bein g boun d i n an y wa y to
consider th e mor e delicat e expressio n o f th e [later ] softe r secon d subject ; fo r I
had ful l confidenc e tha t I woul d b e abl e a t th e appropriat e momen t t o slacken
[modify] th e pac e jus t enoug h t o arriv e imperceptibl y a t th e righ t temp o fo r
this theme." 41 Le t u s tak e specia l not e i n passin g o f the wor d "imperceptibly "
(unmerklich). Wagne r no w digresses slightly to point ou t tha t "i t should b e quit e
evident, tha t th e newe r typ e o f allegro movement consist s o f a combinatio n o f
two essentially different parts . In contras t to the olde r naiv e or pure allegro struc-
turing, i t i s this combinin g o f the pur e allegro with th e themati c uniquenes s o f
the songfu l adagio, i n al l it s possible gradations , tha t so enriches our ne w mod -
ern allegro."* 2 Wagne r cite s anothe r Webe r excerpt , th e secon d subjec t i n th e
allegro—the clarine t them e (Ex . 1 ) —of th e Oberon Overtur e a s a prototypica l
Ex. 1
example o f a passag e tha t n o longe r fit s int o th e earlie r allegro typ e nor , b y
implication, allegro tempo. H e elaborate s further : "O n th e surfac e thi s songfu l
theme notationall y appear s to fit neatly int o the allegro scheme; but a s soon as
its tru e characte r i s identified , i t become s apparen t t o wha t exten t thi s schem e
is capable o f modification in orde r to accommodate th e composer's desire t o have
41. Ibid. , p . 43 . Translation s of excerpts from Wagner' s Über da s Dirigieren ar e b y thi s author.
42. Ibid. , p.43 .
both main characteristics equally represented" 4J (th e emphasisis i s Wagner's). I t

should b e note d that , her e again , Wagne r expresse s himsel f ver y carefull y an d
precisely. Hi s phras e "Welche r Modifikatione n diese s Schema s ebe n fähi g
gedacht sei n mußte " i s s o cautiousl y worde d a s t o b e almos t convoluted ; simi -
larly, th e phras e "beid e Hauptcharacter e gleichmässi g verwendba r dünke n z u
können." Wagne r i s tryin g t o mak e i t clea r that , give n al l hi s qualifiers , th e
tempo modificatio n he suggest s are t o be slight , modest , s o as not t o impai r th e
balance betwee n th e tw o "main characteristics. " Th e implicatio n her e i s clearly
that exaggerate d alteration s o f tempo no t onl y ar e no t neede d bu t clearl y no t
wanted.
Returning t o his Freischütz performanc e i n Vienna, Wagner report s that "afte r
the utmos t excitatio n o f th e [initia l allegro] tempo , I use d th e czc/dgz'o-derive d
long-sustained son g o f the clarine t (Ex . 2) imperceptibly to hold bac k the temp o
here, wher e al l figurativ e movemen t i s dissolve d int o sustaine d (o r trembling )
[zitternden] sounds , so that, despite th e renewe d motio n o f the connectin g figur e
Ex. 2
(Ex.3) whic h s o beautifull y prepares th e cantilena i n El> , th e arrived-a t temp o

Ex. 3
was onl y th e slightes t nuanc e remove d fro m th e basicall y never-relinquishe d

main tempo . . . . The succes s o f this rendition wa s immediately s o apparent t o
the excellen t musicians [i n the orchestra ] tha t fo r the, once again , imperceptibl e
reanimation o f the temp o with its pulsating figur e [Ex. 4] , it took only the slight -
est indicatio n o f th e pac e t o fin d th e orchestr a enthusiasticall y read y fo r th e
return o f the energeti c driv e of the mai n temp o wit h it s succeeding fortissimo."^
Ex.4
Notice agai n th e us e twic e o f the wor d "imperceptible, " as well a s the term s
"slightest nuances " an d "basicall y never-relinquishe d mai n tempo, " and th e en -
tire sens e o f th e passag e t o indicat e tha t bot h th e mai n allegro temp o an d it s
imperceptibly mor e relaxe d secon d subjec t counterpar t ar e nothin g mor e tha n
slight variant s o f essentiall y th e sam e tempo . I t i s a s i f Wagne r imagine s th e
conductor t o si t on th e fulcru m o f a tempo seesaw , and wit h th e slightes t til t to
43. Ibid. , pp . 43-44 .

44. Ibid. , pp. 44-45.
one sid e brin g fort h th e ful l energeti c allegro, and wit h a n equall y sligh t til t t o
the othe r sid e relax the temp o enoug h t o accommodate th e songfu l cantilena o f
the secon d subject , withou t losin g th e fundamenta l essenc e an d feelin g of th e
basic allegro. This is , of course, wha t Beethoven mean t b y "tempo o f feeling." It
is als o wha t others , includin g Wagner , hav e calle d reflectin g th e spirit—no t
merely th e letter—o f th e music .
In som e ways , Wagner's performanc e suggestion s fo r hi s ow n Meistersinger
Overture ar e eve n mor e interestin g an d instructiv e tha n hi s Freischütz exegesis .
For here w e see no t onl y a splendid exampl e o f how Wagner's concep t of tempo
modification wa s meant t o function i n performance, but als o how Wagner, espe -
cially in th e late r operas, built this concept right into th e compositional , creativ e
process; i n othe r words , temp o rubat o i s compose d int o th e ver y fabri c an d
structure o f th e music . Nowher e i s thi s mor e apparen t an d crucia l tha n i n
Wagner's las t opera , Parsifal, i n which , i n hi s ow n performanc e annotation s i n
reference t o temp o change s an d modifications , h e consistentl y use s th e word s
"nicht auffallend " (hardl y noticeable) an d "unmerklich " (unnoticeable) .
Wagner begin s b y explainin g that th e basi c temp o o f the Meistersinger Over -
ture i s marked "Seh r massi g bewegt, " translate d int o th e olde r (Italian ) nomen -
clature: allegro moderato. H e continues : "N o temp o i s more i n nee d o f modifi -
cation, especiall y in longer tim e span s and whe n th e themati c materia l i s treated
in a strongl y episodic manner . I t i s a temp o ofte n chose n fo r th e expressio n o f
diverse motive s in manifol d combinations, becaus e it s broad structur e i n a regu -
lar 4/ 4 mete r easil y support s suc h expressio n throug h th e meres t suggestio n o f
tempo modification. 45 I n addition , thi s moderatel y movin g 4/ 4 mete r i s cer -
tainly the mos t multidimensional . When beat i n strongly animated quarter-notes ,
it ca n expres s a rea l livel y allegro such a s m y here-use d mai n tempo , whic h i s
presented i n it s livelies t for m i n th e transitiona l eigh t bar s [Ex.5] , leadin g
Ex.5
from th e basi c marc h them e t o th e E majo r section . Bu t on e ca n als o thin k of

it as a half period, combined ou t o f two 2/4 bars, thus allowin g for the introduc -
tion o f a livel y scherzando a t th e entr y o f th e shortene d them e [Ex.6] . I t ca n
45. Wagner' s mid-19th-centur y Germa n i s quite dens e an d grammaticall y convoluted , an d thu s no t

easily translated. In m y translations here I have retaine d a s much o f Wagner's prolixit y and complex -
ity o f thought a s possible —difficult thoug h i t ma y b e t o rea d —on th e ground s that inherentl y com -
plex thought s cannot b e reduce d t o elementar y simplicities, and als o t o preserv e in it s purest for m
and greates t precisio n Wagner's actua l thought.
A HISTOR Y O F CONDUCTIN G 83
even b e interprete d a s a n alia breve (2/2 measure) , wher e i t ca n expres s th e

older, rea l gemächlich tempo andante (mainl y associated wit h churc h music) ,
which i s conducte d wit h tw o moderatel y slo w beats . I t i s i n thi s sens e tha t I
used th e latte r tempo , starting in the eight h measur e afte r th e retur n o f C major,
to combin e th e mai n marc h theme , carrie d b y th e basses , wit h th e broadl y
intoned o r sun g secon d subject , no w state d i n rhythmi c diminutio n i n th e vio -
lins an d cello s [Ex . 7]."
Ex. 7
"I introduce d thi s secon d subjec t initiall y in a reduce d for m i n a simpl e 4/ 4

meter [Ex.8] . Whe n playe d no w wit h th e utmos t gentlenes s [Zartheit], thi s
Ex. 8
theme take s o n a hast e tha t i s almost passionat e (somethin g lik e a n intimatel y

whispered declaratio n o f love). T o retai n tha t mai n characteristi c o f gentleness ,
the temp o mus t be hel d bac k by a little [u m Etwas], since th e theme' s passionat e
haste i s already decidedly enoug h expresse d i n it s moving figurations , thus per -
mitting i t t o b e pushe d t o th e farthes t varian t withi n th e mai n temp o i n th e
direction o f the maestoso of the 4/ 4 marc h theme ; and i n orde r t o carr y this ou t
imperceptibly (tha t is , without distortin g th e mai n characte r o f the underlyin g
basic tempo) , thi s chang e o f characte r i s initiated wit h a measur e marke d poco
rallentando. Wit h th e increasingl y restles s feelin g o f thi s them e [Ex.9] , i t wa s
easy t o lea d th e temp o bac k t o it s origina l livelie r direction , i n whic h finall y
Ex. 9
it coul d len d itsel f t o functio n a s th e above-mentione d andante alia breve,

whereby I onl y ha d t o tak e u p ane w a varian t of the mai n temp o alread y pre-
viously develope d i n th e expositio n o f th e piece . I ha d cause d th e initia l state -
ment o f the majesti c marc h them e t o evolv e int o a broade r cod a o f cantabile
character, whic h ca n onl y b e correctl y interprete d whe n se t i n th e aforemen -
tioned andante alia breve. Since th e them e precedin g thi s full-bodie d cantabile
[Ex. 10 ] i s the fanfar e [Ex . 11] , t o b e performe d in powerfu l quarter-notes , this
Ex. 1 0
Ex. 1 1
tempo conversio n mus t obviousl y occur a t th e en d o f th e quarter-not e move -

ment whic h coincide s wit h th e mor e sustaine d lin e o f th e cantabile o n th e
dominant chord . Now , since this broader tempo i n half-note s undergoes during
its considerabl e duratio n a livel y intensificatio n [Steigerung] a s wel l a s a tona l
modulation, I felt I could leav e th e movemen t o f the temp o al l the mor e t o th e
discretion o f th e conductor , withou t drawin g particula r attentio n t o it , i n a s
much a s the interpretatio n o f such passages , i f left t o th e natura l instincts of th e
performing musicians , lead s all b y itsel f to a n enlivenmen t o f th e temp o [ganz
von selbst zu r Befeuerung de s Tempos hinführt}. Relyin g o n this , I felt , a s a n
experienced conductor , n o nee d t o indicat e an y plac e othe r tha n wher e th e
tempo i s t o retur n t o th e origina l pur e 4/ 4 meter , whic h shoul d b e clea r t o
anyone wit h trul y musica l feelings , becaus e o f th e additio n o f th e harmoni c
progression's quarter-not e movement . I n th e conclusio n o f th e Overtur e thi s
broader 4/ 4 tim e clearl y returns wit h a recapitulatio n o f the above-mentioned ,
powerfully sustained , march-like fanfare , t o whic h ar e adde d th e decorativ e fig-
urations i n double-time , thereb y bringin g th e temp o ful l circl e bac k whenc e i t
began."
It shoul d b e abundantl y obviou s t o "anyon e wit h trul y musical feelings " —I
might ad d and o f musical understanding—-tha t Wagner i s here dealing wit h sub -
tle variations and nuance s of tempo (hi s constantly reiterated wor d is "impercep-
tible") whic h shoul d neve r distor t o r g o beyon d th e music' s basic , inheren t
tempo. I n effec t Wagner rule s out , an d forcefull y opposes , an y excessiv e alter -
ation o f th e tempo , a lesso n whic h unfortunatel y many conductors , includin g
Wagner's ow n pupil and discipl e Biilow, as well as many famous conductors past
and present , seem(ed ) unabl e t o comprehend .
I hav e dwel t o n Wagner' s centra l idea s i n regar d t o tempo an d temp o inflec -
tions becaus e h e ha s s o ofte n bee n blame d fo r the excesse s an d temp o distor -
tions o f other conductors , includin g almost the entir e win g of German-tradition
conductors. Thi s becam e a reall y contentious issu e i n th e Toscanin i era , whe n
that conductor' s widel y acclaimed objectivit y an d textua l fidelity wer e constantly
being pitted agains t Furtwängler's approach, perceive d a s much mor e subjective,
fluid, almos t improvisational . (As already mentioned , thes e oversimplifie d de-
scriptions o f the tw o famou s conductin g rival s ar e largel y invalid , since , fo r ex-
ample, Toscanini' s 'textua l fidelity ' di d no t absolutel y preclude, a s man y o f hi s
better recording s attest , hi s adoptin g a mor e flui d pacing , while , conversely,
Furtwängler wa s quite capabl e o f highl y rhythmic , precise , clear-heade d inter -
pretations, as , for example, hi s superbl y played recording of Tchaikowsky's Sixt h

Symphony, especiall y its Scherzo. )
For a wide range of reasons, including many extra-musical, personal and politi-
cal ones, the two conductors were constantly being contrasted in America—Tosca-
nini favorably , Furtwängle r negatively—al l o f this brilliantl y documented i n Jo -
seph Horowitz' s excellen t Understanding Toscanini. 46 A s promulgate d ove r a
period o f many decades by those wh o sa w in Toscanini "th e greates t conductor of
all time," the genera l impressio n wa s fostered that the Germa n conductin g tradi -
tion, as represented primarily by Furtwängler and Nikisch— a tradition which Tos-
canini wa s avowedly determined t o eradicate—wen t bac k to an d wa s first articu-
lated b y Wagner. 47 (Ther e was , incidentally , a particula r iron y i n thi s sinc e
Toscanini was one of the finest and mos t respectful interpreters of Wagner.)
The lesso n t o b e draw n fro m Wagner' s writin g on temp o rubat o i n Über da s
Dirigieren i s that a composer' s scor e mus t b e inherentl y respecte d i n al l it s de -
tails; tha t suc h fidelit y t o th e scor e ough t no t necessaril y t o resul t i n stiff ,
accurate-to-the-letter, rigidly metronomic renditions , bu t ca n instead , as dictated
by th e spiri t an d feelin g o f th e music , incorporat e th e concep t o f a flexibl e
tempo, o f subtle inflection s and nuances ; an d tha t suc h temp o variation s ought
never t o g o beyon d th e bound s o f th e basi c tempo , ough t neve r t o lea d t o
distortions and exaggeration s of tempo. Rathe r than suggestin g arbitrary interpre -
tational license , Wagner's numerou s an d constan t reminder s of restrained temp o
behavior ar e embodie d an d italicize d i n hi s frequentl y reiterate d term s an d
phrases "imperceptible " ("unmerklich") , " a little " ("etwas") , "t o hol d bac k onl y
as far " ("nu r s o wei t zurückhalten") , "th e leas t indication " ("leisest e Andeu -
tung"), "withou t drawin g muc h attentio n t o it " ("ohn e besonder s hierau f auf-
merksam z u machen") , an d s o on.
Perhaps th e proble m i s that , a s i s s o ofte n th e cas e i n th e histor y o f hu -
mankind, a prophet' s o r leader' s disciple s ar e hi s wors t enemies , th e wors t cor -
rupters o f his thoughts . Certainl y thi s seem s t o hav e bee n th e cas e wit h Billow ,
Wagner's one-tim e favorit e protégé , wh o b y th e en d o f hi s caree r wit h th e re -
nowned Meininge n Orchestra , becam e famou s for indulgin g i n ever y conduct -
ing exces s imaginable , including , o f course, th e wildl y emotiona l manipulatio n
of tempos . Takin g inordinat e licens e wit h Wagner's (an d Beethoven's ) concep t
of temp o inflections , Billo w develope d a conductin g styl e whic h justifie d it s
excesses unde r th e headin g o f "Lisztian license, " podiu m charisma , and authori -
tarianism. Wherea s Wagner' s subjectiv e approach , a s originall y postulated, de -
rived fro m wha t h e sa w (an d heard ) a s a kin d o f "dee p structure " i n al l grea t
music, tha t is , th e underlyin g eb b an d flo w o f long-ter m harmoni c rhythms ,
46. Josep h Horwitz , Understanding Toscanini (Ne w York, 1987) .

47. I t ca n no w b e clearl y seen i n retrospec t tha t thi s pejorativ e assessmen t o f Wagner's influenc e
was inaccurate an d unjus t since , fo r one thing , Wagner dre w his interpretationa l theorie s fro m non e
other tha n Beethoven , not onl y i n th e master' s ow n conductin g and hi s comment s o n th e subject ,
but hi s composition s a s well , an d since , fo r anothe r thing , th e concep t o f temp o rubat o an d a
subjective, spiritua l approac h t o interpretatio n goes eve n furthe r bac k t o Mozar t an d Hayd n an d
even earlier , a s Junker's an d th e othe r aforementione d theorists ' writings s o clearl y attest.
Billow, b y al l accounts , took ever y short-term harmoni c mov e a s a n excus e t o

stretch, o r contract, tempo s t o the virtua l breaking point. While Wagner's temp o
inflections wer e governe d (an d restrained ) b y phras e structure s an d characte r
contrasts o f themes, a s well a s vertical (tha t i s to say , harmonic) tensions , Billo w
took such structura l signposts a s justification fo r enormous liberties , "to the poin t
of caricature, " a s Feli x Weingartner onc e pu t it . I suspect—an d indee d ther e is
much evidenc e t o thi s effect—tha t ther e wa s a certai n arroganc e an d conde -
scension toward s the publi c i n Billow' s late work, as well as (according to Weing -
artner) " a mani a fo r notoriety." Billow' s exaggeration s wer e i n par t motivate d b y
a desir e t o teac h wha t h e considere d th e unsophisticate d publi c somethin g
about music , abou t for m an d structure . A n exampl e cite d b y Weingartner i n hi s
1895 Über da s Dirigieren i s probabl y typica l o f Billow' s lat e work . "Wher e a
modification o f the temp o wa s necessary t o ge t expressiv e phrasing, i t happene d
that i n orde r t o mak e thi s modificatio n quit e clea r t o hi s audience , h e exagger-
ated i t [Weingartner' s italics] ; indeed , h e fel l int o a quit e ne w temp o that was a
negation o f the mai n one . Th e Egmont Overtur e wa s a cas e i n point . Wagne r
tells u s [i n hi s Über da s Dirigieren]," s o Weingartne r write s a propos o f thi s
passage (Ex . 12 ) —"which, a s he [Wagner ] says , 'combines i n a drasticall y con -
Ex. 1 2
densed wa y a fearfu l severit y with seren e self-confidence ' ["diese s au s schreck -

lichem Ernst e un d wohlige m Selbstgefüh l s o drastisc h enggeschürzt e Motiv"] ,
and which , a s a rul e 'i n th e headlon g rus h o f allegro was washe d awa y like a
withered lea f ["wi e ei n welke s Blatt hinweggespült"]—tha t h e induce d Bülo w
to pla y it i n th e tru e sens e o f the composer , modifyin g 'wit h onl y a hint ' ("nu r
andeutungsweise") [agai n Wagner's cautio n o f moderation] the hithert o 'passion -
ate' tempo , s o tha t th e orchestr a migh t hav e th e opportunit y t o differentiat e
this themati c combination , wit h it s rapid fluctuatio n betwee n grea t energ y an d
thoughtful self-content. ' Al l wh o hav e hear d thi s overtur e unde r Bülo w mus t
agree wit h m e tha t a t the plac e i n questio n h e b y no mean s mad e 'onl y a hint'
of a modification , but leape d a t onc e fro m th e allegro int o a n andante grave,
thereby destroyin g the unifor m tempo tha t shoul d b e preserve d i n th e allegro of
that overture, " addin g "a s in genera l i n ever y piece o f music tha t ha s a uniform
tempo mar k at the beginning." 48
Other writer s and conductor s hav e take n Bülo w t o tas k fo r hi s exaggerate d
48. Weingartner , (1895) p. 18 ; (1905), p. 13 . We als o hav e the wor d o f Brahms in commentin g o n
Billow's conducting , tha y was "alway s calculate d fo r effect . Immediatel y a ne w musica l phrase be -
gins, h e make s a small pause, an d like s t o als o change th e temp o a little." Brahm s goes o n t o sa y "I
have deliberatel y denie d myself thi s i n m y symphonies . If I ha d wante d it , I woul d have writte n it
tempo fluctuation s an d othe r effec t excesses , although h e als o had hi s defenders,

such a s the eminen t musicologist/historia n an d edito r Heinric h Reimann . Bu t
perhaps n o on e too k mor e deadl y ai m a t Billo w tha n th e America n autho r an d
"serious music " popularizer , David Ewen . On e o f the majo r Toscanini apologist s
in th e 1930 s and '40s , and therefor e someone b y predilection incline d t o depre -
cate th e whol e Germa n Romanti c schoo l o f conductors , Ewe n nonetheles s
came a s close a s anyone t o characterizing Billow' s conductin g style . Ewen casti -
gated Billo w fo r bein g " a perniciou s influence " wh o too k "amazin g liberties "
with temp o an d phrasing , wh o wa s given t o "exaggeratio n an d over-statement, "
who "tampere d wit h th e scores" 49 an d influence d man y o f his Germa n succes -
sors lik e Mahler , Richter , Levi , an d Nikisc h t o tampe r furthe r wit h th e earl y
Romantic repertor y (especially Beethoven an d Schuman n symphonies) .
One wh o trie d t o ste m th e tid e agains t excessiv e subjectivism in interpreta -
tion, especiall y that o f conductors, wa s Felix Weingartner. I n hi s Über da s Diri-
gieren—interestingly th e sam e titl e a s Wagner's book—h e present s a s balance d
a pictur e o f Bulow' s impac t o n th e evolutio n o f conductin g a s seem s possible ,
praising him fo r his landmark contributions i n eradicatin g the earl y 19th-centur y
manner o f mer e elegan t time-beating , a t th e sam e tim e pointin g ou t hi s late r
harmful influence . Weingartne r allowe d tha t th e guil t fo r thes e misdemeanor s
lay "bot h wit h [Billow] himsel f an d a numbe r o f hi s followers ; and t o expos e
these an d attac k them i s as much a duty of sincerity as to acknowledge the gain s
with fran k delight . I t canno t b e denie d that , eve n whil e h e wa s leade r o f th e
Meiningen Orchestra , ther e wa s ofte n a pedagogic element i n Bulow' s render -
ings. I t was clear tha t h e wishe d t o dea l a blo w o n th e on e han d t o philistine ,
metronomic time-beating , o n th e othe r han d t o a certain elegan t off-handednes s
and superficiality . Bu t i n hi s effor t t o b e excessivel y clear, [Bulow ] wen t to o far.
[Forgetting] tha t work s of ar t an d ar t performance s exis t fo r th e sak e o f them -
selves an d thei r ow n beauty, " Billow' s "tendency " t o "tendentiousness " mad e
him pron e "t o mak e detail s excessively prominent. " I n s o doing , Weingartne r
felt, Billo w ha d los t touc h wit h th e notio n tha t eac h detai l i n a compositio n
"has it s ful l raison d'être, bu t onl y i n s o fa r a s i t i s subordinate d t o a homoge -
neous conceptio n o f the essentia l natur e o f the whol e work— a continuou s con -
ception tha t dominate s al l detail." 50
Weingartner illustrate s hi s concern s abou t exaggerate d interpretation s an d
tempo distortion s most cogentl y i n a passag e regardin g Mendelssohn' s Hebrides
Overture.51 Weingartne r describe s a performanc e i n whic h literall y no t on e
in." W e kno w als o fro m man y contemporar y reports , includin g thos e o f man y o f Brahms' s ow n
pianist students , tha t h e wa s much free r i n respec t t o rubat o i n hi s piano playin g and tha t there was
to b e les s tempo nuancin g i n orchestra l performanc e than i n performance s on th e piano .
49. Davi d Ewen , Dictators o f th e Baton (Chicago , 1943) , pp.23 , 27 .
50. Ibid. , (1895) , p. 17, 23; (1905) , p.12; 16 .
51. Ibid . (1895) , p.46 ; (1905 ) p.30 . Ho w fascinatin g i t woul d be—especiall y i n vie w o f Wagner' s
uncomplimentary view s o f Mendelssohn's conducting—t o kno w how h e (Mendelssohn ) conducted
his ow n Hebrides Overture , a wor k tha t i s mor e ton e poe m tha n straigh t classica l overture, indeed
more i n th e moul d o f Webe r overtures , which Wagne r s o admire d an d whos e appropriate perfor -
measure wa s playe d i n th e sam e temp o a s another . "Th e secon d an d fourt h

bars, repetition s o f the firs t (Ex . 13 ) and thir d bar s (Ex . 14) , were rendere d i n a
noticeably differen t tempo ; an d s o i t wen t i n a simila r vein t o th e en d o f th e
piece. Th e humanl y utmos t i n unnaturalnes s (Unnatur) wa s achieved, s o tha t

this beautifu l wor k wa s distorte d an d it s tru e characte r obscure d (literally : ver-
wischt, wipe d away)."
Weingartner goe s o n t o describ e the opposit e performanc e approach , th e on e
Wagner oppose d s o vehemently . "O f cours e i t woul d b e jus t a s wron g t o ru n
through ["abzuspielen" ] th e piec e i n a metronomi c quarte r t o quarter . Bu t th e
modifications o f tempo, a fe w o f which Mendelssoh n himsel f prescribed , mus t
occur i n suc h a way that th e uniformit y and coherenc e o f the wor k . .. are not
dissevered ["zerstückelt"] . A t time s th e se a aroun d Fingal' s Cav e i s calm ; a t
other time s a stronge r win d cause s higher wave s and th e whit e foam o f the sur f
breaks mor e violentl y against the shore , bu t th e picture o f th e landscape remains
the same [italic s ar e Weingartner's] ; an d a rea l terrifyin g ocea n storm , whic h
would giv e th e whol e scen e a totall y differen t character , neve r occur s i n Men -
delssohn's overture . A tone o f gentle, noble melancholy , whic h lend s th e Hebri -
des Island s their peculia r charm , i s preserved throughout i n th e music . Doe s i t
not warrant the sharpes t condemnation whe n tha t whic h a master ha s genuinely
experienced ["empfunden"] ) an d expresse d i n consummatel y beautiful tones , is
distorted b y a conducto r wit h al l sort s of intrusions [Zutaten]?"
" 'An d wh y all this? ' I have aske d mysel f on man y occasions . Wh y thi s mani a
manee conceptio n h e too k such pains to describe in hi s writings. Alas, there seem s t o be n o accoun t
of Mendelssohn' s conductin g of hi s Fingal's Cave; an d s o w e ar e lef t wit h th e tantalizin g questio n
of whether, as Wagner implies , hi s renditio n woul d i n fac t hav e bee n i n th e "elegant " bu t emotion -
ally uninvolved , mer e "time-beating " manner .
One als o wonder s jus t ho w Mendelssoh n performe d Bach' s St . Matthew Passion i n tha t work' s
celebrated reviva l in Berli n in 1829—whe n h e wa s only twenty years old. Again, no specific , detaile d
account o f Mendelssohn' s approac h t o th e wor k seem s t o exist , possibly for th e ver y goo d reaso n
that Bach' s grea t masterpiec e ha d no t bee n performe d fo r nearl y on e hundre d years , so n o on e i n
1829 coul d hav e properl y assesse d it s performance i n term s o f accurac y an d stylisti c authenticity.
On th e othe r hand , w e d o kno w tha t th e wor k create d suc h a sensatio n tha t i t ha d t o b e repeate d
twice, an d tha t thes e performance s starte d th e reviva l of popular interest i n Bach' s music . W e als o
know fro m man y accounts, includin g his own letters (fo r example, t o his sister Fanny and hi s teache r
Karl Friedric h Zelter) , tha t hi s conductin g wa s informed by a basic fidelit y t o th e scor e an d histori -
cal, stylistic authenticity. Mendelssohn b y all accounts—and Wagner's diatribe s against Mendelssoh n
and hi s school peculiarl y confirm this—becam e a symbol o f objective music-making , exposing classi-
cal clarit y an d unit y in performance , regularity an d fluenc y (meanin g liveliness) o f tempo. Although
as a compose r h e portraye d th e Romanti c theme s o f hi s era , a s a conducto r h e wa s a classica l
traditionalist, inten t o n preservin g the ideal s o f classica l forms an d thei r interpretativ e purity—per -
haps a Toscauini o f hi s clay .
of som e conductor s t o mak e ou t o f musica l work s somethin g othe r tha n wha t

they reall y are ? Wh y thi s fea r o f maintainin g a unifor m temp o fo r a certai n
amount o f time ? Wh y thi s rag e t o superimpos e nuance s an d expression s o f
which th e compose r neve r dreamt? "
"The reaso n fo r thes e strang e spectacle s [Erscheinungen] lie s i n a kin d o f
personal vanit y an d egotis m tha t i s no t satisfie d t o perfor m a wor k i n th e tru e
sense an d conceptio n o f its creator, bu t instea d want s to show the publi c wha t it
'can make ' out o f the work . The conductor' s mani a t o please an d t o be adulated
[Gefallsucht] i s thu s pu t abov e th e requisite s an d spiri t [Gez'sf ] o f th e com -
poser." 5Z
As alread y mentioned, alon g wit h Weingartne r who , bot h i n hi s writing s and
conducting, trie d t o stem th e tid e o f excessive interpretiv e licens e an d conduct -
orial self-indulgence , an d mor e o r less contemporaneou s t o him , ther e wa s Art-
uro Toscanini . Althoug h no t generall y give n t o expressin g himsel f i n writin g
on conducting—neithe r i n Italia n no r i n English—Toscanin i di d occasionall y
unburden himself , mostly i n rehearsal s o r interview s and mostl y critically/nega -
tively, o n interpretationa l matters . O n temp o an d temp o modificatio n h e onc e
said: "The correc t tempi ; that' s th e importan t thing : th e righ t tempi! Th e temp o
must change , weavin g i n an d out , bu t always close an d always returning" (italics
added) "Yes , in musi c jus t t o hav e th e correc t tempo , wit h al l tha t goe s wit h it ,
means nothing . Niente! "
On anothe r occasion , h e unleashe d thi s blisterin g cannonade agains t conduc -
tors: "Wh o d o the y thin k the y are , those musica l assassins , changing, distorting ?
They think the y ar e greater tha n God!" 53
We shal l retur n agai n t o Weingartner' s writings , amon g th e mos t insightful ,
intelligently balanced , an d self-effacin g i n th e entir e histor y of conducting. Bu t
for no w I woul d lik e t o sta y wit h ou r them e o f th e moment : temp o —or mor e
precisely—tempo modificatio n an d textua l fidelity. Richard Strauss' s writings on
conducting, containe d i n Recollections an d Reflections, ar e no t a s comprehen -
sive a s those o f some o f the othe r famou s composer-conductors . The y als o ten d
towards th e anecdota l an d glib , eve n occasionall y th e cynical . Straus s di d no t
offer ver y much advic e o n question s o f tempo an d temp o modification , but h e
52. Gefallsucht, althoug h generall y construe d t o mea n ' a desir e t o please, ' actuall y ca n als o signif y
'the nee d t o b e admired. ' Ibid . (1895) , pp.47-49; (1905) , pp.31-32 .
Although initiall y writte n i n 1895 , thi s i s a s ap t a descriptio n o f Leopol d Stokowsk i and Leonar d
Bernstein a t their leas t and wors t as can b e found . Bernstein, on e o f the mos t overrated an d adulate d
conductors o f recent times , rarel y practised wha t h e preached— a sa d fact give n hi s enormou s basi c
natural talent , musica l an d conductorial/gestural . I n hi s Jo y of Music, h e wrote , fo r example , "Per -
haps th e chie f requiremen t o f al l i s that [th e conductor ] b e humbl e befor e th e composer ; tha t h e
never interpos e himsel f between th e musi c an d th e audience ; tha t al l his efforts , howeve r strenuou s
or glamorous , b e mad e i n th e servic e o f the composer' s meaning—th e musi c itself , which , afte r all ,
is th e whol e reaso n fo r th e conductor' s existence " (The Jo y of Music, Ne w York , 1954 , p . 156) . I t is
as perfect an d beautifu l a statement abou t the ar t an d philosoph y of music a s can b e found . I t i s all
the mor e saddenin g and perplexin g that Bernstein rarel y followe d hi s ow n credo .
53. A s cited i n Samue l Antek' s This Wa s Toscanini (Ne w York, 1963) .
54. Richar d Strauss, Recollections an d Reflections (Zurich , 1949) .
did war n against som e o f the (i n hi s mind ) mor e notoriou s ba d habit s an d vul -
garisms perpetuated b y certain conductors . H e i n particula r deplored th e al l too
common "slackenin g o f pac e jus t befor e a grea t fortissimo " which, "fo r al l it s
popularity," h e calle d "quit e unbearable " an d "amateurish." 55 Similarly , Strauss
decried slowin g dow n th e las t ba r i n th e developmen t i n Beethoven' s Thir d
Leonore Overtur e before the entr y of the trumpe t o n th e stage . "O n th e contrary
this whol e passag e i s to b e playe d accelerando; after al l Pizzaro , a s h e rushe s at
Leonore, know s nothin g o f th e B-fla t o f th e trumpet." 56 Well , I don' t kno w
about the accelerando , bu t i t certainly does not mak e sense to mak e a big ritard,
as almos t al l conductor s insis t o n doing .
One o f Strauss' s wises t admonitions concern s "subject s whic h th e compose r
himself has already drawn out, whic h shoul d no t b e draw n out further." 57 Lastly
he terme d "dreadful " th e ritardand i i n th e bar s leadin g to th e secon d subject s
in Weber' s overtures , thereby possibl y disagreeing with Wagner . W e canno t b e
sure becaus e Straus s mention s n o names , an d i t i s possible, indee d likely , that
the ritardand i he refer s t o wer e of the excessiv e kind, as practiced b y Biilow an d
some o f his disciples , whom Straus s heard i n hi s younge r years.
Bruno Walter's writing s o n conductin g ar e amongs t th e fines t an d mos t com -
prehensive i n th e entir e literatur e o n th e subject. 58 O f a mor e philosophica l
turn o f mind than th e ver y pragmatic-minded Strauss, Walter bring s together th e
most cogentl y technica l advic e wit h profoun d philosophical , aesthetical , mora l
principles involve d no t onl y i n conductin g bu t i n al l re-creative , reproductive ,
interpretive music-making . Hi s chapte r entitle d "O f Tempo " examine s th e
subject brilliantl y and exhaustively , recapitulating an d expandin g upo n a num -
ber o f the mor e salien t point s about temp o rubat o mad e b y Beethoven, Wagner ,
and Weingartner .
Referring hi s reader s first to Wagner' s essa y Über da s Dirigieren and hi s cen -
sure o f undifferentiated tempos , Walter then point s ou t ho w Wagner's teaching s
"were perverte d and exaggerated " b y a considerabl e numbe r o f conductors wh o
"fell int o the opposit e error" : an exaggerated , arbitrary , meaningles s modification
of tempo . Th e deficiencie s of the erstwhil e time-beaters ha d bee n replace d fo r
the mos t part by virtuosos "who, no t conten t wit h the autonomou s lif e o f a piec e
of music, " though t the y mus t "enhanc e i t b y a n over-differentiatio n o f temp o
and delivery ; too littl e wa s followed b y to o much." 60 Accordin g t o Walte r "th e
right tempo " i s one tha t "permit s th e musica l meanin g an d th e emotiona l sig -
nificance o f a phras e to show to bes t effect, " addin g mos t significantly , "and tha t
allows fo r technica l exactness." 61 Walte r i n thi s sentenc e wa s th e firs t t o ti e
55. Ibid. , p.5 4

56. Ibid. , p.60
57. Ibid. , p.61
58. Brun o Walter, Von de r Musik un d vo m Musizieren (Frankfurt, 1957) . English edition, O f Music
and Music-Making (London , 1961).
59. Ibid. , Englis h edition , pp . 29-45 .
60. Ibid. , Englis h edition , p . 30.
61. Ibid. , Englis h edition , p.30 .
together, a s a working principle of what constitute s "th e righ t tempo," th e notio n

of emotiona l significance/expressio n an d technica l exactitude , b y whic h h e
means, I am sure , no t onl y a tempo tha t permit s a passage to be playe d securely,
accurately, technically correctly , but on e tha t represent s a high degre e o f textual
fidelity. Probing stil l further , h e state s that , sinc e "i n th e cours e o f a piec e o f
music it s content , moo d an d technica l requirement s chang e incessantly , th e
tempo ha s t o b e adapted " t o thes e change s "t o remai n alway s right. Th e righ t
tempo fo r a piec e i s relative." 62
Walter, sensin g tha t thi s i s still to o general , to o imprecis e a formulation , on e
that stil l allow s for som e o f the excesse s o f tempo modificatio n that h e i s trying
to war n against, add s mos t tellingly : "Our proble m [is ] that o f tempo, no t tempi.
For th e well-constructe d piec e o f music i n organi c for m i s defined b y one mai n
tempo which , thoug h i t ma y chang e i n th e cours e o f th e composition , main -
tains a continuit y tha t accord s wit h th e symphoni c continuit y o f th e composi -
tion. Fro m thi s th e conclusio n ca n b e draw n that w e mus t remai n a t th e sam e
speed unti l a chang e i n th e desig n o f th e musi c force s u s t o modif y it. " Th e
concept of a right tempo "demand s a flexible continuity for tempo," what Walter
then call s "apparent continuity." 63
Even mor e specifically—an d I think mos t important—Walte r stresse s that th e
fact tha t composer s indicat e "noticeabl e change s i n speed " with direction s suc h
as ritardando, accelerando, più mosso etc., shoul d prov e that "noticeabl e change s
in speed , other than those marked b y th e composer, will offend against hi s inten-
tions" (italic s added). Drivin g the poin t hom e further , Walter says , "Thi s mean s
that all othe r modification s of tempo, a s they correspon d t o th e eb b an d flow of
the music , mus t b e o f the unnoticeabl e kind." 64
"I shoul d lik e t o poin t out, " Walte r continues , tha t th e conducto r "wh o per -
mits himsel f unwarrante d changes o f tempo" i s implying "a re-evaluatio n of th e
meaning o f those passage s that wer e intende d b y the compose r t o hav e a n eve n
tempo. Fo r ritardando an d accelerando ar e no t merel y indication s o f motion ;
they also have the emotiona l significanc e of hesitating and urging. " The sudde n
unwarranted chang e o f tempo "give s th e impressio n o f a forma l paragraph , of a
division i n th e cours e o f the music . I t i s scarcely necessary for m e t o stres s that
we reproductiv e artist s mus t no t indulg e i n suc h arbitrary , disruptiv e acts, affect -
ing th e sou l a s well a s th e for m o f a work. 6 Noticeabl e change s i n spee d tha t
are no t demande d b y the compose r are , therefore , misrepresentations ; whethe r
they resul t fro m intellectua l presumptio n o r fro m shee r license , the y deviat e
62. Ibid. , Englis h edition , pp. 30-31 .
63. Ibid. , Englis h edition , p.31.
65. Ibid. , Englis h edition , p . 32 . I n thi s regar d Walte r wa s wrong, for i t wa s an d i s quite necessary
to stres s that conductor s ough t no t t o indulg e i n "suc h arbitrary , disruptive " liberties.lt i s also sad t o
report tha t Walte r himsel f ofte n i n hi s performances , especiall y o f Brahms , di d no t follo w hi s ow n
advice. Althoug h he cam e a s clos e a s anyone to givin g a precis e formulation o f the twi n notion s of
tempo an d temp o modification , h e evidentl y either fel t h e wa s no t oblige d to follo w hi s ow n rule s
or h e wa s no t awar e o f breakin g them. Havin g worke d wit h Walte r ofte n i n th e 1950s and '60s , I
can repor t that i t wa s most ofte n th e latter .
from th e composer' s intentions , an d thu s fro m th e purpos e o f reproductiv e

art."66
Just a s I hav e don e earlie r i n thi s book , Walte r present s th e usua l counter -
argument t o hi s strictures . " 'What pedantry! ' I ca n hea r man y a musicia n ex -
claim: 'Shoul d no t a performanc e hav e spontaneit y an d th e flai r o f improvisa -
tion? I f we sta y strictl y in tempo , excep t wher e th e compose r himsel f interrupt s
the continuity , th e restrain t impose d o n u s wil l ro b ou r interpretatio n o f al l
immediateness. Why , shoul d I not obe y m y heart, i f it prompts m e t o hold bac k
here, t o pres s on there , t o ritar d one phras e an d accelerat e th e next ? My perfor-
mance wil l soun d spontaneou s sinc e I a m playin g the musi c i n th e wa y I fee l
it, and no t a s the compose r compel s m e t o play it.' "67
Walter's answe r t o tha t i s "that th e temp o direction s o f th e compose r ar e a n
integral par t o f th e notatio n o f the work ; the change s i n temp o demande d b y
him ar e par t an d parce l o f the composition." 68 T o whic h I woul d ad d tha t th e
absence o f indicate d change s o f tempo b y a compose r ar e als o par t an d parce l
of th e composition . Walte r say s a s much a fe w paragraphs later: "W e shoul d b e
aware o f changin g th e spee d i n th e absenc e o f th e composer' s directio n jus t
because ou r persona l tast e o r th e leaning s o f ou r hear t woul d hav e i t so . Th e
introduction o f tempo change s wher e the y ar e no t prescribe d b y the compose r
is i n th e natur e o f an encroachmen t o n th e compositio n a s such." 69
"And wher e woul d b e th e limi t t o suc h encroachments ? Onc e w e depriv e a
phrase o f th e sens e give n i t b y th e author' s directions—o r giv e i t a sens e no t
asked fo r b y him—wh y shoul d w e no t g o furthe r an d boldl y obey th e biddin g
of our 'heart' , when i n som e passage s it wishes to chang e th e note s and rhythm s
prescribed b y the author?" 70
Walter's sternes t reproac h o f thos e wh o woul d tampe r wit h th e composer' s
score come s a few sentences late r when h e state s that "w e must fee l free " in th e
rendering o f a work , "bu t fre e withi n th e law s whos e bindin g forc e w e hav e
recognized whe n w e chos e t o b e musica l interpreters . I f we shoul d chaf e unde r
the immanen t law s of a work of music a s under a compulsion , w e ar e no t mad e
to b e it s interpreter." 71
In a profoun d an d beautifu l summatio n o f th e subject , Walte r concludes :
"For th e criterio n o f ou r talen t a s reproductiv e musician s lie s exactl y i n ou r
capacity fo r assimilatin g the intention s o f anothe r s o completel y tha t no t onl y
are th e demand s of the wor k no burde n t o us , but tha t w e fee l the m t o b e ou r
own demands . Only thu s shall we feel fre e withi n th e limit s of the law s imposed
on th e wor k by the author , an d onl y thu s wil l our music-makin g soun d sponta -
neous, sinc e w e no w ar e fre e t o follo w th e ben t o f ou r ow n hear t whic h ha s
learnt t o beat i n uniso n wit h tha t o f the composer. " 72
66. Ibid. , Englis h edition , p. 32.

70. Ibid. , Englis h edition , pp.33-34.
71. Ibid. , Englis h edition, p.34.
72. Ibid. , Englis h edition, p.34 .
In a somewhat confessiona l mood, Walte r admit s tha t i n hi s younger year s he

also committe d "th e sin s o f willful interference s with, o r capriciou s misinterpre -
tations of , the composer' s clea r intentions. " H e ascribe s these t o a certai n youth -
ful artisti c immaturity, notin g tha t "i t wa s m y natur e t o fal l i n lov e wit h ever y
beautiful detai l o f a composition an d tr y to reproduc e the m wit h al l the intensit y
of expressio n o f which I wa s capable , an d thu s neglec t th e synthesi s an d unit y
of conceptio n whic h ar e th e mai n poin t o f a n authenti c interpretation . M y
enthusiasm fo r details was stronger than m y capacity fo r subsuming them under
a highe r order." 73 Eventuall y realizin g tha t wha t wa s missin g i n hi s perfor -
mances "wa s a regar d fo r th e wor k i n it s entirety , withou t whic h it s greatness ,
seriousness, an d unit y will no t revea l itself, " and tha t thereb y " I had don e dam -
age t o th e musica l form, " Walte r say s h e eventuall y learne d tha t ther e wa s "a
method o f interpretatio n higher , nobler , mor e i n accor d wit h th e greatnes s o f
the work , than i s indulgenc e i n th e swa y o f one' s feelings." 74 Oh , tha t certai n
famous conductor s o f today would hav e learne d tha t lesson !
Walter correctl y relate s temp o questio n t o continuity : "Th e concep t o f temp o
is invali d without th e correlativ e on e o f continuity. Th e cleares t proo f o f this is
in thos e ver y changes o f tempo tha t ar e indicate d b y the composer . Wha t coul d
his ritenuto mea n i f the temp o itsel f were irregular ? Only th e fac t tha t continu -
ity, tha t is , regula r flow , i s an essentia l attribut e o f th e concep t o f tempo , give s
proper significanc e t o ever y ritenuto an d accelerando, ever y meno an d pi ù
mosso."75
Walter close s th e subjec t of tempo wit h a n excellen t summar y paragraph . "At
all events , th e concep t o f the right tempo stand s an d fall s b y the recognitio n o f
the principl e o f [wha t h e calls ] apparent continuity . I f w e deliberatel y deviat e
from [ a tempo], obeyin g o r disregarding the direction s of the autho r a s our fanc y
bids us , then anarch y will destructively descend o n a domain o f lofty order . And
in th e resultin g distortion there wil l hardl y b e foun d a trace o f the work , whic h
was create d accordin g t o a profoundl y meaningfu l design , an d shoul d onl y b e
re-created i n th e sam e spirit". 76
In anothe r chapter , entitle d "O f Correctness, " Walte r return s to the subjec t of
tempo i n a mor e general , oblique , bu t nonetheles s extremel y insightfu l way.
Speaking o f "correctness " a s th e "indispensabl e conditio n an d prerequisit e fo r
any musica l interpretatio n tha t doe s justic e to th e spiri t and sou l o f the work, "
he the n define s this "correctness " a s including th e "rightnes s . . . o f time" an d
"compliance . . . wit h temp o indications, " significantl y adding tha t "i t i s onl y
from suc h a basi s that meaningfu l music-makin g ca n evolve." 77
On th e broade r subjec t o f textua l fidelity , Walte r di d no t fee l tha t a certai n
non-excessive degre e o f interpretational freedo m wa s incompatible wit h faithfu l
adherence t o th e score . H e rightl y believed tha t " a wor k i s capabl e o f differen t
interpretations an d that , moreover , ou r ow n repeate d performance s o f i t nee d
not, whe n allowanc e i s mad e fo r spontaneity , entirel y agre e wit h eac h other .
Faithfulness t o th e spiri t know s o f n o rigidity ; th e spiri t o f th e wor k o f ar t i s
flexible, elastic [itali c Walter's], hovering." 78
The las t voice t o b e hear d her e o n th e subjec t of tempo an d temp o fluctua -
tions i s tha t o f th e lat e Euge n Jochum , a discipl e o f Furtwängle r an d a fin e
conductor i n hi s ow n right , wit h a specia l affinit y fo r Beethove n an d Bruckner .
Echoing Wagner' s theorie s o n temp o variations , Jochu m wrote , "Th e layma n
generally doe s no t realiz e ho w grea t th e variation s can an d mus t ofte n b e i n a
steady temp o withi n on e movemen t i n orde r t o brin g ou t th e vitalit y of th e
musical flow. Yet the listene r mus t alway s have th e impressio n tha t th e temp o
does remai n steady." 79 A s Wagner ha d alread y explained i n hi s Über da s Diri-
gieren, Jochum cite d th e firs t movemen t o f Beethoven's Eroica a s "a particularly
interesting example , whic h wit h it s might y proportion s canno t b e playe d
through i n th e sam e unbendin g tempo , an d ca n stan d —even demands—exten -
sive modifications . Bu t thes e mus t hav e th e righ t balanc e an d no t g o t o ex -
tremes: thi s i s precisely th e ar t o f the interpreter , which, " Jochu m add s with a n
underlying touc h o f hopefulness , "presuppose s a highl y refine d awarenes s o f
tempo."80
In summary , o n th e subjec t o f temp o fluctuation s — a subjec t s o sorel y i n
need o f objectiv e consideration—w e hav e hear d th e thought s o f som e o f th e
greatest conductor s an d composer-conductors , al l pointin g t o th e sam e basi c
central notion : "D o it , bu t don' t d o i t t o excess. " I n ou r da y whe n w e hav e
either conductor s wh o pla y th e Romanti c literatur e wit h metronomi c rigidit y
(even a s they ignor e th e actua l metronom e markings ) o r conductor s wh o tak e
such "amazin g liberties " tha t th e musi c lose s al l meaning , al l sens e o f balanc e
and proportion , an d become s a willfu l eg o display , the grea t conductors ' view s
cited her e ough t t o offe r som e soberin g advice . Youn g conductor s especially ,
whether stil l studyin g or coming u p i n th e professiona l ranks, ought t o heed th e
advice her e give n and no t b e misle d b y whatever some famou s 'maestro,' whose
records ma y be sellin g in th e ten s o f thousands, di d o r di d no t do .
Another subjec t I hav e dwel t upo n i n Par t I , whic h i t wil l b e usefu l t o explor e
further throug h th e writing s o f som e o f th e grea t conductor s an d composer -
conductors o f the past , i s the matte r o f following composer's indication s regard -
ing crescendo s an d diminuendos , no t onl y wher e the y ar e place d bu t o f wha t
duration an d ho w fa r the y shoul d exten d i n dynami c range . Again , th e advic e
of three majo r historica l conductor figure s i s instructive, especially as their views
on th e matte r ar e virtuall y unanimous.
We all know that crescend o an d diminuend o wer e first prominently developed
under Johan n Stamitz' s directio n i n Mannheim . I t was a ne w manne r o f featur -
ing dynamics—soo n t o b e dubbe d a "mannerism " b y none othe r tha n Leopol d
78. Ibid. , Englis h edition , p.12 5
79. Euge n Jochum , "Abou t th e Phenomenolog y o f Conducting " (Hamburg , lat e 1930s) , i n Th e
Conductor's Art, ed . Car l Bamberge r (Ne w York , 1965 , 1989) , p . 261 .
80. Ibid .
Mozart81 —in whic h al l too soo n dramati c increase s an d decrease s o f amplitude

often becam e a n effec t fo r it s own sake .
It was Beethoven wh o rescue d th e crescendo/diminuend o manne r fro m mer e
Effekthascherei (sensationa l effects ) an d turne d i t throug h hi s innovativ e geniu s
into a powerful , moving mean s o f expression. This alon g wit h hi s introductio n
of daring rhythmic innovation s (especiall y his dramatic us e o f syncopations) an d
a radicall y new declamator y style , a s well a s expandin g th e classica l orchestra' s
dynamic an d sonori c range , al l require d a whole ne w kin d o f conductorial lead -
ership. Orchestra l player s became involve d in a more diversel y demanding indi-
vidual role , th e collectivit y o f whic h produce d a n intellectua l an d emotiona l
complexity—for th e playe r a s wel l a s th e listener—whic h fa r transcende d th e
ordinary standard s of his time .
Whether i n hi s ow n conductin g Beethove n wa s able t o contro l al l aspect s of
this radical kind o f new music-makin g is debatable. Ther e ar e man y accounts of
his conducting—perhap s no t al l absolutel y reliable—tha t describ e Beethoven' s
conducting a s "violent " i n it s gestures , an d "frequentl y misguiding." 82 Anto n
Schindler, Beethoven' s frien d an d biographer , suggeste d tha t a s a conducto r
"the Maste r wa s neithe r goo d no r bad . Hi s impetuosit y di d no t permi t hi m t o
arrive a t the requisit e tranquilit y and self-command. " H e woul d los e "himsel f i n
gesticulations whic h cause d a waverin g in th e orchestra." 83 Ludwig Spohr , wh o
saw and hear d Beethove n conductin g o n severa l occasions, recalle d i n hi s Auto-
biography tha t Beethove n wa s "in hi s manne r o f conducting ver y awkwar d and
helpless, an d hi s movement s lacke d al l grace", 84 bu t suggeste d tha t hi s ineffi -
ciency a s a conducto r wa s primaril y due t o hi s deafness . Speakin g o f Beetho -
ven's conductin g o f the Sevent h Symphon y premiere , Spoh r describe d th e per -
formance a s "quite masterly , in spit e o f th e uncertai n an d frequentl y laughable
direction o f Beethoven." 85 On th e othe r hand , Seyfrie d recall s tha t Beethove n
was "very meticulous wit h regar d to expression , the mor e delicat e shadings , and
equalized distributio n of light an d shade , an d a n effectiv e temp o rubato". 86
Beethoven wa s also quite unequivoca l and painstakin g in hi s dynami c indica-
tions. Havin g note d musicians ' tendenc y t o crescend o to o muc h to o earl y and ,
worse, t o automaticall y associat e ascendin g passage s wit h a n increas e i n dy -
namic, an d descendin g one s wit h a decrease , Beethove n sprinkle d hi s score s
with cautionary , reminding markings of sempre pp an d sempre f. What i s remark-
81. Leopol d Mozar t mad e frequen t references to dynamic s and musicians ' us e o f them, no t onl y in
letters t o hi s so n bu t i n hi s 175 6 Versuch einer gründlichen Violinschule (Englis h edition , Violin
Playing, 1948) . I n th e latter , fo r example , h e write s (p.218) : "I t follow s tha t th e prescribe d piano
and forte mus t b e observe d mos t exactly , an d tha t on e mus t no t g o o n playin g i n on e ton e lik e a
hurdy gurdy . On e mus t kno w how t o chang e fro m p t o f . . .eac h a t the righ t time; fo r this means ,
in th e well-know n phraseology o f the painters : Light an d Shade. "
82. Igna z vo n Seyfried , Beethoven Studien (1832) , cited i n Sonneck , Beethoven: Impressions o f Con-
temporaries (Ne w York, 1926) , p.40 .
83. Anto n Schindler , Ludwig va n Beethoven (Münster , 1840) , p. 44 .
84. Loui s Spohr, Autobiography (London , 1865) , p. 188 .
85. Ibid. , p.187 .
86. Seyfried , Beethoven Studien, p . 42 .
able, eve n uncanny , abou t thes e reminder s i s that they ar e almos t alway s place d
in exactl y the righ t spot, namel y tha t momen t when mos t musician s will i n fac t
wish t o anticipat e a crescend o o r diminuendo . A carefu l stud y o f Beethoven' s
scores wil l revea l tha t i n matter s o f dynamic s h e wa s a mos t meticulou s an d
demanding notator , undoubtedl y i n larg e par t t o counterac t th e ba d habit s of
musicians an d futur e conductors , a s well a s the after-effect s o f the late r excesse s
of the Mannhei m school .
Wagner ha d muc h t o sa y o n th e matte r o f dynamics , especiall y th e prope r
realization o f crescendo s an d diminuendos , n o doub t inspire d b y Beethoven' s
works. Agai n Wagner 87 pick s som e excellen t (an d problematic ) example s t o
make hi s points . On e o f thes e concern s a certai n chromati c "ascendin g pas -
sage"in th e firs t movemen t o f Beethoven' s Nint h Symphon y (Ex . 15) , con -
Ex. 1 5
trasting a certai n "masterful " performanc e i n 183 9 b y the orchestr a o f the Pari s
Conservatoire (conducte d b y Habeneck) 88 wit h hi s ow n man y vai n attempt s
with variou s orchestras—h e mention s i n particula r Dresde n an d London—t o
achieve thi s passag e correctly . "Neve r wa s I able, " write s Wagner, i n a remark -
able instanc e o f modesty , "t o mak e th e bow—an d string—change s i n thi s se -
quential ascendin g passag e totally unnoticeable; no r wa s I able t o avoid involun-
tary accentuations , becaus e th e ordinar y musicia n ha s a tendenc y t o becom e
louder i n ascendin g figure s an d conversel y become softe r i n descendin g ones. "
That Wagner wa s equally worrie d abou t musicians ' convers e tendency , t o mak e
accelerandos wit h crescendoin g and/o r ascendin g figures , w e kno w fro m man y
instances i n hi s scores, mos t notably his "Nicht Eilen!" i n th e Prelud e to Tristan
und Isolde a s the musi c near s it s orgiastic climax—a n admonition , alas , ignored
since 185 7 b y hundred s o f conductor s wh o eithe r thin k the y kno w bette r tha n
Wagner o r who haven' t th e technica l contro l t o restrai n the orchestra. 89 "By the
87. Wagner , Über da s Dirigieren, p . 13.

88. O n th e matte r o f the excellenc e o f the Conservatoir e orchestr a under Habeneck , Mendelssoh n
and Wagne r decidedl y agree . Mendelssohn , i n a lon g detaile d lette r abou t musica l lif e i n Pari s
(dated Februar y 15 , 1832), called th e performance s of the Conservatoir e orchestr a "th e mos t accom -
plished performance s t o b e hear d anywhere. " I t i s "the bes t I hav e eve r heard. " Mendelssoh n als o
offers th e statement , amazin g t o 20th-centur y minds , tha t the y "rehearse d fo r tw o year s (sic) before
venturing a performance until there could b e no questio n o f a wrong note an y longer" (see Mendels-
sohn, A Life in Letters, ed . Rudol f Evers (Ne w York, 1990) , p . 176).
89. On e o f th e mor e flagran t ignoring « i n recen t year s o f this "Nich t Eilen! " i n Wagner' s Tristan
Prelude occurre d durin g an arrogantl y indulgent , but unfortunatel y widel y praised , performance in
New Yor k b y Sergi u Cclibidach e an d th e (wonderfull y playing ) Curti s Institut e Orchestra.
fourth ba r o f th e quote d [Beethoven ] passage, " Wagne r recalls , "w e invariably

got into a crescendo, s o that th e sustaine d G\> in th e fift h ba r wa s involuntarily—
yea, necessarily—playe d wit h a heft y accent , enoug h t o detrac t greatl y from th e
unique tona l significanc e o f thi s note . Wha t expressio n thi s passag e receive s
when performe d i n thi s ordinar y manner, contrar y to the master' s clea r enough ,
expressively designate d intentions , i s difficul t t o mak e clea r t o a n unrefine d
("grobfühligen," literally , crude-feeling) ear an d listener . Undoubtedl y i t will ex-
press a certai n sens e o f dissatisfaction , restlessness , an d frustration , bu t o f pre -
cisely what kind, we ca n onl y learn whe n thi s passage i s played th e wa y Beetho -
ven intende d an d th e wa y I have hear d i t realized onl y by the Parisia n musicians
in 1839." 90 Notic e th e wor d "realized " (verwirklicht), Wagne r hereb y rejectin g
the "ordinar y manner " an d interpretatio n (o r misinterpretation ) an d acceptin g
only a "realization " o f Beethoven' s clearl y indicated intentions . Not e als o Bee -
thoven's tw o "sempre pp's" — in a five-bar span(!) —which, alas, then a s now see m
to be ther e t o b e ignored .
Wagner drive s his point home , correctly connecting dynami c contro l an d sen -
sitivity with the tru e expressio n and spiri t of the music , b y implication eve n wit h
tone colo r an d timbre . H e writes : "I recal l ho w clearl y an d directl y th e impres -
sion o f dynami c monoton y (pleas e forgiv e thi s apparentl y senseles s expressio n
for a difficult-to-describ e phenomenon! ) spok e t o m e i n th e unusually , eve n
eccentrically, varie d interva l progressio n i n thi s ascendin g figure , flowin g int o
the infinitely , delicatel y sung , prolonge d Gl > which , i n turn , i s answered b y th e
similarly sung Gk, and almos t magicall y initiated m e int o the incomparabl e mys -
teries o f the spirit." 91
Wagner the n ask s th e onl y partl y rhetorical question : Ho w di d the Pari s musi-
cians "achiev e th e solutio n t o thi s mos t difficul t problem, " an d provide s th e
perhaps obviou s answer : "throug h th e mos t conscientiou s diligence , whic h i s
only give n t o suc h musician s a s are no t satisfie d t o constantl y complimen t eac h
other, imagin e tha t the y kno w and understan d everything , but rathe r who stan d
before th e initiall y incomprehensibl e wit h a degre e o f humilit y an d concern ,
and wh o tr y t o solv e wha t i s difficul t i n tha t real m i n whic h the y excel : tech -
nique."92 Wagne r end s thi s particula r discussio n wit h a referenc e t o ou r ol d
friend 'tempo, ' specificall y the Pari s performance' s "righ t tempo. " "Ol d Habe -
neck certainl y di d no t hav e i n thi s regar d an y special , abstract-aestheti c intu -
itions—he wa s no t a ma n o f geniu s ("e r wa r ohn e all e 'Genialität'") ; bu t h e
found th e righ t tempo , i n tha t he , throug h persisten t effort , le d th e orchestr a t o
comprehend th e tru e melos o f the symphony." 93
By "Melos " Wagner mean t a singin g quality, a linea r expression , a continuit y
of line, whic h h e fel t wa s the tru e essenc e o f all great music , an d withou t which
music wa s meaningless , soulless , abstrac t an d stiff—a s h e onc e als o pu t it :
"something betwee n grammar , arithmeti c an d gymnastic." 94 Wagne r fel t tha t i t
90. Wagner , Ober da s Dirigieren, p . 14 .
91. Ibid. , p.14 .
92. Ibid. , p.15 .
93. Ibid. , p.15.
94. Ibid. , p.15.
was th e specifi c characte r o f a melod y ( o r theme) , th e melodi c conten t o f a

piece, which t o a large extent, along with the all-importan t harmonic considera-
tions, generate d a movement' s temp o eb b an d flow . Th e singin g qualit y of a
performance—he sai d o f th e Pari s Conservatoir e orchestr a "tha t wonderfu l or-
chestra san g tha t symphony" 95 —was al l importan t t o him . Interestingly—re -
turning for a moment t o our earlie r discussion of tempo elasticity , textual fidelity
and th e relate d Toscanini-Furtwängle r feu d o f fift y year s ago—Toscanin i an d
Furtwängler excelle d i n makin g thei r orchestra s sing : Toscanini i n a mor e sim-
ply lyric Italianat e manner , where the song , the melod y itself , wa s italicized an d
valued; Furtwängle r i n a mor e deepl y expressiv e German way , with enormou s
stretch i n hi s melodic lines , where the melod y was always rooted t o the underly-
ing infrastructur e and it s harmonic tensions .
Wagner relate d th e contro l o f crescendos an d diminuendo s ver y muc h t o th e
delicate contro l o f tempo gradations . That i s to say , he foun d a correlatio n be -
tween th e need s o f both temp o an d dynamic s and thei r virtuall y infinit e variety
of shadings, which aris e ou t o f the variabl e meanings an d feeling s o f the music ,
but whic h mus t no t overste p th e bound s o f their basi c order , an d mus t i n an y
case b e hel d i n chec k t o reflec t the intention s o f the composer . Tha t i s not t o
say tha t crescendo s shoul d b e accompanie d b y accelerando s o r vic e versa .
Wagner make s these distinction s abundantly clear tim e an d tim e again , bot h i n
his writing s an d hi s scores.
One specifi c an d ver y telling commen t i n thi s regar d i s his referenc e to th e
relationship betwee n th e olde r form s an d thei r inheren t dynami c structure. H e
writes that until the Mannhei m Orchestr a discovere d the crescend o and diminu -
endo, "th e instrumentatio n o f the ol d masters " (meanin g primarily Mozart an d
Haydn) "reveal s th e fac t tha t nothin g whic h woul d effec t a trul y emotional /
expressive interpretatio n wa s allowed t o b e interpolate d betwee n th e forte an d
piano section s o f th e [ol d naive ] Allegros." 96 B y implication Wagne r i s saying
that th e ne w "sentimental " Beethovenia n allegro, as i n th e firs t movemen t o f
the Eroica, als o require d a dynami c flexibilit y an d sensitivit y analogous t o th e
structural an d (thus ) tempo fluctuations . I t i s also true, o f course , tha t compos -
ers, a t leas t in th e 19t h century , had mor e notationa l mean s a t thei r disposa l to
indicate dynamic s than the y ha d t o indicat e subtl e temp o fluctuations . More -
over, composer s could—an d mostl y did (se e an y numbe r o f Brahm s symphony
movements) —call fo r enormou s dynamic s fluctuation s bu t a t th e sam e tim e
very modes t (i f any) tempo fluctuations .
That Wagner wa s not unawar e o f the subtl e bu t crucia l relationshi p betwee n
dynamics an d ton e color , fundamenta l t o al l full y expressiv e music making —
and b y expressiv e I don' t mea n onl y lou d an d exciting—i s show n i n a passage
of special interes t to m e a s an ex-hor n player, when Wagne r speak s of his perfor-
mance i n Vienn a o f th e Freischütz Overture . Abou t th e openin g hor n quarte t
he writes : "The hor n players , under th e sensitiv e artistic leadership of [th e prin-
95. Ibid , p.15 .

96. Ibid , p.33 .
cipal horn ] R . Lew i totall y change d thei r approac h [Ansatz, literally , attack ]
in th e introductio n fro m thei r previousl y accustomed renditio n a s a pompous ,
swaggering sho w piec e t o a sof t woods y fantas y [Waldphantasie], blendin g wit h
the indicate d pianissim o o f the strin g accompaniment and , i n a totall y differen t
[new] way , distillin g a magica l perfum e [zauberischen Duft] ove r thei r songfu l
melody." A momen t late r Wagne r speak s o f th e horns ' "delicatel y inflected "
phrase rathe r tha n th e "usua l sforzando" (Ex . 16 ) an d stil l late r th e cellos' , a s
intended, "softes t sigh " (Ex . 17) ,
Ex. 1 6 Ex .17
rather tha n "th e no w s o customary heavil y accented attac k [Anstoss]." 97

As w e ca n see , th e disregar d o f dynamics , prematur e o r exaggerate d crescen -
dos and diminuendos , accelerando s an d ritardos , is not jus t a modern-da y mani -
festation; i t goe s bac k throug h th e centuries , elicitin g frustrate d warning s an d
implorings fro m Wagne r al l th e wa y back t o Gluc k (amon g man y others) . Gus -
tav Mahler , too , wa s not silen t o n thes e matters . A s cited b y on e o f his biogra -
phers,98 speaking o f orchestra musicians ' ba d habits , he said : "There are frightfu l
habits, o r rathe r inadequacies , whic h I hav e encountere d i n ever y orchestra ;
they . . . sin against th e hol y law s o f dynamics an d o f the hidde n inne r rhyth m
of a work . When the y se e a crescendo , the y immediatel y pla y f an d spee d up ;
at a diminuend o the y becom e p an d retar d th e tempo . On e look s i n vai n fo r
gradations, fo r th e mf, f , ff, o r th e p , pp , ppp. An d th e sf's, fp's, shortenin g o r
extending o f notes, ar e eve n les s i n evidence. "
One wonders , however , give n wha t on e know s abou t Mahler' s conductin g
and interpretation s a s rathe r willfu l an d 'spontaneous, ' especiall y i n th e earlie r
half of his career , whethe r Mahle r wa s always as disciplined i n respec t t o dynam -
ics and tempo s a s he woul d hav e u s believe fro m som e o f his statement s o n th e
matter.
The sam e customar y carelessness , ofte n destroyin g the rea l essenc e an d mean -
ing o f th e music , i s a s wide-sprea d toda y a s i t seem s t o hav e bee n i n Wagner' s
and Berlioz' s day . Som e things , I guess , neve r change . Th e abuse , an d misuse ,
of dynamics i s perhaps th e mos t commo n evi l i n orchestra l playin g today, (espe -
cially i n th e Unite d States) , bein g eithe r tolerate d o r generate d b y ou r conduc -
tors. Thi s i s particularly ironic , sinc e th e technica l abilitie s o f moder n player s
are s o hig h tha t n o clai m coul d eve r b e mad e tha t subtl e dynami c contro l i s
beyond thei r capacities . An d to excus e thi s dynami c lazines s by saying "it's mor e
fun t o pla y loud" o r "i t make s a bigge r effect " o r "it' s mor e exciting " or—mor e
philosophically resigned—"it' s jus t huma n nature, " i s insufficien t reason , an d
just plai n laziness , carelessness .
97. Ibid. , p.42.

98. Natali e Bauer-Lechner , Erinnerungen a n Gustav Mahler (Leipzig , 1923) , p.78 .
It obviousl y i s "huma n nature, " sinc e i t ha s bee n a performanc e proble m

since tim e immemorial . Fo r example , Gluck , th e creato r o f opera s tha t calle d
for greate r dramatic a s well as musical coherence , made demand s o n performers
that wer e wholl y ne w a t th e tim e (18t h century ) an d foreshadowe d muc h o f
modern performance . Gluck , evidentl y a tough-minde d taskmaster , insiste d o n
the prope r dynamics , o n rea l pianos, pianissimos, fortes, an d fortissimos, de -
nouncing th e "lazy " omnipresen t mezzofortissimo.
Weingartner's writing s remind u s that the abus e o f dynamics, both inadverten t
and conscious , was still very common i n the lat e 19t h an d earl y 20th century . In
1905 Weingartner , i n th e secon d editio n o f his book , wa s compelled t o remin d
conductors (an d musicians ) "to observe most precisel y whether a n accen t come s
in a forte o r i n a piano passage , whic h wil l determin e quit e differen t grade s of
strength an d expressio n fo r it. " I t i s also o f the utmos t importanc e whethe r a
succession o f accent s occur s i n a passag e proceedin g i n unifor m loudnes s o r
during a crescend o o r diminuendo ; i n th e latte r cas e th e accent s als o must , o f
course, hav e thei r ow n gradua l increas e o r decrease. " 10°
Strauss echoe d thes e thought s mor e succinctl y whe n h e said , flatly . "On e
should differentiat e carefull y betwee n sfz's i n Mozar t an d i n Beethoven, " im -
plying tha t th e forme r shoul d neve r b e playe d roughly , observin g mor e thei r
function i n par t as "architectonic pillars" ; while Beethoven' s sforzatos "represen t
explosions o f wildes t despair an d o f defian t energy." H e i s speaking o f sfz's, no t
fp's. Straus s points ou t tha t Mozar t use d ff onl y o n rar e occasions , tha t hi s f s
should neve r b e treate d roughl y an d shoul d alway s retain a certai n "beaut y o f
sound."101 Straus s her e i s remindin g u s tha t ther e ar e indee d man y kind s of f ,
as differen t betwee n Debuss y an d Tchaikovsky , o r Wagne r an d Mahler , a s be -
tween Mozar t and Beethoven .
Echoing Weingartner' s admonitio n abou t sforzandos o r sforzando pianos i n
the contex t o f the prevailin g dynamic, Straus s singles ou t on e o f m y ow n bêtes
noires: ho w man y time s hav e I witnesse d th e astonishe d face s o f musician s i n
rehearsals afte r correctin g th e dynamic s i n th e transitiona l passag e (Ex.18 ) t o
the E majo r cadenc e i n th e first Allegro o f Beethoven's Thir d Leonore Overture !
Ex.18
99. Weingartner , Über da s Dirigieren (1905) , p.30. I would be a millionaire if I had a dollar for every
time I have, even in my modest career as a conductor, had t o point out in rehearsals that an accent or a
sf i s not alway s necessarily the loudes t accen t producible , tha t in fact it may be a sf in p .
100. Ibid . (1905) , p.30. Tw o importan t an d famou s passage s t o whic h thi s admonitio n applie s i n
particular—an admonitio n mostl y ignored b y orchestras an d conductors—ar e i n th e firs t movemen t
of Beethoven' s Fift h Symphony , mm.38-4 3 (se e als o p . 12 9 i n Par t III) , an d Beethoven' s Eighth
Symphony, agai n i n th e first movement, mm.60-6 5 (an d it s recapitulation, mm.257-62).
101. Recollections an d Reflections, p . 5 7
As Strauss puts it, the sfp's her e "shoul d b e kep t piano fo r four bars , until forte
is reall y marke d i n th e score," 102 tha t is , moderat e sfp's, hardl y mor e tha n >
accents (whic h Beethove n wa s not usin g because the y wer e no t ye t in commo n
notational use) , so as not t o distur b the basi c dynami c o f p.
What s o man y o f thes e falsifyin g interpretiv e problem s com e dow n t o i s th e

intrusion upo n th e musi c o f the conductor's/performer' s ego . I hav e alread y ad-
dressed thi s issue, but i t will be importan t an d usefu l t o hea r wha t some famous
conductors and/o r writer s hav e ha d t o sa y on tha t subject . Mattheson expresse d
his concern s o n th e subjec t agai n i n De r vollkommene Capellmeister. Afte r
speaking quit e excitedl y about ba d conductors/director s —"unpracticed," "ineffi -
cient . . . swine " an d "th e lew d nature " o f ba d directing , h e argues—mor e
calmly—that " a directo r . . . mus t no t b e laz y wit h unconstraine d word s o f
praise, bu t mus t copiousl y emplo y them . Bu t i f h e .. . mus t admonis h an d
contradict someone , the n h e shoul d d o s o quit e seriously , ye t a s gentl y an d
politely a s possible." (Toscanin i migh t hav e benefite d fro m readin g this advice.)
In th e las t chapter Mattheso n list s "among th e fundamental s of a musica l direc -
tor" tha t h e "no t completel y rejec t th e praiseworth y wor k o f othe r peopl e an d
be only enamored o f hi s own working" [itali c emphasis mine]! 103 H e the n quote s
the Lati n prover b "Vot o no n vivitu r uno " (I t i s not don e wit h one) .
On th e subjec t o f the conductor' s eg o vis-à-vi s th e compose r an d hi s works ,
Mattheson's fina l word s (they literally constitute th e fina l paragrap h of his mon -
umental tome ) ar e " a shar p powe r o f discernmen t i s require d t o succee d i n
divining th e sens e an d meanin g o f another' s [meanin g composer's ] thoughts .
For, anyon e wh o ha s neve r learne d ho w th e compose r migh t prefe r to hav e i t
himself will scarcely be abl e t o perfor m it well, but wil l ofte n depriv e the thin g
of it s true forc e an d char m s o tha t th e composer , i f he shoul d hea r i t himself,
would hardl y know his ow n work." 104
Junker, while no t dwellin g i n particula r on th e subjec t of the conductor' s eg o
and it s possible beneficen t o r negativ e impact , di d make i t clea r that h e consid -
ered a goo d conducto r o n a pa r wit h th e compose r i n matter s interpretational.
While acknowledgin g tha t th e composer , throug h hi s ow n individua l notatio n
and "th e variou s types o f colorations " availabl e t o him , ca n "bette r an d mor e
completely expres s these temp o modification s tha n th e conductor, " he add s tha t
"it i s equally tru e tha t th e tw o o f them, compose r an d performer, " creato r an d
re-creator, "mus t wor k hand i n hand , an d tha t varyin g a tempo , a s an auxiliary
art, remain s indispensable." 105
Beethoven, Berlioz , an d Wagner , a s creative , innovativ e composer-conduc -
tors, neve r questione d thei r inheren t right—a t leas t no t i n writing—t o prescribe
what the y though t wer e th e basi c conductoria l rule s o f behavior i n interpretin g
102. Ibid. , p.60 .
103. Mattheson , De r vollkommene Capellmeister, pp.480 , 484 ; Englis h edition , pp.864 , 871 .
104. Ibid. , p . 484 ; Englis h edition , p.871.
105. Junker , Einige de r vornehmsten Pflichten, p.37 .
their ow n an d (b y extension i n th e cas e o f Wagner) others ' work. 106 Bu t b y th e

time thei r progen y ha d ha d it s way with a n eve r wide r an d stil l growin g reper -
tory, entailin g eve r broader , deeper , an d mor e comple x demands , th e whol e
issue o f mediocr e conductor s and/o r intrusiv e ego s ha d becom e a majo r prob -
lem whic h som e fel t honor-boun d t o commen t upon .
Weingartner's comment s o n thi s subjec t ar e amon g th e mos t tellin g i n tha t
he tackle d i t fro m severa l importan t angles . H e ease s int o th e subjec t a bi t
obliquely, generousl y giving his conducto r target s a benefi t o f doubt . "I f man y
of the errors " — elsewhere he referre d to them a s "perversions o f style"—commit-
ted b y conductors "coul d b e suppose d t o b e 'proof s o f ardor' an d o f good inten -
tions, i t was in th e en d regrettabl e tha t b y the behavior , artistic an d personal , o f
some 'new-modis h Billows ' s o much attentio n wa s directed t o th e perso n o f th e
conductor tha t th e audienc e eve n cam e t o regar d th e composer s a s creatures of
their interpreters , an d i n conjunctio n wit h th e nam e o f a conducto r peopl e
spoke o f 'his' Beethoven , 'his ' Brahms , or 'his ' Wagner." 107
How contemporar y thi s al l sounds! Bac k to Weingartner: "Th e saddes t part of
this busines s was that th e chie f aren a chose n fo r all these deviation s and experi -
ments wa s our gloriou s classical music, especiall y the holies t o f all, tha t o f Bee-
thoven, sinc e Billo w ha d acquire d th e reputatio n o f a master-conducto r o f Bee-
thoven, an d hi s followers wante d t o outbi d hi m eve n there". 108
Elsewhere, i n a slightly more philosophica l vein , Weingartner speak s the grea t
truth, s o littl e remembere d today : "T o hav e give n a fin e performanc e o f a fin e
work shoul d b e hi s [th e conductor's ] greates t triumph , an d th e legitimat e suc -
cesses o f the compose r hi s own. " 10 9 Amen t o that !
106. Wagner' s eg o wa s certainly boundless , bu t i t i s clear that i n Über da s Dirigieren an d hi s othe r

writings h e wa s more concerne d wit h th e preservatio n o f the ar t o f music (whos e mos t recen t hea d
he considere d t o b e Beethoven ) an d th e highes t possibl e performanc e practice , tha n wit h asserting
his ow n eg o o r hi s ow n conductoria l skills . H e wa s very deprecating abou t th e conductin g o f Men -
delssohn, who m h e characterize d a s a talented, elegan t bu t rathe r slic k an d entertainin g conducto r
("glatt un d unterhaltend") . H e sa w i n him—a s a conductor—someon e essentiall y superficia l an d
empty, and blame d th e miserabl e state of German musi c (a s he sa w it) on Mendelssohn' s conductin g
and tha t o f his school : Ferdinan d Kille r (1811-85) , Feli x Otto Dessof f (1835-92) , Wilhel m Kalli -
woda (1827-93) , Ernst Methfessel (1811-86), Carl Reinecke (1824-1910) , Julius Rietz (1812-1877) ,
and Fran z Lachne r (1803-1901) , amon g others . (Th e onl y conductors Wagne r fel t h e coul d prais e
were Lisz t an d hi s studen t Bülow. ) Bu t i n al l o f Wagner's diatribe s agains t Mendelssoh n an d hi s
school o f "time-beaters, " ther e shine s throug h a dee p concer n t o protec t th e integrit y o f Germa n
music i n the lineag e of Beethoven and , beyon d that, to advance the ar t of music and it s performance
practices—needless t o say in th e directio n o f a styl e o f interpretation and conductin g appropriat e t o
his ow n musica l vision , i n particula r hi s musi c dramas . Wha t h e particularl y resented abou t Men -
delssohn an d hi s follower s wa s their layin g claim (unjustifiably , h e thought ) t o Beethoven' s legacy ,
corrupting i t and, t o ad d insul t to injury , idealizin g their 'objective, ' 'antiseptic ' aestheti c a s Beetho-
venian classicism . Wagner sa w that as a particularly loathsome subversio n of Beethoven's tru e legacy,
that is , to reduc e Beethoven' s musi c an d aestheti c t o th e naive , neatl y packaged form s an d expres -
sions o f Mozart's tim e seeme d t o Wagner al l th e mor e outrageou s i n tha t i t was widely accepted b y
a gullibl e public.
107. Weingartner , Über da s Dirigieren (1905) , p.30 ; Englis h edition, p.29.
108. Ibid . (1895) , p.55 ; (1905) , p.36; Englis h edition , p.3 5
109. Ibid . (1895) , p.78 ; (1905) , p.43 ; (1913) , p.58 ; Englis h edition, p.41.
Bruno Walter an d Joh n Barbiroll i echoed thes e thought s i n a slightl y differen t

manner. Walter , fo r example , i n hi s benig n an d elderly-wis e writin g o n th e
whole relationshi p o f conductor t o his musicians, t o the musi c h e performs , and
to hi s audience , point s ou t tha t musi c ha s on e "curiou s propensity, " i n tha t i n
its "acousti c representatio n musi c become s a transmitte r o f personality: i t trans-
mits th e eg o o f the performe r mor e directl y t o th e listene r tha n ca n an y othe r
medium o f direct communicatio n fro m on e huma n bein g t o another." 110 (Danc -
ers and actor s migh t take issu e with tha t singlin g ou t o f music performance , bu t
the poin t i s otherwis e wel l taken. ) Walte r goe s o n t o say : "Thi s explain s th e
unequaled persona l succes s o f executan t musician s o f stron g individuality , and
their breathtakin g though transitor y impact, whic h successe s o f certain interpret -
ers are i n n o wis e a yardstick of true musica l culture , a s a misled publi c opinio n
often believe s they are . Not o n successe s bu t o n achievement s depend s th e stan -
dard o f th e publi c cultivatio n o f th e arts . I n proportio n a s th e conducto r at -
tempts, an d i s capable of , satisfying th e tru e purpos e an d ai m o f re-creation, h e
has prove d himsel f the chose n apostl e o f creative geniu s an d th e faithful servant
of hi s ar t [italic s added]." 111
Even mor e profoun d ar e Walter's furthe r admonitions: "Th e contras t betwee n
the tw o extremes o f the re-creativ e character i s shown b y the egotistica l tendenc y
in th e on e case , an d th e selfles s manner , i n th e other , i n whic h th e eg o i s
affirmed. Th e egotis t strives , consciousl y o r instinctively , t o conquer , t o domi -
nate, t o triumph , [t o achieve] unlimite d artisti c aggrandizement , [t o attain] hi s
ends wit h ruthles s energy . Unde r th e egotist' s directio n a certai n sameness (ital-
ics Walter's ) wil l descen d o n al l works , on e tha t wil l detrac t fro m th e wealt h
and variet y of their creativ e content , but on e whic h a t the sam e tim e i s capabl e
of giving a strong , nay , overwhelming, impressio n o f personality.
"Selflessness, o n th e othe r hand , wit h a n equa l investmen t o f personal dyna -
mism wishe s t o convince , help , advise , an d teach . Suc h a n eg o doe s no t pre y
upon others , bu t seek s t o giv e o f itsel f t o .. . th e compose r an d . . . t o the
players, an d thu s wiel d th e influenc e o f a n educator . Th e selfles s eg o strive s t o
extend it s power ove r others , th e self-centere d eg o strive s to incorporat e other s
into itself . Betwee n thes e tw o extreme s i n th e real m o f reproductive art—le t u s
call the m th e conquero r an d th e guardian"—brilliant , that!—"ther e is , o f
course, ever y possible kin d of gradation an d mixture , and th e resultin g differenti -
ation betwee n th e variou s types of musician serve s to enrich ou r musica l life." 112
Beautifully said . T o whic h on e ca n onl y ad d Si r Joh n Barbirolli' s wonderful
admonition t o young conductors: "Mak e your watchwords integrity an d sincerity
to yoursel f an d loyalt y t o th e ma n whos e musi c yo u ar e seekin g t o interpret .
Never thin k 'Wha t ca n I make o f this piece?, ' bu t tr y to discove r wha t th e com -
110. Walter , Vo n de r Musik un d vo m Musizieren, Englis h edition , p.122 . Walter' s brillian t analysi s
of th e ultimat e ineffectivenes s o f tyrannica l conductin g practices—clearl y h e ha d Toscanin i an d
some o f hi s German-Hungaria n colleague s i n min d —should b e rea d b y ever y aspirin g would-b e
conductor whos e inclinatio n i t i s to lor d i t over musicians .
112. Ibid. , Englis h edition , p.12 4
poser mean t t o say . The goa l fo r al l tru e musician s should be : servic e t o tha t
great ar t whic h i t is our privileg e to practice." 113
But let Feli x Weingartner, tha t mos t eloquen t an d humbl e defende r of the ar t
of conducting—eve n thoug h h e didn' t alway s practic e wha t h e preached—su m
up thi s chapter . I n hi s Über da s Dirigieren h e offer s a brilliant—and , I believe ,
up t o tha t tim e (1905 ) unprecedented—aesthetic/professiona l cred o tha t deal s
directly with th e relationshi p o f the conducto r t o th e compose r an d th e compo -
sition. H e writes: 114 "I t i s impossible for a conductor t o improv e th e valu e o f a
work; h e ca n onl y fro m tim e t o tim e lowe r it . Fo r th e best that h e ca n d o i s to
perform th e wor k at a level equivalent t o th e value , its quality. If the performer's
work i s congenial t o th e composition , the n tha t performe r has fulfille d hi s task
to the highes t possible extent. To do 'more' tha n tha t i s not possibl e [Ein 'Mehr'
gibt es nicht], fo r there i s no conducto r i n th e worl d who ca n tur n a bad compo -
sition int o a goo d on e throug h hi s interpretation . Wha t i s bad remains bad , n o
matter ho w wel l i t i s played." ( I migh t ad d thi s goe s fo r a ba d interpretatio n as
well.) "Indeed , a n especiall y good performanc e wil l mak e th e weakness o f th e
work stan d ou t eve n mor e tha n a mediocre one . Th e sentenc e 'Th e wor k owed
its success t o it s excellent performance ' contain s a half-truth , for th e performer
has th e righ t t o expec t ful l recognitio n fo r hi s contributio n t o th e work , but a
still highe r recognitio n i s du e th e composer , sinc e i t i s h e wh o ha s give n th e
performer i n th e first place th e possibility to hav e a success with his work."
113. Si r Joh n Barbirolli , "The Ar t o f Conducting, " Th e Penguin Music Magazine (London , 1947) ,
p. 19.
114. Weingartne r (1905) , p.17; (1913) , (pp.37-38) .
Part III
Schwerere Verstöß e sin d
kaum z u denken .
— Heinrich Schenker 1
God i s in th e details .
—Mies van de r Roh e
Never trus t th e teller ;

trust the tale .
— D. H . Lawrenc e
We hav e no w com e t o tha t par t o f th e boo k i n whic h th e idea s an d concept s

discussed an d propose d earlie r by wa y of m y ow n philosoph y o f the ar t o f con -
ducting (Par t I) , a s well a s the writing s of many legendary historica l conductor-
composer figure s (Par t II) , will be pu t t o th e tes t o f actual practice , a s exempli -
fied i n hundred s o f recorded performance s of eight selecte d majo r work s o f th e
repertory. Conversely , pu t t o th e tes t as well will be th e effort s o f a multitud e o f
conductors, pas t an d present , dispassionately , objectively, measuring th e qualit y
of thei r performances , thei r 'interpretations, ' agains t the actua l informatio n and
content o f the scores , a s left t o u s by the grea t composers . A s mentioned earlier ,
this discussio n wil l no t i n th e mai n dea l wit h thos e mos t refine d subtletie s of
interpretation tha t mar k the greates t performances, those rarefied , sublime, tran -
scendent moment s i n whic h th e performanc e reache s spiritua l height s whic h
words ca n n o longe r express—onl y th e musi c itsel f ca n d o so—an d which , in -
deed, eve n ou r mos t sophisticate d musica l notation s ca n neithe r captur e no r
elicit. Such subtletie s of interpretation reside in that final highest real m o f repro-
ductive performanc e wher e inexplicable , indefinabl e —and unteachabl e —in-
stincts an d intuition s tak e over , givin g a personal , inimitabl e touch t o a perfor-
mance (o r a momen t i n a performance ) whic h goe s beyon d th e musica l
notation, beyon d th e text , an d capture s tha t essence , a s Mahle r onc e pu t it ,
1. "Mor e seriou s offence s ar e hardl y imaginable. " Heinric h Schenker , Beethoven: Fifth Symphony
(Vienna, 1925) .
105
which lie s behin d th e notes. 2 I t i s i n thi s ultimat e realm—tha t fina l highes t

'percentage' of an interpretatio n —in which performances can legitimately differ ,
although onl y i n minut e an d subtl e variables . This i s precisel y s o because , a s
just stated, performanc e a t that realm goe s beyon d th e limitation s and fmitenes s
of musical notatio n t o where musica l instinct s and intuitions , to where tast e an d
intelligence, mus t perforc e tak e over , wher e th e notatio n ca n n o longe r prov e
something 'right ' o r 'wrong. ' Thi s is , o f course , tha t fina l real m wher e th e
'truth'—the essenc e —of a piec e o f music lies , an d wher e th e greates t musician s
can pu t thei r personal , uniqu e imprin t o n a performance—tha t real m tha t gives
ultimate meanin g t o th e notio n o f 'interpretation. ' Th e grea t cautio n here , o f
course, i s —or shoul d be—tha t thi s notation-surpassin g interpretatio n mus t i n
the first instance b e derive d from within that sam e notation , mus t be buil t upo n
all th e inherentl y valuable information which is i n th e score . I f it surpasse s the
score, i t must no t hav e bypassed it .
To pu t i t anothe r way , thos e aspect s o f a performanc e tha t transcen d th e
limitations o f the score , tha t explor e region s beyon d th e scop e o f musical nota -
tion, shoul d represen t th e fina l stage s o f a n interpretatio n whic h i n al l other
respects an d a t al l other levels i s wrun g fro m a faithful , rigorous , intelligent ,
disciplined readin g of the text . I f an interpretatio n — no matte r ho w compelling ,
how exciting , n o matte r ho w sublim e a t certai n moment s —is achieve d fro m
outside th e score' s basi c information , to th e exten t tha t i t ignores th e score , i t is
to tha t exten t invalid . Ignorin g th e fundamentals , th e har d facts , o f the text -
tempos, dynamics , phrasings , articulations , for m an d structure , th e balanc e o f
primary an d secondar y voices, etc.—wil l largel y (perhaps completely) invalidate
whatever momentar y individua l felicities th e performanc e ma y offer .
So w e ar e lef t wit h thos e aspect s o f performance—an d musica l notatio n —
which ar e fundamental , which ar e precis e an d unequivocal , whic h ar e measur -
able, an d whic h i n tur n permi t u s t o evaluat e a performanc e i n relatio n t o a t
least thos e fundamentals . Bu t tha t 'a t least ' i s a grea t deal ; i t i s i n fact , i n th e
repertory discusse d an d analyze d here , mos t o f what on e need s t o kno w and d o
as a conductor . I t i s not al l that mysterious , as some woul d hav e u s believe; an d
thus, measurin g the evidenc e o f a performance against the evidenc e o f the scor e
is also not a particularly mysterious process. A recording does no t lie ; but neithe r
does a scor e b y Beethove n o r Brahms . Tw o solid , objectivel y assessable enti -
ties—a recorde d performanc e an d a musica l scor e —stand i n reciproca l depen -
dence upo n eac h other , unadorned , unenhance d b y th e visual , choreographi c
aspects o f conducting an d th e fantasie s o f hermeneutic interpretations , and thus ,
in thi s nake d condition , ar e objectivel y comparable an d quantifiable .
Staying wit h thes e criteri a an d principles , I will—t o borro w a quot e fro m
2. Wha t Mahler i s actually reported t o have said is "What i s best i n musi c i s not t o b e foun d in th e
notes," quote d b y Brun o Walte r i n hi s Erinnerungen a n Gustav Mahler (Leipzig , 1923) . ( I a m
certain tha t Mahle r di d no t mea n thereb y to impl y tha t wha t i s foun d "i n th e notes " shoul d b e
ignored.) Weingartnc r put i t similarl y i n hi s Über da s Dirigieren (Leipzig , 1895) , urging conductors
to "see what i s behind th e notes."
THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R 10 7
Furtwängler's 195 1 articl e "Beethove n un d Wir " (Beethove n an d Us) 3 —"do my

best to avoid the expressio n of (mere) opinions , impressions , perceptions, t o dea l
instead, a s much a s this i s possible i n th e fiel d o f music , entirel y with th e fact s
contained i n th e score , as I am abl e t o glea n the m fro m th e score. "
The conclusio n o f thes e analyse s are , unfortunately , rathe r depressing . S o
many performances—s o man y conductor s fai l t o sho w eve n th e mos t rudimen -
tary respec t fo r th e informatio n containe d i n th e scores . I t i s as i f the majorit y
of conductors lear n th e musi c the y are conductin g outsid e th e score , on e coul d
say i n disregard , in defiance , o f it. Eve n thos e conductor s wh o ar e mor e knowl -
edgeable an d respectfu l of what the scor e contain s ten d a t on e poin t o r anothe r
to laps e int o som e arbitrary , idiosyncratic interpretational foible : a ba d tradition ,
or a n eas y way out o f a difficul t performanc e problem , o r a performanc e clich é
or stereotype contradictor y to th e scor e bu t lef t unquestioned—o r simpl y a plain
misreading o f th e score . Happily , a fe w conductor s —Carlos Kleiber , Bernar d
Haitink, Stanisla v Skrowaczewski , Otmar Suitner , Jame s Levine , occasionall y
Christoph vo n Dohnanyi , Claudi o Abbado , an d Joh n Elio t Gardine r (amon g
the presen t matur e generation) ; Toscanini , Reiner , Dorati , Alber t Coates , Wein -
gartner, and Eric h Kleibe r o f an earlie r perio d —do surviv e thi s admittedl y strin-
gent tes t quit e well . T o m e the y ar e th e tru e keeper s o f th e flam e o f musical ,
artistic integrity , without sacrificing on e iot a o f the drama , excitement , an d emo -
tion tha t al l great musi c contain s an d seek s to communicate .
3. In : Wilhel m Furtwängler , To n un d Wort (Wiesbaden , 1955) , p.223 .

Beethoven: Fifth Symphony
There i s no wor k in th e entir e literatur e which i s more popula r an d mor e ofte n

recorded—some 16 0 recording s t o date—tha n th e Fift h Symphon y o f Beetho -
ven. I t i s also, alas , on e o f the leas t understoo d an d mos t consistentl y misinter -
preted.1 I t has become s o popular and , therefore , such a mandator y componen t
of an y conductor' s repertory , that i t i s virtuall y take n fo r granted , bot h b y con -
ductors (an d orchestras ) and audiences , too ofte n hear d an d performe d perfunc-
torily i f no t mechanically , an d worse , i n self-indulgen t distorte d version s tha t
bear littl e o r n o relatio n t o th e realit y o f th e score . Th e Beethove n Fift h ha s
become a musica l commodity , a musica l platitude , whic h hardl y anyone hear s
with fres h ears , whic h hardl y anyon e perform s wit h a sens e o f discovery , an d
which hardl y anyon e treat s wit h th e respec t thi s monumenta l masterpiec e de -
serves—although everyone , o f course, claim s to d o so .
It i s thu s doubl y ironi c tha t th e Beethove n Fift h i s on e o f th e mos t difficul t
works t o conduct , on e o f th e mos t problemati c t o perfor m an d fulfil l al l o f its
creative aspirations . The difficultie s begi n i n multipl e fashio n i n th e ver y first
measure, an d b y th e sixt h measur e th e conducto r an d orchestr a hav e encoun -
tered problem s that , certainl y unprecedented i n 1808 , presen t formidabl e tech-
nical an d interpretiv e performanc e issue s to thi s day.
Any conducto r wh o lunge s unthinkingl y int o th e firs t fe w measures—proba -
bly th e mos t universall y familiar four-not e motiv e eve r create d i n al l o f mu -
sic — is alread y in trouble . For , i n orde r t o

know ho w properl y t o declai m tha t famou s opening , on e need s t o understan d
its agogi c placemen t b y Beethove n i n th e over-al l structurin g of th e wor k and ,
therefore, it s correct rhythmi c and gestura l feeling . There ar e man y ways to play
this zYzcorrectly . Th e firs t questio n tha t arise s —or shoul d aris e (s o ofte n i n th e
1. It s closes t contender, on bot h counts , i s undoubtedly Gershwin' s Rhapsody i n Blue, fo r certainl y
no famou s wor k has bee n mor e mishandled , bowdlcri/ed, dismembere d an d misinterpreted.
109
numerous recording s I sample d i t neve r does ) —is whethe r th e firs t thre e note s
represent som e sor t o f upbeat (anacrusis ) gesture o r a mor e downbeat-weighte d
figure. Th e answe r t o tha t questio n i s no t entirel y obviou s no r i s the questio n
all tha t eas y t o resolve , primaril y because Beethove n chos e t o nótat e th e firs t
movement o f hi s symphony , marke d Allegro co n brio, i n a fas t 2/ 4 mete r (a t
J = 108) . This mean s tha t eac h puls e bea t o f the musi c i s contained i n a single
measure, i n turn requirin g the movemen t t o be conducte d i n 'one. ' Conductin g
the movemen t i n 'two ' ha s t o b e rule d ou t despit e th e 2/ 4 tim e signature , be-
cause (a ) i t i s virtuall y physically impossible , a t th e ver y least incredibl y ex -
hausting, t o conduc t a six-minut e movemen t wit h a fas t bea t o f J = 216 ; an d
(b) — more significantly—th e musi c i s simply not compose d i n tw o beats pe r bar .
The openin g fanfar e motiv e o f three shor t note s followe d by on e longe r not e
(twice)—a four-ba r motiv e o n whic h virtuall y the whol e movemen t i s rigorously
built—is gesturall y expresse d i n singl e beats : on e fo r the three-not e groups , an-
other fo r th e singl e longe r notes . Beethove n shoul d properl y hav e give n th e
music a 1/ 2 time signatur e (mos t 20th-centur y composer s woul d hav e don e so) ,
but 1/ 2 was a virtuall y unknown tim e designatio n i n th e 19t h century . Beetho -
ven woul d hav e mad e i t a lo t easie r fo r u s t o understan d th e structurin g of th e
piece, ha d h e writte n i t i n 4/ 4 time , tha t is , instead o f the mai n them e (mm.6 -
10) bein g writte n a s i n Ex . 1 , writing it (i n metri c reduction ) a s i n Ex . 2 .
Ex. 1
Ex. 2
In th e Ex . 2 version, given the generall y accepte d concep t o f an hierarchica l

division i n a 4/ 4 measur e o f th e fou r beat s int o 'strong ' an d 'weak ' beat s (th e
first bein g th e strongest , th e thir d th e nex t strongest , th e secon d an d fourt h
significantly weaker) , i t woul d hav e bee n immediatel y clea r wher e th e mai n
pulses o f the musi c lay . I t would als o hav e mad e i t clea r tha t the fiv e measure s
6-10 (correspondin g to th e fiv e quarter-not e beats represente d in Ex . 2 ) com -
prise a four-ba r phras e (mm.6-9) , i.e . a four-ba r theme , i n whic h m. 6 (th e
sixteenth-note gestur e ; i n Ex . 2 ) i s in a n anacrusi s (upbeat) position .
As Beethove n finally notated th e them e (i n singl e one-beat measures) , the four -
BEETHOVEN: FIFTH SYMPHON Y 111
bar structurin g does no t becom e immediatel y apparent ; afte r all , th e measure s

all loo k alik e o n th e fac e o f it . Someon e might , fo r example , rea d th e phras e
structuring as in Ex . 3 a (•> representin g strong, (j) les s strong, an d ^ wea k beats)
rather tha n a s in Ex . 3b . Indeed, thousand s o f conductors hav e i n fac t (mis)rea d
the musi c tha t wa y (a s i n Ex . 3a ) o r a s i n Ex.3c , eve r sinc e i t wa s written 19 0
years ago and performe d many thousands o f times sinc e then. 2
Ex. 3 a
Ex.3b
Ex. 3 c
Example 3 b represents the on e an d onl y correct phrasing o f the theme . Igno -

rance o f thi s fac t o r failur e o n th e par t o f th e conducto r an d th e musician s of
the orchestr a t o recogniz e thi s ca n onl y lea d t o a wron g and inaccurat e perfor -
mance, particularl y since virtuall y the entir e movemen t i s rigorousl y based o n
this four-not e motive an d th e ensuin g four-ba r periodizations.
Now, wh y i s Ex . 3b th e onl y 'correct ' phrasin g o f th e theme ? T o answe r tha t
question an d t o confir m th e accurac y o f thi s statement , on e ha s t o analyz e
almost th e entir e structur e o f th e firs t movement , o r a t leas t a numbe r o f key
structural points . I t will become clea r i n suc h a n analysi s that th e entir e move -
ment, wit h a handfu l o f notabl e exceptions , i s composed (structured ) i n four -
bar entities . This, b y the way , should no t com e a s a surprise to anyon e sinc e th e
vast majorit y o f all classica l and Romanti c musi c i s composed i n four- , eight- , o r
sixteen-bar phrases , i n shor t i n binar y o r quaternar y structuring—three-bar (ter -
nary) structuring s bein g quit e rare . Wha t wa s surprising—an d new—wa s tha t
Beethoven chos e i n thi s cas e t o nótat e hi s four-ba r phrase s i n a single-measure -
per-beat meter .
Beethoven had , o f course , experimente d wit h suc h idea s befor e in , amon g
other instances , th e Scherzo s o f his first four symphonies , all i n 3/ 4 time, ye t i n
two-, four- , o r eight-ba r one-beat-per-ba r periodizations . Bu t thos e wer e Scher -
zos, set in very bright tempos: on e woul d have expecte d the m t o be i n 'one. ' O n
the othe r hand , writin g a Sonata-Allegr o first movement o f a symphony i n 'one '
was a radica l break-through. I t was an earl y example o f Beethoven's penchant—
2. Example s o f misreadings abound i n bot h th e analytica l literatur e o n th e symphon y and it s perfor -

mance history , includin g eve n thos e o f ver y famou s musicologist s an d conductor s (suc h a s Hug o
Riemann, Si r Georg e Grove , Theodo r Müller-Reuter , Han s vo n Billow , Feli x Weingartner) , a s bril -
liantly recounted , fo r example , b y Heinric h Schenke r i n hi s Beethoven: Fifth Symphony (Vienna ,
1925), pp . 22-35 . Th e mos t recen t misreading s (misinterpretations ) ar e thos e o f Norma n de l Ma r
in hi s Conducting Beethoven, (Oxford , 1992) .
by th e en d o f hi s lif e almos t a n obsession—fo r notatin g hi s musi c i n metric /

rhythmic extremes : fas t tempo s i n larg e rhythmi c unit s (whol e note s t o eighth -
notes), slo w tempos i n smal l unit s (eight h o r sixteenths t o sixty-fourths , reaching
even 128th-notes) . I n bot h directions—fas t an d slow—Beethoven' s tempos were ,
in addition , th e fastes t an d slowest , respectively, that ha d eve r bee n attempted .
This is not the place to engage i n a complete structura l analysis of the Fift h Sym-
phony's first movement. Suffic e i t to say—the reader may wish to trace the quater -
nary structuring in detail fro m beginnin g t o end (conductor s an d instrumentalists
are certainly urged to do so)—that the entir e movement i s constructed ou t of four-
bar phrase s with th e followin g exceptions: (1 ) mm.224—28 an d mm.386—90 , two
five-bar phrases (more ofthat later) ; (2) the fermat a measures 5 , 24, 252, 482; an d
a numbe r o f six-ba r phrases which , however , ar e merel y two-ba r extension s o r
stretchings of four-bar phrases, still inherently binary.
It i s essentia l t o kno w an d accep t thi s fact , a t least i n principle—o n som e
minor o r comple x phras e detail s intelligen t mind s ma y differ , a s we shal l se e —
for withou t thi s knowledg e i t i s literall y impossibl e t o perfor m th e movemen t
correctly, nay , to eve n star t i t correctly , fo r i n tur n i t i s impossible t o kno w ho w
the famou s openin g bar s ar e structure d agogically . The openin g 'motto ' phrase ,
after all , appear s t o b e a five-bar phrase. Bu t i s it?
The answe r t o thi s an d al l simila r question s i s to b e foun d i n th e tex t itself ,
in th e score ; an d Beethove n supplie s u s with man y clues . I f we accept th e fact ,
based o n th e previou s supposition , tha t m. 6 (se e Ex . 1 ) represents a n anacrusi s
measure, a n upbea t gesture , the n i t migh t b e logica l t o assum e th e sam e fo r
m.l. Bu t i f m.l i s an upbea t measur e —a fourt h bea t i n a four-bea t structur e —
and m. 2 i s a downbea t measure , the n wh y ar e ther e three mor e bar s befor e w e
get t o th e nex t upbea t measure , m.6 ? Th e four-ba r structurin g woul d see m t o
be destroye d righ t a t th e outset ! Th e answe r i s tha t m.5 , th e secon d fermat a
measure, i s a sustainin g extensio n o f m. 4 (whic h represent s th e thir d bea t i n a
3. Suc h a n analysi s would g o beyon d th e scop e an d purpos e o f this study . Onl y thos e feature s o f a
score tha t ar e absolutel y vita l t o a conductor' s understandin g o f th e wor k wil l b e deal t wit h here .
While makin g a complet e detaile d bar-by-ba r harmonic analysi s o f a work—emphasi s o n th e wor d
'complete'—is a mos t desirabl e undertaking , I canno t i n goo d conscienc e clai m tha t i t i s 'absolutely
vital' i n orde r fo r a conducto r t o effectivel y discharg e hi s dutie s a s an interpreter . On e cannot , afte r
all, conduc t a n F mino r chord—al l othe r thing s (dynamics , instrumentation , rhythms , metri c place -
ment etc. ) bein g equal—differentl y fro m a G mino r chord . Majo r harmoni c station s i n tona l musi c
are, o f course , importan t t o kno w an d t o hear ; s o i s th e feeling o f th e harmonies , no t jus t thei r
theoretical/intellectual substance ; an d t o tha t exten t m y analyse s wil l dea l wit h suc h matter s whe n
applicable. Still , it is the musician s who produce th e actua l pitche s (harmonies) , no t th e conductor .
The conducto r does , o n th e othe r hand , cruciall y affec t an d determin e th e renditio n o f a wor k in
respect to tempo, rhythm , over-all continuity, and dynamics . To put i t another way , only a conducto r
can se t th e tempo , star t a piec e of f o n it s particula r rhythmi c an d temp o course , th e harmonie s
simply comin g along , a s i t were, supplie d automaticall y by the musicians .
A mor e detaile d harmonic/structura l analysi s of the Beethove n Fift h ca n b e foun d i n Schenker' s
Beethoven: Fifth Symphony. Schenke r wa s undoubtedl y th e first—a t leas t i n writing—t o analyz e
correctly th e structur e of the firs t movement , bot h i n it s long-term harmoni c and melodi c progres -
sion an d it s metric/rhythmic structuring. He wa s also th e firs t t o mak e a thoroug h stud y o f Beetho -
ven's autograp h score an d th e first to provid e a critica l compariso n wit h the firs t publishe d edition.
BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 11 3
four-beat phrase) . Bu t wh y the extr a measure (m.5) ? The answe r i s that Beetho -
ven wante d th e secon d fermat a t o be longe r tha n th e first one, an d thi s wa s the
only way available to hi m t o indicat e thi s i n th e musica l notatio n o f his time. 4
Again, i f Beethoven ha d chose n t o cas t th e wor k in 4/4 an d writte n the open -
ing a s i n Ex . 4 , it s phrasing an d structurin g a s wel l a s the relativ e duration s o f
the fermata s woul d hav e bee n instantl y clear . Beethoven' s origina l manuscrip t
score (se e Plat e I ) reveal s that h e initiall y cast th e openin g phras e i n fou r bars ,
but a year or so later—probably i n 1809 , an d lon g befor e the first printed editio n
of the symphony—adde d a n extr a measur e (a s well a s at tw o similar places, th e
present m.25 2 an d m.482) .
Ex.4
That thi s conceptio n o f the structur e o f Beethoven's openin g mott o (an d there -
fore th e periodizatio n o f th e entir e movement ) wa s no t alway s understoo d o r
agreed upo n i s eviden t fro m som e o f th e earlie r writin g on th e subject . Eve n
Weingartner, i n hi s Suggestions fo r th e Performance o f Beethoven's Symphonies,^
fails t o se e th e logi c an d simplicit y of the extr a fermat a ba r bein g a n extensio n
of th e previou s measure . Instead , h e invent s a n elaborat e an d complicate d the -
ory o f explication, whic h als o attempt s t o explai n an d rationaliz e th e tw o afore -
mentioned late r five-bar phrases, bu t a t the sam e tim e unfortunatel y completel y
and mistakenl y reorganize s th e structurin g an d periodizatio n of the entir e move -
ment.6 Weingartne r als o doe s no t see m t o hav e know n o f Beethoven' s origina l
four-bar dispositio n o f th e openin g motto , writin g hi s exegesi s befor e th e tim e
when th e facsimil e reproductio n o f th e Fift h Symphon y autograp h becam e
widely available . (However , h e coul d hav e studie d th e origina l manuscrip t i n
the Prussia n Stat e Librar y i n Berlin , whic h acquire d th e autograp h i n 1878 ,
having been bequeathe d t o i t by the estat e o f Felix Mendelssohn. )
Writing som e sixt y year s later , Wilhel m Furtwängle r get s i t righ t whe n h e
points ou t tha t Beethove n "intende d nothin g mor e no r les s than t o indicat e tha t
the secon d fermat a shoul d b e hel d longe r tha n th e first". 7 I suspec t tha t Furt -
wängler kne w thi s lon g befor e 1951 , judgin g by his earlie r performances o f th e
Fifth Symphony , includin g hi s fin e recordin g o f the lat e 1930 s wit h th e Berli n
Philharmonic. Bu t then , som e paragraph s later , Furtwängle r als o misse s th e
point whe n h e bracket s th e mai n themati c materia l startin g i n m. 6 a s follow s
(see Ex . 5) , thu s misrepresentin g Beethoven' s tru e phras e structure . Thi s mis -
4. Toda y we hav e several ways o f showing differing duration s of pauses an d fermatas , ranging fro m
i—51 _ _ f^
the shortes t t o th e longest : 5 5 " " , a s wel l a s th e b y no w well -
L L I - i _ j corta
established ^ an j dlunga
¿£ .
5. Feli x Weingartner , Ratschläge fü r Aufführungen de r Symphonien Beethovens (Leipzig , 1890) ,
pp.64, 69 .
6. Se e Schenker' s devastating derogation of Weingartner's analysi s i n hi s Beethoven: Fifth Symphony,
pp.31-35.
7. Furtwängler , "Beethove n und Wir, " i n To n un d Wort, (Wiesbaden , 1955) ; p.225 .
Plate I Autograp h manuscrip t o f the openin g o f the first movement o f Beethoven's Fift h Symphon y
BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y 115
marking creates a five-bar phrase a t the en d o f the example , whic h Furtwängle r
neglects t o explain. 8
Ex. 5
To return to Beethoven's text , if further confirmatio n be neede d tha t m.l i s an

upbeat measure , i t can b e foun d mos t compellingl y in the tw o empty measures,
mm.123-24 (Plat e II ) and eve n mor e emphaticall y in th e las t three measure s of
the movement , representin g mm. 1-3 i n a four-bar structure , meaning, o f course,
that th e fina l chor d i s a 'three ' (no t a 'one' ) (Plat e III) . This mean s furthe r that ,
since i n th e notationa l convention s of the 18t h an d 19t h centurie s las t and first
measures of a piece had to complete the tota l structure—full circl e as it were—the
'three' of the final bar here tells us that m.l is a 'four,' i.e. an upbeat measure. Mea -
sures 123-24 confirm the same idea —otherwise why would Beethoven have struc-
tured i n thes e tw o measure s o f rest—indicatin g unequivocall y (a) tha t h e wa s
thinking in four-bar phrasings, and (b ) that, m.l22 being a 'one,' m.l i n the repea t
(and, of course, also m.125) ar e 'fours. ' Beyon d these ver y telling structural signs,
many additiona l confirmation s ar e scattere d throughou t th e movement. 9 An d
there i s still further confirmatio n in the fac t that all the stron g harmonic structural
points are in the 'one' position; that is to say, the various tonic positions in the over-
all harmonic/tona l schem e and/o r othe r majo r architectoni c tonality-confirming
structural points are also all 'ones.'10
What i s fascinatin g abou t th e openin g mott o i n term s o f harmoni c implica -
8. I t i s possibl e tha t th e bracketin g i n Ex . 5 wa s a printin g error , fo r i n th e succeedin g musica l
example o f a slightl y late r passag e fro m th e firs t movement , Furtwängler' s bracketin g i s correct. O n
the othe r hand , i t seem s t o m e fro m listenin g carefull y t o Furtwängler' s 1930 s recordin g tha t h e
interprets m. l no t a s a n anacrusi s bu t a downbea t gesture . I mus t admi t i t i s har d t o tel l wit h
certainty because , bein g th e firs t measur e an d th e firs t soun d produced , ther e i s n o rhythmi c o r
metric referenc e poin t to clin g to .
9. Th e three-not e mott o i s foun d i n mm.18 , 22 , 5 9 (horns) ; 17 9 (violins) ; 19 5 (wood-winds) ; 248 ,
303, 47 8 (trumpet s an d timpani) , 491 .
10. O n th e C mino r toni c —mm.19, 25 4 (recapitulation) , 304, 374 , 423 , 439, 484 ; o n th e dominan t
(V) positions , as , for example , mm.26 , 346 , 399 , o r 471 ; i n th e E t majo r 'secon d subject ' episod e —
mm.60, 110 , 118 , 122 ; an d variou s V mino r subdominan t (IV ) episodes—mm.130 , 196 , 241 .
Plate I I Autograp h manuscrip t o f mm. 118-124 of the firs t movemen t o f Beethoven's Fift h Symphon y
Plate II I Beethoven , Fift h Symphony , m.47 2 t o en d o f first movement
tions i s tha t i t i s actuall y harmonicall y ambiguous . Ther e ar e i n th e firs t fiv e

bars n o unequivocall y clear, explicitl y stated harmoni c specifications—t o pu t i t
another way , no clarifyin g chords . We se e simpl y unison octave s whic h theoreti -
cally coul d hav e an y number o f harmonic associations . The first pitches, G an d
El>, coul d fo r example b e hear d i n th e ke y o f El> , an d indee d ar e ap t t o be hear d
that way , since, again , ther e i s no previou s clear-cu t harmoni c referenc e point .
I ca n wel l imagin e tha t someon e hearin g thos e firs t tw o measure s fo r th e ver y
first time coul d ver y likely think and hea r the ke y of Ek Bu t we know, of course,
that Beethoven' s Fift h i s in C minor ; an d afte r havin g hear d th e piec e dozen s
or hundred s o f times , w e ten d t o hea r thos e openin g measure s i n tha t key ,
simply b y prio r association , b y previou s referenc e an d memory . Th e nex t tw o
pitches, F an d D , ar e als o harmonicall y ambiguou s becaus e the y coul d b e
heard, fo r example , a s belongin g t o th e ke y o f B\>, especiall y i f on e ha s hear d
the firs t tw o pitche s ( G an d Et ) i n El > major . I f Beethove n ha d o n th e othe r
hand writte n F an d B t i n mm . 3-5 , tha t
would hav e confirme d fo r u s th e Et-nes s o f th e firs t tw o bars . Th e F an d D ,

however, strongly imply by prior association a dominan t (G) , wit h F it s seventh,
D it s fifth , an d thu s se t thing s u p fo r th e rea l beginnin g o f th e bod y o f th e
movement i n mm. 6 an d 7 i n a ver y clear , unmistakabl e C minor .
I fin d i t curious that Beethove n use d onl y clarinets in the winds—n o bassoons
and horns . Give n th e thunderou s ff dynami c wit h whic h h e hear d thi s motto ,
he migh t hav e considere d th e horn s an d bassoon s a s logical instrument s t o in -
crease th e powe r o f th e openin g statement . Bu t I suspec t tha t h e omitte d th e
horns becaus e th e D i n mm. 4 an d 5 i s no t a 'natural ' not e o n th e El > hand -
horn—it woul d b e a 'stopped ' note , B —eve n thoug h i t wa s a rela -
tively accessibl e not e an d wa s frequently called fo r i n th e work s of Mozart an d

Haydn an d man y other composer s o f the period . Beethove n use d th e horn s very
conservatively i n hi s Fift h Symphony , resortin g t o altere d note s onl y i n thre e
places: one note i n the first, one passage in the third, an d one in the fourth move -
ment.11 In any case, it is devilishly hard to make the tw o clarinets heard, especially
with th e larg e strin g sections of today. All one ca n as k is that th e clarine t players
give their all and i n good acoustics their instrumental colo r might be heard—or at
least sensed . (I n recordings , with availabl e microphone techniques , I d o no t se e
why the clarinet s cannot b e mad e audible . Yet on onl y one o f the nearl y seventy
recordings analyzed here [Norrington's ] were the clarinet s discernible—and the n
only because the y held thei r note longer than the strings!)
There ar e tw o additional performance problems i n th e first six bars that mus t
11. Her e Weingartne r err s grievousl y whe n h e state s (i n hi s Suggestions p.6 5 ) tha t Beethoven
"makes, especiall y in thi s symphony , mor e frequen t us e o f stoppe d note s ["Stopftöne" ] tha n else -
where." On th e othe r hand, Weingartner does suggest another — and reasonabl e —possibility fo r Bee-
thoven's no t usin g the horn s in mm . 1-5: i n hi s words, "tha t h e save d the m fo r the late r dynamicall y
amplified appearanc e of this theme. "
BEETHOVEN FIFTH : SYMPHON Y 11 9
still b e resolved . On e i s the proble m o f no t havin g the firs t thre e note s soun d
like a triplet / | $h . They surel y wil l soun d thu s i f t he f i r st note

is played with a n excessiv e attack o r accent . The wa y to avoi d this i s for al l th e
musicians t o thin k an d t o fee l a sligh t weight on th e secon d note . Fo r jus t a s in
the hierarch y of a 4/4 bar, 'one' and 'three ' have a greater weight tha n 'two ' an d
'four,' s o i n a four-not e group o f eighth-notes , 'one ' an d 'three ' als o carr y mor e
weight tha n 'two ' an d 'four'—excep t that , o f course , i n thi s cas e Beethove n
doesn't giv e us the 'one. '
The secon d problem—an d i t i s on e o f th e mor e difficul t baton-technica l
problems i n th e symphoni c repertory—i s th e nee d t o g o directl y from m. 2 int o
m.3 an d fro m m. 5 int o m.6 . Unde r n o circumstance s must the conducto r allow
extra empt y bar s o r pause s here . W e alread y know tha t Beethove n wa s quit e
capable o f writing empty measure s when h e neede d o r wanted them, especially
when i t mean t preservin g structura l integrit y an d logi c (a s i n mm.123—2 4
or m.30 1 an d m.389) . Ha d Beethove n wante d a ba r res t betwee n th e en d
of th e fift h ba r D an d th e entranc e o f the secon d violin s in m.6 , fo r example,
he woul d hav e writte n a s much . Th e fac t tha t h e didn' t shoul d tel l u s ver y
clearly that any extr a measure o r extra pause o f any kind i s not permissibl e here,
because i t violate s th e interna l structur e an d rigorou s logic o f th e firs t move -
ment's architecture .
Technically thi s mean s tha t here—an d i n al l simila r place s i n th e move -
ment 12 —the conducto r mus t releas e th e /ffermat a not e i n m. 5 simultaneously
with th e downbea t o f th e nex t bar . Bu t sinc e thi s 'nex t bar ' i s i n al l instance s
marked p an d is , as we hav e seen, a n upbea t gesture , the conductor' s bea t her e
must als o represen t tha t f> — in othe r word s wit h a smal l ligh t beat—an d i t
should expres s the upbea t feelin g of the measur e a s well. An upbea t gesture , as
in th e fourt h bea t o f a 4/ 4 conductin g pattern , work s ver y wel l here . Al l thi s is
not eas y an d th e mai n reaso n wh y th e openin g o f Beethoven' s Fift h i s consid -
ered t o b e on e o f the mos t feare d conductin g challenge s i n th e entir e classical
literature.
It i s sad t o repor t tha t ver y fe w conductor s i n ou r recorde d sampling—som e
ninety-odd recordings—passe d th e tes t o f thes e openin g measures . Arthur Nik-
isch i n th e firs t complet e recordin g eve r mad e o f th e Beethove n Fift h —as a
matter o f fac t th e firs t complet e recordin g of any symphony—recorde d i n 191 3
with th e Berli n Philharmonic , manage s th e firs t measur e quit e well , but hold s
the fermata s much to o long 13 an d a t equa l duration , thus ignorin g Beethoven's
12. Measure s 21-22 , 24-25 , mm.128-29 , mm.249-50 , 252-53 , etc. ; th e reade r ma y wis h t o refe r
to th e scor e fo r these examples .
13. Nikisc h was here undoubtedl y following Wagner's advic e who, in hi s Über da s Dirigieren (p.25 )
fantasizes tha t th e voic e o f Beethove n crie s ou t t o conductor s fro m hi s grave : "Make m y fermata s
long and terrifying ! I did no t us e thes e fermatas lightl y or a s a momen t o f hesitation, before thinkin g
what t o d o next ; rather . . . t o thro w into th e violen t and fas t allegro figurations, when necessary , a
pleasurable o r terrifyin g holdin g back. " (Wagne r actuall y use s th e word s "anhaltende n Krampf, "
literally translate d a n "impedin g [or holding back] spasm [o r constriction]"—surel y a strikin g exam-
ple o f Wagner's sometime penchant for hyperbole.) "Thus shal l th e lif e o f these notes be draine d t o
added measur e and it s meaning. Worse yet, he insert s a ful l tw o extra measures
between m. 5 an d m.6 . (I t i s wel l t o ad d tha t afte r thi s somewha t erratic start ,
Nikisch settle s down to wha t is i n man y ways a ver y respectable , at time s even
remarkable, renditio n o f the symphony. )
His performanc e raise s th e questio n o f th e lengt h o f th e tw o fermatas . N o
one can , of course, prescribe their length precisel y an d wit h certainty ; it is , like
all suc h things , t o som e extent a matter of taste and feeling . Bu t I would like t o
suggest tw o guidin g principles: First, contrar y t o Wagner' s fancifu l suggestio n
and t o Nikisch' s implementatio n of that suggestion , the fermata s shoul d not b e
very long—th e second , o f course , slightl y longe r tha n th e first—s o a s no t t o
impede th e intende d flow and energ y o f the openin g statement. Let u s remem-
ber tha t Beethoven' s tempo markin g i s allegro co n brio. I t seem s a littl e ridicu -
lous t o brin g th e motio n o f th e musi c t o a virtua l standstil l (a s i n Nikisch' s
performance) whe n th e musi c ha s jus t barel y gotte n started . Relativel y shor t
fermatas, whic h kee p th e tremendou s energ y o f th e openin g gestur e full y
charged, ar e recommended . Second , I strongl y urg e tha t th e fermata s no t b e
their las t dro p o f blood ; thu s d o I hol d bac k th e wave s o f m y se a an d loo k int o th e abyss , o r slo w
the passag e o f the clouds , scatter th e trail s o f mist and loo k int o th e pur e blu e ether , int o th e radian t
eye o f th e sun.That i s wh y I us e fermatas , a s suddenl y intervening , lon g sustaine d note s i n m y
allegros."
For al l o f Wagner's abjec t admiratio n an d genera l understandin g o f Beethoven' s symphonies , i n
this instanc e hi s imaginatio n ra n wil d i n a frenzie d hermeneuti c fantas y tha t bear s n o relationshi p
to th e substanc e o f the writte n score . A s Schenke r i n hi s bitin g commen t o n Wagner' s poeti c effu -
sion put s it , referrin g as wel l t o Schindler' s oft-cite d bu t dubiou s clai m tha t Beethove n considere d
the openin g motiv e o f th e Fift h Symphon y t o represen t 'fat e knockin g o n th e door, ' "eve n i f we
would lik e t o thin k o f Beethoven wrestlin g with fat e throughou t th e [first ] movement , the n no t onl y
fate woul d b e involve d i n thi s wrestling , bu t Beethove n himself , an d no t jus t Beethove n th e ma n
but, muc h more , Beethove n th e musician . I f Beethove n wa s reall y wrestlin g wit h notes , the n n o
legends an d n o hermeneuti c interpretation s t o explai n thi s tona l worl d wil l suffice , i f on e fail s t o
think an d fee l thes e note s a s the y themselve s thin k [an d feel]. " (Schenker , Beethoven: Fifth Sym-
phony, p.7 )
Parts o f the Beethove n Fift h ha d bee n recorde d befor e 1920 , mostl y th e Andante co n moto, at th e
time th e mos t popula r o f the fou r movements . Thes e recordings , datin g fro m a s early as 1911 , wer e
made b y recordin g compan y 'house ' o r 'resident ' orchestra s (Victo r Concer t Orchestra ) an d all -
purpose group s suc h a s Prince' s Orchestra , bu t als o b y th e Ne w Yor k Philharmonic , le d b y Jose f
Stransky. The y sho w tha t thes e performance s wer e innocen t o f an y imaginatio n o r respec t fo r th e
score, usuall y severely cut an d mutilate d t o fi t ont o th e single-side d wax discs o f those days . Instea d
of strin g basses, tuba s wer e used , an d i t i s rather comica l t o hea r the m strugglin g wit h th e famou s
thirty-second-note cello/bas s passag e a t m . 114 i n th e Andante movement . O n som e recording s i t
sounds lik e only tw o or three violin s and on e cell o wer e used . The onl y performe r wh o sounds truly
professional b y today's standards , indeed beautiful , i s the then-youn g principa l bassoonist of the Ne w
York Philharmoni c a t th e time , Benjami n Koho n (i n th e Stransk y recording) . Intonatio n i n thes e
earliest recording s wa s usually prett y execrable , an d th e whol e purpos e o f these recording s seem s t o
have bee n t o presen t Beethove n a s a goo d 'tune ' compose r wh o coul d compet e wit h th e popula r
songs o f the da y and wit h Caruso' s super-popula r recordings .
It i s most enlightenin g to compar e thes e performance s with 'Ibscanini' s 192 1 recordin g o f the las t
movement o f Beethoven' s Firs t Symphon y wit h th e L a Scal a Orchestra , a stunnin g rendition , bot h
interprctively an d technically . How Ibscanin i mus t hav e worke d thos e poo r oper a musician s over t o
achieve suc h a n excellen t rendition!
timed ou t i n exac t multiple s o f a measure' s tempo , tha t i s to say , for example ,

an exac t three measure s on th e first fermata, four o n th e second. 14 The fermatas
should b e fre e i n time , unpredictabl e i n length , spontaneousl y an d intuitivel y
generated, s o that m. 3 an d m. 6 com e somewha t a s a surpris e —perhaps eve n t o
the conductor . A predetermined , calculate d duratio n o f thes e fermata s under -
mines th e spontaneou s energ y an d dram a o f the music , an d make s the openin g
motto soun d ordinary.
If w e hav e take n thi s muc h tim e an d spac e t o understan d onl y th e first five
measures o f th e symphony , i t reflect s accuratel y th e importanc e an d difficult y
of performanc e o f thi s mos t famou s of symphoni c openings . An d a s previously
indicated, ou r conductor s di d no t fo r the mos t par t stan d th e performanc e test
very well. 15 (Se e Fig.l )
As fo r tempo , n o on e adhere s t o Beethoven' s markin g o f J = 108 , excep t
Norrington, Brüggen , Gardiner. The closes t are Karajan and Dohnanyi (J = 104) ;
Toscanini, Reiner , Steinberg , Carlo s Kleiber , an d Giulin i ( a surprise ) wit h
j = 100 . Furtwängler—anothe r surprise—come s next , clockin g i n a t 98, with
Böhm, Klemperer, Kubelik, and Krip s bringing up th e rea r with ponderous tem -
pos o f J = 8 0 o r below . A char t o f th e tempo s take n b y al l th e conductor s
whose recording s were sample d i s shown i n Fig . 2.
Resistance t o Beethoven' s metronom e marking s is , o f course , o f lon g stand -
ing—virtually a venerable tradition—going back to Schindler' s an d Nottebohm' s
days, Schindle r goin g s o far a s t o mak e th e dubiou s an d unsubstantiate d clai m
that Beethove n wante d th e firs t fiv e measure s performe d a t a muc h slowe r
tempo than th e res t o f the movement—he suggeste d j = 12 6 (i.e., j = 63 ) —
beginning th e rea l allegro onl y i n m.6 ; whil e Nottebohm , mor e cautious ,
thought tha t Beethoven' s "to o fas t metronomization " wa s "probably " th e resul t
of hi s havin g "determined th e metronomi c indication s at th e piano, " thu s arriv -
ing a t marking s "whic h h e [Beethoven ] coul d hardl y hav e advocate d fo r th e
14. Bülo w did something like this, we are told, calculating and maintaining an exact predetermine d
duration o f multiple measure s fo r the fermata s throughout th e movement . Unfortunately , Igor Mar -
kevitch als o suggest s suc h a n approac h i n hi s Di e Sinfonien vo n Ludwig va n Beethoven (Leipzig ,
1983). Worse yet, he develop s a whole ne w metric/structura l analysis for the entir e movement base d
on hi s strictl y measure d fermatas . Making th e firs t fermat a exactl y three measure s long, th e secon d
four measure s long , h e the n reason s tha t thes e measur e duration s ad d u p precisel y to mak e nea t
four- an d six-ba r phrases, as follows (Ex. 6). This conceptio n i s based, however , on tw o quite errone -
ous premises : (1 ) it completely disregards the fac t that the eighth-not e figures are upbeat measures ,
not 'ones ' (althoug h Markevitc h i s eve n inconsisten t o n tha t point , becaus e h e position s the thir d
group o f eighth-notes i n th e las t measur e o f a six-ba r structure , whic h make s i t a n upbea t figure) ;
(2) i t make s th e assumptio n b y implicatio n tha t fermata s should alway s b e measure d an d strictl y
calculated—a totall y untenable theory . Or di d h e mea n tha t fermata s should b e s o controlled onl y
in th e firs t movemen t o f the Fift h Symphony ?
Ex.6
15. Fo r discographica l detail s regarding all th e recording s herein, see Discography , p. 549 .
Fig. l
positive negative positive negative positive

M.I no t Fermatas same Fermatas Extra mm . (mm . 2-3 No extr a mm .
tripletized length differentiated and/or mm . 5-6) added
Dorati Ansermet Abbado Bernstein 3>4 Ansermet

Harnoncourt Boult Ashkenazy Böhm Ashkenazy
Karajan Brüggen Bernstein Boult C. Davi s
Markevitch Gardiner Böhm Brüggen 5 Dohnanyi
Masur Giulini C. Davi s DeSabata Haitink
Scherchen Harnoncourt DeSabata Dorati C. Kleibe r
Suitner Hickox Dohnanyi Furtwängler Kletzki
Szell E. Kleibe r Dorati Jochum Kubelik
Van Otterlo o Klemperer l Furtwängler Knappertsbusch Leibowitz
Koussevitsky Haitink Mitropoulos Mehta
Kubelik Jochum Norrington Mengelberg
Leibowitz Karajan Nikisch Muti
Masur Kempe Ormandy Ozawa
Mengelberg C. Kleibe r Reiner Sawallisch
Mitropoulos Kletzki Schuricht Steinberg
Norrington 6 Knappertsbusch Solti Suitner
Schalk Krips Stokowski Szell
Stokowski Maazel Strauss Thomas
Thomas Mehta Szell Weingartner
Van Otterlo o Munch Toscanini
Wand Muti Wand
Weingartner Nikisch
Ormandy
Ozawa
Sawallisch
Schuricht
Schwarz
Strauss
Suitner
Szell
Toscanini
Walter
Weingartner2
1. Klemperer' s undifferentiated fermata s appea r t o b e o f th e Billo w type : exactl y measure d an d

predetermined.
2. Onl y in th e repeat.
3. B y adding the extr a measure(s) , these conductors completely destroy the four-bar-nes s (Viertaktig-
keit) o f the motive .
4. Bernstein' s insertion o f these extr a empty measures is more surprisin g than Toscanini's. Toscanin i
was, afte r all , no t a n 'intellect, ' someon e wit h a remarkabl y analyti c mind ; he wa s a musicia n wit h
superior instinct s an d a n uncomplicated , nnegotistica l vie w o f music . Bu t Bernstei n wa s a kin d o f
intellect wh o frequentl y though t i n deepl y analyti c ways , an d wh o knew , a s hi s variou s televisio n
explications o f Beethoven's wor k demonstrated , how tightly , ho w perfectly, ho w rigorousl y Beethove n
constructed th e firs t movemen t o f the C mino r symphony . An d ye t h e seem s to hav e bee n totall y
unaware o f adding , willy-nilly , unwante d measure s t o Beethoven' s stric t form .
5. Onl y i n m.480 .
6. Norrington' s secon d fermata i s shorter (sic) tha n the firs t one .
Fig. 2 .
d=\08 Brüggen , Gardiner , Norringto n

«1=104 Dohnanyi , Hickox , Karaja n (198 4 recording) , Toscanin i
J = 100 Giulini , Carlo s Kleiber , Steinberg , Solti , Scherche n
J = 98 Furtwängler , Karaja n (196 2 recording) , Reine r (late r to J= 108 )
«j = 96 Ansermet , Harnoncourt , Hogwood , Leibowitz , Mitropoulos, Muti ,
Ozawa, Strauss , Suitner , Wand , Va n Otterloo
J = 94 DeSabata , Haitink , Eric h Kleiber , Weingartne r
J = 92 Ashkenazy , Hanover, Maazel , Munch , Stokowski , Walter, Rodzinsky
J = 90 Jochu m (Concertgebouw) , Mehta , Solt i
d = 88 Abbado , Boult , Dorati , Kempe , Kletzki , Koussevitzky, Nikisch, Sawal -
lisch, Schalk , Schwarz , Szell , Schurich t
J = 86 Thoma s
J = 84 Coli n Davis , Knappertsbusch , Masur , Mengelberg , Ormand y
J = 82 Bernstei n
J = 80 Böhm , Klemperer , Kubeli k
a = 78 Leinsdor f
à = 76 Krip s
J = 74 Boule z
J = 40 Stokowsk i ( 1940) ; m. 7 J = 86
concert hall. " Billow , on e gathers , mus t hav e als o take n ver y deliberat e tempo s
in thi s movement , becaus e i t i s known tha t h e rearrange d th e whol e move -
ment i n a 2/ 2 alia breve, thusl y (Ex . 7) , a tacti c whic h almos t certainl y mus t
have le d t o a slowe r temp o conception .
Ex. 7 a
Having navigated the cragg y reefs o f Beethoven's openin g signatur e motive, we

can no w continu e ou r exploratio n o f the firs t movemen t wit h th e actua l mai n
theme at m.6. But immediately new performance/interpretive problems arise. For,
on the assumptio n that we are now going to be dealin g with four-bar phrase s with
a definit e hierarchica l division of each fou r bar s into strong, less strong, and weak
beats, i t becomes imperativ e for the conductor , bu t mor e cruciall y the musicians ,
to know on which beat of a four-bar entity they find themselves.
The theor y ha s ofte n bee n advance d tha t th e Fift h Symphony' s firs t move -
ment shoul d b e fel t an d performe d i n two-ba r structuring . Four-ba r entities , o f
course, divid e easil y int o two-ba r unit s and , th e trut h b e told , i t would i n man y
16. S o describe d ¡ n Theodor Müller-Reuter' s stud y "O n th e Rhythmic Meaning o f th e Main Motive
in th e First Movement o f Beethoven's C minor Symphony," a n articl e i n a n 189 8 issu e of Musikal-
isches Wochenblatt.
instances b e impossibl e t o tel l whethe r a performanc e i s bein g interprete d i n

fours o r twos . Also , ther e ar e passages , suc h a s mm.34-43 , tha t perhap s reall y
should b e fel t i n group s o f 'twos ' (mm.34-37 ) an d the n i n 'ones ' (mm.38-43) ;
similarly i n mm . 158-67 (al l 'twos'). Bu t the grea t dange r i n conceivin g th e per -
formance o f the first movement entirel y i n two-ba r unit s is that i t can easil y lead
to accentuation s ever y alternat e bar , whic h ove r th e lon g hau l become s no t
only borin g bu t destructiv e o f th e longe r periodizatio n spans , as , fo r example ,
Koussevitzky's recordin g demonstrates .
I woul d als o sugges t tha t a two-ba r structuring woul d severel y undermine th e
basic architectur e an d th e ver y conceptio n o f th e piec e a t th e outset , fo r i t
would b e incompatibl e wit h th e four-bar-nes s (the "Viertaktigkeit" , a s Schenke r
called it ) o f Beethoven's openin g signatur e motive , whic h surel y must b e hear d
as a four-ba r entity. I n principl e i t i s better t o thin k o f the movemen t a s bein g
in quarternar y structuring, wit h th e obviou s binar y phrasing s (suc h a s mm . 34-
37) comin g quit e naturally , and ye t fitting into th e four-ba r periodization.
Certain i s that the movement cannot—shoul d not—be performed as an endles s
series o f undifferentiate d 'ones.' Eve n Beethoven' s ingeniou s motivi c concisio n
and almos t endless inventiveness in varying and shiftin g hi s little four-note motive
around, cannot survive such cavalier and insensitiv e treatment. Bu t how often th e
work has been performe d exactly in such a careless, perfunctory fashion!
While th e secon d violin s ma y b y no w hav e bee n told , shoul d the y no t hav e
understood i t tha t way , that thei r thre e G' s i n m. 6 hav e a n upbea t character , i t
is equall y importan t fo r th e viola s t o kno w tha t the y ar e comin g of f a stron g
downbeat 'one ' (confirme d b y the clea r establishment of the mai n tonalit y o f C
minor), an d tha t th e firs t violin s ar e i n a 'two ' position , a wea k beat , leadin g
towards th e C , a 'third ' bea t i n th e four-ba r phrase . Suc h a n understandin g i s
not onl y applicabl e here , however , bu t throughout th e entire movement. Bu t
since n o orchestr a o f sixt y t o eight y musician s i s likel y t o remembe r a t ever y
moment wher e the y ar e i n th e four-ba r structurin g an d since , a s jus t noted ,
Beethoven constantl y move s hi s motivi c material s around , shiftin g the m int o
unexpected place s (beats) , i t i s ver y usefu l t o mar k th e orchestra l part s wit h
tiny bu t clearl y visible bracket s ( | ) ever y fou r bars , thu s clearly , visually
delineating th e architectura l design , including , o f course, th e alread y mentione d
deviations fro m th e four-ba r groupings.
It may be interestin g an d instructiv e fo r the reade r t o see what suc h a n instru-
mental par t would look like. Herewith thre e brief examples, all from the first move-
ment: the first violins' mm.7-23, the cellos' and basses', mm.26-43 and mm.44-67.
Ex.7b
Ex.7c
Ex.7d
I hav e also , when conductin g thi s symphony , resorted t o subtly beating a four -
beat patter n (a s in a 4/4 measure)—no t all the time , bu t intermittentl y at certai n
points—to give the musician s another visua l indication a t a glance— a confirma-
tion, perhap s — of where phrase-wis e i n th e relentles s flo w o f bar s they happe n
to b e a t th e moment . I emphasiz e th e word s "subtly " an d "intermittently, " fo r
ultimately w e mus t no t subver t Beethoven' s conceptio n o f th e musi c o f thi s
movement o n on e structura l leve l a s being, essentially , in 'one. ' T o deprive i t of
that 'oneness ' entirel y woul d b e t o d o sever e damag e t o th e feelin g and expres -
sion o f th e music . I t mus t retai n tha t inexorable , relentless , t o som e exten t
'driven' feeling and pacin g whic h ca n onl y be achieve d b y beating i n 'one.' Th e
fact tha t conductin g i n 'one ' i s th e mos t restrictiv e o f al l th e bea t pattern s —
obviously so , becaus e th e conducto r ca n onl y sho w a constan t serie s o f down -
beats (no t eve n a 'two, ' i n tur n necessitatin g a quic k reboundin g upwar d fro m
the botto m o f th e downwar d bea t t o b e abl e t o descen d agai n fo r th e nex t
downbeat) — is in itsel f a visual representation o f the relentlessnes s of the music' s
motion. Thi s then confirm s for me ho w wondrous an d correc t Beethoven' s con -
ception o f the firs t movemen t i s in notatin g i t in a fas t 2/4 , fel t (an d conducted )
in one .
Following through o n ou r establishe d four-bar patterning, w e arrive at anothe r
'one' i n m.19—i t i s well fo r the winds , timpani, an d basse s t o know tha t i n m.1 8
they ar e i n a n upbea t position—an d thu s a 'three ' i n m.21 , th e firs t violins '
sustained fermata . (Thi s i s hopefull y again no t to o long , i n fact , on e well-hel d
bow.) Thi s i n tur n put s u s o n a 'four ' (upbeat ) i n m.2 2 an d anothe r 'one ' i n
m.23.
Some ma y scof f a t th e nex t ide a o r conside r i t naive , bu t i f the musician s al l
hear th e Al > i n m.2 2 a s the mino r nint h o f the dominan t G , an d th e F i n m.2 3
as th e seventh , i t wil l mak e a tremendou s differenc e i n th e Tightnes s o f th e
sound o f thes e measures , no t onl y i n term s o f intonation , bu t on e wil l clearly
be abl e t o hea r (an d transmi t t o th e listener , th e audience ) th e feeling o f th e
dominant i n th e basi c tonality.
Here, however , we hav e a structura l anomaly. I f m.23 i s a 'one' and , b y anal -
ogy t o mm.6-9, m.2 5 i s a 'four ' an d m.2 6 anothe r 'one, ' the n Beethove n ende d
up on e ba r shor t in completin g a four-ba r phrase . Was he simpl y compensatin g
for th e 'extra ' measur e i n m. 4 b y no w subtractin g one? Perhaps ; bu t i t i s muc h
more likel y that m.2 4 an d it s fermata ar e intende d t o compris e bot h th e 'two '
and 'three ' o f the presen t four-ba r phrase , an d tha t Beethove n wa s reluctant t o
expand th e F t o three bar s . Several possible

reasons com e t o mind : (1 ) h e di d no t wan t tha t fermat a t o b e longer—an d
longer looking—tha n th e previou s one (mm.4-5) ; (2 ) i t woul d hav e bee n th e
only suc h phras e an d duratio n i n th e entir e movement ; (3 ) perhaps h e sa w the
three measure s (above ) a s a visuall y disturbin g an d ill-fittin g deviatio n i n th e
otherwise s o consistently binar y an d binary-lookin g design ; (4 ) perhaps h e sim -
ply neglecte d (o r forgot) t o mak e suc h a change .
The approac h t o thi s first expressive and structura l clima x i n th e movemen t
has le d t o man y differen t (bu t mostl y misguided ) interpretations , rangin g fro m
holding the violins' sustained G excessively long (Karaja n an d Munch , for exam-
ple) t o makin g a noticeable , eve n huge , ritar d i n mm . 19-20 int o m.2 1 (Walter ,
Karajan, Jochum) ; or—conversely—actually rushin g int o m.21 (a s Strauss does),
and the n slowin g u p m.2 2 (man y conductors ) and/o r addin g a n extr a empt y
measure betwee n m.2 1 an d m.2 2 (Nikisch , Furtwängler , Strauss , Reiner, Kous -
sevitsky, Toscanini , Munch , Bernstein ) an d betwee n mm.2 4 an d 2 5 (Furtwän -
gler, Jochum) , or , a s Brügge n an d Harnoncour t an d som e o f the othe r 'perio d
instrument' conductor s do , mak e a bi g diminuend o o n th e /-sustaine d G an d
many o f the othe r firs t movemen t fermatas . In man y recordings , th e te n wind s
now additionall y playing i n m.2 2 ar e barel y audible—i n Giulini' s recordin g to-
tally inaudible—thu s subvertin g Beethoven' s ide a o f timbrall y an d dynamicall y
reinforcing th e strings .
In an y case , b y m.26 w e ar e onc e agai n o n structura l terra firma , stil l o n th e
dominant (G) , th e A b's i n th e first violins and viola s having, apart from bein g o n
weak beats , a melanchol y minore feeling. 17
I no w point t o the cello s an d basse s i n m.28- 9 to remin d u s that thi s motivic
figure, derive d fro m th e mai n theme , o f course , i s situate d o n a 'three '
and 'four ' o f th e 4-ba r phrasin g (transcribe d i n metri c reductio n a s
). I t reall y does mak e a tremendou s differ -

ence i n th e soun d an d feelin g of the music , i f the cellist s and bassist s know that
they ar e t o pla y thos e fou r note s i n tha t metri c fram e o f reference , no t merel y
some isolated , unrelate d note s flyin g b y a t abou t a hal f a secon d pe r bar . I t
makes a tremendou s difference—a s i t doe s fo r an y instrumen t (se e l.oboe ,
1.clarinet, two horns i n mm.32-33) whethe r on e i s playing the motiv e o n 'three '
or 'four ' o r 'one' o r 'two', for the simpl e reaso n tha t eac h o f these fou r beat s ha s
17. Fo r thos e wh o assume , o r presum e t o know , tha t Furtwängle r wa s constantl y draw n t o overl y
slow tempos— a myt h which on clos e inspectio n is not entirel y tenabl e —it migh t b e wel l t o realiz e
that h e i s on e o f th e ver y fe w conductor s i n m y entir e samplin g wh o i s virtuall y o n Beethoven' s
metronome mar k i n m.2 6 (Furtwängle r J = 10 4 to Beethoven' s 108).
its own 'personality,' as it were, it s own function (an d feeling ) i n th e hierarchica l

scheme. Translate d (again ) int o a 4/ 4 mete r fo r easie r accessibility , th e fou r
( a ) v a r i a n t s , shoul d a l l be playe d differently , espe -

cially i n term s o f directionality , (a ) reboundin g
( b ) f r o m a stron g beat , endin g o n a wea k beat ; ( b)
starting o n a wea k beat , headin g fo r a stronge r
c
( ) b e a t ; ( c ) somewhat lik e (a) , b ut slightly 'weaker' ;
and (d ) somewha t lik e (b) , bu t thrustin g towards
(d) a n eve n stronger , indee d th e stronges t (ofte n to -
nality-confirming) o f the fou r beats , a 'one. ' I f this kin d o f structura l conscien -
tiousness i s maintained b y th e entir e orchestr a (and , o f course, th e conductor) ,
Beethoven's firs t movemen t musi c wil l hav e a wonderfu l spontaneity an d flexi-
bility o f feeling, a variet y in puls e an d flow , whil e th e merel y routine , unknow -
ing, undifferentiatedl y mechanica l renditio n wil l tur n i t int o deadl y boredom .
This sor t o f awareness ma y b e a lo t t o as k of musicians , bu t the n Beethove n i n
all hi s grea t musi c alway s asks a lot , indee d pushe s ou r huma n talent s t o thei r
limits, a s he pushe d hi s own.
I mus t her e spea k o f anothe r performanc e practic e questio n tha t on e con -
stantly encounter s i n th e work s of Beethoven, Mozart , Haydn , an d man y othe r
composers o f th e 'classic ' period , namely , th e ambiguou s notatio n o f phrase -
ending fina l notes , almos t alway s written a s quarter-note s (a s those i n m.2 9 i n
the lowe r strings , or th e wind s i n m.33 , th e horn s i n m.35 , th e oboe s an d bas -
soons i n m.37 , an d hundred s o f simila r place s i n thi s symphon y alone) . I n al -
most al l case s thes e wer e t o b e playe d a s eighth-notes . Th e fac t i s that, a s an y
reasonably comprehensiv e stud y and analysi s of scores (printe d an d manuscript )
of the perio d wil l show , it was at the tim e a notatio n an d printin g conventio n t o
place quarter-note s a t th e downbea t ending s o f phrases—or, t o pu t i t mor e pre -
cisely, t o us e tha t rhythmi c uni t whic h wa s containe d i n th e tim e signature ,
therefore eighth-notes , no t sixteenths , whe n th e mete r wa s define d i n eighths ;
quarter-notes whe n thes e wer e specifie d i n a tim e signature . Furthermore , th e
musicians o f the tim e understood—an d wer e expecte d t o understan d —this par -
ticular convention , an d tha t the y wer e t o fi t suc h releas e note s t o th e duratio n
of th e prevailin g primary voic e o r melody . Thus , fo r example , th e quarter-not e
in m.2 9 o f the Beethove n Fifth' s first movement i s to b e playe d b y th e secon d
violins, violas , cellos an d basse s a s a n eighth-note , no t a s a full-lengt h quarter -
note (whic h a pedanticall y stric t readin g migh t indicate) , i f fo r n o othe r rea -
son— quite apar t fro m th e notatio n an d performin g convention s jus t men -
tioned—that th e firs t violins ' A\> woul d conflic t disturbingl y wit h th e C mino r
chord o f the lowe r strings.
I shoul d not e i n passin g tha t man y phrasing s an d bowing s i n th e widel y use d
Breitkopf an d Härte l editio n nee d som e revisio n o r adjustment , sinc e the y ar e
in discrepanc y with Beethoven' s manuscrip t (a s Schenke r pointe d ou t a s early
as 1925. ) I will cit e her e onl y a fe w and le t the m stan d for a host of others, thes e
omission o r error s being mostly a resul t of a combinatio n of hasty engraving an d
128 THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTOR
inadequate proofreadin g on th e par t of the origina l editor an d publishe r (Ex . 8a,

b, and c) . The paralle l passage (mm. 138-42) ha s the slu r in the bassoons . Other
parallel passage s of these phrasing s (mm . 138-42) als o contai n th e slurs .
Ex. 8 a (mm . 15-18) Ex. 8 b (mm.28-29 , 32-33 )

Bassoons an d Cellos 1st and 2n d Violin s
Ex. 8 c (m.34-38 , 278-82 )

1st Violins
Since mm . 3 4 and 3 8 are 'ones, ' structurall y speaking, i t follows , i f we main -

tain a stric t sequentia l four-ba r readin g o f th e score , tha t m.4 2 wil l b e anothe r
'one.' Bu t clearl y i t isn't ; instea d m.4 4 i s (Ex . 9) . Thi s i s confirme d b y a t leas t
two facts : first , m.4 4 represent s th e arriva l point , th e peak , o f th e crescend o
which bega n i n m.34 ; second , m.4 4 clearl y marks th e unequivoca l arriva l an d
confirmation o f th e basi c tonalit y o f C minor , furthe r confirme d b y th e nex t
twelve bars ' obviou s divisio n into thre e four-ba r phrase units . I f m.44 i s a 'one, '
then mm.4 2 an d 4 3 ar e extraneou s t o th e previousl y ongoin g four-bar - pat -
terning. The y ar e therefor e a n extension , a stretching , o f th e four-ba r phras e
starting a t m.3 8 t o si x bars, a devic e Beethove n use s man y time s i n thi s move -
ment (an d i n numerou s othe r works , of course). Obviously, however , this six-bar
phrase i s still divisibl e int o a binary format (three time s two) .
I cal l mm. 34-43 a six-bar phrasing. But there ar e severa l other way s of looking
at thi s passage , on e o f which i s cited b y Furtwängler 18 an d wa s alluded t o ear -
lier: two four-bar phrases , then compresse d motivicall y to two two-bar and finall y
further t o six one-bar unit s (se e th e phras e bracketin g in Ex . 9).
In thi s passag e i t i s most importan t t o observ e Beethoven' s dynamics , alas, so
often totall y ignored (especiall y b y Bernstein, and eve n Toscanini , both o f whom
18. Furtwängler , "Beethoven un d Wir, " p.228 .
crescendo her e to o muc h to o early) . Measur e 34 19 mus t star t p— with n o pre -

ceding prematur e crescendo—an d lea d throug h si x successive sf's t o onl y on e f ,
which i s followed by a (subito) f f nin e bar s later. Th e sf's mus t b e playe d i n th e
context o f th e risin g over-al l dynami c level , rathe r than , a s i s fa r to o ofte n th e
case, a s si x hard-hitting equall y lou d sf's. (Fo r mos t musicians , unfortunately , sf
means a loud—o r loudest—aggressiv e attack , regardles s o f th e prevailin g dy-
namic level ; an d man y conductors , ou t o f ignorance o r timidity, fai l t o teach th e
orchestra otherwise. ) M y suggestio n i s t o mar k th e firs t s f (m.38 ) a s mpsf, th e
fourth on e (m.41 ) as mfsf. Ther e i s nothing wors e than a premature an d exagger -
ated crescendo , for—a s mentione d earlier—whe n i t climaxe s to o early , the tru e
arrival point , whic h shoul d b e th e rea l climax , become s a mer e anti-climax .
Furthermore, i n this particular passage (mm.38-43) Beethove n achieve s the bit e
and increasin g tensio n primaril y harmonically—if onl y performer s woul d b e
aware o f thi s miraculousl y dissonan t progressio n (se e Ex . 10) , representin g th e
sf downbeat s i n mm.38-43) . On e wa y to mak e a n orchestr a appreciat e th e re -
markable harmoni c darin g o f this passage , i s t o pla y th e chord s (a s i n Ex . 10 )
very slowl y an d wel l sustained . I t i s a startlin g ear - an d mind-openin g experi -
ence. I f instea d o f th e lou d undiscipline d bashin g awa y a t th e si x downbeat s
which on e usuall y encounter s i n thi s passage , player s (an d conductors ) woul d
hear thes e extraordinar y clashing dissonance s an d hea r the m a s an intensifyin g
progression, Beethoven' s intention s woul d b e muc h bette r served !
Ex. 1 0
Speaking o f dynamics , i t shoul d b e n o longe r necessar y t o poin t ou t tha t i n

Beethoven symphonie s —Mozart an d Hayd n a s well—trumpet s an d timpani ,
and sometime s eve n horns , hav e t o pla y a t modified , tha t i s t o say , lesse r dy -
19. Beethoven' s origina l scor e indicate s a crescend o i n th e horn s i n m.3 4 no t t o b e foun d i n th e

first edition scor e an d parts . Unfortunately , on quit e a fe w recording s (notabl y thos e o f Toscanini ,
Muti, Mehta , Coli n Davis , Gardiner , Leibowitz , Giulini , Krips , Norrington , Hogwood , Harnon -
court, an d Carlo s Kleiber ) th e horn s her e mak e a n unpleasan t out-of-contex t crescend o swoop :
Seeing th e "cresc. " i n m.34 , followe d b y seve n bar s o f rest , player s evi-
dently di d no t realiz e that Beethoven' s crescend o onl y begins her e an d the n take s a whol e te n bar s
to reac h f . Tha t th e conductor s i n questio n di d no t hea r thi s dynami c exaggeration , probabl y even
encouraged it , i s astounding to me .
Brüggen avoid s th e horns ' cresc. i n m.34 , bu t ha s th e oboe s an d bassoon s mak e a n eve n wors e
completely out-of-contex t crescendo swoop.
namic level s tha n marked . Sinc e Beethoven , unlik e late r composer s suc h a s
Strauss an d Mahler , eve n Schumann , use d undifferentiated , vertically uniform
dynamics, trumpet parts , if played a t the absolut e dynamic levels notated, woul d
constantly predominate , overbalancin g such les s projecting instruments a s flutes
and clarinets . When this occur s i t is especially deplorable, sinc e th e trumpet s of
Beethoven's da y wer e b y thei r natur e limite d t o a fe w 'natural ' tones , whic h
rarely permitte d the m t o participat e i n melodi c line s o r chromati c alterations ,
and thu s relegate d them to sustaining tonic and dominan t pitche s (a n occasiona l
third coul d sometime s b e sneake d in) . These, of course, whe n playe d too loudly
are no t onl y boring to hear , bu t severel y distort the tru e pictur e o f the music . It
is distressin g to hea r i n th e dozen s o f sample d recording s herei n analyze d ho w
many, many times Beethoven's musi c i s devastated by loud, overbearin g trumpet
and timpan i playing , and—worse yet—tolerate d no t onl y by conductors bu t als o
by recordin g producers an d engineers. 20
While o n th e subjec t of balances and instrumenta l ensemble , we should not e
in mm.44-5 1 th e somewha t unusua l low-lyin g thirds of the tw o bassoons, thre e
octaves belo w th e flutes , a sonoric/harmoni c touc h whic h a conducto r shoul d
try t o brin g out , o r a t leas t t o no t le t i t b e burie d an d totall y ignored . I n thos e
same measure s car e mus t b e take n tha t th e firs t violins , fo r th e momen t th e
only instrument s playin g Beethoven' s mai n motive , b e clearl y heard. Thi s ca n
be easil y accomplished i f the woodwind s and horn s hol d t o a f (no t th e usua l
ff), an d i f the violin s make a sligh t compensatin g crescend o i n mm.46—4 7 an d
50-51, sinc e o n thei r lowe r string s the y los e a certai n degre e o f projection. 21
Even so , none o f these balancin g effort s shoul d o n th e on e han d diminis h th e
20. I t i s a sa d fac t tha t mor e ofte n tha n not , whe n dynami c imbalances occur , th e automati c solu-
tion i s presumed t o b e tha t th e 'weaker ' instrument s simpl y play louder. I t seem s rarel y to occu r t o
anyone tha t perhap s th e 'louder ' instrument s should play softer! Thi s kin d o f misguide d thinking
seems als o t o b e behin d th e widesprea d penchant fo r doublin g instruments , especiall y th e wood -
winds, i n classica l symphonies . Instead o f th e bras s playin g lou d an d conductor s usin g larg e (o r
augmenting their ) string sections a s well a s doubling th e woodwinds , might i t not b e bette r t o scal e
down th e resultan t inordinat e volume level s by reducing th e outpu t o f the bras s and timpani , main -
taining th e woodwind s at their norma l siz e and dynami c levels, and keepin g th e strin g sections a t a
size mor e commo n i n Beethoven' s time ? I t shoul d b e remembere d tha t i n additio n t o thei r pitc h
limitations, th e trumpet s o f Beethoven' s da y produce d a n intrinsicall y softer, mellower , les s proj -
ecting soun d tha n th e trumpet s of today. They blended muc h mor e readil y int o th e over-al l texture.
Similarly, th e calfski n head s o f classica l timpani di d no t hav e th e brillianc e and impac t o f today's
plastic heads , an d therefor e were not a s obtrusive as they tend t o be nowaday s in classica l symphon-
ies. Suc h approache s would , b y the way , come very close t o 'perio d authenticity ' without the neces -
sity o f resorting to actua l period instruments .
The mos t grievou s example o f distorting Beethoven's musi c b y way of uncalled fo r doubling s and
enlargement o f orchestra l force s tha t I eve r ha d th e displeasur e t o hear , occurre d som e year s ago
when Karaja n visite d Bosto n wit h th e Berli n Philharmonic , performin g the Eroica i n tha t city' s
wonderfully responsiv e and sensitiv e Symphony Hall acoustics , using six trumpets, eigh t horns, enor-
mous number s o f woodwinds, and , o f course , th e Philharmonic' s entir e strin g sectio n (18-16-14 -
12-10). I t wa s a trul y painfu l an d revoltin g aura l experience ! (Karaja n als o recorde d Mussorgsky' s
Pictures a t a n Exhibition wit h twelv e trumpets , ten trombones , and eigh t horns!)
21. I t i s remarkabl e —and a welcom e surprise—tha t Schenker , wh o was , after all , no t a conductor
or a practicin g musician, in hi s Fift h Symphon y tract, offer s exactl y that advice (p. 17).
energetic effec t o f mm.44-51 by the wind s playing too softly , lackin g i n energy ,
or o n th e othe r han d preclud e th e possibilit y of a dramati c sudde n dynami c
increase t o ff (m.52 ) b y playing mm.44-51 to o loud . Th e tw o problem s i n thi s
passage ar e demonstrated , ala s negatively , b y a numbe r o f conductor s (Kletzki ,
Kubelik, Mengelberg , Dorati , Wand ) includin g tw o world-famou s conductors ,
Toscanini an d Bernstein . Toscanin i who , a s I hav e mentione d earlier , allow s a
runaway crescend o startin g at m.3 4 to peak muc h to o early , the n allow s the first
violins i n m.44—an d eve n mor e i n m.52—t o be quit e overbalance d b y the wind s
and timpani , almos t t o the poin t o f inaudibility in mm.52-55 . Bernstein' s prob -
lem i s that h e i s already so loud a t m.4 4 that ther e i s no roo m lef t t o creat e th e
real clima x (ff) a t m.52 . Conductor s wh o solve d th e performanc e problems o f
this entir e passag e brilliantl y are Eric h Kleiber , Weingartner, Nikisch , Jochum ,
Karajan, Mehta , Schuricht , an d Reiner .
It i s o f paramoun t importanc e t o understan d tha t Beethove n i n hi s auto -
graph consistentl y use d th e notatio n fo r hi s mai n motivi c cell ,
not o r . Obviousl y thi s wa s meant t o preserv e th e rhythmic /
gestural integrit y o f th e motive , eve n whe n severa l o f thes e cell s ar e linke d
together chain-lik e (as , fo r example , i n mm.44-55) . Th e Breitkop f an d Härte l
editor i n th e firs t edition , however , change d man y o f thes e measure s t o
read (se e mm.4 4 an d 47 , firs t violins , als o mm.49-50) . Bee -
thoven trie d t o sho w th e distinctio n betwee n th e mai n cel l
or o n th e on e han d an d a mor e linea r variant , suc h a s (m.38 )
or (mm. 102 -
104). I t i s important, therefore , tha t conducto r an d musician s b e awar e of thes e
two distinc t way s o f phrasing , an d kee p the m discrete , a no t s o eas y tas k ove r
the lon g hau l o f the entir e firs t movement .
How terrifying an d startlin g Beethoven's diminishe d chor d i n mm.52-5 5, with
its cascading violin motives and thunderin g timpani , mus t hav e sounde d t o Bee -
thoven's audience s i n 1808 ! I t still pack s a terrifi c wallo p nowaday s when playe d
correctly, bu t playin g it 'correctly ' doe s no t includ e th e timpani' s drownin g ou t
the res t o f th e orchestra , which , unfortunately , i s th e cas e i n Carlo s Kleiber' s
generally excellen t recording , i n whic h th e violin s are virtuall y inaudibl e unde r
the murderou s f f o f the Vienn a Philharmonic' s over-enthusiasti c timpanist . O n
the othe r hand , Carlos' s father , Erich , achieve s th e bes t balanc e i n thi s entir e
passage (mm.44—56) , wit h th e marvelousl y calibrate d sonoritie s o f th e Con -
certgebouw Orchestra .
Many conductor s inadvertentl y (o r perhap s consciously—i f so , mistakenly )
make o r allo w an accelerand o wit h th e crescend o startin g at m.34 . Brun o Wal -
ter, wh o starte d hi s recordin g o f th e Fift h Symphon y wit h a sedat e J = 8 8
accelerated t o a healthy J = 9 6 by m.44 .
The diminished-sevent h chord i n m.5 2 allow s Beethove n t o move t o the mos t
closely relate d ke y to C minor , namel y & major , and , havin g thereby signaled
the en d o f the exposition , t o mov e a s well t o hi s 'secon d subject. ' Beethoven' s

transition t o thi s point i s as dramatic as it is consequent an d succinct : two horn s
proclaiming a n intervallicall y expande d varian t o f th e movement' s openin g
motto (mm . 59-62). Instea d o f th e pitche s , h e no w
gives u s i n a for m rhythmicall y directl y relate d t o th e

movement's openin g measure s (Ex . 11) . Thi s momen t represents , o f course , a
crucial junctur e in th e over-al l form an d continuit y of the movement , an d i t has
led man y conductor s t o a variet y o f 'personal ' bu t willfu l form-damagin g
Ex. 1 1
interpretations. I t goes without saying that th e secon d subjec t (starting at m.63 )

will wan t t o b e performe d i n recognitio n o f Beethoven' s ow n ofte n articulate d
concept o f "flexible tempo" o r "temp o o f feeling." Surel y a degre e o f relaxation
in th e temp o i s wanted here , o r i s a t leas t possible . An d ye t th e transitio n t o
such a temp o mus t b e accomplishe d wit h subtlety—t o com e bac k t o Wagner's
cautionary word—"imperceptibly." For all it s dolce amiability , the violins ' motive
or theme , soo n answere d i n th e clarinet , i s still par t o f Beethoven' s allegro con
brio, wit h it s connotatio n o f a certai n bristlin g energ y an d restlessness . More-
over, th e relationshi p o f thi s secon d subjec t to th e mai n them e vi a th e transi -
tional lin k of the precedin g hor n cal l (mm . 59-62) mus t be preserve d and mad e
audible, despit e th e dramati c difference s betwee n th e horn s an d th e violin s i n
dynamic, i n sonority , in articulation—e.g . ff t o p , stron g brass to gentl e strings,
marcato t o legato. And thi s can bes t be achieve d whe n bot h part s are expressed
in no t necessaril y an identica l temp o bu t a closely related one .
But ho w does th e violins ' them e relat e t o th e hor n fanfare ? Clearly , i n tha t
the forme r is an elegantl y embellishe d varian t of the latter : the one , th e horns' :
brash, eruptive , and vertical/harmonic/declamatory ; the other , th e violins' : calm,
conciliatory, horizontal/melodic/lyri c (Ex . 1 2 a an d Ex . 1 2 b), bot h lastin g fou r
bars an d beginnin g on a n 'upbeat ' measure/gesture . Helpin g t o make th e transi-
tion fro m on e them e t o the other , the 'hamme r blows' of the horn s ar e softened
by th e quietin g effec t o f the underlyin g 6/4 chor d i n m.63 . Th e temp o modifi -
Ex. 12 a Ex . 12 b
(The violins ' notes marke d with an x are thos e

that ar e commo n to th e horns ' notes.)
cation calle d fo r i n th e transitio n fro m th e hor n 'fanfare ' t o th e violins ' second
subject mus t b e don e subtly . M y ow n experienc e i n conductin g th e wor k has
convinced me , that , i f one hold s t o Beethoven' s J = 10 8 in th e exposition , a
subtle slowin g to 100-04 , possibly even t o J = 96 , gets th e desire d result s with-

out an y wrenchin g a t th e structura l seams . Man y conductor s slo w dow n to o
much here , causin g th e secon d subjec t t o see m t o belon g t o a totall y differen t
work. Suc h wa s evidentl y a well-establishe d tradition , probabl y fostere d b y Bü -
low, an d stil l adhere d t o b y Nikisc h i n 1913—h e slow s to J = 8 0 a t m.63—bu t
even b y a 'modern ' conducto r lik e Carlo s Kleibe r who , strangel y enough , slow s
down durin g th e tw o incisiv e chord s (mm.56-58 ) befor e th e horns ' entrance —
a ver y peculia r effect . Bu t th e strangest , mos t unnatura l interpretatio n come s
from th e bato n o f Richar d Strauss , wh o precipitousl y drop s abou t te n metro -
nome point s righ t a t m.63. Karajan , oddl y enough , increases the temp o (t o J =
104) i n hi s 196 2 recording , bu t hew s mor e t o th e olde r traditio n o f relaxing th e
tempo (t o J = 94 ) in hi s 198 2 recording .
The secon d subjec t carrie s wit h i t certai n ver y interestin g performanc e an d
interpretational problems . On e pertain s t o the lon g archin g lin e o f this passag e
which culminate s i n anothe r secondar y clima x a t m.94 . I n effect , mm.63—7 3 is
a singl e lin e — a Klangfarbenmelodie —shared b y thre e instrumenta l color s (tim -
bres): violin , clarine t (mm.67-70) , flut e (plu s violin ) (mm.71-74) . Th e thre e
segments of this twelve-bar melod y mus t be linke d together i n performanc e int o
a singl e line , whic h mean s tha t th e player s involved i n thes e exchange s mus t b e
aware o f thi s need—o r mus t b e mad e awar e o f i t b y th e conductor . Bu t mer e
awareness o f the proces s ma y no t b e sufficien t t o achiev e th e desire d result , for
the violin s mus t literall y han d thei r four-ba r segmen t ove r t o th e clarinet ; th e
clarinet mus t i n tur n pic k i t u p fro m th e violin s an d han d i t back t o the m an d
the flute—al l thi s ver y muc h a s i n a rela y rac e whe n th e bato n i s smoothl y
transferred fro m on e runne r t o another . Th e proble m her e i s that, fo r reason s
beyond m y comprehension , musician s generall y ten d t o shorte n —chop off -
final note s i n phrase s i f the y ar e followe d b y a rest . Thi s i s a world-wid e ba d
habit, a disease mos t prevalen t among strin g players, particularly violinists—who,
of course, ar e thos e ver y players mos t likel y to hav e t o carr y a tune o r a melod y
in th e classical/romanti c literature . I ca n predic t wit h certaint y that , unles s a
violin section wil l have been trained otherwise , i t will in any orchestra pla y m.66
not a s , bu t a s o r, especiall y if
played wit h a downbow . Wha t i s curious—an d distressing—abou t thi s careles s

habit i s that, whe n suc h a fina l phras e not e i s not followe d by a rest , a s in m.74 ,
for example , thi s rhythmic/dynami c note-droppin g wil l no t occur. 22 On e ask s
oneself, wha t i s the differenc e betwee n m.6 6 an d m.74—musically , structurally?
22. I hereb y cit e severa l suc h simila r place s i n th e literatur e wher e almos t withou t fai l player s wil l
unceremoniously, unthinkingly , befor e a rest , dro p th e las t not e o f their phrase : Dvora k Ne w World
Symphony, firs t movement , mm.111-13 , thir d movement , m.160 , 170 ; Schuman n Secon d Sym -
phony, las t movement , mm.65 , 73 , 77 , 213 , 225 , 50 9 etc. ; Berlio z Corsaire Overture , mm.31 , 69 -
71 (woodwinds), 15 3 (flute , 1.violins) ; Brahm s Firs t Symphony , firs t movement , m.252-58 ; secon d
movement, mm.61-62 ; thir d movement , m.5 8 (woodwinds) ; Brahms Fourt h Symphony , first move-
ment, mm.157-16 4 (winds) , mm.227-41; secon d movement , m.39 ; Mozar t "Lin/ " Symphony , first
movement, mm.109-10 ; las t movement , mm.73-9 2 (strgs) , mm.104-15 ; Mozart , "Jupiter " Sym -
phony, first movement, m.5 , 8 ; Menuetto, mm.4,8 ; an d hundred s more .
None. Indeed , th e nee d t o giv e th e secon d quarter-not e i n m.6 6 it s appropriate

full lengt h i s perhap s eve n greate r ther e tha n i n m.7 4 becaus e th e violins ' B I»
has t o b e connecte d u p wit h th e clarinet' s B I» i n m.67 .
It shoul d g o withou t sayin g tha t th e three-phras e segment s involve d i n thi s
tripartite melodi c exchang e shoul d b e playe d wit h th e sam e (/> ) dynamic . O f
the innumerabl e recording s I hav e sampled , mos t fai l t o achiev e thes e phras e
link-ups, mos t notabl y Bernstein , Koussevitzky , Gardiner, Harnoncourt , Tosca -
nini, Ashkenazy, Böhm, Thomas, and Szell . They lose the lon g line, and instea d
of on e lon g twelve-ba r phrase , w e ar e give n thre e shor t four-ba r phrases. Her e
again Eric h Kleibe r excel s i n hi s recording , als o Furtwängler , Knappertsbusch ,
Schuricht, Mitropoulos , Jochum , Dorati , Brugge n i n their s (althoug h Brugge n
loses th e lon g lin e completel y i n th e recapitulatio n (mm.307-30) .
The secon d typica l proble m i n thi s passag e —including no w mm.75-9 3 a s
well —has t o d o wit h bowing s (an d slurrings). 23 Many differen t righ t an d wron g
bowings have been tried here ove r the man y years of the existenc e o f this work. In
mm.63-66, Beethoven write s i n the first
violins. (Note , b y the way , the absenc e o f any dynami c nuancin g excep t fo r th e
initial p. ) A few bars later (m.75) , Beethoven begin s fou r two-ba r bowings in th e
first violins, in m.83 (now also incorporating the second violins and cellos ) a three-
bar bowing, then tw o more two-bar-ers , and then—surprisingly— a four-bar entit y
on a single bo w (se e Ex . 13) . On e i s bound t o ask , why the three-ba r bowin g i n
m.83-85, and indee d i n mm.63-65 for that matter? And why the four-ba r bowing
at the en d o f the entir e passage, just when, with th e ongoin g crescendo, a strin g
player will almost have to use more bow to achieve the desire d crescendo ?
Ex.13
(Beethoven's phrasing / bowing)
Schenker (p . 10) make s a s goo d a cas e fo r preservin g Beethoven's designate d

bowings, at least i n mm.83-93, as anyone t o m y knowledge ha s ever made. Afte r
comparing Beethoven' s first bowing/phrasing version wit h hi s secon d 'corrected '
23 'Th
" • * ^e ensuin
t g idiscussio
j n is of necessit y somewhat technical i n natur e and i s best understoo d b y
reference eithe r to th e scor e o r a t leas t to musica l Exx. 1 3 an d 14 .
one (bot h i n th e autograph ) i n whic h th e si x measures o f mm.88-93 ar e com -

bined i n on e bo w (no t a s in som e editions , tw o and four) , Schenke r document s
the reasons—tha t is , hi s rational e fo r Beethoven' s reasons—fo r thi s unusua l
phrasing/bowing. I t i s deservin g o f seriou s consideration , eve n i f in th e en d w e
may wish to diffe r wit h it . Schenke r begin s b y noting tha t Beethove n retain s th e
basic four-ba r structurin g throughou t thi s 'secon d subject ' episode , bu t untypi -
cally shift s th e phrasin g (an d therefor e th e bowing ) awa y fro m th e four-ba r peri-
odization t o th e upbea t par t o f th e structure—remembe r tha t m.6 4 i s a
'one'—maintaining thi s cross-bowin g
until m.83 . Schenke r the n suggest s
that, i n orde r t o prepare an d anticipat e
the reconciliatio n o f th e phrasin g wit h
the underlying structure at the climacti c
ff o f m.94—a s h e put s it , t o achiev e "th e metri c readjustment " [Ausgleich de s
Metrums]— "i t finally could b e riske d to no t onl y mov e th e hea d o f the motive ,
G\>, t o relativel y strong measure s i n th e grouping , lik e mm.86 , 88 , 9 0 an d 92 ,
but als o t o begi n th e bow s o n Gl > an d thu s reconcilin g the m wit h th e motivi c
kernel [Motivkem]. On e ca n se e fro m thi s that , t o achiev e thi s bowing , th e
combining o f th e firs t thre e bar s 83—8 5 a s a transitio n t o th e earlie r bowin g
(mm.75-82) becam e necessary . Bu t t o d o thi s fou r time s i n a row , i n mm.86 ,
88, 90 and 92 , certainly seemed disturbin g to the maste r [Beethoven] ; and there -
fore h e fel t compelle d t o indicat e on e bo w [pe r bar] fo r the tw o bars mm.86-87
and then , fro m th e middl e o f th e [phrase ] group, thereb y als o maintainin g it s
equilibrium, the remainin g si x bars (mm.88-93) unde r on e singl e bow . In order ,
on th e othe r hand , no t t o jeopardiz e the crescend o effec t becaus e o f a too-lon g
bow, [Beethoven ] divide s the sam e lin e i n th e cello s int o a two-bar an d four-ba r
bowing and , additionally , adds the flut e i n m.9 1 [t o the violins] , joining the las t
three bar s [o f the phrase ] under on e slur . The irregula r ten-bar-ness [Zehntaktig-
keit] o f thi s phras e stretching " —Beethoven's fina l phras e befor e m.9 4 i s indee d
another on e o f hi s stretchin g extension s o f fou r bar s int o six—"a s wel l a s it s
strange bowin g gam e [seltsame Spiel de r Bogenführung] len d thi s passag e a n
indescribably irresistibl e magic."
There i s on e sligh t flaw in Schenker' s analysis , the resul t o f overlookin g on e
important point , namely , tha t wha t h e calle d th e "hea d o f the motive " not e (G! >
in mm . 84, 86 , 88 , an d 90 ) ha d alread y occurred earlie r i n th e analogou s D! > o f
m.76 an d th e F o f m.80 . Sinc e thes e tw o note s ar e als o situate d o n a 'one, ' a
strong beat, Schenker' s suggestio n tha t Beethove n fel t th e nee d t o shift th e hea d
note "t o relativel y strong measures " i s misleading . N o suc h shif t wa s necessary,
since th e earlie r hea d note s wer e als o place d o n 'stron g measures. ' Schenke r
was, o f course , righ t t o not e Beethoven' s shiftin g o f th e bowin g i n mm.83-89 .
But h e probabl y shoul d hav e questione d Beethoven' s six-ba r one-bow phrasin g
in mm.88—93 , especiall y sinc e h e note s th e differen t (an d mor e logical ) two -
and-four-bowing o f th e cello s i n th e sam e phrase . (Al l edition s afte r th e firs t
edition adopte d thi s latte r bowin g fo r th e violin s a s well. ) Bu t eve n th e latte r
bowing—taking int o accoun t Beethoven' s flut e doublin g a n octav e highe r —
seems a n od d wa y t o dea l wit h a crescendo , especiall y th e las t stage s o f a cre -

scendo whic h i s to reac h no t f bu t ff . I do no t se e ho w th e resul t o f Beethoven' s
bowing coul d len d thi s passag e an "irresistibl e magic." I t could, i n m y view and
experience, onl y lead t o a most ineffectiv e crescendo, fo r I doubt tha t an y violin-
ist or cellis t i n th e worl d ca n produc e a crescend o i n a four-ba r single bo w fro m
f (fo r that woul d b e th e dynami c fo r m.90 ) t o ff .
In orde r t o determin e th e bes t bowin g fo r the entir e secon d subjec t passage ,
one canno t star t wit h it s tail end ; on e mus t g o bac k t o it s beginning, m.63 . A
good bowin g I hav e foun d —many years ago—for thi s passag e (goo d i n term s o f
satisfying al l o f it s multipl e demand s an d implications ) i s th e followin g (Ex.
14a). Th e assumptio n her e i s i n par t tha t th e violin s wil l us e relativel y short,
light bow s i n mi d o r uppe r position, no t th e usua l full-lengt h (an d therefor e
much to o loud ) bows 24 tha t hav e becom e th e maddenin g nor m i n s o man y
orchestras, especiall y i n th e Unite d States . Bu t a simple r bowing , a s in Ex . 14b ,
works jus t as well a s long a s the violinist s don't dro p th e las t B k
The reasonin g behin d dividin g th e four-ba r phras e mm.63—6 6 int o thre e

bows—perhaps a t firs t glanc e a n od d choic e —is tha t suc h a bowin g satisfie s
three performanc e conditions: (1 ) that the phras e begin s wit h a n upbea t feelin g
(because o f its 'weak' fourth-bea t placing)—this i s best achieve d wit h a n upbow ;
(2) tha t th e strong-bea t characte r o f m.64 be preserve d (bes t achieved b y a gentl e
downbow); an d (3 ) that th e las t measur e (m.66 ) connect s t o th e enterin g clari -
net (bes t achieve d b y an upbow) . I f on th e othe r han d on e i s intent o n preserv -
ing Beethoven' s three-and-on e phrasing, 2 on e obviousl y ha s onl y tw o choices :
down-up o r up-down . Bot h carr y risks , a s an y uneve n bowin g (i n thi s cas e six
beats t o tw o beats ) does—althoug h no t insurmountabl e ones—bein g mor e dif -
ficult t o balanc e ou t evenly . Th e forme r bowin g (down-up ) carrie s th e ris k o f
the entranc e a t m.6 3 bein g to o heav y an d losin g it s upbeat character , whil e i t
does wor k wel l fo r m.66 . Th e othe r bowin g (up-down ) carrie s a differen t risk ,
24. I do no t kno w what bowing s Karaja n use d i n hi s variou s recordings , but suffic e i t to sa y that h e
never achieve d a rea l p, Beethoven' s ver y special ' p dolce.' Bu t i t is not onl y a matter o f the dynami c
level per se; what really matters is the tone color, the sonority—a warm, relaxed, quietly singing, unedgy
sound—that can mak e the differenc e betwee n makin g this passage sound magica l o r ordinary. This is
best achieved by using a light, gliding—very little vertical pressure—bowing. The entir e passage should
offer a maximum i n sonori c contrast t o all the previou s vigorous, eruptive, bursting sounds—as Furt -
wängler onc e put it : "like the turnin g o f a gigantic hinge. " I have alread y mentioned Bernstein's an d
Toscanini's problems here . Günther Wand, i n addition t o allowing the player s to drop their last notes,
thus annulling Beethoven's long-line Klangfarben exchange , also never achieves the rea l p an d lovely
sound needed here . But two conductors who do are Erich Kleibe r and Furtwängler .
25. Fo r al l w e know , Beethove n wa s persuade d t o us e th e three-and-on e bowin g becaus e o f th e
repeated C' s i n mm.65-66 , perhap s really preferrin g a singl e bo w fo r th e entir e fou r bars .
namely, while i t satisfies th e anacrusi s characte r o f the phras e entrance , i t makes

m.66 much to o heavy . And thi s i s not desirabl e sinc e bot h m.6 6 an d it s parallel
m.74 ar e 'threes ' and shoul d hav e onl y a moderate weight , les s tha n a 'one.' An
upbow achieve s thi s resul t mor e naturally .
But ultimatel y an y on e o f th e thre e bowing s suggeste d her e ca n b e mad e
to wor k well , a s lon g a s th e player s approac h i t wit h intelligenc e an d sensi -
tivity, makin g sur e tha t th e entir e phras e i s evenly balance d an d preserve s th e
integrity o f it s particular four-ba r structurin g ('four-one-two-three') . I n thi s con -
nection, w e shoul d observ e tha t th e entir e 'secon d subject ' episod e ha s n o dy -
namic nuancing ; i t i s p dolce fro m m.6 3 unti l th e crescend o o f m.84 . Tha t
doesn't mean , o f course , tha t th e passag e shoul d b e playe d i n som e cold , me -
chanical, abstract , dynamicall y 'flat' manner ; bu t i t does sugges t that the exagger -
ated heaving s an d roller-coaste r dynamic s on e ofte n hear s her e i n performanc e
as, fo r example ,
or ar e quit e unnecessar y and , i n peaking
on a 'two,' quit e ou t o f place .

To coordinate wit h th e melodi c lines , th e secon d violin s an d violas 26, starting
in m.63 , an d bassoons , startin g a t m.67 , shoul d als o hav e four-ba r phrasings /
bowings, a s Beethoven's autograp h clearl y shows. Similarl y the clarine t an d flut e
should b e awar e o f th e upbea t characte r o f th e firs t measure s o f thei r phras e
(m.67 an d m.7 1 respectively) , tha t is , that th e phras e doe s no t star t o n a 'one' ,
but rathe r straddle s the underlyin g four-bar structurin g by being shifte d on e ba r
early. (Ho w man y time s I hav e hear d clarinetist s an d flutist s pla y thi s phras e
incorrectly, withou t an y awarenes s of its true placement!) . Th e sam e applies , of
course, t o th e bassoon s who , jus t lookin g a t thei r bar e part , hav e littl e wa y of
knowing tha t thei r entranc e i n m.6 7 i s i n fac t o n a 'weak ' upbea t par t o f th e
structure. Likewise , cello s an d basse s mus t pla y their motiv e goin g fro m a 'two '
to a 'three, ' whic h i s quit e differen t fro m th e las t tim e the y playe d i t i n th e
mm.28-38 section .
At m.9 3 a terribl e habit— a ba d traditio n an d misguide d interpretation—ha s
crept into th e performanc e o f innumerable conductors : holdin g up th e tempo for
this on e ba r (wha t the German s cal l ausholen), an d a t th e sam e tim e staccato -
shortening the final quarter-note, th e A in the violins— a spurious addition no t to
be foun d i n Beethoven' s autograp h o r th e firs t edition . Walter , Kubelik , Böhm ,
Szell, Mehta, and Carlo s Kleiber , among others , are the conductor s mos t guilty of
this temp o distortion . Th e effec t i s ludicrous i n al l respects , fo r i t interrupt s th e
flow, the inexorable drive of the previous ten bars to the B b summit at m.64, mani-
fested no t only by the mountin g crescendo an d the insisten t impetuousness of the
26. Th e vulga r swoopin g crescendo s on e hear s o n Briiggen' s Harnoncourt' s an d Gardiner' s re -
cording (i n mm.75 and 77 , for example) are totally gratuitous additions , no t indicate d in Beethoven' s
autograph, no r i n th e commonl y availabl e scor e an d parts .
melodic line, but th e powerfu l harmonic progression (A dim. — El> minor—Cl> ma -

jor— C dim.). The ineptnes s and banalit y of this idea can also be measured by the
presence o f the tw o eighth-notes i n th e viola s and basses , whic h clearl y signify a
driving forward, no t a holding back. Conductors wh o make this ritenuto probably
think they are helping to clarify th e for m a t this juncture (as if everything Beetho -
ven doe s her e harmonically , melodically , dynamically , structurall y isn't alread y
clear enough), little realizing that they are instead ravaging the form. It is a Bülow-
ian arrogance, which assumes that a conductor know s better what Beethoven actu -
ally wanted, and that the (presumably ) ignorant public needs to have these formal
aspects blatantly pointed ou t to them.
In m.9 4 Beethove n reassert s the ful l four-ba r structuring—Weingartner sa w it
as re-establishing the "unequivoca l priorit y of the four-ba r phrasing " —in blazing
ff orchestra l colors , constantl y playin g with th e succinc t motivi c material , keep -
ing i t fres h an d unpredictable , finall y reachin g a might y E b majo r cadenc e i n
m.122. Contrar y to what the Viennes e novelis t and compose r E . T . A. Hoffma n
wrote i n 181 0 abou t Beethoven' s Fifth , hearin g i n th e firs t movemen t onl y a
kind o f "mechanical repetitio n o f a four-note motivic cell," we can se e the man y
fascinating way s Beethove n use s hi s mai n theme , whic h g o fa r beyon d mer e
repetition. Th e them e i s constantly varied , in registe r an d orchestration , an d b y
continually shiftin g i t around withi n th e four-ba r structuring , we hea r an d se e it
always i n differen t context s an d juxtapositions . Equall y astonishin g i s it s se -
quencing, tha t is , the manner i n whic h eac h motivic/themati c varian t develops
out o f it s predecessor . I n eac h instanc e w e sens e tha t n o othe r sequenc e o f
events seem s t o hav e bee n possible ; an d i t i s the utte r naturalness , the organi c
inevitableness o f thi s continuit y whic h arouse s ou r wonder . I t i s a s i f i n eac h
new motivi c varian t all it s previous appearances ar e echoed . I t i s this extraordi-
nary sens e o f inevitability—th e feelin g o n ou r par t a s listener s that ever y mo -
ment o f the musi c i s the resul t of a natural , utterly logical progressio n to whic h
there simpl y are n o bette r alternatives—tha t w e registe r with awe . As Bernstein
once said , speakin g o f th e firs t movemen t o n on e o f hi s telecasts , i t i s musi c
"that follow s it s own laws . And w e can' t resis t it."
The El > cadence , a t onc e powerfu l an d stabilizing , provide s th e springboar d
for th e musi c t o retur n t o th e ver y beginnin g fo r a might y 124-ba r repetition , a
repetition whic h i s fortunately traditional nowaday s but i n earlie r time s wa s of-
ten omitted . Nikisc h an d Straus s and eve n Walte r (recordin g i n th e lat e 1950s )
forgo thi s important repetition. T o disregard it is to destro y the intende d propor -
tions o f Beethoven' s flawles s forma l design . Becaus e th e movement' s fou r sec -
tions—exposition, development , recapitulation , an d cod a —are virtuall y identi -
cal i n length , th e weigh t an d themati c centralit y o f the expositio n ar e seriously
undercut whe n th e movemen t i s presente d i n fou r equa l parts , ABA^ . Re -
peating the exposition , thus strengthenin g it s role a s the fountainhea d o f all that
follows, give s the movemen t it s final needed balanc e and proportio n (AAB A C) .
One migh t als o add tha t the exposition , with its 12 4 bars lastin g little more than
a minut e —played a t th e co n brio tempo, o f cours e —is s o shor t that ther e i s n o
excuse fo r eliminatin g it s repetition . And whe n i t i s don e a t a brigh t co n brio
tempo, i t is a welcome return , no t a boring repetition as when don e to o slow .
Proceeding no w to the developmen t section , w e have already seen tha t m.12 5

is a 'four, ' a n upbea t gesture . Bu t not e tha t th e strings ' four-not e respons e
bounces, a s i t were , of f o f a 'one, ' descendin g t o a ('weak' ) 'two. ' Thi s strin g
response t o th e wind s ha s severa l functions ; i t expands , enlarges , th e origina l
motto, no t onl y durationall y bu t harmonically . Th e D t an d C (alon g wit h th e
winds' fi t an d G ) relat e bac k t o th e previou s & cadenc e an d a t the sam e tim e
serve to prepare an d se t up th e ne w temporary tonality of F mino r (m.130) . This
ingenious modulatio n ca n b e capsulize d a s follow s (Ex . 15) . Although ther e i s
no E N i n mm . 127-28, on e clearl y hears th e C dominan t functio n here , makin g
the F mino r o f m. 130 inevitable.
Ex. 1 5
Note to o tha t b y expandin g th e origina l motiv e b y on e ba r b y virtu e o f th e

strings' response , Beethove n doe s no t hav e t o tampe r wit h th e four-ba r structur -
ing; everythin g is in place , th e mm . 127-28 representin g 'two ' and 'three. ' These
also relat e bac k t o mm . 3-4, implyin g tha t th e fermat a mus t b e hel d a s long a s
the secon d fermat a o f the openin g mott o an d perhap s even , becaus e o f the one -
bar extensio n an d th e harmoni c implication s here , a touc h longer—still , how -
ever, no t s o muc h a s t o interrup t th e flow , th e rhythmi c undercurrent , o f th e
music.
The developmen t sectio n begin s innocentl y enoug h b y restatin g th e mai n
thematic material , onl y now in F mino r an d subtl y reorchestrated, addin g clari-
nets t o th e earlie r instrumentation . Tw o three-ba r crescendo s a littl e late r ar e
both followe d b y a p subito. Wha t i s unusua l abou t that—an d ver y excitin g
when performer s are awar e o f it—i s tha t thes e p' s com e o n a 'four, ' th e fourt h
beat o f the four-ba r phrase , no t a s a mor e ordinar y composer migh t hav e done ,
on a 'one ' (Plat e IV , p . 141) . I t i s curiou s tha t i n almos t al l performance s th e
second o f thes e p' s (m.153 ) i s neve r playe d a s softl y a s th e firs t on e (m.145) .
While mos t conductors d o observe the p subito, the flut e an d obo e ten d to ente r
too loudly. The reason , I suspect, i s that their entranc e i s preceded b y thirty bars
of rest . I n m.153 , al l tha t thes e player s see i n thei r part s i s p. Bu t wha t kind o f
p? I n relatio n t o what ? Sinc e the y don' t participat e i n th e previou s three-ba r
crescendo, the y ar e enterin g cold , a s it were , ou t o f the blue , ou t o f context. A
conductor mus t kee p a shar p ea r ope n t o mak e sur e tha t th e flut e i n m.15 3 b e
no loude r tha n th e viola s and cello s wer e i n m.14 5 (th e sam e note s transpose d
up a fifth).
The nex t performance pitfal l lurk s between m.15 8 and m . 168—which, by the
way, includes anothe r on e o f Beethoven's six-ba r add-ons. The temptatio n her e is
to make the crescend o to o early. Beethoven indicate s a crescendo onl y in m.166,
but man y conductors and orchestra s start i t half a dozen bar s earlier . What differ -
ence doe s it make? All the differenc e i n th e world ! When th e passag e is played as
Beethoven wrote it, the sudde n two-bar crescendo in mm . 166-67 comes a s a ter-
rific surprise —taking us all the wa y from p or pp t o a full orchestr a fin a mere two
bars. The effec t i s startling and trul y Beethovenian. Makin g a gradual crescend o
starting, say, in m.160, reduces the whol e passage to something quit e ordinary. So
does not maintainin g a real p (p p i n th e trumpet s and timpani ) in m . 158, a care-
lessness of which a host o f conductors i s guilty. A tally of how variou s conductors
fared o n thi s passage breaks down a s follows: thos e wh o held th e crescend o bac k
are Toscanini, Furtwängler , Klemperer, Jochum, Reiner , Muti, Haitink , Van Ot-
terloo, Kempe , Ansermet , Ashkenazy, Dohnanyi, Böhm , Coli n Davi s an d bot h
Kleibers (fathe r an d son) , Brüggen, and Gardiner ; thos e wh o made (o r allowed) a
runaway crescendo ar e Nikisch, Weingartner, Mengelberg, Wand, Bernstein, Wal-
ter, Ormandy, Masur, Harnoncourt, and three of the 'early music' specialists, Nor-
rington, Hogwood and the Hanover Band.
Measures 168 , 172 , 176 , an d 18 0 are al l 'ones ' i n th e four-ba r structure , th e
eighth-note figur e alway s o n 'four. ' Her e Beethoven' s dynami c indication s ar e
wonderfully explicit : f— but onl y //—at m.168 , più f a t m.17 5 an d a dotte d lin e
indicating a crescendo, 27 i.e . eve r mor e pi ù f (m. 176-77), and finally arriving at
a ff. The proble m ofte n i s that the f a t m.17 6 is too loud, thus makin g i t virtually
impossible to carr y out Beethoven' s graduate d dynami c increase i n mm . 175-79.
The 'hor n call ' o f mm. 59-62 i s now heard i n th e violin s (i n G major) , an d
nine bar s late r i n C major . A t m.182 an d m.19 0 ne w generall y ignore d perfor -
mance problem s arise . The vas t majority o f conductors pa y inordinate attentio n
here t o th e violin s and th e descendin g figur e i n th e lowe r strings , while payin g
no attentio n t o th e remarkabl e thing s Beethove n i s doing i n th e winds . O n 9 0
percent o f th e recording s sampled , thes e win d interjection s ar e eithe r totall y
inaudible, jus t barel y audible, o r unevenl y audible . An d ye t thi s i s one o f Bee -
thoven's mos t darin g an d 'modern ' idea s i n th e whol e movement , th e wind s
clambering u p th e rang e ladde r i n diminishe d fifths(!) (Ex. 16) ; moreove r i n a
slightly truncate d for m o f th e origina l motive , reduce d no w fro m thre e
Ex. 1 6
eighth-notes to two.We can see here, as I mentioned earlier , how each new musical
thought flows out o f some previous , sometimes immediatel y prior, idea. The first
time thi s anapestic varian t is used occurs a few bars earlier in mm. 177-78. It sug-
gests that Beethoven ma y have felt that, after nearl y one hundred reiteration s of the
original three-note cell , i t was perhaps time to vary it and tr y something different .
In an y case , th e proble m her e (mm . 182-94) i s (a ) t o mak e th e wind s audibl e
against the strings and (b) to match up the five wind groups dynamically: trumpets,
bassoons, clarinets , oboes , flute s (bassoons , horns , clarinets , oboes , flute s i n
mm. 190-94). Balance problems are exacerbated by the fact that these two passages
27. Beethoven' s frequentl y use d markin g più f i s nowadays often misunderstood . It doe s not signif y
a sudde n increas e i n dynami c bu t is , rather , Beethoven' s wa y o f indicatin g a gradua l crescendo ,
usually fro m f t o eventuall y ff .
Plate I V Mm.145-16 8 o f the firs t movemen t o f Beethoven's Fift h Symphon y
are lackin g any specific dynamic indications , eithe r i n Beethoven' s autograp h o r

the tw o early editions (Breitkopf & Härtel, and Peters) . Did Beethove n simpl y for-
get? Possibly; we'll neve r know. My suggested dynamic s are /fin th e woodwinds , f
in the brass . (Woodwind doublings are not the answer—althoug h I suppose i t rep-
resents an easy , lazy way out o f the problem. ) All it takes to clarify thi s remarkable
passage is (1) to rehearse the wind s once alone, makin g them aware of the impor -
tance—and novelty—of the passage, and (2 ) to restrain the strings from playin g too
monstrously loud . Suddenl y everythin g Beethove n wrot e ca n b e wonderfull y
heard. Th e onl y recording s o n whic h thi s passag e i s fully mastere d ar e thos e o f
Nikisch, Toscanini , Reiner , Szell , Mitropoulos , Krips , Ozawa, Mehta , an d Har -
noncourt. Som e conductor s o n th e othe r han d —Karajan, Furtwängler , Wand ,
Masur, Brüggen, Gardiner an d Carlos Kleiber—seem to be unaware that there are
any winds participating in these measure s at all!
At m.196 begins on e o f the mos t remarkabl e passages in al l of music. Startin g
in F mino r wit h a varian t o f the mm.59-6 2 'hor n call, ' alternatin g wind s an d
strings i n heav y sustained chord s (not e th e clas h o f the trumpets ' C agains t th e
bassoons' Dl > i n th e secon d measure , rarel y brought ou t i n th e sevent y or so sam-
pled recordings) , Beethoven modulate s hi s way through a n amazin g series of har-
monies: F minor , G ^ major, F seventh , B I» minor , Cl > major, Dl > major, F t minor ,
D major—stil l later , afte r a ff main-motiv e interruption— D diminished sevenths .
If that were all, it would already suffice t o call the passage 'astonishing,' 'ingenious,'
'miraculous.' But there i s much more ; i n these thirty-tw o bars Beethoven no t only
manages t o incorporate, halfway through , a long fourteen-bar diminuendo fro m f f
to pp, changin g a t the sam e time from two-ba r alternations of winds and string s to
one-bar alternations , bu t als o manage s t o includ e a n out-of-syn c five-bar phrase.
This five-bar phrase still comes a s a surprise and a shock to listeners and perform-
ers,28 eve n t o thi s da y when, afte r nearl y two hundre d year s of hearing an d per -
forming this piece, on e migh t have expected th e surpris e to have worn off.
But exactl y where i s this five-bar phrase? O n tha t subjec t man y grea t mind s
have disagree d ove r th e years , and possibl y there ar e tw o equall y vali d answers
to th e question . Le t u s examin e th e score . W e kno w fro m al l o f ou r previou s
structural analysi s that m.19 6 i s a 'one. ' I f tha t i s so , an d i f w e follo w throug h
with mor e four-ba r phrases, the n mm.200 , 204 , 208 , 212 , 216 , 220 , and 22 4 will
also al l b e 'ones. ' An d i f all that i s true, then th e f f mai n motiv e burstin g i n a t
28. Ho w powerfull y th e four-ba r structurin g o f th e movemen t ca n tak e hol d ca n b e hear d i n a

recording mad e o f Brun o Walte r rehearsin g th e firs t tw o movement s o f th e Beethove n Fifth . A s
Walter, wh o afte r al l ha d b y tha t tim e conducte d th e symphon y dozen s i f not hundred s o f times ,
approaches th e en d o f thi s passage , twice h e exhort s th e musician s to pla y th e oncomin g ff — onl y
he doe s s o one bur to o early! Th e gravitationa l pul l o f the four-ba r structurin g had hi m momentarily
confused, s o that suddenl y he coul d no t dea l wit h tha t five-bar anomaly.
Similarly, Toscanin i i n hi s 195 2 broadcas t an d telecas t performanc e of th e Beethove n Fift h ca n
be see n an d hear d t o conduc t th e f f o f m.228 on e ba r early !
m.228 ha s go t t o b e a 'five. ' Bu t w e kno w that thi s mai n motiv e alway s starts—
and ha s consistantl y started—o n a 'four. ' Her e to o i t i s o n a 'four, ' bu t sittin g i n
the place o f a 'five. ' Tha t m.22 8 i s metricall y an d gesturall y a 'four ' i s born e
out b y th e fac t tha t mm.229-3 2 clearl y compris e th e origina l basi c four-ba r
structuring, , exactly as in mm . 1-5, 6-9 ,

59-62, an d man y othe r places . Furthe r reiteratio n an d confirmatio n o f thi s
structuring com e a fe w bar s late r whe n th e three-eighth-not e motiv e i s i n it s
right place , startin g o n a 'four ' (m.240) . Shoul d w e stil l doub t tha t evidence ,
then w e nee d onl y coun t throug h tw o furthe r four-ba r phrase s t o receiv e un -
equivocal confirmatio n o f the fact , fo r in m.24 8 we come to a full recapitulatio n
of the openin g o f the symphony , fermata s and all , although quit e reorchestrated .
In this interpretiv e version then, all flows naturally from th e m.19 6 starting point
in eigh t four-bar entities, wit h th e las t one extende d t o five bars to accommodat e
the eruptiv e anacrusi s eighth-note motiv e (Ex.17) .
Ex.17
An alternate readin g of this passage i s offered b y Schenker, 29 in which h e con -

tends that the initial four-bar phrasing is abrogated i n m.209, turning "an originally
weak measur e int o a strong one, " i n turn makin g m.21 0 a weak one. Fro m ther e
on (m.209) in Schenker's accountin g there remain twenty bars up to and including
the anacrusis measure m.22 8 (five four-bar units or ten two-ba r units). This i n turn
means that Schenker's five-bar phrase comprise s mm.204-08 (Ex. 18).
Ex.18
There i s logic t o bot h interpretations . I n Schenker' s version , th e logi c lies —

so som e woul d say—i n th e fac t tha t th e highe r note s (i n th e woodwinds ) ar e
now o n stron g beats , th e lowe r note s (i n th e strings ) o n wea k beats . Thi s i s a
possible way of looking at it . Bu t I personally do no t fin d thi s reasonin g particu-
larly compelling , becaus e I se e n o inheren t priorit y that uppe r note s (o r wood-
wind notes ) carr y i n term s o f weight o r strengt h o f beat. Indeed , I coul d mor e
readily presen t a counterargumen t that , i n thousand s o f so-calle d oom-pa h ac -
companiments i n bot h classica l an d popula r musi c the

lower note contain s suc h weigh t an d strength . B y that criterio n Beethoven coul d
just as easily hav e mean t th e lowe r strin g notes t o b e o n stron g beats, th e wind s
on wea k beats (a s in m y Ex . 17 ; see th e phras e bracketing) .
Schenker wa s also basin g hi s explanatio n o f this passag e o n a harmoni c an d
melodic analysi s by means o f which h e delineate s th e Urlinie (th e basi c line) —
in effec t th e fundamenta l long-ter m harmoni c rhythm s —of th e entir e move -
ment. I t woul d g o beyon d th e scop e o f thi s stud y t o explor e full y Schenker' s
approach t o th e movement' s basi c harmoni c line , bu t i n respec t t o th e passag e
under discussio n h e argue s tha t th e B t mino r chor d o f m.209 i s part o f a larg e
harmonic rhyth m tha t give s i t mor e tha n passin g structura l importance . Hi s
diagram (Ex . 19) , emende d t o sho w th e ba r number s t o whic h th e pitche s (th e
harmonic stations ) refer , i s correc t u p t o th e F (m . 196) an d possibl y eve n
Ex. 1 9
the Bl > (m.209) . I t i s thereafte r tha t Schenker' s logi c break s down , fo r Beetho -
ven's amazin g continuin g modulation, plu s the tw o ff interruptions surroundin g
the seve n bar s of quie t diminishe d chords , canno t b e fitte d int o hi s scheme . I t
29. Schenker , Beethoven: Fifth Symphony pp . 12-13,18 .
is a lon g stretc h fro m m.20 9 t o m.249 , wit h a lo t happenin g whic h canno t b e

skipped over—whic h Schenker , alas , does —nor explaine d i n term s o f hi s sche -
matic assumptions , a process he see s define d b y what h e call s the Quartknoten-
punkte (noda l point s o f a fourth) . (Fo r mor e o n thi s se e Schenker' s Beethoven:
Fifth Symphony.) I thin k tha t Schenke r wa s (untypically ) fo r onc e seduce d b y
the beautiful symmetry of his diagram (Ex.19 ) G / C /^ p / B t / E ^ j-j e a ]so was
clutching a t straws , I think , whe n h e argue d tha t Beethoven' s diminuend o i n
m.210, followe d on e ba r late r b y a diminuend o i n th e winds , wa s mean t t o
indicate "thereb y tha t th e characte r [o f m.210 ] wa s a wea k bea t compare d t o
m.209." Apar t from hi s inabilit y to demonstrat e tha t thi s i s in fac t wha t Beetho -
ven's tw o 'diminuendo ' indication s mean , Beethove n woul d no t hav e pu t a di-
minuendo sig n int o a n empt y measure . Thu s ther e i s no mor e significanc e to
the diminuend o i n m.211 than tha t it happened t o be the first measure in which
the compose r coul d indicat e suc h a diminuendo i n th e winds , the previou s bar
being empty ; and , a s I say , Beethove n woul d no t hav e writte n a diminuend o
indication int o a n empt y measur e (no r would an y logically thinking composer).
Schenker's accoun t o f th e passag e als o ha s th e advantage—s o som e woul d
argue—that the f f interruptio n i n m.22 8 no w fits neatly int o a four-bar unit , an d
is therefor e no t a s disruptive , not a s disturbing , as i n th e othe r version . Ah, bu t
that i s precisely th e point ! Di d no t Beethoven , th e 'titanic, ' eve n a t time s 'de -
monic' composer, wh o gav e us so many 'disturbing' moments , s o many shockers
in hi s music , wan t suc h a disruptio n here ? An d ho w bette r coul d h e achiev e
this disruptio n tha n t o lul l u s int o a comfortabl e acceptanc e o f th e four-ba r
structuring, couple d wit h a calmin g diminuendo , an d then , suddenly , hi t u s
with a shatterin g explosion ? I submi t furthe r tha t i t woul d see m ver y unlikely
that Beethove n woul d have stuc k his five-bar phrase somewhere int o the middl e
of thi s passage . H e would , judgin g b y hi s genera l life-lon g workin g methods ,
have pu t i t either a t the beginnin g or at the end .
Finally, on e las t argumen t fo r wha t I wil l dar e t o cal l th e 'Schulle r version '
resides i n th e fac t tha t Beethove n break s u p hi s four-ba r phrase s int o two-ba r
units o f alternating wind s an d strings . I canno t fin d an y overwhelmin g reason s
why tha t pattern , establishe d fo r a t leas t twelv e bar s (mm . 196-207), shoul d b e
abandoned i n th e nex t two bars and b e broke n int o artificially . I t is more i n th e
spirit o f th e ever-inventive , ever-explorativ e Beethove n min d tha t th e pattern -
breaking woul d hav e manifeste d itsel f i n th e break-u p o f th e initia l four-ba r
structures, divide d a t firs t int o instrumentationall y an d registrall y differentiate d
iwo-bar phrases, then int o one-ba r units , as well as in th e eve r greater 'hesitance '
and stretchin g ou t o f th e harmoni c progressio n (initiall y two bar s pe r chord ,
then, i n m.215 , six bars per chord , an d finally, in m.221 , seven bars). 30
Unfortunately, mos t conductor s an d performer s do no t kno w what t o mak e of
this passage and mor e o r less drif t throug h it , not awar e of where they are i n th e
30. Anothe r totall y different , an d i n m y vie w unnecessaril y fanciful , analysi s o f th e passag e
(mm. 196-232) i s contained i n a n articl e b y Andrew Imbrie, (" 'Extra' Measure s and Metrica l Ambi-
guity i n Beethoven , i n Beethoven Studies, ed . A . Tyso n (Ne w York , 1973) , i n whic h th e author ,
one o f America's very fines t composers , not onl y dispute s Schenker's interpretatio n but develop s a n
metric/rhythmic schem e o f things . Mos t recording s that I hav e sample d follo w

neither o f the abov e versions , but fo r n o discernibl e o r logica l reason s turn th e
beats aroun d i n m.199 , whic h the y trea t a s a 'one. ' Bu t tha t make s a complet e
mess structurally , for no w w e hav e a three-ba r uni t (mm . 196-98), presumabl y
followed b y seven four-ba r units , bu t leavin g us a t the en d wit h a left-ove r 'one -
two' (mm.227-28) . Muti , Leibowitz , Rodzinsky, and Boul t ar e t o b e especiall y
commended a s th e onl y conductor s wh o di d no t tur n th e bea t aroun d a t
mm.199 o r 20 1 (whethe r by design o r b y chance, I cannot say).
For anyone interested how this passage sounds (and feels) whe n played in what I
believe to be the correc t structuring, I strongly recommend Leibowitz' s recording.
In it one ca n hear what I consider to be perhaps the mos t remarkable aspect of this
entire episode , namely , tha t i f the weightie r beats ar e maintaine d i n th e string s
(with th e woodwind s as a sort of subtle 'afterbeat' ) in mm . 210-27, then on e wil l
hear the wondrous effect of this phrase feeling being reversed when i n mm.233-39
it is the woodwinds' turn to have the 'strong ' beats and the strings the 'weak ' beats.
Measure 196 ha s als o bee n a favorit e plac e fo r conductor s t o slow dow n i n
tempo, man y o f them inordinately . This make s little sense sinc e Beethove n ha s
already slowe d dow n th e motio n o f the musi c b y composing th e singl e longes t
passage i n th e whol e movemen t entirel y se t i n half-notes . Surel y an y furthe r
slowing dow n i s not required .
Figure 3 (pp . 148-49 ) show s ho w mos t conductor s hav e handle d thi s temp o
question.
elaborate an d somewha t convolute d theory , whic h attempt s t o demonstrat e tha t Beethove n di d no t
conceive th e firs t movemen t o f his Fift h Symphon y i n a basicall y quartenary o r binar y structuring .
Imbrie argue s tha t man y passage s ar e asymmetricall y constructe d ou t o f variou s combination s o f
threes, fives , an d sixes . I t goe s beyon d m y intention s an d th e scop e o f thi s stud y t o full y describ e
and the n refut e Imbrie' s reasonings . Suffic e i t to say that th e majo r flaws in hi s discussio n li e i n th e
fact tha t (a ) h e completel y ignore s th e existenc e (o r possibilit y o f existence ) o f th e five-ba r phras e
under consideratio n here ; (b ) although h e present s counterargument s t o most o f Schenker's analysis ,
he accept s th e on e poin t wher e i n fact , I believe , Schenke r errs—hi s pivota l argumen t tha t m.20 9
is both a 'four ' an d a 'one'—an d build s hi s entir e theor y aroun d it . And i n orde r t o d o that, Imbri e
felt th e nee d t o completel y 'restructure ' the entir e previou s passag e o f mm.168-96. I n hi s somewha t
tortuous speculation s Imbri e feel s compelle d t o argu e tha t mm . 176-78 an d 179-8 1 ar e three-ba r
units. Thi s i n tur n make s mm.17 9 an d 18 7 'ones'—the latte r a rea l impossibility , sinc e Beethove n
would neve r hav e place d a first-inversion chord o n a 'one', particularl y in suc h a structurally critical
juncture a t o r near th e beginnin g o f the developmen t section—and i t makes m.19 6 a 'two, ' anothe r
musical impossibility , give n th e harmonic , dynamic , an d durationa l weigh t Beethove n give s thi s
measure. I fin d i t curiou s tha t Imbri e woul d ignor e an d (b y implication) no t accep t a simpl e five-
bar uni t a t m.224— a nic e touc h o f asymmetry , afte r all—bu t woul d instea d inven t a muc h mor e
complex an d les s tenabl e hypothesi s o f metri c organizatio n t o justif y hi s assumptio n o f "metrica l
ambiguity i n Beethoven. "
It is sad to repor t tha t Igo r Markevitch , on e o f the 20t h century' s fines t conductor s an d composers ,
in hi s aforementione d stud y o f Beethove n symphonie s seem s t o b e totall y unawar e o f Beethoven' s
five-bar phrase a t m.224 , fo r although h e offer s a n exhaustiv e bar-by-ba r periodizatio n analysi s of th e
entire movemen t (mostl y ver y arbitrary , i n m y view) , h e goe s int o n o detai l regardin g m . 196-247,
in effec t glossin g over Beethoven' s mos t remarkabl e metric anomaly .
Peter Gülk e i n hi s critica l repor t fo r th e ne w Peter s editio n o f Beethoven' s Fift h basicall y follow s
Schenker's analysi s of the passage . (See Zu r Neuausgabe de r Sinfonie Nr . 5 von Ludwig va n Beethoven
(Leipzig, 1978) , PP. 56-57. )
Strauss i s trul y 'od d ma n out ' i n th e interpretatio n o f thi s passage . Havin g

ambled alon g a t various speeds ( J = 9 6 a t the beginnin g o f the movement , b y
m.14 u p to j = 104 , at m.2 5 dow n t o J = 96 , at m.63 J = 88 , accelerat-
ing bac k t o J = 9 4 aroun d m.94) , Straus s suddenl y pushe s th e temp o dra -
matically a t m.19 6 t o J = 104 , slams throug h th e nex t eigh t bar s a t a terrifi c
speed (completel y surprising and disorientin g the orchestra) , the n —just a s per-
versely—slowing dow n b y m.21 0 t o a sluggis h J = 84 . Measur e 23 3 i s eve n
slower ( J = 80) , whereupon h e agai n pounce s ont o m.24 0 a t a ful l spee d o f
J = 104 , a 24-poin t jump , with the orchestr a agai n surprise d an d disorganized .
Perhaps th e mos t difficul t aspec t o f thi s passag e (mm . 196-239) strictl y fro m
the poin t o f vie w o f instrumental/technica l contro l i s th e prope r sustainin g o f
all th e half-notes , especiall y when th e musi c break s down int o single alternatin g
half-note duration s a t m.210 . Wha t on e almos t alway s hear s i n thi s passage ,
instead o f J, i s J. 7 and J. . ? , or worse J- 1 and J- ? . To hold
each half-not e withou t an y decreas e o f sound righ t u p t o the ba r line—bu t no t

beyond i t either—is fiendishly hard an d take s terrific concentratio n an d control .
It i s something musician s ar e almos t neve r aske d t o do . M y poin t i s tha t eac h
half-note mus t connec t precisel y with eac h succeedin g half-note , neithe r fallin g
short of it no r overlappin g wit h it ; and, of course, a t it s designated dynami c th e
note mus t no t diminuendo . I kno w o f onl y on e wa y to achiev e thi s resul t an d
that i s fo r al l th e musician s t o coun t i n thei r min d tw o quarter-note s o r fou r
eighth-notes, a s they hold thei r note. This may sound naiv e or simplistic to som e
readers, bu t i t works. Indeed, i t i s the onl y way the ful l magi c an d originalit y of
this passag e ca n b e realized . I hav e hear d onl y three recordings , thos e o f Krips,
Schuricht, an d Mitropoulos , i n which th e passag e was played in a well-sustained
manner.
Some conductors , lik e Mengelberg , Leibowitz , Mitropoulos , an d Ormandy ,
ask the string s to play two successive down-bow s i n mm . 198-99, 202-203 , 206 -
207. Whil e thi s ma y ad d a certai n weigh t an d powe r t o th e sound , i t als o i s
bound t o shorte n th e duratio n o f the half-note s (t o | J- t \) , thu s illogicall y
differentiating th e string s fro m th e wind s an d destroyin g Beethoven' s intende d
sustained continuit y as well a s his four-ba r phrasing.
The nex t dange r spo t come s i n o r aroun d m.245 , especiall y m.248 . Her e
many conductor s mak e a greate r o r lesse r ritardand o (som e a s earl y as m.245),
then eve n slowe r at m.250. They seem t o have n o ide a tha t the y hav e jus t com e
upon th e recapitulatio n (Ex.20 ) an d tha t on e wa y of makin g tha t clea r migh t
be t o stay i n tempo. Doin g s o i n fac t produce s a n extraordinar y impact o n th e
listener. I t i s a s i f a n objec t wer e hurtlin g alon g a t ful l spee d an d suddenl y
Ex. 2 0
Fig. 3
Conductor Basic Temp o Tempo a t m . 19 6
Norrington J=108 J=104

Gardiner J=108 J=104
Brüggen J=106 J = 98
Dohnanyi J=104 J = 96
Karajan (1984 ) J=104 J = 92
Toscanini J=104 J = 98 ( a t m . 2 0 0j = 90)
Hickox J=104 a—
Giulini J=100 J = 82
Steinberg J=100 J = 88
Scherchen J=100 J = 96
C. Kleibe r J=100 J = 92
Furtwängler J = 98-1 00 J = 86
Karajan (1962 ) J = 98 J=104
Reiner J = 98 J = 90
Hogwood J = 96 J = 96
Ansermet J = 96 J = 76
Mitropoulos J = 96 J = 96
Wand J = 96 J = 84
Leibowitz J = 96 J = 96
Suitner J = 96 J = 86
Harnoncourt J = 96 J = 84
Muti J = 96 J = 92
Van Otterlo o J = 96 J = 90
Ozawa J = 96 J = 88
Strauss J = 96 J= 104 (sie)
DeSabata J = 94 J = 74
Weingartner J = 94 J = 88
Haitink J = 94 J = 86
E. Kleibe r J = 94 a—
Walter j =92 J = 92
Rodzinsky J = 92 J = 92
Stokowski (1975) J = 92 J = 80
Maazel J = 92 J = 90
Ashkenazy J = 92 j =88
Hanover Ban d J = 92 J = 88
Munch J = 92 J = 92
Jochum J = 90 J = 88
Mehta j =90 J = 86
Solti J = 90 J = 84
Szell J = 90 J = 84
Schuricht J = 88 J = 84
Kempe J = 88 J = 84
Abbado J = 88 J = 88
Schwarz J = 88 J = 86
Boult J = 88 J = 84
Dorati J = 88 J = 92
Koussevitzky J = 88 J = 84
Kletzki J = 88 J = 82
Schalk J = 88 J = 80
Sawallisch J = 88 J = 84
Nikisch J = 88 J = 80
Ancerl J = 86 J = 82
Thomas J = 86 J = 88
Knappertsbusch J = 84 J = 72
Masur J = 84 J = 80
Colin Davi s J = 84 J = 82
Ormandy J = 84 J = 84
Mengelberg J = 84 J = 84
Bernstein J = 82 J = 72
Böhm J = 80 J = 76
Kubelik J = 80 J = 76
Klemperer J = 80 J = 70
Leinsdorf J = 78 J = 84(sic)
Krips J = 76 J = 76
Boulez J = 74 J = 72
Stokowski (1940 ) J = 86 J = 88
slams int o a solid wall (th e ff chor d a t m.249) . This ungentle simil e i s purposely
chosen, fo r the effec t her e mus t be terrifying , dramatic , unpredictabl e —and yet ,
in retrospect , inevitable. 31 I woul d als o submi t tha t Beethove n wa s perfectl y
capable o f writin g 'poco ritardando (se e mm.7 , 17,5 1 etc . i n th e thir d move -
ment, an d o f course , hundred s o f place s i n othe r works) . No t havin g pu t a
ritardando a t m.248 ough t t o clearl y suggest that h e didn' t wan t one! Her e Nik -
isch's 191 3 performance is rather peculiar. H e rushe s the temp o a t first, acceler-
ating dramaticall y at m.244 , the n put s o n th e brake s at m.24 8 fo r a huge ritard,
followed b y excessivel y long fermatas.
"As in al l great masterpieces , s o too i n th e Fift h Symphony , th e recapitulatio n
is governe d b y th e la w [Gesefe ] o f transformation : w e se e no t a merel y empt y
rattling of f [abschnurrende] [onc e agai n o f the exposition] , but i n variou s details
a ne w life-infusin g repetition. " Thu s Schenker , describin g th e reprise. 32 And i n
truth, Beethove n ingeniousl y reconstitutes th e materia l o f mm.6-21 int o a bril-
liant ne w variant : th e previou s violi n an d viol a part s ar e condense d int o jus t
violins; bassoons alone carr y the bas s line (modified) , previously also maintaine d
by th e cellos ; th e lowe r string s no w provid e "life-infusing " pizzicatos ; clarinet s
31. Furtwängle r onc e wrot e abou t thi s recapitulatio n tha t "i t i s neve r prepare d fo r [eingeführt] i n
any way ; it i s so to spea k suddenl y there " (To n un d Wort, p . 244) . Unfortunately , Furtwängle r i n hi s
performances di d no t follo w th e implicatio n o f hi s fin e insight , for h e make s a sizabl e ritar d i n
m.247—as a resul t o f whic h m.24 8 i s not "suddenl y there"—followe d b y a n eve n slowe r an d mor e
ponderous eighth-not e figur e i n in.25 0 ( J = 72) .
32. Schenker , Beethoven: Fifth Symphony, p . 13.
(and flutes ) ad d th e harmonie s previousl y sustained b y the strings ; and , abov e

all, a slende r melodi c lin e i s added i n th e sol o oboe . Thi s obo e emerge s glori -
ously—like a cocoo n releasin g a gracefu l butterfly—int o a plangen t sol o mini -
cadenza (m.268) , marke d adagio, replacin g mm.21-2 4 o f th e exposition . Al -
though Beethove n give s n o indicatio n i n th e entir e obo e lin e (mm.254-68 ) o f
its gradua l emergence , it s transformation , int o a ful l blow n sol o —I thin k be -
cause h e coul d no t find the notationa l mean s to do so (più espr. i n m.262 migh t
have done it , but tha t expressio n was not i n commo n us e in 1808 ) —I share wit h
Schenker th e ide a that th e obo e shoul d very subtly and graduall y in mm.262-67
begin t o emerg e int o a leadin g position . Schenke r put s i t ver y carefully : "Th e
oboe shoul d mak e itsel f noticeabl e i n m.262. " M y ow n suggestio n i s tha t th e
oboe begi n i n m.25 4 a s i f merel y playin g a harmon y part , an d the n b y th e
subtlest for m o f increasin g expressiveness—perhap s eve n a subtl e crescend o —
starting i n m.262 , grow into th e dominan t rol e fo r m.268 .
Beethoven's talen t fo r constant variation continues t o be lavishe d on th e reca -
pitulation. Beside s re-orchestratio n i n th e passag e beginnin g wit h m.26 9 (th e
parallel t o m.25) , m.273 signal s a four-bar crescend o i n thunderin g three-octav e
string unisons , bringin g th e musi c u p t o f a t m.277 , i n tur n placin g th e suc -
ceeding reiterativ e sf's (mm.282-8 7 i n a totally differen t (namel y f ) contex t tha n
in th e expositio n (mm.38-43) . A def t modulatio n a t a ke y poin t (mm.300-02)
moves th e musi c t o C majo r (formerl y i n Et ) fo r th e retur n o f the secon d sub -
ject, thereby alread y announcing th e priorit y of the C tonalit y from her e o n ou t
to the en d o f the movement .
A long-standing controvers y exists regarding the us e o f horns instea d o f (or i n
addition to ) bassoon s i n mm.303-30 6 (Ex.21) , and th e reason s wh y Beethove n
Ex. 2 1
did no t us e horn s here , electin g instea d t o giv e th e passag e t o th e bassoons .

(The sketche s sho w tha t Beethove n originall y had i n min d addin g cello s t o th e
bassoons.) Ther e ar e severa l possibl e reasons , foremos t that th e note s c , d ar e
bad, partiall y stopped, note s o n th e E b Naturhom o f the day , hence Beethoven's
decision t o giv e the passag e t o th e bassoons . The alternative s would hav e bee n
(a) t o pul l i n a secon d pai r o f horns , pitche d i n C , whic h coul d hav e playe d
those note s easil y an d well , o r (b ) t o hav e th e tw o hor n player s chang e t o C
crooks prior to this point . This migh t hav e bee n a possibility becaus e Beethove n
does chang e th e horn s t o C i n th e secon d an d fourt h movement s o f th e sym -
phony. Bu t changin g t o C horn s fo r m.30 0 woul d hav e necessitate d no t usin g
the horn s for a t leas t 5 0 to 8 0 o f the previou s measures, at bes t fro m m.25 4 on .
For i t too k anywher e from 3 0 t o 4 5 second s fo r th e player s t o chang e crooks .
This woul d i n tur n hav e mean t eliminatio n o f th e horn s i n th e climacti c ff
measures o f 29 6 t o 272 . That wa s an optio n tha t Beethoven , I imagine , readil y

rejected. H e als o ruled ou t th e othe r option—addin g a secon d pai r of horns for
this passag e — presumably becaus e i t seeme d a littl e sill y t o dra g i n tw o horn s
for a mer e fou r bars , havin g previously , we shoul d note , decide d fo r whateve r
reasons (economical , practical , balanc e i n the brass , etc.) to limit himself in thi s
symphony to tw o horns. 33
The performanc e proble m tha t i s presume d t o plagu e conductor s her e an d
why man y choos e t o substitut e horn s fo r th e bassoon s (o r ad d horn s t o th e
bassoons) i s that nowaday s and fo r som e tim e i n th e past , th e ff o f the moder n
horns an d th e f f o f th e moder n bassoon s ar e fa r fro m equivalent . An d thos e
conductors wh o interprete d (an d stil l interpret ) this symphon y a s an expressio n
of the titani c Romanti c super-her o o r i n post-Wagnerian , post-Mahleria n terms ,
are, o f course , boun d t o b e disappointe d i n th e relativel y smaller soun d mad e
by th e tw o bassoons . Thei r unthinking , automati c solutio n i s to scra p th e bas -
soons an d substitut e horns . I submit thi s i s nonsense, an d no t a t all a s logical o r
necessary a s such conductor s think. 34
Schenker ha d alread y urged th e retentio n o f the bassoons , notin g tha t "mos t
of th e tim e horn s ar e use d instea d o f bassoons , ver y muc h i n erro r [z u Un-
recht}"1''' arguin g tha t Beethove n kne w th e bassoo n extremel y wel l —"his early
works sho w that"—an d tha t h e kne w exactl y what h e wa s doing whe n h e gav e
this passag e t o th e bassoons . H e suggest s tha t instea d o f trying to pla y the thre e
eighth-note G' s wit h "th e mos t blasting " [schmetterndsten] ff , th e weigh t an d
emphasis shoul d b e placed o n the three succeedin g half-notes , especially c ' (in
m.304), a 'one' i n the phras e structuring .
The solutio n t o thi s allege d dilemma , onc e again , lie s no t i n th e pursui t of
playing everythin g ever louder, bu t in—peris h th e thought!—playin g somethin g
occasionally a littl e softer . Thi s (radical ) though t i s particularl y appropriate t o
Beethoven's Fift h Symphony , fo r i t i s perhaps, particularly in it s first movement,
the ultimat e wor k o f whic h on e ca n sa y that i t feel s an d sound s lean , strong ,
muscular—with n o exces s fa t o n it s fram e ('lea n an d hungry ' migh t b e eve n
more apt) ; obese , flabby, ponderous, lazy, heav y musi c i t is certainly not .
I furthe r submi t tha t th e natur e o f the horn s and bassoon s o f Beethoven's da y
offers u s anothe r clu e a s to ho w t o reconcil e thi s apparent—and i t is only appar-
ent—discrepancy. O n th e on e hand , th e natura l hor n o f Mozart's an d Beetho -
33. Havin g alread y use d thre e horn s i n hi s Third Symphon y an d i n tw o key s a t time s (tw o i n &,
one i n C ) i t i s curious that Beethove n di d no t ligh t o n tha t solutio n fo r hi s Fift h Symphony .
34. S o ingraine d i s thi s traditio n i n conductors— I woul d cal l i t anothe r 'ba d habit'—tha t Brun o
Walter, fo r example , i n th e aforementione d recordin g o f hi s rehearsa l of the Fifth' s firs t movement ,
every tim e h e go t t o m.303 , kep t addressin g the horns , speakin g abou t th e horns , callin g fo r th e
horns, whe n al l the tim e onl y the bassoon s had bee n playing . After repeate d attempt s a t this passage,
and Walte r stil l callin g fo r th e horns , th e tw o hor n player s quietl y bega n t o pla y alon g wit h th e
bassoons. Poo r Walte r seem s neve r t o hav e notice d tha t i t wa s bassoons who wer e playing th e pas -
sage, no r notice d an y o f the ensuin g interplay!
In hi s officia l recordin g of the Fift h wit h th e Columbi a Symphon y Orchestra, Walter di d indee d
use th e horn s instead of bassoons.
35. Schenker , Beethoven: Fifth Symphony, p.19 .
ven's da y wa s a n instrumen t wit h a pure , war m tone , ligh t an d buoyan t i n

sound, projectin g well becaus e o f it s purity o f tone , no t it s loudness . Th e bas -
soon, o n th e othe r hand , ha d a rathe r full , round , woods y sound tha t matche d
the hor n ver y well.36 Th e moder n doubl e horn s o f today, depending somewha t
on mak e an d manufacture , ar e generally , i n respons e t o th e demand s o f
Strauss's, Wagner's, an d Mahler' s literature , capable o f an enormou s soun d tha t
in n o wa y relate s t o sound s o f a lat e 18th - earl y 19th-centur y horn . Th e bas -
soons, however , hav e acquire d ove r th e las t centur y a mor e refined , a mor e
cultivated sound, but no t necessaril y all that mor e projecting . Under th e circum -
stances, t o replicat e th e sound s Beethove n ha d i n mind—th e sound s o f th e
instruments h e hear d an d fo r whic h h e wrot e hi s music—al l w e hav e t o d o i s
tell th e hor n player s in mm.59-6 3 no t t o pla y thei r loudes t post-Mahleria n ff ,
but instea d a cultivate d tensil e ff , i n whic h rhythmi c energ y an d articulatio n
play a mor e importan t rol e tha n shee r amplitud e an d sonori c obesity . At th e
same time , i f we ca n encourag e th e bassoon s t o giv e thei r al l i n mm.303-306 ,
a viabl e dynamic relationship betwee n th e tw o passages will have been restored .
Again, Beethoven's extraordinary imagination and sens e for constant variation is
at wor k in th e recapitulatio n o f the 'secon d subject ' episod e (mm.306-46) . No t
only i s it wonderfull y re-orchestrate d but , wherea s the lyri c four-bar phrase wa s
heard three times in the exposition, it is now played four times, alternating between
violins and flute. This expansion in turn allows Beethoven to play around with the
cellos' an d basses ' b y havin g the m shar e i t alternately
with the timpani. At m.323 a different simple r harmonic progression (C7-F-D7-G)
is substituted fo r the earlie r one (EI>-C 7-Fm-DI>-EI>7-AI>). Then, the earlie r eleven-
bar phrase, culminating in the dominant, is now expanded to fifteen (mm.3 31-45)
(Ex.22). Bu t while the latte r is expanded horizontally , it is thinned ou t vertically,
i.e. harmonically : the sustaine d win d harmonie s tha t fleshe d ou t th e passag e in
mm. 8 3-9 3 are now removed, leaving only bare-bones counterpoint, implying a se-
ries of diminished chords. Horns come t o the rescu e to help re-establish the clea r
dominant b y supplying th e sevent h (F) , jus t barely avoiding a rhythmic collisio n
with the FA' S in the melodi c line .
Ex. 2 2
36. Tha t i s why , fo r example , Beethove n wa s abl e t o us e th e bassoo n i n th e grea t Fidelio aria ,
"Abscheulischer, W o Eils t D u Hin " as , i n effect , a fourt h horn , o r wh y Mendelssoh n use d th e
FI.
Once again, in this entir e episod e (mm.306-46 ) the player s must know where
the four-ba r structura l points li e (mm.308 , 312 , etc., no t mm.307 , 311—whic h
is th e wa y one hear s i t playe d s o ofte n —mm.324, 328 , 332 , etc.), an d th e link -
ups betwee n violin s and flut e mus t b e maintaine d t o creat e lon g sixteen-ba r or
at least eight-ba r lines.
Nikisch's an d Furtwängler' s an d Schalk' s link-up s are beautifull y done ; s o are
Erich Kleiber's , Giulini's , Mitropoulos's , an d Walter's . Bu t Bernstein's , Toscani -
ni's, Weingartner's, Masur's , and Wand' s ar e not . Strauss' s interpretatio n remain s
the mos t peculiar , the mos t vagran t as to temp o variations . He take s the secon d
subject (m.306 ) a t a leisurel y « J = 88 , havin g com e dow n fro m variou s faste r
tempos ( j = 96 , J = 104) , bu t b y m.346 i s up agai n a t a hurtlin g J = 11 2
(sic!), eve n faste r tha n Beethoven' s ow n basi c « 1 = 108. 37
bassoon i n th e compan y o f horns i n tw o famou s passages : th e tri o o f hi s Fourt h Symphony' s thir d

movement an d th e Nocturne fro m th e Midsummer Night's Dream musi c (whic h shoul d be—bu t
never is—interprete d a s a horn an d tw o bassoon trio, no t a hor n sol o accompanie d b y two bassoons.
I wa s certainly disappointe d tha t Harnoncour t chos e t o ad d horn s t o th e bassoon s i n m.303 , h e
who pride s himsel f o n performin g Beethove n i n th e 'mos t authentic ' way .
37. Earlier , i n m . 26 6 befor e th e obo e cadenza , Straus s make s a n accelerand o (sic ) as he ha d don e
in th e earlie r analogou s place , m.19 . Knowin g somethin g abou t Strauss' s attitude s i n thes e matters ,
I hav e th e feelin g tha t h e rushe d thes e place s simpl y to counterac t th e slowin g down , th e ponderou s
dragging, tha t mos t conductor s indulge d i n i n hi s time—an d man y stil l d o today .
The AN' s i n m.340-4 6 no t onl y lift th e melodi c lin e fro m it s minor mood, bu t
lift ou r spirit s as well , a s we liste n t o thi s powerfu l motivi c expansion . I t i s as if
the cloud s ar e finally lifting an d th e clea r blu e sky of C majo r i s now imminent .
For i t i s thos e Al>' s tha t specificall y allo w th e musi c t o resolv e t o a joyou s C
major, fo r the first time i n ful l forc e i n th e entir e movemen t (no t countin g th e
brief intermitten t C majo r measure s in th e 'secon d subject') .
One o f the mor e peculia r (an d inept ) interpretation s of the climacti c passage
just befor e th e development-extensio n (m.374 ) i s Bernstein's . Havin g dragge d
along a t a ponderou s temp o fo r the entir e movement—startin g i t a t j = 82 ,
slowing i t ofte n t o a reall y patheti c J = 7 2 (onl y about 3 6 metronome point s
away fro m Beethoven' s temp o indication!)—h e suddenl y lurche s forwar d a t
m.362, jumpin g to—fo r him— a fas t J = 92 . I can' t tel l fro m th e recordin g
whether thi s temp o lea p i s th e resul t o f a n editin g splice , o r whethe r h e sud -
denly remembere d tha t th e en d o f th e movemen t wa s nearing, an d tha t he' d
better ge t the temp o movin g for an excitin g 'flas h finish. '
Measure 37 4 ha s ofte n bee n mistake n fo r th e cod a o f th e firs t movement .
The cod a doe s no t arriv e in fac t unti l m.483 , m.37 4 bein g instea d i n Beetho -
ven's tim e a relativel y new forma l componen t o f th e sonat a form— I a m call -
ing i t development-extension—whic h on e ca n fin d occasionall y i n som e lat e
Haydn symphonies , bu t whic h Beethove n reall y develope d int o majo r propor -
tions i n som e o f hi s symphonies , pian o sonatas , an d strin g quartets , an d mos t
importantly her e (mm . 374-482) i n the first movement o f the Fifth . I t differenti -
ates itsel f fro m th e mai n developmen t sectio n i n tha t roo m i s mad e her e fo r
additional inventions , expressions, variants of material touched upon,earlie r that ,
in th e composer' s view , permits o f (o r demands ) furthe r elaboratio n an d expan -
sion. Thus Beethove n i s intent here on givin g all this accumulated materia l on e
more giganti c work-out , as i f his initia l idea s an d visio n had no t ye t bee n suffi -
ciently though t throug h t o thei r fina l conclusion . Thu s th e development -
extension unfold s i n thre e giganti c episodes , eac h o f whic h rise s fro m th e
tonic C an d fall s bac k t o i t (mm.374 , 423 , an d 439) . I n th e initia l measure s
(mm. 374-481 ) o f th e development-extension , i t i s importan t tha t al l instru -
ments full y sustai n their lon g half-notes :
What on e hear s almos t universall y (especiall y wit h 'perio d instrument ' con -
ductors) i s particularl y in th e strings , who
generally spen d mos t o f their bo w on th e sf, leavin g them wit h a p b y the en d

(or even the middle ) of the lon g note . This completely undermines and weakens
the powe r an d excitemen t o f this climacti c momen t wit h it s brilliant C majo r
outburst.
The brigh t toni c majo r o f m.37 4 i s immediatel y converte d int o a powerfu l
harmonic progressio n (Ex. 23), which Beethove n presently recycles, this tim e i n
the mino r mode i n the secon d episod e (mm.427—29 : It—IV 1 — It1 — IV-V2-!1 etc.).
BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHONY 155
Ex. 2 3
In th e meantime , on e ha s barel y recovered fro m th e terrifyin g shoc k o f the Dl >

ff chor d i n m.38 2 (se e Plate V) when a n eve n greater surprise is in store : anothe r
completely unpredictabl e five-ba r phras e (mm . 3 86-90). Measur e 39 0 is a 'four, '
of course, an d thu s th e inserte d empt y ba r (m.389 ) i s an almos t freakis h phras e
aberration.38 Almos t a s muc h o f a surpris e i s th e sudde n eeri e p reiteratio n o f
the four-not e motive . Thi s passag e brough t suc h consternatio n t o earl y inter -
preters o f the symphony , that the y simpl y cu t th e empt y ba r out , compressin g
the phras e t o it s more comfortabl e an d ordinar y four-bar form . Th e eliminatio n
of m.38 9 ca n b e hear d o n Nikisch' s 191 3 recording !
Measure 39 8 recapitulate s th e openin g motive , thi s tim e withou t fermatas,
and—notó bene— marked onl y f. Mos t conductor s pla y this too loud , wit h grea t
effect perhaps , bu t i t make s th e ensuin g massiv e build-u p an d th e ultimat e
release int o f f a t m.43 9 al l anticlimactic . I t i s a sham e whe n th e cello s
and basse s fai l t o sustai n th e half-note s C-At-Et- F etc. , mm.423 - 32 , whic h
38. Beethoven' s manuscrip t autograph alread y contains thi s 'extra-measure ' phrase ; tha t i s to say , i t
was no t on e o f the addition s mad e a yea r late r i n 1809 , an d thu s mus t hav e bee n include d i n th e
first performance. Still , it was not i n hi s very first conception oftha t passage , as one ca n deduc e fro m
the manuscrip t which her e show s some sign s of struggle and indecisio n (see Plate V). Beethoven was
in th e habi t o f first ruling in th e vertica l bar lines , mor e o r les s equidistant—usuall y comprisin g six
bars pe r page—an d the n fillin g i n th e stave s wit h notes . Th e autograp h show s that m.386 , whic h
initially had a simple rhyth m o f J \ I , was sometime late r divide d into two measures and the
present m.38 7 wa s inserted i n tha t ne w space .
Based o n m y study of the manuscript , I believ e tha t Beethove n originall y meant t o hav e tw o bars
of silence here, befor e the ff outburs t of m. 390. Those two measures would have been, lik e mm.123-
24, 'two ' an d 'three ' o f a four-ba r phrase , an d thu s th e fou r measure s comprisin g th e fina l quarter -
note D t chor d throug h th e eighth-not e diminished-sevent h chor d motiv e fou r bar s late r wer e in -
tended t o recapitulat e tha t earlie r idea (mm.122-25) . Bu t then, havin g completed th e pag e o f score,
Beethoven, perhap s feelin g tha t th e tw o silen t bar s wer e afte r al l a littl e to o empty , impedin g th e
flow and energ y o f the movement , ha d th e ide a to inser t a variant of the openin g four-not e call, bu t
in p— an afterthough t of the f f D t chord . Havin g don e that , h e the n realize d tha t th e f f diminishe d
chord, alread y written at tha t point, could no t follo w hard o n th e tin y p insert . It i s at this point tha t
he lef t th e on e empt y measur e alread y composed i n place .
It i s perhap s audaciou s o f a mer e morta l lik e m e t o second-gues s a n immorta l lik e Beethoven ,
but i t seems t o me tha t i n hi s revision his musica l instincts provided him wit h the absolutel y perfect
solution. I n an y case , i t i s an astonishin g thing t o m e tha t n o othe r conducto r o r writer on Beetho-
ven's Fift h Symphon y ha s eve r studie d an d analyze d ho w Beethove n cam e t o writ e thi s five-bar
phrase. I t i s sa d t o repor t tha t neithe r Igo r Markevitc h no r Pete r Gülke , i n thei r respectiv e ne w
critical edition s of the Beethove n Fifth, mak e any referenc e t o thi s remarkabl e five-bar phrase anom-
aly. Coul d the y have been unawar e of it?
Plate V Autograp h manuscript of mm.383-390 o f the firs t movemen t o f Beethoven's Fift h Symphon y
is ofte n th e cas e whe n th e conducto r suggest s tha t th e firs t si x measure s
here b e playe d al l wit h down-bows . Th e resul t the n i s somethin g like :
. I n ver y fe w recording s wer e thes e
notes properl y sustained, thereb y seriousl y undermining th e powe r an d driv e of

this passage .
A crucia l question , unfortunatel y no t explicitl y answerable , i s whethe r th e
violins shoul d hav e sf s i n mm.427 , 429 , 431 , an d 433 . I t i s har d t o kno w
whether Beethove n (1 ) forgo t to add them, (2 ) thought performer s would simply
assume the m t o continu e ever y alternat e ba r fo r anothe r eigh t measures , o r
whether (3 ) h e intende d som e modifyin g effect fro m m.42 7 on . I rathe r doub t
the last , and sugges t th e retentio n o f the extr a sfs.
The viol a lin e i n m.42 3 (double d i n th e violin s a n octav e higher ) i s no w
restated f f an d expanded , beginnin g i n m.439 , alternatin g wind s (plu s timpani)
with strings , an d heraldin g th e secon d episod e i n th e development-extension .
Here agai n on e canno t stres s enoug h ho w importan t i t i s t o understand , per -
form, hear , an d feel Beethoven' s four-ba r structuring. Measur e 44 2 i s a 'four, '
not a 'one ' (a s i t i s fa r to o ofte n played) . Thes e massiv e chorda l structures ,
produced wit h a n orchestr a n o large r than i n man y a Hayd n symphony , ar e all
the mor e overwhelmin g i n thei r effec t whe n delivere d in on e giganti c line , no t
just merely arbitrarily strung together. Beethoven' s fertil e imaginatio n her e pours
forth a marve l o f rhythmic/structural inventio n whic h operate s o n severa l levels .
On th e on e hand , th e earlie r two-bar phrases, sitting atilt the four-ba r infrastruc -
ture (o n a purel y rhythmic/metri c level) , ar e fragmente d int o variou s one-bar ,
two-bar, three-bar, an d four-ba r phrases (see Ex. 24). On anothe r level—timbral -
orchestrational—the passag e break s dow n int o somewha t differen t phras e
components, sometime s coincidin g wit h th e rhythmic/metri c structuring , some -
times a t odd s wit h it . A third leve l — registral — intersects wit h th e tw o othe r lay -
erings, parallelin g mostl y th e timbra i layer , an d frequentl y entailin g giganti c
registral leaps . Th e thre e levels o f operation, i n composite , produce a structural
Ex. 2 4
The exampl e represent s onl y the uppe r melodi c line . Th e uppe r bracket s represen t
various timbrall y and registrall y delineated phras e lengths ; th e lowe r bracket s represen t
the basi c four-bar metri c structure .
polyphony tha t i s reminiscent o f some o f Bach's more comple x so-calle d mathe -

matical fugues . I t i s precisely because o f the enormou s amoun t o f variation an d
considerable orchestrationa l fragmentatio n i n thi s polyphon y o f layerings , tha t
the conducto r an d player s mus t maintai n a sens e o f th e underlyin g four-ba r
infrastructure—musically anchore d i n it , as it were—lest the three-layere d super-
structure become s a mer e arbitrar y thirty-ba r jumble . Man y conductor s ge t
bogged dow n i n thi s fragmente d texture , unabl e t o maintai n th e relentles s flow
of the music . Ho w excitin g and righ t this sound s whe n full y comprehende d ca n
be hear d o n Mitropoulos' s recording .
Beethoven return s t o th e openin g mott o o f th e symphon y on e fina l tim e
(mm.478-82), more powerfu l an d monumenta l tha n eve r before, starkly 'harmo-
nized' i n bal d thirds , seconds , an d fourths , coverin g a tremendou s rang e o f six
and a hal f octaves . Th e ver y lo w D o f the basse s (mm.481-82 ) mus t b e full y
exploited, requirin g as many five-strin g o r extension-equippe d basse s as possible.
The mos t trul y Beethovenia n wa y o f renderin g thi s fina l retur n o f th e mott o
theme i s not t o bac k int o wit h a ritard ; it i s hair-raising when approache d abso -
lutely i n tempo . Unfortunately , most conductor s abus e thi s passage , turnin g i t
into pompou s bombas t wit h thei r monumenta l ritards , often startin g a s early as
m.476. The wors t offenders her e ar e Bernstein , Stokowsk i (1940), an d Furtwän -
gler, the latter' s tempo i n m.48 0 bein g a n astonishin g J = 3 6 (Jl = 144) !
After thi s massive, shattering reiteration o f the openin g motto , remindin g us of
where this remarkable musical journey began 51/ 2 minutes earlier, Beethoven gives
us to believe tha t he will bring back stil l more of the exposition. Instead he finally
comes t o th e coda . Th e mai n them e (o f m.6) return s i n m.48 3 a s if in a dream ,
from fa r away , darkene d b y a sombe r open-strin g fift h i n th e cellos , an d thre e
winds—bassoons, clarinet, and oboe—weavin g subtle legato garlands around th e
eighth-note motives . But before we can fully appreciate what is happening, Beetho -
ven break s i n wit h a thunderou s ff, an d i n twelv e sharpl y articulated measure s
brings not only the movement to a climactic close but completes the entire cycle of
four-bar phrases in m.502 on not a 'one' but a 'three,' leaving open th e theoretica l
possibility that the entire cycle could start all over again with the 'four' of m.l.
After th e rigorousl y perfecte d structurin g o f th e firs t movement , th e secon d

movement, Andante co n moto, wit h it s lovely, song-like themati c material , pro-
vides a welcome contrast—perhap s eve n relief . Relief i n th e sens e that , nestlin g

between th e relentles s drive and co n brio of the Allegro and th e a t times mysteri-
ous, eve n spectral , at othe r time s roug h an d impetuou s Scherz o (whic h i s then
extended withou t a brea k int o th e tumultuou s triumphan t Finale) , anothe r
tightly constructe d movemen t woul d hav e mad e th e entir e wor k almost beyon d
endurance, emotiona l a s well a s physical . As it is , the secon d movement , wit h
its "tender melodi c sentiment " (a s John Bur k called it 39 ) an d expressiv e simplic-
ity, offer s th e perfec t counterpoise t o it s mighty surroundings.
But eve n here , i n thi s gentler , calme r music , ther e i s a n underton e o f ur -
gency, o f tension , o f motion—a t least ther e should b e i n performance . Thi s i s
clearly indicate d b y the word s con moto i n Beethoven' s temp o headin g an d th e
metronome mar k o f Jl = 92 . And ye t i t i s this underlyin g element (beyon d all
questions o f exterio r detail ) whic h i s mos t consistentl y ignore d o r rejecte d b y
conductors i n rendition s o f thi s movement . I n m y samplin g o f recording s onl y
Harnoncourt honore d Beethoven' s metronom e marking , althoug h a fe w others
came withi n range: Leibowitz at J> = 88 , Dohnanyi an d Norringto n a t Jl = 86 ,
the tw o Kleiber s an d Mengelber g a t J ^ = 84 . Mos t conductor s settle d fo r
a leisurel y Jl = 80 , includin g Toscanini , Suitner , Reiner , Karajan , Bernstein ,
Weingartner, DeSabata , Ashkenazy , Strauss , Boult , an d Wand . Al l th e other s
'interpreted' th e movemen t i n sluggis h tempo s aroun d th e lo w o r middl e 70s ,
with Walter, Krips , and Solt i on the lugubriou s side with an adagio-like Ji = 66 ,
and Stokowsk i with a 'schmaltzy' J^ = 60 . Gardiner, on the othe r hand, drives the
music too fast, most of the time around Jl = 100 .
Some readers will immediately protest: 'Oh, Schuller , here, yo u go again with
Beethoven's damnabl e metronom e markings . W e don't eve n kno w whether the y
are authentic ; they'r e probabl y a mistake . Anyway , it' s to o mechanica l an d aca -
demic t o follo w rigidl y those metronomics. '
Several responses come to mind. First, we don't ¿now—meaning know for sure —
that Beethoven's metronomic s are inaccurate and noi what he really intended. Sec -
ond, workin g within a composer' s metronomi c indication s doe s no t necessarily
lead to 'mechanical,' 'academic' performances, as a number of inspired recordings
that respect composers' tempo marking s can attest.40 'Mechanical,' 'academic' per-
formances resul t fro m ba d conducting , no t 'incorrect ' —or fo r tha t matte r 'cor -
rect'—tempos. Third, why is it that the protester s of Beethoven's metronom e indi -
cations protest selectively; why do the y accep t many—mos t o f the slowe r ones —
and ignor e the fast(er) ones?
Fourth—and thi s i s the mos t importan t point—i f conductor s (an d othe r per -
formers) wis h to ignore Beethoven' s metronom e markings , so be it . But how ca n
39. Joh n N . Burk , The Life an d Works o f Beethoven (Ne w York, 1935) , p . 279 .
40. Ver y fe w recordings , obviously , o f this movement , sinc e non e (excep t Harnoncourt' s an d Lei -
bowitz's, perhaps) respect Beethoven' s metronom e markings. But there ar e any number o f recordings
of variou s movement s an d work s b y an y numbe r o f composer s in which , contrar y t o th e prevailing
'tradition' to ignor e th e metronom e markings , some conductor s have adhered to them an d produced
performances tha t ar e anythin g but 'mechanical ' an d 'academic. '
they dar e t o ignor e hi s temp o headings , i n thi s cas e andante co n moto, no t jus t
andante. (Not e also that in mos t cases Beethoven's metronom e marking s are con -
firmation an d illustratio n of hi s temp o headings. ) I n Italia n andante co n moto
clearly means 'i n a walking tempo with motion.' I t seems t o me tha t th e messag e
thereby given i s unequivocal an d shoul d b e heeded , especiall y when i t is a great
master like Beethoven who i s instructing us.
I wan t t o mak e i t clea r tha t I attach primar y importance t o th e verbal tempo
heading, whic h i n th e cas e o f mos t grea t composer s i s remarkably precise an d
refined, an d i n m y vie w t o b e truste d a s muc h a s o r perhap s eve n mor e tha n
the metronomizations . Thi s approac h als o allow s u s t o dea l effectivel y wit h
those composers—lik e Brahms , Schubert , Debussy , an d Strauss—wh o rarel y or
never use d metronom e markings . On th e othe r hand , wher e th e metronomic s
corroborate th e verbalize d tempo indications , as in th e cas e o f Beethoven's "An-
dante co n moto, J > = 92, " i t seems to m e w e ought t o be doubl y eager to respec t
those indications . Indeed, thi s movement , whe n playe d at or near the designate d
tempo, reveal s a very different characte r an d feelin g from wha t on e usuall y gets
in th e typica l conventional performance . I t is , in fact , no t a 'slo w movement ' a t
all, whic h seem s t o b e th e standar d interpretation , I suspect , o n th e basi s tha t
'this i s a symphony , and i t must therefor e have a slo w movement . I t i s merely
a 'somewha t slower ' movement , no t onl y i n tha t it s tempo i s slower than tha t of
the firs t movemen t (fro m 10 8 pe r bea t t o 92) , bu t fo r muc h o f it s duratio n it s
beats (eighth-notes ) are no t furthe r subdivide d into faste r rhythms . Thus Beetho -
ven achieve s a significan t degre e o f relaxation by both slowin g down th e temp o
and adherin g generally to the broade r rhythmi c units . Seen i n this light, Beetho -
ven's tempo i s already sufficiently differentiate d from it s surrounding movement s
as to requir e n o furthe r 'improvement ' fro m performers .
But further , of even greate r impor t i s the fac t tha t Beethoven' s andante them e
in it s melodic contou r outline s a pitch progressio n fro m C vi a D I» to & (point s
x,y,z i n Ex . 25) . The temp o mus t no t imped e o r imperi l one' s perceptio n of—
i.e. one's abilit y to hear—the melodi c (an d implied harmonic) motion containe d
in thi s themati c line . I n tha t connection , th e f dynami c i n m. 7 underscore s
Ex. 2 5
41. I t is not ofte n enoug h remembere d tha t Beethoven' s initia l intention wa s to cal l this movemen t
Andante quasi menuetto. And conductor s wh o thin k o f this movemen t a s a slo w movement shoul d
be reminde d that Beethoven's Seventh Symphon y doesn't hav e a 'slo w movement " either . Bu t the n
such conductor s ar e no t likel y t o hee d Beethoven' s allegretto ( J = 76 ) temp o i n tha t cas e either,
evidenced b y th e fac t tha t i f ther e i s a temp o markin g that i s mor e abuse d tha n Beethoven' s Fift h
Symphony Andante, i t i s the Allegretto o f the Sevent h Symphony .
the arriva l poin t (El> ) o f th e melodic/harmoni c progression . And ho w ofte n thi s

remarkable f i s ignored o r suppresse d o r otherwis e adulterated ! Let m e ad d les t
I b e misunderstood , I a m no t suggestin g tha t th e f s i n mm . 7,9,11 ar e hard -
hitting, aggressiv e fs, bu t rathe r firml y expressive , lyric fs, t o b e playe d wit h a
certain warmt h an d 'cordiality ' — in effec t a forte dolce.
Indeed, temp o an d dynamic s are th e tw o elements mos t ofte n disregarde d in
performances o f thi s movement , thi s despit e th e fac t tha t thes e ar e th e mos t
unusual an d origina l aspects o f the piece . I n man y recordings , for example, th e
theme i n th e viola s and cello s i s played mf (o r mp) wit h a thick , heav y sound —
what on e criti c ha s calle d a n "industria l strength " sound—that , whe n also
played a t to o slow a tempo , completel y falsifie s thi s theme' s discree t artfulnes s
and simpl e elegance . I t i s not fo r lac k of craf t o r harmoni c sensibilit y that Bee -
thoven chos e no t t o harmoniz e th e them e i n conventiona l four-par t voicing . It
is precisely its Handelian o r Haydnesqu e two-line simplicity that give s thi s state-
ment it s utte r nobility . I t i s simple two-par t counterpoint, elevate d t o th e leve l
of a deeply felt lyri c theme. All that is needed i n performance s is a light, discreet
p sound , rhythm s tha t ar e clearl y and accuratel y articulate d (withi n th e slurs) ,
no extraneou s dynamic nuancin g (lik e —= : := - ) — and Beethoven' s perfectly cho -
sen note s wil l d o th e rest . Bu t onl y si x conductors i n ou r samplin g hono r Bee -
thoven's dynamics : Haitink, the tw o Kleibers , Strauss, Gardiner, an d Brüggen. 42
Toscanini almos t does , producin g a n elegant , nobl e p i n th e firs t si x measures,
a healthy fin m.7 , but then disbelieve s Beethoven's sustaine d fand diminuendo s
to th e nex t p . Other s com e close , deliverin g a fin e p dolce, bu t ar e seemingl y
afraid o f Beethoven' s sudde n f i n m.7 , reducin g i t t o m p o r mf . Thi s include s
Furtwängler, Boult , Böhm , Suitner , an d Solti . Others , lik e Maazel, Masur , Co -
lin Davis , Ansermet , allo w a kin d o f creepin g crescend o i n th e firs t si x bars,
especially wher e ther e ar e tw o bows per ba r (m.4,5—thre e i n m.6 ) whic h agai n
works t o annu l th e sudde n f o f m.7. Eve n wors e are thos e who fee l th e nee d fo r
a thick , heavy syrupy m f or m p i n th e firs t si x bars—Weingartner, Wand, Masur ,
Stokowski, Ashkenazy , Krips , Karajan , Walter , Giulini , Bernstei n (Bernstein' s
and Stokowski' s ar e th e thickest)—for , b y goin g i n thi s direction , the y com -
pletely vitiate Beethoven's intende d an d surprisin g dynamic contrast in m.7 .
All such 'interpretations ' undermin e Beethoven' s remarkabl y refined, original,
and sophisticate d us e o f dynamics in thi s movement , flattenin g ou t th e music' s
extraordinary dynamic contours to the poin t o f blandness (see Exx. 26a,b below).
For example , th e thre e importan t &s i n mm.7 , 9 , and 1 1 ar e al l differentl y set .
Measures 7 an d 9 bot h hav e fs followe d by subito p's i n m. 8 an d m . 10. How-
ever, m.9 slurs into m . 10, while m.7 doe s no t int o m.8 . The differenc e i s subtle,
42. Bu t Brüggen is otherwise disappointing i n this theme for, although h e start s the viola s and cello s
at J ) = 92 , b y th e fift h measur e h e ha s droppe d t o J > = 76 . I t i s hard t o tel l fro m th e recordin g
whether th e musician s i n th e orchestr a pulle d hi m back , preferrin g th e mor e leisurel y tempo, an d
he simpl y followed them , o r whethe r Brüggen purposely or inadvertentl y change d temp o afte r on e
or tw o bars . Bruggen' s performanc e o f th e entir e movemen t i s quit e errati c i n term s o f tempo ,
vascillating ofte n betwee n a lo w o f J ^ = 6 4 t o a hig h o f J) = 84 . I t neve r docs achieve th e origina l
Beethoven temp o o f J) = 92 .
but significant—and , whe n don e right , perceptible an d meaningful . Measur e 1 1

is differen t again , in tha t her e th e f doe s hav e a diminuendo . D o th e conductor s
who mak e thei r diminuendo s i n mm. 7 an d 9 reall y think tha t Beethove n didn' t
know what he wa s doing, o r simply forgot the diminuendos ? O r t o put th e ques -
tion anothe r way : if Beethove n write s a diminuend o i n m.ll , wh y doe s i t no t
occur t o thes e conductor s tha t mm. 7 an d 9 , wher e ther e i s none, ough t t o b e
played withou t diminuendo ? D o the y no t se e th e beaut y an d originalit y of this
subtle differentiation ? An d wh y d o the y overloo k the fac t tha t ther e ar e a t least
five othe r instance s o f one-ba r f t o p diminuendo s i n th e movemen t (mm.37 ,
60, 86 , 195 , 219)? Proo f enough , I shoul d think , tha t whe n ther e i s no diminu -
endo indicated , w e performers ough t no t t o mak e one .
These ma y seem lik e simple, eve n naive , questions t o some. Bu t they ar e no t
merely hypothetical o r rhetorical; they are based o n har d performanc e evidence.
And th e fac t tha t suc h question s hav e t o b e asked , reflect s th e sa d stat e o f th e
aesthetics (an d ethics ) o f conducting. I t also reflects th e wid e latitud e i n musica l
self-discipline betwee n conductor s an d orchestra l musicians . Th e latte r woul d
be severel y chastise d b y mos t conductor s i f the y allowe d themselve s a vagran t
diminuendo o r a n arbitrar y ritardando o r an y othe r willfu l deviation , an d ye t a
conductor i s allowe d suc h liberties , whethe r take n consciousl y o r inadver -
tently.43
It i s amazing ho w man y distortion s and deviation s conductors ar e capabl e o f
visiting upo n thi s simple , innocen t theme . Perhap s i t i s it s ver y simplicit y that
disturbs conductors , wh o fee l the y hav e t o 'dres s i t up, ' 'improv e o n it. ' Fo r
example, Nikisc h virtually recomposes mm.7-1 1 (Ex . 26a).
Ex. 26a
Ex. 26 b
Walter (thi s time wit h th e Columbi a Symphony ) recompose s i t anothe r way

(Ex. 26b) , havin g als o in th e first six measures gotten th e musician s to play sixty-
43. A telling exampl e of this double standard can b e hear d o n a recording of Bruno Walter rehears-
ing th e firs t tw o movement s o f the Beethove n Fifth wit h a n unname d orchestr a (actually , the Lo s
Angeles Philharmonic) . The viola s an d cello s pla y i n m.7 . Walte r stop s

fourths (instea d o f thirty-seconds), probabl y because hi s tempo (J > = 66 ) was so

slow tha t th e thirty-seconds , whe n playe d correctl y i n tha t tempo , seeme d to o
leisurely an d pedantic , eve n t o him . I t seemingl y neve r occurre d t o Walter tha t
the wa y to fix this proble m wa s to speed u p hi s basic tempo, at which th e thirty -
seconds woul d hav e bee n jus t right . I t i s also amazin g ho w man y conductor s —
among the m Strauss , Koussevitzky , Ansermet, Karajan , an d (th e usuall y meticu -
lous) Eric h Kleiber—hav e aske d fo r th e C i n m. l t o b e playe d tenuto, whe n
Beethoven ha s clearl y marke d thi s not e wit h a staccato dot— a note , i n othe r
words, t o b e gentl y lifted .
Just a s amazing—an d disturbing—i s th e fac t tha t scarcel y anyon e play s th e
pick-up note s ( ) i n mm. 8 an d 1 0 p; the y ar e usuall y rendere d a t variou s
louder dynamics , mostl y mf . Hav e no t an y o f the man y conductor s wh o as k for
this deviatio n (o r allow it) realized tha t thi s upbeat gestur e i n p , followe d imme -
diately b y a n expressiv e f, i s very dea r t o Beethoven' s heart , a s witnessed b y th e
fact tha t i t not onl y recur s (i n a modifie d form ) i n m.5 7 an d m.59 , but i s reiter-
ated twic e mor e i n eve n mor e dramati c dynami c contrast s (p p t o f f ) i n mm.28 -
29, 77-78 ?
The nex t performanc e proble m appear s i n th e woodwin d phrase , mm . 11-15.
It i s no t know n t o m e wh o starte d th e ba d traditio n o f separatin g mm . 11-1 4
into fou r disjunc t one-ba r phrases , makin g caesura s a t th e en d o f eac h bar . I t
was probably Billow, wh o wa s fond o f making such phras e separation s an d sprin -
kling hi s performance s wit h innumerabl e tin y pauses—Luftpausen i n German .
Weingartner describe s thi s i n Über da s Dirigieren,^ an d chastise s Billo w fo r i t
but the n —in th e woodwin d phras e her e unde r discussion—himsel f make s pre -
cisely suc h phras e separation s i n hi s ow n recordings . Man y o f the earlie r con -
ductors imitat e thi s ba d tradition—Nikisch , Mengelberg , Jochum , Koussevitzky,
Reiner, Walter , Szell , surprisingl y Toscanini, an d DeSabata , Kempe , Solti , an d
even 'modern ' conductor s lik e Gardiner , Harnoncourt , an d Norrington— a tradi -
tion which , I am happ y to note, ha s for the mos t par t been stampe d ou t i n mor e
recent times . Not e th e beautifu l lin e Haitink , fo r example, achieve s here .
Speaking o f thi s descendin g line , i t i s rarel y realize d b y flutists , clarinetists ,
and conductor s tha t th e Dl > an d Bl > i n mm . 12-13 ar e written-ou t appoggiaturas.
Had Beethove n wante d t o merel y imitat e mm.7-10 , h e woul d hav e writ -
ten i n mm . 11—13. Th e appoggiatur a mus t b e fel t
and playe d a s such , tha t is , leaning o n th e firs t not e i n mm . 12-13. I t i s quit e
wrong t o play , as many d o o r are urge d t o do ,
At the en d o f this phras e (recurrin g three mor e time s i n mm.60-64 , 195-99 ,

and tell s them t o pla y f "withou t a diminuendo, " then sing s th e passage , making a bi g diminuend o
himself—exactly wha t the musician s had playe d in th e first place. Walter seem s t o hav e been totall y
unaware o f hi s ow n contradiction.
44. (1905) , p . 38 ; (1913), p. 3 4
219-23), th e secon d clarine t shoul d pla y it s rhyth m ( ) clearly agains t th e
flute's rhyth m ( ) , i.e . no t converte d int o sixteent h triplets , as man y conduc -

tors hav e demande d o r allowe d (fo r example, Furtwängler , Mengelberg , Boult ,
Koussevitzky, Maazel , Szell , Solti , Masur) . Othe r conductor s (Giulini , Anser -
met, Klemperer , Steinberg , Gardiner , Brügge n —even th e usuall y exemplar y
Haitink) allo w thi s littl e not e t o b e swallowed , becomin g virtuall y inaudible ,
especially i n th e severa l paralle l viola/firs t bassoo n passages. 45 I f conductor s
question Beethoven' s rhythmi c notatio n her e ( agains t) , the y ar e

advised t o note that Beethove n i n thi s entire movement i s constantly juxtaposing
these tw o rhythmic cells. 46 Obviousl y all canno t b e accident s o r mistakes.
The las t not e (m.15 ) o f th e woodwin d phras e i s ofte n hel d to o long , mos t
commonly a s _ , o r eve n (a s with Reiner, Karajan , Ma -
sur, Giulini , an d Walter) . No w thi s ma y see m lik e a 'musical, ' 'sensitive ' wa y of
ending th e phrase , roundin g i t off , as i t were, t o lin k u p bette r wit h the incom -
ing strings . Bu t i t i s wrong ; i t i s wron g (a ) becaus e Beethove n i s absolutel y
consistent throughou t th e movemen t i n endin g al l hi s phrase s wit h a n eighth -
note (mm.19 , 20 , 31 , 199 , 242 , etc.—eve n m.22 , afte r th e previou s sixteenths);
and (b ) becaus e th e rest s i n thi s musi c ar e no t arbitrary , accidenta l gap s t o b e
somehow filled in; they ar e not 'empty ' moments , bu t a n importan t an d integra l
part of the music . The silence s in rests are o f vital importance i n al l great music;
they ar e th e place s wher e th e musi c breathes , an d wher e i t flexes itself . The y
are als o ofte n th e window s int o th e structure , int o th e 'building, ' o f the music .
These window s mus t no t b e boarde d up ; silence s mus t no t b e devalued . Th e
temptation t o elongat e fina l phras e note s befor e a res t i s al l th e greate r whe n
the temp o take n i s too slow : i t obviousl y makes the res t also too long , an d ther e
is then th e greate r temptation t o fill in tha t rest .
The nex t phrase (in the strings , mm. 15-19) generally fares no t muc h bette r i n
performance. Th e tendenc y here is for the violin s to crescendo o n the thre e ana -
crusis notes in m.15, particularly whe n using an up-bow. An even greater tempta-
tion exist s in m. 16, where many conductors and strin g sections are wont to make a
premature crescendo. Bu t the originalit y of Beethoven's conceptio n lie s precisely
in the fac t that this phrase crescendos dramatically from p to fin on e measure, no t
the tw o or two and a half measures most performances offer ou t o f sheer laziness
or inattention . Again , Beethoven's creativ e imagination i s at it s most vivi d i n th e
way he has enriched thi s phrase with dynamic variety and contras t (Ex . 27).
Ex. 2 7
45. Measure s 18 , 67, 202 , 203 .

46. Se e mm.26 , 33 , 158-62 , 238-39 .
While th e secon d movemen t o f Beethoven' s Fift h i s mor e spaciou s i n it s

design
&O
and flowin g melodi" c lines , less rigorous
Or
in it s patterning
O
an d les s involved
with minut e —one migh t almos t sa y mosaic—construction tha n th e firs t move -
ment, i t i s nonetheles s planne d ou t i n a marvelous , grandl y logica l form . Bee -
thoven ma y no t hav e calle d th e movemen t Variations' — it i s not strictl y speak-
ing i n a conventiona l 'them e an d variations ' form—bu t i t i s nevertheles s
essentially variationa l i n conception , a s th e forma l analysi s i n Fig . 4 easil y
demonstrates. I t shoul d b e note d tha t wha t I hav e calle d th e 'theme ' i s itsel f
Fig. 4
Theme Var. I Var.I I
lI |
1 2z
AB CC ¡A A B CC ¡A A 2 A'
A'AA4 B 1
C
,!
mm. 1-22 mm.22-3
mm.22-3 11 mm.31-49imm.49-7
mm.31-49imm.49-7 1 mm.71-8 0 mm.80-98 i mm.98-123 mm.124-14 7 mm.147-16 6
|l I
Var.III Cod a
A5 A 6
A 7
B 2z
mm.166-184 mm.184-20 5 mm.205-22

mm.205-22 88 mm.229-24
mm.229-24 7
divided int o thre e themati c segments , an d tha t B i s itself but a variation of A by

way o f bot h contractio n an d expansio n (se e Ex . 28) , an d C a variatio n o f B
Ex. 2 8
(mostly b y wa y o f orchestratio n an d transpositio n (fro m A! > t o C major) . Als o

notice tha t i n wha t I hav e calle d Variatio n I , onl y th e firs t par t o f A i s signifi-
cantly altered , whil e B an d C remai n virtuall y unchange d (wit h bu t mino r
rhythmic alterations) . Variatio n I I undergoe s mor e extensiv e modifications . Th e
first part o f A i s varied thre e time s i n thre e immediatel y contiguou s variations ,
featuring i n successio n violas/cello s (m.98) , firs t violin s (m.106) , cellos/basse s
(m.114). B an d C no w als o underg o substantia l alterations , mos t dramaticall y
C, whic h i s stretche d fro m it s binar y (two-bar ) structurin g t o a ternar y (three -
bar) phrasing . I n Variatio n III , Beethove n take s u s t o A b mino r (th e onl y tim e
in th e movement ) an d a t m.18 4 int o a gran d canoni c interpla y betwee n uppe r
strings an d woodwinds . A7, which i n par t relate s to B' i n Variatio n II, is unique
in th e movement' s over-al l schem e i n tha t i t i s broke n u p int o tw o tempos , a
più moto an d a tempo primo. Th e coda' s B 2 i s initiall y ye t anothe r variant , a
new fusion , o f the origina l A an d B .
That is the gran d schem e o f the movemen t i n it s largest, boldest outlines . O n

a smaller , mor e detailed , phras e level , w e se e constructio n i n lon g eight-ba r
phrases—long b y compariso n wit h th e four-ba r structurin g o f th e firs t move -
ment. Bu t w e als o fin d a numbe r o f seven-ba r phrases , eve n on e eleven-ba r
phrase. Bu t mos t o f thes e asymmetrica l phrasing s ar e th e resul t o f contractio n
(Verkürzung) o r expansio n (Dehnung). Thi s freer , irregular , more flexibl e struc -
turing als o contribute s t o th e music' s sens e o f looseness, o f spontaneous, almos t
improvised invention .
In m.2 3 tw o performanc e problem s arise . On e i s th e balanc e i n th e tw o
woodwind pairs , specificall y th e balanc e o f th e secon d player s wit h th e firs t
players. Only rarel y does one hea r these secon d player s —no matter wha t orches-
tra—match th e first s dynamicall y i n tru e balance d duets , a fac t born e ou t b y
virtually al l th e recording s I hav e sampled . Someho w thi s passag e (mm.23—26 )
is generall y interprete d a s 'solos ' fo r firs t clarine t an d firs t bassoon , o n th e on e
hand becaus e thes e player s usuall y take th e initiativ e i n tha t direction , an d o n
the othe r han d becaus e ver y fe w conductors hea r th e resultan t imbalanc e an d
therefore se e n o reaso n t o mak e a correction. 47 I t also result s from a widespread
tendency amon g a majorit y o f conductor s t o conduc t an d hea r onl y 'th e mel -
ody,' rarel y hearin g an d balancin g th e harmonies . O f course , whe n th e fou r
woodwinds ar e blende d o n a recordin g int o a well-balance d quartet , i t i s no t
always possibl e t o ascrib e thi s succes s t o th e conductor ; i t ma y simpl y b e tha t
the respectiv e secon d player s instinctivel y knew tha t the y shoul d balanc e wit h
the firsts , an d th e conductor , awar e o r unaware , accepte d thi s gift . I t ma y als o
be that th e conducto r actuall y asked for the instrument s t o balance, bu t withou t
being presen t a t the rehearsals , it i s impossible t o deduc e fro m a recordin g wh o
should receiv e th e credi t fo r th e righ t balance . I n an y case , onl y i n ver y fe w
performances wer e thes e balance s right , those o f Haitink, Krips , Carlos Kleiber,
Solti, an d Bernstein .
Another problem i n this phrase result s from a mistake in the printe d scor e an d
parts, as compared wit h Beethoven's manuscript . In mm . 2 3 and 2 5 (a s well as in
m.72 and m.74 ) the woodwinds' slu r should en d wit h the third eighth, whil e the
violins' slu r as printed al l three note s on on e bow . Beethove n was—agai n subtly,
imaginatively—confirming th e differentiatio n between th e woodwinds ' quarter -
notes an d th e violins ' eighths i n m.2 4 an d m.26 . I n thi s connection , w e shoul d
note that Beethoven has no crescendo indication s in mm. 2 3—26, either per two-bar
phrase o r over-all in thes e four-ba r phrases. Yet the vas t majority o f performances
contain suc h crescendo s —trivializing the passag e with an obviou s emotionalism
that i s far removed fro m th e almos t unearthl y stillnes s and held-bac k tensio n th e
phrase ha s when playe d without crescendoing—particularl y when the n followed
by the powerfu l ff outcr y of mm.29-31.
Finally, some conductors (Strauss , DeSabata, Boult , Toscanini, Norrington, and
47. Thi s i s a good exampl e o f why I described the ea r a s the servan t of the mind, of the intelligenec,
in Par t I o f this book. N o matte r how physiologicall y shar p th e ea r is , it cannot (wil l not ) hea r what
it i s ignorant of, what the min d ha s no t tol d th e ea r t o hear.
Schuricht) like to move the tempo up a notch o r two at m.23, mostly, I suspect, so
that they can broaden the tempo agai n with the /fin m.3 2 for greater 'effect.' 48 I n
my opinio n Beethove n create s enoug h contrast s in texture , dynamic levels, an d
orchestration t o mak e an y adjustments in temp o quit e unnecessary. Indeed, a s I
have already pointed out , since these two phrases comprise identical thematic an d
harmonic material , it ought t o be our obligatio n to present it in the sam e tempo ,
precisely to let all other Beethoven-inspired variations and change s be clearly, un-
distractedly heard.
As mentioned before , the sudden dynamic contrasts of mm.7, 9, and 1 1 are rein-
troduced in mm.28-9, this time not fro m p to f, but p p to ff, a stunning effect rarely
rendered correctly, alas. In m.30 (and the analogous m.79) the staccato dot on the
dotted sixteent h i s an engravin g error, not containe d i n Beethoven' s manuscript .
But th e tw o succeedin g eighth-note s d o hav e staccat o dots , whil e th e note s i n
mm.32 an d 3 4 do not ; an d thu s th e latte r shoul d be playe d in a well-articulated
but sustaine d manner. This i s necessary to mention since , once again , numerous
conductors wh o hav e no t truste d Beethoven' s notation , hav e cause d th e brass ,
oboes, an d lo w string s t o pla y staccato i n thi s triumphan t passag e (Nikisch ,
Mengelberg, Boult , Thomas, an d Walter among them).49
48. Straus s eve n crescendo s throug h th e fou r measure s 23-26 , onl y t o correc t himsel f wit h a n
exaggerated p p a t the en d o f m.26. A word o n Straus s a s a conductor, especiall y o f other composers '
works, ma y b e appropriat e here . Th e receive d wisdo m abou t hi s conductin g ha s alway s been tha t
he wa s a musicia n give n t o fast , bright , no-nonsens e tempos , t o inexorabl e temp o steadines s an d
control, t o a certai n 'coolness ' o f expression, espousin g i n genera l th e 'ne w objectivity ' o f the 1920s .
The evidenc e o f his recordings , however , tell s u s tha t thi s i s all a myth , a myt h probabl y promul -
gated a s muc h b y himsel f a s b y observer s o r admirers . Hi s recording s sho w tha t h e wa s i n fac t a
highly errati c an d willfu l interpreter , especiall y i n matter s o f tempo. I can thin k o f only tw o conduc-
tors wh o coul d outd o Straus s i n temp o deviations : Stokowsk i an d Bernstein , an d perhap s w e ca n
add Mengelberg .
The secon d movemen t o f Beethoven' s Fift h i s a strikin g example o f Strauss' s waywar d wa y wit h
tempos. I n thi s movemen t alon e I coun t fourtee n majo r temp o changes , a s th e followin g tabl e
shows. (Th e othe r movement s ar e no t muc h steadier) .
m.l J > = 80 m.12 4 J ^ = 84 m.19 6 J > = 78

m.23 J > = 90 m.13 2 J l = 96 (m.20 5 J>
= 1,06 )
m.32 J i = 82 m.14 1 }>= 10 6 m.21 9 J l = 70
m.50 J ) = 86 m.14 8 J l = 76 m.22 9 J ) = 78
m.72 J ) = 90 m.19 1 J > = 84 m.24 5 hug e ritar d
m.81 J > = 82
(Beethoven's metronom e markin g i s Jl = 92.)
49. T o giv e the m th e benefi t o f th e doubt , the y ma y hav e bee n influence d b y th e timpan i part ,
since i t i s difficul t (thoug h no t impossible ) t o pla y long-sustaine d note s o n th e timpani . Germa n
timpanists generall y play wit h a dr y har d sound—mor e s o i n earlie r days—an d i t ma y b e tha t th e
conductors jus t mentioned , facin g tha t reality , fel t tha t th e bras s shoul d the n matc h th e timpani . I
should mentio n i n thi s connectio n tha t mos t printe d score s contai n a n erro r i n th e timpan i part :
the sf s i n mm.35 , 3 6 should b e place d o n th e firs t beat , no t o n th e thir d (similarl y i n mm.84 , 85).
I cautio n her e agains t another ba d tradition , namely, that o f playing m.31 in a

'stop-and-go' manner , that is, a big cadencing slow-down on the first two eighths of
the measure, then a fresh pick-u p in the brass on the third eighth. It is a much mor e
exciting realizatio n of Beethoven's intention s her e t o keep th e temp o movin g i n
m.31, to connect (no t separate) the tw o C major/ f s (mm.30/31 and m.32) , and to
clarify and maintain the thematic lin k between m.2 3 and m.32. (Listen to Dohna-
nyi's recording to savor the ful l effectivenes s of this.) As already mentioned, man y
conductors lik e to broaden th e temp o dramaticall y at m.32 , some (lik e Karajan ,
Knappertsbusch, Suitner , Ashkenazy , Colin Davis , an d Hogwood ) eve n —quite
unmusically—already at m.29 or m.30; while others prefer t o noticeably brighte n
the tempo. Those who broaden at m.32 argue that doing so heightens the 'majestic '
effect o f the passage . These include , apart fro m th e conductor s jus t mentioned ,
Strauss, Bernstein , and Sol d (th e last-named , alread y at a dangerousl y slow basic
tempo o f Jl = 68 , slows to a ponderous 6 2 at m.32). Those, o n th e othe r hand ,
who pres s forward her e believ e a faste r temp o help s t o heighten th e effec t o f the
bright C majo r sun g forth b y the bras s and timpani , givin g the passag e its 'neces-
sary' urgency . (Included , a s might b e expected , ar e Toscanini , DeSabata , Anser-
met, and Stokowski) . As suggested, neither approach i s valid or 'necessary.' Beetho -
ven ha s compose d enoug h contras t an d dram a int o th e passag e t o mak e an y
obvious additional 'improvements' quite superfluous.
The tw o crucia l performanc e problem s th e conducto r mus t addres s i n
mm.32-37 ar e (1 ) th e over-al l balance an d (2 ) th e rhythm s i n mm.33 , 35 , 36.
We shoul d recal l tha t th e bras s instrument s o f Beethoven' s Vienn a i n th e earl y
19th centur y were no t a s brilliant and powerfull y penetratin g a s the bras s instru-
ments o f today. I t wa s therefore no t unreasonabl e —certainly no t a cas e of'ba d
instrumentation'—on Beethoven' s par t t o pai r th e oboe s her e wit h th e bras s
and timpani , give n als o Beethoven' s customar y habi t o f almos t alway s usin g
uniform dynamic s fo r al l instrument s i n a give n measure . Bu t a goo d balanc e
in mm.32-3 7 ca n b e easil y managed i f the conducto r admonishe s th e bras s not
to pla y their absolut e loudes t (whic h a ff seem s alway s t o signa l t o mos t bras s
players) and , o n th e othe r hand , t o encourag e th e oboe s t o giv e their all . Oboe
players, especiall y seasone d ones , lon g ag o havin g give n u p tryin g to b e hear d
here, ar e pron e t o 'tak e i t easy ' o r i n som e case s no t pla y at all , jus t appea r t o
be playing . This problem reache s reall y ridiculous proportions when conductor s
(Karajan, fo r one ) hav e th e ide a o f doublin g th e bras s in thi s symphony . Then
truly al l hop e i s lost fo r th e oboists .
The secon d proble m her e i s differentiating clearly between th e tw o rhythmic
layers: th e triplet s i n th e uppe r string s an d th e martia l dotte d sixteenth - thirty-
second rhythm s of the res t of the orchestra . This usuall y takes a little rehearsin g
(as wel l as the conductor' s fir m hand) , an d i s best achieve d whe n th e tw o dispa-
rate rhythmi c force s d o no t liste n t o eac h other , bu t simpl y maintain thei r ow n
appropriate rhythms . I t i s als o wort h mentionin g that , again , a s i n mm.23—26 ,
the pair s o f wind s (oboes , trumpets, horns ) should balanc e dynamically . It de -
tracts tremendousl y fro m th e magnificen t ful l effec t o f thi s musi c whe n th e
second players , who afte r al l supply the all-importan t harmony, are weake r than
the firsts . I n th e innumerabl e recording s I hav e analyzed , onl y i n a ver y few

were th e instrument s properl y matched an d balance d here .
Conductors shoul d kno w tha t th e diminuendo s i n th e bras s i n mm.37—3 8 —
innocent lookin g enoug h i n th e score—ar e ver y hard t o produce withou t losing
the intonation . I t is up t o th e players , of course, t o maste r thi s problem , bu t fo r
the conductor—particularl y th e inexperience d conductor—wh o migh t b e quic k
to berat e hi s players , it i s well t o kno w tha t a long-sustained , eve n diminuend o
from f f t o p p i s one o f the mos t difficul t thing s (technically ) t o achiev e o n win d
instruments. A smil e o f encouragemen t work s bette r her e tha n a frown . Th e
players will in fac t appreciat e i t enormously i f the conducto r indicate s hi s aware-
ness o f the technica l difficultie s here .
The nex t phras e (mm.39-48 ) i s one o f th e mos t magica l moment s i n al l o f
music, a harmoni c progressio n o f such darin g (fo r its time) a s only a Beethove n
(or a Mozart ) coul d hav e produced . Bu t th e ful l effectivenes s of thi s passag e
depends mos t cruciall y on bein g playe d no t onl y with a true p p bu t a soft velvety
sonority. Onl y a quiet , war m sul tasto soun d wil l ensur e th e hushe d rap t moo d
and th e beautifu l stillnes s o f thi s extraordinar y passage—th e feelin g tha t th e
music i s motionles s bu t no t inert . Ver y fe w conductor s see m t o kno w ho w t o
achieve thi s specia l mood , bu t Nikisch , Strauss , Reiner , th e tw o Kleibers, Knap-
pertsbusch, Karajan , Schuricht , Dorati , Dohnanyi , an d Haitin k ar e notabl e an d
welcome exceptions . (Incidentally , Harnoncour t her e slow s dow n t o a stati c
J1) = 60 , dow n 3 2 points fro m hi s basi c (good ) J^ = 92. )
In mm.48-4 9 car e mus t b e take n tha t th e thre e E^' s (viola/cello , bassoons,
clarinet) ar e produce d wit h equivalen t fs . O n mos t o f th e recording s sample d
the bassoon s wer e substantiall y weaker (softer ) tha n th e othe r instruments .
Since mm.49—6 1 ar e a variant o f mm.1—11, i t stands t o reaso n tha t th e gratu -
itous interpretationa l libertie s take n b y certai n conductor s ther e wil l b e perpe -
trated again . These include a heavy, fat mp o r mffor th e viola s and cello s (rather
than a n elegant , elegia c p); th e creepin g crescend o whic h annul s the subito fin
m.56; th e softenin g o f th e stron g dynami c contrast s i n mm.56—61 : al l t o b e
rigorously avoided . Wha t i s new an d problemati c i n thi s passage—th e proble m
will com e bac k agai n i n mm.98-10 5 —is th e pizzicat o accompaniment . Th e
danger her e is—an d dozen s o f recordings prov e this—tha t th e violi n pizzicato s
will b e to o soft , eve n barel y audible , relativ e t o th e bass' s pizzicato , unles s th e
violinists ar e cautione d t o pla y a littl e louder , conceptually , say , mp , an d wit h
what strin g player s cal l a 'full ' o r a 'deep ' pizzicato . Thi s is , o f course , no t a
problem limite d t o thi s passag e i n Beethoven' s Fifth ; i t ca n appl y t o literall y
thousands o f pizzicat o passage s i n th e literature , simpl y becaus e w e ar e con -
fronted her e wit h a n unalterabl e acousti c phenomenon : namely , tha t the projec-
tion o f a pizzicat o depend s i n larg e measur e upo n th e thicknes s o f th e strin g
which i s plucked , an d thu s thicker , heavie r strings , a s o n a bas s o r cello , wil l
project mor e effectivel y tha n a violi n string . Eve n o n a violi n th e lowes t (an d
therefore th e thickest ) G strin g will produc e a loude r pizzicat o than th e uppe r
(thinnest) E string . To pu t i t another way , the sam e .amount o f energy in pluck-
ing a strin g wil l inherentl y produc e a bigger , mor e projectin g pizzicato on a
bass strin g than o n a violi n or viol a string . The lesso n t o b e draw n fro m thi s is
that a s a rule, especiall y in a p dynamic , violinist s should pla y a little louder an d
bassists a littl e softe r t o achiev e th e desire d resul t o f a verticall y balanced pizzi -
cato throughou t th e strin g section . Conductor s shoul d hea r thi s imbalanc e
when i t occurs , bu t i n m y experienc e mos t i n fac t d o not . An d th e recording s
sampled i n thi s analysi s bear ou t m y point. Onl y ver y few of Beethoven's beauti -
fully chose n violi n pizzicat o note s i n mm.49-5 6 ca n b e heard , wherea s th e
basses' pizzicato s are uniforml y well represented .
A fe w score misprint s i n thi s passag e mus t b e mentioned . Th e clarinet' s slu r
should sto p with th e E (writte n Fl) i n m.53 . Bot h bassoon s should pla y i n uni -
son fro m th e secon d sixteent h i n m . 5 7 t o th e downbea t o f m.59. I n m.5 7 th e
last thre e sixteenth s o f the viola s should rea d a s follows : , similar
to th e analogou s passag e i n m.8 . Thoug h no t strictl y speaking a misprint , th e

woodwinds i n m.5 9 shoul d b e marke d i n scor e an d part s a s follows : th e flut e
beginning p, the other s (oboe, clarinets , bassoons) mp beginnin g at the las t three
sixteenths.
Many conductors , fo r reason s tha t I canno t fathom , hav e i n th e pas t mad e a
big ritar d in m.6 0 an d then , eve n mor e ridiculously , an a tempo i n m.61 . Mea -
sure 6 0 being a variant parallel to m.l 1, the beginning—no t the en d —of a four -
bar phrase , ther e canno t b e an y justificatio n fo r distortin g Beethoven' s line , as ,
for example , Coli n Davis , Mengelberg, Furtwängler , an d Klempere r hav e done.
(But eve n mor e shockin g ar e th e tw o bad , blatantl y audibl e splice s i n Solti' s
Vienna Philharmoni c recordin g a t mm.5 5 an d 61—agai n th e wor k of some fa -
mous, well-pai d recordin g producer! )
Whatever ha s bee n sai d regardin g mm . 11-38 i s obviously applicable a s well
to mm.60-87. Again, special car e shoul d b e take n no t t o swallo w the G' s i n th e
second viola s an d firs t bassoo n a t th e en d o f m.67 ; no r shoul d thi s las t bea t
diminuendo int o m.68 . Th e proble m o f balanc e an d continuit y mentione d i n
connection wit h m.48 recur s i n m.97 , but i n a differen t version . Here th e clari -
nets ar e ap t t o soun d wea k relative to th e triple d bassoons , violas, and cellos .
In mm.98-104 , i f th e viola s an d cello s pla y a tru e ligh t p dolce, an d th e
violins' pizzicato s —especially the sixteenths , these perhap s eve n wit h th e slight -
est accent—are rebalanced , Beethoven' s intention s wil l b e full y realized .
One o f the symphony' s most heavenl y passages, mm. 105-14, i s unfortunately
rarely rendere d i n a 'heavenly ' manner . An d agai n i t i s simply a matte r o f con -
ductors and player s not following Beethoven's explici t instructions. While almost
everyone make s the subito pp a t m.l05 —only Strauss , Koussevitzky, Walter, an d
the earl y music specialist s Norrington, Hogwood , an d th e Hanove r Ban d d o no t
(sic)—the result s i n mm . 107-14 revea l i n proportion s o f abou t thre e t o on e a
cavalier disregar d o f Beethoven' s score . I n colum n I o f Fig . 5 ar e listed thos e
conductors who hav e inadvertently or deliberately defied Beethoven's cautionary
marking, sempre pp , i n m.107 ; i n colum n I I ar e thos e relativel y fe w wh o hav e
Fig. 5
Column I Column I I
Hickox Boulez Nikisch

«Abbado * Schalk Furtwangler
Strauss Mitropoulos Karajan
Weingartner * Schuricht Reiner
Walter Krips Boult
Toscanini Böhm Solti
Munch * Leibowitz Carlos Kleibe r
DeSabata Ansermet Maazel
*Muti * Knappertsbusch Haitink
Giulini Kubelik Dorati
Ormandy * Dohnanyi Masur
Jochum Colin Davi s Sawallisch
Kletzki Ashkenazy Schwarz
Bernstein Wand Suitner
Ozawa * Kempe
Stokowski * Klemperer
Koussevitzky * Steinberg
Mengelberg * Thomas
Erich Kleibe r Mehta
Szell Norrington
Gardiner Hogwood
Harnoncourt Hanover Band
Van Otterlo o Bruggen
respected an d understoo d hi s marking . I n th e latte r grou p th e result s ar e truly

beautiful; i n the former , ordinary at best. (Asteriske d names i n colum n I indicat e
conductors wh o maintaine d a reasonabl e p p a t m.107 , bu t the n allowed—o r
urged—the violins , second s a s wel l a s firsts , t o cree p u p dynamically , t o cre -
scendo i n mm . 110-14) (se e Plat e VI) .
At mm . 123-124 th e fermat a shoul d no t b e hel d overl y long—Wagner's pre -
viously mentione d fantas y admonitio n notwithstanding . Mos t conductor s tak e a
slower temp o here , mainl y fo r a kin d o f misterioso stati c effect , a superficia l
'profundity' whic h i s both unnecessar y and misplaced . Ho w this passage, includ -
ing the clarine t and bassoo n solos and th e ensuin g woodwind quartet, can soun d
when take n a t ver y clos e t o Beethoven' s intende d temp o ca n b e hear d t o won -
derful effec t o n Dorati' s recordin g wit h the Roya l Philharmonic Orchestr a (Lon -
don). Dorati , himsel f a fin e composer , wa s on e o f th e fe w who , respecte d a
composer's score , and thoug h h e wa s not regarde d by the critica l and conducto -
rial fraternit y a s a 'grea t classical ' conductor—bein g stigmatize d early i n hi s ca -
Plate V I Mm.105-11 8 o f the secon d movemen t o f Beethoven's Fift h Symphon y
reer as a "balle t conductor " an d a "specialist " i n Bartók , Stravinsky , an d moder n

ballet scores—h e wa s actuall y on e o f th e fines t Beethove n conductor s o f ou r
time.
The woodwin d quarte t passag e a t m . 13 2-46 lose s a lo t o f it s intende d
effect whe n th e fou r woodwin d players , especiall y th e flutist , indulg e
in a kin d o f fanc y wanderin g rubato , a s i f Beethove n ha d writte n
Such
players—and th e conductor s who allo w thes e indulgences—d o no t see m t o un -

derstand th e specia l natur e an d characte r o f this passag e (mm . 132-43). What is
special abou t i t i s tha t i t i s harmonicall y stationary . B I» majo r stretche d ou t
through si x measures , followe d b y si x measure s o f E k Thoug h th e passag e i s
harmonically stationary , Beethove n provide s mor e tha n enoug h interes t b y two
means: one , th e copiou s us e o f seventh an d nint h degree s throughout , an d th e
other th e simpl e bu t her e ingeniousl y applie d devic e o f contrar y motio n be -
tween th e tw o instrumental pair s (flute/oboe and tw o clarinets). What al l o f this
means i s that an y fancyin g u p o f th e passag e wit h rubato s an d gratuitou s cre -
scendos/diminuendos—as on e almos t alway s hears here —is unwarranted. A pris-
tinely 'simple ' renditio n o f th e passag e i s wanted, precisel y becaus e th e musi c
is, a s i t were , locke d int o tw o tonalitie s (Bl > an d El») , eac h stretche d ou t int o
a kin d o f six-ba r fermata . And , a s I say , Beethove n ha s provide d enoug h
other highlight s t o preven t th e passag e fro m gettin g borin g o r uneventfu l o r
static.
Indeed, on e piquan t touch hardl y ever realized is the extraordinar y cluster-like
clash o f notes a t th e beginnin g o f m. 139 . This i s never hear d be -
cause the flute and obo e tend t o make a diminuendo in m. 138

thus vitiating and defusing the intended 'dissonantal clash ' in m. 139.
It is amazing t o me tha t no t a single conducto r recordin g the Beethove n Fift h
ever bothere d t o consul t th e origina l manuscrip t o r th e facsimil e publishe d i n
Germany i n 1942 . Mos t reprehensibl e perhap s i s Karajan's , Furtwängler's , an d
other Germany-base d conductors ' negligenc e i n thi s regard . Beethoven' s manu -
script lie s i n th e Staatsbibliothe k i n Berlin , an d ye t i n th e (a t least ) fou r re -
cordings Karaja n mad e o f th e Beethove n Fifth , h e apparentl y neve r sa w fi t t o
study the origina l manuscript , no t onl y i n respec t t o this passag e in the Andante
movement bu t i n respec t t o th e severa l dozen s o f othe r error s i n th e endlessl y
reprinted firs t edition . Equall y disturbin g i s th e disregar d o f Beethoven' s in -
tended phrasin g by the Hanove r Band , who proclai m loudly in thei r C D book -
let tha t the y playe d from edite d part s mad e t o correspon d to Beethoven' s auto-
graph. (Ther e i s mighty little evidenc e o f this i n thei r recording. ) The effec t o f
this passag e whe n performe d a s Beethove n intende d i s totall y differen t fro m
what i s almost alway s heard . I t gain s i n clarit y and firmness , avoidin g the senti -
mental moo d o f a Romanza tha t th e usua l (wrong ) phrasin g impart s t o thi s
passage.50
Measures 145-4 6 ar e interprete d b y man y conductor s i n a tenuto manner .
There i s little justificatio n fo r this. Beethove n di d no t us e th e short-cu t notatio n
found i n mos t availabl e scores, writing instead . But the lac k
of staccato dot s i n mm . 145-47 (i n th e autograp h a s well) has led man y pedanti -
cally minde d conductor s t o interpre t thes e te n woodwin d sixteenth-note s i n a
tenuto manner . Bu t comin g fro m th e previou s staccat o sixteenth s (i n the string s
as well) , thi s sudde n tenut o make s n o musica l sense. A n interestin g alternative ,
assuming tha t th e incomin g horn s shoul d soun d a littl e broade r an d heavie r i n
their f , i s to hav e th e woodwind s i n mm . 145-46 progres s gradually from a stac -
cato t o a tenuto. Man y fin e woodwin d player s ove r th e year s hav e don e thi s
instinctively; i t goes logicall y with th e crescendo .
In th e contex t o f th e consisten t binar y o r four-ba r structurin g o f thi s move -
ment, mm . 148-5 3 constitute a n interestin g anomaly : two three-bar phrase s (see
Ex. 30) . I n man y recording s (an d performances ) on e ca n hea r th e relativ e dis-
comfort o f th e musician s a t th e intrusio n o f thi s 'foreig n element, ' man y
Ex. 3 0
musicians, of course, not realizing that the sudde n three-ba r phrasin g is the caus e
of their unease. A conductor's commen t here, urgin g the musician s to feel—per -
haps even enjoy—th e non-conformit y of this passage goes a long way towards mak-
ing it sound right and 'comfortable. '
The nex t passage in the string s (mm. 158-66) is one of those rar e moments tha t
is almost always played correctly (except, obdurately—instea d of'authentically' —
by the Hanove r Band and Hogwood' s Academy of Ancient Musi c players). None -
theless it is worth taking note no t onl y of Beethoven's detaile d dynami c markings
but hi s phrasing/bowing as well: three shor t light bow s in m.16 2 an d m.163 , fol-
lowed by one long bow over two bars in mm.164-65. And, again, the più p here (in
m.161) does not mean a sudden subito p, but rathe r a softening to the pp of m.162.
The ke y o f A¡ > mino r i n m.16 7 ha s le d man y a conducto r t o tur n thi s pas -
sage—yet anothe r varian t o f th e openin g theme—int o a funera l march . Ho w
this ca n soun d muc h mor e i n keepin g wit h Beethoven' s intention s —let u s re -
member tha t h e originall y intende d t o cal l thi s movemen t Andante quasi men-
50. Th e ne w Gulk c editio n (Peters ) is correct in thi s respect .
netto—can b e hear d o n Dorati' s aforementione d recording : buoyan t rhythm s
with a sens e o f underlying urgenc y i n th e strings ' repetitiv e pizzicatos , an d th e
single obo e note s pokin g whimsically through th e texture .
The crescend o foun d i n man y edition s i n th e flut e par t i n m.17 7 is spurious.
There i s none i n Beethoven' s autograph . Th e entir e passag e shoul d b e playe d
without crescendo s o r dynami c swells , maintaining (eve n i n th e hig h registe r of
the flute) a pure simpl e p, followed similarly by the violins . The crescend o starts
only with th e enterin g cello s an d basse s i n m.181 .
In mm.182-8 3 car e shoul d b e take n tha t th e viola s and secon d violin s hold
their dotte d eighth s jus t the righ t duration (Ex . 31). Hel d to o long, the y interfere
Ex. 3 1
with th e incomin g thirty-second-not e run ; hel d to o short , the y fai l t o mak e th e

necessary connectio n t o those incomin g scales .
A bi g balanc e proble m ha s plague d performance s a t mm . 18 5-94 fro m tim e
immemorial. (Berlio z alread y complaine d abou t i t i n hi s A Critical Study o f
Beethoven's Nine Symphonies [Englis h edition , Ne w York , 1912]. ) Fa r to o ofte n
the wonderfu l canon betwee n string s and woodwinds , two beats apar t (no t thre e
beats o r on e bar! ) is lef t unrealize d (Ex . 32) . Most conductor s ar e s o busy con -
Ex. 3 2
ducting th e string s her e tha t the y quit e neglec t th e three-octav e woodwin d

counter-line. Sinc e th e violin s already outnumber th e woodwind s (fou r t o one )
and ar e hardl y i n dange r o f no t bein g heard , i t woul d behoov e a conducto r t o
give hi s ful l attentio n t o th e woodwinds . Matter s ar e mad e wors e whe n th e
sustained bras s an d timpan i a s wel l a s th e highl y rhythmi c lowe r string s pla y
their les s importan t non-melodi c part s to o loudly , to o heavily . Wha t i s trul y

astonishing—and depressing—i s th e wa y Beethoven' s contrapunta l intention s
here ar e s o roundl y ignored , eve n o n recording s wher e i t i s obviou s tha t th e
woodwinds ar e doubled , provin g b y th e wa y that th e mer e doublin g o f wood -
winds i n f passage s does no t necessaril y guarantee prope r balances .
Only a relativel y fe w conductor s hav e manage d thi s passag e (mm . 18 5-94 )
successfully, notabl y Nikisch , Jochum , Krips , Eric h Kleiber , Giulini , Bernstein ,
Mitropoulos, Thomas , Suitner , Haitink , Coli n Davis , Reiner , Szell , Solti . Re -
nowned conductor s wh o faile d i n this passage to the poin t wher e th e woodwind s
are virtually inaudible ar e Weingartner, Furtwängler , Toscanini, Walter , Kubelik ,
Gardiner, Bruggen , an d Harnoncourt . Amazing !
Equally amazin g i s ho w man y conductor s fai l t o disciplin e themselve s an d
their musician s t o produc e a n appropriat e p i n mm . 199-204, a passag e essen -
tially the sam e a s mm. 15-18 and 64-68 , but wit h th e crucia l exceptio n tha t thi s
time th e earlie r crescendo i s completely withhel d b y Beethoven .
Beethoven's pi ù moto temp o (m.205 ) i s J * = 116 , a 24-poin t increas e ove r
the basi c andante tempo . Bu t her e again , mos t conductor s kee p a considerabl e
distance fro m Beethoven' s tempo , i n fac t mor e o r les s t o th e sam e degre e the y
deviate fro m th e basi c tempo. Th e rang e o f deviation i s astonishing, al l th e wa y
from Weingartner' s rathe r fas t J > = 12 4 to Coli n Davis' s an d Giulini' s J l = 86 ,
a mer e 3 0 point s of f the mark ! Giulin i jump s t o thi s (fo r him ) relativel y lively
tempo afte r grindin g t o a virtua l standstill i n th e previou s strin g passage wit h a
deadly / > = 54—n o co n moto there ! Jochu m hit s i t prett y muc h o n th e nos e
with a livel y Jl = 112 , an d others , lik e Furtwängler , Ansermet , Strauss , Tosca -
nini, Dohnanyi , an d Dorati , com e clos e enoug h (betwee n J^ l = 10 4 t o 108 ) t o
capture th e spiri t and inten t o f this light-hearte d episode .
Measures 210-1 3 hav e bee n adulterate d i n ever y conceivabl e way . Eve n
though Beethoven' s grac e note s i n th e obo e ar e clearl y before the beat , an d th e
G^'s hav e staccat o dots , an y numbe r o f conductor s insis t o n suc h variant s a s
(Böhm, Furtwängler , Wand , Haitink , Krips) , (Mengel -
berg, Weingartner) , (Maazel) , (Eric h Kleiber , Nikisch),
' (Jochum , Ansermet). I n the meantime th e poor first bassoonist is left

to fen d fo r himself . Beethove n neglecte d t o pu t staccat o dot s fo r the bassoon' s
notes—he i s obviously partnered wit h the oboe—wit h th e resul t that everythin g
has bee n tried , fro m « H t o J ^ (Kubelik , Dorati) t o (Bernstein)—a s wel l a s
the correc t one : J\
One o f the mos t abuse d passage s in the entir e movemen t i s the recapitulator y
phrase a t m.21 8 (an d onwar d t o th e cod a a t m.229) . Mos t conductor s wan t t o
make a hug e temp o expansio n here ; an d i f the y hav e someho w manage d th e
woodwind phras e without too much distortion , they will surel y want to mak e u p
for tha t i n th e nex t strin g phras e an d pul l i t completel y asunder . (Th e wors t
offender i n thi s latte r respec t i s Knappertsbusch , wh o actuall y insert s a hug e

fermata o f silenc e [sic] of almos t a n entir e measure' s duratio n befor e th e las t
sixteenth o f m.226. ) Thi s approac h t o bot h phrase s clearl y i s wron g an d self -
indulgent. Fo r one thing , apar t fro m th e fac t tha t th e scor e clearl y states Tempo
I a t m.218 , draggin g th e temp o her e prett y muc h destroy s an y possibilit y of
hearing th e woodwin d phras e a s Beethoven' s fina l recapitulatio n o f m.ll, no w
ingeniously modified—surel y modifie d enough b y Beethoven t o no t warran t still
further digression—b y a remarkabl e pyramidal pile-u p o f an & chor d (bassoon ,
second clarinet , first clarinet, oboe i n succession) . Second, sinc e th e Tempo 1 of
m.218 follow s a pi ù moto (marke d J l = 116) , i t ough t t o b e obviou s tha t a n
excessively slo w temp o a t m.21 8 i s unjustifiable , no t onl y i n term s o f simpl e
tempo contrast , bu t becaus e i t als o completel y defie s th e temp o relationshi p
between th e tw o passages that Beethove n ha d i n mind : J ^ = 11 6 to Ji = 92 , a
modest relationshi p o f 5:4 . Th e exten t t o whic h a temp o distortio n o f this pas-
sage destroy s Beethoven' s conceptio n an d structur e ca n perhap s b e bes t mea -
sured b y the fac t that , fo r conductor s wh o hav e alread y done th e whol e move -
ment a t a slower tempo tha n indicate d an d withou t Beethoven' s co n moto, goin g
even slowe r here remove s th e passag e entirely fro m consideratio n a s part o f this
quasi-menueito movement . I t becomes , agains t all logi c an d sens e o f continuity,
an adagio, man y conductor s —Karajan, Furtwängler , Knappertsbusch , Szell ,
Ashkenazy, Thomas , Maazel , Bernstein , Coli n Davis , Giulin i —ending u p any -
where fro m betwee n 1 2 t o 2 0 point s metronomicall y belo w their alread y slo w
Tempo I , an d Mengelber g of f by a n incredibl e 2 6 points . ( A bad editin g splic e
on th e secon d bea t o f m.21 8 furthe r mar s Karajan' s 198 2 recording. ) Others ,
such a s Jochum, Kubelik , Ansermet, Walter , too k suc h a slow tempo t o begi n
with (J l in the 60s ) that the y could not—o r dare d not—g o even slowe r at m.218.
(One conductor , Masur , actuall y wen t faste r a t m.218. ) Th e worst offende r i s
Böhm, who make s a huge ritar d a t mm.218-19, then suddenl y quit e irrationally
does a n a tempo a t m.220 . Th e bes t performance s o f thi s sectio n ar e thos e o f
Dorati, Dohnanyi , Mehta , Reiner , Toscanini , Eric h Kleiber , Wand, and—virtu -
ally perfect—Haitink .
The note-by-not e pyrami d i n mm.218-1 9 i s often poorl y performed; it need s
to b e perfectl y balance d i n th e fou r separat e entrances . Th e printe d scor e i s
perhaps a littl e a t faul t here , sinc e thes e tw o measure s ar e somewha t carelessl y
or ambiguously marked. I n the commonl y availabl e scores, a diminuendo wedg e
in the bassoo n par t is entirely missing, whil e the others ' dynamic s are incorrectl y
lined up , makin g it unclear wher e th e diminuend o i s in fac t t o start. Beethoven' s
manuscript i s clear, however , i n tha t th e Z^r= - sign s (excep t fo r the bassoon's ,
which i s missing) start on th e thir d eight h o f m.218, extending fo r a total o f fou r
beats. Thi s leave s matter s stil l a littl e unclea r i n respect , fo r example , t o th e
oboe's entranc e (shoul d i t b e mf o r mp), als o th e firs t clarinet's . On e possibl e
version o f clarifyin g Beethoven' s intention s migh t b e th e followin g (Ex . 33a) .
This, however , i s mor e difficul t t o realiz e tha n th e versio n usuall y preferre d
(Ex. 33b) , because it i s hard enoug h t o ge t al l thre e woodwin d players—the two
Ex. 33 a
Ex. 33 b
clarinets an d th e oboe—t o matc h u p thei r attack s an d dynami c whe n the y ar e

to b e al l equal ; i t i s even harde r t o calibrat e th e thre e entrance s i n suc h a way
as to creat e a n over-al l diminuend o fro m f t o mp.
As for mm.224-28, onc e agai n Beethove n ha s provide d enoug h contras t with
the thre e previou s occurrence s o f this phrase—dynamically , harmonically , an d
orchestrationally—as to no t requir e an y additiona l deviation from th e text . Eve n
so, distortions of this passage abound s o plentifully as to hav e become a virtuall y
irreversible tradition . Tha t i t wa s not a traditio n necessaril y hande d dow n fro m
19th-century interpretationa l practice s i s show n b y th e fac t that , fo r example ,
Mengelberg slow s th e temp o t o a n incredibl e 5 0 to th e eighth-note , whil e Nik -
isch keep s th e temp o beautifull y flowing. Conductors wh o over-sentimentaliz e
this phras e see m no t t o realiz e tha t i t is , a s i t ha s alway s been i n th e thre e
previous incarnations , a variant of the immediatel y precedin g woodwin d phrase,
only thi s las t time heightene d i n intensit y by the mean s mentione d above . This
suggests —or shoul d suggest—tha t m.22 4 i s not som e bran d ne w episod e i n th e
movement, tha t i t should no t brea k th e bound s o f relationship to its predecesso r

phrases, an d tha t i t i s no t a n excus e fo r a willful , self-indulgent , emotiona l ex -
ploitation.
It i s endemi c t o al l unwanted , unintende d temp o change s tha t the y requir e
readjustment, o r a t least rais e th e questio n o f ho w t o continue : i n th e sam e
tempo, i n a ne w on e o r i n th e originall y intende d one ? Orchestr a musician s
know tha t ever y tim e a conducto r deviate s fro m th e temp o h e ha s t o 'fi x it '
again, an d tha t this is always problematic, creatin g i n fac t unnecessar y problem s
which woul d no t hav e arise n i f th e temp o ha d bee n kep t stead y i n th e firs t
place. Th e enormou s temp o stretching s i n mos t performance s at mm.224-2 8
are n o exception . Fo r the y exacerbat e th e questio n o f wha t temp o shoul d b e
taken for the coda , beginnin g m.229 . The answer , of course, is the 'righ t tempo,'
namely tha t o f Beethoven's origina l Andante co n moto, perhap s a tiny bit slower,
more relaxed , i n a sor t o f dreamy , reminiscen t mood , a s th e clarinet s an d bas -
soons nostalgicall y harken bac k to earlie r main them e statements . Instead , how -
ever, man y conductor s us e thi s passag e fo r furthe r self-indulgence , tryin g t o
make th e passag e eithe r slowe r tha n anyon e els e ha s eve r don e it , o r softer , o r
more legato . Th e extreme s here ar e represented b y Knappertsbusch and Ashken-
azy, a t a creepin g J l = 5 0 an d J^ = 5 6 respectivel y (onl y 4 2 an d 3 6 point s
away fro m th e intende d tempo! ) and , o n th e opposit e temp o scale , Thomas ,
who actuall y beats hi s ow n Tempo I b y fou r point s (J < = 84) . Th e slo w temp o
at m.229, alread y requiring an adjustmen t from th e previou s six to ten bars , now
prompts mos t conductor s t o mak e a n accelerand o wit h th e crescend o tha t starts
in m.235 . Suc h a n accelerando—on e o f the mos t durabl e o f bad habit s i n an y
case—becomes quit e unnecessary , whe n a bette r temp o i s maintaine d i n th e
first place , a s Haitink's , Reiner's , Leibowitz's , an d Dorati' s recording s demon -
strate.
One o f th e mos t problemati c passage s i n th e entir e movemen t i s mm.240-
41. Her e th e conventio n i n Beethoven' s tim e o f notating al l instrument s a t th e
same dynami c leve l obscure s th e primar y thematic lin e whic h ascend s throug h
the orchestra l rang e fro m th e lo w basses, cellos, an d viola s to th e violins , and i n
the thir d bea t o f m.24 1 fro m th e violin s t o th e woodwind s (minu s oboes ) t o
create th e followin g over-al l line (Ex . 34). The onl y way to achieve the intende d
Ex. 3 4
effect i s to ask all the player s not involve d in thi s arpeggiate d lin e t o lessen thei r
f slightly , especiall y th e bras s an d timpani , a t th e sam e tim e askin g the player s
who d o participat e in th e primar y lin e t o brin g i t out . I t i s astonishing how fe w
recorded performance s cam e eve n clos e t o realizin g this passag e correctly , how
few eve n understoo d tha t ther e wa s a proble m here . Th e onl y conductor s wh o

get i t righ t ar e Nikisc h an d Weingartner ; wit h som e others—Jochum , Walter ,
Klemperer, Maazel , Mehta , Haitink , Dohnanyi , Furtwängler , Suitner—comin g
close (Furtwängler , an d Suitner , fo r example , onl y lose th e woodwinds ' part of
the line).
I a m no t partia l to big portentou s ritard s in th e las t six bars of the movement ,
although I realiz e the y ar e ver y popular . Fir m ff chord s i n th e strings , well-
sustained El>' s i n woodwinds , a resolut e tempo , an d th e fina l tw o bar s playe d
with grea t finality , ar e al l tha t i s required t o brin g th e movemen t t o a stirring
close.
Any reade r followin g my tabulatio n o f th e variou s and sundr y performance
vagaries visite d upon th e Andante movement , wil l hav e notice d tha t the y repre -
sent i n tota l a muc h greate r latitud e i n interpretatio n compare d wit h th e firs t
movement. Thi s i s undoubtedl y accounte d fo r b y th e structural , forma l differ -
ence betwee n th e tw o movements : th e on e tightl y organized , precisel y con -
structed ou t o f minut e motivi c cells , th e othe r conceive d i n longe r melodi c
spans an d subtl e variationa l procedures , whic h i n themselve s provid e mor e
room, a s it were, more opportunitie s to take liberties. Th e reade r ma y remembe r
that Beethove n an d Wagner , bu t eve n Mattheso n an d Junker , already referre d
to th e phenomeno n tha t a slow movement inherentl y offer s an d suggest s oppor-
tunities fo r tempo an d othe r interpretationa l modification s that a tightl y argued
allegro simpl y does not . Thi s i s no t t o sugges t tha t thi s conditio n justifie s th e
taking o f mor e libertie s i n th e slo w movements o f composers ' scores ; i t simply
states the fac t tha t suc h a tendenc y exists , and lead s me t o suggest tha t conduc -
tors ough t t o b e eve n mor e o n guar d agains t arbitrar y indulgences i n slow(er)
movements tha n i n faste r movements . Fo r le t i t b e state d fo r th e recor d that ,
predilections, tendencies, and willfu l tradition s aside, there i s absolutely no cate -
gorical reaso n wh y or proof that slow(er ) tempos can' t b e maintaine d a t a steady
pace, as , o f course , an y numbe r o f fin e performance s b y th e bes t conductor s
can attest . State d thi s way, it may soun d t o man y a reade r a s an obviou s truism,
hardly wort h mentioning . Ye t the evidenc e tha t man y conductor s conside r slo w
movements fai r gam e fo r egotistica l musica l self-gratificatio n i s overwhelming,
and i s in itsel f a devastating commen t o n th e generall y deplorable stat e o f con -
ducting a s an interpretive , re-creative art.
We turn no w to the thir d movemen t o f Beethoven's Fift h Symphon y an d retur n

also t o th e stricter , tighter type o f structural organizatio n o f the firs t movement ,
as well as its conception i n single-measure-per-bea t notation an d four-ba r phrase
structuring. An d onc e again , a s we shal l see , th e four-ba r structuring is not un -
equivocally displaye d i n Beethoven' s notation , whic h fac t ha s unfortunatel y led
to innumerabl e misinterpretation s of the music . Bu t eve n mor e grievou s are th e
common ignorin g and rejectio n of Beethoven's temp o an d metronom e marking ,
Allegro J . = 96 . I t reall y baffle s m e wh y conductor s ar e s o reluctan t to hono r
Beethoven's metronomizatio n here, whe n the y are perfectl y conten t t o hono r i t
in som e o f Beethoven's othe r symphon y Scherzos , suc h a s the Firs t (J . = 108) ,

the Eroica (J . = 116) , th e Sevent h (J . = 132) , all muc h faste r tha n th e thir d
movement i n th e Fifth . I s it because th e musi c i s in C minor ? Is it because th e
opening phras e i s legato, rathe r the n staccato? I s i t becaus e th e tw o openin g
phrases ar e marke d pp?
Perhaps i t i s for al l o f these reasons . Bu t i f so, non e o f them i s justified . I t is ,
after all , a Scherzo—althoug h curiousl y Beethove n di d no t cal l i t thu s i n hi s
manuscript score—an d i n it s relationship t o othe r Beethove n scherzo s i t i s only
slightly slowe r tha n man y o f them . Eve n so , th e quarter-note s ar e stil l might y
fast ( J = 288) .
The wors t consequence o f taking a slower than indicate d temp o i s that, a s we
shall se e abundantl y below , th e Scherz o i n mos t performance s turn s ou t t o b e
slower tha n th e las t movement. Thi s make s no sens e whatsoever , by any possible
reasoning. I t i s not onl y inaccurat e bu t perversel y disrespectful of Beethoven ; i t
is furthermor e irrationa l i n tha t i t tend s t o respec t th e metronom e markin g o f
the fourt h movemen t ( J = 84) , bu t no t o f the third . What kin d o f logic i s that?
Apart from Toscanini , whos e tempo i s a perfect 96 to the dotte d half-note , only a
few conductor s i n ou r hug e samplin g com e clos e t o Beethoven's desire d tempo :
Norrington (94) , Straus s (92) , Hogwood, Muti, Dohnanyi , an d Reine r (90) , Kar-
ajan, Dorati , Masur , DeSabata , th e Hanove r Ban d (al l at 88) , Weingartner , Er -
ich Kleiber , and Leibowit z (86) , Brügge n an d Suitner(84) . Mos t conductor s set -
tle fo r a comfortable , leisurel y «J . = 80 , which , a s I hav e pointe d out , i f
maintained throughou t th e Scherzo , wil l mak e i t slower than th e Finale . Eve n
slower, aroun d 7 0 an d 7 2 (mor e tha n 2 0 point s of f from Beethoven' s mark ) ar e
Knappertsbusch, Walter , Sold , Krips , Kletzki , Va n Otterloo , an d (surprisingly )
Haitink. Boule z take s a ponderous J . = 66 ! Gardiner i s once agai n o n th e fast ,
nervous side (J . = ca . 104).
But le t u s assum e w e hav e accepte d Beethoven' s temp o indication ; w e stil l
need t o determin e wher e th e four-ba r phras e structurin g falls . Wher e i s 'one, '
for example , i n th e openin g phrase ? Well, i t is not m . l, although man y conduc -
tors an d musician s hav e to o easil y assume d tha t t o b e th e case . A s in th e firs t
movement, w e hav e t o perus e analyticall y virtually the entir e movemen t t o de -
termine wit h certainty where the four-ba r periodizations lie. Once agai n i t is not
all tha t obvious , th e movemen t bein g notate d i n al l look-alik e singl e bars . We
have t o us e th e sam e analyti c tool s a s i n th e firs t movement : tell-tal e majo r
phrase junctures , confirmatio n through tonalit y o r tonic anchoring , evidenc e o f
consistency i n th e phras e structuring , etc . B y such mean s w e discove r that th e
first four note s ar e i n a n anacrusi s position , an d th e firs t 'one ' ba r i s m.2, thu s
making mm.l , 5 , and 9 'fours, ' i.e . upbea t measure s (se e Plat e VII) . This in tur n
means tha t th e fermat a measure s (mm.8 , 18 , 52 ) are 'threes, ' a logica l plac e fo r
them, bein g o n dominan t (V ) positions harmonically . Thes e fermata s ar e pre -
ceded i n th e previou s measur e b y a poco ritard. This i s where th e performanc e
and interpretatio n problems begin , fo r mos t conductor s simply have ignore d —
and continu e t o ignor e — Beethoven's wor d poco. Mos t conductor s mak e hug e
Plate VI I Beethoven , Fift h Symphony , openin g o f the thir d movemen t
ritards here , no t onl y defyin g Beethoven' s admonitio n o f poco, but als o bringin g
the piece , th e motio n an d flo w o f the music , t o a virtua l standstill when i t has
barely gotte n started . Worse tha n that , mos t conductor s ignor e th e scor e further
by startin g the ritar d as early as the fourt h or fifth measure. I f one doe s star t th e
ritard early , the n inevitabl y it wil l resul t i n a molió ritard . I f conductor s woul d
but consul t Beethoven' s manuscript , the y woul d se e tha t h e originall y had th e
poco ritar d i n m.6 , bu t the n o n secon d though t specificall y moved i t on e ba r
later t o m.7 . Thi s ough t t o tel l conductor s something , unles s the y simpl y want,
once again , t o assum e tha t Beethove n didn' t kno w wha t h e wanted . Th e wors t
sinners on thi s point ar e Nikisch , Mengelberg, Furtwängler , Krips, Koussevitzky,
Böhm, Stokowski , Munch, Ansermet, Muti , an d Harnoncourt . Excellent, o n th e
other hand , ar e Strauss , Maazel, Steinberg , Dorati , Karajan , Jochum , Schuricht ,
Dohnanyi, Ozawa , and , a s might b e expected , Toscanini .
In mos t availabl e score s an d part s m.1 3 ha s a sf p i n th e cello s an d basses .
But thi s i s incorrect; Beethoven' s manuscrip t ha s s/rl^=-, implyin g that m.1 4
is once agai n pp. W e should als o note i n passin g that i n thi s passag e (mm.9-18 )
Beethoven use d anothe r on e o f hi s phras e stretchings , extendin g th e expecte d
four-bar line , startin g a t m.10 , t o si x bars. Fo r i f m.6 i s a 'one, ' the n m.1 6 mus t
also b e a 'one, ' an d tha t mean s i n tur n tha t m.1 5 i s a 'four ' type , i n thi s case ,
however, transformed by the additio n o f two measures into a 'six.' By that reason -
ing m.!3' s s f I^= — fall s o n a 'four, ' an d function s therefor e a s a kin d o f off -
beat syncopation . I t i s very effectiv e tha t way , a littl e expressiv e surprise i n th e
phrase structurin g earl y on i n th e movement . Bu t i t i s also possible , I suppose ,
to thin k o f th e six-ba r phras e divide d i n tw o three-ba r entities , i n whic h cas e
m.13 woul d b e a 'one. ' Whicheve r choic e on e makes , I thin k i t i s importan t
that a choice b e made, tha t th e cello s an d basse s fee l an d perfor m th e phras e
with som e unifie d conception , rathe r tha n jus t playin g the s f i n som e arbitrar y
uninformed way.
Measures 1-1 8 constitut e th e introductio n t o th e actua l bod y o f th e move -
ment, whic h begin s wit h th e horn s i n th e anacrusi s m.19, that measur e bein g a
'four.' Thi s needs , alas , t o b e state d an d emphasized , fo r to o ofte n thi s musi c
has bee n playe d a s if m.19 wer e th e hea d o f the phrase , i.e . a 'one, ' thu s bein g
thereafter on e measur e of f in the phrasing . Suc h a misinterpretation als o ignore s
the fac t tha t th e thre e hor n note s i n m.1 9 ar e a clos e varian t o f th e openin g
motif o f the symphon y (Ex . 35) , also, as w e know, in a n anacrusi s position. I t is
Ex. 3 5
therefore importan t fo r the horn s to know that m.25 is a 'two,' a weak 'beat' in th e
four-bar phrase , not th e accente d 'one ' s o often heard . The sam e caution applies
to the uppe r strings and woodwind s in mm.3 3 and 37 . Care shoul d also be taken
that the bass line starting in m.27 is well sustained by the cello s and basses , in con-
trast to the preceding seven measures.
Since a four-bar-ness (Schenker uses Viertaktigkeit) function s cruciall y through-
out mos t of the movement—ther e are again , as we shall see, a few interesting ex-
ceptions—it i s imperativ e tha t conducto r an d player s understan d this, 51
but more than understanding it intellectually, feel i t and make it felt—and perceiv-
able—to the listener. The differenc e between the right and the wrong phrasing can
be heard in man y recordings; for example: (correct) Toscanini, Furtwängler, Hai-
tink, Jochum, Reiner, Dorati, Mehta, Dohnanyi , Ozawa , Muti , Gardiner ; (incor-
rect) Weingartner , Klemperer, Suitner , Knappertsbusch , Walter, Ormandy , Giu -
lini, Solti, Thomas, Stokowski, 52 Ashkenazy, Boulez, Harnoncourt, Bruggen.
Measures 40—4 5 i s another stretche d phras e (b y means o f repetition). Another
kind o f stretching, althoug h thi s time withou t disturbin g the four-ba r periodiza-
tion—a melodi c stretching—occur s i n mm.54-60 . This wa s necessitated b y th e
need fo r th e musi c t o retur n t o th e toni c ke y of C minor , havin g landed i n B t
minor i n m.4 5 an d m.53 . Th e intervalli c melodic twist s an d turn s i n mm.54 -
60, alread y of course partiall y anticipated i n mm . 11-14, represen t Beethoven' s
ingenious wa y of moving in a minimal amoun t o f time fro m B t mino r t o a basic
G(major) peda l in m.60 . Beethoven accomplishes thi s by traversing a brief cycle
of fifths : B t -F-C- G (se e encircle d note s i n Ex . 36). I t i s this ver y widel y (and
Ex. 3 6
same as mm. 10-1 3
wildly) skippin g line —it mus t hav e sounde d ver y 'modern'an d strang e t o listen-
ers i n 1808—whic h prompte d Beethove n t o cas t i t i n lon g slurs . His intention ,
I a m sure , wa s to subdu e th e twistin g contours o f the lin e an d it s pp dynami c
by a n eeril y smoot h legato. Mos t performances , however , brea k th e strings '
51. I t must be pointe d ou t tha t again , a s in th e firs t movement , unwar y orchestra musician s ar e no t
likely to be abl e to deduce from merely lookin g at their individua l parts wher e th e four-ba r periodiza-
tion falls . Unles s the y sa t down wit h th e scor e on e da y an d figure d ou t th e correc t periodizatio n o r
have bee n tol d b y a goo d conducto r ho w th e phrase s go , the y ar e unlikel y eve r t o hav e though t
about th e subject . Man y hor n players , fo r example , se e a /fi n m.1 9 an d simpl y assum e fro m tha t
scant informatio n tha t i t is the 'downbeat ' beginnin g o f the phrase .
52. Stokowski's recording s o f Beethoven' s Fift h ar e complet e musica l travesties . Apar t fro m man y
typically Stokowskia n phrasin g an d dynami c excesses—man y o f them th e resul t o f the mos t absur d
technical electroni c alteration s (equalizing , dialin g entir e section s o r individua l player s int o in -
audible oblivion , other s int o exaggerate d prominence ) — Stokowski indulge s i n som e bizarr e re -
orchestrations. H e double s th e clarinet s i n mm.38-4 1 (an d th e oboe s i n mm.90-93 ) i n th e thir d
movement wit h mute d (sic) trumpets; i n th e las t movemen t h e double s the piccol o run s in m.329 —
32, 346-49 with a flut e (no t another piccolo) , an d ha s th e horn s play most of the las t thirty measures
an octav e higher . Bu t then , Kletzki , no t t o b e ou t clon e b y the Beethove n re-arrangers , has hi s first
trumpet i n th e Czec h Philharmoni c pla y a hig h C i n m.415 .
phrasing an d bowing , thu s undermining—no t underscoring—th e intende d ef -

fect. I t i s als o importan t fo r th e strings , especiall y th e enterin g violas , t o kno w
that m.5 7 i s a 'four ' i n th e phras e structure .
Another six-ba r phras e extensio n occur s i n mm.66-71 , makin g th e violins' ,
horns', clarinets ' themati c entranc e i n m.7 1 a n upbea t measur e (similarl y that
of th e trumpet s an d woodwind s i n m.79) . Th e six-ba r extension i n mm.92-9 7
parallels th e on e i n mm.40-45 , i n tur n makin g m.9 8 a 'one.' Measure s 97-10 0
is th e sixt h time tha t w e hav e hear d thi s phrase, 53 eac h time , however , headin g
off i n a differen t direction . Thi s tim e i t lead s t o a majo r themati c excursion— a
kind o f miniature developmen t section—which wil l pla y a mos t importan t rol e
and underg o a mos t remarkabl e transformation in th e recapitulatio n (mm . 141 -
235) o f the Scherzo , afte r th e Trio .
Because conducto r an d musician s ar e usuall y unaware o f the four-ba r phras -
ing, th e entir e sectio n mm . 101—40 i s mor e ofte n tha n no t playe d incorrectly.
For i f viewed onl y fro m th e individua l parts—flute, oboe , first violins, cellos, fo r
example—the phrase mm . 101-104 would seem a t first glance t o start on a 'one'
(Ex. 37a,b) . The legato phrasin g i n the flut e an d cello s underscores that impres -
sion, a s d o th e f' s i n th e cello s i n mm.10 5 an d 109 . An d thi s i s indee d
Ex. 37 a
Ex. 37 b
how i t i s played i n th e majorit y o f cases, 54 including , alas , b y man y renowne d

conductors lik e Kubelik , Solti , Dohnanyi , Ozawa , Walter , Klemperer , an d th e
English 'authenticists. ' Thos e intereste d i n hearin g ho w thi s sectio n sound s
when playe d wit h th e righ t phrasin g migh t liste n t o th e recording s o f Karajan ,
Jochum, Haitink , Dorati, Toscanini , an d Reiner . Karaja n an d th e Berli n Philhar -
monic manag e thi s entir e passag e especiall y well . Liste n t o ho w th e cello s no t
only pla y mm. 105 an d 10 9 wit h a n elegantl y expressiv e f, bu t ho w the y fee l i t
as a 'four,' a n effec t aki n to a syncopation , a n accen t on a weak beat (ver y much
like th e 'fourt h beat ' accen t i n m.13) . Again , Beethoven' s phrasing/bowin g fo r
the cello s (an d bassoons) , startin g i n m.115 , woul d lea d man y t o assum e tha t
m.115, i s a 'one ' (Ex . 38a) . Bu t i t i s not; i t i s a 'two ' (Ex . 38b) . The importan t
53. Measure s 1-4 , 9-12 , 58-61 , 97-100, as well as mrn.45-48, 53-56 , the latte r two in transposition.
54. Flutist s especially love the incorrec t phrasing because i t allows them t o crescend o int o the hig h
F an d G i n m.10 3 and m.10 7 respectively, a crescendo the y would be oblige d to avoid i n the correc t
phrasing, wher e th e hig h not e i s on a 'two ' an d shoul d no t b e emphasized .
Ex. 38 a
'ones' coincid e wit h th e toni c C' s i n m.11 8 an d m.122 . Similarly , m.131 surel y
looks lik e a 'one' i n al l the parts—thre e sturd y tonic-dominant chords—an d ye t
it to o i s a 'two / th e C mino r chor d i n m.13 2 the n bein g a 'three ' an d th e nex t
main-theme repetitio n startin g (correctly) on a n upbeat measure . Thi s periodiza-
tion require s that th e thre e chord s i n m.13 1 no t b e playe d a s loud a s possible —
which mos t orchestra s lov e t o do , thinkin g i t i s the arriva l poin t o f th e phras e
and th e pea k of the previou s nine-bar crescendo—bu t lead instea d t o the weight-
ier 'three' i n m.132 , followed than b y a rea l f f i n m.133 .
When orchestra s play m.133 erroneousl y as a 'one, ' the y en d —if indee d the y
are feelin g four-bar phras e entitie s a t all—o n a weak 'four ' i n m.140 . That is , of
course, impossible : neithe r Beethove n no r an y othe r compose r o f th e perio d
would eve r hav e ende d a movemen t o r a majo r sectio n o f a movemen t o n th e
weakest beat o f a phrase . And on e ca n hea r an d fee l th e embarrasse d hesitatio n
and obviou s discomfor t of players i n performance s i n whic h m.13 3 an d m.13 7
are perceive d a s 'ones.' Measur e 14 0 therefore i s a 'three, ' completin g th e firs t
part o f th e Scherz o (Ex . 39) , jus t a s th e firs t movemen t o f th e symphon y als o
ended o n a 'three.'
Ex. 3 9
By rights , on e migh t argue , Beethove n shoul d no w hav e adde d a n empt y

measure befor e attacking the Tri o o f the Scherzo . Bu t evidently he fel t th e nee d
to plung e righ t o n int o wha t mus t hav e bee n a mos t shockin g surpris e t o
musicians an d listener s in 1808 : th e rambunctious , galvani c outburst i n th e cel -
los an d basses , turne d eve n mor e surprisingl y immediately int o a 'proper ' littl e
fugato.
In th e meantime—befor e w e leave the Scherz o proper—w e shoul d no t fai l t o
appreciate th e deliciou s piquant dissonance s wit h whic h Beethove n spice s u p
much o f thi s 'developmen t section' : th e woodwinds ' At>'s , fo r example , i n
mm.l 11-14, rubbing not only against the G peda l point s in horns and bassoons,
but agains t the G-Et' s i n th e strings , engaged a t th e sam e tim e i n a n interplay
with th e timpan i whos e G' s intermittentl y als o clas h wit h th e Al>' s o f the wood -
winds and viola s (see Ex. 40). The irregularit y of periodization w e have glimpse d
Ex.40
at th e en d o f th e Scherz o proper , i n effec t a seven-ba r structurin g (mm . 134-

40) —or viewe d anothe r wa y a three-ba r structurin g i n mm . 138-40 —is contin -
ued i n th e Trio , th e firs t sectio n o f which ca n b e see n a s consistin g o f tw o six -
bar phrase s (mm.141-52 ) (Ex.41) , followe d b y a five-ba r an d a three-ba r
Ex.41
unit (mm . 153-57 an d mm . 158-60, respectively) . I t i s a s i f Beethove n wante d

to shak e u p th e previou s existin g structure , pumme l i t int o differen t unpre -
dictable shape s — of course , onl y o n th e surface . Fo r underneath , thes e ir -
regular phrase s stil l combin e int o a binary-base d over-al l perio d o f twent y
bars.
The just-mentione d six-ba r phrasing s o f th e Tri o ca n als o b e though t o f a s
being eac h divisibl e int o thre e bar s (twice) , or—mor e remotely—int o tw o bars
three times . I lea n strongl y towards the forme r conception fo r a numbe r o f rea-
sons, primaril y harmonicall y oriented . I t become s clea r rathe r quickl y fro m a
harmonic analysi s that, jus t a s th e Scherz o i s basically i n C minor , s o the Tri o
is primaril y i n th e dominant , G , leadin g eventuall y wit h th e retur n o f th e
Scherzo bac k t o th e toni c C minor . Bu t withi n thi s large r harmoni c schem e
one find s smalle r harmoni c grouping s tha t clearl y hel p t o defin e th e phras e
structuring. Th e schemati c (Fig . 6) o f th e firs t sectio n o f th e Tri o display s its
harmonic function s i n detail , revealin g som e ver y fascinatin g patterns. W e se e
that th e firs t thre e measures , se t i n G (wit h it s ancillar y subdominant C) , ar e
exactly mirrored , althoug h transpose d u p a fourth , i n th e secon d six-ba r unit ,
both segment s the n appearin g i n th e nex t uni t i n a contracte d for m (mm . 141,
142, 147 , 148 combine d selectively , as ca n b e clearl y see n i n th e trumpe t an d
bassoon parts , i n mm . 153-56). Th e extr a measur e 15 7 (i n D ) wa s neede d
to brin g th e progressio n bac k t o th e temporar y toni c G ; thu s th e five-plus-
three structuring . We ca n se e als o tha t th e three-ba r subdivisio n o f th e firs t
Fig. 6
measure 141 14 2 14 3 14 4 14 5 14 6 147 14 8 14 9 15 0 15 1 15 2 153 15 4 15 5 15 6 15 7 158 15 9 16 0
GC G C modulates to D O D O circle s t o sta y in QC D G D G O O
key ( a) aroun d
i i vi i v v i v í II VV I V II I
tonality ( b ) V I V I II V I IV VI I IV I I VV V
,, , , 1 I I1 ii ,i ,,
periodization 33 33 23 3
6 6 5 3
The highe r harmoni c position s [a) ] ar e t o b e understoo d a s i n th e ke y o f th e Trio : G

(dominant). Th e lowe r harmoni c position s [b) ] ar e t o b e understoo d a s in th e ke y of C ,
the Scherzo' s primar y key.
six-bar phras e link s u p naturall y wit h th e Scherzo' s fina l thre e measures ,

C-G-C G-C- G
whose cadenc e i s immediately reverberate d i n th e Trio' s V- 1 -V.
1 V l
~ ~ (I-IV-I )
A similar, closely related harmonic patter n ca n be seen i n the secon d par t of the
Trio, no w returne d t o four-ba r phrasings. Th e eigh t measure s 161-6 8 ar e i n G ,
although i n a sense jus t barely so, since the first four measure s ar e hinge d t o th e
seventh an d nint h degree s o f G—a thir d inversion , as it were. Now the following
four-bar pattern s evolve (Fig. 7), which turn ou t to be harmonically expanded an d
transpositionally modifie d variant s of mm . 15 3-56, melodically/thematicall y als o
Fig. 7
measure 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176
G r G r r F r F
key a )
IV
I IV I IV VII IV VII
onaiy
b) V i V i i IV i IV
periodization §
4 4
referring bac k t o th e Trio' s firs t part . A s i n tha t section , s o her e no w i n th e

second section , th e eigh t measure s 169-7 6 ar e immediatel y mirrore d i n con -
tracted for m i n mm . 177-80 (G-C-C-F) , afte r whic h a prolonge d G peda l poin t
(of twelv e measures ) send s th e musi c bac k t o C major . A repea t o f the secon d
section, modifie d primaril y dynamicall y b y a prolonge d diminuend o bu t stil l
principally locate d i n G majo r lead s t o a retur n o f th e Scherz o prope r ( C
minor).
As ca n b e see n fro m eve n thi s relativel y cursor y surve y o f th e Trio' s large r
harmonic rhythms , i t i s remarkabl y stric t i n it s functiona l organization . Lik e
boxes withi n boxes , harmoni c progression s and thei r thematic/melodi c counter -
points constantl y rotate aroun d th e variou s tonic axes , with th e larges t 'box' —in
G major—containin g al l the smalle r ones.
I hav e presente d thi s muc h harmoni c analysis—ther e i s muc h mor e tha t
could b e sai d o n thi s subject—t o sho w ho w th e Trio' s harmoni c function s do i n
fact determin e it s over-all phras e structurin g an d i n particula r th e 6-6-5- 3 parti -

tioning i n th e first section. 55
The dramati c intensit y of the Trio' s b y now famous cello-and-bass passage ha s
led man y a conducto r t o exaggerat e i t dynamically, urging th e players , either by
gesture o r verba l bidding , t o pla y a s loudly an d roughl y a s possible . Th e entir e
section i s marke d onl y f , i n contras t t o th e ff i n th e Trio' s secon d endin g
(m.159), a dynami c tha t i s rarel y observe d (o r observable , sinc e th e previou s
passage i s so ofte n thundere d fort h i n a pulverizin g ff). Whe n playe d to o loud ,
the ris k i s that i n mm . 141-42 the players ' bows will indiscriminately hit adjacen t
strings, impairin g th e not e clarit y of th e passage , whic h i s hard enoug h t o pro -
duce cleanl y o n th e lowes t string s of the bas s a t a fas t tempo . I t als o make s th e
open string s i n th e cello s (circle d i n Ex . 41) , especiall y th e brigh t A i n m.144 ,
spurt fort h i n a n out-of-context , edgy , explosiv e way.
Two more problem s mus t stil l be deal t wit h i n thi s sectio n (applicabl e als o to
mm. 194-97). One i s the nee d t o keep th e bas s line full y prominen t throughout ,
particularly i n mm . 158-60. Thi s i s important i n orde r t o full y re-establis h an d
confirm th e ke y of G, no t onl y chordally/harmonicall y bu t melodically/themati -
cally. The proble m i n thi s regar d i s twofold: as just mentioned, i f the res t o f th e
orchestra, includin g timpan i an d brass , i s playin g ff , th e cello s an d basse s will
surely be outbalance d an d inaudible . Second , i t is an establishe d (thoug h gener -
ally littl e regarded ) fac t tha t th e vas t majority of listener s associate melody an d
theme almos t exclusivel y with th e uppe r an d middl e register s o f ou r hearin g
range. T o pu t i t anothe r way , generall y peopl e d o no t expec t t o hea r anythin g
thematic, melodi c —or important—i n th e bas s register . Thei r ear s ar e mor e
likely t o follo w a n uppe r registe r line, eve n i f it i s of lesse r consequence . Thu s
in thi s case , th e averag e ea r wil l follo w th e violi n line , beginnin g i n m.154 ,
and b e completel y distracte d fro m followin g the all-importan t bas s line, unles s
conductor an d orchestr a explicitl y treat i t as the mai n voice . I t i s therefore espe -
cially crucia l her e tha t th e timpan i no t pla y to o loud , o r le t it s notes rin g to o
long.
The secon d proble m i s one o f bowing. I n mm . 158-60 th e uppe r string s must
use th e followin g bowin g , fo r th e bowin g ofte n
used, namely , result s i n th e thre e eighth-note s

sounding lik e a triple t or , i n effect , turnin g thes e 3/ 4 measures int o 6/8's . A s for
the temp o o f the Trio , everythin g conceivabl e ha s bee n trie d ove r th e years . A
few conductor s (includin g Solti , Thomas , an d Carlo s Kleiber ) lik e t o g o faste r
at m.141 , ostensibl y producin g 'greate r excitement' ; mos t lik e t o g o slower ,
55. Som e interestin g anomalie s an d ambiguitie s remain unexplained . Fo r example , i s m.142 really
in C ? I believ e so , becaus e th e measure' s las t not e i s an F . Ha d Beethove n change d i t t o Fjt , th e
whole phras e woul d hav e a totall y different feeling , muc h mor e ¡ n G major . Bu t then , ho w d o w e
explain th e C | in m.148 ; and wh y did Beethove n us e i t here whe n h e di d not us e i t eight bar s late r
in exactl y the sam e situatio n i n th e firs t violins ? And doe s tha t Cj t mak e in . 148 fal l mor e i n a D
tonality?
thinking o f a weightier , heavie r effect— a stereotyp e often , alas , associate d wit h

double basses . Some , o f course, believ e i n stayin g at th e sam e tempo , a s in th e
main par t o f the Scherzo . Th e firs t (faster ) approac h ca n lea d t o a lac k o f pitc h
clarity (alread y at a premiu m o n th e lowe r bass strings), if not actuall y a bi t o f a
note scramble . Th e secon d approac h (slower ) ca n lea d t o a n overl y ponderous ,
pachydermatous effec t tha t i s quit e foreig n t o Beethoven' s music , which , eve n
at it s weightiest, ha s a lea n tensil e strengt h tha t i s closer t o Haydn , Handel , an d
Bach tha n t o Bruckne r an d Wagner .
In th e end , an y o f the thre e temp o approache s work , this bein g on e o f Bee -
thoven's mor e indestructibl e an d memorabl e passages , tha t is , a s lon g a s th e
tempo modificatio n i s withi n reason , withi n feel-abl e rang e o f th e origina l
tempo.56
On a pa r wit h th e originalit y of the irregula r phrasing i n th e firs t par t o f th e
Trio, all couche d i n a mini-fugato , i s the radicalit y of the motivi c fragmentatio n
in the beginnin g (mm . 162-65) of the secon d par t (Ex . 42). This unusual passag e
Ex.42
has give n player s problems fo r generations , i t bein g difficul t t o pla y thes e shor t
bursts o f phrase s without th e expecte d downbea t note s a t mm . 163, 167 . Th e
rhythmic instabilit y implied her e ca n i n fac t b e destabilizing , eve n disorienting .
In performance s an d recording s on e ofte n ca n hea r th e G' s i n mm . 163, 16 5
come i n early , rushed . Mor e tha n that , however , i t i s ver y har d t o preven t th e
passage fro m soundin g lik e this : a s
innumerable recording s attest . ( I hav e ofte n jokingl y called thi s th e firs t tru e
5/8 i n classica l music. ) A n accen t o n th e fina l F o f m.16 2 an d m.16 4 ca n b e
avoided b y making a slight, subtle diminuend o o n th e las t two or three eighths. 57
56. Th e mos t pervers e interpretatio n o f th e Tri o o n recor d ha s go t t o b e Stokowski's , no t onl y

because h e too k a sluggis h temp o of J. = 68 , but becaus e h e mad e th e poo r cellist s and bassist s of
the Londo n Philharmoni c Orchestr a pla y the entir e passag e on th e string! S o did Scherchen .
57. Severa l conductor s hav e adde d t o th e 'irrationality ' o f thi s passag e b y imposin g eve n mor e
irrational interpretation s o n it . Fo r example , Reiner , whos e recordin g o f th e Fift h i s i n almos t al l
respects exemplary , nonetheles s ha d th e bizarr e ide a t o inser t a fermat a ove r th e rest s o f mm.163 ,
165, thereb y delayin g th e incomin g G' s b y a whol e ba r an d makin g th e rest s equa l t o abou t fiv e
quarter-beats, an d thu s drastically—an d unforgivably—recomposin g Beethoven' s music.
The othe r notabl e performanc e aberratio n i n thi s passag e i s on e perpetrate d b y Kletzki , wh o
conducted i t i n suc h a wa y a s t o resul t i n th e renditio n i n Ex . 43 . I ca n imagin e th e musicians '
consternation encounterin g thi s 'interpretation ' a t thei r firs t rehearsa l wit h Kletzki , an d thei r
The secon d sectio n o f the Tri o (mm . 162-97), developin g alon g th e line s of
an expande d varian t o f th e firs t section , entail s tw o mor e six-ba r phrasing s
(mm. 182-87, 188-93 ) ove r a G peda l point . Bu t thes e 'sixes / unlik e thos e ear -
lier (whic h divide d int o tw o 'threes') , see m t o partitio n int o 'twos ' and , i n th e
second grou p int o reiterate d 'ones'—al l o f these, needles s t o say , still easil y con -
tainable i n th e movement' s generall y quaternar y periodizations . Mor e im -
portant, however , i s t o no t neglec t th e littl e chromati c alteration s Beethove n
inserts i n th e seconds , violas , an d cellos , i n mm . 189-91, as well a s the interest -
ing bassoo n an d trumpe t part s in mm . 192-9 3.
In the thir d par t of the Trio , Beethove n return s to the beginnin g o f the secon d
section, bu t thi s tim e lead s th e musi c i n a n entirel y differen t directio n vi a a n
eighteen-bar diminuendo . Th e whol e passage , whic h eventuall y moves fro m th e
strings t o a flute-dominate d woodwin d septet, 58 function s a s a transitiona l lin k
to the recapitulatio n o f the Scherz o (m.236) .
At thi s poin t we , incidentally , fin d furthe r proo f (i f suc h b e stil l needed ) o f
the particula r four-ba r structurin g I hav e suggeste d a s th e basi s for mos t o f th e
movement. Th e ke y i s m.236 , whic h i s no t containe d i n th e origina l them e
statement. Beethove n ha d t o ad d a measur e i f he wa s intereste d i n preservin g
the four-ba r structuring a t the joinin g of the Tri o t o the Scherz o recapitulation .
Having arrive d at m.234 , ha d h e no w simply repeate d th e openin g phras e liter -
ally, h e woul d hav e ende d u p wit h th e followin g phrase (Ex . 44), includin g a
three-bar uni t (bracketed) . Th e insertio n o f th e on e ba r o f dotte d half-not e C
Ex.44
restored th e four-ba r symmetry . This then provide s further proo f that (a) Beetho -
ven wa s constructin g th e movemen t i n quaternar y phras e units , an d tha t (b )
m.237, lik e m.l, i s a 'four, ' a n 'upbeat ' measure , i n th e structure. 59
Ex.43
subsequent head-shakin g i n disbelie f a s the y struggl e t o pla y th e passag e wel l incorrectly—not a n

easy thin g t o do .
58. I sugges t tha t two-ba r slur s b e adde d t o th e woodwind s in th e fou r bar s mm.214-17 , t o hel p
maintain th e p p dynami c an d t o relat e mor e easil y to th e violins ' bowings/phrasings.
59. I am , o f course , awar e o f th e numerou s discussion s an d argument s tha t hav e rage d ove r th e
question whethe r o r no t Beethove n intende d a repetitio n o f the entir e Scherz o an d Tri o a t m.236 ,
a debat e firs t initiate d b y Schenke r nearl y seventy years ago .
Actually, th e discussio n goe s bac k t o th e thir d an d fourt h decade s o f th e 19t h century , whe n
writers such a s Fétis i n Pari s an d variou s musicians and conductors , in German y includin g Mendels-
sohn, bega n t o questio n tw o extr a measure s tha t ha d mistakenl y bee n lef t i n scor e an d parts ,
mm.238-39. (Thes e ar e n o longe r i n present-da y scores.) A s Schenke r firs t pointe d out , furthe r
At m.23 1 man y conductor s star t a ritard , i n th e mistake n notio n tha t thi s is

necessary t o prepar e th e retur n o f the Scherzo . Beethove n wa s quite capabl e o f
writing ritard o r poco ritard i n m.23 1 o r m.23 2 i f he ha d wante d t o (h e di d s o
only twelv e bar s later) . What h e reall y intended (o r a t least possibly intended )
was tha t th e Scherz o shoul d suddenl y reappear , ou t o f thi n air , a s i t wer e —
unheralded, i n th e natur e o f a surprise.
What follow s no w for the nex t 13 8 bars is surely one o f the mos t astonishingly
visionary and, fo r its time, innovativ e musical creations . The Scherz o is recapitu-
lated bu t transforme d int o a spectral , skeleta l shado w o f it s forme r self . An d
when thi s recapitulatio n ha s ru n it s course , th e Scherz o doe s no t com e t o a
close, a s i n Beethoven' s firs t fou r symphonies , but , a s i n th e Sixt h Symphon y
(composed virtuall y simultaneously wit h th e Fifth) , a coda-transitio n lead s di -
rectly t o th e fourt h movement , whic h i s a n eve n mor e strikin g fligh t o f fancy ,
an almos t motionless , music , a s i f even th e ghos t o f the Scherz o ha d no w died ,
only t o b e revive d 42 bar s late r with th e gloriou s full-of-lif e C majo r brillianc e
of the Finale .
The entir e recapitulatio n an d coda-transitio n contain s numerou s performanc e
pitfalls. Again, of primary importance i s an awarenes s at all times of the periodiza -
tion. Being a recapitulation o f the Scherzo , thoug h varied , it leans on th e exposi-
tion with similar, at times identical , phras e structuring. Fig. 8 shows the relation -
ships betwee n expositio n an d recapitulation . Th e firs t hin t tha t th e Scherzo' s
recapitulation will not be merely an identical repeat, as in Beethoven's earlie r sym-
phonies, come s i n m.238, when th e initia l legato is changed int o a spiccato and a
few wind s replace the earlie r mixed sonorities. The transformatio n to the skeleta l
apparition o f the forme r Scherzo i s fully accomplishe d i n m.24 5 when, al l flesh
confirmed b y som e Beethove n biographers—Nottebohm , Thayer , fo r example—Beethove n some-

time earl y on droppe d th e idea o f a complet e recapitulatio n o f the Scherz o an d Trio , which , how -
ever, through a series of mishaps an d misconnections—wit h publisher s an d copyists—neve r becam e
unequivocally clarified, not i n th e autograp h o r i n th e printe d material s derive d therefrom .
The controvers y has continued into our ow n time, with no one sid e having succeeded i n establish -
ing a n unequivoca l victor y pro o r con . A considerabl e literatur e ha s develope d ove r thi s question ,
most notabl y b y Heinric h Schenke r (1925) , Will y Hess , "Di e Teilwiederholun g i n de r klassische n
Sinfonie un d Kammermusik " (i n Di e Musikforschung, Vol . XVI, 1963) ; Walte r Riezler , Beethoven,
(Zürich, 1944) ; Rober t Simpson , "Th e Firs t Versio n o f Beethoven' s C mino r Symphony " (i n Th e
Score, No.2 6 (1960) ; C Canisius , Quellenstudien un d satztechnische Untersuchungen zu m dritten
Satz au s Beethovens c-Moll Sinfonie, Diss . Heidelberg , 1966 ; Pete r Gülke , Zu r Neuausgabe de r
Sinfonie Nr . 5 von Ludwig va n Beethoven (Leipzig , 1978) ; Igo r Markevitch , Die Sinfonien vo n Lud-
wig va n Beethoven (Leipzig , 1983) .
Having rea d al l these materials , especially those arguin g for the complet e repetition , I am stil l no t
completely convince d tha t thi s represent s Beethoven' s absolut e o r fina l intentions ; ther e ar e to o
many imponderable s an d factua l lacuna e t o be full y persuasive , although Gulke' s summatio n o f the
matter—and conclusio n i n favo r o f the repetition—i s impressive .
Under th e circumstances , barrin g ne w reliabl e documentation , an d claimin g n o irrefutabl e
knowledge o n th e subject , I believe it i s unnecessary to re-argu e the cas e here . I refe r th e reade r to
the source s abov e an d sugges t tha t conductor s mak e u p thei r ow n mind s base d o n a thoroug h
analysis o f the relevan t disputations.
Fig. 8 Recapitulation Exposition

m.236-44 = m.1- 8
m.245-54 = m.9-1 8
m.255-80 = m . 19-44
m.281-323 = m.97-13 9
stripped fro m it s bare not e bones, th e musi c i s reduced t o the spook y sounds o f a
staccato bassoo n an d pizzicat o cellos . Thinl y piping woodwind s alternating wit h
pizzicato violin s render wha t i s left o f the tune , whil e nervousl y twitching grac e
notes i n violin s and viola s add an unearthly , eeri e touch . The grac e note s ca n b e
played before or on the beat, 60 as long as they are played very, very fast. They mus t
sound disembodied , thoug h o f course clearly audible.61
Note that th e dissonanta l interpla y of mm. 111-14 returns in the paralle l plac e
mm.295-98, thi s tim e a singl e hor n providin g th e tin y discordancies . I t i s also
worth noting that when playe d in the four-bar phrasing I have suggested, the pizzi-
cato grac e note s i n th e first violins (mm.300, 304 , 308 , etc.) , whic h ar e virtually
impossible to play without a tiny accent, fall —appropriately—on relativel y strong
beats ('threes' ) o f the phras e units . (The y fall o n a weak 'two' the wa y the piec e is
often incorrectly played.) Very few conductors ge t this ghostly Scherzo recapitula -
tion right , either i n it s phrase structurin g or in the specia l mood an d spel l i t casts.
Conductors wh o have done especially well here are Reiner, Karajan , Furtwängler ,
Haitink, Wand, and—absolutely uncanny in the dance-like swing and shadowy un-
reality he imparts to the music —Carlos Kleiber. That must be heard to be believed.
A brief word abou t Carlo s Kleibe r is perhaps i n order , eve n i f this book i s no t
about individua l conductors , bu t rathe r abou t specifi c work s i n specifi c perfor -
mances. Kleibe r i s so unique , s o remarkable , s o outstandin g tha t on e ca n onl y
describe hi m a s a phenomenon . Thi s doe s no t mea n tha t h e i s a 'perfect ' con -
ductor—perhaps n o on e ca n b e that—bu t h e ha s s o man y extraordinar y attri-
60. Conductors , musicologists , music historians have argued fo r generations about th e placemen t of
Beethoven's grac e note s (no t onl y her e but , fo r example , als o i n th e slo w movemen t o f th e Eroica
and i n a dozen othe r pieces). Nobody can b e absolutel y certain of Beethoven's wishes in thi s respect,
or eve n whethe r h e wa s entirely consistent i n hi s us e o f grace note s an d whethe r thei r usag e migh t
have varie d i n differen t musica l contexts . All tha t i s certain i s that i n Beethoven' s time , notationa l
conventions require d tha t grac e note s associate d wit h a firs t bea t i n a measur e b e place d a t th e
beginning of that measure, not befor e it. This is, of course, i n discrepancy with grace-note placemen t
in relatio n t o othe r beats , wher e the y usuall y are placed , verticall y seen, before th e beat . Thi s nota -
tional discrepanc y leaves th e questio n unanswere d an d ambiguous . I n an y case , i n thi s Scherz o
passage I prefer t o pla y the grac e note s o n th e beat , fo r the pragmati c reason that , base d o n m y own
experiences wit h thi s passage, i f th e grac e note s ar e playe d befor e th e beat , the y ten d (a ) t o b e
played to o slowly , an d (b ) a s th e passag e proceeds, th e grac e notes , especiall y in th e viola s wher e
the grac e note s ar e quit e awkwar d technically , ten d t o com e progressivel y earlie r an d slower.
61. Wha t doc s no t see m t o mak e muc h sens e i s wha t Ashkenazy doe s wit h th e Philharmoni a Or -
chestra, whic h i s to hav e th e violin s pla y th e grac e notes before th e beat , th e viola s o n th e beat .
butes tha t mak e hi m a grea t an d importan t representativ e o f th e ar t o f re -

creation an d performance .
To begi n with , hi s conductin g technique—tha t ter m i s almos t a misnome r
because hi s manua l an d gestura l talents g o way beyond 'technique ' —is no t onl y
astonishingly expressive, but amazingl y free an d flexible . I n it s variety of gestural
choices—mostly concise , clea r an d t o th e poin t (althoug h sometime s a bi t out -
rageous)—his conducting is virtually improvisatory. That is to say, he almos t never
conducts anything , any passage, any musical idea, gesturally the same ; his work is
never pre-programmed. Also, as a 'switch-hitter,' he can at will do things with either
or bot h hands—an d wit h a n infinit e variety of shadings. I n thes e respect s h e i s
like a great jaz z improvise r who ha s endlessl y diverse ways o f expressing himself,
even tim e an d tim e agai n o n th e sam e subject . With al l o f these gift s Kleibe r is
not onl y an inspirin g leader/conductor, bu t a hel l o f a goo d show .
As a musician/philosophe r Kleibe r i s i n th e gran d lineag e o f 20th-centur y
German conductors— a sor t o f combinatio n o f Furtwängler/Eric h Kleiber/Frit z
Busch—who abov e al l goe s fo r the gran d line , th e larg e shape , an d th e clarifi -
cation o f inheren t structure(s) . Not tha t he , lik e som e conductor s o f that tradi-
tion, ignore s details , bu t h e i s not obsesse d wit h the m an d therefor e i s able t o
see th e fores t i n spit e o f the trees . Indeed , I fin d tha t h e i s not (o r elect s no t t o
be) consciou s o f every detail i n a score , eve n detail s which other s woul d rightly
consider ver y important . Lik e man y maestri , he i s selective i n wha t h e choose s
to point ou t (b y his gestures) to th e orchestr a and th e audience . An d lik e man y
others, h e ha s som e questionabl e musica l habits , suc h a s almost alway s crescen-
doing too muc h to o early—h e loves to driv e orchestras to a climax—conductin g
too ofte n onl y the primar y melodi c o r themati c lines , frequentl y neglectin g t o
make th e orchestr a reall y pla y th e softe r dynamics , occasionall y indulgin g i n
unnecessary over-conducting .
But whateve r he does , h e doe s wit h suc h consummat e control , gesturall y and
intellectually, an d wit h suc h a jo y o f music-making , rangin g fro m complet e
confidence-building relaxatio n i n fron t o f an orchestr a t o passionate , almost ec -
static outbursts , that on e ca n onl y be compelle d t o admir e i n aw e —even i f one
does not alway s agree wit h ever y aspect o f his performances. Kleiber is a virtuoso
in th e bes t sense , a virtuoso with a mind .
Tempo i n th e Scherz o recapitulatio n i s critical , perhap s mor e s o tha n i n an y

other par t of the Scherzo . I say this becaus e thi s skeletal music , consistin g mor e
of silenc e tha n actua l note s played , requires , virtuall y by definition , a certai n
minimal motio n an d pulse , jus t t o han g together , a s i t were . A slo w temp o o f
J. = 64 , suc h a s Böh m take s here , o r eve n a leisurel y one suc h a s Walter' s
J. = 72 , simply cannot work ; nor doe s a n overl y hasty rushed-through tempo ,
such a s Strauss's J . = 104 .
The fina l six-ba r phras e (mm.318—23) , whic h woul d normall y have ended th e
movement o r le d t o a coda , usher s i n th e aforementione d transitional passage
(m.324), leadin g directl y t o th e fourt h movement . It s uncann y stillnes s i s
achieved b y th e simples t of means: motionles s sustained strings, in thi s cas e a n
oddly spaced an d voice d At tonality, without the fifth (El> ) marke d
ppp, th e onl y occurrence o f this dynamic i n th e entir e symphony, 62 an d a softl y

pulsating timpan i patter n whic h recall s i n summar y the severa l rhythmi c vari-
ants o f th e mai n them e use d earlie r i n th e recapitulatio n o f th e Scherzo :
. The timpani' s note is C, emphasiz-
ing the thir d of the key of At, adding to the suspenseful , unrea l atmosphere. At the
same time tha t C, reiterate d over fifty measures, secretly anticipates and lead s to
the brillian t C major—th e "écla t triomphale " (a s it ha s bee n s o aptly called b y
Gülke) —of th e Finale . Tw o performanc e problem s mus t b e mentione d here .
Care should be take n that the las t notes in the first violins in mm.341 , 343 , 345,
347, 34 9 no t b e dropped , eithe r dynamicall y or rhythmically . One ofte n hear s
the passag e playe d a s follows : o r. Thi s ha s th e

negative effec t o f destroyin g th e lon g melodi c sequentia l lin e tha t Beethove n
has create d here , i n whic h th e silen t beats ar e jus t a s important a n elemen t of
the musi c a s the audibl e notes. Makin g the fina l note s i n eac h three-not e grou p
too short tends t o chop Beethoven' s 28-measure-lon g line int o too man y two-bar
segments, rathe r tha n on e lon g archin g line .
The othe r proble m i s really more o f a question , an d ha s t o d o wit h Beetho -
ven's unusua l phrasin g (and, presumably, bowing ) startin g in m.352 . There i s a
certain metrical/structura l ambiguity in thi s passage, made al l the mor e tenuou s
by Beethoven' s uncommo n bowing/phrasin g pattern (four- , six- , five-bar), it ap -
pears that Beethove n was operating simultaneously on thre e level s of perception:
(1) th e ongoin g four-ba r infrastructure—betwee n m.32 4 an d th e entr y o f th e
final movement ther e ar e eleve n four-ba r unit s plus on e (extended ) six-bar unit;
(2) th e sequentia l pitc h contourin g whic h appear s t o fal l int o fiv e three-ba r
groups; an d (3 ) th e aforementione d bowin g patter n o f four-six-five . Thu s a
multi-layered structur e evolves— a 'polyphony ' o f perceptua l levels , as i t wer e —
as show n i n Ex . 45 . Ther e ar e tw o mor e sub-pattern s embedde d i n th e pitc h
Ex.45
62. I a m convince d tha t Schuber t wa s influence d t o us e th e specia l pp p i n th e las t movemen t o f

his Octet, mentione d earlie r (se e p. 26 , fn . 15) , by Beethoven's example. In bot h piece s the dynamic
is use d exclusivel y a t th e on e poin t tha t represent s the dynami c nadir o f th e movement , building
from tha t point to a critical juncture —in Schubert' s case the recapitulation , i n Beethoven' s case th e
brilliant fourt h movement .
Bracket a , a _, delineate s th e bowin g pattern;
bracket b , b _, th e sequentia l pitch contouring ;

bracket c , j the underlying four-bar metrical structuring.
c
contouring (bracke t b) , outlinin g tw o ascendin g scala r patterns, whic h fal l int o
a five-plus-four module, a s show n i n Ex . 46 . Give n thi s comple x three-layere d
Ex.46
construction, I ca n onl y believ e tha t Beethoven' s bowin g i s intentional ; an d i t

is, of course, entirel y practical a t th e pp p dynami c level . S o perhaps th e passage
is no t s o muc h ambiguou s a s i t i s unusua l an d original , an d ough t t o b e per -
formed wit h an awarenes s of its multi-layered patterns .
With th e en d o f the transition , we have com e t o on e o f the mor e remarkabl e
moments i n th e entir e symphony : the burs t o f radiant C majo r tha t constitute s
the sudde n arriva l o f th e Final e movemen t wit h a n overwhelmin g releas e o f
energy that ha s been pen t up fo r nearly two minutes (an d nearl y 17 5 measures),
ever sinc e th e middl e o f the Trio .
Although nearl y ever y conducto r understand s an d feel s th e momentousnes s
of thi s juncture , wher e th e thir d an d fourt h movement s mee t an d wher e th e
Scherzo erupt s int o th e grea t Finale , very few seem t o comprehend th e intrinsi c
relationship betwee n thes e tw o movements o n eve n the simples t and mos t basic
terms: namely , tha t th e Final e is , a s conceive d b y Beethoven , i n it s tempo, it s
pulse an d beat , slowe r than th e Scherzo . I t i s beyond m y abilit y to understan d
why th e vas t majorit y o f conductor s insis t o n doin g th e reverse : conductin g
the Final e i n a temp o faste r tha n th e Scherzo . Actually , the proble m i s no t s o
much tha t th e las t movement i s played to o fast , bu t tha t th e Scherz o i s played
too slow . Beethoven' s metronom e marking s mak e th e intende d relationshi p

of th e tw o movement s ver y clear : Scherzo , 9 6 (t o th e dotte d half-note) ; Finale ,
84 (t o th e half-note). 63 Bu t eve n i f we choos e t o disregar d the metronom e indi -
cations, i t shoul d b e self-eviden t tha t a Scherzo , particularl y a Beethove n
Scherzo, i s inherentl y faste r tha n a Sonata-Allegr o Final e movement . An d
yet thi s temp o relationshi p i s reverse d an d perverte d b y virtuall y al l conduc -
tors—with a very few rare exceptions—and worse, it seems tha t conductors neve r
even giv e th e matte r an y though t a t all . I t i s on e thin g t o perfor m a piec e o f
music o r a movemen t a t a slowe r o r faste r temp o tha n intende d b y th e com -
poser, bu t i t i s quit e anothe r matte r t o revers e th e roles an d function s o f tw o
movements.
This confusio n of tempos i s made al l the wors e when conductor s additionall y
make a hug e ritar d (no t indicate d b y Beethoven ) i n th e fina l measure s o f th e
Scherzo goin g int o th e Finale , som e conductor s eve n ritardin g beyon d th e
tempo the y tak e fo r the las t movement. I n m y samplin g o f recordings the onl y
conductors whos e Scherz o temp o wa s faste r tha n tha t o f th e Final e an d clos e
to Beethoven' s temp o wer e Hogwood , Hickox , Briiggen , Norrington , Toscanini ,
Karajan, Dorati , Steinberg , an d Strauss , wit h Toscanin i absolutel y o n targe t i n
both tempo s (9 6 an d 84) , an d wit h som e o f these i t wa s because thei r Scherz o
tempo wa s s o slo w tha t th e Final e almos t ha d t o b e faster . Al l th e res t se t th e
last movement's temp o eithe r th e sam e a s the Scherzo' s o r faster , wit h Muti , for
example droppin g a staggering 24 metronome points .
But th e wors t habit o f all—again , a traditio n which man y conductor s seem -
ingly inherit unquestioningl y or are afrai d t o oppose —is holding the temp o back
considerably i n th e first two to fou r measure s o f the Final e an d the n lettin g (or
making) i t prope l forwar d fro m m. 5 o r m. 6 on . Th e mos t preposterou s version
of tha t ide a I hav e eve r encountere d i s Ozawa's, wh o start s the las t movemen t
at J = 62 , twenty-two points below Beethoven' s temp o designation , but i n m. 3
jumps 3 0 point s t o J = 92 , no w 8 point s above Beethoven' s intende d tempo .
The sillines s of this 'interpretation ' ca n perhap s bes t b e underline d b y tw o pe t
63. W e ca n se e thi s relationshi p a t anothe r rhythmi c uni t leve l eve n mor e dramaticall y displayed:
Scherzo—J = 288 ; Finale— J = 168 . Thi s i s one poin t i n regar d t o whic h th e usuall y infallibl e
Schenker errs . I n comparin g th e tw o tempo s (Scherz o an d Finale) , h e suggest s (p.69 ) thinkin g of
the las t fou r bar s o f the Scherz o a s "slightl y faster " ("etwa s beschleunigt" ) tha n th e quarter-note s o f
the Finale . Perhap s Schenker' s error i s merely semanti c o r inadvertently ambiguous, bu t o n th e fac e
of i t h e i s sayin g tha t th e dotte d half-note s o f th e Scherz o (J . = 96 ) ar e slightl y faste r tha n th e
quarter-notes ( J = 168 ) o f the Finale . Thi s is , of course, mistaken , becaus e 9 6 is , of course , slower
than 16 8 and, i n an y case , ca n hardl y b e describe d a s "slightly " faster . I thin k Schenke r ma y hav e
wanted t o sugges t feelin g th e quarter-notes o f th e Scherz o a s faste r tha n thos e o f th e Finale . Bu t
even i n tha t cas e th e wor d "etwas " (slightly ) is misapplied, fo r a dro p fro m J = 28 8 dow n t o J =
168 can hardl y be calle d 'slight. '
I a m als o concerne d b y Schenker' s implication—h e refrain s fro m sayin g s o explicitly—tha t th e
Finale shoul d b e fel t (an d conducted? ) i n 4/4 . Som e conductor s (mysel f included ) hav e trie d thi s
and on e ca n sa y unequivocally that i t doesn' t work—a t all . One mus t b e gratefu l t o Beethove n for
marking th e movemen t J = 8 4 (no t J = 168) , wit h th e clea r implicatio n an d suggestion , despit e
his C (no t 0) , tha t th e movemen t b e fel t an d conducte d i n two .
phrases orchestr a musician s privately, derisively, apply to suc h a n (mis)interpre-

tation (Ex.47). 64 Scherche n indulge s i n th e sam e temp o distortions.
Ex.47
Many conductor s wh o star t the movemen t a t a slowe r (presumabl y 'stately/

'majestic') pac e an d the n accelerate , arrivin g at full temp o usuall y around m.16 ,
who als o take th e repeat , fin d tha t b y the en d o f the expositio n the y hav e gath -
ered s o much momentum , tha t a t th e repea t the y ar e force d eithe r t o suddenly
jam o n th e temp o brake s to reac h th e sam e slowe r tempo take n th e firs t time ,
or t o sta y a t ful l speed , which , o f course , make s a mocker y of th e repeat . Th e
point i s tha t al l suc h temp o twisting s an d deformation s as describe d her e ar e
not onl y totall y unnecessar y but significantl y detrac t fro m an d undermin e th e
real intende d effect , whic h i s powerful , thrilling, an d majesti c enoug h jus t a s
Beethoven wrot e it . What ca n b e mor e excitin g an d breathtakin g than th e out -
burst o f triumphant C majo r wit h it s simple powerful , elementa l theme , follow -
ing minute s o f mysteriously spectral, stifle d tension !
In vie w of the extraordinar y popularity of Beethoven's Fift h Symphon y and it s
overwhelming impac t upo n audience s ove r mor e tha n a doze n decades , i t i s
interesting t o lear n tha t man y earl y listeners foun d muc h o f the las t movemen t
wanting i n variou s respects. Som e foun d i t "commonplace " an d "overl y noisy,"
others though t i t "blatant" o r "vulgar," expecting , on e suspects , a polite Mozart -
ian Rondo . Ludwi g Spoh r complaine d abou t th e "disreputable " sound s o f th e
trombones an d piccolo , littl e appreciatin g th e fac t tha t thes e instrument s an d
the contrabassoo n wer e use d her e fo r th e firs t tim e i n a symphony . Berlio z
found th e Final e "repetitious. " Eve n a s late a s 1890 , th e critic-musicologis t Her-
mann Kretzschma r could no t resist pointing ou t that h e considere d "th e theme s
[of the las t movement ] simpl e to th e poin t o f triviality." 65
The openin g them e o f the Final e ma y indee d b e 'simple, ' bu t i t i s also, be -
cause o f it s simplicity, remarkably strong an d compelling . Furthermore , under -
neath th e apparen t simplicit y there li e som e fascinatingl y origina l an d comple x
64. Incidentally , th e Germa n musicologis t an d conducto r Pete r Gülk e ha s pointed ou t th e interest -

ing relationshi p betwee n th e openin g mai n them e o f the las t movemen t an d th e woodwin d them e
of th e Andante co n moto.
65. Herman n Kretzschmar , Führer durch de n Concertsaal (Leipzig , 1890) .

structural interplays . Ou r understandin g o f thi s musi c mus t begi n wit h th e

knowledge tha t mos t o f th e movemen t i s constructe d i n two-ba r phrase s an d
measure groups , whic h ar e extende d frequentl y t o three-ba r unit s (ver y muc h
like th e four s i n th e firs t an d thir d movement s extende d sometime s t o sixes) .
These two-ba r unit s ar e fuse d int o large r phras e an d structura l entities , a s fo r
example mm.1—6 , mm.7—12 , mm.13—1 8 (al l three time s tw o measures). What is
unusual i n thes e phras e construction s i s that th e longes t an d therefor e weightiest
rhythmic values , dotted half-notes , fall o n the second , fourth , and sixt h measure s
of th e firs t six-ba r phrase , thu s fallin g o n th e 'weaker ' measur e o f eac h two-ba r
unit. Thi s i s somewhat unusua l bu t als o complex i n th e subtles t of ways, in tha t
the longe r rhythmi c valu e produces a kind o f syncopation, no t onl y because th e
dotted-half-note i s longer tha n th e previou s two notes, bu t becaus e th e G i n m. 2
is also the highes t not e i n the themati c line , havin g risen from th e toni c C . Thi s
'syncopation' an d subtl e shif t o f weight reverberate s throughout th e firs t par t of
the exposition , i n differen t rhythmi c configurations . Fo r example , th e inher -
ent basi c syncopatio n i n mm.14,1 6 (f ? o r £_ f f) , itsel f a referenc e t o
mm.1-2 ( \ p p |p - \ |) , recur s agai n i n mm.18 , 19 , and i n diminu -
tion i n mm.20 , 21, 66 a s wel l a s i n th e accompanimenta l figure s i n th e bas s
line (J l J ) an d som e o f th e wind s (["/'] f l T). 67 Thi s veritabl e barrag e o f
syncopations an d offbea t accentuation s culminate s i n th e powerfu l descendin g
unison passag e i n mm.22-2 5 Thi s figur e i n
turn will , somewha t smoothe d ou t rhythmicall y an d dynamically , pla y a n

important rol e i n th e secon d par t o f th e exposition , returnin g a s
It i s becaus e o f al l thes e intricat e
66. On e interestin g confirmatio n o f this inheren t feelin g o f syncopation i s the fac t tha t virtuall y al l
orchestras automaticall y play—an d thi s mean s feel—mm.20,2 1 a s syncopated , playin g wit h a n ac -
cent o r sf o n th e secon d an d fourt h beats , a feeling , o f course, emphasize d b y timpani, cellos , basses ,
and contrabassoon . Thi s cross-accentuatio n i s usually s o strong i n mos t orchestra s tha t I hav e ofte n
as a conducto r bee n move d t o tel l th e player s wh o pla y o n th e firs t an d thir d beat s t o accen t
them, t o restor e som e degre e o f bea t equilibriu m t o thes e measure s an d t o avoi d a resul t suc h
as:
67. Who , b y the way , among conductors has ever bothered t o distinguish betwee n th e tw o accompa-
nimental rhythm s betwee n cellos/basse s an d timpan i i n mm.20 , 2 1 ( I s ) J an d f j f ) ? I mysel f
never ha d th e tim e t o sor t thes e rhythm s ou t i n rehearsa l unti l a fe w years ag o wit h severa l orches -
tras, includin g the Spokan e Symphon y an d th e Cologne Radio Orchestra . When the instrumentalist s
involved becam e awar e o f an d actuall y hear d th e rhythmi c difference s i n thos e tw o measure s the y
were amaze d no t onl y a t Beethoven's ingeniou s inventiveness , but tha t the y ha d neve r i n th e severa l
hundred time s the y ha d al l playe d th e piec e notice d thi s rhythmi c differentiation , an d tha t n o
conductor ha d eve r pointe d ou t thi s detai l before .
rhythmic an d thematic/motivi c relationship s tha t a rock-lik e steadines s of temp o

is ver y muc h needed , an y temp o deviatio n underminin g Beethoven' s structura l
framework an d rhythmi c detailing .
To add t o the complexit y of this initially "simple-" looking music, th e phrasin g
takes a n interestin g tur n i n m.18 , which function s in tw o roles. I t is at onc e th e
sixth measur e i n th e thir d six-ba r phras e (mm . 13-18) an d th e firs t measur e o f
two two-ba r unit s (mm.18-19 , 20-21) . Thi s elisio n i n th e periodicit y explain s
why ther e i s a n uneve n numbe r o f bar s i n th e firs t phas e (mm . 1-25) o f th e
exposition.
It use d t o be popula r amon g conductor s t o broade n th e temp o measurabl y a t
m.26, an d worse , t o prepar e fo r thi s broadenin g wit h a substantia l ritar d i n
mm.24—25, a s one ca n hea r i n Mengelberg' s recording , fo r example. I t seems t o
me quit e unmusica l t o imped e th e exhilaratin g rus h o f sound s Beethove n ha s
created i n mm.22-25 , jus t t o achiev e som e rathe r obviou s grandios e effec t a t
m.26. Fortunately , judgin g b y recording s o f more recen t vintage , mos t conduc -
tors n o longe r indulg e i n thi s particula r distortion , sensin g tha t i t i s more effec -
tive t o kee p th e establishe d momentu m goin g acros s th e structura l seam s a t
m.26. Man y conductor s do , however, stil l lea n towards a heavy ponderous soun d
at m.26. 68 Thi s i s particularly inappropriate onc e on e realize s tha t m.2 6 i s no t
some majo r arriva l poin t bu t a surgin g continuatio n o f th e movement' s firs t
theme statement , leadin g o n toward s a much mor e importan t juncture , namely ,
the arriva l o f the dominan t i n m.45 .
A caution need s t o be raise d for mm. 26-27, where to o often th e horns , enthu -
siastically seizin g upo n th e firs t goo d littl e tun e the y hav e bee n offere d b y Bee -
thoven, blas t i n wit h a n enormou s ff tha t completel y overbalance s th e wood -
winds tha t also have thi s phrase. 69
A serious balanc e proble m arise s in mm.28-2 9 an d 32-33 , i n whic h th e ma -
jestic risin g arpeggiated figure s i n th e bas s instrument s ar e usuall y drowned ou t
by timpan i an d bras s i f car e i s no t take n t o avoi d this . Interestingly , th e bas s
figure, lastin g three measure s (mm.28-30) , continue s beyon d th e timpan i roll ,
overlapping wit h th e continuin g them e i n horn s an d woodwinds . Th e effec t i s
very od d indee d when , i n poo r balancin g o f thi s passage , th e bas s instrument s
are inaudibl e i n mm.28-2 9 and the n suddenl y emerg e fo r the final five beats of
their figure , which , o f course, make s n o musica l sens e a t al l but ha s bee n toler -
ated tim e an d tim e agai n b y bot h conductor s an d recordin g producers . I t doe s
not see m t o hav e occurre d t o man y conductor s tha t tha t bas s figur e i s the 're -
sponse' t o th e 'call ' o f th e wind s i n m.26 , t o whic h i t mus t therefor e b e con -
68. On e o f the wors t distortions of this phras e occur s o n Abbado' s Vienna Philharmoni c recording ,
where th e maestr o i n m.2 7 stretche s th e temp o enormously—in effec t makin g a fermat a i n th e
middle o f th e measure—t o th e obviou s consternatio n o f th e Vienn a musicians , wh o com e com -
pletely apar t rhythmically. (I t is even mor e shockin g tha t a majo r record produce r woul d allo w such
a misha p t o remai n uncorrecte d an d t o appea r o n a professiona l recordin g by a world-famou s con -
ductor an d orchestra. )
69. Dangerou s enoug h wit h tw o horns, one ca n imagin e ho w thi s passag e sounds when wit h Kara -
jan o r Klemperc r conducting, th e horn s arc doubled .
nected musicall y an d equalize d dynamically . O f th e innumerabl e recording s

sampled, i n onl y a smal l numbe r wa s th e prope r balanc e achieve d an d th e
entire bas s line heard , mos t notabl y thos e o f Toscanini, Jochum , Reiner , Dorati ,
Haitink, Solti , Gardine r an d Nilcisch .
Measures 26-3 3 compris e tw o four-ba r group s (or , i f yo u will , fou r two-ba r
units, dependin g upo n whic h instrument s on e i s looking at) , followe d i n m.3 4
by a seven-ba r phrase , which i s in effec t anothe r on e o f Beethoven' s stretching s
of material, i n thi s cas e th e immediatel y precedin g materia l o f mm.26-33. Bot h
main idea s i n thos e measure s ar e extended , th e violins ' melodi c lin e bein g a
variant o f th e winds ' them e a t m.26 , includin g th e unusua l phrase/bowin g
Ex.48
articulation, an d th e bas s instrument s continuin g i n eighth-not e motion , m.3 4

being analogou s t o m.3 0 (se e Plate VIII) . These tw o elements, supporte d b y an
added contrapunta l lin e i n th e viola s and firs t bassoo n (i n inversio n t o th e vio -
lins), ar e spu n ou t int o a modulator y bridg e leadin g t o th e secondar y dominan t
D majo r i n m.41 , which i n tur n set s u p th e mandator y mov e t o G (m.45) .
At first glance on e ma y b e puzzle d b y the existenc e o f an irregula r seven-bar
phrase (mm.34-40) , especiall y i f one i s aware of the recapitulatio n o f this mate -
rial, mm.240-49, where it reappears i n regula r even-numbered multiple s o f two-
bar phras e units . We will retur n shortl y to that recapitulation, on e o f Beethoven' s
most extraordinar y inspirations. Fo r now i t will suffice/t o explai n tha t the seven -
bar phras e i n questio n wa s necessitate d b y th e modulator y mov e t o D majo r
(m.41), a progressio n tha t coul d no t easil y have bee n achieve d i n si x measures
given th e startin g poin t o f C majo r (i n m.34) . Thi s ca n b e readil y seen , fo r
instance, b y eliminating m.40 , which woul d caus e a very crud e an d inep t mov e
to m.4 1 (fro m m.39) . Th e 'extra ' measur e i n th e phras e is , i n fact , m.38 , a G
6/4 chord , whic h ha d t o b e adde d i n orde r t o ge t t o th e D majo r arriva l poin t
of m.4 1 a s soo n a s feasible , a s th e progressio n i n Fig . 9 shows . Measur e 3 8 is
a sequentia l repetitio n o f m.37 , th e latter' s note s bein g o f necessit y transpose d
Fig. 9
mm. 34-3 5 mm. 36-37 m.38 m.39 m.40 m.41
C D7 G6/4
D Q6/4
D
up on e ste p t o exten d th e risin g melodi c progressio n fro m e 2 t o ftt 2 , begu n

in mm.34-37 . Th e passag e ha s thu s a kin d o f self-fulfillin g inevitabilit y abou t
it, includin g th e seven-ba r phrasing . Wha t make s i t eve n mor e inter -
esting an d i s i n a wa y th e reaso n fo r th e irregula r phras e length , i s th e fac t
Plate VII I Beethoven , Fift h Symphony , fourt h movement , mm.31—3 9
that m . 3 5 i s a one-ba r rhythmi c contractio n o f th e two-ba r winds ' them e
at m.26 . Instea d o f Beethove n permutâte s i t t o
, a kin d o f doublin g u p o f th e phrase . Not e als o

how m.3 9 i s a rhythmicized varian t o f m.37 (Ex . 49) . B e i t noted tha t this one -
bar mutatio n does not destro y the basi c two-bar phrasing (mm.34-35, 36-37), for
it i s ingeniously encapsuled i n it . In othe r words , the tw o bars contain bot h th e
original thematic for m an d it s contraction (se e Ex. 50). In the en d i t is this one-bar
thematic varian t which i n tur n allow s Beethoven t o mov e with i t to G majo r i n
m.38 and then contrast the phrase even further rhythmicall y in mm.39-40.
Ex. 49 Ex . 50
Two error s in al l score s an d parts , on e quit e serious , th e othe r les s so , mus t

be mentione d here . On e concern s th e secon d violins , whic h fro m th e fourt h
beat o f m.34 o n shoul d b e playe d on e octav e higher , a s i s made unequivocall y
clear i n Beethoven' s autograph . (Th e sam e i s tru e o f mm.240-43.) Th e othe r
error occur s i n m.3 2 i n th e bass , which shoul d star t this measur e wit h th e lo w
contra C (se e m.23 8 for comparison).
I hav e gon e t o considerabl e pain s to detai l th e structura l analysi s o f this pas -
sage fo r tw o reasons : first , th e hop e o f alertin g conductor s t o th e remarkabl e
polyphonic, harmonic , an d structura l originality of this passage , and t o th e fac t
that car e mus t b e take n t o mak e al l thes e element s functio n correctl y together ;
and second , because , a s already alluded to , this passage undergoes a n eve n mor e
ingenious, almos t miraculou s transformatio n when encountere d agai n i n th e
reprise (se e below, pp. 214-15) .
The nex t episod e (mm.45-63) , o n th e dominant , seeme d no t t o rais e an y
terribly seriou s performanc e problem s i n th e majorit y o f recording s sampled .
Minor shortcoming s d o occur , o f course , suc h a s th e failur e o f mos t perfor -
mances t o observ e the specia l pp i n m.5 4 (a s compared wit h the previou s p's in
mm.46,50). Also , sinc e mos t conductor s generall y concentrat e onl y o n th e
highest-lying an d mos t obviousl y prominent melodi c lines , th e four-not e cell o
phrases (th e first one i n mm.45-47 : ) are ofte n neglected .

That i s unfortunate, since thi s motiv e take s on considerabl e prominenc e i n th e
development sectio n (se e mm . 106-08 (contrabassoon , cellos , basses ) o r
mm.112-14 (trombones , bassoons ) etc.).
Most conductor s an d orchestra s pic k u p considerabl e spee d a t mm.45—al -
though some , suc h a s Carlo s Kleiber , Abbado, an d Kubeli k actuall y slo w u p
there (sz'c ) — and then , a t m.58 , increas e th e momentu m eve n mor e fo r th e
strings' sixteenth-runs . This, o f course , make s fo r a superficiall y ver y excitin g
effect fo r audiences, bu t i s an unnecessar y 'improvement' o f Beethoven's music .

What bother s m e abou t suc h rushin g o f th e temp o i s tha t i n mos t case s i t i s
inadvertent, mor e a matte r o f lac k o f contro l o f th e temp o tha n som e well -
considered musica l intention . A steady, unrushed temp o i s actually eve n mor e
powerful an d dramati c i n effect . I shoul d als o mentio n tha t i n man y perfor -
mances an d recording s the violin s in mm.58-5 9 ar e partiall y or totall y covered
by the over-playe d ff of the res t of the orchestra , especiall y the bras s and timpani .
(In th e Ansermet , Mengelberg , Norrington , Hanove r Band , Hogwood , an d Co -
lin Davi s recording s th e string s ar e eithe r virtuall y or , i n som e cases , totall y
inaudible, especiall y in mm.58,59. )
Before w e leav e thi s sectio n (mm.45-57) , w e shoul d tak e not e o f the recur -
rence o f the quasi-syncopatio n we found i n th e openin g o f the movement , tha t
is, the longe r not e valu e (mm.46,50 ) fallin g o n a wea k measure i n th e four-ba r
phrasing. Thi s ide a return s man y mor e time s i n th e Finale , no t onl y i n thi s
particular for m bu t i n th e developmen t sectio n i n
a rhythmi c variant , a s i n mm.106-108 , 132-34 , etc . (Ex . 51) . I t i s wel l fo r
conductors and thei r orchestras to appreciate this unusual phrasing and to make
Ex. 5 1
it subtly fel t whenever , in th e cours e o f the movement , i t occurs.

Let u s als o not e i n passin g th e five-ba r phras e mm.53-57 , anothe r on e o f
Beethoven's phras e stretchings fro m fou r t o five measures, caused b y the interpo -
lation o f the G augmente d chor d (m.57) . That i s to say , had Beethoven no t fel t
the nee d fo r that transitiona l chord, goin g instea d fro m a pure G majo r tria d to
the C majo r o f m.58, th e extr a bar woul d no t hav e bee n needed . There i s also
the possibilit y that Beethove n coul d hav e deal t wit h the presen t tw o bars in on e
bar o r, which woul d hav e preserved the four-ba r

structuring. Bu t th e 'dissonance ' o f th e augmente d chor d t o Beethoven' s ear s
required th e phras e expansio n an d extr a spacing .
However unproblemati c an d reasonabl y well-played the sectio n jus t discussed
seems t o be , th e nex t episod e (mm.64-71 ) i s quit e th e opposite . I t ha s almos t
never bee n playe d correctl y o n an y recordin g tha t I kno w of , no r hav e I eve r
heard i t 'interpreted ' properl y i n concert . I t i s difficult t o understan d wh y Bee -
thoven's dynamic s (variou s fp's an d p's) ar e summaril y ignored o r rejected . Al-
most everyone, including the celebrate d Beethoven'specialists ' Furtwängler , Kar-
ajan, Klemperer , Walter , Masur , an d eve n Toscanini , simpl y pla y th e whol e
eight-bar passag e a t a mediocr e mf, neithe r f i n th e fp , no r p i n between . Th e
only conductor s wh o respec t Beethoven' s dynamic s ar e Reiner , Dorati , Carlo s
Kleiber, an d Jochum , althoug h th e las t allows to o muc h crescend o i n mm.65 ,
67, and 69-7 1 toward s the f o f m.72, which the n annul s the p' s . There ar e two
viable interpretation s o f Beethoven's fp's here . On e i s to tak e th e markin g liter-

ally, tha t i s a true f followe d instantl y by a true p , tha t p continuin g throug h th e
next seve n beat s (without crescendo) . Proo f that Beethove n i s serious about this
p ca n b e see n i n th e cell o par t i n m.65 , a s well a s the firs t violins . I would add ,
that thi s f p shoul d b e treate d a s a n expressiv e (singing ) fp , no t a n aggressive ,
hard-hitting one .
The othe r sometime s offere d interpretatio n i s to consider th e entir e eigh t bar s
at a basic p dynami c level , with th e fp's treate d a s accents i n p , jus t as one migh t
interpret sf s map context . Bu t th e proble m i s that thes e ar e no t sfs; the y ar e
fp's, a distinctio n Beethove n make s frequentl y i n hi s musi c an d on e whic h w e
as performer s ought t o honor . Additionally , I should poin t ou t tha t al l generall y
available edition s contai n seriou s phrasin g an d bowin g error s i n thi s passage .
According t o Beethoven' s autograp h score , th e followin g i s th e correc t settin g
(Ex. 52) 70
Ex. 5 2
A partial reiteration a t m.72 o f the previou s eight measure s lead s to the repea t
of th e expositio n (m.84) . Th e descan t violi n figure s o f mm.65-7 1 ar e no w
echoed i n th e piccol o —one piccol o agains t th e entir e orchestra . Thi s certainl y
presents a balance problem , bu t no t a n insurmountabl e one . I t is important tha t
the orchestr a kee p t o onl y a f , no t jus t t o allo w th e piccol o t o b e heard , bu t
because Beethove n follow s thi s f si x bars late r wit h a pi ù f an d thre e bar s afte r
that a ful l ff . Unfortunatel y i n mos t o f th e recording s sample d th e orchestr a i s
too lou d a t m.7 3 an d th e piccol o i s barel y audibl e or , i n som e cases , totall y
inaudible —understandable perhap s i n a performance , but ther e i s no excus e i n
a recording .
70. Th e s f i n th e firs t violin s in m.6 8 that on e find s i n mos t edition s shoul d b e eliminated ; i t i s an
error an d no t t o h e foun d i n Beethoven' s autograph . This misprin t was pointed ou t a s earl y a s 1925
by Schenke r an d mentione d wit h som e frequenc y i n subsequen t writings o n Beethoven' s Fifth . I t is
thus al l th e mor e amazin g still t o fin d thi s erran t s f i n man y performances , includin g on e i n earl y
1994 b y Kurt Masur an d th e Ne w Yor k Philharmonic .
This i s perhap s th e appropriat e occasio n t o lamen t th e fac t tha t th e instru -

ments Beethove n add s t o hi s basi c 'classical ' orchestr a i n th e Finale—piccolo ,
contrabassoon, an d thre e trombones—ar e woefull y neglecte d i n mos t perfor -
mances an d eve n mos t recordings. This is unforgivable, especially on recordings .
Here Beethove n ha s th e innovativ e darin g t o emplo y thes e instruments , a s i t
turns ou t fo r th e firs t tim e i n an y symphony , and fo r al l on e ca n hea r o f them
on mos t recordings , they migh t jus t as well hav e neve r bee n use d b y Beethoven .
This i s true, surprisingly , even o f the trombones , a n inexcusabl e laps e I ascribe
as muc h t o th e recordin g producer s a s the conductor s (althoug h th e latte r pre -
sumably have th e fina l artisti c approval of the recorde d performanc e an d shoul d
object t o the muzzlin g o f these instruments) . Bu t wors e yet, there i s not a single
recording o n whic h th e contrabassoo n ca n b e hear d a t all , a t an y time . Thi s
presumes th e ironic , almos t humorou s situatio n tha t i n al l thes e recording s a
contrabassoonist wa s hired , wa s pai d fo r hi s services , an d no t on e not e o f hi s
playing i s heard. H e o r she migh t jus t as well have stayed home . I t is almost th e
same wit h th e piccolo , whic h o n many , man y recording s i s often eithe r inaudi -
ble o r barel y present. Al l this i s particularly deplorable sinc e thes e instrument s
were mean t t o enric h Beethoven' s instrumenta l palette , addin g thre e ne w an d
unusual color s to th e collectiv e orchestra l sonority. This i s especially true o f th e
trombones, a brilliant powerful additio n to Beethoven' s fou r bras s (two trumpets,
two horns). Sinc e trombone s ar e anythin g but wea k non-projecting instruments ,
it i s amazin g t o m e tha t o n s o man y recording s th e trombon e colo r i s eithe r
virtually or totally hidden. It is a color which conductor s shoul d relis h to exploit,
but fo r some inexplicabl e reason s mostly don't.
We shoul d als o note—an d fee l an d mak e audible , i.e . comprehensibl e t o a
listener—that m.7 1 (an d m.64) i s the first instance wher e th e longe r not e valu e
(J.) occur s o n th e 'strong ' measur e o f a two-bar o r four-ba r phrase . Thes e note s
should b e wel l sustaine d i n a melodi c sense , tha t is , 'dropped' neithe r rhythmi -
cally (t o ) no r dynamicall y (H^=-). Bot h defect s ca n b e hear d
on mos t recordings .
The pi ù f o n th e secon d bea t o f m.77 has give n many conductors interpretiv e
problems. There ar e i n fac t tw o theories curren t a s to th e meanin g o f this pi ù f
(and man y simila r instance s i n Beethoven' s oeuvre) . Som e musicologist s an d
historians clai m t o kno w tha t Beethove n use d pi ù f t o indicat e a crescendo . I
have alread y referre d t o on e suc h instanc e i n th e Fift h Symphony' s first move-
ment, mm . 17 5-79 (althoug h ther e th e additiona l perforated lines extending ou t
from th e word s pi ù f ten d t o mak e thi s interpretatio n mor e reasonable) . Th e
other theor y claims, o f course, tha t pi ù f ca n onl y mean a sudde n dynami c jolt,
since Beethove n regularl y used th e designatio n "cresc. " or "cresc "t o
indicate a gradua l dynami c increase , an d tha t th e tw o notations canno t possibl y
mean th e sam e thin g an d ar e no t interchangeable . Bu t I stil l ten d t o agre e
with th e firs t formulation : a graduate d dynami c increment . Th e proble m som e
conductors an d orchestra s hav e a t m.7 7 is , however , no t o f suc h a subtl e
theoretical/ interpretiv e nature. Thei r proble m i s mor e mundan e i n tha t the y
allow th e phras e a t m.7 1 t o b e excessively loud, afte r whic h the y naturall y find
it impossibl e t o increas e th e volum e a t m.7 7 (eithe r a s a sudde n più f o r as a
further crescendo) . Variou s circumvention s ar e the n resorte d to , suc h a s chang -
ing Beethoven' s pi ù f t o a subito p an d the n crescendoin g t o th e /fa t m.80— a
really tawdry, banal effec t (thi s was a favorit e o f Ormandy's) — or, lik e Böhm an d
Reiner, resortin g t o makin g a n accelerand o (sic). Non e o f thes e 'solutions ' ar e
necessary o r justifiable ; Beethoven' s scor e tell s u s precisel y wha t t o d o an d i s
eminently realizabl e wit h som e care , som e rehearsing .
The measure s directl y prio r t o th e firs t an d secon d endings , an d th e secon d
ending itself , (m.85) d o take som e special car e i n term s o f ensemble balanc e t o
realize Beethoven' s intentions . Th e proble m i s t o brin g ou t al l th e movin g
eighth-notes i n mm.8 0 through 8 9 against th e sustaine d sound s o f the bras s and
the sixteenth-not e barrage s of the timpani . Thes e arpeggiated eighth-not e figures
must b e wel l hear d an d projected , fo r the y provid e th e rhythmi c momentum ,
the surgin g energy, tha t propel s th e musi c i n th e first instance bac k to the reca -
pitulation an d th e beginnin g o f the movement , i n th e secon d instanc e toward s
the developmen t section .
Beethoven her e solve d a difficul t proble m mos t effectivel y i n hi s typica l di -
rect, unhesitatin g fashion , whic h solution , however , i f no t performe d wit h un -
derstanding, tha t is , wit h a deliberat e judiciou s pacing , ca n soun d to o abrup t
and a littl e awkward . I a m referrin g to th e fac t tha t Beethoven , havin g maneu -
vered hi s musi c t o th e ke y o f F mino r (m.80) , an d havin g als o arrive d a t a
point wher e th e nex t imminen t forma l section s woul d b e a recapitulatio n o f
the expositio n and , th e secon d time , th e developmen t section , ha d t o prepar e
simultaneously fo r both eventualities , i n th e on e cas e returnin g t o C major , i n
the othe r goin g o n t o E majo r (m.86 ) an d thenc e t o A majo r (m.90) . I a m
certain—and th e sketc h book s an d autograp h confir m this—tha t Beethove n
struggled considerabl y t o arriv e a t thi s remarkabl e twi n solution , an d havin g
succeeded, I think i t i s mandatory for u s performer s to respec t hi s decisio n o f a
first ending an d a n expositio n repeat. 71
Many performance s contai n a self-inflicte d proble m aroun d m.82 . Conduc -
tors wh o hav e slowe d u p th e temp o eithe r a t m.26 o r m.45 an d now , eyein g th e
return t o th e repea t o r the plung e int o th e developmen t section , suddenl y real-
ize tha t the y mus t increas e thei r pac e t o arriv e at a temp o identica l o r a t leas t
similar t o th e on e the y ha d take n a t the beginnin g o f the Finale . Thi s readjust -
ment ofte n create s ensembl e problem s an d rhythmi c raggednes s in th e orches -
tra, a s can b e hear d o n Bernstein's , Jochum's , an d Steinberg' s recordings . Con -
71. I recal l a semina r on Beethove n symphonies , held b y Igo r Markevitch a t m y invitatio n at Tan -
glewood i n 1982 , a t whic h i n answe r t o a questio n o n whethe r t o hono r repeat s i n classica l (bu t
especially Beethove n an d Brahms ) symphonies, Markevitc h suggeste d tha t i f the compose r ha s writ -
ten a n extensiv e first ending wit h ne w materia l no t otherwis e represente d i n th e wor k and/o r ha s
evidently spent considerabl e effort o n redirectin g the musi c back t o a repeat, then that repea t shoul d
be honored . I t i s an interestin g and cntertainabl e proposition , quite apar t fro m question s of forma l
balance an d proportions . It i s al l th e mor e disappointin g to rea d i n Markevitch' s Beethove n sym-
phony studie s Di e Sinfonien vo n Ludwig va n Beethoven (Leipzig , 1983) , tha t h e strongl y advocates
eliminating th e repea t in th e Fift h Symphony' s Finale (p . 307).
versely, many conductors wh o mak e th e repea t caus e serious rhythmic/ensemble

problems when , havin g pushe d th e temp o forwar d befor e the firs t ending , sud -
denly pu t o n th e brake s for the retur n t o th e openin g o f the movement .
The sudde n movemen t t o E majo r i n th e secon d endin g (m.86 ) i s one o f the
most excitin g moment s i n th e Finale , comin g a s i t doe s a s somewha t o f a har -
monic surprise . Her e i t i s importan t t o brin g out , a s mentione d earlier , th e
eighth-note figurations, not onl y in th e bas s instruments but i n th e continuatio n
of the lin e i n th e secon d violin s (m.88) an d th e woodwind s (m.89). Wha t mus t
be clearl y audible t o th e listene r i s the followin g tota l lin e (Ex . 53) . Admittedly,
Ex. 5 3
the completio n o f this line , especiall y in m.88 , i s somewhat under-orchestrated .

However, some subtl e rebalancin g an d dynami c reductio n t o poco f o r mf i n al l
the sustainin g upper-rang e instrument s an d th e brass , ca n readil y achiev e th e
appropriate realizatio n of these fou r measures . (On e ca n eve n borro w a fe w first
violins and/o r viola s to ad d t o th e secon d violin s in m.88. ) Unfortunatel y mor e
than hal f of the recorde d performance s indicates that the conductor s didn' t eve n
know there was a problem here . Thos e who di d very well here are both Kleibers,
Kletzki, Ormandy , Toscanini , Mehta , Dorati , Krips , an d abov e al l Haitin k an d
Maazel, whil e th e famou s Beethove n conductor s Furtwängler , Karajan , an d
Szell deserv e onl y a 'fair ' rating . Solt i i n hi s Vienn a Philharmoni c recordin g
projects th e bas s instruments well, but lose s th e secon d violin s and woodwinds .
The development , initiall y featuring only a transpositio n o f th e exposition' s
second episod e (m.45) , soo n rework s and extend s muc h o f the earlie r material,
at times b y inversion (se e oboe an d flut e i n mm.96-99 ) o r by modulation (even -
tually t o th e ke y o f Bl> , m.106) , an d seem s t o represen t relativel y few perfor -
mance problems . Bu t on e migh t watc h tha t n o crescend o occur s i n th e as -
cending woodwin d lin e i n m.102 , fo r i t will undermin e th e effec t o f the rathe r
sudden f i n m.106 . I als o don' t understan d wh y Gardine r ha s t o chang e th e
strings' figure s i n mm.100-10 1 an d mm.104-10 5 t o separat e bows , whe n Bee -
thoven's slurre d triplets really work very well —indeed better .
In th e meantim e th e four-not e cell o motiv e I mentione d earlie r (i n con -
nection wit h mm.46-48 ) i s now elaborated an d sequentiall y extended (mm.91 -
93) an d distribute d variously amon g th e strings , eventu -

ally t o tak e o n primar y importanc e i n m.106 . Fo r her e thi s bas s motive i s no w
BEETHOVEN: FIFTH SYMPHON Y 209
elevated t o th e functio n o f theme an d accorde d furthe r elaboration , expandin g

it eventually from it s customary two-bar shap e t o it s current four-not e configura-
tion, bu t stretche d t o three-bar unit s (mm.107-109 , 110-12) .
Many caution s ar e i n orde r here , th e first one regardin g dynamic levels . As so
often i n Beethoven' s matur e works , h e applie s hi s favorit e climax-generatin g
device: /"via pi ù fío f f (mm . 106-122-132). The dange r i s that th e variou s brass
and timpan i entrances , i f louder tha n a cultivate d f , wil l prematurel y drive th e
whole dynami c leve l up , makin g a pi ù f an d a climacti c f f ver y difficul t o r
impossible. Th e wors t offender i s often th e timpanis t who , havin g rested fo r 2 8
measures an d spyin g th e f a i m. 104, i s eager to participat e i n th e buil d u p an d
crashes in with a thunderous / f roll. (Thi s disturbanc e ca n b e hear d o n countles s
recordings.) Bu t th e bigges t balanc e proble m occur s i n mm.118-21 , i n whic h
the trumpet s ente r thematicall y (aide d an d abette d b y horn s an d timpani ) an d
are ap t to drown ou t no t onl y the othe r themati c line s (violins , mm. 118-20 an d
violas/cellos, mm . 120-21) bu t als o th e triple t figure s i n th e woodwinds . These
last ar e ver y importan t becaus e i t i s now thei r tur n t o b e transforme d int o pri -
mary material , triumphantl y leading, i n alternation s wit h th e brass , t o th e cli -
mactic majesti c dominan t peda l poin t o f m. 132. The staggere d canoni c layerin g
and structurin g that need to be clearly preserved i n performance can b e appreci-
ated graphicall y in Ex . 54 .
Ex. 5 4
I hav e neve r understoo d wh y th e violins ' phrasing/bowin g i n mm . 106 -

107 an d 109-1 0 (a s wel l a s th e cellos ' i n mm.112-1 3 an d mm. l 15-16) a s
shown i n mos t availabl e editions , includin g th e firs t editio n an d Beethoven' s
autograph, i s universall y ignore d an d rejected . I f th e reaso n i s tha t i t i s
'impractical' t o pla y fiv e beat s i n f o n on e bow—whic h i s no t reall y true-
then le t u s a t leas t preserv e Beethoven' s sens e o f legato, s o importan t
to contras t wit h th e staccat o alternat e measure s (108-109 , 111-1 2 etc.) ,
and no t pla y . A compromis e o f
with sustained quarter-note s woul d
serve Beethoven' s intention s much better . The obo e triplet s in mm. l 13 and 11 6
are almos t neve r heard , bu t tha t i s through shee r neglect . Sinc e the y continu e
the previou s strings ' triplet s gestures an d ar e als o the lin k to th e triple t line s i n
mm. 118-21 (and beyond tha t t o mm . 122-31), the y are important an d ca n wit h
a littl e car e i n balancin g be mad e quit e discernible . A serious error exist s i n th e
contrabassoon, cello , an d bas s part s i n mm . 118-19: th e Dl> , analogou s t o th e
woodwinds i n m.10 6 an d th e secon d violin s in m.112 , should b e tie d acros s th e
bar lin e t o the whol e note .
Two problems stan d ou t i n th e nex t section , mm . 122-31. One, simply a bad
habit rathe r tha n a rea l problem , i s the failur e t o sustai n th e dotte d half-note s
in the strings . In almos t all orchestras this passage, either solicite d b y or tolerated
by thei r conductors , i s rendered a s i f written o r
or, wors e ye t , Th e Englis h 'authenticists ' an d Harnoncour t ar e

particularly negligent in this respect. Indeed, the y make a stylistic (bowing ) fetish
of these diminuendos. The othe r problem i s to create a viable balance i n the più f
between woodwinds and brass (and timpani) in their triplet alternations.
Balance problem s continu e t o plagu e mos t o f the nex t section (mm . 132-52),
but al l ca n b e deal t wit h successfull y i n intelligen t rehearsin g an d subtl e dy -
namic readjustment s without excessiv e doublings o r orchestrationa l retouching .
The woodwinds ' theme , beginnin g m.132 , a t firs t i n octaves , the n i n thirds —
remarkably positioned i n fou r octave s (Ex.55 ) —can easil y be brough t into prom-
inence (withou t resorting to doubling ) b y judiciou s modification o f the strings .
Ex. 5 5
Let u s remembe r tha t rhythmi c energ y an d intensit y are jus t a s effective—per -

haps eve n mor e so—a s shee r volum e an d mas s o f sound. A healthy, cultivate d
/ f i n th e bras s (a t m.136) , adde d b y Beethove n t o th e woodwind s a s a timbr e
augmentation (no t as supersedin g th e woodwinds) , will hel p t o kee p al l ele-
ments o f the passag e i n balanc e and unde r control .
For whateve r it' s worth, I shoul d lik e t o ad d m y ow n voic e i n objectio n t o
doubling the woodwind s at m.132 with th e horns , unfortunatel y a long-standing
tradition, firs t propose d (bu t later retracted ) b y Weingartne r an d sinc e the n fa -
vored b y man y conductor s (Karajan , Böhm , Koussevitzky , Szell, DeSabata , Ab -
bado, eve n Eric h Kleiber) . Such doublin g an d 'fixin g up ' o f Beethoven i s both
misguided an d unnecessary , as Weingartne r himsel f realize d late r i n lif e whe n
he concede d tha t "afte r all , Beethoven had know n best." 72 I n thi s instance add-
72. Weingartner , Über da s Dirigieren.

ing th e horn s i n mm . 13 2-36 destroy s an d distort s Beethoven' s origina l an d

much mor e interestin g conception . A s Schenker onc e pu t it : "I t i s part o f Bee -
thoven's ar t [an d genius ] t o b e concerne d even i n a ful l ff wit h [instrumental ]
shadings, whil e simultaneousl y workin g toward s a dynami c intensificatio n b y
giving th e them e initiall y onl y t o th e woodwind s an d addin g th e horn s [an d
trumpets] onl y i n m.136 . I t i s therefore /^inimical (ff-widrig) whe n a conducto r
brings th e horn s i n alread y i n m.132." 73 I woul d ad d tha t introducin g horn s a t
m.132 thickens the textur e i n an anti-Beethovenia n way , and wil l certainl y cover
over an d obscur e th e unusual , fascinatin g low voicing i n thirds i n th e bassoons .
If th e orchestr a player s ar e awar e o f th e harmoni c conten t o f Beethoven' s
terrifying dissonanc e a t m.14 1 (Ex . 56) , especiall y th e A t an d F player s whose
_, - , note s clas h wit h the bass G, the effect wil l b e much mor e overwhelm -
ing tha n tha t produce d b y sheer loudness . I t shoul d b e remembere d
that i n musi c onl y that whic h i s truly heard, i.e . tha t whic h th e musi -
cians actuall y hea r an d feel—an d onl y that—wil l projec t i n perfor -
mance. On e mor e caution : m.14 2 i s not louder tha n th e previou s ten
measures, a s Beethoven' s cautionar y sempre f f ough t t o mak e ver y
clear. (No r shoul d on e follo w Ormandy , Bernstein , Furtwängler , an d
Walter, wh o adde d subito p' s eithe r a t m.14 2 o r m . 146-47, fol -
lowed b y vulgar super crescendos. )
Many conductors , preparin g for the recapitulatio n o f the Scherzo , mistakenl y
start jockeyin g around fo r an 'appropriate ' temp o t o accomplis h tha t transition ,
thereby upsettin g th e orchestra' s accumulate d momentu m an d causin g ensem -
ble an d rhythmi c irregularitie s (hear th e recording s o f Munch, Mehta , an d Co -
lin Davis) . But eve n wors e is the ritar d some conductor s make—anothe r deplor -
able tradition—i n th e fina l thre e bar s (mm . 150-52) befor e the Scherzo' s retur n
(notably Szell , Ashkenazy, Ansermet).
Beethoven's Final e developmen t sectio n i s one o f the master' s mos t extraordi-
nary creations , bu t a s we hav e see n i t i s also fraugh t wit h man y problems i f no t
performed a s Beethove n intende d an d s o notated . Thre e conductor s hav e ex -
celled i n recording s o f thi s passage , no t onl y i n term s o f textual fidelity bu t i n
the driv e an d excitemen t the y brin g t o th e music , mostl y b y virtue o f textua l
fidelity. They ar e Reiner , Toscanini , an d Furtwängler . Reine r drive s the musi c
relentlessly forward, considerabl y exceeding Beethoven's basi c tempo—by m.132
he ha s reache d J = 10 6 (sic!) — and ye t maintaining , a s almost onl y h e coul d
in tha t generatio n o f conductors , a mesmerizin g contro l bot h ove r th e musi c
and hi s musicians . I t i s high musica l dram a a t it s best. Toscanin i an d Furtwän -
gler achiev e almos t th e sam e kin d o f musica l excitemen t but , interestingly , by
quite differen t means : Toscanin i wit h hi s typica l hard-driving, somewhat muscu -
lar, tensil e approach , Furtwängle r b y hi s (fo r hi m als o typical ) uniqu e gif t t o
create lon g lines , coherin g grea t architectura l span s o f time , combine d wit h a
remarkable dept h an d warmt h o f sound . Fo r thos e wh o lik e t o kee p trac k o f
various conductors ' metronomi c inclinations , let m e jus t ad d tha t Furtwängler,
73. Schenker , Beethoven: Fifth Symphony, p.69 .

too, gather s terrifi c temp o momentu m here ; b y m.145 h e i s at J = 9 8 (agai n

considerably above Beethoven's suggeste d tempo) .
From th e earlies t day s o f th e Fift h Symphon y virtuall y everyone , eve n som e
of the work' s detractors, ha s considere d th e recal l o f the Scherz o i n th e middl e
of the Final e on e o f Beethoven's mos t origina l an d irresistibl e strokes of genius.
And s o it is, but muc h les s s o when th e temp o relationships between th e Final e
and Scherz o ar e disturbed or, worse, even reversed . Great confusio n reign s her e
at th e junctur e of the tw o movement s i n mos t recordings , wit h fe w conductor s
returning t o a faste r bea t ( J . = 96) , an d indee d mos t remainin g a t a n equiva -
lent temp o or , eve n mor e strangely , slowin g to a leisurel y un-scherzo-is h pace .
As i n th e Scherz o proper , man y performance s hav e th e bea t turne d around ,
erroneously takin g mm . 160, 164 , 168 , etc . a s 'ones' i n th e four-ba r structuring .
Where the 'ones ' are is , once again , vitally important t o know, because th e lon g
oboe lin e (eventuall y joined b y flut e an d bassoon ) i s i n it s phrasing an d pitc h
moves ou t o f phas e b y on e bar , tha t is , i n subtl e syncopatio n wit h th e basi c
four-bar periodization . Thi s i s no t somethin g on e coul d readil y deduc e fro m
viewing th e obo e par t isolate d fro m th e score . Seein g a phras e suc h
as
or almos t anybod y would assume a
four-bar o r six-ba r phrase-uni t wit h th e respectiv e firs t measure s fallin g o n a

structural downbeat . Such , however , i s no t th e case , m.17 3 bein g a 'one. ' Yet
most oboist s pla y th e line—an d mos t conductor s allow the m t o pla y it—tha t
way. Someon e wh o ha s no t hear d th e passag e playe d th e righ t wa y can hardl y
imagine wha t a differenc e i t makes. The fac t i s that th e entir e Scherzo recapitu -
lation, startin g at m.153 , consist s o f twelve four-bar group s plus , at th e end , on e
six-bar extension .
To furthe r clarif y th e 'correct ' interpretation , especiall y by the oboe , w e hav e
to understand th e functio n o f this Scherz o interpolation , th e reaso n fo r Beetho -
ven's insertio n o f it . Mos t ordinar y composers woul d hav e gon e directl y fro m
the sustaine d chord s o f mm. 150-52 (perhap s addin g on e mor e simila r measur e
to preserv e quaternar y structuring ) t o a recapitulation . Bu t Beethove n wa s no t
an 'ordinary ' composer . Hi s inspiratio n wa s to brin g bac k th e Scherzo—a t leas t
part o f it—t o creat e a paralle l t o th e situatio n tha t exist s prior t o th e arriva l o f
the fourt h movement. H e fel t th e nee d t o re-create tha t sam e mood , makin g th e
thus delayed repris e o f the Final e al l th e mor e powerfu l an d overwhelming —
again a momen t o f tremendou s releas e o f pent-up , suppresse d energies . Th e
eerie stillness , th e uncann y staticit y o f th e origina l transitio n passag e mus t b e
replicated here . Onl y thi s time , instea d o f a quietl y pulsatin g timpan i an d a
shadowy, twistin g violin line , i t i s the thi n lin e o f a singl e obo e tha t represent s
the onl y slightl y quasi-melodi c movemen t i n thi s music . Therefor e th e obois t
must pla y wit h a minimu m o f expression , holdin g back , suppressin g al l overly
emotional utterance , creatin g a sens e o f motionlessnes s (ye t with a beautifu l

tone, o f course ) —not th e ofte n hear d emotional , rhapsodic , indulgen t displa y
that man y oboist s an d conductor s offe r here . I t i s i n tha t sens e tha t I woul d
reject th e impuls e t o ornamen t th e oboe' s lin e wit h extraneou s dynami c nu -
ances, suc h a s those recommende d b y Markevitc h an d man y othe r conductor s
in, fo r example , mm . 177-79 Th e fac t i s that , i n th e
midst o f this harmonicall y an d melodicall y virtuall y motionles s realm , th e ver y

move t o Ftt , onl y a sligh t hal f ste p fro m th e surroundin g sustaine d G's , already
contains al l the 'expression ' tha t i s needed .
I neve r ceas e t o b e surprise d an d amaze d a t th e poo r intonatio n displaye d by
most oboist s i n thi s sol o passage , especiall y i n th e firs t fou r bar s (mm . 172-75).
Doubters o f thi s statemen t shoul d liste n t o th e recording s o f Karajan , Muti ,
Mehta, Abbado , Coli n Davis , an d Kubelik , al l presiding , needles s t o sa y over
first-rate, world-famous orchestras . Similarly , it i s rather shockin g o n ho w man y
recordings th e clarinet s i n mm . 164-67 ar e ou t o f tune, invariabl y quite sharp .
As i n th e fina l measure s o f th e firs t transitio n passage , s o her e to o n o ritar -
dando i s necessar y o r wanted , especiall y since th e fina l six-bar s (mm.201-206 )
are alread y in effec t a written-out ritenuto, a 'stretching ' o f the phrase .
All trul y great musi c i s marked b y two extraordinar y qualities: on e i s its mem-
orability— it etches itsel f into ou r memory . Th e othe r i s its sense o f inevitability,
that amazin g an d amaze d feelin g w e hav e a s listener s that , regardles s o f ho w
original, ho w unpredictabl e an d surprisin g a certai n musica l ide a (o r a move -
ment, o r a whole work) may be or may appear t o be a t first hearing, i n retrospec t
we perceiv e i t a s th e bes t an d onl y possibl e ide a appropriat e fo r tha t work ; i t
was, i n short , inevitable . Suc h thought s com e t o min d i n contemplatin g th e
astonishingly unpredictable , eve n radica l ide a o f recapitulatin g th e Scherz o i n
the middl e o f a Sonata-Allegr o fourt h movement . For , as extraordinar y as thi s
idea ma y b e —one canno t thin k o f an y compose r o f th e tim e wh o coul d hav e
had suc h a n inspiration—w e hear i t a s i f it ha d bee n th e mos t logica l thin g t o
do, a s inevitable. A s Schenke r onc e pu t it : "Wha t logi c i n thes e occurrences ,
which appea r t o driv e where the y themselve s ar e driven!" 74
Everything tha t ha s bee n sai d abou t th e firs t 3 3 measure s o f th e Final e wil l
apply t o th e identica l segmen t o f th e recapitulation . A t th e 34t h measur e
(m.240) th e musi c take s a remarkabl e an d decisiv e turn , a turnin g poin t im -
pelled b y th e nee d fo r th e secon d them e o f the recapitulate d expositio n t o b e
set i n th e toni c ke y of C. Thu s Beethove n seize d th e opportunit y t o modulat e
to the subdominan t F and thenc e to the dominan t G . I f we retrace hi s composi -
tional steps , w e ca n se e tha t Beethoven , realizin g tha t h e woul d nee d mor e
maneuvering roo m t o accomplis h thi s modulator y proces s (se e Fig. 10) , was
inspired a t th e sam e tim e t o inver t structurall y par t o f th e earlie r passag e —
another extraordinar y strok e of genius.
74. Schcnker , Beethoven: Fifth Symphony (Vienna , 1925) , p . 6 5

Fig. 1 0
Comparison o f exposition (mm.34-44 ) an d
recapitulation (mm.240-53 )
7 6/4
~ Expositio n C D G D
(11 measures ) mm.34-3 5 mm.36-3 7 m.3 8 m.3 9
7
Exposition G D
_ (1 1 measures) m.4 0 mm.41-4 4
~ Recapitulatio n C F G C
(14 measures ) mm.240-4 1 mm.242-4 3 mm.244-4 5 mm.246-4 7
7
Recapitulation G C G
_ (1 4 measures) m.24 8 m.24 9 mm.250-5 3
What is remarkable an d wa s (as far as I know) at the tim e unprecedente d in th e

symphonic literature, was Beethoven's ide a of turning the earlier music o f mm. 34-
40 registrally upside down i n its entirety in mm.240-49 (see Exx.57a and b) . What
Ex. 57 a
Ex. 57 b
BEETHOVEN: FIFTH SYMPHON Y 21 5
was originall y in th e bas s i s no w i n th e highes t registe r piccolo) ; wha t wa s o n

top a s the primar y melodic lin e i s now i n th e bass ; and th e viol a counterline i n
the teno r rang e i s now i n th e woodwinds , distribute d over three octaves .
But ther e wa s on e proble m wit h Beethoven' s idea : h e didn' t hav e quit e
enough instrument s (eve n i n hi s expande d orchestra ) t o realiz e al l o f i t full y
and easily . On e piccol o i n it s mediu m registe r ca n hardl y replicat e a whol e
section o f cello s an d basses , couple d wit h contrabassoon . Becaus e thi s six-ba r
phrase (mm . 244-49) i s suc h a remarkabl e invention , i t i s on e o f th e ver y fe w
places where I would i n a live performance sugges t a minor instrumenta l adjust -
ment t o provid e Beethoven' s intention s wit h a viabl e acoustica l realization .
Apart fro m assurin g tha t th e orchestr a no t excee d th e implie d f dynamic , th e
piccolo par t shoul d b e playe d b y tw o piccolo s (marke d ff ) , th e secon d piccol o
to b e playe d b y th e secon d flutist . (Doublin g th e piccol o wit h a flut e i s also
possible, but i t is not a s good a n ide a becaus e th e flut e i n it s highest registe r has
a quit e differen t an d mor e penetratin g soun d which , compare d wit h th e thinne r
piccolo timbre , woul d b e intrusiv e and ou t o f place. ) Additionally , on e migh t
then borro w on e o f th e oboist s o r clarinetist s t o fil l i n fo r th e vacate d secon d
flute, mor e likel y a clarine t sinc e th e clarinet' s note s are doubled exactl y in th e
second violin s an d ca n thu s b e spared . I n orde r for the piccol o doublin g t o b e
feasible, th e secon d flut e mus t quickl y switc h t o piccol o i n m.236 , pla y th e
second flut e par t i n mm.250-5 2 o n piccolo , an d switc h bac k t o flut e i n th e
ensuing measure s o f rest.
I woul d no t thin k tha t thi s bi t o f cosmetic instrumenta l realignin g would b e
necessary i n a recording , fo r there ar e eas y electroni c mean s t o giv e the piccol o
its neede d presence . Despit e this , o n onl y eigh t ou t o f th e nearl y ninet y re -
cordings sample d ca n th e piccol o b e clearl y heard (Muti , Jochum , Dorati , Suit -
ner, Thomas, Haitink , Krips , and Carlo s Kleiber) . On a doze n other s i t is barely
discernible, i f one listen s very hard. O n th e res t (som e 50-plu s recordings ) i t is
literally, totally, completely inaudible ! The mos t bizarr e case i s that o f Stokowski
whose dialin g madness, a s mentione d before , cause s hi m t o virtuall y 're-invent '
Beethoven's entir e symphony . I n th e passag e i n question , instea d o f helping th e
piccolo electronically , h e make s a has h o f this entire episod e b y first dialing th e
violins way up i n mm.240-43 , the n wa y down i n m.244 , simultaneousl y raising
the cello s an d basse s tremendously , i n th e meanwhil e suppressin g entirel y no t
only th e piccol o par t bu t th e importan t woodwind s counter-line. A t m.250 sud -
denly al l instrument s burs t fort h ff , soundin g almos t lik e a ba d editin g splic e
(perhaps i t was).
Again, everythin g tha t ha s bee n sai d abou t mm.41-7 1 shoul d b e applie d t o
mm.250-80, wit h onl y th e additiona l commen t tha t th e firs t clarine t an d first
bassoon i n mm.263-6 4 i n th e recapitulatio n hav e replace d th e tw o horn s o f
mm.5 5-56 includin g th e writte n p p (no t p o r mfl), a fac t no t ofte n realize d b y
the respectiv e musicians and mos t conductors . Specia l car e mus t also b e take n
that th e horn s observ e religiously Beethoven's p dolce i n mm.273—80 .
We com e no w t o a passag e in whic h I believe Beethoven di d mak e a 'seriou s
mistake,' probabl y a n inadverten t omission . Excep t fo r som e orchestrationa l
modifications, mm.281-8 8 i s a n exac t transpositio n o f mm.72-79 . Somehow ,

however, Beethoven , i n writin g out th e transposition , forgo t abou t th e piccol o
runs tha t ar e suc h a n importan t par t o f the origina l passage . Th e piccol o staf f
in th e autograp h i n th e respectiv e measure s i s blank . Sinc e Beethove n i n hi s
manuscript score s di d no t bothe r wit h rest s i n empt y measures , w e canno t b e
absolutely sur e tha t h e lef t th e piccol o ou t intentionally . Ha d ther e specificall y
been rest s in mm.282—85 , i t would hav e clearl y indicated Beethoven' s intentio n
to eliminat e th e piccol o i n th e recapitulation . But I fee l certai n tha t Beethove n
simply forgo t t o includ e th e piccolo . (Mor e composer s mak e mos t o f their mis -
takes an d omission s i n recapitulations , usually, in haste , takin g certai n obviou s
reiterations fo r granted.) What surprise s me mor e i s that, t o m y knowledge , no t
one write r on Beethoven' s C mino r Symphon y has ever commented o n o r ques-
tioned thi s curiou s omission . Fo r m y part , I hav e adde d th e missin g piccol o
notes (b y transpositio n u p a fourth ) i n m y performance s o f th e symphon y fo r
many years , ofte n t o th e amazemen t o f piccol o player s wh o ha d n o idea , o f
course, tha t an importan t piccolo passag e migh t hav e been lef t out .
At m.289 we encounter anothe r on e o f Beethoven's stretche d phrases , this one
extended t o fiv e bars . Interestingly, from a purel y technical/theoretical poin t o f
view, Beethoven di d not hav e to resor t to a five-bar phrase. The modulator y pro-
gression contained i n mm.289-93 (C#° over F-BI>6/4-F0-F#0) could easily have been
accomplished i n four measures , but evidentl y Beethoven fel t that the mov e to the
C peda l point would thus be too abrupt and inserted the extra measure (m.293).
This progressio n an d it s arrival a t th e dominan t (G ) peda l poin t produc e ex -
actly th e sam e feelin g on e get s a t th e arriva l poin t o f a cadenz a i n a classica l
concerto. Beethoven' s re-workin g of the secon d expositio n theme , no w a t a tre -
mendously hig h leve l o f intensity , feel s indee d lik e cadenz a material. 75 I t i s
seething wit h rhythmi c excitemen t (wave s of triple t eighths) , crowne d wit h tri-
umphant them e proclamation s (firs t i n th e strings , then i n th e brass) , and leads ,
almost a s expected, t o a climacti c subdominant , dramatize d by secon d bea t sf s
(mm. 308-11), an d thenc e t o a serie s of dominant-tonic chorda l exchange s tha t
in almos t an y compose r othe r tha n Beethove n woul d hav e signale d —indeed
would hav e been—the en d o f the movement .
But Beethove n i s no t throug h yet . Havin g jus t recycle d th e secon d mai n
theme o f th e exposition , h e realize d tha t h e coul d tur n onc e mor e t o othe r
primary thematic material , not ye t fully exploited . The winds ' theme o f mm.26-
27 i s now revived, although no t a s there stated , but a s it had appeare d i n slightly
altered an d contracte d for m i n th e bas s instrument s i n mm . 246-47. Thi s i s
undoubtedly wh y this theme i s now give n t o tw o uniso n bassoons , immediately
discreetly succeede d b y tw o horns . A s simpl e an d a s uncomplicate d a s thi s
sounds, i t is , strang e t o say , on e o f th e mos t maltreate d passage s i n th e entir e
symphony. Fo r reasons I canno t understand , th e dynamic s her e ar e consistentl y
ignored b y virtually al l player s and conductors , mor e ofte n tha n no t completel y
75. Th e sf s fo r brass an d timpan i i n m.29 6 ar c no t authentic ; the dynami c here shoul d be a simple
f. Als o it should be obviou s that, afte r th e s f o f m.294, the succeedin g dynamic is f (no t ff) , followe d
soon b y Beethoven' s favorit e crescend o strategy , pi ù f an d the n ff .
reversed. Grante d tha t o n purel y acoustica l term s th e differenc e betwee n a ff o f

bassoons an d a p i n horn s wil l no t b e a s dramati c a s the bal d dynamic s migh t
indicate. O n th e othe r hand , wit h a littl e effor t Beethoven' s contrastin g dynam -
ics can b e achieved . What i s so disturbing—and s o inexcusable —is that, judging
by th e recording s sampled , mos t player s an d conductor s don' t eve n tr y t o
achieve an y meaningful dynami c contrast . O n almos t al l recording s on e hear s a
kind o f tepi d mp—mf i n th e bassoon s an d anythin g bu t a n echoe y p i n th e
horns, i n man y instance s i n fac t a coars e mf o r f\ Ever y dynami c excep t th e
right one s ca n b e heard :
Bassoons — Horn s
f- rnf
mp — mp
mf — mp
p - p
mp -- mf
P- f
Not a singl e recordin g manage s t o represen t Beethoven' s intende d dynamic s

correctly, althoug h o n som e performance s th e player s seem a t leas t t o be tryin g
and i n som e instance s com e fairl y clos e (Muti , Coli n Davis , Haitink , Krips ,
Toscanini, an d Jochum , althoug h Jochum' s recordin g i s spoile d b y a crudel y
edited splic e a t the horns ' entrance) .
At m.32 9 (an d m.346 ) tw o performanc e problems—on e o f the m merel y an -
other ba d habit—ma r mos t o f the recordings . Th e vas t majorit y distor t Beetho -
ven's rhyth m a so r primaril y in
the strings , althoug h ofte n th e wind s see m t o b e influence d b y the m a s well .

This rhythmi c misrepresentatio n make s th e fou r bars , mm.329-32 , soun d
choppy an d disconnected . Furthermore , i f Beethoven ha d wante d a caesur a be -
fore th e fourt h bea t (which , b e i t noted , i s staccat o b y wa y o f contrast) , h e
would hav e writte n a rhyth m (lik e ) t o achiev e tha t effect . Onl y a fe w
conductors — Reiner, Koussevitzky , and Karaja n (whos e penchan t fo r sostenuto

playing i s wel l known ) — manage t o sustai n thes e chord s properly , thereb y
achieving a gran d four-ba r lin e rathe r tha n fou r choppe d apar t one-ba r units .
The othe r proble m i s tha t th e lowe r thre e o r fou r note s o f th e piccol o i n
mm.329-332 ar e hardl y eve r heard . I t i s true, o f course, tha t note s withi n th e
staff o n a piccol o hav e ver y littl e projection , bu t again , tha t i s a n acoustica l
limitation whic h coul d certainl y b e mitigate d audio-technicall y i n a moder n
recording.76 Stokowsk i solved the proble m i n hi s typically impulsive way by add -
76. On e occasio n whe n a playe r migh t hav e wishe d no t t o b e hear d a t al l occur s o n Steinberg' s
recording wit h th e Pittsburg h Symphony, where th e piccol o playe r entered tw o bars earl y (i n m.32 3
instead o f m.325). I t i s amazing to m e tha t thi s erro r wa s simply left o n th e recording .
ing a flut e (i n the highe r octave ) an d dialin g both instrument s up t o levels that
are twic e a s loud a s the entir e res t of the orchestra !
One fina l wor d o n th e piccol o run s i n mm.329-32 , 346-49 : the y ar e t o b e
tongued, no t slurred , no t onl y becaus e the y ar e s o writte n b y Beethoven , bu t
because the y wil l project better whe n tongued .
During th e sempre pi ù allegro (meanin g accelerando ) betwee n mm.352—6 1
the conducto r mus t convert gradually to one bea t per bar . It is best t o be i n 'one '
by m.357 , eve n thoug h th e accelerand o continue s fo r anothe r fou r measures .
A numbe r o f performance problems haun t th e cod a (m.361) , marke d presto
0
= 112 . Beethoven' s metronom e marking , which onc e agai n almos t n o one
observes, i s perfect, producing when adhere d t o a triumphantl y tumultuous, ec -
static, spine-tinglin g excitemen t tha t i s simpl y overwhelmin g an d irresistible. 77
A favorite temp o fo r many conductor s i s ° = 100 , man y other s wel l below tha t
in th e 90s , an d a fe w laggards like Klemperer , Walter, an d (surprisingly ) Dorat i
at 88 , 84 , 8 8 respectively. Only a fe w conductors, Szell , Norrington , an d Gardi -
ner amon g them , manag e Beethoven' s 112 . However , Szel l slow s u p signifi -
cantly (t o 104 ) a t m.389 , a traditio n clun g t o b y man y conductors , particularly
of th e earlie r generation s o r thos e wh o studie d i n th e earlie r German tradition
(Ormandy, Steinberg , Ashkenazy , Mehta) . Meht a start s the presto at ° = 100 ,
slows to 96, then 92 and finally to a rather ponderou s ° = 88 . Other conductor s
accelerate somewher e befor e m.389 : Ansermet , fo r example , als o Böhm , Hai -
tink, Weingartner , Reiner . Straus s i s once agai n th e oddes t cas e o f all , starting
the presto at 100 , acceleratin g twic e t o 10 4 and 10 8 but i n betwee n als o twice
reducing th e temp o noticeably , in effec t zig-zaggin g through five differen t temp o
changes i n littl e ove r thirt y seconds o f music. Furtwängle r who , a s I have men -
tioned before , i s often though t t o b e a slow-temp o conductor start s the presto at
a livel y <= > = 10 4 an d befor e lon g ha s pushe d th e temp o t o ° = 120 , eve n
beyond Beethoven' s 112 . Furtwängler' s cod a i s a n exhilarating , transporting ex-
perience, a s i s Toscanini's, al l i n th e sam e temp o (< = = 106) , relentlessl y an d
excitingly driven , an d despit e som e ensembl e raggednes s overwhelmin g i n it s
impact.
In a wa y more problematic , becaus e the y ar e harde r to correct , ar e th e com -
mon performin g bad habits , suc h a s no t reall y playing fp (emphasi s o n th e p) ,
or droppin g th e dotte d half-note s in mm.361 , 363 , 36 5 etc. Thes e note s shoul d
be full y sustained ; and on e 'trick ' to get both th e almos t lyrica l sustaining of the
presto's two-ba r phrase s an d t o assur e a rea l p effect , i s t o tel l th e string s (and
later i n m.36 9 th e woodwinds ) to pla y basically p an d mak e accent s (i n p ) o n
the downbeat s of the alternat e measures . Th e timpan i an d bras s f punctuation s
provide th e necessar y energ y accents. 78 I n practice , ver y fe w orchestra s (an d
77. I hav e ofte n wondere d why almost al l conductor s ar e remarkabl y eager t o pounc e o n th e fastes t
prestissimo temp o possibl e i n th e cod a o f Beethoven' s Nint h Symphony , an d ye t resis t an d argu e
against a simila r approac h in th e Fift h Symphony .
78. Le t u s not e i n passin g tha t cello s an d basse s are her e playin g th e sam e figur e the y playe d s o
often i n th e first movement. The temp o i s virtually th e same , only the notatio n uses larger rhythmic
units.
conductors) ar e abl e t o maintai n a basi c p fo r th e firs t sixtee n measure s o f th e

presto. Thi s i s no t easy , a t thi s spee d an d wit h th e constan t interruptiv e
fp's, whic h tend cumulativel y t o spira l th e dynami c leve l upward . Bu t eve n
when th e woodwind s ente r i n m.369 , th e over-al l dynami c leve l shoul d no t
increase.
Although man y hav e criticize d wha t the y conside r t o b e a n excessivel y long
and repetitiou s ending—"interminabl e C majo r chords, " " a miscalculatio n b y
Beethoven"—I maintai n tha t hi s cod a an d endin g ar e perfect , especiall y whe n
done a t hi s tempo . (I t does becom e laboriou s an d borin g whe n conducte d a t a
ponderous temp o of , say, ° — 88, some 2 4 points of f the mark. ) A work of such
monumental scope , o f such forma l complexity, whic h ha s been pauseles s sinc e
the beginnin g o f the Scherzo , needs a monumenta l ending . I n thi s respec t i t is
very muc h lik e Mahler's Thir d Symphony , whic h ha s an eve n longe r ( D major )
coda, primaril y because i t i s an eve n longe r symphon y tha n Beethoven' s Fifth .
And perhap s w e als o nee d t o b e reminde d tha t th e las t forty-od d measures ar e
not a s devoi d o f interes t a s som e woul d hav e u s believe . Unfortunatel y most
performances (an d recordings ) mak e th e cod a soun d emptie r tha n i t is . Apart
from th e ecstaticall y risin g melodi c lin e echoin g th e Finale' s openin g mai n
theme (a t m.389), Beethove n ha s a numbe r o f trump card s u p hi s sleeve , cards
which are , however , neve r playe d b y most conductors . Fo r example , ho w man y
times ha s anybody been abl e t o hea r th e canoni c respons e i n th e cellos , basses,
and contrabassoo n i n mm.390-400 , a dramati c counter-lin e that , whe n pro -
jected properly gives a tremendous lif t t o thi s passage. Alas, it i s usually buried —
inaudible —under a barrag e o f timpani an d bras s (especially when th e bras s are
doubled).79 Similarly , the majesticall y risin g figure in th e lowe r strings and con -
trabassoon i n m.42 7 i s almost alway s (unnecessarily) covered b y the surroundin g
din. O n mos t recording s eve n th e trombone s ar e no t allowe d o r encourage d t o
shout fort h thei r triumphan t harmonies .
If everythin g Beethove n pu t int o hi s cod a i s brought out , ther e i s no nee d t o
doctor u p hi s orchestration , a s Kletzk i does , b y havin g th e firs t trumpe t pla y a
in m.415 ; o r a s Stokowski does whe n h e ha s th e horn s play
a whole octav e highe r (excep t for the hig h G's ) i n mm.40 3-14 an d agai n m.419
to the end .
One fina l wor d on th e subjec t of revising, supplementing, retouchin g Beetho -
79. Berlio z complaine d abou t thi s passage i n hi s Mémoires, writing : "There i s along wit h th e fina l
statement o f the them e a cano n i n th e bas s instrument s i n pitc h uniso n a t a distanc e o f on e bar ,
which woul d giv e thi s melod y renewe d interes t if i t wer e [i n fact ] possibl e to hea r th e imitatio n of
the winds . Bu t unfortunatel y the whol e orchestr a i s a t th e sam e tim e playin g s o loud , tha t [thi s
canonic imitation ] i s inaudible. " I ca n onl y conclud e tha t Berlio z hear d a typica l poorly balance d
rendition, suc h a s one ca n stil l hea r almos t an y da y in ou r ow n tim e and , alas , on mos t recordings .
I was particularly disappointed in Gardiner's , Harnoncourt's, and Brüggen' s recording s a t this point
(m.390), fo r I would have thought that the y an d som e o f the othe r 'perio d instrumen t authenticists'
would hav e bee n mor e successfu l i n realizin g Beethoven' s remarkabl e canonic imitatio n a t mm .
389/90-99.
ven's orchestratio n an d th e doublin g o f instruments. Tha t final word will not b e

mine, bu t Schenker's , wh o pu t th e cas e fo r honorin g Beethoven' s text—an d
genius—as wel l a s anybod y eve r has . "Al l trick s of reinforcement an d doublin g
of instrument s whic h th e compose r himsel f di d no t foresee , wil l prov e t o b e
superfluous fo r an y conducto r wh o reall y understand s ho w t o rea d thi s score .
The scor e wil l alway s prevai l ove r al l suc h conductor s who , fo r th e sak e o f on e
cheap effec t o r another , fee l th e nee d t o pain t th e scor e ove r with a stylisticall y
inappropriate instrumenta l rouge." 8
The recen t (i n certai n circles ) much-toute d recording s o f various Beethove n
symphonies performe d on 'period ' instruments , le d b y Roger Norrington , Chris -
topher Hogwood , an d Monic a Hugge t ar e o f such questionabl e musica l quality
and i n an y cas e s o utterl y remove d i n conceptio n an d performanc e practic e
from al l th e othe r 'normal ' recordings , tha t I fee l compelle d t o dea l wit h the m
separately, al l th e mor e s o becaus e th e thre e leader s an d thei r orchestra s (th e
London Classica l Players , th e Academ y o f Ancien t Music , an d th e Hanove r
Band) exhibi t a n almos t identica l approac h i n thei r 'interpretations. ' Further -
more, ther e ha s been suc h a n avalanch e o f hype promulgate d b y these 'authen -
ticists' i n th e las t decad e o r s o — many o f their claim s totally spurious and chim -
eric—that I fee l compelle d i n th e contex t o f thi s boo k t o offe r a seriou s
challenge t o thei r cultis h can t (an d thei r supportin g recor d companies) , base d
on th e har d evidenc e o f their recordings .
But befor e I ca n elaborat e o n th e specific s of their recorde d performances , a
whole rang e o f fundamental assumption s an d pretension s mus t b e deal t wit h —
without, however , turning this stud y into a disputation o n th e earl y music move -
ment (fa r too muc h attentio n ha s bee n pai d t o i t already, at least i n regar d to its
encroachment o n th e 'classical ' an d now , 'Romantic ' repertory) . The thre e jus t
mentioned 'authenticists ' hav e sprea d suc h a bewilderin g amoun t o f confusion,
invoking variou s (untenable ) theories , premises , an d pseudo-historica l assump-
tions, tha t th e min d boggle s a s t o wher e t o begi n t o expos e an d refut e thes e
claims.81 Bu t perhap s on e wa y to star t is to detonat e thei r mos t cherishe d claim ,
80. Schenker , Beethoven: Fifth Symphony, p . 69 . Havin g studied th e Fift h Symphon y autograph , I
am convince d tha t th e timpan i par t i n th e las t measur e shoul d simpl y have a trill , meanin g a fas t
roll. I believ e tha t Beethove n initiall y starte d t o writ e a thirty-second-not e tremolo , change d hi s
mind, alterin g i t t o a pur e roll , bu t forgo t t o cros s ou t th e tremolo . A s it stand s i n al l edition s i t
makes littl e sense, an d a t th e fas t temp o canno t b e playe d as notated .
81. Les t I b e misunderstoo d a t th e outse t o f this particular discussion, let m e poin t ou t tha t I have
been a supporter of historically and musicologicall y informed performances of'earl y music ' for many
decades, goin g bac k t o th e earl y day s o f suc h pioneer s a s Arnol d Dolmetsch , Noa h Greenberg ,
George Malcolm , an d Rober t Donington ; late r heroe s o f mine wer e Davi d Munrow , (occasionally)
Nicholas Harnoncourt , and , o f course, Charle s Mackerras , Raymon d Leppard , an d (mor e recently)
John Elio t Gardiner . I will be immodes t enoug h t o mentio n a few of my own activitie s in th e real m
of 'historicall y informed ' performance , suc h a s 'authentic ' rendition s o f Ar s Nov a repertor y i n th e
early 1950s , wha t I believ e t o b e th e firs t performanc e i n th e Unite d State s o f Monteverdi' s Orfeo
with th e ful l authenti c 42-piec e instrumentariu m specifie d b y Monteverdi , and —closer t o th e sub -
ject o f thi s book—th e performanc e o f Beethove n symphonie s at Beethoven' s metronom e tempo s
and hi s specifie d dynamics , for example, a s lon g ag o a s the earl y 1960s .
that the y ar e givin g u s —finally—the firs t opportunit y eve r t o hea r Beethoven' s

symphonies i n " a for m which " h e himsel f "woul d recognize." 82 Th e arroganc e
of this assumptio n i s staggering, fo r i t suggests tha t thes e particula r 'authenticists '
(a) kno w precisel y wha t Beethove n performance s wer e lik e i n hi s ow n tim e
(even unde r hi s ow n direction) , an d wha t therefor e "h e woul d recognize, " an d
(b) tha t al l previou s interpretation s an d performance s o f thes e work s b y man y
generations o f conductors an d orchestra s were boun d t o be 'inauthentic. ' Ther e
is th e furthe r assumptio n tha t th e allegedl y authenti c performance s o n perio d
instruments w e ar e bein g give n ar e b y virtue o f that fac t alon e inherentl y bette r
or preferabl e t o anythin g don e o n moder n instruments . The y als o clai m (o r try
to creat e th e impression ) tha t thei r performance s ar e base d o n textua l fidelit y
with, again , th e implicatio n tha t textua l fidelit y i s a subjec t that ha s no w com e
up fo r the firs t time , an d tha t the y ar e th e rescuer s o f Beethoven's symphonie s
from textua l infidelit y an d th e romanticis t 'improvisers' .
Taking thes e point s on e b y one , i n revers e order , w e hav e t o begi n b y re -
minding thes e folk s tha t th e textua l fidelity revolution wa s initiated b y Toscanini
early i n thi s century , an d tha t virtuall y ever y conducto r sinc e the n ha s t o on e
degree o r another bee n influence d b y Toscanini, an d tha t an y numbe r o f 'mod-
ern' conductor s (Haitink , Carlo s Kleiber , Abbado , Dorati , Dohnany i —just t o
name a few ) are, a s fa r a s th e text , th e score , goes , muc h mor e 'authentic ' i n
their performance s than anythin g Norrington, Hogwood , an d th e Hanover s hav e
yet produced. (W e will retur n t o this poin t again. )
The assumptio n tha t a performanc e bein g o n perio d instrument s o f itself de-
fines tha t performanc e a s someho w 'authentic ' o r 'better ' o r 'preferable, ' i s s o
lacking i n logic—an d s o full o f chutzpah—as to b e laughable . T o put i t anothe r
way, th e fac t tha t a n orchestr a i s playing o n 'perio d instruments ' i n an d o f itself
does no t guarante e tha t tha t performanc e i s somehow 'authentic ' o r adhere s t o
the philosoph y o f 'textua l fidelity.' A performanc e o n 'perio d instruments ' ma y
indulge i n a s man y interpretiv e aberration s —and ofte n i n fac t doe s —as tha t b y
an orchestr a playin g o n 'modern ' instruments .
On stil l anothe r point , on e ca n safel y assum e tha t ever y conductor , fro m
Wagner an d Biilo w to Karaja n an d Thomas—no t to mentio n suc h superio r Bee -
thoven interpreter s a s Eric h Kleiber , Schuricht , Reiner , Weingartner—ha s
claimed fidelit y t o Beethoven' s intentions . Th e implie d notion , spawne d b y
these latter-da y 'authenticists,' that onl y those wh o perform Beethoven o n perio d
instruments coul d possibl y have th e appropriat e insight s int o Beethoven' s inten -
tions an d tha t thei r revelation s hav e becom e possibl e onl y i n mos t recen t times ,
is nothin g shor t o f ludicrous . Further , th e ide a tha t thes e performer s woul d
somehow kno w wha t Beethove n woul d recogniz e o r no t recognize , an d tha t th e
mantle o f authenticity ca n no w be assume d becaus e on e ha s (allegedly ) irrefut -
able evidenc e a s to orchestra sizes , performanc e venues, payrolls , reliable eyewit -
82. Th e clai m o f Horace Fitzpatric k i n th e sleev e not e fo r the Hanove r Band's recording o f Beetho-
ven's Firs t Symphony , (Nimbu s CD 5003) .
ness accounts , an d othe r 'quantitative ' data , provide s a nea t wa y o f avoidin g

all th e reall y relevan t an d difficul t 'qualitative ' performanc e an d interpretatio n
questions. I t i s interestin g t o not e tha t th e so-calle d 'evidence ' i s selectivel y re -
spected o r alternativel y disregarded when i t suit s thes e authenticists ' ow n inten -
tions, suc h as , fo r example , 'conducting ' a Beethove n symphon y fro m a forte -
piano, whe n ther e i s ampl e an d conclusiv e evidenc e tha t Beethove n ofte n
conducted premiere s o f hi s work s i n th e moder n sens e o f conducting , tha t i s
standing i n fron t o f the orchestra , wavin g hi s arm s an d gesturall y representin g
the musi c withou t benefi t o f a fortepiano.
Hogwood doe s indee d mak e th e clai m (throug h hi s sleeve-not e write r for his
recordings of the first two Beethoven symphonies ) that th e ideal , true Beethove n
symphony performanc e ca n onl y b e achieve d wit h a conductorles s orchestra ,
specifically on e le d a s i n th e ol d day s fro m th e keyboar d (eve n thoug h ther e
are n o keyboar d part s i n Beethoven' s symphonies ) wit h som e hel p fro m th e
concertmaster/mistress. Thi s is , o f course , t o begi n wit h a smokescreen , a n at -
tempt t o hid e th e fac t tha t Hogwoo d i s nonetheless 'conducting ' the ensemble ,
making all the decision s as to tempo, dynamics, phrasing , balance s etc . o r mor e
the case , a s w e shal l see , failin g t o d o so , eve n a s h e conducts . Second , hi s
notion tha t conductor-less-nes s b y itsel f wil l remov e generation s o f stylisti c en -
crustations that hav e accumulated ove r the year s as the legac y of conductors no t
sanctified b y th e earl y music movemen t i s hogwash, mainl y becaus e Hogwoo d
(and hi s tw o majo r confrères ) simpl y substitut e thei r ow n interpretation s an d
modifications fo r thos e o f thei r predecessors . Hogwood' s performanc e o f th e
Fifth i s hardly the pure , pristine , freshly hear d Beethove n h e claim s to be resur -
recting fro m th e past , bu t i s instead , wit h hi s idiosyncrati c deviation s fro m th e
text, a s vagrant an interpretatio n a s any i n th e recor d catalogues .
Third, Hogwoo d claim s (agai n throug h hi s sleeve-not e spokesman ) tha t a
maestro-less orchestra , le d fro m th e keyboard , cannot indulg e i n the "wide r vari-
ety o f nuanc e an d temp o modifications " tha t Hogwoo d i s ostensibl y tryin g t o
supplant. "Th e ol d syste m inevitabl y necessitated a constant pulse, " resultin g in
"uncomplicated rhythmica l performances." 83 Apar t fro m th e fac t tha t thi s re -
veals tha t Mr . Hogwoo d seem s neve r t o hav e hear d a Toscanini Beethove n per -
formance, on e need s t o ask what is so good abou t a n "uncomplicate d rhythmica l
Beethoven performance" ? Coul d i t be tha t Hogwoo d ha s never heard o f Beetho-
ven's belove d "elastische r Takt " an d th e tempo rubato, no t onl y i n Beethove n
but i n Mozar t an d Haydn ? Could i t be tha t h e ha s not eve n rea d hi s Dolmetsc h
and Donington? 84
Similarly, the authenticists ' claim s of authenticity o n the assumptio n tha t their
performances ar e base d o n th e tex t tur n ou t b e equall y fallacious, sinc e i n gen -
eral the y fai l t o follo w th e tex t an y tim e i t i s convenient fo r them no t t o d o s o —
as w e shal l se e anon . Furthermore , insofa r a s man y o f thei r claim s t o 'textua l
83. Sleev e not e fo r Symphonie s 1 an d 2 b y Beethoven , Christophe r Hogwoo d an d Academ y of
Ancient Musi c (Oiseau—Lyr e C D 41 4 338).
84. Arnol d Dolmetsch , Th e Interpretation o f th e Music o f th e XVII an d XVII I Centuries (London ,
1915, 1944) ; Rober t Donington , Th e Interpretation o f Early Music (Ne w York, 1974) .
fidelity' are, a s i t turn s out , base d o n evidenc e external t o th e text , an d insofa r

as thei r performance s ar e no t inspired , hard-wo n interpretation s base d o n a
painstaking consideratio n o f th e scor e a s a prescription, bu t instea d dul l run -
throughs, non-interpretations , whic h regar d score s as descriptions of a work, their
understanding o f 'textua l fidelity ' i s exactl y th e opposit e o f min e an d tha t o f
most o f the value s expressed i n thi s book .
Last, eve n i f on e wer e abl e t o clai m possessio n o f absolutel y reliabl e knowl -
edge i n regar d to origina l intentions an d practices—Beethoven's , his musicians' ,
the effect s o f various personal an d instrumenta l capacitie s an d limitations—ar e
we t o assum e tha t suc h intention s an d practice s ar e imperishable , immun e t o
reconsideration an d revision? 85
Given al l these erroneou s assumption s and spuriou s premises, i t is not surpris -
ing tha t th e performance s o f th e thre e authenticist s unde r consideratio n her e
are riddle d wit h deficiencies , misinterpretations , bal d disregarding s of th e text ,
and, i n addition , somethin g no t foun d o n an y o f the othe r 6 0 to 7 0 recordings ,
a terribl e unBeethovenia n sound , rangin g from scrawn y to coars e an d grating -
sounds on e sincerel y hope s Beethove n woul d i n fac t no t b e "abl e to recognize. "
Especially annoyin g i s the soun d o f th e Hanove r Band' s performanc e tha t was
recorded i n som e cavernou s hal l o r churc h whos e excessiv e reverberation com -
pletely defeat s an d counteract s th e essentiall y chambe r musi c approac h the y
have taken , eve n t o th e exten t o f reducin g th e strin g sectio n t o six-five-four -
three-two players.
Now t o a fe w performanc e specifics . The openin g measure s o f Beethoven' s
Fifth Symphony' s first movement ar e variousl y mishandled, Norringto n makin g
the secon d fermat a actually shorter than th e first, as well a s 'embellishing' bot h
fermatas wit h hug e diminuendo s an d addin g tw o extr a empt y bar s befor e m.6 ;
Hogwood gettin g th e fermat a length s right , bu t allowin g the thre e eighth-note s
to sound lik e triplets; th e Hanover s also making a sizable diminuendo i n mm.4-
5 i n th e strings , which, however , th e clarinet s d o no t make , thu s causin g the m
to protrud e incongruousl y a t th e en d o f th e measure . (I f I hav e earlie r com -
plained abou t no t hearin g th e clarinet s i n th e openin g measure s i n an y re -
cording, I was not expectin g o r hopin g t o hea r the m i n thi s inep t way.)
85. I t migh t b e wel l fo r ou r thre e 'authenticists ' t o ponde r th e word s o f th e ver y wis e (an d no t
ambitiously self-promoting) late Rober t Donington , who i n hi s invaluabl e The Interpretation o f Early
Music (p.38 ) writes : "A merely tacit assumptio n tha t earl y methods, instrument s and technique s ar e
superior fo r earl y musi c ignore s th e possibilit y that ther e migh t b e exception s t o tha t basi c truth .
This ne w an d fashionabl e habi t o f min d i s indee d sounde r tha n it s previou s opposite , an d give s
better results ; but i t still flie s somewhat i n th e fac e o f probability . In th e cours e o f musical history,
there must , w e should suppose , hav e been som e flaws upon whic h w e have mad e genuin e improve-
ments." Doningto n the n add s "And i n fac t ther e wer e many . An uncritica l assumption that whatever
is old i s best i s no mor e reasonabl e tha n a n uncritica l assumption [o f the opposite]. " (Th e las t three
words ar e m y paraphras e of his implication. )
Mackerras give s thes e thought s a slightl y differen t twist , a s quoted i n Charles Mackerras: A Musi-
cians' Musician b y Nanc y Phela n (London , 1987) : "Althoug h w e shoul d tr y t o lear n a s muc h a s
possible abou t how eighteenth-centur y musicians performed, we should no t tur n our knowledg e int o
an inflexibl e dogma , bu t us e i t to vitaliz e ou r moder n performance."
As fo r tempo , Norringto n is , o f th e three , generall y th e mos t respectfu l o f

Beethoven's metronom e markings , whil e Hogwoo d an d th e Hanovers , despit e
all claim s t o textua l fidelity , convenientl y ignor e them , settlin g fo r a leisurel y
« = 9 6 an d=< > = 92 , respectively , in th e firs t movement . Thi s i s a particularly
annoying exampl e o f how cavalierly these musician s treat Beethoven' s scor e an d
intentions whe n i t suits their interpretationa l purposes. The Hanover s are partic-
ularly high-hande d i n thei r dismissa l o f Beethoven' s tempo s an d metronom e
marks—flatly statin g i n thei r line r not e tha t "thes e temp i ar e no t a t al l suit -
able"—suitable t o whom , t o what?—an d tha t th e "authenticity " o f their temp o
conception i s based o n th e notio n (unsubstantiated , o f course) tha t "Beethove n
inherited th e convention s o f temp o i n us e durin g th e latte r par t o f th e eigh -
teenth century, " an d tha t "th e evidence " — but wha t evidence ? — "of thes e con -
ventions an d th e technica l demand s o f the instrument s o f the tim e combin e t o
suggest tha t fas t movement s wer e playe d slowe r . . . an d slow movement s
faster." (Not e th e cleverl y hedging wor d "suggest." ) A t another poin t thei r deci -
sion t o op t fo r " a lat e 18th-centur y concep t o f tempo" rathe r tha n Beethoven' s
markings o f 181 7 i s justifie d b y th e opinio n tha t i t "solve s certai n problem s
of bot h techniqu e an d ensemble." 86 What problems , pra y tell? Apar t fro m th e
unsubstantiability of these arguments , i t i s a gross example o f historical revision-
ism t o clai m tha t Beethove n adhere d t o "18th-centur y conventions " whe n al l
sorts o f unquestionabl e evidence , no t th e leas t a break-throug h wor k lik e th e
Fifth Symphony , show s him t o have been engage d i n supplantin g those conven -
tions. Th e conventiona l tempo s o f the pas t were specificall y singled ou t b y Bee -
thoven a s outdated an d belongin g t o "th e barbarou s perio d o f music" (a s he pu t
it i n a well-know n letter t o Igna z vo n Mosel) , welcomin g therefor e th e hel p o f
Mälzels's metronom e i n mor e precisel y definin g the ne w temp o possibilities . (I
would no t mak e a n issu e o f th e Hanove r Band' s transgression s i n regar d t o
tempo—for a s w e hav e see n th e vas t majorit y o f conductor s hav e likewis e ig -
nored o r rejecte d mos t o f Beethoven' s metronom e indications—wer e i t no t fo r
their claim s o f authenticity , thei r callou s misrepresentatio n o f incontrovertibl e
evidence, an d thei r particularl y arrogant dismissa l of Beethoven's temp o indica -
tions.)
Common to these thre e recorde d performance s is the genera l lac k of dynamic
(and therefor e timbrai) contrast, th e resul t of a tendenc y t o favo r highe r decibe l
levels. Norringto n an d Hogwoo d neve r ge t dow n t o a rea l p a t m.6 , an d th e
former's Classica l Player s star t i n m.1 4 th e crescend o Beethove n ha s i n m.18 .
(So much fo r textual fidelity!) The Hanover s spoi l the firs t phrase by lopping off
every lon g not e valu e (half-notes ) t o o n the , again , chronologicall y
irrelevant evidenc e o f a 177 4 violi n metho d o f a n obscur e Germa n compose r

and theorist , Geor g Simo n Löhlei n (th e nam e misspelle d i n thei r sleev e note) ,
indicating ho w rhythmi c values were played a t tha t tim e ("shortene d slightl y in
86. Horac e Fitzpatrick , sleeve note (Nimbu s CD 5003) .

order t o separat e them") . I sa y irrelevan t because , again , i t stem s fro m "th e

barbarous perio d o f music " thirt y o r mor e year s befor e th e compositio n o f th e
Fifth Symphony , whos e convention s Beethove n wa s drasticall y overhaulin g i f
not rejectin g outright , irrelevan t als o becaus e Löhlei n wa s a mino r theoris t
whose writing s are hardl y representativ e o f Hayd n an d Mozart' s er a (le t alon e
Beethoven's), an d whos e theorie s ar e i n man y respect s no t corroborate d i n an y
of th e majo r performanc e practic e tract s o f tha t perio d (suc h a s Leopol d Mo -
zart's Violinschule, th e famou s Quant z an d Car l Philip p Emanue l Bach , Meth-
ods); an d whos e obscur e 177 4 treatis e wa s selectivel y chosen a s 'evidence ' be -
cause i t happened t o suit the Hanovers ' peculiar purposes. In an y case, this for m
of 'articulation ' feature d i n al l th e Hanovers ' violin s an d viola s create s a
chopped-up, dissecte d phrasin g that completel y negate s bot h th e four-ba r struc -
turing o f the musi c an d an y sens e o f a complet e musica l statemen t i n mm.6—2 1
or an y othe r phras e (o r period structure).
In th e upcomin g fermata s (mm.2 1 an d 24) , Norringto n an d th e Hanover s
indulge i n supposedl y 'authentic ' dynami c nuances : fade-to-nothin g diminuen -
dos, down-and-u p ( ( = = ^"= = ) ) swoops . (I n man y place s late r the y impos e th e
so-called messa d i voce, 87 a n up-and-dow n swell , especiall y disturbin g i n th e
timpani rolls—agai n a misguide d stylisti c applicatio n whic h wa s primarily , a s
the nam e implies , a voca l effect , rarel y applie d t o instruments , an d on e whic h
flourished i n th e Baroqu e era , certainl y not i n Beethoven' s time . Man y o f these
dynamic effects , especiall y in Norrington , are , to mak e matter s worse, electroni-
cally manipulate d whic h make s the m painfull y 'artificial, ' rathe r tha n 'authen -
tic.' (Hea r this , for example, o n th e repea t o f mm.4-5.)
The vulga r dynamic swoop s i n th e horn s (m . 34-3 8) and wood -
winds (mm.36—37) , s o disturbin g i n man y o f th e 'normal ' recordings , ar e her e

(in Norringto n an d Hogwood ) s o exaggerate d a s t o becom e a tasteles s manner -
ism o r fetish . A t m.4 4 and , again , m.5 2 ther e i s rea l troubl e i n thes e perfor -
mances. Wit h th e Hanover s an d Hogwoo d th e violin s ar e nearl y covered i n th e
first instance, an d totall y covered — inaudible — in th e secon d (m.52) . Norrington
achieves a reasonabl e balance , bu t distort s th e four-ba r phrase s a t mm.4 4 an d
48 wit h four-ba r diminuendos .
In th e 'secon d subject ' episod e non e o f the thre e performance s achieves any
interconnection, musicall y implici t o r technicall y explicit , betwee n th e variou s
links o f th e lon g melodi c chai n (excep t tha t i n th e Hanovers ' recordin g th e
extreme reverberatio n cause s a certai n amoun t o f acoustic overlap) . Hogwood' s
performance is , i n addition , particularl y offensive i n it s extrem e dynami c exag -
gerations i n Beethoven' s foreshortene d two-ba r phras e group s (a s in mm.75-76 ,
for example ) which ar e performe d as . Beethoven's
wonderful subito p' s i n mm . 145 and 15 3 ar e seriousl y compromise d i n al l thre e
87. Spelle d mesa d i voce i n th e Hanove r Band' s sleev e note .

recordings, whil e th e ingeniou s dynamic s o f mm . 158-67 ar e prett y muc h ig -

nored, an d playe d a s mp t o mf a t m.15 8 an d a much-too-earl y crescendo . S o
much, again , fo r authenticity and textua l fidelity !
In mm . 182 an d 19 0 th e win d counterfigure s I single d ou t previousl y come
off reasonabl y well (primaril y as a resul t o f th e much-reduce d strin g sections),
although b y no mean s ideally , the articulation s an d dynami c level s i n th e vari -
ous win d section s bein g somewha t les s than uniform . I n mm . 196-2 39 there i s
little attemp t t o sustai n Beethoven' s not e values , al l unde r th e assumptio n o f
Baroque practices . Th e Manöver s ar e particularl y annoyin g here , reducin g al l
J.'s to j. . i n th e winds , but t o J. i n th e strings . Later, whe n Beethove n abbrevi -
ates the instrumenta l alternation s to single measures, the string s give us no mor e
than a chintz y quarter-note.
The bi g climacti c moment s (lik e mm.228-3 2 o r mm.240-52 ) i n al l thre e
recordings soun d harsh , strained, and uncultivated ; the trumpet s ar e particularly
blary throughout . Th e excessiv e reverberation o n th e Hanovers ' recordin g pro -
duces othe r unpleasan t sid e effects , suc h a s th e trumpets ' lou d D i n m.23 2
bleeding ove r into th e sof t sound s o f m.233. At times th e overwhelmin g decibe l
levels, overbearin g reverberation , an d genera l dynami c boisterousnes s o f th e
Manövers' recordin g mak e th e Beethove n Fift h soun d mor e lik e Mahler' s
Eighth.
Balance problem s continuall y plagu e al l thre e performances , as fo r exampl e
in m.35 4 where the violin s disappear completely unde r a barrage of timpani an d
crude brass . At the climacti c Dl > chor d o f m.382, Norringto n treat s u s t o on e o f
his manneristi c down-and-u p inverte d messa d i voce effects . Non e o f th e re -
cordings manage s t o com e eve n clos e t o a p i n mm . 3 87-88, normall y on e o f
Beethoven's mor e heart-stoppin g moments. Unwante d diminuendo s o r excessive
sfs variousl y spoil th e development-extensio n section , toppe d i n Norrington' s
recording b y a crazil y noisy, all ou t o f proportion, timpan i swel l i n th e fermat a
of mm.481-82 . Finally , non e o f th e performer s show s an y respec t fo r Beetho -
ven's exquisit e coda pp's a t m.483 .
The secon d movemen t doesn' t far e muc h better . Again, the questio n o f tempo
is resolve d i n unanimit y b y al l thre e 'authenticists ' b y disregardin g Beethoven' s
é1 = 92 , settlin g fo r a mor e "suitable " J > = 86 . Th e firs t them e statemen t
is marke d b y a unifor m ignoring o f th e p dolce dynamic—th e viola s and cello s
playing wit h a non-dolce, rough-hew n ton e somewher e i n th e m f range—an d
is al l gussie d u p wit h extraneou s crescendo s an d diminuendos . Th e dynamic s
in mm.7-1 2 ar e als o prett y muc h ignored , wit h n o contrastin g expressiv e
fs (som e o f the m als o erode d b y lon g diminuendos ) an d wit h th e p pick-u p
notes i n mm . 8 an d 1 0 al l playe d to o loud . Agai n thes e ar e 'sins ' committe d
as wel l b y othe r conductor s i n othe r recordings , bu t give n al l th e claim s an d
hype regardin g 'authenticity, ' on e ha s a righ t t o expec t somethin g a littl e les s
shoddy.
Hogwood, lik e man y conductor s who star t with a relativel y movin g temp o a t
the beginnin g o f the movement , als o (lik e them ) slow s considerabl y to a n ada-
gietto Ji = 6 0 during the woodwin d phrase (mm . 11—15) an d th e ensuin g strin g
passage. In the meantim e th e Manöver s somehow produc e a n enormou s mysteri -

ous & wron g not e i n th e accompanyin g harmon y o f m.16. Agai n i n al l thre e
recordings the writte n p' s and pp's ar e a s scarce a s hen's teeth.
Beethoven's wondrousl y mystical strings-and-bassoo n sequenc e a t m.39 is plat-
itudinized i n thes e performances , i n th e Hanovers ' cas e b y a col d non-vibrato ,
in Hogwood' s by an unpleasan t stringines s of sound, i n Norrington' s a paralyzing
dullness. Similarly , the problem s tha t surface d i n man y recording s i n th e varia -
tional episode s o f mm.5 0 an d 98 , ar e no t deal t wit h muc h mor e successfully ;
essentially al l thre e ensemble s disregar d Beethoven' s p dolce, callousl y crescen -
doing int o m.56 , thereb y o f cours e precludin g an y o f th e composer' s intende d
dynamic an d textura l contrasts. Dynami c contro l i s obviously not o f much inter -
est to thes e authenticists . Thi s become s painfull y eviden t i n th e crucia l typica l
Beethovenian dynamic s o f m.10 5 (subito pp) an d m.W7(sempre pp), roundl y
ignored i n al l thre e renditions—similarl y i n th e breathtakin g misterios o passag e
of m . 161-66.
One o f the mor e difficul t passage s i n th e Andante co n moto movemen t i s the
episode a t mm.114-2 3 —difficult i n term s o f balanc e an d articulation . Bu t n o
one ha s distorte d thi s passag e mor e thoroughl y tha n ou r tri o o f authenticists ,
imposing al l sort s o f gratuitou s yo-y o lik e dynami c effect s o n th e accompani -
mental repeate d sixteenths . Thi s display s a degre e o f arrogance vis-à-vi s Beetho -
ven tha t eve n a Stokowsk i or a Bernstei n woul d no t hav e mustered .
The Hanover s clai m tha t the y recorde d thei r performanc e usin g "edite d an d
revised part s base d o n th e autograp h an d th e firs t editio n o f 1809. " The y mus t
not hav e looke d ver y closely , for many passage s tha t ar e i n discrepanc y with th e
generally availabl e Breitkop f or Peter s editions , ar e performe d i n th e traditiona l
(incorrect) manner .
Skipping ove r many , man y furthe r detail s t o som e o f the grosse r textual an d
stylistic misdemeanor s perpetrate d b y the thre e groups , le t m e cit e th e openin g
of th e Scherz o whic h i s playe d wit h a n astoundin g coarsenes s and , a s usua l
with thes e ensembles , wit h a total disregar d o f Beethoven's dynamics . Worse yet ,
Hogwood's tinn y fortepian o doublings , a s h e lead s fro m th e pian o bench , ar e
painfully audibl e here . Th e difficul t scuttlin g cell o an d bas s passage i n th e Tri o
is a gran d mes s i n al l thre e recordings , especiall y tha t o f th e Hanove r Band .
Norrington's performanc e i s technicall y cleane r bu t s o decked-ou t wit h gratu -
itous nuance s (se e Ex . 58)—tal k o f a "wide r variet y of nuances " —as t o mak e
one thin k o f Schuman n o r Césa r Franck . I mus t cit e als o th e wondrou s
Ex. 5 8
bridge passag e leadin g t o th e Finale , whic h al l thre e group s perfor m wit h a

degree o f insensitivit y an d a blatan t disregar d o f Beethoven' s text , includin g mf
timpanis, tha t I fin d simpl y astonishing.
In th e Final e som e o f th e wors t offense s includ e th e Hanovers ' adoptio n o f

an absurdl y fas t temp o fo r th e openin g ( J = 96 , compare d wit h Beethoven' s
«J = 84 ) —although the y soo n retrea t t o a sane r an d safe r J = 88 ; Hogwoo d
doesn't see m t o kno w that th e violi n sfs i n mm.6 8 an d 27 7 are spurious ; non e
of th e importan t piccol o part s ar e bough t ou t i n an y o f th e thre e recordings ,
least of all the crucia l one i n mm.244-50 (the y see m a s unaware o f the proble m
as al l th e othe r conductors) ; th e coda' s presto i s messy with Hogwood , bu t sur -
prisingly good wit h Norringto n wh o not onl y hit s the temp o ( « = 112 ) righ t on
the nose , bu t manage s th e basi c p dynami c leve l ver y well. Thi s i s surprising
because Norrington , lik e the others , produce s a generally rather lou d las t move -
ment wit h almos t n o contrastin g sof t nuances , perhap s tryin g t o liv e u p t o hi s
sleeve-note whic h call s th e Final e o f th e Fift h "unremittin g loud " (sic) . Th e
vital canoni c counter-lin e i n th e bas s instrument s i n m.39 0 i s totally obscure d
by bras s an d timpan i i n al l three recordings .
In Norrington' s defense , his writin g or speakin g about hi s involvemen t i n th e
'period-instrument' movemen t i s considerabl y mor e rationa l tha n som e o f hi s
recorded performances . H e admit s i n hi s intervie w with Jeanin e Waga r i n he r
Conversations With Conductors (Boston , 1991 ) tha t h e sometime s wonders ,
upon hearin g "a moder n orchestr a playing superbly, probably with som e contro l
over vibrato , with a n awarenes s o f phrasing, " wh y h e "bother s wit h ol d instru -
ments." H e goe s o n t o say , rightly, "in th e en d I don' t thin k tha t earl y music is
about instruments ; it' s abou t music. " H e suggest s i t i s more a matte r o f creatin g
a historicall y informed performance," on e wher e the "playin g [is ] relevant to th e
music." I n th e sam e interview-conversation , speaking o n th e subjec t o f rubat o
and temp o fluctuations , Norringto n asserts that i n Beethove n h e doesn' t chang e
tempi," doesn' t "fee l i t necessary" t o d o so , whereas i n late r Romantic-er a musi c
(Mendelssohn, Brahms ) he doe s fee l "th e nee d t o d o it. " H e furthe r point s ou t
quite correctl y that i n Beethoven' s tim e a ) i n orchestra l music—wha t Norring -
ton call s "publi c music"-temp i wer e no t change d because , amon g othe r things ,
"that woul d hav e bee n a ver y difficul t thin g t o do " i n tha t "ther e weren' t an y
conductors around , i n th e moder n sense " t o direc t th e temp o fluctuations ; an d
b) tha t there was very likel y a considerabl e differenc e i n th e wa y "public music "
as oppose d t o musi c playe d i n privat e salons—sonatas , smal l intimat e chambe r
pieces—was performed , i n th e latte r cas e obviousl y mor e freely . Norringto n i s
again historically/philosophicall y on targe t whe n h e say s tha t thi s differenc e i s
one "w e no longe r observ e today, because al l o f our musi c ha s becom e public ,
but it' s a very importan t difference."
I coul d continu e wit h thi s drear y recita l o f th e essentia l fraudulenc e o f th e
authenticists' claim s an d pretensions . Bu t perhap s th e poin t ha s alread y bee n
sufficiently mad e t o debun k th e pretender s t o th e thron e o f authenticit y an d
historical fidelity—they are the ne w emperors withou t clothes—and t o show that
these conductor s (an d thei r performances ) ar e les s faithfu l t o Beethove n tha n
those who m the y clai m t o replace . Th e hyp e an d controvers y that hav e sur -
rounded (an d supported) their effort s hav e unfortunately obscure d the outstand-
ing contribution s o f some o f the fines t conductor s o f the pas t (o r of the present ,
for tha t matter). They have also , alas, managed t o obscure the longstandin g good
works i n 'historicall y informed ' performance s of Charles Mackerra s (remembe r
his Messiah o f 1966) , Raymon d Leppard , an d mor e recently , Joh n Elio t Gar -
diner.
Beethoven: Seventh Symphony
It i s debatabl e whethe r Beethoven' s magnificen t Sevent h Symphon y ha s fare d

better o r wors e i n th e hand s o f most conductor s tha n hi s Fift h Symphony . I t is
perhaps i n som e respect s a les s vulnerabl e work ; in th e sens e tha t i t i s fo r th e
most par t les s rigorousl y constructe d tha n th e Fift h (especiall y i n th e firs t an d
third movements ) an d therefor e allows for slightly more interpretationa l maneu -
verability—it i s als o les s vulnerabl e t o damage . Someho w th e apparentl y mor e
spontaneous, mor e intuitivel y realized rhythmi c characteristic s o f th e Sevent h
Symphony hav e le d mos t interpreter s t o rei n i n thei r interpretiv e ambitions .
Rhythm is , after all , th e mos t powerful , mos t compelling , an d a t th e sam e tim e
the mos t readil y understandable featur e o f a musica l work . I t speak s mor e di -
rectly t o th e musician—and , o f course , th e listener—tha n do , say , harmony ,
instrumental timbre , o r eve n melod y (sojn e o f the othe r tool s o f the composer) .
And i f Wagner' s almos t universall y accepte d characterizatio n o f th e Sevent h
Symphony, especiall y it s las t movement , a s th e "Apotheosi s o f th e Dance, " i s
not particularl y useful conductorial-interpretiv e advic e —it strike s m e a s rathe r
non-specific —it ha s in genera l cause d attentio n t o b e focuse d o n th e rhythmic /
metric aspect s o f th e work , it s elemental an d linea r drive , an d ha s i n tur n dis -
couraged th e kin d of tempo divagation s so routinely visited upon th e Fift h Sym -
phony.
On th e othe r hand , i n severa l other basi c respect s th e Sevent h i s maltreated
at leas t a s muc h i f not mor e tha n th e Fifth . Beethoven' s tempo s o f th e secon d
and thir d movements , especiall y th e latter' s Trio , ar e a s cavalierl y rejecte d a s
any i n th e entir e symphoni c literature . I n thos e tw o movement s Beethoven' s
unique an d remarkabl y precise phrasing-articulations are universall y ignored; re -
duced t o merely convenient, mediocre , non-committa l approximations , thus los -
ing thei r trul y Beethovenia n singularity . And i f uncontrollabl y loud timpani ,
urged o n o r permitte d b y conductors , i s a widesprea d proble m i n th e Fift h
Symphony, th e brutalizatio n of timpani part s i n th e Sevent h i s even mor e ram -
231
pant. The destructiv e impact here o f this particular offense i s even mor e serious,
because beyon d anythin g i n th e Fift h Symphony , Beethove n pu t mor e o f hi s
primary themati c materia l i n th e bas s range, wher e a n overl y loud, competin g
timpani wil l d o th e mos t sever e damage, obliteratin g those importan t bas s lines.
The ensuin g analyses of recordings will sho w how ofte n th e criminall y loud an d
over-recorded timpan i part s obscur e entir e section s o f musi c wher e th e mai n
discourse i s being—or supposed to be —carried i n the cello s and basses . I canno t
think o f anothe r majo r symphoni c wor k i n whic h thi s abus e i s s o commo n o r
so damaging .
Because man y o f th e conductoria l misdemeanor s encountere d i n th e re -
cordings o f the Sevent h ar e i n natur e th e sam e a s those we'v e encountere d i n
our examinatio n o f th e Fift h Symphony , I wil l no t b e a s exhaustivel y detailed
in th e analysi s of the Seventh' s nearl y fifty sampled recordings . On th e on e han d
I wil l emphasiz e thos e digression s that ar e th e mos t grievous , and o n th e othe r
hand thos e mos t injuriou s t o th e special , perhap s eve n unique , qualitie s of th e
Seventh Symphony .
Although, th e temp o marking s of the Sevent h Symphony' s first movement—
both introductio n an d mai n body , th e Vivace—are i n genera l mor e respectfull y
treated tha n ar e mos t o f Beethoven's metronom e an d temp o markings , there i s
still enoug h divergenc e o n th e par t o f conductors a s to th e 'appropriate ' temp o
to warran t discussion here. Th e differenc e i n tempo interpretatio n betwee n thi s
movement an d s o man y othe r Beethove n symphon y movements, bu t especiall y
the Fifth , i s one o f degree . Wherea s i n th e Fifth—an d indee d in , fo r example ,
the Tri o o f the Seventh' s Scherz o movement—mos t conductor s ar e a s much a s
30 points off the indicate d metronom e marking , in th e introductio n o f the Sev -
enth, th e margi n o f deviation i s considerably less, more lik e 1 5 points . Interest-
ingly enough , th e tendenc y t o disbeliev e Beethoven's J = 69 poco sostenuto and
to tak e a slowe r temp o wa s mor e commo n amon g th e earlie r generation s o f
conductors—Furtwängler, Stokowski , Casals, Boult , and som e o f their imitators ,
and yes , even Toscanini—than i t is today among th e presen t generatio n o f estab-
lished maestri . Figure 1 shows the rang e o f tempos chosen , wit h Barenboi m and
Casals th e slowes t and Weingartne r and Bati z on th e fastes t track.
The stranges t tempo conceptio n o f this movement I have encountere d i s on e
proffered b y Arnol d Schönber g i n hi s Structural Functions o f Harmony. l Al -
though, a s fa r a s I know , h e neve r actuall y conducte d th e Sevent h Symphony ,
he seem s t o hav e bee n convince d tha t th e score' s J = 6 9 shoul d hav e bee n
J = 69 . I n a footnot e t o a harmoni c analysi s o f the openin g o f the Seventh' s
first movement, Schönber g states : "I am convince d tha t [ j = 69 ] is a misprint.
Evidently th e tw o episode s o n median t an d submedian t [mm.42—5 2 an d
mm.24-34] hav e a march-like character. " Schoenber g the n back s away fro m hi s
'conviction' a little with : "If J = 6 9 seems to o fast, I would sugges t J = 52-54 .
Besides i f one o f these master s [Beethoven ] writes sixteenth-notes, h e mean s it ;
1. Arnol d Schönberg, Structural Functions o f Harmony (London , 1954; ) p,17J .

BEETHOVEN: SEVENT H SYMPHON Y 23 3
Fig. 1
J=52 Barenboim , Casal s

J=54 Furtwängler , Toscanini, Previn , Sanderlin g
J=56 Bernstein , Kubelik , Norrington, Maaze l
J=58 Boult , Ferenczik , Solti , Collegiu m Aureum , C . Kleiber , Celibidach e
J = 60 Dorati , Coli n Davis , Stokowsk i (1959), Keilberth, Brüggen
J = 62 Walter , Kletzki , Stokowski (1928) , Dohnany i
J = 64 Thomas , Steinber g
J = 66 Mengelberg , Abbado , Fricsay , Ashkenazy, Böhm, Jochu m
J = 67 Karajan , Masu r
J = 69 Haitink , Klemperer, Muti , E . Kleiber , Ansermet, Leinsdor f
J = 70 Cantell i (Philharmonia )
J = 72 Harnoncourt , Gardiner , Mehta , Szel l
J = 76 Weingartne r
J = 78 Bati z
•he means no t eighth-note s bu t fas t notes , which wil l always be hear d i f the give n
metronome mar k i s obeyed. "
That i s debatable, o f course, especiall y in th e cas e o f Beethoven. An d ye t i t is
a curiou s bu t intellectuall y intriguing notio n whic h relate s interestingl y to th e
Brahms Firs t Symphony' s poco sostenuto introduction . For , as the discussio n on
that music' s temp o show s (se e p.280), ther e i s considerabl e interna l evidenc e
that Brahms' s poco sostenuto coul d als o b e i n a muc h faste r temp o tha n ha s
been traditionall y and universall y accepted. I f Beethoven's poco sostenuto were ,
like Brahms's , a n afterthough t relatin g t o th e movement' s mai n Allegro tempo ,
then Schönberg' s idea would no t b e s o far-fetched. Schönberg' s ide a als o begin s
to hav e som e merit—especiall y i n hi s secondar y suggestion o f a compromis e J
= 52-54 tempo—whe n w e realiz e tha t th e fina l si x bars o f th e introduction ,
(which, I mus t confess , I hav e ofte n intuitivel y felt ar e interminabl y slow, j too
elongated an d fragmented , especiall y whe n don e slower than J = 69) , if exe-
cuted a t Schönberg' s suggeste d temp o relat e mor e organicall y an d naturall y to
the upcomin g Vivace. Th e silence s betwee n th e reiterate d E' s relat e bette r t o
the Vivaces rhythm , whil e the metronomi c relationshi p between th e two
tempos, J = 5 2 - J . = 104— a classi c 1: 2 ratio —also seem s no t beyon d th e
realm o f consideration.
I personall y cannot envisio n doin g th e Seventh' s introductio n a t Schönberg' s
fast temp o —I woul d als o sugges t tha t i n th e cas e o f Schönberg' s supposition ,
Beethoven migh t hav e use d a tim e signatur e o f <jî—bu t I may , afte r all , also b e
completely brainwashe d b y th e traditiona l (Beethoven's ) temp o conceptio n
heard sinc e m y earl y childhood. Still , I fin d i t a n intellectuall y intriguin g idea,
probably t o b e explore d further .
Beyond th e temp o question , a number o f other interpretive temptations arises,
plaguing man y performances. Beethoven's pillar-lik e chords ever y other measur e

(mm. 1-7) ar e clearl y marke d wit h a staccat o dot . An d ye t man y conductor s
(Previn, Harnoncourt , an d Sanderling , fo r example) , wishin g t o sho w ho w
'deeply' they feel Beethoven' s musi c an d ho w 'profound ' thes e chorda l eruption s
are, insis t o n makin g the m int o lon g sustaine d chords—Coli n Davi s pushin g
things t o a n extrem e b y makin g hi s orchestr a (th e Londo n Symphony ) pla y
Beethoven's J a s J^,J V Perhap s som e o f thes e conductor s canno t reconcil e
short chord s wit h a poco sostenuto, no t realizin g tha t an y slowis h temp o ca n
have within i t sharply articulated, staccat o chords . Indeed , this is clearly Beetho -
ven's intention : t o demarcat e th e lovel y lyri c four-note them e first heard i n th e
oboe an d thre e time s varie d in othe r instruments , wit h incisive , almost shockin g
interruptions. O f course , reasonabl e me n an d wome n ca n argu e abou t ho w
short i s short ; ther e ar e degree s o f staccato . I merel y sugges t tha t some kin d o f
staccato need s t o be heard here , no t J o r J j) . Leibowit z unfortunately carries
things t o th e opposit e extreme , makin g th e fou r chord s excessivel y short—actu-
ally staccat o sixteenths(!)—and unnaturall y sharply articulated.
I fin d particularl y annoying th e stretchin g o f (ritarding in) ever y second mea -
sure i n th e openin g (mm.2 , 4 , 6 ) b y man y conductors . Thei r idea , I suspect , i s
to extrac t some additiona l expressivit y out o f those measures , o n th e suppositio n
that distorting/stretchin g a phras e make s i t someho w mor e 'profound, ' mor e
'emotionally compelling. ' I acknowledg e tha t th e subtles t flexibilit y o f temp o
might no t see m harmful , but whe n conductor s (Ashkenazy , Böhm, Furtwängler,
Ferenczik) stretc h th e measure s under discussio n t o 5/ 4 or 4V2/ 4 i t goes beyon d
the bound s o f taste an d artisti c discipline, seriousl y distorting Beethoven' s for m
and continuity—an d thi s at the ver y outse t o f the movement . Temp o distortion s
of this sor t and thi s magnitud e preven t th e all-importan t initial expository mate-
rial fro m bein g hear d properly .
The nex t proble m man y conductor s creat e occur s i n m. 4 whe n the y allo w
the oboist , who admittedl y has a gently wavy expressive phrase, to 'do somethin g
with it, ' 'mak e somethin g ou t o f it'—a n understandabl e desire , excep t tha t i f
overdone, a s i t mos t ofte n is , it obscure s th e four-not e main motiv e no w i n th e
unison clarinets . The sam e proble m woul d aris e as seriously in m.6 , excep t for
the fac t tha t th e horns , no w carryin g the four-not e motive , ar e i n a relatively
more projectin g registe r tha n th e clarinet s ar e i n m. 3 an d m.4 ; an d therefor e
the horn s ar e no t a s easil y obscure d a s th e clarinets . I n fact , i t i s no t eas y t o
get th e horn s t o pla y as softly i n m. 5 a s the clarinet s i n m.3 , whic h b y all rights
they should . Fo r ou r moder n 20th-centur y all-purpos e horn s thi s i s a proble m
that need s specia l attention , i n a wa y not tru e fo r the earl y 19th-centur y natura l
' horns, crooke d i n A . O n Reiner' s Chicag o recordin g thes e balance s ar e al l per -
fect.
The crescend o tha t almos t alway s develops i n m. 5 an d m. 6 i s often continue d
by many conductors in m.7 and m.8 , perhaps because th e musi c no w modulates
fairly quickly—i n jus t tw o bars—fro m D majo r throug h G an d C t o F major ,
and the y ar e inadvertentl y led t o expres s thi s dynamically when i n fac t Beetho -
ven intend s that only the harmoni c movemen t an d th e resultan t quietl y moving
voice-leading be th e sol e expressiv e medium .
A majo r interpretiv e transgressio n occur s wit h disturbin g frequenc y a t m.1 0
(or sometime s m.9) , namely, a substantial chang e i n tempo—whe n non e i s indi-
cated—in mos t case s slower. This tempo mutation i s then jus t as surely followed
by a compensatin g accelerand o i n m.14 , helplessl y respondin g t o tha t mos t
primitive o f urges o f pushing the temp o forward , becaus e Beethoven happen s i n
that ver y sam e measur e t o b e askin g fo r a tremendou s crescendo—fro m p p t o
ff. Man y conductor s indulge(d ) i n thi s temp o aberratio n t o th e poin t wher e fo r
many year s i t wa s a har d an d fas t tradition . Majo r offender s i n thi s 'tradition '
were (are ) Furtwängler , Celibidache , Mengelberg , Walter , Stokowski , Jochum ,
Ferenczik, Fricsay , Masur , Ashkenazy , Mehta , Sanderling , Böhm , d e Burgos ,
Leibowitz — even Carlo s Kleiber ; whil e thos e wh o hel d th e tempo , t o allo w th e
wonderful contras t betwee n th e first nine measures ' half-note s an d th e nex t thir-
teen bars' sixteenth-notes t o have it s full effect , wer e (are ) Reiner, Cantelli , Kara -
jan, Haitink , Ansermet, Solti , Szell , Muti , an d abov e all , Gardine r an d Abbado ,
whose recording s o f the Sevent h ar e altogethe r splendid , perhaps , al l i n all , th e
finest recordings o f the work. 2
In contras t t o those wh o tak e a slower tempo a t m.10, a host o f other conduc -
tors rushe s th e temp o o f th e incomin g sixteenth s — if no t ther e the n surel y i n
m.14. Toscanini , Weingartner , Steinberg , Casals , Bernstein , Keilberth , Kletzki ,
Boult, Kubelik , Erich Kleiber , Coli n Davis , an d th e Collegiu m Aureu m belon g
to tha t group , whil e Gardine r rushe s noticeabl y bu t onl y i n m.14 . Previ n i s odd
man ou t here , a s he hold s stubbornl y to hi s alread y very slow (too slow ) tempo .
Then ther e ar e conductor s (Dohnanyi , Barenboim ) wh o rus h th e temp o eve n
before m. 9 an d m.10 , Dohnanyi , fo r example , a s earl y a s m.3 . Klemperer , o n
the othe r hand , slow s dow n substantiall y at bot h critica l junctures , endin g i n
m. 15 wit h a ponderous temp o abou t 1 5 point s belo w Beethoven' s metronomiza -
tion.
Incidentally, i t makes n o sens e t o trea t th e sixteenth s o f mm. 15-22 any differ -
ently than thos e o f mm. 10, 12 , and 14 . Or ar e w e to believ e tha t i f the musi c is
soft (pp), w e shoul d adop t a slowe r tempo, an d i f the dynami c i s ff, w e shoul d
go faster? !
The nex t bi g problem—on e t o som e exten t o f Beethoven' s making , bu t cer -
tainly no t unsolvabl e —occurs i n mm . 15-22, an d eve n mor e s o i n th e paralle l
section mm . 34-41. Give n Beethoven' s powerfull y sustaine d harmonie s i n th e
woodwinds and bras s in mm . 15-21, especiall y the trumpets ' ff, i f literally main-
2. Gardiner' s recordin g is , excep t fo r a hal f dozen interpretiv e lapses (mentione d i n th e text) , all i n
all remarkabl y good—I shoul d ad d 'correct'—an d provide s a n excellen t exampl e o f how a correct ,
respectful-of-the-score discipline d performanc e can b e exciting , passionat e and , i n man y moments ,
even revelatory . I disagre e wit h Gardiner' s stron g feelin g tha t suc h a performanc e ca n onl y b e
achieved o n perio d instruments . (I t i s no t th e instrument s b y themselve s tha t produc e th e 'right '
sounds; i t i s and shoul d b e th e ear s o f th e performer s an d thei r sensitivit y t o ho w th e instruments
sounded i n Beethoven' s tim e tha t ca n produc e the 'right ' sounds ; and th e 'right ' player s ca n d o that
on an y instruments , modern o r 'period.' )
tained, th e secon d violins ' four-not e theme , echoin g th e oboe' s openin g state -
ment, ca n hardl y b e heard . I t i s indeed difficul t t o brin g ou t th e secon d violi n
line sufficiently—especially , bein g i n
the uppe r middl e (o r i f you will , lowe r upper ) register , sinc e i t i s less projectin g
than th e first violins' fou r note s tw o bars later—unless on e ask s the winds , partic -
ularly th e trumpet s an d horns , t o bac k of f a bi t afte r thei r attack . ' A bit' usually
does it . I t i s als o no t necessary—indee d no t advisable—fo r th e woodwind s t o
play their loudes t ff. Howeve r it is done, it is urgent tha t the secon d violin s (in
mm.15-16 an d mm.19-20 ) b e hear d a s th e primar y voice , towar d whic h en d
Beethoven's s/ s (fou r pe r phrase , on e fo r eac h note) , i f vigorously attacked, ca n
be mos t effective . Reine r an d Abbad o ar e abou t th e onl y conductor s o n re -
cordings wh o ge t this passag e reall y right . (Carlo s Kleibe r als o does i t beautifull y
on th e Germa n Unite l video , les s so on hi s Vienna Philharmoni c recording. )
I woul d als o lik e t o poin t ou t anothe r aspec t o f this passag e (mm . 15-22) tha t
is almost always overlooked. The sixteenth-not e scales , usuall y treated i n distinct ,
unconnected one-ba r units , ar e actuall y compose d i n tw o ba r phrases , startin g
in th e lowe r registe r an d climbin g eac h tim e int o th e uppe r range . Exampl e 1
illustrates wha t I mean . Th e scala r link-up s a t mm.16 , 18 , 20, 22 , no t immedi -
ately discernibl e fro m th e instrumenta l parts , need t o be speciall y rehearsed , an d
Ex. 1
in effec t th e violin s hav e t o tak e ove r th e ascendin g line s fro m th e cello s

and basses , whil e th e latte r hav e t o b e awar e o f passing o n thei r lin e t o th e vio-
lins.
An awfu l misdee d occur s i n m.2 1 i n tw o recordings : Stokowski' s 192 8 re -

cording an d Bernstein' s (wit h th e Vienn a Philharmonic) . I n tha t measur e on e
can hea r a painfull y dissonant C bein g played, thi s i n a G majo r sevent h chord .
On Stokowski' s recordin g i t sound s a s thoug h th e bassoon s ar e th e offendin g
instruments (wer e their part s wrong, written i n teno r clef?) , whil e o n Bernstein' s
recording i t sound s lik e two horn s playin g a quit e powerfu l I know fro m
many persona l experience s wit h Stokowsk i and man y examples i n hi s recordings
that h e rarel y paid attentio n t o suc h 'minor ' detail s a s wrong notes . Bu t wha t is
truly inexplicable—and shocking—i s that the recordin g producers an d engineer s
did no t i n bot h instance s hea r th e offendin g notes .
It i s perhap s understandabl e wh y oboist s i n mm.23—2 8 (an d flutist s i n
mm.42—47) conside r thi s lovel y tuneful episod e thei r privat e solo. With it s gen-
tly swaying contours, i t i s one o f Beethoven's mos t gracefu l an d attractiv e melo -
dies. Bu t I sugges t ther e i s another wa y o f lookin g a t thes e tw o passages . Base d
on th e stud y o f th e autograp h score , I believ e wha t Beethove n reall y ha d i n
mind i n mm.23-2 8 was a well-balance d win d sexte t o f two oboes , tw o clarinets ,
and tw o bassoons, with th e lea d voice , o f course, i n th e firs t oboe; similarly , i n
mm.42-47, wher e i t i s a flute-le d win d septe t intermittentl y fleshe d ou t wit h
divided violas . This represents a quite differen t conceptio n o f these tw o passages,
but on e whic h I think i s more faithfu l t o Beethoven' s intentions , an d a t the very
least, represent s a logica l alternativ e interpretiv e option . Onc e hear d playe d i n
this fashion, I think man y conductor s wil l be convince d o f its interpretive viabil-
ity. Th e on e recordin g o n whic h thes e passage s were performe d i n th e manne r
suggested her e wa s Dohnanyi's .
I a m passin g over the fac t tha t man y conductor s an d player s ignore th e specia l
pp i n m.2 9 (an d m.48 ) i n th e secon d theme , mos t conspicuously , Celibidache ,
Reiner, Jochum , Mengelberg , Ashkenazy , Mehta , Dohnanyi , Brüggen , Gardi -
ner, Harnoncourt , Strauss , d e Burgos , Leibowitz , Kletzki , Ferenczik, Batiz , th e
Collegium Aureu m (t o nam e jus t a few ) —Gardiner ha s a poo r splic e her e —
and, mos t grievous , Stokowsk i in hi s 192 8 Philadelphi a recording , i n whic h h e
manages a big fat mf (sic) i n m.29 3 ; also the fac t tha t mos t conductor s crescend o
too muc h an d to o early 3 betwee n m.2 9 an d m.3 4 (an d i n th e paralle l passag e
between m.4 8 an d m.53) , neve r noticin g Beethoven' s importan t distinctio n be -
tween th e tw o passages: the crescend o i n th e C majo r sectio n (m.30 ) i s initially
held back , beginnin g onl y thre e an d a hal f measure s late r an d i s therefor e a
rather abrup t crescendo ; wherea s i n the F majo r section (m.48) , i t begins i n th e
second ba r an d i s thus stretche d acros s four ful l measures .
3. Oddl y enough , Stokowsk i i n hi s 195 9 Symphon y o f th e Ai r recording , wen t overboar d i n th e

opposite direction , i n m.2 9 producin g a jus t barel y audible quadrupl e p . Stokowsk i could b e a ma n
of extremes .
In m y hundred s upon hundred s of pages of copious, detailed handwritten (yellow lega l pad) notes
on th e mor e tha n 43 0 recording s (over-all) studie d an d analyze d fo r Par t III , the crescendo s mad e
too muc h an d to o earl y wer e s o frequent—tantamoun t t o a n epidemi c —that I wa s force d t o resort
to th e abbreviatio n "trnte" m m y note s t o cop e wit h th e cataloguin g of this interpretational abuse .
More importan t i s what happen s i n mm.34-41—o r wha t doesn't happe n i n

the majorit y o f performance s an d recordings . I f th e analogou s earlie r passag e
(mm. 15-22) wa s difficul t t o brin g off , the late r on e i s even mor e problematic .
Never on e t o merel y repea t a musica l ide a verbatim , Beethove n add s anothe r
thematic laye r i n m.34 , b y wa y o f canoni c imitation . A s Ex . 2 shows , th e
Ex. 2
woodwinds imitat e th e string s fairly strictly 4, a facto r tha t mus t be mad e audibly
clear. And yet, in most recordings, judging by the aura l evidence, this canonic lay-
ering is left unattended to, or at best left to chance. It is in fact not easy to make the
fullness o f Beethoven's structurin g here absolutel y clear . Onl y a fe w conductors
achieved it : Reiner , Celibidache , Klemperer , Kletzki , Boult , Jochum , Eric h
Kleiber, Casals, Sanderling , Leibowitz, Furtwängler (i n his Vienna Philharmoni c
recording), and abov e all, Abbado; while those who seem most ignorant of what is
at stake here includ e Walter, Bernstein , Masur, Coli n Davis , Keilberth, Harnon -
court, even (surprisingly) Weingartner and Gardiner. Many other conductors, Car -
los Kleiber , Stokowski, Haitink, Toscanini, Muti , Ansermet , Furtwängle r (i n hi s
Berlin recording) and Cantelli , com e fairl y close to realizing the ful l exten t of the
structuring. Th e proble m i s that mos t conductor s ge t so involved in conductin g
the sixteenth-not e scale s that they tend t o forget all about the canoni c bypla y and
fail to hear whether it is properly balanced or not.
Let u s mov e o n t o the Vivace, an d her e w e encounter, apar t from th e temp o
issue (whic h I wil l no t detai l agai n a t thi s time) , man y performanc e problems,
the tw o mos t crucia l o f which, an d th e mos t universall y ignored b y conductor s
and orchestras , ar e 1 ) th e slippin g rhythmicall y int o a 2/ 4 (instea d o f Beetho -
ven's 6/8) , an d 2 ) Beethoven' s subtl y varie d articulativ e differentiatio n o f th e
basic rhythmi c cell, th e famou s 'Am—ster—dam ' rhythm . As for the latter ,
hardly anyone seems t o notice tha t Beethoven use s three clearl y and consistently
differentiated version s o f thi s rhythmi c figure : (a ) (b ) an d
(c) Th e mos t tha t eve r happens i s that occasionally , by accident, thi s or
that playe r o r sectio n wil l happe n t o pla y th e rhythmi c figur e a s writte n b y
Beethoven. Mostl y thi s occur s wit h th e versio n (b), th e mor e commonl y use d
version o f th e three . Generally , mos t conductor s an d performer s eithe r fai l t o
4. Beethove n ingeniously eschews an absolut e pitch imitatio n at points a and b to avoid, at point a, a
pitch not accommodatable in an E minor chord and, at b, the bland doubling of the violins' pitches.
BEETHOVEN: SEVENTH SYMPHONY 23 9
notice th e differen t notation s o r assum e tha t the y ar e meaningless : Beethoven' s

carelessness o r pointles s idiosyncracy .
In poin t o f fact , thes e articulativ e distinction s ar e anythin g bu t meaningless .
Beethoven i s astonishingl y clea r an d consisten t abou t hi s intentions . T o begi n
with, th e flut e an d obo e hav e the cel l typ e a , the sustaine d version , at mm.63-
66, an d quit e logicall y so, sinc e thos e measure s represen t a transitio n fro m th e
sustained reiterate d E' s at the en d o f the introductio n t o the mai n them e o f the
Vivace i n th e flut e (m.67) . The firs t appearanc e o f one o f the staccat o versions,
cell typ e b , occur s a t m.85 . Cell a return s immediatel y thereafte r i n a f f re -
statement o f th e mai n theme . Thi s i s especiall y crucia l t o rende r correctl y i n
the cello s an d basses , whos e harmoni c foundatio n i n mm . 89-96 need s t o b e
well sustaine d t o suppor t th e powerfu l them e abov e it . I n m.9 8 th e cello s an d
basses tur n melodi c wit h a n importan t counter-respons e t o th e violin s a ba r
earlier: agai n mos t effectiv e whe n sustained , tha t is , playe d 'melodically ' no t
merely 'rhythmically. '
Let u s nex t notic e th e distinctio n mad e betwee n th e mor e sustaine d violins
at mm. 111-14 as well as m.118 (cel l type a) and th e lightl y skipping woodwinds
(cell typ e c ) i n mm . 116-17. Th e intereste d reader , wit h scor e i n hand , ca n
continue to trace the progress—and process—by which Beethoven varies the three
cell types , brilliantly fitting them int o differen t musica l and expressiv e contexts. I
shall single out severa l unique instances : (1 ) the ver y precise, cogent—and there -
fore crucial—differentiatio n Beethove n make s i n th e p p C majo r sectio n
at th e beginnin g o f the developmen t (m.181) , wher e afte r fou r bar s o f the sus-
tained type , th e risin g figures , i n canoni c successio n (cellos/basses—firs t vio-
lins—second violin s —oboe-flute/bassoon) ar e se t i n th e lightl y skipping c type;
(2) a little later, m.22 2 an d onward , Beethove n mixes the tw o types, a and b , th e
former reserve d fo r primary thematic material , the latte r give n t o th e secondar y
responses (see Ex. 3) . Notice tha t th e viol a participates in bot h types . It is essen-
Ex. 3
tial to insis t on these articulative distinctions,5 fo r only thus ca n on e brin g clarity

and sens e t o th e rathe r complicate d polyphoni c an d fragmente d textur e o f this
brief episode, which, to complicat e matters , i s set in thre e three-ba r phrases an d
one five-bar extension;6 (3) whereas the differen t articulation s in th e sectio n jus t
described were handled successivel y (sequentially), in the next episode (mm.236-
50) the y ar e presente d simultaneously . Beethoven give s th e wind s the sustaine d
5. Onl y a fe w conductor s and orchestra s succeede d i n makin g thes e distinctions , mos t notabl y
Abbado, Masur , Stokowsk i (i n hi s 195 9 recording) , Kubelik , Harnoncourt , an d Gardiner.
6. Measure s 222-24 , 225-27 , 228-30 , 231-35 .
version, th e string s th e skippin g staccat o version . Th e role s ar e reverse d i n

mm.256-57, 260-61 , wher e th e wind s are staccat o an d th e string s sustained. A
similar contrast is made a t m.278 and onwar d between th e violins (sustained, me-
lodic) an d th e cellos/basse s (staccato , accompanimental). It should b e clea r fro m
even these few examples that these articulative marking s are anything bu t mean -
ingless or arbitrary, and tha t they ought to be observed strictly and conscientiously.
As for the matte r o f maintaining a 6/ 8 rhyth m throughou t th e Vivace, tha t is,
of course , no t easy ; but i t ca n b e don e a s a ver y fe w recording s sho w (Carlo s
Kleiber, Täte) . Mos t performances , a s demonstrated b y the recordings , slip int o
a 2/ 4 at some tim e o r other. I f not don e i n 2/ 4 th e rhythm s most readily
encountered ar e o r, which , ironically , i f Beethove n (o r an y
composer fo r that matter ) ha d actuall y written that , ther e woul d b e (hav e been)
the loudes t howl s o f complain t fo r writin g suc h a 'complicated ' rhythm . Th e
fact i s that rhythmi c training , rhythmi c accuracy , rhythmi c disciplin e ar e i n ex -
tremely short supply, in th e presen t da y as in the past . It is a subject glossed over
in musi c school s and conservatorie s and treate d ver y casually in professiona l life.
It s o happen s tha t t o pla y a tru e 6/8— a dancing , swingin g 6/8 —is on e o f th e
most difficul t thing s i n musi c t o do . Th e tw o rhythm s show n above , plu s th e
one ofte n encountere d i n th e Beethove n Sevent h (2/ 4 ) , are very
easy t o slid e into , unnotice d excep t b y very shar p mind s an d ears . The proble m
in th e Seventh' s Vivace i s exacerbate d whe n th e temp o i s taken to o fast . Eve n
at j . = 10 4 it i s har d t o maintai n a tru e 'Am-ster-dam ' 6/ 8 rhythm ; bu t th e
faster on e goes , th e harde r it is to distinguish between 6/ 8 an d 2/ 4

or becaus e th e actua l distanc e betwee n th e respectiv e thir d notes , al -
ready clos e a t j. = 104 , become s virtuall y immeasurable . But , o f course, i t can
be don e correctly . Therefor e i t i s doubl y inexcusabl e whe n conductor s (an d
orchestras), takin g a too-slo w tempo , stil l don' t kee p t o a tru e 6/ 8 an d sli p int o
a 2/ 4 o r th e '5 ' o r '7 ' variant s shown above . Mos t conductor s (and , alas , musi -
cians) don' t eve n hea r thes e rhythmi c differentiations , as i s easily demonstrate d
by the recording s of the Seventh . Th e followin g table, representin g onl y a smal l
sampling, show s ho w conductors and orchestra s fared i n thi s matter .
correct 6/ 8 incorrect onl y incorrect ; incorrec t mos t

intermittently often of the tim e
C. Kleiber Brüggen Celibidache 1 (despite thei r | Beecha m
Täte Jochum Harnoncourt J slow tempos ) Í Toscanin i (NBC )
(almost all i Masu r Abbado j Monteu x
1
the time ) Norrington Böhm Leibowitz Casal s
Reiner De Burgos Paray Hogwood
Dohnanyi Strauss Walter
E. Kleiber Gardiner
To return to the beginning of the Vivace, some strange things go on here in cer-
tain recordings, quite apart from th e fac t that most conductors ignore Beethoven's
p su b a t m.67 . Fo r example , Carlo s Kleibe r start s the Vivace somewha t unde r
tempo but accelerates into the main theme to J. = 11 2 (faster than Beethoven's j .
= 104) . I' m sur e Kleibe r was trying to mak e a kin d o f transition fro m th e slo w
introduction graduall y to the ful l Vivace. Furtwängle r doe s somethin g quit e th e
opposite (a s does Boult—did they both ge t this idea from thei r mentor Nikisch?).
Furtwängler speeds up at m.59, trying, I assume, to get a leg up o n the upcomin g
(vivace) tempo , bu t the n make s a substantial ritard in mm.64-66. The tw o ideas
together mak e ver y littl e sense . I n th e Collegiu m Aureum' s recordin g an erran t
horn enters in m.65 (on a low A, as I recall), and i n m.63 the rhythm is exceedingly
messy. The grou p makes up fo r that i n a way by bringing out th e wonderfu l lo w
bassoon thirds (a somewhat unusual voicing for Beethoven) in mm.75-80.
Celibidache's temp o fo r the Vivace i s a pitiful , pedestria n j . = 7 2 (a s com -
pared t o Beethoven' s 104) , th e slowes t on record . A word about Celibidach e i s
à propos here . Sinc e h e ha s not recorde d commerciall y since th e lat e 1940 s an d
indeed ha s refuse d t o recor d o n a variet y o f philosophical , commercia l an d
technical grounds , th e numerou s LP s and CD s issue d i n th e las t tw o decades
are al l liv e concer t performances , i n mos t case s recorde d unde r les s tha n idea l
if no t downrigh t poo r technica l conditions . Celibidach e ha s manage d throug h
the year s t o creat e a mystiqu e abou t himself—almos t a s a kin d o f cult figure —
and ha s apparentl y legion s o f admirers. This admiration , however , seem s t o b e
totally subjective , indicatin g n o awarenes s of Celi' s (a s his musician s cal l him )
erratic interpretiv e behavior , his performance s rangin g fro m th e sublim e t o th e
perverse. A man o f extraordinar y passions and , a t th e sam e time , o f keen intel -
lect, his work has vacillated between th e brilliant , searching, an d deepl y moving
on th e on e hand , t o the coars e and perversel y idiosyncratic on th e other . Within
the sam e piec e h e ma y a t onc e b e maniacall y insisten t o n textua l fidelity and
arrogantly dismissiv e o f th e score , reconstructin g an d recomposin g i t a t will .
Celibidache i s a kind o f Roumanian Stokowski , both conductor s representin g a
very, very rar e combinatio n o f genius an d charlatanism .
To his man y admirers I would like to sugges t listenin g seriousl y to jus t on e o f
his 'recordings' : th e Beethove n Seventh , recorde d i n 196 4 wit h th e Stuttgar t
Radio Symphon y Orchestra— a fin e orchestra , b y th e way , typical of th e man y
good Germa n radi o orchestra s o f th e '60 s wh o dutifull y followe d Celi' s ever y
interpretive twist and turn .
Celibidache's interpretiv e willfulnes s exhibit s itsel f mos t prominentl y an d
consistently i n th e realm s of tempo an d dynamic s (i n man y ways, of course, th e
central theme s of this book). In matter s o f tempo Celibidache ca n b e incompre -
hensibly arbitrary , inconsistent, an d illogical . Conside r hi s tempo s i n th e Sev -
enth a s compared wit h Beethoven's .
The tw o reall y gross misinterpretation s ar e foun d i n th e firs t movement' s Vi -
vace (s o draggingl y slow an d ponderous ) an d th e Scherzo' s Tri o (se e Fig . 2) .
How any ma n o f Celibidache's intelligenc e can indulg e himsel f in suc h distor -
tions o f the composer' s inten t i s har d t o fathom . Sinc e i t canno t b e ignoranc e
of th e facts , i t mus t b e eg o an d arrogance . O n th e othe r hand , a s wron g a s
Fig. 2
Celibidache Beethoven
I. Poc o sostenuto 1 J=58 J=69

Vivace i J. = 72 ! J. = 104
II. Allegrett o 1 J=56 ij = 7 6
III. Scherz o | J. = 132 ! J . = 13 2
Trio j J.=44 J. = 84
IV. Allegr o co n bri o i J = 66 ! J= 7 2
i
his tempo s ma y sometimes be , h e i s at least—unlik e man y othe r conductors -

consistent wit h them , rarel y changing o r losin g contro l o f his preferre d temp o
once established .
Equally shamefu l i s Celi' s callou s ignorin g o f Beethoven' s dynamics . Every -
thing i n thi s Beethove n Sevent h performanc e i s squeezed int o a borin g middl e
range: mp t o mf. Ther e ar e n o ff' s an d ther e ar e n o p' s or pp's, and certainl y no
distinctions betwee n th e latte r two, especially as in th e Scherz o or , say, a t m.2 9
in th e firs t movement . H e doe s no t eve n notic e Beethoven' s fff i n th e las t move-
ment, no r hi s specia l pp i n th e fugat o o f the Allegretto.
It comes a s a complete surprise , then, that i n othe r matter s Celibidache i s re-
markably conscientious an d intelligent . Take , for example, th e articulativ e rhyth-
mic distinctions Beethoven makes (see Ex.3) throughout the first movement. Celi -
bidache i s among a rar e fe w who insist s in thi s regard . Sinc e h e take s suc h a n
impossibly slo w tempo i n th e Vivace, on e ca n hea r ver y clearl y the Stuttgarters '
successful contrastin g rendition o f these rhythms , althoug h th e slo w tempo com-
pletely vitiates and undercuts Beethoven's intentions in other ways .
Even mor e remarkabl e i s Celibidache' s handlin g o f th e Allegretto's famou s
theme. H e i s th e onl y on e wh o honor' s Beethoven' s phrasing/articulation , in -
cluding th e ful l tenuto o f the firs t beat . Celibidach e i s also on e o f the fe w wh o
brings ou t th e woodwind s sf's i n th e beginnin g o f th e Final e an d throughou t
the movement .
His fan s wil l claim tha t hi s fines t insight s outweig h th e tasteles s indulgences .
I a m no t s o sure. I n an y case , hi s performance s are fille d wit h irrational , willful
but passionatel y fel t interpretations , sid e b y sid e wit h genia l inspirations , all i n
bewildering juxtaposition s that reflec t n o sens e o r known logic .
Almost everybod y does wel l i n th e ff re-statemen t o f the firs t movement' s mai n

subject (m.89) , except when th e timpanis t is allowed to play too loudly. Unfortu-
nately, thi s happen s o n fa r to o man y recording s an d i s especially damagin g i n
passages lik e mm.97—100 , wher e a n overl y loud timpan i ca n easil y obscure th e
important answe r o f th e cello s an d basses , responding to th e violins , clarinets ,
and bassoons . This obtrusiv e timpani playing in Beethove n (an d Brahms) sym -
phonies seem s t o be a particular problem wit h Germa n an d German-base d con-
ductors, and , more likely , Germa n timpanists . The Germa n schoo l o f timpani
playing i s addicted t o th e us e o f very hard sticks , producin g a hard , dr y sound .

In m y view it i s a rathe r 'military ' an d insensitiv e sound , a n inflexibl e approach
to timpan i playing ; an d whil e i t ca n produc e unde r certai n circumstance s a
welcome pitc h an d soni c clarity , unfortunatel y it als o lend s itsel f to o readil y to
out-of-context, overl y obtrusive playing. Many Sevent h Symphon y recording s are
marked b y such insensate , clangorous , obstreperou s timpani-playing , mos t nota -
bly Karajan' s 197 7 Berli n Philharmoni c recording . Tha t timpan i player' s relent -
less bombardment o f the timpan i par t i s truly astonishing ; it would b e ludicrou s
if it weren't s o distressing. He play s as if he wer e a soloist in th e piece , and treat s
the symphon y a s a 'Concert o fo r Timpani'—and Karaja n tolerate s it .
If some reader s like more thunderou s timpani-playin g i n thei r Beethove n Sev -
enth, the y ca n indulg e themselve s t o th e utmos t i n a numbe r o f recordings ,
including thos e o f Klemperer , Fricsay , Masur , Casals , Barenboim , Muti , Coli n
Davis, Keilberth , Harnoncourt , th e Collegiu m Aureum, an d abov e al l i n Batiz' s
(one o f th e wors t offenders ) an d i n Furtwängler' s Vienn a recording , i n whic h
the timpanis t play s so loud tha t eve n th e hig h horns , playin g /fin mm.89-100 ,
are completel y covered . I f the reade r on th e othe r han d i s looking for recordings
in whic h th e balance s ar e correc t an d th e timpanis t i s a n intelligen t sensitiv e
member o f th e over-al l ensemble , he/sh e shoul d tur n t o thos e o f Toscanini ,
Cantelli, Reiner , Haitink , Previn , Sanderling , Kletzki , Kubelik , Täte , and , t o a
lesser extent , Abbado , Carlo s Kleiber , and (mos t o f the time ) Gardiner .
A smal l poin t bu t nonetheles s wort h mentionin g concern s mm.107-18 . Her e
Beethoven ra n into an interestin g problem with the flute part. In the previou s six
measures the flute had been partnered with the oboe and bassoon, initially answer-
ing the first violins and then joining the violins in octave unison (in m. 106). But at
that point Beethoven realized that continuing t o double th e violin part in the flute
at the octav e woul d be impossibl e becaus e o f the flute's then limited hig h range .
Accordingly he gav e the flute , startin g in m.107 , for three beat s parallel third s to
the violins. For these thirds to be heard against the whole orchestra, including brass
and timpani, it is best to have both flutes double the part.
In mm.120-2 2 (an d th e paralle l passage mm.332-34 ) i t is a nea t helpfu l trick
to hav e hal f th e secon d violi n an d viol a section s pla y thei r sixteenth-not e run s
separate bow , fo r playe d entirel y slurre d the y ar e easil y covere d b y th e res t o f
the orchestra .
I hav e alway s found th e six-ba r passag e o f mm. 124-29 to b e on e o f the mos t
exciting i n th e entir e symphony . Fo r most music lover s and musicians , I suppose
it has los t it s fascination, simply through familiarity . Bu t w e should bea r i n min d
that ther e i s nothing lik e this i n an y musi c tha t I know of prior to this moment .
The climacti c powerfull y reiterativ e doubl e note s i n th e winds , followe d b y a
dramatic shee r two-and-a-half-octav e drop t o th e lo w strings, is , when see n an d
heard i n historica l perspective , on e o f the mos t darin g leaps o f the imaginatio n
devised unti l then . Unfortunatel y the passag e lose s some o f its power an d dram a
when win d players , out o f shee r inattention , rus h th e eighth-note s an d le t u p
dynamically o n th e secon d i n eac h pai r o f notes , i.e . , Onl y
when bot h note s are played in perfec t time and mad e equa l i n strength, ca n th e
full effec t o f thi s extraordinar y passage be appreciated , a s ca n b e hear d s o per -

fectly o n Toscanini' s Ne w Yor k Philharmoni c recording .
Two problem s aris e regularl y in th e wonderfull y inventiv e ten-ba r passag e o f
mm. 141-51. As the crescend o mounts , startin g i n m.146 , i f it i s also driven to o
much to o early, the littl e three-note figure si n th e woodwinds , especially
in th e clarinet , bassoon , an d obo e part s (mm . 147-49), ar e ap t t o b e drowne d
out entirel y b y th e encroachin g strings . Conductors (an d players ) should tak e
note tha t Beethove n write s not cresc. bu t creso, poco a poco, a markin g which i s
used t o indicat e a very gradual crescendo. I n innumerabl e recording s conducto r
and orchestr a hav e alread y reached ful l f o r ff i n m.14 8 or m.149 , thereby com -
pletely obliteratin g th e singl e woodwind s tryin g desperatel y t o b e heard . Th e
other proble m concern s th e littl e three-note figures themselves which, especiall y
in the cello s and basses , are rarely played rhythmicall y correctly. What one hear s
far to o ofte n i s instea d o f Thi s i s particularl y dis -
turbing whe n th e woodwind s pla y correctl y (whic h the y generall y d o i n mos t
orchestras), whil e th e lo w strings play the sixteenth s too fast , lik e grac e notes . I
have als o heard o n fa r too man y recording s wha t appears in Ex . 4b :
Ex. 4 a
Ex. 4 b
etc.
The effec t o f overl y quic k sixteenths , especiall y i n th e lowes t registe r o f th e

basses, i s tha t o f a serie s o f pitch-les s grunts—hea r i t yoursel f on , say , Baren-
boim's recording—a n effec t Beethove n surel y did no t hav e i n mind .
The bas s part s i n mm . 152-61 (an d th e analogou s recapitulatio n section ,
mm. 364-71) are to this day extraordinarily difficult; on e wonder s how Beethove n
dared to write something so audacious in 1812 (along with the eve n more challeng-
ing passage i n mm.278-99) . Eve n toda y these passage s ar e rarel y played cleanl y
and eve n more rarely well recorded, especially when a booming timpani runs con-
stant interference in the overly reverberant halls so often used for recordings nowa-
days. Ho w clear an d clea n thes e passage s ca n soun d ca n b e hear d t o wonderful
effect o n Abbado's remarkabl e Vienna Philharmonic recording .
Abbado's performanc e i s also exemplar y i n tha t astonishin g C majo r passag e
which initiate s th e developmen t sectio n (mm . 181-94), a s i s Haitink's {with th e
London Philharmonic ) and Gardiner's. Other conductors and orchestras can learn
a lesson not onl y in what a real orchestral pp is , but wha t a feeling of suspense and
mystery such a pp ca n convey . Moreover , Abbado and Haitin k mak e the earlier -
mentioned canoni c byplay crystal clear, avoiding all crescendos a s the figures rise
in pitch, the unwante d crescendos that most orchestras seem unabl e to resist.
BEETHOVEN: SEVENT H SYMPHON Y 245
There i s a strang e scriptura l anomal y i n mm.205-20 6 an d mm.211 -

12, whic h ha s confounde d conductors , probabl y sinc e th e Sevent h Sym -
phony's publicatio n i n 1817 . Th e secon d violins ' rhythmi c figur e
first encountere d i n m.201 , continue s
through mm.205-206 , whil e i n th e paralle l plac e fiv e bar s later , th e secon d
violins ar e silent . I t seems strang e that Beethove n woul d hav e adde d th e violins
to th e wind s in on e plac e an d no t th e other . Give n tha t premise , on e ha s th e
choice o f eithe r eliminatin g th e secon d violin s i n mm.205-20 6 (save o n th e
downbeat o f m.205 ) whic h Strauss , fo r exampl e (i n hi s earl y 192 6 recording )
and Reine r do , o r insertin g a simila r rhythmic figur e (o n th e pitche s E/GI ) i n
mm.211-12. Through th e year s various conductors hav e take n on e o r the othe r
of these options , but mos t conductors—man y o f them perhap s eve n unawar e of
the 'apparent ' discrepanc y have—simpl y gon e wit h th e printe d scor e an d
parts.7
Ex. 5
7. A possibl e explanatio n onc e suggeste d t o m e —in fac t b y on e o f m y brightes t conductin g stu -

dents—for th e presenc e o f th e secon d violin s i n mm.205-20 6 an d thei r omissio n i n m.211-1 2
relates t o the winds ' instrumentatio n i n both passages . Largel y becaus e of the horns ' note limitations ,
Beethoven wa s unable t o creat e th e kin d o f middle-low-range voicin g i n th e bassoon s an d horn s i n
mm.205-206 h e coul d s o readil y ge t fiv e bar s later , namel y I n mm.205-20 6

the A horn s o f Beethoven' s da y coul d no t pla y th e lo w G (see n no w i n th e secon d violins ) o r
Among th e man y darin g passage s i n th e Sevent h Symphony , non e i s mor e

radically innovativ e than tha t remarkabl e chai n o f minor an d majo r secon d dis -
sonances nea r th e en d o f the developmen t sectio n (mm.236-49 ) (Ex . 5). Oddly,
these bracing , almos t terrifyin g dissonance s ar e frequentl y softene d b y con -
ductors, especiall y conductor s afrai d o f stron g dissonance s o r conductor s fear -
ful o f thei r audience' s negativ e reaction , conductor s wh o rarel y conduc t an y
'dissonant' contemporar y music . I n m y vie w Beethoven' s dissonances , ver y
modern soundin g eve n toda y whe n forcefull y projected , mus t b e give n ful l in -
tense harmoni c expression , as opposed t o indulgin g in th e 'too-much-crescendo -
too-early' approach , whic h s o man y conductor s adop t her e an d wit h whic h
they try to impres s and overwhel m thei r audiences. Notic e th e rhythmi c distinc -
tion betwee n th e tw o motivi c cell s —one wit h sixteenth-not e rests , th e othe r
without—a differentiatio n whic h almos t nobod y makes , excep t notabl y Celibi -
ache.
Two truly troublesome spot s occu r a t mm.256-57 and m m 260-61 , the prob -
lem bein g t o mak e audibl e th e descendin g strin g patterns. A t fault i n mos t per -
formances an d recording s ar e th e bras s an d timpani , especiall y th e latter . All
that need s doin g i s to as k the bras s t o bac k of f a littl e o n thei r sustaine d note s
and th e timpan i t o softe n it s rol l slightly . O n almos t al l recording s th e string s
(Ex. 6 ) ar e quit e inaudible ; o r t o pu t i t anothe r way , o n onl y si x recording s
the o f the bassoons . Th e latte r could , o f course, hav e played tha t desire d lo w G bu t tha t
would hav e throw n ou t o f balance Beethoven' s full , evenl y registered three-octav e voicing . Wherea s
such a ful l balance d voicin g wa s easil y obtainable i n mm.211-1 2 i n mm.205 -
206 th e bes t Beethove n coul d hav e don e i s
( a ) ( b )
or
In optio n a , I suspect , h e woul d hav e considere d th e lo w G to o wea k i n jus t on e bassoo n (wherea s

it i s quite stron g o n th e ope n G strin g of the violins) , while i n optio n b , h e woul d hav e considere d
the gap between and and the lacking a serious imbalancing of the
chordal voicing .
Thus, accordin g to thi s reasoning , Beethoven neede d th e hel p o f the secon d violin s i n mm.205 -
206, bu t no t i n m.211-12 . I shoul d poin t ou t that , i n an y case , thi s apparen t anomal y is no t a n
editor's o r engraver' s error; th e passag e is rendered a s i t appear s in Beethoven' s autograph.
Ex.6
(out o f 70-odd ) i s thi s passag e wel l balanced , wit h th e string s hear d properly :
Haitink's, Kletzki's , Klemperer's , Reiner's , Sanderling's , an d especiall y Previn's.
Muti's i s the worst , for not onl y is the timpan i muc h to o lou d bu t Mut i ha s th e
two trumpet s mak e vulga r crescend o swoop s i n m.25 7 an d m.261 , non e o f
course indicate d b y Beethoven .
Skipping over many performance problems (o f the typ e already discussed else-
where) an d muc h o f the recapitulation , I com e no w t o on e o f those passage s
whose correc t expressio n depend s o n th e ful l realizatio n o f th e tiniest , mos t
minuscule details . Tin y details— a shif t o f one not e i n a n unexpecte d place , a
harmonic/melodic clas h tha t ma y flas h b y i n a hundredt h o f a second , a n un -
usual voicin g almos t hidde n i n a comple x texture , unusua l octav e displace -
ments—these ar e almos t alway s th e hallmar k o f th e wor k o f grea t composers ,
and Beethove n contribute d hi s ful l shar e o f such importan t minutia e through -
out his entire oeuvre. Curiously, the mor e uncommon , th e spicie r the effect , th e
more conductor s ten d t o ignor e o r suppres s it. This i s sad, since i t i s often (a s I
have previousl y pointed out ) tha t particular , unique, unprecedente d flas h o f in-
vention, o f inspiration , tha t represent s a n importan t break-through , an d place s
its compose r uniquel y abov e al l other s o f hi s tim e an d move s th e languag e o f
music forwar d i n som e significan t and unexpecte d way.
One suc h passag e i s that betwee n m.35 8 an d m.363 , i n whic h i n eac h mea -
sure tin y dissonantal clashe s occu r betwee n th e firs t an d secon d violin s (an al -
most identica l thin g happen s i n a n earlie r paralle l passage , mm . 146-51, bu t
there th e 'clashing ' note s ar e a n octav e apar t an d therefor e no t a s obviou s i n
their shoc k effect) . Reduce d t o a single-lin e reductio n (Ex . 7) , i t i s eas y t o se e
Ex. 7
how unusua l an d ho w darin g Beethoven's ide a i s (the clas h point s are circle d i n
the example) . Before Beethoven , a s far a s I ca n se e o r imagine , only Mozart o r
Bach —possibly Haydn—coul d hav e conceive d somethin g s o bold , s o 'wrong '
according t o al l th e textbook s and ye t soundin g so natura l an d wonderful . Th e
problem i s that th e majorit y o f conductors and, I' m sorr y t o say , most orchestral
violinists, seem t o be totall y unaware of how unusual thi s passage is . They ignor e
it, suppres s it , neutraliz e it , emasculat e it . A lot o f this come s fro m th e baleful ,
boring habi t o f conductors conductin g th e firs t violin s (o r othe r lea d voices ) to
the neglec t o f othe r equall y importan t an d interestin g parts . Th e onl y wa y i n
which wha t Beethoven ha s written here ca n b e full y realize d i s when bot h violi n
sections pla y a t equa l strength , abov e al l a t th e clas h points . Simpl e awarenes s
will generall y produc e th e righ t result . Th e onl y recordin g o n whic h thi s won -
drous effec t ca n b e savore d i s Dorati's .
Another poin t o f awareness concern s th e passag e mm.376-8 2 (an d it s earlier
parallel, mm . 164-70), i n whic h ther e occur s a canoni c exchang e o f idea s be -
tween firs t violins/woodwind s an d cellos/basse s an d i n whic h eac h four-ba r
phrase i s divide d int o primar y an d secondar y elements . A s reduce d i n Ex . 8 ,
one ca n readil y se e tha t th e firs t tw o measure s (mm . 3 76-7) i n th e violin s
and woodwind s contai n primaril y thematic materia l (brackete d > ') , derive d
from th e flute' s initia l them e statemen t (mm.68-88) , whil e th e nex t tw o bar s
(mm. 378-9 ) are simply the bass line (brackete d ' ' ) , transferred to the violin
and woodwind s fro m th e cellos ' an d basses ' firs t tw o bars . I t thu s become s
clear tha t th e violins ' an d woodwinds ' phras e i s no t a ful l four-ba r phras e bu t
rather on e broke n int o tw o components: primar y (thematic) an d the n secondar y
(accompanimental), th e revers e fo r cello s an d basses . Thi s make s a beautifu l
symmetrical structura l design , diagrammaticall y represente d i n Fig . 3 , on e
Ex. 8
Fig. 3
which ca n (an d should ) b e realize d aurally/acoustically . This i s accomplishe d

by eve n th e meres t awareness o n th e par t of the conducto r an d player s o f what
is a t stake , i.e . tha t th e thre e notes , A - Gi l - E , i n th e violin s an d woodwind s
(mm. 378-9) are merely a transported bas s line, no t par t of the melody , and mus t
therefore b e somewha t underplayed , while conversely the cello s and basse s must
bring thei r primar y thematic measure s t o th e fore . (Not e als o th e emphasizin g
sfs i n the themati c segmen t no t presen t i n th e accompanimenta l notes. ) I n tha t
way Beethoven's simpl e bu t poten t canonic/contrapunta l interpla y can b e mad e
unequivocally audible and full y representativ e o f both th e ide a an d it s notation.
If on th e othe r han d th e timpan i pounds awa y at full tilt , especially in a reverber-
ant, boom y hal l o r recording studio , then th e cellos'/basses ' canoni c answer s are
simply wiped out, an d Beethoven' s beautifu l aura l design i s completely defeated .
By th e simples t o f moves—a n unadorne d half-ste p modulatio n downward—
Beethoven transport s u s t o th e ke y o f Al > (i n a n A majo r piece!) , bu t jus t a s
quickly by a magica l four-step progression (A t - C6/4 - F - A6/4 ) brings u s back
in jus t eigh t bar s (mm.391-99) t o th e centra l key . To underscore th e mystery —
and audaciousness—o f thi s passage , i t i s absolutely necessar y t o pla y th e basi c
rhythmic figure tenuto, i.e. melodically—again one of those
articulative distinction s Beethove n too k pain s t o mak e bu t generall y ignore d b y
most conductors. 8
Most composers , having gotten bac k t o the centra l key , would no w have gon e
quickly an d directl y t o th e movement' s fina l denouement . Bu t Beethove n ha s
one mor e ingeniou s mov e u p hi s sleeve , a n ide a h e stretche s an d prolong s ago -
nizingly slowl y (mm . 401-22) , almos t t o th e poin t o f being unbearable , whe n
it simpl y has t o erup t an d b e release d int o th e fina l coda . I t i s kept harmonic -
ally ambivalen t (althoug h th e implication s o f th e movement' s toni c ke y an d
its dominan t ar e vaguel y discernible ) b y a low-register , grinding , repetitious ,
but constantl y growin g chromati c figur e i n violas , cello s an d basse s
repeated n o fewe r tha n nin e times ,
8. I t i s wrong for the horn s and answerin g woodwinds i n mm . 399-400 t o play
instead o f a s they brazenly d o i n

Erich Kleibers , Jochum's, an d Mengelberg' s performances , eve n mor e latel y wit h Carlo s Kleiber
(evidently a Concertgebou w hor n tradition).
and double d u p rhythmicall y the tent h time—twenty-tw o bar s i n all . I t i s like

something slowl y turning o n a spit, rotatin g agai n an d agai n o n it s own axis, bu t
growing and evolvin g eventually t o gigantic proportions .
This chromatically twisting, writhin g bas s line—we will see other examples of
this i n th e las t movemen t o f th e symphony—i s se t agains t th e starkes t of back-
drops, agai n harmonicall y ambiguous o r vacillating : one a five-octave sustained
pedal poin t E (Ex . 9a ) i n th e winds , an d (Ex . 9b ) a stationar y melodi c lin e
Ex. 9 a Ex . 9b
pivoting aroun d a n E axis . Thi s amazin g structur e i s sustaine d for , a s I hav e

said, twenty-tw o measures , i n a giganti c crescendo , wit h instrument s graduall y
being adde d an d th e upper-rang e figure s becomin g mor e an d mor e rhyth -
micized. Liste n t o ho w beautifull y Reine r an d Gardine r contro l th e dynamic s
here (mm.401-22) , restrainin g their musician s fro m crescendoin g to o early!
Many conductor s throug h th e year s have mad e th e bas s player s pla y this en -
tire sectio n a n octav e lower , i.e .
Though I a m secon d t o non e i n m y lov e o f deep low-registe r sounds, 9 an d a m

not onl y constantly demandin g th e ful l rang e dow n t o low C an d B in bas s parts
in m y own compositions, an d als o find myself occasionally tempted t o add suc h
low-octave doubling s whereve r appropriate i n th e classica l and Romanti c works ,
the Beethove n passag e unde r discussio n here i s one i n which , I submit, i t is no t
appropriate to add a lower octave. There are tw o reasons. One i s that Beethove n
in th e Sevent h Symphon y i s very consisten t an d logica l i n hi s us e o f th e low ,
fifth bas s strin g and , a s fa r a s I ca n tell , ver y clea r abou t wher e h e want s lo w
notes and wher e h e doesn't . Below-E note s ar e conspicuously scattere d through-
out th e work, 10 an d on e mus t assum e therefor e tha t whe n Beethove n keep s th e
basses i n uniso n wit h th e cellos , h e mus t mea n it . I t i s ras h simpl y to assum e
that Beethove n forgot , o r tha t th e missin g lowe r octav e i s a mistake . I believ e
the secon d reaso n th e lowe r bas s octav e in mm.401-2 2 i s not wante d ha s to do
with th e wa y Beethoven ha s structure d the passag e i n term s o f the chose n over -
all range—fiv e octaves , a s mentioned—withi n whic h thre e separat e layer s o f
9. I was , afte r all , th e firs t t o writ e a Contrabassoon Concerto, an d t o writ e i n 194 7 a Quartet fo r
Doublehasses, an d hav e writte n voluminously fo r the contrabassclarinet .
10. Se e for example mm.40-41, 77 , 141-46, 366-74 , in the first movement; none i n the tw o middle
movements, bu t man y places in th e Finale , includin g that remarkable twisting, writhing pedal poin t
at th e en d o f the developmen t sectio n (mm.298-328) .
music function . I a m convince d tha t Beethove n di d no t wan t hi s bas s lin e to o
far remove d fro m th e lowes t peda l poin t not e i n th e secon d horn .

Finally, a s regard s thi s particula r passage , i t i s tragi c o n ho w man y recording s
the timpan i (i n mm.421-22) completel y obliterate s th e fina l tw o bars of the bas s
line (Ex . 10) ; most brutall y in Casals' s an d Ferenczik' s recordings. 11
Ex. 1 0
I canno t resis t pointin g ou t anothe r on e o f Beethoven' s miraculou s canoni c

interplays (mm.427-31) , i n whic h th e lo w strings at first imitate th e hig h string s
but halfwa y throug h role s ar e reversed , an d no w th e uppe r string s mimi c th e
lower string s (Ex . lia , simplifie d an d reduce d —(the diagona l line s sho w th e
Ex. li a
canonic interconnections) . W e migh t als o not e wha t a n interestin g composit e

rhythm result s from thes e interlockin g lines, especiall y i n mm.429-31 (Ex . lib) .
Ex. l i b
etc.
A fina l commen t o n th e firs t movement : I wis h ther e wa s eve n jus t on e re -

cording (or , fo r tha t matter , on e performanc e o f those tha t I hav e hear d i n al l
11. Bu t th e wors t offender s ar e Mengelber g an d hi s 194 0 Concertgebou w timpanist , no t onl y i n

this passag e but i n al l th e places—i n al l fou r movements—wher e th e timpan i plays.
my year s o f hearin g th e Beethove n Seventh ) i n whic h th e horn s ar e hear d

as well i n m.44 7 as in mm.442 , 444 , 446 . I t i s obvious tha t hig h hor n part s pro -
ject mor e readil y tha n middle-registe r ones ; bu t thi s imbalance— a norma l
acoustic phenomenon—ca n easil y be adjuste d b y an y hor n playe r i f he/she wil l
play, fo r example , i n th e descendin g passag e jus t referre d t o (mm.446-47) , a
little softe r i n th e hig h registe r an d a littl e loude r i n th e middl e register . Can -
not on e pai r o f hor n player s achieve—o r on e conducto r as k for—suc h rebal -
ancing?
In th e Seventh' s secon d movement , th e famou s Allegretto— the movemen t tha t

had t o be immediatel y encore d a t the Symphony' s premier e i n 1813—ther e ar e
two majo r performance/interpretatio n issue s rarely adhered to : the basi c temp o
(Beethoven's metronomizatio n i s J = 76) , an d th e phrasin g and articulatio n of
the movement' s basi c thematic/rhythmi c cel l (mm.3-4) .
Dealing wit h th e first issue, we fin d ourselve s once agai n i n a situation wher e
90 percen t o f all conductor s ignor e o r rejec t no t onl y Beethoven' s metronom e
marking bu t hi s Italian temp o an d characte r designatio n a s well. They evidently
distrust bot h an d ar e sur e the y kno w bette r tha n Beethove n wha t h e wanted .
They ar e usuall y abou t 2 0 metronom e point s of f the mark , slowe r tha t is . O h
yes, i t i s wel l know n tha t Beethove n i s repute d t o hav e sai d a t on e poin t tha t
perhaps h e shoul d hav e name d th e movemen t Andante quasi allegretto. Bu t
ultimately, thoug h h e ha d ampl e opportunit y t o chang e th e temp o designation ,
he di d not. Also , why assume automatically—a s I have pointe d ou t i n respec t t o
so man y o f Beethoven's temp o setting s — that th e marking s are wrong ? Why no t
give the m a try ; and wh y questio n th e Allegretto her e an d no t th e temp o an d
Allegro co n brio o f th e Seventh' s las t movement ? I t al l make s ver y littl e sense ,
and ultimatel y i s so disrespectfu l o f Beethove n an d hi s intelligence .
As a matte r o f fact , Beethoven' s Allegretto J = 7 6 work s wonderfull y well .
Instead o f th e usua l funereal , drudging-along , heavy-foote d kin d o f affair , th e
movement become s ligh t an d airy , friendl y an d positive . At to o slo w a tempo ,
the movement' s extraordinar y repetition s — a singl e two-ba r rhythmi c patter n
dominates th e entir e movement—becom e overbearing , if not boring . I n Beetho -
ven's tempo , i t achieves, in th e righ t conductoria l hands , a wonderfu l flow and
a unit y o f conceptio n instea d o f th e usua l drawn-out , belabore d effect . Ho w
right and beautifu l thi s musi c ca n soun d at Beethoven's temp o —or clos e to it-
can b e heard , fortunately , o n severa l recordings , mos t notabl y o n bot h Eric h
and Carlo s Kleiber's , Dohnanyi's , Szell's , Karajan's , Reiner's , Harnoncourt's ,
Gardiner's, an d th e Collegiu m Aureum's .
The secon d issue , th e phrasin g an d articulatio n o f the two-ba r cell , seem s t o
be eve n mor e resistan t to correct interpretation/realization . And yet, Beethoven' s
marking i s s o clea r an d unequivocal , an d moreove r reiterativel y consisten t
throughout th e movement . Her e i s th e two-ba r phras e a s notate d b y Beetho -
ven: On e ca n se e immediatel y that Beethove n too k a lot

of care i n refinin g hi s notation, i n specifyin g a particular articulation an d expres -

sion. Mos t ordinar y composers woul d hav e jus t lef t i t a t
instead, Beethove n provide s fiv e phrasin g indication s fo r fiv e notes . Ye t fo r al l
his pains , mos t conductor s ignor e or—possibly—misunderstan d them . Th e in -
formation i s very clear : th e firs t not e i s t o b e hel d (tenuto), th e nex t tw o note s
are t o b e playe d staccato an d th e fina l tw o note s slightl y lifted , slightl y longe r
than th e previou s two eighth-notes . Th e idea l bowin g fo r renderin g tha t phras -
ing is :
I suspec t tha t som e o f th e confusio n abou t th e phrasin g derive s fro m th e
fact tha t man y conductor s (Solti , fo r example ) thin k th e ten. (tenuto) refer s t o
the entir e phras e an d al l o f it s repetitions , resultin g i n somethin g lik e
. Bu t tha t i s a misreadin g o f the notation , sinc e Beetho -
ven i s absolutely consistent throughou t th e movemen t i n markin g that first note
ten., i n whateve r instruments , alway s followe d b y th e tw o succeedin g eighth -
notes wit h staccato dots . I t canno t b e tha t th e entir e five-not e patter n shoul d
be playe d tenuto, becaus e tha t totall y contradict s th e staccato an d semi-staccato
markings tha t follow . Besides , t o pla y the entir e phras e wit h it s several hundre d
repetitions tenuto woul d resul t i n a n appallin g lac k o f variety , whic h a grea t
composer lik e Beethove n woul d neve r hav e tolerate d o r wishe d for . Eve n i n
those recording s (an d performances ) i n whic h ther e i s a n attemp t t o realiz e
Beethoven's notation—generall y rathe r half-hearted—th e seriou s proble m tha t
invariably remains is that the first quarter-note i s not hel d lon g enough. I t gener -
ally end s u p bein g aroun d three-quarte r length , a s i f Beethove n ha d writ -
ten o ro rI t i s invariabl y bad , careles s bowin g
habits tha t caus e thi s performanc e flaw ; th e not e need s t o b e full y sustained ,
held righ t into th e secon d beat . Onl y i n tha t wa y i s Beethoven' s remarkabl e
conception—three totall y differen t articulation s i n bu t tw o measures—given its
full due .
To conclud e o n thi s particula r matter , th e correc t varie d articulation , pre -
sented a t th e righ t tempo , wil l resul t i n a wonderfull y buoyant , flowing , almos t
swinging feelin g i n thi s movement , a s on e ca n hea r o n Carlo s Kleiber' s re -
cording (Cantell i an d Abbad o ge t th e righ t articulation/phrasing , bu t thei r
tempo i s a slowis h j = 63 , while Harnoncour t a t a tempo o f j = 6 9 gets two
of th e thre e articulation s correct , bu t add s al l kind s o f annoyin g dynami c nu -
ances an d unwante d accents. )
If thes e basi c aspect s o f th e Allegretto movemen t ar e wel l attende d to , th e
whole movemen t fall s rathe r readil y int o place , presentin g no t to o man y
other problems . O f thos e tha t remain , I shoul d lik e t o mentio n onl y th e fol -
lowing. Betwee n m.2 7 an d m.4 2 ther e mus t no t b e an y crescendo , accidenta l
or otherwise , whil e th e cresc.. poco a poco startin g a t m.5 1 mus t b e handle d
very judiciously , that is , ver y gradually , sprea d ove r twenty-fou r bars . Man y
conductors pounc e o n thi s crescend o wit h suc h vehemenc e tha t the y arriv e
at a ful l f o r eve n ff afte r onl y eigh t measures—th e usua l 'tmte. ' Th e wors t
offender i n thi s regar d i s Mengelberg , wh o perpetrate s a hug e crescend o even
before m.51 , arrivin g there a t a ful l til t f o r ff , maintainin g i t fo r th e nex t eigh -
teen bar s o r so , an d then make s a diminuend o (! ) jus t wher e Beethove n write s
più f . Unbelievable !
In th e magnificen t clima x o f thi s expositor y phas e o f th e movemen t (mm .
75-98), the thre e layer s of activity (see Ex . 12 ) have to b e wel l balanced agains t
Ex. 1 2
one another . I t is very important tha t al l three structura l components b e equally

audible. What very often i s obscured o r underplayed i s the rhythmi c understruc-
ture ( C i n Ex . 12 ) with it s bounding triplet s i n violas , cellos, an d basses . Her e
again a poundin g timpan i ca n d o enormou s damage , makin g th e importan t
triplets, th e brand-ne w element i n Beethoven' s traversa l of the exposition , virtu-
ally o r totall y inaudible , a s severa l recordings , mos t notabl y thos e o f Mengel -
berg, Toscanini , Muti , Fricsay , and Ansermet , reveal.
The mentio n o f the ter m 'exposition ' serves t o remind u s that the for m of the
Allegretto movement i s in itsel f one o f Beethoven's miracle s o f invention, a won-
derful ne w hybri d combinin g element s o f sonat a form , variation , rondo , cha -
conne, an d marc h (o r processional). I t i s variational because it s main theme , a
sixteen-bar phrase , i s frequently varied although, a s has ofte n bee n pointe d out ,
not thematicall y an d no t i n th e usua l Beethovenia n developmenta l sens e bu t
rather mor e limitedl y throug h varie d instrumentatio n an d rhythmi c ornamenta -
tion (as , fo r example , th e adde d triplet s i n mm.75-99) . I t i s a kin d o f rond o
form sinc e th e A episod e return s alway s afte r th e interpolate d secondar y seg -
ments, thre e mor e time s (fou r i f one count s the cod a a s well). Thus th e follow -
ing quasi-rond o ABACABAA form evolve s (Fig. 4) :
BEETHOVEN:SEVENTH SYMPHONY 255
Fig. 4
As Rond o As Sonat a for m
Introduction mm. 1-2 Introduction

A (mai n theme ) mm.3-101 First subject
B (secondar y episode ) mm. 102-49 Second subjec t
A (mai n theme , varied ) mm. 150-82 First subject
C (development ) mm. 183-2 B Development
A (mai n theme , varied) mm.2 14-24 Recapitulation (varied)
B (secondar y episode foreshortened ) mm.225-46 1
A (mai n theme , fragmented ) mm.246-54 Coda
A (mai n them e a s coda) mm.255-75 i
Closure mm.276-78 Closure
It i s in sonat a for m i n tha t th e movemen t ha s a first and secon d subjec t (th e

A major section) , a development sectio n (i n thi s case a fugato), an d a recapitula -
tion an d coda . I t i s als o a chaconn e i n th e sens e tha t th e groun d figur e o r
theme i s subjected t o a constan t ostinato-lik e repetition , continuall y varie d an d
gradually building to climacti c peaks , as traditionally many chaconne s (an d pas -
sacaglias) do . I t i s obviousl y als o a marc h o r processional , wit h it s stead y gai t
and relentles s pulse . Tha t i s sufficient reaso n wh y conductor s shoul d no t mak e
any o f the ritard s that hav e become , alas, so fashionable an d traditional , particu -
larly th e one s i n mm . 101 and 22 4 (hea r Strauss' s exaggerate d pullbac k here) ,
148-49, 243-48 , an d especiall y the utterl y vulgar one a t m.213) . (Fo r a n exam -
ple o f that a t it s worst, liste n t o Maazel' s Clevelan d recording. )
I shoul d als o lik e t o poin t ou t that , jus t a s the Allegretto i s radical an d nove l
in it s innovativ e form, so i t i s radically innovative an d nove l i n it s fundamental
conception an d construction . Fo r a s far as I ca n tell , i t was the firs t tim e i n th e
history o f Western musi c (o r a t least sinc e th e Ar s Nova an d th e earl y Renais -
sance) tha t a compose r ha d writte n a majo r wor k which manage d t o almos t d o
without on e o f the mos t essentia l element s i n th e creatio n o f a piec e o f music :
melody. The emphasi s in this movement is primarily o n the elemen t of rhythm ,
supported an d colore d b y harmon y an d timbr e (instrumenta l color) , bu t virtu -
ally eschewing melodi c invention . Som e a t first blush ma y consider tha t a heret -
ical statement , bu t i f one think s about i t more on e ma y find it difficult t o defen d
the movement' s firs t subjec t as a grea t melody , o r an y melod y a t all.
It i s on th e othe r han d a remarkabl y strikin g fusion o f rhyth m an d harmony ,

made al l th e mor e remarkabl e b y th e us e o f soft , darkl y colored, lo w strings . A
more trul y melodi c inventio n enter s a t m.27 , th e beautiful , almos t Schubertia n
counter-melody i n th e uniso n viola s an d cellos ; an d th e A majo r episod e wit h
its serene , sunny , step-wis e woodwin d lin e lean s eve n mor e i n th e directio n of
melody. Bu t eve n ther e th e rhythmi c an d harmoni c element s remai n mor e o r

less i n th e forefront , or , t o pu t i t anothe r way , support wha t littl e tru e melod y
there i s t o mak e i t int o a mor e fulfilled , a mor e complet e musica l statement .
That aspec t o f the piece , alon g wit h it s daring repetitiousness , ha s undoubtedl y
contributed t o th e succes s o f the movemen t whic h ha s mesmerize d audience s
ever sinc e it s premiere . Fo r audience s b y an d larg e reac t mor e strongl y an d
positively to rhyth m an d repetitio n tha n t o any othe r stimuli. 12
The A majo r sectio n (m.102 ) i s on e o f Beethoven' s lovelies t lyri c creations ,
even a s the somewha t ominou s puls e o f the mai n them e rhyth m continues (no w
in lo w string pizzicatos) and ripplin g triplets in th e violin s embellish th e winds '
long seren e lines . No t i n th e real m o f major interpretationa l problems bu t nev-
ertheless small unnecessary annoyances, are th e frequen t disregard by clarinetists
and secon d hornist s o f Beethoven' s explici t phrasin g articulations . I t i s incom -
prehensible t o m e wh y so many players in thos e tw o positions disregar d Beetho -
ven's staccat o marking s i n mm . 118-19 an d 120-21 , respectively , clearl y in -
tended t o contras t wit h th e legato s thre e bar s later , whe n th e flute , oboe , an d
bassoon i n th e virtuall y identica l figure s i n mm . 139—42, almost alway s play stac-
cato. I t makes n o sense!
Another all-too-obviou s performanc e detail , whic h however , fo r al l it s ob -
viousness, i s largely ignored b y performers and conductor s i s to b e foun d i n th e
descending A minor scal e i n mm . 144-48, distribute d acros s thre e instrumenta l
sections. I n a t least hal f th e recording s o f th e Sevent h Symphony , musicians ,
conductors, recordin g producer s an d engineer s di d no t hea r (an d failed t o cor-
rect) whe n player s end thei r par t o f the scal e wit h a lon g eighth-note , which , of
course, distort s an d disturb s the intende d effec t o f on e lon g four-octave , evenl y
articulated scale . I f th e thre e wind s an d violin s i n m.14 5 an d m.147 , respec -
tively, fai l t o shorten thei r las t notes to at least that o f the ongoin g triple t eighths ,
those elongate d note s wil l blee d ove r int o th e continuin g scales , makin g a
clumsy, untidy , an d unmusica l effect . Amon g th e fe w recording s tha t handl e
this scal e passag e wel l i s Jeffre y Täte' s wit h th e wonderfu l (an d highly disci -
plined) Dresde n Staatskapell e an d d e Burgos' s with th e Londo n Symphon y Or -
chestra.
Starting a t m.150 , Beethove n recapitulate s hi s mai n subject—varie d o f
course—using on e o f hi s favorit e devices , namely , turnin g th e origina l musi c
upside down . Th e lea d lin e o f m. 3 i s no w i n th e cello s an d basses , whil e th e
lovely secondar y line, first encountered i n m.2 7 i n th e viola s and cellos , i s now
transferred t o th e uppe r registe r an d give n t o thre e woodwinds . I n addition ,
Beethoven mixe s rhythmi c figuration s wit h almos t Brahmsia n daring ; quarter s
and eighth s i n som e o f the string s (pizzicato), spiccat o sixteenth s i n th e others ,
and occasionall y triplet eighth s i n th e winds . But unfortunately those triplet s are
12. No t unti l almos t a centur y late r di d a compose r tak e tha t ide a a considerabl e ste p farther . I n
1909, Schönberg , i n th e thir d movemen t o f hi s Five Pieces fo r Orchestra, wrot e a piec e whic h al l
but eliminate s rhythm i n additio n to melod y (or theme) fro m th e creativ e process. It i s a movemen t
which consist s entirel y of harmon y and timbre , and ye t i s self-sufficient i n makin g an astoundingly
complete, i f relativel y brief , musica l statement.
all to o ofte n playe d incorrectly , i n th e majorit y o f performance s onl y approxi -

mated and , slippin g inadvertentl y int o dupl e patterns . Th e recording s tha t go t
this right , tha t is , where on e ca n reall y hear al l thre e rhythm s (a s in m.156 , for
example) clearl y and distinctl y in thei r composit e complexity , ar e thos e o f Can -
telli, Dorati , Carlo s Kleiber , Haitink, Solti , Klemperer , Masur , Steinberg , Sand -
erling, Karajan , an d Ferenczik , whil e all the other s ar e incorrect, o r rhythmically
ambiguous, especiall y thos e o f Casals , Muti , Fricsay , Jochum , Keilberth , Har -
noncourt, Gardiner , and , surprisingly , Toscanini.
The fugat o (mm.183-213 ) serves , a s alread y mentioned , a s a developmen t
section; a t th e sam e tim e i t i s ye t anothe r variatio n o n th e mai n them e firs t
subject. On e migh t cal l i t a fuga l variation . Apar t fro m bein g a n exemplar y
precision-controlled fugato , simpl e i n th e extrem e an d a triump h o f econom y
and balance d proportions , i t i s eve n mor e remarkabl e fo r bein g hel d dynami -
cally a t ba y fo r 2 6 measures—almos t 4 5 second s —until i t i s allowe d t o burs t
forth int o a climacti c recapitulatio n o f th e mai n them e i n ful l regalia . Th e
fugato i s thu s a ver y special , eve n uniqu e momen t i n th e movement , lik e a
precious exquisit e jewe l encase d o n eithe r sid e b y th e riches t o f embroidere d
frames. Therefor e th e secre t o f performin g this fugat o a s intende d i s t o pla y i t
in it s entiret y p p — noi mp o r p— but pp . Unfortunately , to judg e b y al l th e
recorded evidence , this i s rarely done. I t is also imperative that th e fugat o b e fel t
in Beethoven' s 2/ 4 time signature , not the 4/ 8 to which i t so often deteriorates in
performance. I n 4/ 8 th e fugat o sound s painfull y pedanti c an d schoolmasterish .
Here agai n temp o i s a ver y crucia l consideration , fo r a t to o slo w a temp o i t
almost canno t hel p bu t b e i n 4/ 8 an d thu s stiffl y academic . Th e onl y recorde d
performances tha t rende r th e fugat o a s th e specia l momen t i t is , ar e thos e o f
Cantelli, Toscanini , Eric h Kleiber , Jochum, Walter, Kletzki , Abbado, Muti, Gar -
diner, and , abov e all , Solti . Th e las t named' s realizatio n i s m y favorite . I t i s
almost ghostl y i n it s quietude , a s i f hear d fro m a distance , a farawa y long-ag o
remembrance—almost a s i f it wer e no t a rea l par t o f the movement . Quit e th e
opposite occur s i n som e o f the wors t performances of the fugato—thos e o f Sto -
kowski, Casals , Maazel , an d Bernstein . The y literall y exce l i n thei r disregar d of
Beethoven's pp's (an d remindin g sempre pp's) an d i n thei r stiff , stilte d rhythmi c
interpretation.
In the final moments o f the movemen t al l the problems attendant to the prope r
phrasing and articulatio n of the mai n themati c materia l com e hom e t o roost. O n
recording after recordin g the differen t win d sections or choirs play the basi c rhyth-
mic/thematic cel l in any fashion they choose to or by chance happe n t o land upon.
What is crucial in Beethoven's Klangfarben conceptio n o f this coda is that the tone
colors change while the phrasing remains constant, binding the fragmented phrase
segments together again. Seemingly, the conductors in question had nothing to say
on thes e matter s o r perhaps di d no t eve n hea r th e lac k o f uniformity. The mos t
flagrant abuses her e occu r o n th e recording s o f the Clevelan d Symphon y (with
both Maaze l an d Dohnanyi) , Mengelberg , an d Steinberg . Eve n Carlo s Kleiber,
who does so beautifully with the main theme a t the beginning of the movement, at
the end allow s the winds too much phrasing inconsistency.
Certain aspect s o f the final five bars of the Allegretto movemen t hav e puz/led
conductors fo r generations, an d d o i n fac t presen t a numbe r o f unusual perfor -
mance problem s an d questions . First , ther e i s th e mixtur e o f pizzicato s an d
arcos i n mm.273-76 . I t i s known tha t Beethove n wa s uncertain himsel f during
the composin g o f the piec e abou t th e choic e o f pizzicato o r arco an d precisel y
when thes e shoul d occur ; ther e i s even evidenc e tha t Beethoven' s origina l ide a
was t o retai n th e pizzicat o whic h start s way back i n m.25 5 throug h t o the end .
In an y case , h e ultimatel y committe d himsel f t o th e endin g w e al l know, th e
ending i n al l the availabl e published score s an d parts .
I mus t confes s that sinc e m y earlies t acquaintanc e wit h th e work , eve n a s a
teenager, I have alway s foun d th e sudde n retur n t o arc o i n m.27 5 i n th e violin s
strange an d unconvincing , and hav e ofte n bee n tempte d t o restore th e pizzicat o
(and o n several occasions have actually performed the endin g tha t way—bu t no t
without a certai n guil t feeling) . I n listenin g t o th e dozen s o f recording s i n m y
research fo r this book, I was fascinated to fin d tha t a t least fou r conductor s hav e
also insiste d o n tha t fina l pizzicato : bot h Kleibers , Strauss, and Klemperer . Th e
problem o f realizin g thes e measure s i s complicate d b y th e sudde n appearanc e
of a f i n th e string s in th e third-las t measure , fo r th e questio n immediatel y an d
naturally arises: is that a subito f? O r ar e w e to crescendo int o it , on th e assump -
tion tha t Beethove n forgo t t o pu t i n th e crescendo ? Wh y i s the f there ? Well , i t
is clea r t o m e tha t th e f go t there onc e Beethove n ha d decide d tha t h e wante d
to clos e th e movemen t wit h th e sam e win d chor d wit h which i t opened, whic h
starts f an d diminuendo s t o pp . Bu t tha t stil l leave s th e othe r tw o question s
unresolved, an d I' m afrai d w e wil l never hav e th e absolut e answer s to them . As
a result , conductor s hav e throug h th e year s come u p wit h al l sort s o f differen t
solutions. The mos t favore d solutio n is to make a crescendo int o th e foï m.276 ,
many time s startin g i t a s earl y as m.27. 3 i n th e cello s an d basses. 13 T o m e tha t
is the mor e obviou s an d ordinar y remedy; I think th e subito f effec t i n m.27 6 is
much mor e interestin g an d mor e i n lin e wit h Beethoven' s constantl y eviden t
sense o f surprise , hi s avoidanc e o f th e obvious , hi s vivi d imaginatio n fo r th e
untried an d th e unusual . I a m als o unwillin g to assum e tha t Beethove n 'forgo t
the crescendo. ' There i s scarcely any evidenc e tha t Beethove n forgo t details ; o n
the contrary , hi s manuscrip t score s are marvel s of scrupulous, meticulou s atten -
tion t o detail s an d minutia e o f notation . Th e sign s o f struggl e an d tormente d
revisions i n hi s score s provide furthe r proo f o f that.
The fina l win d chor d (a s wel l a s it s partne r a t th e ver y beginnin g o f th e
movement) i s rarely performed wel l o r correctly . First o f all, i t seems t o b e ver y
hard t o tune , th e proble m note s her e bein g th e C' s i n secon d obo e an d first
bassoon, th e mino r third s o f the chord . Ther e ar e onl y a handfu l o f recordings
out o f the fifty-odd in whic h thes e chord s ar e i n tune . Second , hardl y anybody
seems t o appreciate th e unusua l voicing of this A minor chord . I t is a 6/ 4 chord,
with th e secon d hor n i n th e 'bass ' position . Apparentl y ver y fe w conductor s
13. Incidentally , many conductor s (suc h a s Stokowski , Carlo s Kleibe r and Klemperer ) had th e vio -
las, cellos , and basse s play pizzicato in m.276 . Sinc e thes e ar e conductor s who assum e Beethoven's
arco i n th e violin s t o b e correct , i t i s difficul t t o fatho m wh y the y don' t assum e a s muc h fo r th e
remaining strings .
know thi s o r allo w thi s unusua l voicin g t o b e heard . I n virtuall y all recording s
the secon d bassoon' s A is far too prominent, while th e secon d horn' s lower E is
subdued, suppressed , o r playe d with ver y littl e presence .
Perhaps the strangest , and mos t bizarr e rendition of the movement' s ending -
amounting actuall y to an almos t complet e re-composin g o f it—is Stokowski' s (in
his 192 8 recording) . After a hug e ritar d i n m.271 , Stokowsk i changes th e viola s
in m.27 4 t o arc o (sic ) bu t then—perversely—bac k t o pizzicat o i n m.276 . Thi s
is followed by a hug e 'sexy ' ritar d i n m.275 , an d t o ca p matters , th e first violins
are force d to hol d ou t thei r fina l A with th e wind s in a lon g protracte d diminu -
endo, hi s final tempo a t the en d bein g somewher e aroun d J = 26 !
In th e Presto movement , a Scherz o i n everythin g bu t name , ther e ar e fewe r

performance problems—a t leas t unti l on e get s t o th e Trio—tha n i n th e Sev -
enth's othe r thre e movements . I t i s no t a s encumbere d wit h misguide d tradi -
tions; eve n i n th e questio n o f it s basic temp o (agai n with th e exceptio n o f th e
Trio section ) conductors see m t o find Beethoven's Presto and metronomi c desig -
nation o f J. = 13 2 much mor e acceptabl e tha n i n th e Scherz o o f the Fifth , for
example. They at least do i t in som e sor t of fast tempo , i f not exactl y Beethoven' s
132 marking.
Since thi s i s again a movemen t t o b e conducte d i n 'one, ' the questio n o f th e
phrase structurin g may arise. Here too , unlik e Beethoven' s Fift h Symphony , th e
Seventh's Scherz o offer s ver y few complication s o r irregularities . For th e mos t
part i t fall s neatl y int o four-ba r patterns , wit h th e occasiona l six-ba r extensio n
interpolated alon g th e way . Two of these ar e interesting . Wherea s Beethove n i n
most o f hi s fas t temp o musi c form s hi s six-ba r phrases b y addin g tw o measure s
to the en d o f a four-bar entity , in thi s Scherz o movemen t h e twic e (twelve times
counting al l three Scherz o section s an d repetitions ) attache s th e extr a measure s
at th e fron t en d o f the four-ba r unit . Thi s occur s a t th e ver y beginning o f th e
movement an d i n it s recapitulation, m.89 . Th e usua l Beethove n 'sixes ' o n th e
other han d alway s occur i n th e risin g phrase first heard i n mm . 11-16.
The phras e an d perio d structurin g here i s so natural and regula r that ver y few
interpretive problem s ca n arise—th e kin d o f problems tha t aboun d i n th e first
and thir d movement s o f the Fift h Symphony . But ther e i s one sectio n i n whic h
the phras e periodicit y i s no t a s obviou s a s i t migh t see m whe n glancin g a t th e
instrumental parts , an d i s i n fac t s o ambiguou s an d comple x tha t n o on e ca n
be sur e wha t Beethove n actuall y ha d i n mind . Th e proble m begin s i n m.63 ,
a 'three ' of a four-bar phrase, where the obo e and bassoo n overla p with th e out -
going four-ba r phras e o f th e strings . There i s n o wa y a n obois t an d bassoonis t
can discer n fro m merel y thei r ow n part s whethe r th e not e D (i n m.64) ,
, whic h the y mostl y assume t o b e a 'one,' i s in fac t a
'one' o r a 'four. ' An d i f i t i s a 'one, ' the n i s i t a 'one ' i n a five-ba r phrase ? Or i s
it th e 'one ' o f a serie s o f four-ba r phrase s tha t Beethove n ha s shifted , a s Ivé s
might hav e done , on e ba r earlie r i n th e over-al l structural pattern? And i f that is
the case , when an d ho w does Beethove n realig n th e winds— a flut e an d secon d

bassoon ar e adde d a littl e later—wit h th e prevailin g four-ba r periodicity ? There
seems t o b e n o unequivoca l answer . Th e thre e possibilities , al l viabl e option s
for a performanc e interpretation , ar e outline d i n Exx . 1 3 a,b,c . This firs t optio n
Ex. 13 a
is har d t o brin g of f fo r th e obo e an d bassoon , sinc e th e Bl>' s i n m.6 6 lan d

squarely o n th e toni c not e — B\> i s th e temporar y ke y cente r o f thi s sectio n —
and i n bot h part s tha t measur e feel s mor e lik e a 'one ' —mind yo u fo r th e
oboe an d bassoon , no t fo r th e strings . I n tha t cas e too , mm.63-6 4
would b e anacrusi s notes t o the F 'down -
beat' o f m.65, which migh t fee l strang e a t first try, but ca n b e mad e t o work. O r
is the phrasin g therefor e polymetricall y displace d a s in Exx . 13 b and 13c ? I n th e
former instanc e (Ex . 13b) , we would hav e i n th e woodwind s one o f Beethoven' s
Ex. 13 b
Ex. 13 c
six-bar phrases , o f th e typ e peculia r t o thi s movemen t (a s alread y mentioned) ,

and indee d a phrase identical , excep t fo r dynamic variants , to the first six bars of
the Scherzo . Thi s seems quit e logical an d i s indeed ho w most oboists/bassoonist s
instinctively interpre t the phrase , wit h perhap s a slight extr a puls e o n m.66 . Bu t
if thei r phras e i s i n fac t a 'six, ' an d i t i s followed b y fou r 'fours, ' the n t o becom e
reconciled wit h th e string s an d thei r undisturbe d four-ba r patterning , ther e
would hav e t o b e a 'three ' a t th e en d (mm.86-88) . I n tha t optiona l interpreta -
tion, th e win d solo s would b e on e ba r ou t o f phase wit h thei r strin g accompani -
ment, whic h i s the wa y the passag e i s most ofte n played , consciousl y o r inadver -
tently.
Another possibility , represented b y the lowe r string brackets i n Ex . 13b , woul d
be tha t th e string s start wit h a five-bar phrasing, the n alig n themselve s wit h th e
winds, continuin g i n 'fours, ' unti l the y to o woul d hav e t o d o a 'three ' t o arriv e
correctly a t th e f i n m.89 . This , however , i s a fairl y remot e solution , sinc e th e
harmonic structurin g (alternatin g B t an d F chord s i n four-ba r units ) i s s o
strongly anchored i n those key s that i t would see m downrigh t peculia r t o chang e
that to
In th e thir d option , show n i n Ex . 13c , th e first wind phras e woul d b e a 'five. '
Measure 6 9 woul d the n b e a 'one, ' whic h woul d wor k wel l wit h th e ongoin g
four-bar strin g structuring , bu t woul d als o mea n tha t th e wind s woul d hav e t o
feel mm.70 , 72 , 74 , 78 , 8 2 a s 'twos ' i n a four-ba r phrase . Tha t seem s rathe r
difficult t o do , i n vie w o f the fac t tha t i n thes e measure s th e wind s star t on th e
high not e o f a descending lin e afte r a two-beat rest , an d thes e initia l high note s
sit squarel y on th e toni c an d dominan t positions . I t als o goe s agains t th e phras -
ing a s Beethove n firs t an d mos t ofte n present s thi s theme , wher e th e ba r i n
question her e (m.70 , fo r example ) i s alway s a 'three, ' muc h mor e structurall y
akin t o a 'one. ' O n th e othe r hand , thoug h difficult , thi s interpretatio n i s no t
impossible; i t jus t takes a littl e extr a effort , an d indee d produce s a ver y interest -
ing an d i n it s ow n wa y quit e logica l effect , ver y differen t fro m wha t on e nor -
mally get s t o hea r i n thi s passage . I t woul d mea n tha t th e obo e an d bassoo n
(and late r th e flute ) woul d hav e t o pla y mm.70, 74 , 78 , 8 2 relatively lightly an d
probably fee l a sligh t crescend o (par t o f th e over-al l crescendo poco a poco) i n
each descendin g line , feelin g a stronge r puls e o r weigh t on mm.69 , 73 , 77 , 81.
Again, the advantag e of this i s that i n tha t phrasin g the wind s and string s are o n
common metri c ground .
While w e ar e o n thi s passage , I should mentio n tha t i t i s very importan t tha t
the obo e an d flut e kno w tha t th e obo e ha s th e lea d throug h mm.74-47 , relin -
quishing i t to th e flut e i n m.78. To judg e by the recorde d evidence , thi s i s very
rarely understood .
To retur n no w t o th e openin g o f th e Scherz o movement , tw o performanc e
misdeeds ar e immediatel y committe d i n th e firs t te n measure s b y mos t orches -
tras an d conductors . Ver y fe w orchestra s attai n a tru e p i n m.3 , whic h i s afte r
all thre e dynami c level s below th e initia l f. There shoul d b e a dramati c dro p i n
intensity an d dynami c level , no t the half-hearte d mp - mf - poco f on e hear s
most o f the time . Th e sudde n dro p t o p, afte r th e boisterou s bras s an d timpani -
laden openin g f , i s s o typicall y Beethovenian—somethin g h e undoubtedl y
learned fro m Haydn , th e maste r o f thi s kin d o f surprise—tha t i t i s t o severel y
misjudge Beethoven' s sens e o f humor an d mis s the whol e point o f this particular
movement t o no t observ e thi s subito p . Jus t a s sever e a misinterpretatio n i s th e
universal ba d habi t o f failing t o hol d ou t th e dotte d half-note s of mm.6 an d 10 .
On recordin g afte r recordin g on e ca n hea r ever y possible distortio n o f this dura-
tion fro m J throug h an d J t o Th e conducto r ma y hav e t o
tell th e wind s no t t o breath e i n m.6—i t bein g quit e unnecessary ; a s fo r th e
violins, they ar e i n a perfec t position , up-bo w tha t is , to hol d th e not e through .
The beaut y o f thi s sustainin g approach 14 —it i s wha t Beethove n wrote , afte r
14. A s far as I ca n tell , i t i s to b e hear d correctl y o n onl y two recordings : Dorati's and Ashkenazy's .
all —is that i t turns the whol e openin g passag e int o a wonderful eight-bar phrase,
mm. 3-10 (te n bar s if you coun t i n mm . 1-2). Al l too ofte n i n thi s movement, a s
in s o man y classica l movement s notate d an d conducte d one-to-the-bar , per -
formances achiev e a kin d o f breathless , choppy , disjointe d feeling . I t i s im -
portant fo r al l concerne d t o produc e lon g multi-ba r phrases—eight- , twelve- ,
sixteen-, eve n twenty-four-ba r phrases—th e underlyin g four-ba r infrastructur e
notwithstanding. Thi s approac h ca n b e ver y importan t i n th e aforementione d
winds-and-strings episod e (mm.61-89) , whic h reall y sing s an d swing s whe n i t
is playe d a s on e lon g twenty-eight-ba r musica l thought . (Yes , reader, i t ca n b e
done!)
Since sudde n dynami c contrast s ar e on e o f th e majo r compositiona l tool s
Beethoven consistentl y uses , i t i s surprising—an d disheartening—t o discove r
how few conductors an d orchestra s pay any attention t o these markings . In mos t
recordings th e sudde n p' s i n thi s Scherz o ar e treate d ver y casually, more i n th e
region o f mp o r mf; o n som e the y are ignore d entirely . Nor ar e Beethoven' s littl e
pp echoes , scattere d throughou t th e expositio n alway s attended to . What I fin d
particularly unpleasan t ar e th e accent s tha t man y orchestra s make , especiall y
the strings , a s i n mm.37-40 . M y sens e i s that suc h four-ba r phrases , especiall y
when the y are se t i n pp , shoul d b e playe d very smoothly , lettin g jus t the subtl e
bow change s articulat e th e individua l bars. Th e tied-ove r not e i n th e firs t bas -
soon, horn , an d viola s i n mm.41-4 3 an d 37-3 9 i s anothe r clu e tha t a legato
unaccented approac h i s the righ t one . B y the sam e token , car e mus t b e take n
in violins and viola s not t o drop the eight h note s i n mm.4 4 and 60 , as if Beetho-
ven ha d writte n a diminuendo, , a common faul t i n many
recordings. Thes e eighth-note s are , a s we ca n se e i n th e openin g measure s an d

passages lik e mm . 2 5-28 (wher e incidentally , oddl y enough , the y ar e usuall y
played correctly) , an integral , no t t o b e dismisse d par t o f the primar y thematic
material.
That Beethove n attache d grea t importance t o th e sudde n p i n m.3 , an d tha t
it wasn' t som e idle , accidenta l effect , i s confirme d b y th e sudde n dynami c
change i n th e recapitulatio n of this theme i n m.93 , this time no t droppin g to p ,
but intensifyin g t o it s opposite , ff. Again , sa d t o report , thi s startlin g effec t i s
largely ignore d i n th e vas t majorit y o f recording s an d performances , althoug h
here an d ther e a n occasiona l timpanis t enjoy s hittin g hi s drum s a bi t loude r i n
that measure . Th e poin t i s tha t mos t conductors ignor e o r ar e unawar e of this
important dynami c indication.
I canno t resis t expressing my wonderment a t Beethoven' s ingeniou s choice o f
pitches fo r th e timpan i par t i n th e Scherzo : Sinc e th e Scherz o

proper i s i n th e ke y o f F , th e timpani' s F wa s a logical , even inevitabl e choice.
Normally th e othe r not e fo r the timpan i in a n F majo r piec e woul d have bee n
C 15 . Bu t since th e Tri o wa s going t o be i n D major , Beethove n ha d t o consider

the choic e o f a second timpan i pitc h i n tha t tonality . Hi s decision wa s A, which,
as th e thir d i n F major , coul d b e use d fairl y effectivel y i n tha t ke y a s well .
Furthermore, Beethove n a t tha t momen t o f decision alread y knew tha t som e o f
the actua l Scherz o woul d als o b e i n A majo r (se e mm . 17-28), an d tha t hi s
timpani F/A' s coul d possibl y eve n occasionall y follo w th e contour s o f hi s the -
matic materia l (se e mm . 140-44). Th e A , bein g th e dominan t o f D , coul d o f
course serv e hi m wel l i n th e D majo r Tri o section ; an d indee d th e climacti c
passage o f mm.207-2 1 demonstrate s som e o f th e mos t excitin g an d powerfu l
use o f the timpan i i n th e entir e classica l repertory. 16
The res t o f the Scherz o sectio n usuall y comes of f rather well , excep t o n on e
recording (Maazel's ) I heard th e violi n trill s in mm.117 , 119 , 121 , etc. rebowe d
as
It is in th e Tri o wher e the mos t sever e interpretive problems an d ba d traditio n

again rea r their ugl y heads. Onc e again, i t is the fundamenta l questio n o f tempo
which i s a t th e hear t o f th e interpretiv e dissention . Ye t I fai l t o se e wh y ther e
should b e an y questio n a s t o th e appropriat e tempo , namel y Beethoven's , an d
why anyon e shoul d questio n i t i n th e firs t place . Beethove n i s very clear abou t
it, bot h i n th e Italia n temp o designatio n an d th e metronom e marking , whic h
latter, a s I hav e suggeste d before , confirm s th e former . Assez ; meno presto i n
Beethoven's ver y goo d Italia n quit e clearl y mean s "ver y muc h les s fast " or , i n
better English , "considerabl y les s fast. " I t doe s no t mea n andante o r adagio o r
15. W e hav e t o remembe r tha t i n th e lat e 18t h an d earl y 19t h centur y al l composer s wer e limite d
to tw o timpani—o r though t the y were , unti l Berlio z cam e alon g wit h hi s Symphonie Fantastique
(using fou r timpani ) an d Requiem (usin g sixtee n timpani) . I n addition , th e instrument s o f the da y
could onl y b e retune d ver y laboriously ; the chai n tunin g an d th e peda l timpan i woul d no t com e
along fo r anothe r half-century . O f course , som e composers , notabl y Graupner , Fischer , Molter ,
Druschetzky, Salieri , an d Spohr , ha d occasionall y already written fo r multiple timpani—sometime s
as man y as seven or eight. Bu t Beethove n apparentl y wa s either unawar e of such earlie r experiment s
(unlikely) o r simpl y felt n o nee d t o follo w i n suc h footsteps .
16. I n tha t connection , I am oppose d t o revisions of Beethoven's timpan i parts , a s many conductors
and timpanist s hav e done , makin g us e o f the full y chromati c moder n timpani . Whil e tha t i s great
fun t o do—to line up th e timpan i parts with the bas s parts, to fill in timpan i note s i n section s where,
because o f som e temporar y modulation , th e potentia l o r desirabl e timpan i note s wer e simpl y no t
available i n Beethoven' s time— I oppos e suc h a n approac h (a ) Becaus e i t usuall y amount s t o a n
almost complet e rewritin g of Beethoven's music ; (b ) because Beethove n di d hi s bes t t o compensat e
for th e timpani' s limitation s an d di d s o ingeniously , ofte n adjustin g othe r pitche s t o mak e u p fo r
those deficiencies ; and (c ) how i s one t o know where t o sto p rewriting , how far to go in modernizin g
the timpan i parts . A s they exis t the y ar e a n inheren t part o f Beethoven' s conception. Hi s timpani
parts ar e no t mer e orchestrationa l add-ons , an d I a m willin g t o be t tha t i n many , man y case s th e
limitations o f th e timpan i influence d th e cours e o f hi s composition . To tinke r with tha t is , t o m y
mind, impermissible.
BEETHOVEN: SEVENTH SYMPHONY 265
'slowly'! No , i t simpl y say s "considerabl y slower. " Now , I submi t tha t droppin g
from M.I3 2 t o M.8 4 i s considerabl y "less fast" , "considerabl y slower; " constitut -
ing, i n fact , a one-thir d dro p i n tempo .
I don' t know who starte d thi s deplorabl e traditio n o f performing the Tri o i n a
slow, ponderous, bombastic , draggin g manner; perhap s it was Billow. I doubt tha t
it was Wagner o r Habeneck o r Mahler o r Seidl . I n an y case, i t is wrong, if for n o
other reason than tha t i n some of the ploddin g tempos man y conductors take, th e
Trio i s n o longe r par t o f a Scherzo . (Eve n Bruckner' s Trio s ar e no t take n thi s
slowly!) The othe r immediate proble m i s that, taken at too slow a tempo, th e entire
Trio become s a series of chopped apar t two-bar phrases, rather than th e eight-ba r
sentences Beethove n composed . Unde r suc h treatmen t th e Tri o lose s it s grand
line, it s breadth, it s nobility. Eve n Furtwängler , th e maste r o f the gran d eterna l
line, could no t at his tempo o f J. = 4 6 (50 in some recordings) maintain the long
sweeping arching lines that Beethoven created i n the Trio .
As show n i n Fig . 5 , the rang e generall y goes al l the wa y from J . = 4 4 t o th e
lower 70s . The favorit e temp o appear s to be J . = 54— a 'mere ' 3 0 points belo w
Beethoven's intende d tempo—th e '54 ' a temp o share d b y a hal f a doze n o r so
conductors. Toscanini's , Reiner's , Norrington's , an d (surprisingly ) Ashkenazy' s
stand ou t a s the onl y ones eithe r o n o r clos e t o Beethoven' s mark .
The ritar d almost al l conductor s make i n the secon d endin g (fou r bar s befor e
the Trio ) i s a dea d give-awa y that the y ar e als o going to ignor e Beethoven' s Tri o
markings. Not e tha t ther e i s no rit. indicatio n i n th e secon d ending . Sinc e Bee -
thoven wa s quit e capabl e o f writing a ritardando—althoug h h e di d s o sparingly
Fig. 5
J.=44 Celibidach e
J. =46 Furtwängler , Batiz , Mengelber g (slow s down late r t o 38) , Straus s
<J. = 48 Böhm , Weingartner, Ferenczik , d e Burgo s
J. = 50 Stokowsk i (192 8 — in hi s 195 9 recordin g h e ha d advance d t o 56) , Anser -
met, Fricsay , Sanderling , Jochu m
J. = 52 Coli n Davi s
J. = 54 Eric h Kleiber , Keilberth , Kubelik , Klemperer , Casals , Haitink , Meht a
J. = 56 Walter , Abbad o (speed s u p t o 6 6 later )
J. = 5 8 Bernstein , Previn , Kletzki , Masur (speed s u p t o 6 4 later), Harnoncour t
J. = 60 Barenboi m
J. = 62 Collegiu m Aureu m
J. = 64 Steinberg , Carlo s Kleiber , Maaze l
J. = 66 Solti , Maazel , Boult , Cantelli , Brügge n
J. = 68 Thoma s (slow s down t o 60 later), Karajan , Muti , Leinsdor f
J. = 72 Dohnany i (slow s down late r t o 64) , Gardiner , Szell , Leibowit z
J. = 74 Dorat i
J. = 76 Reine r
<J. = 8 0 Ashkenazy , Norrington
J. = 84 Toscanini , Reine r
in his symphonies —whe n w e see none written , we ought t o assume tha t ther e
was not mean t t o be one . I am als o convinced tha t Beethove n mean t th e sudde n
appearance o f the Tri o t o b e a surprise , undilute d an d unrestraine d b y a ritard,
a temp o dro p tha t should b e suddenl y experienced a t ful l speed .
The othe r proble m encountere d frequentl y in th e Seventh' s Tri o i s that i t is
played to o loud an d wit h to o heavy a sound. The violins ' sustaine d peda l poin t
high A's, marked p, and the lac k of low-register notes (at least until the entranc e of
the second hor n i n m. 181), offer a clue tha t the whole Trio should be played with
a light, airy sound, in a gently swaying tempo. Lik e the fugato section in the secon d
movement, the Trio, except for its powerful ff climax , should be heard a s a quieter ,
serene interlude , somewhat isolate d fro m th e drivin g Scherzo sections ; an d main -
taining a rea l p wil l contribut e immeasurabl y t o tha t effect . Anothe r commo n
abuse is that the swells (-= = — ) in the first four bars are imposed o n the next two
measures as well (not so indicated b y Beethoven, o f course). Among othe r vulgar-
isms visited upon the Trio are the ritar d directly before m.207 (the big D major ff )
and on e jus t before the retur n o f the Scherzo . Her e som e conductor s los e com -
plete contro l o f themselves. Mengelberg , i n hi s performances , fo r example, afte r
having slowed to J = 3 8 around m.193, used to make a considerable accelerand o
with th e secon d hor n i n mm. 199-20 4 and then pul l o n the temp o brake s again
with a hug e ritar d i n mm.205-6 . Another ritar d would com e a t m.221 , slowing
down further afte r that, and coming to a virtual ^standstill in m.235. (All of this is
documented o n hi s 194 0 Concertgebou w recording. ) Furtwängle r eve n outdoe s
Mengelberg by slowing down to J. = 1 7 (J= 51 ) before the return of the Scherzo .
Other majo r self-indulger s i n excessiv e ritards are Strauss , Böhm, Muti , Fricsay ,
and Sanderling .
Instead o f worryin g about a ritar d i n mm.205-206 , wha t conductor s shoul d
concentrate o n i s bringing ou t th e startlin g dissonance s i n mm.201-204 , espe -
cially th e on e i n mm . 20 3-204. Her e a diminishe d chor d i n th e woodwind s
clashes wit h th e stationar y A' s o f th e violin s an d th e secon d horn' s Gf t - A
(See Ex . 14) . The B t o f the secon d clarine t i s the mos t crucia l not e an d need s
to b e brough t out . Instea d i t i s mor e ofte n tha n no t suppressed , quietl y
Ex. 1 4
17. Beethoven' s chambe r music , especiall y the strin g quartets, hi s Lieder, hi s chora l works , and, o f
course, the oper a Fidelio make much mor e us e of ritardandos and accelerandos , and a general flexibil-
ity of tempo tha n do his symphonies. I believe the reaso n i s that in the latte r he was dealing with muc h
more tightl y constructed forms, th e unit y and rhythmi c energy of which h e wante d to preserv e at all
costs. It is also true that while Beethoven's interest in free r tempos , rubatos, more frequen t change s of
tempos, develope d later i n lif e a s his creative vision expande d and becam e mor e elaborate, he neve r
lost his abhorrence of "slighting form fo r the sak e of content," a s Frederick Dorian pu t i t so eloquently
(Frederick Dorian, The History of Music i n Performance (Ne w York, 1942)) .
buried somewher e i n th e chord . Th e fe w conductors wh o brough t thi s daring ,

typically Beethovenia n harmoni c ide a t o the for e ar e Abbado, Harnoncourt , Ca -
sals, Walter , Toscanini , Leinsdorf , Sanderling , Kletzki , Thomas , Steinberg ,
Boult, and Dorati. 18
Before goin g o n t o th e res t o f the movement , I mus t stil l allud e t o a n appar -
ently tin y notationa l detail , whic h is , however , o f strikin g importance , simpl y
because Beethove n use s th e markin g i n questio n i n a ver y specia l way . I a m
referring t o the horns ' f p i n m.222 . Perhap s hor n players , looking merely at their
part, ma y b e partiall y forgiven fo r not understandin g that thi s fp i s not th e usua l
one—although i f they use d thei r ear s an d wer e a bit curiou s they migh t b e le d
to a t least ponde r th e question . Bu t ther e i s no suc h excus e fo r the conducto r
who ha s th e ful l scor e i n sigh t and shoul d i n th e tota l contex t o f the passag e i n
question b e abl e t o understand—an d the n elici t fro m th e performers—th e par -
ticular meanin g an d feelin g o f thi s fp . A s Ex . 1 5 shows , th e horn s ar e
Ex. 1 5
merely a continuatio n o f a D majo r triadi c arpeggio , whic h Beethove n use s t o

both retur n t o th e repea t o f the previou s 34-ba r sectio n an d lea d t o th e 14-ba r
transitional postlud e tha t conclude s th e Trio . Th e horn s obviousl y have the rol e
of continuing an d pickin g up fro m th e trumpet s thi s three-octave arpeggio . This
means i n tur n tha t th e horn s mus t tak e u p th e trumpets ' lin e a s collaboratively,
as efficiently , a s possible i n respec t t o bot h ton e an d dynamic , s o as to giv e th e
impression o f one single descendin g seven-not e line . I f Beethoven ha d intende d
this entir e two-ba r lin e t o b e playe d f o r perhap s wit h a gradua l diminuendo ,
there would b e les s of a problem; bu t sinc e h e decide d upo n th e secon d hal f of
the arpeggi o t o b e playe d p , h e create d a mor e interestin g an d mor e compli -
cated performanc e problem. Th e link-u p between th e trumpet s an d horn s mus t
be accomplishe d wit h grea t car e an d discretion . What typically happens instea d
is that the trumpet s inadvertentl y make a slight diminuendo i n m.221 , while th e
horns afte r tw o beat s rest , burs t i n wit h a n unthinkin g ordinar y fp — in, min d
you, a favorabl y projectin g registe r compare d wit h th e outgoin g trumpets—an d
the lin e i s broke n int o tw o part s rathe r the n on e phras e unit . I t i s therefor e
essential tha t (a ) the trumpet s no t diminuend o a t all ; (b ) that th e horn s pic k u p
exactly a t th e dynami c leve l o f the trumpet s —easily controlle d b y th e ear ; an d
(c) continu e their par t of the phras e i n p , this necessitating playing the first note
in m.22 2 i n a manne r show n i n Ex . 16 . This i s not easy , especiall y a t a fluen t
tempo o f J = 25 2 (o r eve n a t a modifie d slowe r tempo) , bu t i t definitel y ca n
be don e wit h a littl e effor t an d care .
18. Bu t perhap s I a m givin g to o muc h credi t to th e conductor , for i t could als o be tha t i t was some
enterprising, harmony-consciou s clarinetist wh o o n hi s ow n brough t out th e desire d dissonance.
Ex. 1 6
The for m o f th e Seventh' s Scherz o movemen t i s quit e unusua l an d was , as

far a s I know , a wholl y origina l inventio n o f Beethoven's . Followin g u p o n hi s
various experiment s wit h th e Scherz o o f th e Fift h Symphon y a hal f a decad e
earlier, h e expande d th e typica l Minue t o r Scherz o form , a s develope d an d
refined b y th e Mannhei m schoo l a s wel l a s Hayd n an d Mozart , t o a muc h
grander scheme . Th e Scherz o prope r i s her e playe d thre e times , wit h it s own
internal repeats , an d th e Tri o appear s twice, als o with it s own repeats . Afte r th e
third Scherzo , Beethove n teases u s briefly wit h a third Trio, bu t afte r fou r bar s —
with tongu e i n cheek—break s i t off , and wit h the laughte r o f five short incisive
chords ringin g in ou r ears , closes th e movement .
As on e migh t assume , Beethoven wa s not conten t t o repea t th e Scherz o sec -
tions verbatim . H e find s a mos t ingeniou s wa y o f subtl y varyin g the material .
After restartin g th e Scherz o i n it s secon d appearanc e exactl y a s th e firs t time ,
Beethoven suddenl y surprise s u s wit h a subito p wher e previousl y ther e ha d
been a vigorou s f. Fro m tha t poin t o n (m.260 ) th e bul k o f the Scherzo , som e
seventy measures , i s kept a t p o r pp , al l th e previou s contrastin g f's suppressed .
This entir e p sectio n should , on th e fac e o f it, not offe r an y serious performance
or interpretiv e problems . Yet it i s amazing—and discouraging—t o hea r ho w fe w
conductors an d orchestra s see m t o be abl e t o carry out Beethoven' s wishes . Th e
worst offender , onc e again , i s Mengelberg , wh o play s th e entir e p episod e a t
least mf, mor e tha n onc e eve n reachin g f. I n effec t h e ignore s Beethoven's ide a
entirely. (Th e sam e orchestra , th e Concertgebouw , does very well with this same
movement twenty-six years late r unde r Eric h Kleiber' s excellen t direction. What
a differenc e a conductor ca n make! ) The conductor s (beside s Kleiber) who have
realized Beethoven' s ide a perfectl y are Abbado, Szell , Dohnanyi , Kletzki , Feren -
czik, Gardiner, Harnoncourt , Brugge n an d abov e all—spectacularly—Toscanini.
Much les s successfu l o r downrigh t ba d ar e mos t o f th e othe r recorde d per -
formances, mos t notabl y thos e o f Strauss , Celibidache , Casals , Masur , Fricsay ,
Karajan, Solti , Mehta , Maazel , Leibowitz , d e Burgos , and Thoma s (whos e En -
glish Chambe r Orchestr a player s constantly striv e for an d ar e allowe d t o reac h
mf).
The fina l would-b e recapitulation of the Tri o near th e ver y end o f the move -
ment i s eve n mor e mishandle d b y th e majorit y o f conductors tha n i n it s two
previous incarnations . Instea d o f realizin g tha t Beethoven' s jok e consist s pre -
cisely of having the Tri o reappear i n true 'peek-a-boo' fashion for only an instant ,
they manufactur e som e elaborat e dram a (o r melodrama ) t o justif y doin g th e
four bar s a t eve n slowe r tha n snail' s pace . Wrong ! Th e joke' s succes s depend s
entirely o n th e sudde n unexpecte d reappearanc e o f th e sam e alread y twice-
heard Trio , a s i f to elici t i n th e audienc e a groa n o f 'Oh, no t again?!' , whe n o f
course, jus t a s abruptly, Beethoven let s u s kno w he wa s 'just kidding. '
For th e record , onc e agai n Mengelber g i s the wors t offender . Hi s temp o fo r

the las t Trio appearanc e i s J. = 3 0 (some assai meno presto tempo!), whic h h e
follows wit h a lon g fermat a i n th e secon d measure , the n ritard s furthe r dow n
to J . = 23 . Strauss' s ritar d is almost a s bad.
With tha t sa d commentar y o n th e sometim e stat e o f the ar t o f conducting , w e

must tur n t o th e fourt h movemen t o f Beethoven' s Seventh . Ther e ar e lot s o f
performance/ interpretatio n problem s here , bu t I shal l tr y t o restric t mysel f to
the mos t grievou s conductorial misdemeanors . Again , m y emphasi s wil l no t b e
on obviou s generalities, but rathe r on thos e aspect s o f the wor k tha t ar e special ,
unprecedented, original , o r perhap s eve n uniqu e t o Beethove n o r thi s sym -
phony. O f course , nothin g i n Beethoven' s grea t work s i s ever ordinary or unspe -
cial. Ever y measur e o f the Seventh' s Final e bristle s with strikin g ideas, remark-
able solution s t o ne w unprecedente d problems , eye - an d ear-openin g
revelations, ingeniou s revitalization s of ol d formulas—to o man y t o trea t i n thi s
context a s exhaustively as they deserve.
Let m e assum e tha t w e al l kno w b y no w tha t th e Seventh' s Final e i s a mos t
extraordinary exploratio n of the potentia l expressiv e power of rhythm an d meter ,
combined wit h a livel y tempo , t o mov e an d excit e th e huma n spirit . Bu t ho w
does thi s manifes t itself in particular ? Many pieces , sa y by Hayd n o r Mozart -
or even Bac h and Rameau—ha d involve d rhythmically exciting, driving Finales .
What wa s new , wha t wa s s o specia l abou t Beethoven' s Sevent h Finale ? Mor e
than anythin g else , eve n mor e tha n th e shee r scop e an d relentles s energ y an d
dynamic intensit y o f th e movement , wha t give s i t it s emotiona l powe r is , I be -
lieve, th e unsettlin g elemen t o f syncopation , a kin d o f shiftin g th e bea t int o
unexpected places , all of this—the unpredictable , th e unknown—balance d wit h
absolute forma l contro l wit h th e predictable , th e known . Thes e essentia l hall -
marks o f th e movemen t ar e al l enunciate d a t it s ver y opening . A s one follow s
the cours e o f the movemen t on e wil l encounte r agai n an d agai n th e following
principal ideas : (a ) (b )
(c) , and (d ) —al l emphasizin g syncopation
and th e illusor y shifting an d destabilizatio n o f the commo n beat .

Almost all conductors d o well with Beethoven' s temp o o f J = 72 . Only a few
of th e earlie r generation , lik e Furtwängler , Klemperer , Boult , Mengelberg ,
Böhm, an d Eric h Kleiber , tended t o tak e slowe r tempos, bu t no t b y much (th e
slowest wa s Klemperer' s a t j = 58) , whil e som e o f th e presen t maestri , lik e
Muti, Ashkenazy , and Dohnanyi , ten d t o er r o n th e fas t side , agai n b y relatively
little—Muti, for example, J = 78 . But tempo i s not a majo r poin t o f discussion;
other matter s are . Already in th e initia l theme statemen t (mm.5-12 ) th e sf's i n
the cellos , basses , and bras s (Ex.17 ) los e muc h o f thei r punc h an d feelin g o f
syncopation i n mos t recorde d performances , for th e reaso n tha t th e player s d o
not fee l th e weigh t and puls e o f the downbeat s i n eac h measur e sufficientl y t o
Ex. 1 7
etc.
act a s the counterpois e t o th e second-bea t sfs. Musician s an d conductor s some -

times ten d t o forge t tha t a syncopatio n ca n onl y soun d syncopate d i f i t i s i n
reaction t o a strongl y fel t beat . Whe n a normall y weak bea t i s stressed , tha t
stressing ca n onl y b e perceive d a s suc h whe n th e normall y strong bea t i s also
felt i n al l it s full strengt h and weight ; otherwise the stresse d weak beat ha s noth -
ing t o b e overstresse d agains t an d i s likely to soun d a s a n ordinar y strong beat .
This i s what happen s whe n th e aforementione d instrument s pla y mm.5-1 2 a s
in Ex . 18 , tha t is , with a quic k deca y o f the soun d t o som e substantiall y lesser
Ex. 1 8
dynamic, thereb y turnin g th e stron g firs t bea t int o a wea k beat . Wit h tha t al l
sense o f syncopatio n i s gone an d th e stron g bea t ha s simpl y shifte d ove r t o th e
second beat .
In orde r for Beethoven's reiterate d syncopation s to work , it i s necessary for th e
players t o d o tw o things : (1 ) allo w n o diminuend o fro m th e s f secon d bea t t o
the nex t 2/ 4 downbeat , i n othe r word s t o maintai n th e basi c ff , th e s f bein g
merely a mor e pronounced , mor e aggressiv e attack o n to p o f the ff ; (2 ) stop th e
note o n th e first beat, althoug h tied , wit h a n audible , perceptible , an d rhythmi -
cally precis e release—no t som e vagu e indiscernibl e disappearanc e o f the note .
The onl y way I ca n thin k of notating thi s i s as follows :
etc. Th e sustainin g and clea r releas e
of the soun d ar e mor e difficul t t o achieve whe n bot h th e stresse d weak beat an d
the stron g first beat ar e the sam e pitch . When th e pitc h change s o n th e releas e
note, a s in mm . 11-12 o r mm. 13-2019 i n th e cello s an d basses , it automatically
becomes mor e audibl e —as listening to any recording of this passage will attest. 20
19. Th e ba r count I have used i n the Final e i s based o n the principl e that first and secon d endings in
the many repeats in this movement are designated by the same measure number. Thus the first ending
is m.!2a, the secon d endin g is m.l2b. The nex t phrase thus starts with m.13, not m.14. The first and
second endings at the end of the exposition ar e designated mm . 122a-26a and mm.l22b-26b.
20. Thi s i s a proble m encountere d i n a wid e rang e o f musica l repertory . I cit e onl y a ver y fe w
examples: Beethove n Leonore Overtur e N " 3 , strings , mm.444-51 ; Tchaikovsk y Sixt h Symphony ,
third movemen t mm.265-69 , 301-308 ; Brahm s Fourth Symphony , third movemen t mrn.11-15 .
But Beethoven i n many place s i n the Final e i s not content to have one synco -
pation pe r measure . I n mm.5-19 and man y othe r subsequen t passage s h e super -
imposes no t onl y anothe r syncopatio n bu t anothe r order o f syncopation. Havin g
already include d syncopatio n a t the quarter-not e level , Beethove n add s syncopa-
tion a t the eighth-not e leve l as well (i n the woodwinds) . This result s in a doubl e
syncopation, th e secon d on e bein g a syncopatio n withi n an d agains t th e other .
/ • - j ?
In simplifie d notation th e resul t i s etc.
Here too , th e woodwind s mus t produc e clea r audibl e release s on thei r tied-ove r
notes, especiall y when pitche s sta y the sam e (a s in th e flut e part s i n mm.5-12) .
Unfortunately, hardl y anybody seems to be awar e of this most extraordinar y effect
of double two-leve l syncopation ; fo r o n al l bu t a fe w recordings (Carlo s Kleiber ,
Harnoncourt, Cantelli , Bernstein , Kletzki , Jochum, Leinsdorf , Dorati) the wood -
winds are eithe r virtually or totally inaudible. S o much for respect o f Beethoven' s
wonderful idea !
Equally wonderfu l ar e Beethoven' s viol a part s i n thi s movement—viol a
parts which , however , ar e hardl y eve r hear d becaus e the y ar e un - o r under -
appreciated b y conductor s (wh o ar e conductin g th e melod y anyway , as i f tha t
were necessary) , o r becaus e timpan i parts , playe d to o loudly , drow n ou t wha t
the generall y very hard-working violas are playing . Loo k a t th e wonderfu l viola
lines, th e exquisit e not e choices , i n passage s lik e mm.5-16 and mm . 155-62.
I am , afte r som e fifty years of listening t o th e Beethove n Seventh , prett y tired
of hearin g onl y th e hig h horn s i n mm.26-29 . As a first horn mysel f years ago I
remember ho w muc h I enjoye d playing those wonderfu l high A horn parts , bu t
I als o recall realizin g tha t I was in thos e fou r measure s par t o f a ten-piece wind
choir. I t i s tiresome t o hea r i n recordin g afte r recordin g ver y littl e o r n o wood -
winds, tha t i s until th e firs t flut e pop s ou t o n it s high A in m.28 . Similarly , it is
tiresome i n recordin g afte r recordin g t o hea r onl y first violins—no second s an d
violas—in mm.33—36 .
Articulation problems , simila r to thos e i n th e Seventh' s firs t movement , aris e
in muc h o f th e Finale . Beethove n i s absolutel y consequen t an d logica l abou t
differentiating betwee n an d Ye t these phrasin g distinctions
are fo r th e mos t par t ignored , conductor s makin g arbitrar y choices whic h ar e
often th e exac t opposite o f what Beethoven notated . Measure s 53-6 2 shoul d no t
be playe d (especiall y with a revers e bowing) , a s on e i s force d t o
hear o n th e vas t majority o f recordings. Beethoven's intentio n her e i s to pla y on
the contras t betwee n th e short , incisiv e staccato wind s and timpan i o n th e on e
hand an d th e mor e sustaine d string s on th e other .
Two notationa l error s are embedde d i n th e conventionall y used parts , one o f
them i s wron g i n th e scor e a s well . I n m.6 3 th e firs t violins ' quarter-not e Ft t
should obviousl y b e a n eighth-not e (a s i t i s i n Beethoven' s autograph) . All th e
winds an d remainin g string s hav e a n eighth-not e an d i t i s someho w ludicrous
and bizarr e for conductors t o expres s their fidelity to th e scor e i n th e on e plac e

where ther e i s an obviou s error , havin g i n th e meantim e pai d ver y littl e atten -
tion t o a thousan d othe r Beethove n markings . A glanc e a t m.284 , th e corres -
ponding plac e i n th e recapitulation , wher e th e notatio n i s correct , migh t hav e
been useful . I t i s truly astonishing t o m e tha t intelligen t world-famou s conduc -
tors—like Karajan , Jochum , Abbado , Kubelik , Casals , Reiner, Dorati, and Gardi -
ner—insist o n o r allow the lon g quarter-not e Ft. 21 (On e migh t als o then as k the
question wh y not mak e th e D i n m.28 4 lon g a s well?)
The othe r erro r i s i n th e secon d hor n par t i n mm.288-8 9 i n whic h
corresponding t o th e simila r part i n th e bassoo n
in mm.68-69 , i s missing. Bu t i t i s an erro r which wa s discovered decade s ago 22

and i s nowadays almost alway s played correctly. Some o f the conductor s o f today
who don' t see m t o kno w abou t th e missin g second hor n par t ar e Maazel , Har -
noncourt, an d th e Collegiu m Aureum .
Caution mus t b e use d i n mm.64-7 4 an d al l simila r places t o no t le t Beetho -
ven's deteriorat e to a s
it doe s i n a numbe r o f recordings , suc h a s Cantelli's , an d th e Collegiu m

Aureum's.
A fierce balance proble m arise s in mm . 10 5-22 (an d th e correspondin g place ,
mm.329-44), onc e agai n involvin g timpani parts . As Ex. 1 9 shows, the bas s and
timpani part s criss-cros s continually. The timpani' s tw o notes, A and E , no t onl y
Ex. 1 9
21. I n Fricsay' s recording wit h th e Berli n Philharmonic , a performanc e ruine d t o a larg e exten t by
a constantl y excessivel y loud an d boomin g timpani , on e canno t hea r th e violins ' Ft t (o r fo r tha t
matter an y o f th e orchestra ) a t all , a s th e timpanis t release s a ffff canno n sho t here , th e like s o f
which I hav e neve r hear d o n recordings .
A close contende r fo r the recordin g most ruine d by a timpani player is Barenboim's wit h th e sam e
orchestra—probably th e sam e timpanist .
22. Thes e hor n note s ar e missin g fro m som e o f th e earlie r conductors ' recordings , fo r exampl e
Stokowski's 192 8 Philadelphia , Mengelberg's Concertgebouw , Ansermet' s Suiss e Romande , Walter' s
Columbia Symphony , Furtwängler' s Berli n Philharmonic , an d Cantelli' s NB C Symphon y perfor -
mances. I n Klemperer' s 1950 s Philharmoni a recordin g th e maestro , havin g b y then learne d o f th e
mistake i n th e hor n part , attempts t o correc t it , bu t fixe s i t incorrectly , th e tw o missin g hor n note s
now coming one ba r too late which, when dutifull y repeate d two more times, causes the elimination
of the two-hor n octave in mm.293—94 .
do no t correspon d a t an y tim e t o th e bas s note s bu t serv e differen t harmoni c

functions i n th e entir e chor d progression : i n mm.105-106 , 108 , 11 0 the timpa -
ni's A's are th e sixt h i n a C diminishe d chord ; i n mm . 107, 109 , 11 1 the E' s ar e
the thir d i n a C I mino r chord ; i n m.11 2 th e A i s th e thir d i n a n Fi t minor
chord; i n m.11 3 th e E i s the thir d i n a C I mino r 6/ 4 chord, an d s o on. Clearly ,
if the timpan i plays its fullest ff, followe d b y seven cannonading sfs, i t will eithe r
overpower o r a t leas t obscur e th e all-importan t bas s line , thu s als o obscurin g
Beethoven's remarkabl e harmoni c progressio n here . Ho w tremendou s thi s pas -
sage can soun d whe n th e timpanis t blends int o th e harmoni c fabric , rathe r than
performing a 'timpan i concerto, ' ca n b e hear d abov e al l o n Dorati' s excellen t
London Symphon y recording, bu t als o on Thomas's, Steinberg's, an d Toscanini' s
(New Yor k Philharmonic ) recordings . Ho w horrendou s thi s passag e ca n soun d
can b e sample d o n th e recording s of Barenboim, Walter, an d Mengelberg .
It i s a seriou s misrepresentatio n o f Beethoven' s scor e t o slo w th e temp o a t
m.130 o r t o stretc h th e hel d note s her e wit h fermatas , as s o man y conductor s
do. Can the y no t realiz e that, afte r som e 28 0 measures(l) (countin g th e repeats)
of mor e o r les s relentless, fas t rhythmi c activity , mostly sixteenth-notes , Beetho -
ven ha s i n mm. 130-3 3 already slowed dow n the motio n o f the musi c b y a facto r
of twelve , or a t leas t six ? Additiona l slowing down , stretchin g an d distortin g th e
tempo, i s totall y unnecessar y an d unwanted . Beethove n coul d certainl y hav e
put a fermat a ove r m.13 1 an d m.13 3 i f that wa s what h e wished . Bi g offender s
in thi s regar d ar e Furtwängler , Weingartner , Klemperer , Reiner , Mengelberg ,
Barenboim, Thomas , Coli n Davis , Ashkenazy , Mehta, an d Harnoncourt , wit h
the wors t interpretation s comin g fro m Stokowsk i (hug e fermata s an d vulga r
slides) and Abbad o (wh o adds a whole measur e a t m.131 an d m.139) , drastically
recomposing Beethoven' s closel y structured music . Strauss , who ofte n spok e ou t
against this particula r type of tempo distortion , i s guilty of it himself in hi s 192 6
Berlin recording . Anyon e intereste d i n savorin g ho w thi s passag e ca n soun d
when playe d i n temp o shoul d hea r any of the following : th e tw o Kleibers (fathe r
and son) , Kubelik , Casals, Masur , Böhm , Dohnanyi, Solti, Steinberg, and , above
all, Toscanin i an d Dorati . Karajan' s 'interpretation ' i s perhaps th e mos t curiou s
and pervers e o f al l i n tha t h e speed s ahea d i n m.12 7 beyon d hi s alread y
fast basi c temp o o f « J = 76 , bu t the n a s irrationall y suddenly slow s dow n a t
m.138.
The developmen t sectio n o f the Final e i s one o f Beethoven's mos t awesom e
creations, but—again , alas —rarely given it s full du e i n performance . The reade r
may recal l tha t I referre d earlie r t o wha t I calle d Beethoven' s doubl e syncopa -
tions a t the beginnin g o f the movement . They return now , no t only in th e 'false '
recapitulations i n mm . 127, 13 4 an d 147 , bu t the y pla y a n importan t develop -
mental rol e beginnin g a t m.163 , wher e Beethove n onc e again , a s i s hi s wont ,
turns th e origina l passag e literall y upsid e down . Th e bas s lin e o f mm . 5-12 i s
now i n effec t pu t hig h u p (fou r octave s higher ) i n th e firs t violins , whil e th e
erstwhile hig h woodwinds ' sfs ar e no w droppe d dow n t o th e cello s an d basse s
(see Ex . 20) . Even mor e ingenious—an d startlin g to discover—i s tha t th e lowe r
Ex. 2 0
part i s a rhythmicall y exac t retrograd e o f th e uppe r par t i s th e exac t

reverse o f Incidentally , the sf s i n th e cello s an d basse s in mm . 163-64
must b e continue d al l the wa y through m.195 . The y wer e inadvertentl y left ou t
by Beethove n o r assumed i n contex t t o b e continued .
Two o f th e fou r elementar y themati c cell s I pointe d ou t a t th e beginnin g o f
the discussio n of the Final e an d ar e her e
given a developmental workout : they are bot h o f equal importance , thematicall y

interlocked a s one ca n se e no t onl y i n th e expositio n bu t her e i n th e develop -
ment section . Ye t conductor afte r conducto r demote s th e figur e t o a sec -
ondary statu s i n mm . 167-74 and , eve n beyon d that , i n th e firs t violin s i n
mm. 175-96. Thi s i s agai n a seriou s misinterpretatio n fo r th e followin g obvi-
ous —on e woul d think—reasons . Tha t three-not e unsyncopate d figure , alon g
with th e secon d violi n an d viol a figurations , i s the onl y stabilizing metric ele -
ment—the rhythmi c ancho r a s i t were—agains t an d fro m whic h th e off-bea t sf
syncopations ca n rebound . Second , i t i s als o a n importan t harmoni c determi -
nant (agai n i n conjunctio n wit h th e secon d violin s and violas ) i n mm . 163-70,
clearly definin g th e fou r tonalitie s i n progressio n here : C — F - Bl > - C . Thi s
harmonic functio n becomes eve n mor e pronounce d som e measure s later where
the reiterate d D' s o f th e firs t violin s (alon g wit h th e trumpets ) ar e th e singl e
stabilizing elemen t agains t the constantl y and rapidl y shifting harmoni c stations.
The figure' s importanc e increase s even mor e whe n i t moves t o the pitc h E , th e
dominant o f the toni c key , presaging th e arriva l o f the recapitulatio n (whic h is,
however, avoide d b y a deceptiv e cadence) . Beyon d that , a s Ex . 2 1 shows , th e
Ex. 2 1
repeated insisten t E' s remain a constant, whil e the intervalli c gap between the m
and th e graduall y rising 'bass line ' i s diminished t o a mino r second , convergin g
finally in th e semiton e (Dt/E ) clashe s i n mm . 194-98. Th e three-not e figure' s
primacy i s further confirme d i n a quasi-recapitulatio n (lik e a fain t ech o o f th e
movement's opening ) i n mm.200-203 , i n th e remot e evasiv e ke y o f F major .
The rea l recapitulatio n finall y arrive s i n m.22 2 afte r man y fals e foretokens , de-
tours, and delays . All that I have discusse d regarding th e expositio n should obvi-
ously apply here a s well.
When a recapitulatio n ha s ru n it s course, mos t composer s woul d hav e gon e
directly t o a coda o f some kind. Bu t Beethoven , as we have alread y see n i n th e
firs movemen t o f the Fift h Symphony , i s always intent o n extendin g an d devel -
opir ? his material s further, wha t we hav e calle d a Schlußdurchführing. Accord -
ingly i n m.35 1 anothe r deceptiv e retur n t o th e openin g o f th e movemen t i s
quickly diverte d int o a gran d elaboratio n o f what constitute s th e secon d subject
of the movement , originall y heard i n m . 37-52. Whereas i n it s initial appearanc e
Beethoven holds to the toni c ke y and it s relative minor (F t minor) , here Beetho -
ven move s to B minor an d fro m tha t somewhat remote tona l positio n unleashe s
an extraordinar y spinning ou t o f th e secon d subject' s elements , includin g th e
five-note figur e cite d a t th e beginnin g a s on e o f th e fou r elementar y motivi c
cells (p.269 , illus . c) . Thes e whirlin g fragment s ar e se t agains t a descendin g
bass lin e —I cal l i t 'th e gran d descent ' —of th e mos t extraordinar y boldness an d
originality. Nothing lik e it was heard i n musi c agai n until hal f a centur y later i n
some o f Wagner's lat e operas , where simila r chromatic progression s occasionally
occur.
Beethoven's 'gran d descent ' starts in th e toni c key of A (m. 374)—see Ex . 2 2 —
and move s throug h som e fift y (! ) harmoni c position s t o th e dominan t E , bu t
Ex. 2 1
then oscillate s bac k an d fort h betwee n E an d D t fo r anothe r twenty bars , th e

Dl's grindin g hard agains t the prevailin g tonic/dominant harmonies . The entir e
passage i s marked wit h remindin g f s an d certainl y does no t displa y even a hin t
of an y diminuendo . Ye t great number s o f conductor s mak e varyin g degree s o f
decrescendo aroun d m.37 6 i n orde r to build again , some twent y bars later, to a
huge f f clima x (a t m.415) . Thi s i s no t onl y on e o f th e mos t obviou s self -
indulgent, audience-panderin g ploys , bu t constitute s a particularl y gross distor-
tion o f one o f Beethoven's grandes t inspirations.
May i t also be sai d that m.41 5 i s not the 'arriva l point' , the 'climacti c release '
that s o man y conductor s mak e o f this , becaus e the y happe n t o se e a f f there ,
forgetting tha t th e musi c ha s been—o r i s suppose d t o hav e been — ff al l along .
The rea l climacti c pea k i s in m.437 . Bu t unfortunatel y with too man y conduc -
tors, who , seein g m.41 5 a s th e pea k an d the n hav e nothin g mor e t o give , th e
glorious clima x at m.43 7 become s a n anti-climax . The onl y appropriate wa y of
rendering thi s magnificen t passag e i s to maintain , especiall y i n th e cello s an d
basses, the utmos t intensit y throughout, never lettin g u p fo r even a split-second.
In tha t wa y i t become s a n overwhelmin g experience . A numbe r o f recording s
achieve this , mos t notabl y an d magnificentl y Toscanini's, Dorati's , Bernstein's ,
Masur's, Jochum's , Abbado's, Gardiner's , and Carlo s Keiber's.
A fina l cautio n abou t th e timpan i part : a t mm.415-1 8 th e cello s an d basse s
keep grindin g awa y o n thei r lo w E/D t peda l poin t (an d agai n fiv e bar s later ,
mm.423-26). These las t measure s o f the 'gran d descent ' mus t no t b e drowne d
out b y the timpani , something tha t happens, unfortunately, on a t least two-thirds
of the recording s sampled .
There remai n onl y som e lesse r 'housekeeping ' detail s to b e mentioned . Th e
descending violi n sixteenth-note passages , mm.427-36, must be played i n a con -
tinuous unrelentin g ff , no t wit h accents o r ffmp's o n th e hea d not e o f every two-
bar phrase , a s on e usuall y hear s here . Also , a s tumultuou s a s thes e climacti c
moments o f the Final e are—Beethove n ha s demanded a continuous / f from th e
orchestra eve r sinc e m.329 , som e 10 8 measures i n all , on e an d a hal f minutes
in duration—som e energy and projectio n must b e kept i n reserve to achieve th e
triple fort e i n m.437 . Beethove n use d thi s dynami c ver y sparingl y in hi s sym-
phonies; thus , whe n i t i s used, i t i s meant t o produc e a ver y special , dramatic,
all-shattering, towerin g climax. Man y conductor s an d orchestra s give thei r al l
much to o earl y and hav e nothing left fo r the fff. I n additio n the secon d trumpe t
must b e urge d t o pla y a ver y stron g low D i n mm.439-4 0 t o for m a balance d
triad wit h th e othe r trumpe t an d th e horn s Som e conductor s hav e at-
tempted t o 'improve ' an d updat e Beethoven' s orchestratio n b y putting th e sec -

ond trumpet' s D , a n octav e higher ; or , worse , the secon d trumpet' s G , tw o bars
earlier, an octav e lower. Beethoven coul d hav e mad e th e forme r choic e himself,
but didn't ; th e latte r h e coul d no t hav e made , bu t h e kne w tha t ver y wel l an d
arranged hi s voice leading accordingly, taking that 'limitation ' int o ful l consider -
ation—with th e resul t w e no w se e i n hi s score . Indeed , i t i s that secon d trum -
pet's fantasti c leap—down a n octav e an d a fourth—whic h whe n wel l projected
adds s o immeasurably to th e overpowerin g effect o f this climax.
In mm.441-44 , I have neve r hear d th e wind s o f the orchestr a pla y those fou r
half-notes full y sustained . One invariabl y hears one o r the othe r o f the followin g
interpretations: o r
or
, a s i f s f mean s shortenin g th e duratio n

of the applicabl e note. 23
We com e no w to th e fina l fiftee n measure s o f the movement . A s in mm.25 -
28 mentione d earlier , her e too , i n mm.462-68 , I a m s o tired o f hearing i n th e
vast majorit y o f performance s onl y th e tw o horn s o r eve n wors e onl y th e firs t
trumpet; o r alternativel y only th e timpani . Onc e agai n ther e i s an ensembl e o f
ten wind s (twelv e countin g th e trumpets ) tha t shoul d b e hear d a s a unit , a s a
balanced ensemble . Eve n mor e importan t i s that th e violin s should no t b e cov -
ered here , fo r they have , afte r all , the mos t importan t thematic/motivi c materia l
of the entir e movement , tha t sixteenth-not e cel l (c ) that I cited a t the beginnin g
of the movement . O n al l but hal f a doze n recording s th e violin s are quit e inau -
dible—and on e migh t a s well jus t forge t abou t th e descendin g fourth s an d fifths
23. Onl y Celibidach e plays these duration s correctly. On e o f the mos t grievou s sins committed her e
by any conductor i s the recomposin g o f the hor n part s by Mengelberg i n mm.441-44 (and 457-60) .
Instead o f Beethoven' s wonderfu l an d unusua l
he demand s th e ver y ordinar y cliché, use d i n man y 'hor n fifths' situations
. Firs t o f all , Beethove n coul d hav e writte n thos e
'horn fifths'—the y wer e availabl e on th e A-horn s o f the day—an d th e fac t tha t h e chos e no t t o d o
so ough t t o b e reaso n enoug h no t t o tampe r wit h o r rewrit e the passage . Second , Mengelber g di d
not see m t o kno w tha t accordin g t o th e basi c rule s o f classi c voice leadin g an d counterpoin t i n a
first inversion harmony , the third , alread y strongl y represented i n th e bass , shoul d no t b e double d
in th e uppe r structur e o f th e chord . I f Beethove n ha d no t learne d tha t rul e i n hi s youth , h e i s
certainly likel y t o hav e gotten i t fro m Albrechtsberge r an d Salicri . I t wa s incumben t upo n Mengel -
berg no t t o brea k that rule, especially in a wor k b y th e master , Beethoven.
of th e cello s an d basses . Thes e player s migh t a s wel l hav e gon e hom e befor e
the en d o f the recordin g session.
There ar e tw o perversions—'chea p tricks ' i s perhap s a mor e appropriat e
term—that many conductors indulg e i n towards the en d o f the Seventh' s Finale .
One i s an acceleratio n of the tempo , alway s a sure-fire wa y to bring an audienc e
to it s feet shoutin g bravos ; the othe r i s to le t th e timpan i tak e ove r completel y
with a n enormou s fina l crescendo , especially in the las t five bars. Previn's timpa-
nist, fo r example, 'kills ' th e res t of the orchestra— a technica l recordin g triumph
to th e hi-finatics , bu t artisticall y an offens e an d a gros s corruption . Th e last -
minute speedin g up—som e conductor s star t gunnin g th e temp o a s earl y a s
m.427 (Fricsay , Dohnanyi) —is, a s I say, the ultimat e distortio n an d cheapenin g
of Beethoven' s monumenta l Final e ending . Th e conductor s wh o seeme d th e
least abl e t o resis t this childis h temptatio n ar e Anserme t an d Harnoncour t (u p
to J = 80) ; Furtwängle r (u p t o J = 84) ; Dohnany i (u p t o J = 86) ; eve n
Kletzki, generall y a tasteful , discipline d conductor (u p t o J = 88) ; Stokowski
(up t o J = 92) ; and Barenboim (u p to J = 96) .
Any reader who would like to hear ho w fantastic th e Finale's climacti c endin g
can sound , withou t an y o f the abov e exhibitionisti c shenanigans, nee d onl y lis-
ten t o the recording s of Carlos Kleiber , Gardiner, Masur , Dorat i (Londo n Sym -
phony), Reiner , an d Toscanin i (Ne w Yor k Philharmonic) . Th e last-named' s re -
cording o f th e Seventh , excep t fo r a fe w mino r foible s her e an d there , i s a
remarkable document , especiall y fo r it s tim e (1936) ; an d it s las t movement ,
especially it s ending, i s an absolut e triump h o f a performance.
Brahms: First Symphony
If Beethove n an d th e bes t composer s o f hi s tim e wer e remarkabl y precise an d

careful i n th e notatio n o f thei r musica l creations , Brahm s wa s eve n mor e ex -
plicit, mor e detaile d an d exacting , i f only fo r th e reaso n tha t musica l notatio n
in genera l b y th e secon d hal f o f th e 19t h centur y ha d becom e mor e explicit ,
more refine d an d sophisticated . This was inevitable a s the increasingl y comple x
demands o f music require d additiona l notationa l device s an d terminology . Also,
composers b y an d larg e ha d fo r som e tim e fel t th e nee d t o protec t themselve s
against the vagarie s and indulgence s o f their interpreters , an d ha d invente d nota -
tional technique s wit h whic h the y expecte d t o achiev e tha t goal .
Brahms wa s no t onl y a meticulou s worker , constantl y self-critica l an d self -
examining, bu t als o a t hear t a stric t classicist . For al l th e ne w complexit y an d
modernity of his musical language, especiall y in hi s symphonies, Brahms' s music
develops fro m th e classica l lineage an d indee d mor e ofte n tha n no t adhere s t o
a basicall y classical conception—precise , succinct , clea r i n for m an d continuity .
The fac t tha t w e don't ofte n hea r Brahm s played that wa y is unfortunate an d is ,
of course , no t Brahms' s fault . Th e opinio n hel d i n man y quarter s that Brahms' s
music i s heav y and turgid , rathe r square , an d eve n 'academic, ' exist s primarily
because mos t performances o f hi s musi c ar e 'heavy ' an d 'turgid, ' emotionall y
overladen, indulgen t i n Romanti c exaggeration s and distortion s which d o sever e
damage t o the music .
The iron y i n al l thi s i s tha t i t too k musicians , orchestras , conductor s man y
decades t o lear n ho w to pla y Brahms's symphonie s with technical eas e an d con -
trol— Brahms's musi c i s still, even today , amon g th e mos t difficul t o f the entir e
19th-century repertory , especially i n regar d t o harmoni c understanding , intona -
tion, an d certai n particularl y Brahmsian rhythmic/metri c problems . But , onc e
fully accepte d int o th e repertory , hi s orchestra l music was then artisticall y suffo -
cated b y a n exces s of misinterpretation s and blatan t disregar d o f hi s score s an d
their wonderfull y explici t notations . Very fe w early 20th-centur y conductors rec -
279
ognized o r appreciate d th e classica l clarit y and balanc e i n Brahms' s music , it s

absolute integrit y and coherenc e o f musica l construction . Tw o rar e exception s
were Toscanin i an d Weingartner , wh o intuitivel y cut throug h al l th e previously
acquired interpretationa l encrustation s t o th e rea l hear t an d essenc e o f the mu -
sic a s envisione d i n th e score. Becaus e Toscanin i wa s mor e celebrate d fo r hi s
volatile Beethove n interpretation s an d hi s devotio n t o bot h Wagne r an d Verdi ,
his servic e t o Brahm s wen t virtuall y unrecognized an d is , I think , eve n toda y
generally littl e appreciated . Late r remarkabl e Brahm s conductors , mor e o r les s
in th e Toscanin i lineag e —Reiner, Haitink , Suitner , Skrowaczewski , Carlo s
Kleiber—are fin e representative s of how an inspired , imaginative 'interpretation'
can b e develope d fro m a n exactin g readin g o f th e score . On e woul d certainly
not conside r Stokowsk i a conducto r i n th e Toscanin i mold , give n t o textua l
fidelity an d a n innat e respec t fo r the composer' s notations . Bu t among th e hun -
dreds of recordings Stokowsk i made i n a long career , man y of which wer e wildly
revisionist an d disrespectfu l o f th e composer' s intentions , hi s ver y earl y (1927)
recording o f th e Brahm s First , apar t fro m on e o r tw o eccentri c aberrations ,
stands ou t a s a paragon o f musical sensibility and taste . Stokowsk i seems t o have
had a special affinit y an d lov e for this work , and hi s intelligent, respectful, lovin g
approach, expresse d throug h th e sumptuou s sound s onl y h e coul d elici t fro m
the Philadelphi a Orchestra , make s hi s recordin g a very special an d muc h t o b e
admired document .
How explici t Brahm s could b e i n hi s notation— a fe w exceptional anomalie s
and ambiguitie s notwithstanding—w e wil l learn full y t o appreciat e i n th e ensu -
ing perusa l o f the Firs t Symphon y and a n analysi s of its many recordings . Once
again, this traversal of the wor k will emphasize thos e aspect s that ar e mos t perti-
nent t o th e conducto r an d t o achievin g a faithful , relevant , an d inspire d
performance-realization.
The symphon y open s wit h on e o f th e grandest , mos t profoundl y movin g an d

overwhelming passage s in al l th e symphoni c literature . But lik e almos t al l grea t
moments i n music , thi s openin g contain s hidde n performanc e problem s an d
interpretational questions . I t also contain s wha t man y conside r a terminological
ambiguity: th e sol e temp o indicatio n o f u n poco sostenuto. I t i s indee d on e o f
the rare r tempo designations , havin g been use d (t o my knowledge) onl y a hand -
ful o f time s previously , mos t notabl y i n th e openin g o f Beethoven' s Sevent h
Symphony (bu t ther e backe d u p b y a metronom e marking) . The ter m a s such
has, o f course , n o explici t temp o denotation ; i t simpl y mean s "somewha t sus -
tained" (literally , a little sustained ) bu t offer s n o indicatio n a s to which temp o is
to b e playe d i n a sustaine d manner . Tha t Brahm s wa s avers e t o usin g metro -
nome indication s is, of course, wel l known , an d i n thi s cas e tha t doe s leav e th e
tempo questio n quit e ope n t o speculation .
Many conductor s hav e simpl y assume d tha t sostenuto her e mean s somethin g
slow, bu t agai n withou t an y specifi c agreemen t o n ho w slow . An d indee d re -
corded performance s show tha t th e temp o variance s can ru n al l th e wa y fro m
Jl = 7 0 (Abbado ) t o . h = 7 2 (Klemperer , Furtwängler ) t o Jl = 10 0 (Szell,
BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y 28 1
Toscanini), an d lately , Norringto n J l = 11 4 (J . = 38) . I t seem s t o hav e oc -

curred t o ver y fe w conductor s tha t Brahm s ma y hav e intende d a ver y specific
metrical relationship—wha t ar e nowaday s calle d "metri c modulations"—be -
tween th e introductio n an d th e bod y o f the Allegro, namely , th e eight h o f th e
opening 6/ 8 equalin g the dotte d quarte r i n th e Allegro (i.e.<— e> = J.—>) . Wha t
lends credenc e t o suc h a notio n i s the fac t that , a s a resul t o f Brahms' s studies
of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven , h e wa s all his lif e a n arden t devotee o f classi-
cal symmetr y an d purit y o f form. Precis e proportiona l temp o relationship s be -
tween slowe r introductions, an d th e mai n allegros abound i n th e classica l litera-
ture, e.g . Haydn' s Symphonie s No.10 1 an d No.103 , Mozart' s Linz Symphon y
(No.36), Beethoven' s Firs t an d Fourth) , t o provid e bu t a fe w o f many , man y
examples. W e als o kno w tha t th e introductio n o f Brahms' s Firs t wa s a n after -
thought, afte r h e ha d alread y composed mos t o f the Allegro, undoubtedl y the n
instinctively relatin g th e tw o tempos . Fo r al l thes e reason s i t i s most likely—fo r
me i t is a given—that Brahms intended th e temp o o f the openin g t o correspon d
in som e direc t relationshi p to the Allegro at m.38. 1
This concept stil l does not , o f course, tel l u s which temp o i s to be taken , bu t
I thin k i t help s u s t o establis h a t leas t a rang e withi n whic h th e tw o tempo s
can —in Brun o Walter's phrase—"allo w fo r technical exactness, " a s wel l a s per-
mitting "th e musica l meanin g an d th e emotiona l significance " of the musi c t o
project "t o bes t effec t . " To o fas t a n allegro an d th e musi c i s draine d o f it s
meaning an d ma y even lea d t o 'technical inexactness ' and becom e mor e o r less
unplayable. B y th e sam e token , to o slo w an d ponderou s a n openin g 6/ 8 ca n
produce a similarl y negativ e effect , drainin g i t o f it s "emotiona l significance "
and perhap s eve n makin g the lon g lin e o f the first eight measure s virtuall y 'un -
sustainable.' A tempo o f aroun d 92 , giv e o r tak e a fe w points , seem s t o m e t o
satisfy mos t happil y bot h sections : a bright , lively , energetic allegro and a not -
too-ponderous, overl y notey openin g 6/8. A s for the latter , le t u s remember tha t
Brahms include s th e wor d "poco " i n u n poco sostenuto. Imagin e tha t h e ha d
written molió sostenuto; how differen t i n feelin g the openin g woul d be . Bu t th e
point is that h e wrot e poco and a s performers we ought t o respec t that . (Bu t see
pp. 316-1 7 for a quit e differen t alternativ e t o this temp o question. )
But wh y did Brahm s no t giv e a prope r temp o designation , suc h a s andante
or allegro? We shall probabl y never know the answe r to tha t question , give n that
the autograp h t o th e symphony' s first movement appear s t o b e irrevocabl y lost.
It migh t hav e containe d som e indication , som e clue , som e firs t an d secon d
thoughts, som e notationa l alteration s an d changes—thes e are often mor e reveal -
ing in man y o f Brahms' s autograph s than th e fina l editoria l determinations—a s
to th e composer' s decisiona l proces s i n withholdin g a specifi c temp o marking . I
can onl y conjectur e tha t Brahms , havin g writte n th e mai n Allegro an d havin g
1. I t i s als o a give n fo r severa l othe r conductors , mos t notabl y Weingartner , Toscanini , Karajan ,
Szell, as well as for David Epstein, conductor-composer theorist, who i n hi s invaluabl e "Brahm s an d
the Mechanism s o f Motion" containe d i n Brahms Studies (Oxford , 1986 ) ha s show n ho w no t onl y
the introductio n an d bod y o f th e firs t movemen t bu t al l fou r movement s an d thei r subdivisions
can—and accordin g t o him should— relate metronomicall y (pp. 212-13) .
arrived a t (o r already composed) th e meno allegro coda, fel t tha t th e movemen t

needed a n introduction , a s a counterbalanc e t o th e coda— a forma l framing, a s
it were , o f th e bod y o f th e movement—bu t i n hi s excitemen t and , fo r al l w e
know som e haste , forgo t t o specif y a temp o markin g on th e assumptio n tha t i t
would b e clea r t o everyon e tha t hi s retroactiv e poco sostenuto woul d impl y a
slightly more sustaine d versio n of the mai n allegro. If we assume tha t a s a possi -
ble explanatio n an d hypothesis , i t would mea n tha t th e temp o o f the introduc -
tion's eighth-note s wer e mean t t o b e onl y slightl y slower tha n thos e o f the Alle-
gro, meaning i n turn tha t th e introductor y 6/8 would b e fel t i n 'two', not i n 'six. '
But wha t abou t th e ter m sostenuto itself ? Wha t doe s Brahm s mean? Doe s i t
connote onl y th e intende d feelin g and characte r o f the music , o r doe s i t hav e a
tempo implicatio n a s well? I t i s my convictio n tha t i t refer s t o bot h temp o an d
character, wit h th e emphasis , however , more o n feelin g and character , because ,
in m y judgment , a s I hav e suggeste d above , Brahm s assumed th e temp o o f th e
introduction t o be determined i n relation t o the Allegro. Moreover th e sostenuto
character o f the musi c i s re-emphasized an d confirme d quit e specificall y in th e
first measure o f the score , mos t particularl y in th e bas s and contrabassoo n part s
(adding th e wor d pesante (heavy ) t o th e bas s part) . Ther e Brahm s add s a ti e
underneath eac h measure' s si x eighth-notes, , a notationa l
character tha t i n itsel f signifie s unequivocall y th e ful l sustainin g o f th e notes .

(Hear ho w magnificentl y Stokowski [in hi s 192 7 recording] elicit s from hi s Phil -
adelphians, especiall y th e basses , a n astonishin g singin g sostenuto, a t th e sam e
time avoidin g the usua l overplayin g of the timpan i part. ) Furthe r confirmatio n
can b e foun d i n the wor d "legato " i n th e woodwind s and strings , an admonitio n
not reall y necessary i n vie w o f Brahms' s lon g slur s i n al l thes e parts . Bu t obvi -
ously he wante d t o achiev e th e utmos t i n a sustained legato line, b y the wa y not
an entirel y eas y thin g t o d o i n th e wind s since , unlik e th e strings , the y hav e
to breathe , thu s automaticall y interruptin g th e sustaine d phras e line s her e an d
there.
In thi s contex t i t is clear t o me tha t th e timpan i par t shoul d als o be playe d i n
a sustaine d way , not i n th e horrifi c pounding manne r on e almos t alway s hears.
We should not e i n thi s connection tha t th e prevailin g dynamic , inclusiv e o f the
timpani, i s f—notff. Thi s i s of considerable importanc e sinc e th e recapitulatio n
at m.25 o f this opening phras e i s marked ff. Alas , most recordings do no t achiev e
the intende d differenc e i n intensity , because th e openin g eigh t measure s o f the
symphony are i n mos t cases already played so loudly that n o contrastin g ff inten -
sification ca n b e attained . Add to this fact tha t the loude r one play s the opening ,
the mor e bo w change s i n th e string s and disruptiv e breathing i n th e wind s be-
come necessary . Note als o that Brahms' s ff re-renderin g o f the openin g a t m.2 5
is onl y half the lengt h o f the origina l phrase—surel y no t a n accident . It s short-
ened for m allow s the passag e to b e playe d a t ful l intensity , 'in on e breath, ' a s it
were, perhap s no t literall y bu t figurativel y speaking certainly. Conductors wh o
managed t o kee p th e timpan i fro m poundin g f f ar e ver y fe w bu t al l th e mor e
BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHON Y 283
worth mentioning : Stokowsk i (1927) , Horenstein , Suitner , Furtwängler , Celibi -
dache, Skrowaczewski , Leinsdorf, and Toscanini .
Returning t o th e openin g measures , a n extraordinar y exampl e o f achievin g
that gran d sostenuto/legato lin e I spea k of , ca n b e hear d o n Furtwängler' s Vi -
enna Philharmoni c recording . Furtwängler , th e maste r o f the 'gran d line, ' coul d
within an y given tempo produce a n almos t incredibl e stretch , the ultimat e soste-
nuto, an d a t hi s best , withou t an y sens e o f draggin g th e tempo , eve n i n hi s
famous 'slo w tempos. ' I n hi s jus t mentione d recording , th e firs t eigh t measure s
of th e symphon y ar e playe d wit h a dept h o f sound an d a n inexorabl e bea t tha t
make thi s passag e a trul y overwhelmin g an d sublim e listenin g experience , a
striking exampl e o f ho w a remarkabl e conducto r ca n o n occasio n wit h certai n
special gift s b e utterl y convincing, eve n i n wha t by some othe r criteri a migh t b e
considered a 'wron g tempo.'
If inexorableness of tempo an d bea t i s a performance requisit e i n thes e open -
ing measures , Ozaw a i n hi s recordin g certainl y misse s th e poin t completely .
Starting with a n excellen t temp o o f Jl = 90 , he seem s unabl e t o hol d it , accel-
erating considerabl y b y th e fourt h measur e an d rushe s eve n furthe r int o m.8 ,
only to mak e a bi g compensator y ritard i n th e 9/ 8 o f m.9 .
One o f the mos t fascinatin g an d origina l aspects o f Brahms's opening idea , so
rich i n interpretationa l option s and—therefore—obligations , i s th e horizonta l
layering o f two magnificentl y spun-out line s ove r th e sustaine d stationar y pedal
point. Brahms , eve r th e grea t contrapuntist , design s tw o majesti c line s i n con -
trary motion , th e on e —in th e wind s an d violas—descendin g (primarily ) an d
harmonized i n thirds and sixths, th e other—i n the violin s an d cellos—risin g and
in lea n three-octav e unisons . Th e descendin g win d lin e i s also initiall y cas t i n
three octave s bu t i s expande d t o fou r octave s i n th e thir d measur e (Ex.1) . Al-
ready thi s contrapunta l stran d take s considerabl e car e o n th e par t o f the con -
Ex. 1
ductor an d th e win d player s to balance, an d t o balanc e consistentl y throughou t

its eigh t measures . Th e flute s ten d t o disappea r durin g the secon d measur e an d
pop ou t again , a s i t were , i n th e middl e o f th e thir d measur e a s the y regai n a
more favorabl y projectin g register . I n th e meantim e th e bassoon s ar e almos t
never hear d i n mos t performances, especially in the thir d through fifth measures
where thei r lin e dip s dow n int o a les s projectin g range . (Th e sam e applie s t o
the clarinet s i n th e fourt h throug h sixt h measures. ) Al l o f thi s ca n b e easil y
balanced b y th e player s adjustin g an d compensatin g fo r thei r les s projectin g

registers: the flutes , fo r example, maintainin g their f leve l by a subtly compensat -
ing crescend o i n m. 2 (an d agai n i n th e downwar d octav e jum p i n m.6) , th e
bassoons compensatin g i n mm.3-5 . All this carefu l balancin g come s t o naught ,
however, i f th e timpan i i s allowe d t o poun d awa y with a n all-obliteratin g ff o r
fff. I t als o come s t o naugh t whe n th e thir d an d fourt h horn s blas t i n wit h a n
over-blown f i n m.7 , totall y unawar e tha t her e the y ar e par t o f th e woodwin d
section. Sadly , such dynami c balancing i s almost neve r undertake n —in m y sam-
pling o f fifty-odd recordings o f th e Brahm s Firs t onl y a fe w conductors seeme d
to hav e bee n awar e o f this proble m an d a t leas t tried t o dea l wit h i t (Stokowski,
Toscanini, Walter , Boult , Skrowaczewski , Haitink, and Suitner) .
But th e interna l balancin g o f th e woodwinds , tw o horns , an d viola s i s jus t
one-third o f th e proble m i n achievin g a n over-al l orchestra l balanc e i n mm .
1-8. Ther e i s th e matte r o f th e three-octav e strin g lin e i n ascendin g motio n
and, o f course , a s th e thir d element , th e C peda l point . Generall y th e thre e
string line s (Ex.2 ) balanc e wel l amon g themselves , bu t i n man y orchestra s
Ex. 2
and performance s — especially wit h conductor s wh o continuall y emphasize , i n

fact, conduc t onl y the string s at the expens e o f the winds—th e strings overpower
and overbalanc e th e wind/viol a line (excep t usuall y for th e horns) . When tha t
happens—and i t happen s al l to o ofte n —Brahms's wonderfu l contrary-motio n
counterpoint goe s ou t th e window . The los s i s considerable, becaus e no w bot h
the excitin g harmonic tension s Brahm s has buil t int o hi s two—actuall y thre e —
lines (se e Ex.3a ) an d th e extraordinar y sensation o f th e tw o contrary-motio n
lines are all essentially precluded. Th e ric h and wholl y new polyphony achieved
here b y Brahm s ca n bes t b e appreciate d i n condense d reductio n (Ex.3a) . Not e
Ex. 3 a
Ex. 3 b
particularly th e remarkabl y powerfu l harmoni c tensio n (dissonance ) points ,

marked a ) throug h e ) i n Exx.3 a an d 3b , harmoni c tension s tha t ar e woefull y
underplayed o r ignore d i n a vas t majorit y o f performances. 2 Onl y Stokowski ,
2. Ove r a lifetim e o f listenin g t o countles s performance s an d recording s o f th e grea t masterpiece s

of the Baroque , classical , an d Romanti c literatur e (fro m Bach an d Ramea u t o Brahms an d Tchaikov -
sky) I hav e notice d th e distressin g habi t o f a n overwhelmin g majorit y o f conductors , performers ,
soloists—whoever—of suppressin g o r ignorin g th e dissonance s an d harmonic/chromati c tension s i n
the music . I t i s as i f they ar e afrai d o f thes e dissonance s —assuming the y ar e eve n awar e o f them—
even thoug h suc h dissonance s ar e almos t alway s resolved, an d ar e afrai d o f offendin g th e ear s o f
among th e earlie r conductors, seeme d to understand (an d hear ) the almos t radi-
cal harmoni c inventio n containe d i n Brahms' s masterfu l melodic-contrapunta l
construction, whil e amon g present-da y conductor s onl y a fe w (Celibidache ,
Sanderling, Suitner , Norrington ) see m t o b e awar e o f the importanc e o f thes e
harmonic tensio n points .
A furthe r exampl e o f Brahms' s masterfu l contrapunta l construction , com -
bined wit h th e utmos t econom y o f means , ca n b e see n i n th e ver y firs t fou r
bars. I n keepin g wit h th e contrar y motio n o f the tw o lines, the thir d an d fourt h
bars o f the violi n line ar e a pitc h retrograd e o f the firs t tw o bars of the flut e (G -
At-A-BI» i n th e violins , Bl>-A-AI>- G i n th e flute) . Th e wonde r o f suc h melodi c
manipulations i s that Brahm s does thi s so naturally, so effortlessly—an d I would
say, s o unostentatiously—that on e migh t hea r thi s passag e man y times , revelin g
in it s wonderfully simpl e tunefulnes s an d emotiona l outpouring , withou t realiz-
ing o r hearin g tha t i t i s als o a remarkabl e exampl e o f th e musica l min d an d
intellect a t work.
It ma y b e clea r b y no w tha t i t i s no t entirel y easy—le t alon e automatic—t o
realize th e ful l intention s an d implication s o f Brahms' s majesti c an d wholl y
original Firs t Symphon y 'prologue. ' Indeed, it probably ca n onl y be achieve d b y
taking the musi c apart , so to speak, dividing it into it s separate components. For ,
once th e musician s hea r th e thre e strand s o f musi c individually , they wil l
quickly hea r an d understan d ho w th e dynami c compensation s an d interna l a s
well a s over-al l balance s nee d t o b e adjusted . Thus , havin g th e woodwinds ,
violas, trumpets , an d thir d an d fourt h horn s pla y mm. l t o 9 alone , correctin g
all thos e balance s an d makin g th e necessar y registe r adjustments , the n havin g
the violin s an d cello s pla y thei r line s alone , followe d b y puttin g bot h strand s
together again , wil l i n al l likelihoo d produc e a well-balance d polyphoni c com -
posite. I f in the meantim e th e timpan i playe r will have listened t o the foregoin g
'sectional' rehearsing , he o r she will , it is hopeed, also have understoo d ho w an d
why Brahms' s wonderfu l textur e ough t no t t o b e drowne d ou t b y a barrag e of
pounding timpan i fusillades ; an d wonde r o f wonders , on e ma y the n perhap s
even realiz e the possibilit y of actually hearing th e contrabassoon. 3
For al l th e reason s give n earlie r i n thi s study , there shoul d no t b e an y ritar-
dando o r broadening i n m.8—a s s o many conductor s someho w fee l th e nee d t o
do. Brahms' s crescend o i s sufficien t t o achiev e th e desire d resul t o f a phras e
climax on th e downbea t o f m.9.
In m. 9 w e encounter fo r the first time i n thi s study one o f the tw o absolutely
most origina l ideas Brahm s contributed t o th e developmen t o f music: th e shift -
their audiences . This i s as true o f conductors an d orchestra s playing Bach o r Mozar t o r Beethoven ,
music lade n wit h powerful , pungen t dissonances , a s i t i s o f pianist s playin g Chopin, fo r example ,
whose richl y chromati c writin g i s almos t alway s suppressed an d conceale d i n favo r o f th e simple r
melodic an d harmoni c elements . N o wonde r suc h conductor s canno t dea l wit h 20th-centur y o r
atonal music , when the y can't eve n handl e 'dissonances ' i n earlie r music.
3. A s i n th e cas e o f th e Beethove n Fift h recordings , th e contrabassoo n is , wit h bu t a fe w rar e
moments, totall y inaudibl e o n al l Brahm s First recordings.
ing o r dislocatio n of phrases rhythmically from thei r expecte d metri c placemen t
to othe r positions , ver y often displace d b y on e beat. 4 Th e othe r majo r innova -
tional concep t Brahm s developed—i t als o becam e a virtua l obsessio n wit h
him—was the rhythmi c juxtapositio n of triple an d dupl e rhythms , either i n hori-
zontal successio n o r vertical simultaneity. 5
In mm.9-1 8 (Ex.4a) , Brahm s move s hi s motivi c material , whic h wit h an y
other compose r (excep t perhap s Beethoven ) woul d hav e bee n writte n simply as
in Ex.4b , on e eighth-bea t late r i n th e measure . Thi s an d al l simila r passages —
Ex. 4 a
Ex. 4 b
not onl y i n m.1 3 bu t i n th e man y phrase s shifte d a hal f ba r (mm.51-52,53-56 ,

59-63,63-68,145-52,291-320)-are usuall y playe d a s i n Ex.4 c (-> denotin g a
stressed beat , ^ a n unstresse d beat) : i n othe r words , a s i f Brahm s ha d writte n
the passag e a s i n Ex.4b . Bu t th e fac t i s tha t Brahm s wrot e i t a s i n Ex.4a , b y
which h e mean t t o achiev e a quit e differen t effec t tha n tha t whic h result s fro m
playing it in the ordinar y version (Ex.4b). We must hear the rhythmi c dislocation
Ex. 4 c
in performance , a kin d o f 'syncopation ' o f the phrase , whic h w e wil l definitel y

not hea r i f we simply turn th e secon d eighth s o f m.9 and m.1 0 int o downbeats ,
stressed beats , an d thereb y 'underweight ' th e firs t an d fourt h eighth s i n mm. 9
4. I n thi s respec t Brahm s wa s a forerunne r o f Charles Ivés , whos e fondnes s fo r dis - and mis-placin g
themes, melodies, rhythmi c figures , whol e phrases , i s by now legendary . B y the sam e token , Brahm s
was not , of course, th e firs t t o explor e metric/rhythmi c beat-shifting . See , for example , th e openin g
measures o f the Final e o f Beethoven's Sevent h Symphony . Brahms , however , too k hol d o f this ide a
and, i n a n almos t obsessiv e way , made i t int o on e o f hi s principa l modi operandi i n hi s symphoni c
and chambe r music .
5. Fo r muc h mor e o n this , se e als o th e succeedin g discussio n o f Brahms's Fourt h Symphony .
and 10 , which logicall y ar e stresse d beat s inheren t i n a 6/ 8 meter . I t i s incon -

ceivable tha t Brahms , a t onc e th e mos t rigorou s classicis t an d th e mos t radica l
rhythmic an d metri c innovator 6 o f the entir e 19t h century—excep t perhap s for
Strauss i n hi s Till Eulenspiegel (se e discussio n o f sam e herein , p.430)—woul d
have notate d suc h passage s a s h e di d i f h e mean t the m t o soun d simpl y a s i n
Ex.4b. Rather , th e classicis t i n hi m woul d hav e wante d t o preserve th e integrit y
and symmetr y of the basi c mete r ( a pendulant 6/ 8 in thi s case) ; while th e rhyth -
mic innovato r i n hi m wante d t o introduc e a conflictin g rhythmi c force , a coun -
terweight that woul d stan d i n constan t contentio n wit h th e underlyin g rhythmic/
metric pulse , bu t woul d nonetheles s remai n i n equipois e wit h it , neithe r over -
whelming th e basi c pulse no r bein g subjugate d b y it.7 In that conceptio n a mor e
precisely denne d notatio n woul d b e th e obvers e o f Ex.4c, namel y Ex.4d .
Ex. 4 d
6. Ther e is a passage i n th e Brahm s Fourth Symphony (firs t movement , m . 130-32) that i s as moder n
and comple x a s anythin g i n Stravinsky' s Sacre d u Printemps, bu t whic h unfortunatel y ha s t o m y
knowledge bee n playe d correctl y (o r eve n ver y close t o correctly ) on onl y on e recording : Skrowac -
zewski's wit h th e Hall e Orchestra . I have hear d i t playe d correctl y o n a tap e o f a liv e performanc e
by th e Harvard-Radcliff e Orchestra , conducte d b y James Yannatos, bu t neve r otherwise .
7. I t i s analogous t o th e situatio n o f a hemiola , th e overla y of thre e binar y entitie s (2/4,2/8,2/2 ) o n
two ternar y one s (3/4,3/8,3/2) , which I alway s describe a s a contes t o r a battl e betwee n 'two ' an d
'three', bu t a battl e whic h neithe r sid e wins . Both rhythmi c feelings , the 'two ' an d th e 'three, ' mus t
be equall y represented , equall y fel t an d heard , as , fo r exampl e Spanis h an d Mexica n musician s d o
as secon d natur e i n thei r nativ e music . Unfortunatel y i n mos t performance s o f Europea n musi c
containing hemiolas—fro m Beethove n t o Dvorak and Brahms , and includin g th e Spaniard s and th e
'French Spaniards, ' Chabrie r an d Ravel , all o f whose work s are ric h i n hemiolas—th e 'two's ' always
win out , an d th e underlyin g puls e an d mete r ar e constantl y sacrificed . Take, fo r example, Dvorak' s
famous Slavonic Dance No J i n C major . Th e firs t eigh t measure s ar e almos t alway s played , eve n
by Czech , Slowak , an d Bohemian-traditio n conductor s a s i f Dvora k ha d writte n merel y a serie s of
twelve 2/ 4 bars , when , o f course , h e wrot e eigh t 3/ 4 measure s wit h a n overla y o f 2/ 4 phrasing /
articulation patterns : etc. H e di d no t write :
etc., bu t that' s ho w th e passag e i s alway s played,

rendering th e tension—th e conflict—betwee n th e ternar y an d th e binar y puls e totall y impotent .
The correc t rendition—an d thi s woul d appl y t o man y hundreds o f similar passage s i n th e classica l
and Romanti c orchestra l an d chambe r literatur e — is t o mak e clea r both rhythmic/metri c patterns ,
the 'three ' an d th e 'two. ' B y feeling both , adherin g t o Dvorak' s phrasin g (an d bowing ) an d a t th e
same tim e no t losin g th e underlyin g stres s (th e weight ) i n th e secon d an d fourt h bar s o f th e 3/ 4
meter, th e tru e essenc e of the musi c i s imparted.
One more , slightl y different bu t related , example: and le t m e sta y with Dvorak . In hi s New World
Symphony, ther e ar e passages—ver y ofte n give n t o th e horns—whic h involv e a 3-against- 2 o r 2 -
against-3 (i. e hemiola ) situation . I n th e thir d movemen t (mm.253-56 ) an d severa l ver y simila r
I se e i n thi s a n exac t paralle l i n th e real m o f rhyth m an d mete r t o Brahms' s

profound commitmen t t o counterpoin t an d polyphony . His metric/rhythmi c dis-
placements an d unexpecte d syncopation s produc e a kin d o f 'rhythmic/metric /
agogic counterpoint. ' I t is the vertica l analogue t o the horizonta l aspec t o f linear
counterpoint. Jus t as two or more contrapunta l line s inherently produc e t o som e
degree o r othe r a conflic t and tensio n betwee n thos e lines , remainin g nonethe -
less i n a balance d equilibrium , s o Brahms's displace d rhythm s and phrase s pro -
duce a conflic t an d tensio n betwee n rhyth m an d meter , remaining nonetheless
also i n a balance d equilibriu m —or s o they should .
To achiev e wha t I believ e i s Brahms' s tru e purpose , t o produc e tha t slightl y
uneasy feelin g an d rhythmi c tensio n i n m. 9 an d m . 10 —coming after , le t u s
remind ourselves , fifty-on e steady , regular , conventionall y stresse d beat s i n
mm. 1-8—all th e conducto r ha s t o tel l th e musician s i s to fee l th e fourt h an d
first eighths i n thos e measure s a s stresse d o r stron g beats , an d t o underpla y (o r
at leas t no t undul y stress ) th e secon d an d fift h eighths . Th e secon d an d fift h
eighths mus t be fel t an d hear d a s gentle, subtl e syncopations comin g of f the first
passages w e se e Wha t w e usuall y hear—indee d
almost alway s —is : a notatio n Dvora k could hav e
written bu t didn't . Simpl y b y bein g awar e o f the fac t tha t th e underlyin g metri c infrastructur e i s a
triple mete r (3/4 ) an d givin g the appropriat e weight (stress , no t accents ) t o th e secon d an d fourt h
measures, th e tru e musical/rhythmi c essenc e o f th e passag e wil l b e honored , rathe r tha n a binary
falsification.
That hor n motiv e firs t appear s i n variou s notationa l guise s i n th e symphony' s firs t move -
ment introductio n an d Allegro molto. I n th e latte r w e see—agai n i n th e horns —
. I wis h tha t Dvora k ha d no t pu t a n accen t („)
on th e fourt h note, becaus e i t lead s musician s even mor e t o shapin g th e passag e erroneously , as
follows: . Again, preserving—feeling—the integrity
of th e underlyin g 2/4 wil l guarantee th e righ t interpretatio n i n whic h th e tw o competing rhythmi c

feelings wil l both b e honore d an d heard .
Staying with thi s theme on e mor e time , on e o f its last appearances—again i n th e horn(s)—occur s
in m.26 7 o f the las t movement :
. What on e invariabl y hears is
as i f Dvorak had writte n etc - Gon e i s the pul l o f the synco-
pated against-the-unclerlying-puls e feelin g tha t Dvora k s o ingeniousl y conceived. (Note to o tha t i n

such misinterpretations , the eigth-not e rest s in mm.268-6 9 ar e als o throw n to th e winds. )
and fourt h stronge r beats , instea d o f th e usua l blan d rendition , which , i f no -
tated, woul d loo k a s follows: ; an d
Just thinkin g an d feelin g th e
'weight' o f th e firs t an d fourt h beats , eve n whe n tie d ove r (a s i n th e winds) ,

will produc e th e desire d effec t o f bot h rhythmi c essence s bein g fully , correctl y
represented an d respected .
Some 'intellectuals ' an d 'theorists, ' inten t o n modernizin g an d updatin g
Brahms, wil l wan t t o argu e tha t wha t Brahm s reall y had i n min d wa s an asym-
metrical contourin g o f the phras e a s perhaps i n Ex . 5. They wil l als o argu e tha t
Ex. 5
these asymmetrica l patterns ar e i n retrospec t al l the mor e 'exciting ' an d 'logical '
when Brahm s eventually 'straightens out' the rhythms in conformity with the basic
meter as in mm. 19-37, letting the rhythms , so to speak, back into the metri c fold .
But thi s i s imposing a completel y alie n viewpoin t and aestheti c o n Brahms' s art.
For all the darin g and relativ e complexity in his music, he neve r broke out o f the
bounds o f his classica l orientation. Indeed , a metri c rethinkin g of the passag e as
shown abov e (Ex.5 ) i s much les s interesting , muc h les s 'exciting' tha n Brahms' s
highly original—and much mor e subtle and less obvious—conception.
In m y samplin g o f nearly fifty recordings o f the Brahm s Firs t ther e wer e only
a fe w conductor s wh o seeme d t o b e awar e o f th e rhythmic/metri c issue s jus t
raised: Stokowski , Walter, Klemperer , Boult , Horenstein , Haitink , Abbado, Suit -
ner, an d Skrowaczewski. 8
It i s only i n recen t time s tha t Brahms' s remarkabl e rhythmic/metri c innova -
tions hav e begu n t o b e assesse d an d understood , however , alas , no t b y an y o f
the majo r Brahm s conductor s bu t b y a fe w musicologist/theorists , mos t notabl y
Walter Frisc h an d Davi d Epstein. 9 Bu t eve n here , whil e bot h writer s have sin -
gled ou t an d analyze d fro m a conceptua l poin t o f view some o f Brahms' s mos t
radical metrica l displacements , bot h i n hi s chambe r musi c an d hi s symphonie s
and songs , neithe r ha s deal t wit h th e questio n o f how t o perform —how t o prop -
erly realize—thes e metrical/rhythmi c dislocations .
8. Giulin i an d Rowick i really distort this passage beyond al l recognitio n b y delaying the second-bea t
At (i n m.9) , Giulin i b y a whole eighth-note beat.
9. Se e Frisch' s "Th e Shiftin g Ba r Line: Metrica l Displacement i n Brahms " an d Epstein' s "Brahm s
and th e Mechanism s o f Motion : Th e Compositio n o f Performance" , both i n th e aforementioned
Brahms Studies (Oxford , 1990) .
I a m quit e convince d tha t Brahms' s metrical/rhythmi c displacement s ar e no t

to b e merel y admired intellectually , analyze d conceptually , bu t ar e i n fac t t o b e
made audibl e i n performance . I must digres s temporarily to dea l wit h this point ,
for t o m y knowledg e i t ha s neve r bee n examine d i n writing , let alon e explore d
in performance .
First t o reall y understan d full y wha t Brahms' s rhythmi c innovation s i n th e
realm o f 'metrical displacement' comprise , first we must remin d ourselve s of two
essential points : one , tha t i n th e classica l Europea n traditio n ther e exist s in an y
metric desig n (4/ 4 o r 3/ 4 or eve n 2/4 ) a hierarch y o f weights and stresses . (I t is
incorrect t o cal l thes e 'accents' ; perhap s 'emphases ' o r 'stresses ' ar e th e bette r
and mor e neutra l terms. ) I n tha t hierarchy , bea t 'one ' i n a 4/4 measur e ha s th e
strongest weight and emphasis , followe d in declinin g orde r by beats 'three,' 'two,'
and 'four.' 10 Tha t wa s th e basi s o f al l classica l metri c conceptions , a traditio n
which Brahm s inherite d an d strongl y adhered to , an d whic h h e sa w as the un -
shakable foundatio n o f all musica l structuring .
Also, w e shoul d realiz e that i t make s absolutel y n o sens e fo r Brahms to hav e
written hi s man y phras e displacement s i f h e ha d no t mean t somethin g mor e
special, somethin g different , tha n merel y havin g th e phras e appea r on e bea t
earlier (o r later, o r whatever the degre e o f displacement.) An d h e wa s surely not
interested i n merel y composin g a serie s o f uneven , irregular , asymmetrica l
subphrases, delineate d i n divers e metric durations . This is proven by at least two
facts: First that he di d not write a series of irregular meters, say, a sequence o f 4/4 -
5/4 - 4/4 - 4/4, a s he migh t have done (bu t didn't) i n the first four bar s of the slow
movement o f hi s Secon d Symphon y (se e Ex.6) . Th e 5/ 4 mete r a s a rhyth -
10. W e sa w in th e chapte r o n Beethoven' s Fift h Symphon y tha t thi s applie s a s well t o four-measure
groupings—what Schenke r calle d "Viertaktigkeit " an d Davi d Epstei n ha s calle d th e "hyper -
measure"—substituting onl y th e wor d 'measure ' fo r th e wor d "beat. "
mic notatio n wa s certainl y availabl e t o hi m b y 1877 ; i t wa s bot h a technical /

notational an d conceptua l optio n fo r him . Bu t changin g meter s wa s not wha t
interested Brahms , fo r tha t woul d onl y produc e a horizonta l linea r effect ,
whereas wha t Brahm s wa s fascinate d wit h an d constantl y strivin g fo r wa s th e
vertical (therefor e polyphonic ) interpla y o f line s an d rhythms . H e coul d no t
have foun d i n 187 7 a metri c desig n t o accommodat e a passag e lik e th e on e i n
the developmen t sectio n o f the Secon d Symphony' s firs t movemen t (mm . 135 -
152, se e Ex.7a) . That i s to say , if he ha d wante d th e thre e strand s o f polyphon y
to be fel t an d hear d i n a metri c desig n correspondin g t o the notate d phras e slurs
and ties—an d a s they ar e alway s played—then h e woul d hav e ha d t o hav e writ-
ten th e passag e i n polymetri c notatio n (as , fo r example, i n Ex.7b) . Bu t this was
not a technical/notational optio n availabl e to him .
Ex. 7 a (mm . 136-40)

Ex. 7 b
Second, i f we tak e int o accoun t th e harmoni c structurin g in thi s passage, an d

try someho w t o justif y a n irregula r metric sequenc e (as , fo r instance , i n Ex.7b )
in relatio n t o it s harmonic sequenc e (i.e . toni c an d othe r degre e positions) , w e
still wil l fin d littl e congruenc e o f mete r an d harmony , fo r thes e element s ar e
operating o n thei r ow n separat e tim e tracks . The significan t harmoni c stations ,
i.e. th e mai n audibl e harmoni c stres s points , a s compose d b y Brahms , ar e als o
out o f phase wit h th e metri c structuring . Furthermore , t o unancho r th e passag e
even more , t o mak e i t eve n mor e harmonicall y ambivalent , Brahm s introduce s
the A t i n th e strings ' melodi c lines , where mos t ordinar y composer s woul d hav e
used a n Ab, the Al t i n thi s context materiall y undermining th e prevalen t E majo r
tonality.
In th e end , w e have t o rul e ou t al l o f these othe r possibilities , because al l th e
internal evidenc e offere d b y th e man y passage s o f metrica l displacemen t scat -
tered throughou t Brahms' s work s demonstrate s tha t wha t Brahm s wa s afte r wa s
to creat e a tension , a tu g o f war , a s i t were , betwee n th e actua l hear d rhyth m
and phrase , an d th e underlyin g metri c pulse . I n addition , th e harmoni c desig n
might ofte n als o be i n a stat e o f tension—and contention—wit h bot h th e rhyth -
mic an d metri c design , creating , i n othe r words , three line s o f polyphonic ten -
sion.
When thes e passage s are playe d i n suc h a way as to preserve th e integrit y and
feeling o f the underlyin g metri c structuring , tha t is , 4/4 i n th e slo w movemen t
of th e Secon d Symphony , 3/ 4 i n th e firs t movement , th e musi c i s transformed
into somethin g totally different : imaginative , original , and exciting , no t ordinary,
routine, an d prosaic , as one usuall y hears it .
I cit e on e mor e relativel y simple bu t nonetheles s ver y strikin g Brahmsian ex-
ample o f rhythmic shifting , because i t is so prototypical (countles s simila r exam -
ples ca n b e foun d i n man y othe r work s o f Brahms) . I t come s fro m Brahms' s
Horn Trio , Op . 40 , i n th e ver y openin g o f the work , wher e th e chorda l pian o
accompaniment to , first, the violin , and then , the horn , i s for 1 6 measures con -
sistently se t o n th e secon d bea t (i n a 2/ 4 meter) . Th e confusin g and unsettle d
feeling thi s them e statemen t generates—al l th e mor e unsettlin g an d confusin g
when i t i s played incorrectly—result s fro m th e fac t tha t th e singl e note s o f th e
violin (an d horn ) o n th e downbeat s ar e oppose d b y th e weightie r six - or seven -
part quarter-not e chord s Brahm s ha s placed o n th e second , presumabl y weaker,
beats. Bu t i f Brahms wanted th e musi c t o soun d a s i t i s almost alway s rendere d
(as i n Ex.Sa) , then surel y Brahms would hav e writte n i t as in Ex . 8b . Bu t h e
Ex. 8 a
Ex. 8 b
did not . Wha t
Brahms actuall y wrot e is : etc - an d
therefore b y n o logi c know n t o m e shoul d thi s them e b e 'interpreted ' i n suc h

a simplisti c wa y a s i n Ex.S a o r Ex.Sb . I t i s relativel y easy t o achiev e th e cor -
rect subtl e balanc e o f weight s an d stresse s b y havin g th e violinist—an d late r
the hornist—gentl y emphasiz e th e downbea t feelin g (an d i t i s enough t o thin k
it an d fee l it) , whil e a t th e sam e tim e havin g th e pianis t pla y th e secon d
beat chord s wit h a ligh t 'lifted ' touch , feelin g th e passag e a s a constan t un -
resolved chai n o f anacruses . Thes e pian o chord s shoul d no t 'sit'—an d cer -
tainly no t heavily—bu t shoul d 'float. ' Wit h jus t tha t muc h subtl e adjustin g
and reorientatio n o n th e par t o f th e thre e players , a whol e ne w wondrou s
rhythmic/expressive world opens up , on e that , onc e heard, i s truly unforgettable.
In suc h a renderin g withou t an y tremendou s effor t o r rewriting , both Brahms' s
2/4 puls e an d hi s rhythmi c dislocation s ar e honore d an d mad e movingl y
audible.
I g o s o fa r a s t o sugges t tha t th e term s 'metrica l ambiguity ' an d 'harmoni c

ambiguity,' a s use d b y Frisch , Epstein , an d othe r writers , are incorrect , tha t is,
they d o no t appl y t o Brahms' s music . 'Ambivalent, ' yes , bu t 'ambiguous, ' no .
There i s to m y eye s an d ear s nothin g ambiguou s abou t Brahms' s rhythmi c dis -
placements, no r i s the ter m 'metrica l displacement ' entirel y correc t o r applica -
ble. I t i s not tha t th e metri c desig n i s displaced o r dislocated ; i t i s the rhythmic
shapes, phrases , and pattern s whic h ar e dislocate d over an inviolat e and immuta -
ble regula r metric sequence . I t i s the tension(s ) between an d amon g thos e con -
tending force s tha t Brahm s wishe s to express , and thi s does , o f course, resul t i n
a degre e o f ambivalence. Bu t ambivalenc e suggest s a condition i n whic h on e o r
more options , on e o r mor e understandings , on e o r mor e feelings , co-exis t co -
equally, an d whic h therefor e mus t b e interprete d an d realize d co-equally . Thi s
in tur n mean s tha t tw o opposin g rhythmic/metri c force s ar e t o b e hear d an d
made audibl e i n intimate , inseparabl e equipoise . I t i s i n thi s wa y that Brahm s
so ingeniousl y and imaginativel y managed t o clin g t o earlie r classica l traditions
while a t th e sam e tim e dramaticall y renewin g an d re-interpretin g thos e tradi -
tions i n wholl y new expressiv e ways.
I a m no t generall y give n t o hermeneuti c interpretations , t o superimposin g
onto music—leas t o f al l Brahms' s musi c —extraneous, extra-musica l scenarios .
But i t i s fascinating to speculat e tha t th e ambivalenc e on e find s i n s o muc h o f
his musi c i s i n itsel f a reflectio n o f the varie d an d myria d ambivalence s whic h
we kno w b y al l account s wer e a n intrinsi c aspec t o f his personality , manifesta-
tions o f whic h ra n a s a constan t threa d throughou t hi s entil e life . Th e storie s
documenting Brahms' s ambivalence o f feelings, of commitments, i n makin g de-
cisions, are legion. 11 I cite onl y two which ar e especiall y fascinating and, I think,
especially relevan t t o matter s musical . I t i s well know n b y now tha t Brahm s late
in lif e agree d t o mak e a cylinde r recordin g fo r th e Ediso n Company . A n eye -
witness account o f the even t reports that a t the appointe d tim e fo r the recording ,
Brahms, i n a ver y agitated mood , a t first refused t o participate , but a shor t tim e
later, suddenl y sa t dow n a t th e piano , impatientl y wantin g t o begi n recording ,
when al l the technica l preparation s necessary for making th e recordin g ha d no t
yet been completed. 12
A secon d strikin g example o f Brahmsia n ambivalenc e i s hi s obsessiv e desire
on th e on e han d t o achiev e position s o f prominence i n Hambur g an d Vienna ,
but o n th e othe r hand , whe n accorde d suc h position s (directo r o f the Wiene r
Singakademie o r the venerabl e Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde , for example), h e
resigned soo n afte r acceptin g th e appointments . Simila r examples , bot h i n hi s
personal an d professiona l life , abound , especiall y i n hi s attitud e toward s mar -
riage an d femal e companionship .
11. Se e an y majo r Brahm s biograph y (Geiringer , Kalbeck , Schauffler , Specht ) bu t especiall y Kar l
Geiringer's articl e "Brahms th e Ambivalent " i n Brahms Newsletter, Vol . I , No. 2 , (Autum n 1983) .
12. I am indebte d fo r this accoun t to George Bozarth , who i n tur n drew upon th e memoir s (Klänge
um Brahms) b y Richar d Fellinger, th e so n o f Brahms's Viennese friend s a t whos e hom e th e Ediso n
recording wa s mad e i n 1889 . (Se e "Brahm s o n Record, " i n Brahms Newsletter, Vol . VI , (Sprin g
1987), p.5.)
Since grea t creativ e artist s reflect in thei r ar t their personalitie s an d characte r

traits intimately—th e greater the artis t the mor e directly and intimatel y are thes e
reflected—is i t no t possibl e t o thin k tha t Brahms' s penchan t fo r structura l eli -
sion, evasive modulations, harmonic/metric incongruence , disguised cadences —
his entir e arsena l o f rhythmic/metric permutations an d shiftings—ar e al l i n sub -
tly varie d way s direc t reflection s o f hi s menta l an d emotiona l attitudes ? Th e
miracle o f Brahms' s ar t i s that, althoug h h e wa s i n muc h o f hi s lif e unabl e t o
reconcile th e contradiction s i n hi s characte r an d attitude s i n hi s persona l life ,
in hi s musi c h e wa s abl e t o achiev e a remarkabl e symbiosi s of opposite s an d
conflicts, o f old an d new , o f traditional an d innovative—th e "classica l Romanti -
cist," a s Wagner calle d him .
Brahms's metric/rhythmic ambivalenc e i s just one aspec t of his rhythmic inno-
vations. While this concept of rhythmic-to-metric counterpoint i s based on a regu-
lar, steady underlying pulse, Brahms achieves rhythmic and continuity flexibility —
speed modulations , as it were—by frequently (throughout hi s work) changing th e
amount o f rhythmic activity within the ba r and/or withi n the beat . A t such time s
the musi c completel y change s i n character—withou t the basi c pulse itsel f being
altered. (Fo r a striking example, se e Ex.12 in the discussio n of the Brahm s Fourth
and the surrounding commentary. Se e also footnote 46 below, p. 356) .
By thes e mean s Brahm s achieve s fluctuation s an d modification s o f motio n
without resortin g t o ritard s and accelerandos . Th e motio n (speed ) o f the musi c
remains unde r hi s contro l b y virtu e o f th e steadines s o f the underlyin g pulse ,
beat, an d meter . Bu t thi s mean s i n tur n tha t w e a s interpreter s ma y no t willy -
nilly chang e th e basi c tempo, and , a s I've sai d before , no t slo w down th e basi c
tempo whe n Brahm s ha s alread y decrease d th e amoun t o f rhythmi c activity .
This i s especiall y mandator y whe n th e underlyin g puls e happen s t o b e silent ;
then th e audibl e surfac e o f the musi c ha s change d (slowed ) while th e underly -
ing puls e an d feelin g o f th e musi c remain s constant , an d remain s unde r
Brahms's contro l —or s o i t should , an d woul d i f conductor s coul d lear n thi s
basic lesson . Thi s als o explains wh y Brahm s ha s s o few ritardondos an d accele -
randos i n hi s music , especiall y his symphonies .
To retur n t o the Brahm s First musica l example s cite d earlier , i t is quite possi-
ble—indeed, readil y so wit h a littl e extr a rehearsa l effort—t o d o justic e t o an d
render audibl e both the rhythmi c dislocation s an d their underlyin g metric pulse .
Anyone wh o ha s no t hear d th e remarkabl e expressiv e effect tha t result s fro m a
balanced, equipoise d realizatio n o f thes e opposing , eve n colliding , rhythmic /
metric an d harmoni c force s probably cannot imagin e ho w exciting , how power-
ful—and ho w right—suc h realization s sound. Unfortunatel y the reade r will find
it difficul t t o hea r suc h o n recordings , sinc e ther e ar e ver y fe w conductor s re -
cording Brahm s symphonies wh o hav e understoo d thi s fundamenta l premis e of
Brahms's art , an d therefor e ver y fe w recording s o n whic h it s Tightnes s ca n b e
assessed or , fo r that matter , argued—an d eve n amon g thos e fe w there ar e non e
which ar c entirel y consisten t i n renderin g thi s aspec t o f Brahms' s ar t uner -
ringly.
The nex t interpretation/performanc e problem i n th e symphony' s first move-
ment occur s i n m.15 , wher e mos t conductor s allo w (o r elicit ) a prematur e and
exaggerated crescendo , reachin g th e f o f m . 19 i n m.17 , thereb y destroyin g
Brahms's intende d asymmetrica l arching shap e (Fig . 1) .
Care mus t b e take n tha t th e crescendo/diminuend o wedges i n
Fig. 1
mm. 15-16 no t b e exaggerate d an d tha t th e diminuend o hal f o f this expressive

nuancing return s th e dynami c t o p . Wha t usuall y happen s instea d migh t b e
rendered i n notatio n a s (Ex.9) . Thi s is , o f course , onc e agai n par t o f a
Ex. 9
m.15
much large r widesprea d an d long-standin g 'interpretational ' problem , namely ,

the world-wid e epidemi c o f makin g prematur e and/o r exaggerate d crescendos ,
basically renderin g al l rea l climaxe s anti-climaxes , undercuttin g thei r rea l in -
tended impact . I t seems t o be typica l of human nature—musician s an d conduc -
tors included—t o b e generall y unabl e t o resis t thes e temptation s t o overstate .
And yet , I kno w fro m man y persona l experience s tha t i f a conducto r insist s
firmly on controllin g th e pacin g an d curvatur e o f crescendos (th e sam e ca n b e
said abou t diminuendos)—als o controllin g hi s ow n baton/technica l pacing —
such nuance s ca n b e rendered accurately , feelingl y and , i n the end , muc h mor e
effectively tha n i s typically the case .
As a 20th-centur y compose r composin g i n a n atonal , highl y chromati c lan -
guage, an d bein g deepl y awar e o f th e innovation s o f m y creativ e precursors ,
among the m Brahm s an d Schönber g (th e latte r bein g a s muc h influence d b y
the forme r as he wa s by Wagner), I am fascinate d by the wide-rangin g chromati-
cism o f the melodi c lin e betwee n m. 9 and m . 19—only one o f hundreds of such
passages i n Brahms' s oeuvre. As shown i n Ex.10 , al l twelv e pitche s o f th e chro -
matic scal e ar e touched , no t i n absolut e succession , o f course , a s i n a twelve -
tone o r seria l work, but nonetheles s clearl y heading i n suc h a direction : eleve n
pitches i n all , the onl y pitch no t represente d bein g A.
Ex. 1 0
Similarly, harmonically the passag e moves around chromatically in a way that

one woul d not find , fo r example, in Beethove n o r Schuber t or eve n Schumann ,
but whic h agai n presage s wha t earl y 20th-centur y composer s lik e Rege r an d
Schönberg—not t o mentio n Brahms' s arc h rival , Wagner—di d a s a matte r o f
Fig. 2
m.9/10 m.ll m.12 m.13/14
G-9 D b7Qb
D° B b7 D° C m G D b ° (implied C~ 9 )
m.15 m.16 m.17 m.18 m.19

b7 7 b 7 b
Qb7 Cb
G° E Fm A° F G m B° A D ° G A Db
course (Fig . 2) . Nearl y twent y differen t chords—harmoni c stations—ar e passe d

through i n th e shor t span o f only ten measures . Particularly striking is the abrup t
dramatic mov e fro m G majo r t o Dl > diminishe d (wit h th e implie d C dominan t
minor ninth) , th e modernit y o f which (fo r its time) ha s bee n los t t o mos t con -
temporary ear s with over-familiarity .
Almost everyon e get s th e wonderfu l magica l momen t a t m.2 1 right—th e p p
filled with a sense o f mystery—but troubl e start s again a t m.23 , where to o man y
conductors accelerat e th e temp o (als o indulgin g i n a prematur e crescendo) ,
only t o slo w up dramaticall y in m.24 , befor e th e f f o f m.25 . Th e wors t o f thes e
unwanted an d unnecessar y ritardando s were perpetrate d b y Muti, Giulini , an d
Bernstein. Oddl y enough , goin g quit e agains t th e norma l trend , Klempere r and
Stokowski actuall y accelerated th e temp o i n m.24 , arrivin g at a suddenl y faste r
tempo i n m.25 . Ho w effectiv e th e passag e ca n b e withou t ritardand o o r accele -
rando can b e hear d o n th e recording s o f Furtwängler (surprise!) , Toscanini, Hor -
enstein, Skrowaczewski , and Walter .
At mm.25-28 , a shortene d an d slightl y re-orchestrate d recapitulatio n o f th e
symphony's opening , no w situated o n th e dominan t o f the bas e key , we encoun -
ter anothe r on e o f Brahms's mos t darin g harmonic utterances . I mea n th e clas h
of th e peda l poin t G wit h th e Ct t mino r harmon y a t th e beginnin g o f m.26 ,
more powerfu l an d terrifyin g tha n th e paralle l plac e i n m . 2—more powerfu l
because thi s tim e th e trumpet s ar e brough t i n t o sustai n th e G i n th e uppe r
range agains t th e alie n C t mino r (Ex.11) . Unfortunately , ver y fe w conduc -
Ex. 1 1
tors an d orchestra s are eve n awar e o f thi s moment , le t alon e exploi t it . I t i s

important no t t o le t th e trumpet s diminuend o o n thei r sustaine d G's . Ho w ex-
traordinary and overwhelmin g in it s expressive power this passage can soun d can
at leas t b e savore d i n Järvi' s recordin g wit h th e Londo n Symphony , Suitner' s

with the Berli n Staatskapelle , Lehel's with the Budapes t Philharmonic, an d Fur -
twängler's wit h th e Vienn a Philharmonic . Le t u s als o not e i n passin g Brahms' s
unusual crossin g o f line s a t m.2 7 i n th e violas , second violins , an d cellos , th e
latter tw o suddenl y droppin g down a n octave , th e viola s contraril y jumpin g
up a n octave . Norringto n ruin s thi s magnificen t four-ba r passag e entirel y b y
adding—God know s whence h e go t this ide a —a bi g diminuend o i n th e string s
in m.2 6 (thereb y totally vitiating
the Ct t minor/G 1! harmonic clash) , followe d in quic k succession b y a swoopin g

crescendo, a p subito an d another crescendo , al l o f thes e no t eve n remotel y
indicated (o r intended) b y Brahms.
The res t of Brahms's introductio n present s no particular performance problems ,
and i s generally played well, comme i l faut, excep t perhap s for the fina l tw o bars
(m.36-37), where many conductors make a ritardando—often a n excessive one. It
is bette r t o kee p thes e bar s i n tempo , particularl y if one i s inten t o n showin g a
tempo relatio n betwee n th e introductio n an d th e mai n Allegro part of the move -
ment (as discussed and suggeste d earlier) . Many conductors als o make suc h an ex-
cessive diminuendo i n m.36-37 that the resolution to G major in the final measure
of the introductio n i s virtually inaudible. Brahms's dynamic is pp i n m.34, and, of
course, h e coul d easil y have asked for a further diminuendo an d marke d the final
notes ppp. Bu t he did not, and thus it is incumbent o n conductors an d performer s
not to fade away to virtual silence for some obvious 'audience effect.' Fo r as they do
so, they destroy th e lin k to the main Allegro which in turn vitiates the whole point
of the introduction: it doesn't 'introduce' the main body of the movement, but ends
up being an independent close d movement , disconnecte d fro m the whole.
After th e gentl e resignatio n o f the fina l introductor y bars , th e ensuin g ff alle-
gro (m.38-41 ) burst s upo n ou r ear s wit h a powe r an d explosivenes s that mus t
have bee n a real shocker i n Brahms' s ow n time. 13 One ca n readil y imagine why
Brahms o n secon d though t fel t thi s burs t o f f f wa s to o abrup t an d abrasiv e a
start fo r hi s symphon y an d thu s adde d th e introduction . I t i s a dramati c cal l t o
action, an d wha t remarkable action s an d activitie s it now summon s forth !
If w e didn' t kno w th e introductio n wa s compose d afte r th e Allegro ha d
been finished , w e woul d assum e th e risin g chromati c motiv e a t m.3 8
:t o b e a varian t of the movement' s firs t tw o bar s i n
the violins and cellos (mm. 1-2). The reverse is, of

course, th e case .
13. A s explosive and powerfu l a s thi s passage is , care should b e take n tha t th e tw o horn s no t over -
power th e woodwinds , but rathe r blen d wit h them. Fa r too man y performances (and recordings) are
marred her e b y overl y rambunctiou s moder n hornist s who , seein g onl y th e f f i n thei r part s an d
paying n o min d t o th e fac t tha t the y ar e playin g wit h woodwinds , enter th e fra y wit h a (misplaced
and mindless ) vengeance .
Performance problem s aboun d here , mostl y unsolve d o r misinterpreted , i n

the grea t majorit y o f sample d recordings . Take , fo r instance , th e progressio n
from f throug h piu fio ff—so typicall y Beethovenian—in th e string s i n mm .
42-51. I n nin e ou t o f te n performance/recording s th e strings—eithe r permit -
ted o r urge d o n b y their conductors—plo w int o th e risin g figure at ful l til t an d
: wit h a n aggressive , har d soun d —
simply continuin g th e previou s ff— that , o f course , permit s n o dynami c aug -

mentation a t m.4 6 an d m.51 . Therefor e ther e i s n o growth , n o intensifica -
tion, paralle l to the harmoni c expansion , in th e entir e passage . I t is just boringly
loud, stuc k o n it s ff plateau . Notably , Stokowski , Weingartner, Toscanini , va n
Beinum, Kondrashin , Abravanel , Jochum , Järvi , an d abov e all , Suitner , ar e
among th e fe w conductors wh o go t thi s passage an d it s subtle dynami c distinc -
tions right .
Another, eve n mor e challenging , performanc e proble m i s th e necessit y o f
observing an d dealin g practically with Brahms' s amazingly varied phrase-endin g
release notes—al l o f this unobserve d o r consciousl y ignore d b y almos t al l con -
ductors. Thes e release s com e i n al l 'shape s an d sizes' , J ^ (a s in m.51) , J (a s in
mm.44,52, an d 171) , j (a s in m.7 4 i n th e woodwind s o r m.195) , an d eve n J "
(m.263 i n th e strings ) and ß (m.33 7 i n th e strings) . Not onl y doe s Brahm s con -
stantly mak e thes e articulatio n distinction s throughou t th e movemen t wit h re -
markable consistency , bu t h e frequentl y differentiate s wit h differen t articulation s
between, say , strings an d woodwind s (a s i n mm.63 , 74 , an d mos t importan t i n
mm.90 an d 91) . Thes e ar e fascinatin g examples o f ho w meticulousl y an d pre -
cisely Brahm s marke d hi s scores , an d conductor s wh o simpl y willfull y chang e
or ignor e thes e marking s are conductor s withou t any artistic integrit y or musica l
imagination.
Even Brahms' s meticulousl y marke d score s are , o f course, no t withou t nota -
tional ambiguitie s an d discrepancie s whic h ca n confoun d eve n th e mos t intelli -
gent an d exactin g minds . Fo r example , wha t doe s Brahm s mea n b y th e mark -
ing I s th e Bl > t o b e re-articulated , o r i s i t t o b e slurre d

into bu t the n playe d staccato , i.e . short ? Withou t bein g able t o consul t Brahm s
in perso n an d withou t access t o the autograp h scor e w e cannot b e sure . Bu t my
sense i s that th e tw o notes shoul d b e slurred , primaril y because tha t i s how the y
appear i n thei r origina l formulatio n i n m.ll . Ther e i s world-wid e confusio n
about thi s phrase markin g among no t only composers bu t musi c editors , engrav-
ers, an d publishers , wit h th e resul t tha t n o on e seem s t o kno w wit h certaint y
how to interpre t such notations , particularly when the y can yiel d different inter -
pretations betwee n strin g an d win d players . For the forme r the y ca n hav e bow -
ing a s well a s merely articulative or phras e implications . Fo r the latte r the y ca n
have particula r tonguin g implications .
I hav e an eas y solution and suggestio n to mak e o n thi s point, on e tha t I have
used i n m y own scores fo r many years. It is to put th e do t between th e en d o f the

slur an d th e notehea d i f the ne w not e i s to be separatel y articulate d (tongue d i n
the cas e o f the winds ) an d t o pu t th e do t above the slur , away fro m
the notehead , i f the ne w not e i s to b e slurre d int o

The usuall y meticulously precis e Brahm s i s inconsistent i n thi s respect , a s are
most composer s pas t an d present , everybod y assuming tha t someho w performers
can deduc e th e righ t articulation fro m th e musica l context . While this is often th e
case, there ar e far too many instances i n the literatur e where i t is quite impossible
to tell whic h articulatio n the compose r reall y intended, wher e bot h basi c ways —
articulated or non-articulated (slurred)—are possibilities.
Not onl y i s Brahms' s autograp h scor e inconsisten t i n thes e respects , bu t s o
are al l printe d score s o f th e symphony , mor e o r les s followin g Brahms' s mark -
ings, an d i n some cases , t o mak e matter s worse , adding stil l differen t articulatio n
variations. Stayin g fo r the momen t onl y wit h Brahms' s Firs t Symphony , le t m e
point ou t th e followin g examples in which th e phrasing/articulation—an d i n th e
case of the string s therefore also the bowing—ar e not unequivocally clear, and in -
deed ar e either interprete d variousl y or in oppositio n t o Brahms's apparent inten -
tions.
In th e firs t movement , apar t fro m th e passag e alread y referre d t o (mm .
54-66, an d it s paralle l place , mm.355-67) , conside r th e followin g exam -
ples: mm.73-74 (uppe r woodwinds) , but i n th e bassoons :
m.194 (winds ) mm.321-2 6
(strings) bu t i n woodwind s on e ba r earlie r w e see :
while i n th e sam e measur e i n cello s an d basse s we see :
m.337 (woodwind s an d strings) , similarl y m.33 4 an d m.339 :
In th e secon d movemen t w e fin d th e unusua l markin g

(in th e firs t violins ) i n mm.9-1 1 an d i n mm . 115-16
1.
also identicall y i n th e wood -

2.
winds i n mm . 121-22. Jus t ho w confuse d performer s are , i s show n b y th e fac t

that i n th e majorit y o f performances an d recording s th e violin s re-articulate th e
B an d A t i n mm . 115-16 (bu t no t o n Weingartner' s an d Celibidache's) , wherea s
the woodwind s usuall y slur int o thos e note s i n mm . 121-22.
In th e fourt h movemen t we see in mm . 129-30 i n the string s
and i n mm . 176, 178 , 17 9 (and it s parallel place , mm.360 , 362 , 363) .
From al l thi s 'evidence ' on e ca n se e wh y interpretation s can—an d do—var y

considerably, althoug h certai n 'traditions ' hav e evolved , wit h wind s interpretin g
these notation s mostl y on e wa y (slurred an d short) , string s variously , dependin g
on dynamics , durationa l values , a concertmaster' s decision , whil e mos t conduc -
tors stan d by , either unabl e t o refere e th e questio n or , i n mos t cases , eve n un -
aware o f a problem .
I d o no t preten d t o kno w unequivocall y wha t i n eac h instanc e i s the correc t
interpretation. Bu t a t leas t w e shoul d b e awar e tha t ther e i s a proble m her e
which need s t o b e give n ver y seriou s thought . Wha t make s n o sens e t o m e
is, fo r example , t o hav e th e wind s tongu e th e eighth-note s i n mm . 54-66 (firs t
movement), bu t t o slu r them , give n th e sam e notation , i n mm.121-2 2 o f th e
second movement .
In an y case , th e phrasin g i n mm.54-6 6 tha t ha s bee n almos t universall y
adapted i s th e separated , newl y articulate d one . I n m y samplin g o f recordings
BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHONY 303
only Stokowsk i an d Rowick i slurre d th e tw o notes , whic h i s i n m y vie w th e

correct realization .
It i s reall y ba d whe n th e violins , fo r example , pla y i n mm . 5 3-5 5 a s fol -
lows or , wors e yet ,
My suggestio n fo r a bowin g whic h retain s th e slurrin g I believ e Brahm s in -

tended, a s well a s helping t o preserv e th e integrit y o f the basi c binar y meter is :
Another no t easil y solvabl e proble m i s caused b y the discrepanc y i n notatio n

between m.51-5 2 i n th e expositio n an d m.352-5 3 i n th e recapitulation . I n th e
latter instanc e Brahm s write s unde r eac h pai r of notes, but no t s o in th e
exposition.14 Which i s right? Or ar e bot h right ? It is a crucia l question , no t onl y
per se , bu t i t impinge s o n th e large r issu e raise d befor e o f ho w t o dea l wit h
Brahms's penchan t fo r off-bea t o r syncopate d phrasings . Fo r i f a diminuend o i s
made i n m . 51 of f the secon d beat , the n i t will be extremel y difficul t t o maintai n
a sens e o f the underlyin g 6/ 8 mete r i n th e nex t an d succeedin g measures .
The ter m "pesante " i n m.6 0 an d m.6 4 (meaning , o f course , heavy , weighty )
implies a s wel l tha t th e dotte d quarter s shoul d b e playe d i n a ver y sustaine d
manner.
In m.6 3 Brahms' s più f shoul d undoubtedl y rea d sempre ff, a pi ù f necessaril y
driving th e dynami c u p t o fff instea d o f Brahms's /fi n m.68 .
Before w e mov e o n t o th e nex t sectio n o f th e Allegro's exposition , le t u s
note—and appreciate—th e remarkable harmoni c progressio n (mm.59-69) , inge -
niously returnin g u s t o th e toni c key , surel y startlin g i n it s tim e bu t rendere d
almost routin e fo r modern ear s by constant re-hearin g (se e Ex.12) .
Ex. 1 2
14. Thes e tw o measure s are, o f course, a variatio n o f mm.9-10, jus t a s the entir e sectio n fro m m. 9
to abou t m.1 6 i s brought bac k and reconstitute d in m.5 1 t o abou t m.67 .
In th e entir e sectio n betwee n m.7 0 an d m.11 4 th e articulatio n question s I

raised befor e ar e o f paramount importanc e an d mus t b e rigorousl y observed, a s
opposed t o th e indiscriminat e changin g an d ignorin g o f Brahms' s distinctions .
Particularly importan t i s the retentio n o f Brahms's clea r differentiatio n between
woodwinds an d string s i n mm.90-98 . That these ar e no t som e accidenta l differ -
ences—much les s something tha t ca n arbitraril y be change d a t a given maestro' s
discretion —should b e clea r fro m th e fac t tha t Brahms' s indication s her e ar e
absolutely consisten t an d logical . Th e string s and bras s i n combinatio n alternat e
with th e woodwinds , so that when th e forme r hav e a ful l quarter-note , th e latte r
have sharpl y articulate d shor t eighth-notes , an d vic e versa . Th e sustainin g o f
the quarter-note s i s especially crucia l whe n th e othe r instrumenta l choi r ha s a
dissonance agains t th e basi c chord , e.g . th e woodwinds ' A t agains t th e G chor d
(m.90), th e C agains t Bl > i n m.92 , th e & agains t D majo r i n m.94 , etc . Th e
only conductors , a s fa r a s I ca n tell , wh o ar e awar e o f thes e notationa l an d
harmonic distinction s ar e Stokowsk i (1927 ) an d Celibidache .
In man y edition s th e accen t (> ) fo r th e strings ' Cl > i n m.9 9 i s missing . I t i s
meant to b e a slightl y milde r versio n o f the s f i n m.97 .
Great car e mus t b e take n tha t th e violins ' pizzicato s i n mm . 105-109 b e
well heard , especiall y th e lower-pitche d notes . Th e ful l realizatio n o f this ,
once again , wondrou s harmoni c progressio n (Ex.13 ) depend s o n th e correc t
Ex. 1 3
balancing o f both th e pizzicato s an d th e win d chord s which , followin g th e first

violins' risin g intervals , also mov e upward s i n fourth s an d fifths :
The pizzicato s o f th e secon d violin s i n m.11 4 an d m.11 6 agains t th e thir d

horn's Bl>' s ar e equall y important , a s are th e ensuin g A' s in th e firs t violin s an d

cellos i n mm.117—118 . Th e horns ' unusua l fifth s i n m.11 4 an d m.11 6 als o
should no t b e playe d to o softly , to o blandly , bu t instea d perhap s eve n wit h a
gently swingin g accent , fo r the y ar e th e note s fro m whic h th e woodwind s
'bounce off. '
In orde r fo r on e o f th e firs t movement' s mai n theme s t o b e properl y heard ,
appearing no w i n th e cello s a t m.121 , th e woodwind s and horn s mus t no t pla y
too loud , o r crescend o to o much . Th e wind s shoul d no t reac h thei r f unti l
m.128, whe n —interestingly—the string s hav e alread y begun thei r diminuendo .
This i s what th e scor e prescribes ; n o recordin g o r performanc e tha t I kno w o f
has eve r observe d thi s ver y specia l an d remarkabl e nuance . Indeed , mos t con -
ductors mak e th e violin s crescendo int o m.129 , then cal l fo r a big diminuendo ,
in th e meantim e ofte n losin g th e F eighth-note , an d thu s th e prope r resolutio n
to th e temporar y toni c o f Bk
The thir d episod e o f the exposition , mm . 130-56, wit h it s elegant oboe , clari -
net, an d thir d hor n solos , look s simple enoug h o n th e fac e o f it. Bu t Brahm s is
never tha t simple ; hi s harmonic an d timbra i (instrumental ) interconnection s ar e
so imaginativel y devised and, also , constantl y regrouped , rearranged , recast, 15 as
to provide ever-new, ofte n subtl e performanc e challenges . Fo r instance, i t would
seem obviou s tha t th e obo e an d clarine t exchange s (mm . 137-41) ough t t o
match i n phrasin g an d dynamics . Yet , judgin g by th e recordings , tha t i s in fac t
rarely th e case. Indeed , i t distresses me tha t i n thes e exchanges , bu t eve n mor e
so i n th e clarine t an d thir d hor n exchange s i n mm . 148-52, th e phras e empha -
sis seem s alway s t o b e o n th e anacrusi s notes , a s i f Brahm s ha d writte n
. Also , wh y d o mos t clarine t player s swallo w th e
final not e D , sometime s t o th e poin t o f inaudibility ? (Oboist s see m t o follo w

through muc h mor e consistently. )
I thin k thes e divagations , giving the player s for the momen t the benefi t o f the
doubt, ar e cause d b y th e fac t that , startin g subtl y i n m.13 7 (2.oboe , 2.bassoon )
and mor e obviousl y a few bars later (mm . 142-48), Brahms shifts th e accompani -
ment phrasing s t o th e secon d bea t o f the bar . Bu t tha t shoul d no t b e a reaso n
for th e wind s to chang e thei r agogi c emphasis , especiall y since Brahm s provides
a substantiatin g crescend o ( ) for the tw o anacrusi s notes , clearl y indi-
cating a stress on th e ensuin g downbeat . I n fact , i t is, as I have suggeste d earlier ,
precisely th e conflic t betwee n tw o types o f rhythmic phrasings , i n thi s cas e on e
beat apart , that fascinate d Brahm s so and tha t he worke d into hi s musi c a t every
possible opportunity .
An additiona l proble m tha t ofte n arise s i n thi s episod e i s a n immoderatel y
15. I t i s Brahms' s extraordinar y talen t fo r permutatio n an d variatio n o f hi s musica l material s

(themes, motives , harmonies, instrumentations , etc.) tha t s o impresse d an d influence d Schönberg ,
moving hi m i n tur n i n th e directio n o f two majo r compositiona l principles : constant variatio n an d
non-repetition, an d thu s pavin g th e wa y fo r tw o o f th e essentia l trait s o f th e Secon d Viennes e
School. Se e Schönberg' s essa y "Brahms the Progressive " in hi s Style an d Idea (Ne w York, 1950) .
loud pai r o f horns (mm . 137-42), clearl y overbalancin g th e sol o woodwinds , as

one ca n hea r o n an y numbe r o f recordings, notabl y Dohnanyi's , Rowicki's , and
Boult's.
Why woul d an y conductor chang e Brahms' s notation—bu t no t jus t the nota -
tion, th e ver y conception , th e ver y soun d o f the music—a s s o many conductor s
have don e i n mm . 145-52? I fin d thi s a particularl y grievou s distortio n o f
Brahms's intentions , especiall y since, a s I have already shown, h e wa s so explicit
in hi s delineatio n o f all manne r o f rhythmic durations . To chang e
to is shee r arrogan t
willfulness. Th e conductor s wh o indulge d themselve s i n thi s particula r whi m

are Szell , Horenstein , Abravanel , Klemperer , Munch , Boult , Rowicki , an d Sto -
kowski. I suppos e tha t som e o f the m though t tha t Brahm s mus t hav e mad e a
mistake, meanin g t o observ e th e phrasin g a s i n a simila r but no t identica l pas -
sage i n mm.287-93 . I f the y though t tha t far , they didn' t thin k fa r enough , fo r
the rea l paralle l t o mm . 145-52, confirmin g that Brahm s kne w exactl y what h e
was doing , occur s i n th e recapitulatio n i n mm.418- 2 5. To not observ e Brahms's
durations i s obviousl y wrong, bu t eas y t o correct . Mor e difficult , althoug h cer -
tainly no t impossible , i s preserving th e integrit y o f th e dupl e mete r (a s exten -
sively discusse d earlier) . I t wil l suffic e i f eac h strin g playe r (i n m . 145-52) feels
the downbeat s i n thes e measures , an d th e correc t balanc e betwee n th e actuall y
articulated note s an d th e underlyin g pulse wil l be achieved .
After thi s quiescen t episode , Brahm s return s t o th e Sturm un d Drang moo d
of the earlie r parts of the exposition . In fou r brie f harmonically and rhythmically
striking measure s (mm . 157-60)—a kin d o f stretched-ou t anacrusi s gesture—the
music rouse s itsel f t o ful l forc e i n m.161 . Bu t unfortunatel y these fou r bar s ar e
rarely rendere d t o thei r fulles t expressiv e potential . O n th e harmoni c side ,
Brahms's startling , unexpected , an d abrup t dominan t mino r nint h chord s i n
mm. 157-58 ar e rendered unstartlin g and anonymou s in mos t
performances b y th e suppressio n o r underplayin g of th e majo r third , A . Ho w

something s o elementary an d obviou s can b e s o consistently misrepresente d de -

fies explanation. I t i s not tha t nobod y play s the A , but someho w i n th e pizzicat o
doublestops o f the violin s and triplestop s o f the cellos , th e A gets lost . The poin t
is tha t almos t n o conducto r seem s t o hea r tha t thi s importan t pitch—th e on e
that no t onl y make s i t a rea l chor d bu t need s t o b e full y sounde d t o balanc e
against th e 'dissonant ' mino r nint h (Gl> ) —is underrepresented . Th e proble m i s
usually exacerbate d b y the fac t tha t th e viola s play their arc o note s anythin g bu t
p (Brahms' s dynamic) , whil e th e pizzicato s i n th e remainin g string s ar e barel y
grazed, th e tw o approache s obviousl y resulting i n a seriou s imbalance . Matter s
are eve n wors e i n th e paralle l plac e i n th e recapitulation , wher e th e all -
important F l (i n a D dominan t minor-nint h chord ) appear s onl y i n th e firs t
violins.
Rhythmically th e passag e fare s no t muc h better. 16 Th e cross-rhythm s i n
mm. 159-60 (an d mm.433-34) ar e hardly ever bal -
anced properly , and thei r 6/ 8 feelin g is usually distorted int o a 3/4 , a s i f Brahms
had writte n
There are very few problems afte r that , excep t t o note that th e themati c mate -
rial beginnin g wit h (m.161 ) ha s staccat o dot s whil e th e

lower lin e i n violas , cellos , basses , an d bassoon s ha s none . Whe n th e line s ar e
reversed nin e bar s later, th e sam e respectiv e articulation s are retained . Thi s sim -
ply mean s tha t a t m . 161 the lowe r lin e (an d a t m.169 the uppe r line ) shoul d b e
played i n a slightly more tenuto manner . Nonetheles s thi s differenc e i n markin g
has confounde d man y conductor s wh o hav e edite d th e violins ' parts , fo r exam -
ple, variousl y a s o r
The onl y conductor s

who hav e mad e Brahms' s articulatio n distinction s clea r ar e Stokowski , Celibi -
dache, Dohnanyi , Jochum , an d Abbado .
But a muc h wors e si n i s generally committe d b y conductors an d thei r string s
in m.18 0 an d m.184— I shoul d ad d b y conductor s wh o eithe r (a ) can' t rea d a
score correctly ; (b ) d o no t trus t th e scor e o r Brahms ; (c ) assum e tha t Brahm s
16. Unbelievably , Horenstei n turn s m.15 7 an d m.15 8 int o 9/ 8 measures , addin g a whol e extr a bea t
of silenc e at th e en d o f the bar !
must hav e mad e a mistake ; o r (d ) wh o d o no t hea r tha t wha t i s bein g playe d

doesn't correspon d t o what i s in th e score . I' m referrin g to the unusua l bu t ver y
ingenious differentiatio n i n articulatio n an d duratio n betwee n th e strin g (an d
brass) part s an d th e woodwin d parts . Th e las t hav e staccat o quarter-note s ( f ),
the other s hav e dotte d quarter-note s ( f ) : a significan t difference . Despit e thi s
clear distinction , o n onl y fou r recordings—thos e o f Sanderling , Jochum , Ab -
bado, an d Klemperer—d o th e string s hol d thei r note s a t ful l value . Really curi-
ous i s th e quit e illogica l interpretatio n b y a numbe r o f conductor s (Karajan ,
Furtwängler, Szell , Jochum , Horenstein , Giulini , Leinsdorf , Janowski , van Bei -
num) i n whic h m.18 0 i s playe d tenuto bu t m.18 4 i s not , an d th e eve n mor e
illogical on e b y Wand, namely , m.18 0 short , m.18 4 long!
Following thi s thunderou s peroratio n (i n E t minor ) an d a quic k mov e t o B
major, 17 w e fin d ourselve s quite suddenl y i n th e developmen t section—startin g
actually i n m.189 . Tw o warnings : (1 ) i t i s no t a t al l necessar y o r desirabl e t o
slow dow n i n an d aroun d m.196—no t eve n fo r the ten-ba r 'descent ' i n m.21 5 —
and (2 ) a half-hearte d p an d p p i n m.19 7 (an d 205 ) will no t do , fo r i t wil l no t
achieve th e ai r o f myster y mixe d wit h a suppresse d tensio n tha t i s so uniqu e t o
this passage . Ho w extraordinary this passag e ca n soun d whe n playe d wit h a rea l
pp sempre (Brahms' s precis e marking ) an d a ver y quiet , introspectiv e p i n th e
winds can b e hear d t o best effec t o n onl y nin e recordings : Toscanini's, Karajan's ,
Haitink's, Jochum's , Böhm's , Chailly's , Herbig's , an d abov e all , Suitner' s an d
Furtwängler's. Not e th e wa y th e viola s surreptitiousl y shado w th e bassoo n
(mm. 197-204), later th e flut e an d oboe .
The gossame r textur e o f these measure s mus t b e maintaine d a t all cos t whe n
the musi c modulate s bac k t o C, althoug h thi s tim e t o C majo r (onl y briefly) . A
recurrence o f the thir d principa l them e o f the expositio n brings wit h it , in keep -
ing wit h Brahms' s penchan t fo r additiv e an d variationa l procedures , a serie s of
clearly enunciate d an d obviou s references t o Beethoven, particularl y the famous
opening four-not e mott o o f the Fift h Symphony . Fo r som e forty-od d measure s
Brahms hammer s hom e Beethoven' s motive , an d yet , a s clea r an d obviou s a s
this is , i t i s astonishin g ho w fe w conductor s cause(d ) o r allow(ed ) thes e refer -
17. I n earlie r times , n o on e eve r mad e th e repea t vi a th e firs t ending . O f late , however , unde r
the genera l pressur e o f th e tren d toward s 'historicall y informe d authenticism, ' a numbe r o f con -
ductors hav e recorde d th e firs t movemen t wit h th e repeat . Fo r m e ther e is , I mus t confess , a cer -
tain awkwardnes s in th e wa y Brahms return s t o m.38 , a n abruptnes s i n th e harmoni c progressio n
which I can't quit e analyze . On th e fac e o f it the El - mino r o f m.185 shoul d elid e quit e nicel y with
the E t diminishe d chor d o f m. 189 (i.e. m.38) . However , i n practic e th e effec t seem s constrained ,
lacking Brahms' s usuall y infallibl e harmoni c sense . I f on e wer e eve r t o conside r a revisio n o f thi s
transition passage— a fairl y outrageou s though t t o begi n with— I woul d offe r tw o suggestions : (1 ) I
believe on e proble m i s th e D t a t th e en d o f m.189 , whic h work s magnificentl y whe n th e musi c
moves t o B majo r but seem s les s felicitou s in th e mov e bac k t o C minor . I would sugges t replacin g
that D t wit h a D^ i n m.18 9 (th e firs t tim e only , o f course) ; (2 ) I t help s t o softe n th e abruptnes s
of th e retur n t o m.3 8 i f th e brass , bassoons , an d timpan i o n th e downbea t o f tha t measur e ar e
eliminated.
enees t o Beethoven, th e "giant " whose "tread " Brahm s constantl y heard behin d
him an d feare d when writin g his C mino r Symphony , to become audible . Occa-
sionally, o n a fe w recordings, as i f by accident, the y wil l surface her e an d there ,
perhaps i n th e horn s o r trumpets . Bu t th e whol e chai n o f repeated Beethove n
quotations i s clearl y projecte d i n onl y a fe w recordings : thos e o f Toscanini ,
Böhm, Szell , Abravanel , Leinsdorf , Dohnanyi , Janowski , Jochum , Tennstedt ,
and, bes t o f all, Skrowaczewsk i and Chailly .
An ide a o f th e compactnes s o f structur e an d econom y o f mean s Brahm s
commands, almos t a t th e leve l o f Beethoven' s Fifth , ca n b e gaine d no t onl y
by th e wa y al l th e primar y themati c materia l o f th e expositio n i s reworked —
expanded, contracted , varied , inverted , reorchestrated—bu t als o i n th e wa y
Brahms exploit s eve n secondar y materia l fo r furthe r recycling . Note , fo r exam -
ple, ho w th e innocen t lookin g chromati c bas s line appearin g i n th e cello s an d
basses firs t hear d i n mm.265-66 , the n again , twice , i n mm.269-72 , suddenl y
emerges as primary melody in the violin s four octave s higher i n m.273 . But the n
we se e tha t thi s passage is , in addition , a veiled reference to th e ver y openin g of
the symphony : over a G peda l poin t i n gentl y reiterate d eighth-notes , tw o lines
are spu n ou t contrapuntall y an d i n contrar y motion . Again , th e on e i n th e
woodwinds an d violas , descending an d i n harmon y (a t least in thirds) , the othe r
in violin s in octav e unison s risin g an d falling , wendin g it s way gradually down-
ward i n a lon g (21—bar ) diminuendo . Despit e th e clearl y differentiated rhythms
and phrasing s an d th e unequivocall y specified continuous diminuendo , conduc -
tors ar e constantl y changin g th e rhythms , punchin g hole s an d break s int o
Brahms's sustaine d line s wher e ther e shouldn' t b e any , an d makin g crescendos ,
as i n mm.274 , 278 , an d 282 , wher e ther e clearl y aren' t (an d shouldn' t
be) any . Thi s i s mer e self-indulgenc e an d a "know-better " contemp t fo r th e
score.
With thi s beautifu l lon g dynami c an d registra l descent , w e reac h on e o f
the mos t movin g moments o f the entir e symphony : when, le d b y a darkly myste-
rious combinatio n o f contrabassoon , lo w cellos , an d basse s i n m.293 , th e lon g
ascent t o th e f f ful l orchestr a pinnacl e a t m.32 1 begins . Ther e ar e tw o perfor -
mance problem s here , however , whic h ar e roundl y ignore d b y almos t al l per -
formers o f thi s work . On e concern s dynamics , mor e specificall y the tempta -
tion—almost alway s yielde d to—t o crescend o to o muc h to o early . Instea d o f
climaxing with a /fat m . 321, most performance s reach tha t dynami c level muc h
earlier—Ormandy, fo r example , a t m.303 , nearl y twent y bar s to o early—thu s
turning th e intende d clima x int o a bi g anti-climax . Brahm s give s u s excellen t
clues fo r pacin g th e 37-ba r crescend o i n th e clarinet s an d oboes . Bu t th e rea l
problem i s usuall y i n th e strings , particularl y in th e firs t violins , wh o (a ) i n
general lov e t o pla y loudly , forcefully , whe n o n th e G string , (b ) wh o whe n
seeing th e crescend o wedge s in mm.295,297,29 9 ten d t o mak e overbearin g cre-
scendos an d (c ) in th e alternat e measure s neve r retur n t o a pp. Th e sam e tend s
to happe n wit h the cello s and basses . T o kee p th e crescend o in chec k s o that it
is trul y ver y gradual , it i s well t o ad d th e followin g dynamics : p a t m.302 , mp a t
m.305, mf a t m.309 , an d f a t m.313 . I woul d als o sugges t tha t a distinctio n b e

made i n th e clarinet s an d oboe s betwee n wha t i s 'soloistic ' an d merel y
harmonic/accompanimental, a t least i n th e firs t tw o entrances , i.e . clarinets '
pp o n th e secon d bea t m.298 , th e oboes ' p o n th e secon d bea t m.302 .
These instrument s shoul d trac k (excep t fo r their four-not e 'solos' ) th e dynamic s
of th e tw o bassoons . Car e shoul d als o b e take n tha t th e brass' s an d timpani' s
Beethoven reiteration s b e wel l hear d an d follo w th e sam e gentl y risin g cre -
scendo line .
The othe r problem , judgin g b y numerou s performance s an d recordings , i s
apparently eve n harder to resolve: namely, t o prevent the bea t fro m bein g turne d
around. Thi s happen s quit e naturall y unles s guarde d against , becaus e ther e i s
no articulate d downbea t i n ever y alternat e pai r of measures i n th e mai n leadin g
voices: fo r example, m.29 5 an d m.29 7 i n th e first violins , m.29 4 an d m.29 6 i n
the cellos , basses , and contrabassoon . Thi s ambivalenc e o f pulse i s exacerbate d
by th e fac t tha t th e tw o leadin g line s ar e i n canoni c imitation , on e ba r apart ,
with th e resul t tha t when , fo r example , th e bas s lin e does hav e a n articulate d
downbeat, the othe r lin e doesn't , an d vic e versa. Now surely, Brahms—eve r th e
explorer o f new rhythmi c ideas—wante d here to create a degree of unsettledness
but, I am convinced , no t t o the poin t o f being completely disoriented metrically .
It i s inconceivable tha t Brahm s would hav e wante d th e violins , for example , t o
sound etc ', which , incidentally ,
when playe d tha t way, results just befor e th e clima x (m.321 ) i n a disruptiv e bar
of eithe r 9/ 8 o r 3/8 .
The reaso n tha t th e phrasin g i n th e bas s lin e start s on th e secon d bea t i s that
it i s merel y a transpositio n ( a triton e down ) o f th e to p note s a t th e ver y begin -
ning o f the Allegro, mm.38-3 9 (Exx.l4a,b) . Bu t thi s doe s no t necessaril y mean
Ex. H a
Ex. 14 b
that th e beat shoul d b e allowe d t o tur n around , i n effec t movin g al l th e ba r

lines on e dotted-quarte r bea t later . Th e entir e passag e can—an d i n m y view —
certainly shoul d b e playe d t o preserv e bot h sensations : th e rhythmi c unsettled -
ness mentione d abov e an d th e regula r pulse o f the underlyin g meter, i n a word
'to hav e ou r cak e an d ea t i t too.' Fo r i t is once again , a s so ofte n i n Brahms , th e
conflict, th e tension , betwee n tw o opposin g rhythmic/metri c force s tha t h e
wants t o create , an d tha t we , a s performers , mus t rende r appropriately . Al l that
needs t o b e suggeste d to th e player s i s to kee p th e 6/ 8 puls e i n mind , t o fee l it ,
especially o n th e unarticulate d downbeat s —this migh t b e rendere d notationall y
as —an d th e balanc e betwee n th e
syncopated melodi c lin e an d th e underlyin g bea t wil l be preserved .

But w e lose eve n mor e whe n w e allow the bea t to be turne d around ; we los e
all thos e remarkabl e an d fo r their tim e darin g upwar d leap s starting i n th e bas s
instruments i n mm.296-97 , an d i n mm.307-30 8 i n th e first violins. As the cre -
scendo mounts , thes e upwar d thrusts—lik e the slo w initial tremors o f a volcani c
eruption—must becom e increasingl y pronounced , canonicall y on e measur e
apart, a t th e sam e tim e increasingl y emphasizin g th e 'ones / th e downbeats , o f
the measures . Whe n al l o f this i s done properly , th e climacti c releas e a t m.32 1
is overwhelming , becaus e i t evolve s absolutel y organicall y an d i s no t fel t a s a
strange unexpecte d ruptur e (or , as mentioned earlier , an anti-climax) .
The powerfu l dissonanta l clashe s a t th e clima x i n mos t case s nee d t o b e
worked out . I am speakin g of the A!>' s agains t the G' s i n m.321 , the clas h o f th e
violins' D agains t th e woodwinds ' C i n m.32 2 (repeate d on e ton e lowe r i n
m.324). Bu t i t i s perhap s eve n harde r t o mak e th e viola s an d cello s hear d i n
m.322 and m.324 , a s they answe r the violins , again canonically . The woodwind s
must b e cautione d t o hold al l their dotte d quarter-note s ful l lengt h t o differenti-
ate thei r rhythmi c contou r fro m tha t o f the bras s and timpani .
But th e bigges t problem , becaus e least notice d an d appreciated , i s th e
careless habi t o f th e string s playin g instea do f
One ca n hea r thi s o n virtuall y al l recordings ,
most notabl y Chailly's , Barenboim's , Muti's , Herbig's , an d eve n Furtwängler' s

and Toscanini's .
Brahms write s a reinforcin g /f fo r th e string s i n m.329 . Al l string sections , o f
course, pla y thi s passag e ff , bu t ar e mor e ofte n tha n no t acousticall y drowne d
out b y timpan i an d winds . O n onl y a fe w recording s (Walter , Toscanini , Järvi ,
Rowicki, Tennstedt ) ca n th e string s b e hear d a t all . (Can' t thes e world-famou s
Grammy-winning recor d producer s hea r tha t th e string s are totall y covered?)
With th e magnificentl y ponderous bas s lin e
in m.339 , we have arrive d at the re -

capitulation. Bu t not e ho w ingeniousl y Brahm s modifie s its first four bars , als o
reversing i n effec t th e orchestration : wha t wa s in th e wind s i n th e expositio n is
now i n th e strings , and vic e versa.
As so many composers, starting with Haydn and Mozart , have done, so too does
Brahms foreshorten the recapitulation . The whol e sectio n o f the expositio n fro m
m.69 to m.9 6 i s not represente d in th e reprise . This wa s partially necessitated by
Brahms's need to return to C minor (whereas the parallel sections in the exposition
were basically in & minor) . Although the materia l in the recapitulatio n is essen-
dally th e sam e a s i n th e exposition , Brahm s introduce s man y variations , som e

very subtle, an d mostl y in terms o f reorchestration. Obviously, all comments an d
suggestions mentione d i n referenc e t o the expositio n appl y to the recapitulatio n
as well.
Just a s the expositio n come s t o a clos e a t m.188 , s o now th e paralle l place i n
the recapitulatio n (m.461 ) mus t fin d a ne w wa y to continue . And ho w brillian t
is Brahms' s solution ! Whereas a t tha t junctur e in th e expositio n Brahm s move s
from E) > mino r t o Cl > majo r (actuall y enharmonically B major), i n th e recapitula -
tion h e move s fro m C mino r t o a C majo r dominan t sevent h i n a thir d inver -
sion, intensel y orchestrated i n horn s an d bassoon s
Unfortunately ver y fe w conductor s tak e th e troubl e t o balanc e thi s chor d i n

its si x reiterations , th e proble m bein g tha t th e not e whic h make s i t a majo r
chord, E^ , lie s rather lo w in onl y the secon d hor n an d inherentl y projects much
less tha n th e G i n th e thir d hor n a tent h above . But , o f course, th e chor d ca n
be balanced ; i t jus t take s a littl e rehearsin g an d a pai r o f carin g ears . O f th e
many recordings I heard, ther e wer e only nine wher e these chord s wer e properly
and excitingl y balanced , and/o r no t drowne d ou t b y th e timpani : thos e o f Sto -
kowski, Jochum , Skrowaczewski , Wand, Tennstedt , Abbado , Ormandy , Suitner ,
and Järvi . O n to o man y recording s th e horn s an d bassoon s wer e allowe d t o
play instea d of | . The ful l sustain -
ing (an d correc t balancing ) o f these chord s i s what make s this passag e so thrill-
ing to hear .
In m.46 0 an d m.46 4 Norringto n ha s th e bizarr e ide a o f addin g subito p' s
(followed b y immediat e crescendos , o f course) , perversel y impedin g th e flo w
and dram a o f this climactic passage .
In m.46 6 Brahm s build s a kin d o f stretto, usin g hi s basi c chromati c mai n
motive whic h w e first hear a t th e ver y openin g o f the Allegro (mm.38-40) , now
again transpose d dow n a triton e an d se t agains t a contrary-motio n bas s lin e
(Ex.15). Th e prominenc e Brahm s give s thi s chromati c motiv e Ft-G-AI » a t thi s
Ex. 1 5
point, seem s t o m e almos t preordained , fo r h e ha s previousl y used i t numerou s

times i n th e movement , alway s a t critica l forma l junctures . Fig . 3 display s a
selection o f these a s they occur and re-occu r variously in th e movement , demon -
strating Brahms' s Beethovenia n compactnes s o f architectura l desig n an d econ -
omy o f means.
Fig. 3
(1) mm.434-36 : the encircle d
notes
(2) mm.442-44 : Th e abov e reiterate d i n th e lowe r strings eigh t measure s

later;
(3) mm.418-21 :
(4) mm.403-405 : first oboe (i n transpose d inversion) ,
(5) m.383 : violins (in th e origina l untranspose d position )
(6) mm.371-72 : woodwinds an d string s
(7) mm.367-70 : first violins
(8) mm.364-67 : flute, oboe, clarine t (transposed )
; a t the sam e tim e i n a differ -

ent transpositio n an d inversio n i n lo w strings and bassoon s
(9) mm.350-52 : high-register instruments , wit h not e sequenc e
changed
(10) mm.343-45 : first clarinet, first oboe, second violins , secon d
horn
(11) mm.3 3 5-37: hig h registe r instruments

(12) mm . 3 39-41: simultaneously, origina l untranspose d versio n (violins,

horns, 2.flute , l.oboe ) an d transpose d retrograd e a s well a s inversion
(13) mm.293-95 : contrabassoon , cellos , basse s
(14) mm.273-77 : violins, a) transposed b ) retrograde d
then spu n ou t i n various

other transpositions ;
(15) mm.229-31 : string s transposed, an d i n canoni c imitatio n (encircle d

notes)
All th e example s above , whic h figur e i n th e recapitulation , appear , of

course, i n stil l differen t transposition s i n th e exposition .
At m.47 4 an d th e remainde r o f th e movement, 18 Brahm s present s u s wit h

one o f th e mos t seriou s interpretationa l problem s i n th e entir e symphony . I t is
not clea r ho w th e performer s are t o ge t fro m m.474 , presumabl y a t ful l allegro
tempo, t o th e rae.no allegro a t m.495 , o r ho w muc h slowe r th e memo allegro is
to be .
Any mov e t o a slowe r tempo , whethe r vi a a ritardand o o r not , involve s above
18. Her e man y a performanc e and recordin g have bee n ruine d b y a n overl y boisterou s timpanist.
The brutalit y an d insensitivit y wit h which som e timpanist s literally slam int o m.47 4 i s staggering; in
the process , o f course , 'wipin g out ' th e entir e res t o f th e orchestra . (Hea r th e Janowsk i an d Pait a
recordings fo r confirmation.)
all a fir m decisio n a s to ho w slo w that slowe r tempo i s to be . Ther e are ver y few
places i n th e symphoni c literatur e where tha t decisio n i s so difficul t t o mak e a s
in th e Brahm s First . Meno allegro i s suc h a relativ e ter m an d wit h n o metro -
nome indicatio n a s a clue , i t i s anyone's gues s wha t Brahm s ma y hav e ha d i n
mind. Ironically , matters are also made difficul t b y the knowledg e that the move -
ment's u n poco sostenuto introduction , t o whic h th e meno allegro coda i s obvi-
ously closel y related, wa s compose d after th e mai n bod y o f the movemen t ha d
been completed . Tha t informatio n no w leads t o the temptin g though t tha t th e
introduction an d cod a ough t t o b e identica l (o r a t leas t 'closel y related' ) i n
tempo. Suc h thinkin g i n tur n lead s t o th e possibilit y that bot h th e introductio n
and cod a shoul d b e i n a moderato o r allegro moderato tempo , conducte d i n
'two,' onl y moderatel y slower than th e ful l allegro.
It i s not difficul t t o fin d a rational e fo r suc h a n approach . Afte r all , a t m.49 5
Brahms simpl y say s meno allegro, i.e . les s lively . H e doe s no t sa y andante o r
adagio; and , a s I have already pointed out , hi s un poco sostenuto of the introduc -
tion ma y signif y a similarl y modeiate divergenc e fro m th e mai n allegro tempo .
Given the ambiguousness of Brahms's tempo indication s here, conductors have
resorted to all manner of'solutions,' purely intuitively in most cases, probably with-
out any particular intellectual o r analytical rationale. A relatively few (Rowicki, van
Beinum, Leinsdorf , Abravanel) have take n Brahms' s meno allegro at fac e value ,
conducting i t in 'two' in what might be called an andante co n moto or allegro molió
moderato (th e dotted quarte r in the metronome' s uppe r 50s , lower 60s).19
It i s als o significan t tha t Brahm s wrot e men o allegro, an d not , fo r example ,
più andante o r pi ù adagio. I n othe r words , he mean t th e temp o t o sta y i n th e
allegro realm, wit h the implicatio n tha t hi s tempo indicatio n refer s t o the dotte d
quarter M . j, no t the eighth-note .
Another fac t tha t lend s credenc e t o interpretin g Brahms' s meno allegro i n a
relatively lively' temp o i s the fac t tha t h e doe s no t indicat e an y ritardando prior
to m.495 . Unles s w e simpl y wan t t o assume—withou t an y justificatio n o r
proof—that Brahm s jus t forgo t th e ritardando , his meno allegro has t o tak e o n a
quite differen t meanin g tha n i t ha s heretofor e usuall y bee n accorded . Mos t
conductors hav e take n a temp o o f the dotte d quarte r between 4 0 an d 50 , with
Furtwängler, Klemperer , Bernstein , Chailly , Skrowaczewski , an d Horenstei n
even belo w tha t (a t J - = 34 , 36 and 38) . The proble m fo r all of them ha s bee n
how t o ge t fro m th e ful l drivin g allegro, say , a t m.474—usuall y aroun d J - =
92—to their much, muc h slowe r meno allegros. And again , ever y possible logical
and illogica l optio n ha s bee n attempte d b y someon e a t on e tim e o r another ,
from a n immediat e sudde n pullin g bac k o f th e temp o a t m.47 5 t o a judicious
almost imperceptibl e slowin g over twenty bars, and man y gradations in betwee n
(see belo w fo r mor e details) .
19. I f indeed som e o f those conductor s eve r thought abou t als o taking th e introductio n i n a similar
moderato tempo , as a counterpart t o the coda , they probably were dissuaded from doing so by the long -
standing entrenched traditio n of doing the openin g i n the familiar ponderousl y slow tempo, conducte d
in 'six. ' To my knowledge onl y Norrington ha s dared t o pace the openin g i n a fairly livel y 'two.'
But what abou t thos e wonderfu l duples i n th e cello s i n mm.294-93 ? What is

their significance ? In m y vie w the y ar e Brahms' s ingeniou s wa y o f gentl y re -
laxing an d calmin g th e feeling o f the music , withou t appreciabl y disturbing th e
David Epstein , i n hi s hi s aforementione d discussio n o f temp o relationship s

between movement s an d withi n movement s i n Brahms' s Firs t Symphony , pro -
poses a ver y interestin g answe r t o th e temp o questio n i n th e meno allegro by
suggesting tha t th e cellos ' dupl e quarter-note s shoul d equa l th e eighth-note s o f
the slowe r 6/ 8 I n hi s suggeste d temp o rang e o f j- = 96 -

104, th e eighth-note s i n m.49 5 woul d the n b e i n th e rang e o f 192-208 . B e i t
noted tha t i n Epstein' s suggestio n ther e i s no possibl e consideratio n o f the nor -
mally adopte d ritardand o between m.47 5 an d m.495 .
I realiz e tha t mos t conductor s wil l heatedl y argu e agains t suc h a 'ridiculou s
notion.' An d th e establishe d traditio n wil l automaticall y b e invoked , supporte d
by generation s o f world-famous maestri, t o th e effec t tha t th e meno allegro has
"always bee n don e slow , an d s o i t shoul d be". 20 Bu t I invit e anyon e t o sin g
through th e las t nine bars or so of the Allegro at a tempo, say , of J- = 92 , notin g
the calmin g effec t o f the cellos ' duple s (bu t withou t slowin g down), an d a t th e
meno allegro dropping dow n to , say , = J - 60 . (Norringto n take s J - = 62. ) Any
reasonable, objective , unprejudiced min d wil l have to admit tha t suc h a concep -
tion work s ver y well , an d is , at least , a s reasonabl e a n optio n a s an y othe r tha t
has bee n offere d throug h th e years . It canno t jus t b e peremptoril y ruled ou t a s
a possibility , rejected out o f hand .
This poin t o f vie w raises , i n retrospect , a s I implie d earlier , th e fascinatin g
possibility tha t Brahm s meant both th e openin g o f the symphon y an d th e cod a
(m.495) t o b e i n a moderatel y movin g tempo , tha t is , fel t an d conducte d i n
'two,' no t 'six ' (o r optionally , a subdivide d 'two'). Again I invit e th e incredulou s
objector, horrifie d a t th e ver y thought, t o sin g throug h th e entir e introductor y
section a t a temp o o f abou t j - = 50-60 . An y remotel y objectiv e perso n wil l
have t o admi t tha t i t i s a possibility . Brahms's lon g line s flo w beautifully , th e
integrity o f th e 6/ 8 mete r an d it s 'two' feelin g i s more readil y maintained, an d
even th e lovel y sequence o f oboe, flute , cell o (mm.29-37 ) gain s a gently undu -
lating, lyric quality. Admittedly, at this tempo, th e introductio n lose s its painfull y
anguished, heavil y tragic mood . Bu t the n whoeve r sai d — or presume s t o kno w
with certainty—tha t Brahm s intended th e movemen t t o hav e thi s tragic ponder -
ous quality ? I n al l likelihoo d th e variou s hermeneuti c interpretation s o f th e
Brahms First' s firs t movemen t a s "despairing, " "gloomy, " "elemental, " "tragic "
20. I n poin t o f fact , I doub t tha t anyone—certainl y no t anyon e livin g today—know s whe n tha t
tradition started , who starte d it , and eve n whethe r i t wa s (as is so easil y assumed ) a tradition create d
by som e interprete r i n th e earl y years o f thi s symphony's existence . Di d Ott o Dessof f establis h th e
tradition whe n h e firs t premiere d th e wor k i n Karlsruh e in 1876 ? O r wa s i t Brahm s himsel f when
he conducte d th e symphon y i n late r performances ? O r wa s i t Billow ? W e don' t know . Al l w e d o
know i s that b y the tim e th e firs t recording s were made (b y Stokowski and Klernperer ) i n th e 1920' s
the 'tradition ' wa s graven in stone , an d ha s bee n —I think , thoughtlessly—perpetuated eve r since.
(see Tovey , fo r example ) al l cam e t o min d a s a resul t o f performance s which ,

erroneously, interprete d th e wor k i n tha t fashion . O r perhap s i t wa s the othe r
way around .
Taking th e introductio n i n a slo w 'two, ' o f course , destroy s th e ide a o f th e
previously suggested 3: 1 metric-uni t relationshi p (•*—« P = J.—*) betwee n i t an d
the Allegro. At j- = 96-10 4 in the Allegro an d J - = 48-5 2 i n the meno allegro,
the relationshi p woul d obviousl y b e 2: 1 (a - = J.) which , again , i s another rea -
sonable interpretiv e possibility.
I d o no t clai m définitiv e knowledg e i n regar d t o thes e temp o matter s ( I wish
that other s woul d als o no t clai m suc h authority) ; I a m simpl y suggestin g som e
alternatives o n th e basi s of what Brahms' s scor e actuall y says , alternative s that, i t
seems, ver y few conductor s hav e eve r considere d before , suggestion s tha t hav e
enough validit y to be take n seriously , to b e a t least discusse d an d argued .
What conductor s have don e i n th e fina l 3 8 bars o f the movemen t (startin g at
m.475) i s t o introduc e arbitraril y variou s type s an d degree s o f ritardandi , de -
pending o n ho w slo w (agai n arbitraril y determined) th e meno allegro tempo wa s
to be . Som e conductors—Klempere r (th e Berli n Stat e Oper a recordin g o f
1928), Walter , Kondrashin , Skrowaczewski , Bernstein , Boult—hav e starte d th e
ritardando immediatel y a t m.47 5 — sometimes i n a giganti c jammin g o n o f th e
tempo brakes—s o tha t b y m.47 8 (jus t thre e bar s later ) the y ar e alread y i n a
substantially slowe r tempo. The n the y hav e ritarde d eve n more , arrivin g finally
at a lugubriously slow meno allegro. Still others (Levine , Stokowski , van Beinum )
have waite d unti l m.47 8 to commence their ritard ; still other s (Szell , Dohnanyi )
have waite d eve n longer , ritardin g onl y i n th e fina l eigh t o r nin e measure s
(ca.m.486). Som e fe w conductor s (Rowicki , Abravanel, Haitink , Toscanini , Jo -
chum) hav e ver y gracefull y an d tastefull y calibrate d a subtle , almos t impercepti -
ble ritardand o ove r th e twent y bar s (mm.475-95) . Bu t other s hav e com e u p
with reall y bizarr e 'solutions, ' lik e Järvi , wh o slow s u p a t m.474 , spring s bac k
into temp o i n m.475 , startin g anothe r ritar d aroun d m.48 1 an d arrivin g finally
at a n adagio versio n o f the meno allegro of j- = 44 ; o r Furtwängle r an d Janow -
ski, th e opposit e o f Järvi, who accelerate into m.474 , the n pul l bac k enormousl y
at m.475 . Stil l othe r conductors , lik e Tennstedt, Abbado, an d Chaill y pul l bac k
suddenly a t m.47 4 (sic), whic h make s n o sens e a t all . Bu t perhap s th e mos t
blatant aberratio n come s fro m Celibidache , wh o make s a sizabl e fermat a (i^\)
over the quarte r res t of m.475. Herbig' s approac h i s also very strange. After slow -
ing dow n slightl y around m.476 , h e make s a hug e ritar d starting at m.491 , onl y
to go quasi a tempo (J - = 52 , J- = 56 ) at th e meno allegro. To make th e ritar d
at m.49 1 i s (1) t o ignor e th e fac t tha t ther e i s none indicate d b y Brahms , (2 ) is
to ignor e completel y th e duplet s (an d thei r meaning ) i n th e cell o i n mm.492 -
93, an d (3 ) i s to ignor e th e grea t probabilit y tha t Brahm s wante d th e temp o o f
the las t few measures befor e the meno allegro to elid e almos t imperceptibl y int o
that coda .
Beyond that , mino r ba d habit s an d fault s hav e crep t int o rendition s o f thi s
section. Fo r example , virtuall y al l violi n section s mak e diminuendo s i n m.48 1
and m.484 , when i t says quit e explicitl y poco a poco cresc., and whe n th e resolv -
ing note s G an d A N (respectively ) shoul d b e full y intoned .
I wis h tha t mor e conductor s an d orchestr a musician s woul d appreciat e
Brahms's penchan t (i n al l hi s orchestra l works ) fo r a n organ-lik e orchestration ,
as, fo r example , i n mm.477-79 , wher e horn s represen t a n eight-foo t stop , th e
clarinets a four-foo t stop , an d th e flute s a two-foo t stop.
During th e meno allegro itsel f several problem s ca n arise . First , ther e i s th e
problem o f a goo d balanc e betwee n horn s an d timpani , particularl y the lo w C
of th e secon d hor n an d als o th e sostenuto characte r o f th e timpani . Second , I
find tha t often th e variou s chromatic phrases , echoe s o f the ver y opening o f th e
symphony, d o no t star t p (se e mm.495,497,499,501) . Last , le t m e plea d tha t th e
contrabassoon's lo w C i n m.50 8 be wel l heard . (I t is quite inaudibl e o n th e vas t
majority o f recordings.)
I hav e n o stron g particula r opinio n a s to ho w long th e wind s shoul d hol d th e
final C majo r chord . I t seems t o m e tha t i t works well at least two different ways ,
for example , th e wind s releasin g wit h th e strings ' final pizzicato, o r alternatively
holding th e chor d a littl e beyon d th e pizzicato. Mos t conductors , mysel f in -
cluded, op t for the latte r interpretation , bu t I recal l bein g severel y chastised o n
one occasio n b y a very respecte d musicia n colleague , wh o claime d t o know tha t
the winds ' chor d "shoul d neve r sustai n beyon d th e 'pluck ' o f th e strings ' (an d
timpani's) pizzicato. " H e ma y hav e asserte d tha t i n respons e t o th e man y con -
ductors wh o hol d th e las t chor d inordinatel y long , e.g . Stokowski , Ormandy ,
Abbado. (Al l that ha s been sai d on thi s point applie s equall y to the fina l measur e
of the thir d movement. )
The secon d movement' s majo r interpretationa l problem i s one o f tempo. Brahm s

gives us andante sostenuto. Thi s seem s relativel y explicit to me , particularl y that
word 'andante,' and I therefore cannot understand why the vast majority of conduc-
tors, past and present, insist on playing this movement as an adagio, indeed an ada-
gio molto or adagississimo. Some conductor s (Kertesz , Rowicki, Klemperer, for ex-
ample) pla y thi s movemen t s o slo w tha t th e triple t eighth s i n m. 6 fee l lik e
individual quarter-notes . I n suc h instance s th e triplet s lose al l feelin g of triplets,
have no flow or line; they jus t sit there: stolid, stif f an d heavy , unmoving—indeed
unmovable. The temp o suc h conductor s tak e is not on any metronome, no t eve n
on modern metronome s whic h usually go down only to 32.
I am , onc e again , no t sur e wh o starte d thi s 'tradition ' o f such extremel y slow
tempos i n thi s movement , no r why . I coul d gues s that , onc e th e lat e 19th -
century hermeneuti c interpreter s with their extra-musica l anecdotal fantasie s go t
hold o f Brahms' s First , hi s symphon y wa s see n a s th e grea t tragic , anguishe d
statement o f a geniu s strugglin g not onl y wit h fat e (a s Beethoven wa s imagine d
to hav e similarl y struggled i n hi s Fift h Symphony) , bu t wit h th e spel l o f th e
universal canonizatio n o f the ver y sam e Beethoven . Th e fac t tha t bot h Beetho -
ven's Fift h an d Brahms' s First were in C mino r becam e a convenien t polemica l
premise b y whic h Brahm s coul d b e elevate d t o th e tru e hei r o f th e thron e re -
cently vacate d b y Beethoven , a t th e sam e tim e investin g him wit h th e mantl e
of the grea
O O
t tragic', suffering
O
, *strugglin
O Ö O
g Romanti
O
c artist . And suc h tragedy
J
, 'suc h
suffering, could , o f course, onl y be expresse d i n th e slowes t and mos t anguishe d
of tempos .
But th e fac t is , al l anecdote s an d fancifu l figment s aside , th e secon d move -
ment o f Brahms's allegedl y 'tragic ' symphon y i s in E major , a n untragic , warm ,
luminous, almos t sunn y key ; an d i t i s a n aria , a song , sun g b y som e o f th e
brightest singer s o f th e orchestra : th e oboe , th e clarinet , th e violin , an d th e
horn.
It will come a s a shock—a n ac t o f heresy—for thos e wh o ar e use d onl y t o th e
thickly, massive , creeping , lugubriou s rendering s o f this movemen t tha t a temp o
of, say , j = 52-60 , th e lowe r en d o f the andante scale , work s beautifully. The
music the n easil y achieves it s essential , almos t Schubertia n song-lik e quality, 21
its lon g archin g lines , withou t an y los s o f passio n o r drama , allowin g eve n fo r
the appearanc e o f the occasiona l 'darkenin g cloud' alon g th e wa y (for instance ,
mm.3,16,49,53,70).
Another majo r reaso n fo r not adoptin g th e slowes t possible temp o i n th e sec -
ond movement 22 i s its remarkable—better said , extraordinary—phras e construc -
tion, n o aspec t o f whic h i s realizabl e o r audibl e whe n th e temp o i s s o slo w
as t o pul l al l phrases , eve n individua l measures , int o smal l clump s o f isolate d
disconnected sounds . N o conducto r t o m y knowledg e — even th e 'greatest '
Brahmsians—has encourage d a n orchestr a t o fee l an d hear—an d communi -
cate—the unusua l periodization s i n thi s movement . Withou t a n understandin g
of these heterogeneou s archin g lines , performer s are reduce d t o merel y sloshin g
through th e notes , ba r b y bar, withou t an y sens e o f the structura l continuity , o f
where the y ar e i n th e over-al l for m o f the piece .
Consider thi s remarkable , unorthodox , an d highl y origina l structura l pla n
(schematically represente d i n Fig . 4) , clearl y discernibl e fro m eve n a casua l
reading o f the score .
The ba d habit s —bad traditions—an d misbegotte n interpretations , a s wel l a s
plain ignorin g o r rejectio n o f Brahms's score , ar e legio n i n thi s movement , an d
a recita l o f these doe s no t giv e me muc h pleasure . Bu t the y ar e s o insidious , so
ingrained i n almos t al l performances , tha t the y must , I feel , b e addresse d an d
exposed.
The temp o questio n alread y referred t o is, of course, th e mos t seriou s proble m
and i n m y view , a rea l obstacl e t o a faithfu l performanc e (se e Fig . 5 for a tabl e
of variou s conductors ' temp o choices) . Fo r i f Brahms's andante i s observed , al l
21. Th e compose r Dougla s Townsen d ha s mad e th e cas e ver y wel l i n hi s writing s — including hi s
superb line r note s fo r Rowicki' s recording s o f th e fou r Brahm s symphonies—fo r th e stron g impac t
of Schubert' s influenc e o n Brahms . Townsend' s reflection s o n th e subjec t o f Brahms' s earl y influ -
ences ar e wort h citin g here : "Brahms' s musica l genealog y migh t rea d somethin g lik e this : great -
grandfather: Bach ; paterna l an d materna l grandfathers : Mozar t an d Beethoven ; uncle : Schubert ;
cousin: Mendelssohn ; an d father : Schumann. " Townsen d goe s o n t o say : "Schubert's influenc e ca n
be observe d i n man y o f Brahms ' ow n melodies , which , howeve r Brahmsian , hav e a s thei r poin t o f
origin earl y nineteenth-centur y Vienn a a s i t i s expressed i n th e musi c o f Schubert. "
22. I t occur s t o m e tha t Mahle r i n simila r circumstance s woul d hav e writte n 'langsa m abe r nich t
schleppend' (slo w bu t no t dragging) .
Fig. 4
1' 1
Number
5' 3 5 ' 3 1 10
of meas . 1' i
I) i
Meas, mm. 1-5 i mm.6- 8 ' mm.9-1 3 i mm.14-1 6 i m.1 7 mm. 18-27
numbers (or 4+1 ) ' (o r 4+1 ) (6 + 2 + 2)
3
mm. 1-3
(repeated)
kinds o f performanc e aspect s wil l fal l automatically , nicel y int o place . Assum -
ing, then , that a reasonable and moderat e temp o i s taken, ther e ar e stil l a variety
of musica l misdemeanor s whic h hav e becom e par t o f th e 'tradition ' o f per -
forming thi s movement . Fo r example , mos t orchestra s and conductor s mak e a
tremendous crescend o i n th e ver y firs t measure , undoubtedl y wantin g t o sho w
how emotional , ho w profoundly expressive , they ca n be , a s opposed t o the alleg -
edly 'cool, ' overl y 'intellectual ' 'remote ' Brahms, 23 wh o didn' t eve n hav e th e
Fig. 5
J = 28 Klemperer (1928) , Giulin i J = 42 Dohnanyi, Leinsdorf ,
J=30 Bernstein, Ozawa , Tennstedt , Kondrashin, Järvi , Walte r
Abbado J = 44 Wand
J=34 Munch, Janowski , Böhm, Sand - J = 46 Karajan (Vienna )
erling J = 48 Boult, Suitne r (wh o slow s
J=36 Weingartner, va n Beinum , Sto- to J = 42 by m.5 )
kowski, Ormandy , Klempere r J=52 Norrington
(1955-57), Steinberg , Jochu m J = 60 Toscanini, Mut i (who
J = 38 Horenstein, Furtwängle r (Vi- slows t o J = 42 b y m.3)
enna), Rowick i (who slows to
J = 3 2 b y m . 5 ) , Celibidach e
J = 40 Skrowaczewski, Levine , Szell ,
Abravanel, Kertesz , Chailly ,
Haitink, Paita , Herbig , Lehe l
23. Thes e wer e indee d som e o f th e earl y an d immediat e reaction s t o Brahms' s Firs t Symphony ,
especially, o f course, b y the Wagnerite s o f the day . The genera l consensu s i n mos t circle s wa s that
Brahms's ne w symphony , for all it s skill—or perhap s becaus e o f it—wa s "too intellectual," "remote"
(fremdartig), "revolting " (abstossend), "aloof " and othe r simila r epithets. Earl y reactions t o Brahms' s
symphonies i n th e Unite d State s wer e n o different . I n Boston , th e criti c Phili p Hale , evidentl y
speaking fo r many American musi c lovers , suggested tha t th e door s i n Symphon y Hal l b e equippe d
with sign s readin g "Exi t i n cas e o f Brahms. " Harr y Elli s Dickso n i n hi s memoi r recall s tha t a t th e
first performance o f the Brahm s Fourth Symphon y by the Bosto n Symphony the wor k "wa s remove d
from th e Saturda y program, an d a symphon y by Schuman n wa s substituted . [Conductor ] Gerick e
announced t o th e pres s that th e Brahm s symphony was 'incomprehensible.' " (Harry Elli s Dickson,
Beating Time—A Musicians Memoir (Boston , 1995), p. 74.)
imagination o r decenc y t o pu t a •™= = = = - i n th e firs t tw o bars! What suc h 'inter -

preters' forge t i s tha t Brahm s wa s quit e capabl e o f writin g suc h 'hairpin '
crescendo-diminuendos, whe n an d i f he wante d them . Indeed , b y my count, i n
this secon d movemen t alon e ther e ar e n o les s tha n twent y instance s o f thi s
particular dynami c nuance .
Someone wil l no w undoubtedl y argu e th e cas e tha t Brahm s simpl y forgot t o
put a — = = = - i n th e first two bars. An y objective, rationa l min d wil l hav e
to conced e tha t tha t i s a possibility ; Brahms could hav e forgotten . Bu t wha t I
don't understan d i s how w e go so quickly from thi s possibility—to m y min d ver y
remote, give n Brahms' s notoriou s fastidiousnes s in detail s o f notation—t o th e
assertion (an d absolute conviction) tha t Brahm s obviousl y must hav e forgotte n
this expressive nuance. 24 Why mus t the possibl e an d probabl e becom e automati -
cally th e absolute , unarguable , untouchable , unalterabl e sine qu a no n o f per -
forming traditions ? Why no t explor e wit h a littl e imagination , ho w wha t i s pre-
sumed t o b e a mistak e o r a n omissio n o r a miscalculatio n coul d b e i n fac t
absolutely feasible , and—perish th e thought—th e bes t solutio n afte r all ?
The openin g o f Brahms' s secon d movemen t i s an appropriat e cas e i n point .
Its littl e six-not e melod y (mm . 1-2) ha s a simplicity , a n unadorne d beaut y an d
artless charm , tha t i s completel y destroye d whe n gussie d u p wit h extraneou s
dynamic swell s and heavings , especiall y offensiv e whe n additionall y the temp o
is twic e a s slo w a s i t shoul d be . For , th e slowe r th e temp o th e mor e painfu l
these interpretationa l exaggeration s become . M y motto , an d m y admonitio n t o
orchestral player s wh o hav e bee n taugh t t o pla y thi s openin g phras e i n suc h a
vulgarized way , is: let Brahms' s beautiful note s d o the talking . I n thei r wonderful
purity the y don' t nee d an y additional shorin g up , improving , embellishing , sup -
plementing, interpolating ; the y communicat e quit e wel l enoug h withou t ou r
pitiful 'interpreter ' overlays.
The sam e proble m i s at issu e i n m.3 , where , again , conductor s an d violinists
want t o ad d a presumabl y missin g * = : := * t o th e phrase , justifyin g thei r deci -
sions, I assume , b y th e fac t tha t Brahm s add s jus t suc h a nuanc e th e nex t tw o
times thi s littl e phras e appear s (violin s m.15, viola s m.16). Ther e is , of course ,
no substantiabl e logi c behin d suc h a n assumption ; an d furthermor e i t pre -
cludes, again , th e mor e interestin g optio n o f performin g mm . 3-4 a s writte n
(come è scritto, as Toscanini woul d say) , that is , to see k ou t th e meanin g behin d
Brahms's avoidanc e o f a crescendo-diminuendo , rathe r tha n blithel y assumin g
that it s absenc e i s a 'mistake. ' I n fact , th e meanin g o f thi s nuance-les s p p is , i t
seems t o me , quit e clear . B y whatever metapho r on e ma y wis h to describ e thi s
phrase —m.3 alway s evoke s for m e th e imag e o f a smal l passin g clou d tha t fo r a
moment partiall y darken s th e sky—i t i s firs t an d foremos t a sudde n softening ,
darkening, distancin g o f the musi c fro m it s two-bar anteceden t phrase . And jus t
24. I t seem s t o m e tha t such assertion s an d undocumente d (indee d undocumentable ) assumption s

are a t th e hear t o f the matte r o f what ail s most performin g o f the Romanti c an d classica l repertoire .
A possibility , a probability , i s quickly turne d int o a certaint y an d a sacralize d traditio n b y thos e wh o
would righteousl y presum e t o kno w bette r tha n th e composer s themselve s wha t thes e composer s
intended thei r score s t o reveal .
as tha t firs t phras e ha s n o - = = - , s o its 'echo ' als o doesn't—and , o f course ,

shouldn't.
As an ex-horn-playe r I cannot resis t commenting o n th e anomalous—actuall y
incorrect, bu t onl y slightl y so—marking, gestopft (stopped) , i n th e horn s i n m.3 .
On th e natura l horn , fo r which Brahm s alway s wrot e despit e th e fac t tha t th e
valved hor n ha d com e int o commo n use as early as the 1830s—anothe r exampl e
of hi s adherenc e t o certai n conservativ e o r classi c viewpoints—th e writte n Fi t
(sounding A# i n actua l pitc h o n th e hor n crooke d i n E ) coul d onl y be produce d
by partially closing th e bel l o f the hor n wit h th e han d —emphasis o n "partially. "
For i f a hor n playe r wer e t o completel y clos e th e bell , i.e . the tru e gestopft, th e
pitch tha t woul d resul t woul d b e a writte n Al>, 25 i n thi s cas e a soundin g Ch ,
which would , o f course , no t fi t int o Brahms' s Ft t dominan t chord . Brahm s was
half right , hal f wrong . H e kne w tha t som e degre e o f 'stopping' wa s necessary to
get th e AK , bu t wa s wrong i n callin g i t gestopft, whic h i s a ver y specific mutin g
technique resultin g i n a particula r sound quit e differen t fro m wha t Brahm s ha d
intended.26 Partially closing th e bel l get s exactly the soun d Brahm s neede d here :
softer, darker , mor e distant . Hor n player s hav e bee n confuse d b y thi s markin g
for many , man y decades , bu t surprisingl y few hav e give n muc h though t t o it s
meaning o r wha t Brahm s intende d t o indicat e b y it . Mos t hor n player s hav e
simply played it—an d continu e t o this da y to play it—in th e conventiona l hand -
stopped manner, 27 producin g quit e th e wron g sound : a nasal , buzzy , piercing ,
edgy sound whic h i s inappropriate here . What hor n player s should d o to rende r
Brahms's intende d effec t correctl y i s to 'half-mute ' th e note , fingerin g a sound -
ing B, closing th e han d int o th e bel l jus t enoug h t o produc e a n At , a mov e tha t
will als o automaticall y darke n an d distanc e th e soun d — exactly wha t Brahm s
wanted. Th e othe r alternativ e — not a s good —is t o pla y m. 3 ope n bu t suddenl y
softer(/jp), an d t o darken , perhap s eve n slightl y muffl e th e soun d wit h th e em -
bouchure.
I indicate d i n Fig . 4 tha t th e firs t five-ba r phras e coul d als o b e though t o f
as 'four-plus-one. ' Th e 'one, ' actuall y 'one-and-a-third ' ba r is , i n fact , slightl y
separable fro m th e first fou r measure s an d ca n b e though t o f as either a n exten -
sion o f those firs t fou r bars , o r a lon g anacrusi s gesture , a n extende d upbea t i n
effect t o m.6 . Eve n mor e interestin g i s th e fac t tha t thes e fou r beat s o f musi c
have alread y mad e a n earlie r ap -
pearance i n thi s symphony , i n fac t severa l times . Incredibly , thes e note s are ,
but fo r th e transpositio n a thir d lowe r an d a slowe r tempo , exactl y th e sam e
notes a s i n th e openin g o f th e Allegro (m.38-40 ) i n th e firs t movement . Thi s
25. Fo r a full explanatio n o f this acoustic phenomeno n an d it s technical realization , see this author' s
Horn Technique (London : Oxfor d Universit y Press, London , 1962,1992) ; pp.60-69 .
26. Brahm s wa s als o wron g i n no t puttin g th e wor d offen (open ) i n m.4 , th e ter m use d t o cance l
any previou s stopping.
27. I remembe r a s a youn g hor n studen t no t onl y bein g taugh t b y m y teacher , a membe r o f th e
New Yor k Philharmoni c horn section, t o pla y thi s not e han d stopped , bu t hearin g it played that way
in al l performances i n thos e days .
was on e o f Brahms' s delight s i n hi s majo r works : to brin g back—t o sli p in—i n

one movemen t materia l tha t ha d appeare d i n a previous movement, or , its oppo-
site, t o develo p a whole ne w theme , eve n a whole ne w movement , ou t o f some
incidental materia l tha t ha d occurre d earlier. 28
The serenit y an d gentl e lyricis m of the openin g fou r measure s ar e quit e sud -
denly transforme d vi a the fift h ba r int o a mos t extraordinar y passage (mm.6-8 )
of quintessentia l Brahmsia n polyphony , a passag e which, however , loses most o f
its extraordinar y quality whe n playe d to o slowly . The thre e individua l rhythms
used t o generat e thi s ric h an d comple x contrapunta l fabri c — eighths, triple t
eighths, an d dotte d eighths-sixteenth s — need a certai n momentum , a temp o
flow, to unvei l their particula r rhythmic qualitie s and characteristics . At too slow
a temp o the y simpl y disintegrate int o som e unfeelabl e mass , so that th e tensio n
and conflic t at close quarter s between an d amon g thes e rhythmi c configurations
are lost . A n ide a o f what I mea n b y conflic t and comple x counterpoin t ca n b e
gained wit h eve n a cursor y glanc e a t th e musica l exampl e (Ex . 16a) , whic h
displays a linea r representatio n o f the composit e rhyth m produce d b y the thre e
aforementioned rhythmi c unit s see n i n m.8 . Separate d out , th e thre e trul y con-
trapuntal rhythmi c line s i n m. 8 loo k a s i n Ex . 16b . Thi s i s obviousl y a n ex -
Ex. 16 a
Ex. 16 b
tremely comple x rhythmi c design , and a s specifically expressed by Brahms, par-

ticularly i n mm.7-8 , need s t o b e playe d wit h th e utmos t rhythmi c accuracy .
Failing that , eve n slightly , Brahms' s rhythmi c polyphon y turn s int o rhythmi c
mush an d rhythmi c anonymity .
Some migh t argu e tha t th e distinction s between th e thre e rhythmi c lines will
be mor e clearl y audibl e th e slowe r th e basi c tempo . Possibly ; a t leas t o n on e
level o f perception . Bu t wha t migh t perhap s b e gaine d i n rhythmi c clarit y and
discernibility i n a ver y slow tempo , wil l b e vitiate d b y th e los s o f momentu m
and tension . Th e thre e rhythms , whe n stretche d t o excess , los e thei r strength ,
like a n old , worn-ou t rubbe r band . Surely , Brahm s did no t creat e suc h comple x
contrapuntal passage s i n orde r t o creat e somethin g eas y to liste n to , somethin g
conflict-free. Furthermore , thi s passag e work s musicall y onl y withi n th e fram e
28. W e shal l se e a brillian t example o f th e latte r i n th e discussio n of th e Brahm s Fourth. Thes e
little motivi c o r themati c came o appearance s o r re-appearance s i n Brahms' s works remin d m e o f
Alfred Hitchcock' s penchan t fo r appearin g i n hi s ow n film s i n som e virtuall y unnoticed , tiny ,
'cameo,' capacity.
of reference of a quarter-not e beat . Conductor s wh o d o thi s passage so slow (van

Beinum, Tennstedt , Bernstein , Giulini ) tha t the y ar e almos t force d t o subdivide,
in othe r word s conduct i n eighths , produc e onl y a chunky , ponderous , muscle -
bound feeling , whic h i s quite antithetica l t o Brahms' s conception . Ho w power -
fully expressiv e and excitin g th e thre e bar s i n questio n ca n soun d ca n b e hear d
on Haitink' s altogethe r splendi d recording .
From th e hig h level s o f intensit y o f mm.6-8 , Brahm s no w return s t o th e
tranquillity o f the openin g i n thre e exquisitel y harmonized an d nuance d mea -
sures. Unfortunately , the nint h chor d i n m.1 0 and th e thirteent h chor d i n m.ll
are almos t neve r full y realized . Fo r som e strang e reason—i s i t a laten t fea r o f
dissonance, o f chromaticism?—the A in th e secon d violin s in m.10 , and th e D 1)
in th e viola s i n m.l l ar e almos t alway s under-played . Man y conductor s reall y
do no t hea r ver y wel l harmonicall y and see m t o hav e n o interest—no r th e nec -
essary ear—t o brin g ou t th e pungen t harmonie s al l grea t composer s blen d int o
their music . Thi s incapacit y severel y undermines th e ful l effect—an d effective -
ness—of th e musi c o f th e grea t harmoni c masters , especiall y Brahms . I coul d
find onl y tw o recording s i n whic h thes e harmoni c shading s wer e properl y real-
ized (Sawallisc h an d Celibidache) .
Measure 1 2 i s rarel y performe d correctly , mainl y becaus e n o on e seem s t o
know that rfis no t th e sam e as sfor sfz. Th e markin g rfis simpl y an abbreviation
of th e Italia n ter m rinforzando (meanin g reinforcing) . Thu s th e downbea t o f
m. 12 i s not som e hug e f accent , bu t a gently expressiv e 'reinforcement.' Comin g
from th e p p i n m.l l th e actua l dynami c leve l a t m.1 2 ough t no t t o b e mor e
than mp. Also , no on e eve r seems t o pay any attention t o Brahms' s meticulousl y
precise placemen t o f the dynami c nuance s i n m.12 . Th e wind s crescend o goe s
to th e secon d bea t (no t th e first) , on e bea t late r tha n th e strings' . I t i s almos t
always erroneousl y played a s :
It is important that th e downbea t o f m. 13 in th e wind s be p (somethin g muc h

harder t o achiev e i f m.12 i s played f ) , for i t migh t the n remin d conductor s an d
string player s tha t th e prevailin g dynami c her e is , i n fact , p . Recordin g afte r
recording offers thi s beautiful, elegant, gentl e phras e in a full , thick , fa t f, furthe r
vulgarized wit h gratuitou s saccharin e portamenti, (a s represented i n Ex.17) , i n
Ex. 1 7
my vie w al l a grievou s trivialization of Brahms' s intentions . Ther e i s a heavenl y

repose i n thi s passag e (mm . 13-17) whe n i t i s played softl y i n a contemplative ,
inner-directed way , a s Brahm s wrot e it . Amon g th e ver y fe w conductor s wh o
caught this special mood , I would lik e t o cite particularl y Suitner , Haitink , an d
Sawallisch.
Speaking o f harmoni c neglects , Brahms' s C$ i n th e secon d cello s i n m.1 6
(and th e paralle l place , m.70 ) i s rarel y full y projected . Mos t composer s woul d
have writte n th e muc h les s interestin g C I here . Bu t Brahms , alway s inten t o n
varying hi s materials , constantl y reinventing , havin g alread y use d th e plai n di -
minished chor d (i n m.15) , darken s th e harmon y wit h th e C (makin g i t a 'Ger -
man' sixth chord). Bu t the beaut y of this subtle harmoni c touc h seem s t o escap e
most performers , although no t Stokowsk i and Abbado .
The quiescen t moo d continue s wit h a poignan t obo e sol o accompanie d b y
soft wind s an d violas—onl y here again , to o ofte n th e moo d i s destroyed b y th e
'mezzo-fortissization' tha t seem s t o plagu e s o man y orchestras . Thi s i s on e o f
Brahms's mos t poignan t melodies ; i t ha s a feelin g o f intimacy , eve n o f fragilit y
and vulnerability . Bu t whe n th e obois t swaggeringl y trumpets ou t hi s solo , th e
other instrument s automaticall y com e u p i n dynami c level ; and unles s th e con -
ductor prevent s thi s dynami c distortion , th e whol e transcenden t beaut y o f thi s
passage i s gone.
What als o gives this passag e it s poignancy i s the bitterswee t dissonanc e i n th e
clashing o f th e A#' s an d B' s i n m.1 9 an d m.21 : Th e absenc e o f thi s
expressive dissonanc e i n mos t performance s ca n b e ascribe d t o tw o factors : (1 )

the aforementione d tendenc y o f most conductor s (an d mos t musicians , fo r tha t
matter) t o avoi d an y 'alien ' dissonanc e i n tona l music , an d (2 ) onc e again , th e
misreading o r ignorin g o f Brahms' s carefull y place d dynami c markings . Th e
'hairpin' nuance s i n m . 18-21 ar e usually playe d | in-
stead o f Brahms' s Th e resul t i s tha t precisel y wher e
the All' s clas h wit h th e E mino r chord , th e player s have backe d of f into a ten -
sionless p o r pp , rathe r tha n th e expressiv e mp Brahms' s notatio n implies . O n
only fiv e recordings—thos e o f Abravanel , Janowski , Järvi , Stokowski , an d Suit -
ner—is thi s ver y Brahmsia n touc h exploited .
In th e middl e o f thi s phras e Brahm s devise s on e o f th e mos t extraordinary ,

brilliant musical/structura l idea s an y compose r ha d conceive d u p t o tha t time .
It consist s o f th e encounte r betwee n tw o totall y unrelate d musica l ideas : th e
movement's mai n them e (Them e I ) a s first stated i n mm . 1-4, an d th e secon d
subject (Them e II ) a s state d b y the oboe . I hav e alread y alluded t o thi s i n Fig .
4, bu t perhap s th e radicalit y o f Brahms's ide a ca n b e appreciate d eve n mor e i n
the followin g graphic representatio n of Fig. 6.
Fig. 6
Theme II
Theme I
What Brahm s ha s don e i n effec t i s t o slid e Them e I i n unde r th e pea k

measure (m.22 ) o f Them e II, 29 the n abando n Them e I I tw o bar s late r whil e
letting Them e I continu e (m.24)—again , b e i t noted, withou t an y dynami c nu -
ances. Then , i n m.25 , Brahm s pick s u p th e interrupte d obo e melody , fash -
ions a varian t o f the oboe' s las t thre e note s a s a link-measur e t o allo w th e mel -
ody t o b e finishe d ou t i n mm.26-2 7 i n a fina l resolutio n t o th e toni c ke y
of E , thereb y als o roundin g of f th e firs t majo r episod e o f th e movement . B y
rights th e resumptio n o f th e interrupte d (oboe ) melod y i n m.2 5 shoul d hav e
been give n t o th e oboe . Bu t Brahm s decide d t o tur n i t ove r t o th e strings , th e
'intruders' wh o surreptitiousl y crep t i n thre e bar s earlier . Th e whol e passag e
(mm. 18-27) i s a t once , i n it s quie t an d subtl e way , on e o f th e mos t radica l
and sophisticate d polyphoni c conceptions , a worth y extensio n o f th e lesson s
Brahms learne d fro m hi s studie s o f Bach' s polyphoni c masterpieces. 30 Unfortu -
nately ver y fe w conductors, le t alon e orchestra l musicians , hav e appreciate d th e
originality an d technica l sophisticatio n o f Brahms' s invention , an d th e whol e
marvelous themati c interpla y her e i s rarel y full y realize d i n performanc e an d
recordings.
Before leavin g this section , I mus t reiterat e tha t th e rf i n m.2 5 is , once again ,
not som e supe r explosiv e sfz, bu t a gentl e expressiv e accen t i n th e contex t
29. Wha t happen s in mm.22-23 can b e likene d in th e visua l real m to ou r suddenl y seeing a photo-
graphic doubl e image, on e pictur e superimposed upon another , but slightl y askew .
30. Thi s is , of course , as I hav e previously suggested, no t mer e imitatio n o f straigh t Bachian fuga l
and canoni c writing. As Douglas Townsend puts it in th e aforementione d liner notes: "whe n w e say
that musicall y speaking [Brahms' ] great-grandfathe r was Bach , i t i s no t becaus e hi s musi c i s s o
polyphonic, bu t rathe r reflect s th e knowledge o f counterpoint, eve n whe n i t i s no t contrapuntal. " I
would ad d tha t i t no t onl y reflects tha t knowledge , bu t i n highl y imaginativ e way s extend s an d
augments tha t knowledge, investing it with wholly ne w concepts , reinventin g and renewin g polyph-
ony i n relatio n t o the newe r symphonic forms. Townsen d continues: "[Brahms's] knowledge of coun-
terpoint an d fugu e ar e manifeste d i n mos t o f hi s wor k b y th e manne r i n whic h th e texture o f hi s
compositions i s constantly varied fro m th e polyphoni c to th e homophoni c an d bac k again. "
of th e essentiall y calm , quiet , seren e main-theme . I mus t als o remin d u s

that th e •" = = * • i n m.2 6 peak s o n th e fourt h eighth-not e o f the measure , no t
the thir d beat—whic h i s th e way , alas , i t i s universally , bu t erroneously ,
played.
The nex t episod e (mm.28-38 ) i s on e o f th e mos t gloriousl y singin g i n th e
entire symphony . I t i s so beloved b y conductors , a s well a s string players, that i t
is generall y treate d wit h grea t respec t an d lov e an d thu s relativel y wel l per -
formed. Bu t wha t sometime s happen s to thi s passage i s (a) too muc h crescend o
in m.2 9 (th e p' s in the accompanimen t i n m.3 0 provide a clue that the dynami c
in th e violin s and viola s ough t no t t o excee d mp—or a t mos t mf ) ; (b ) rushin g
the temp o ou t o f sheer uncontrolle d excitemen t i n mm.29-3 0 an d mm . 31-32,
also—and eve n mor e likely—crescendoin g i n thos e tw o measure s (Brahm s de -
lays th e crescend o unti l m.34) ; an d (c ) a n erroneous , ofte n ver y vulgar ritard i n
m.37, followed by an equall y mindless accelerando i n m.38 . This last aberration
is particularly disturbing because i t destroys the whol e momentu m an d puls e of
the music , whic h i t i s most importan t t o preserv e in orde r t o properl y set up , a s
it were, th e nex t 'kinde r an d gentler ' obo e an d clarine t episod e (mm.39-ca.48) .
The sa d fac t i s that th e inordinat e slowin g up o f the temp o i n m.3 7 an d speed -
ing u p i n m.3 8 ar e ofte n cause d b y th e strin g players , especiall y th e violinists,
who wan t t o us e hug e ful l bow s (fou r o f them ) i n m.37 , bu t wh o quickl y ru n
out o f bo w i n m.38 . I t mus t b e thousand s o f time s i n th e histor y o f th e piec e
that th e string s have alread y reached th e ti p o f the bo w b y the secon d o r thir d
eighth o f m.38 , wit h th e resul t tha t ther e i s a ver y quic k one-bea t diminuendo ;
for th e res t of the measur e th e string s then han g o n weakly , waiting for the nex t
downbeat, instea d o f maintaining a lon g three-beat diminuendo. Thi s ca n easily
be don e wit h a littl e though t an d car e b y balancin g bo w pressur e agains t bo w
speed—what string players call "savin g the bow. " Bu t to o man y conductor s hav e
caved i n t o the strin g players, accommodating t o their ba d habi t b y acceleratin g
the temp o i n m.38 , whe n i n fac t b y al l musica l logi c an d feeling , afte r th e
almost ecstatic passion and grandeu r of the entir e previous phrase, it s resolution,
its restin g poin t i n m.38 , shoul d als o b e gran d an d sustained . Amon g th e fe w
conductors wh o avoide d thi s particula r distortion , I singl e ou t especiall y Leins -
dorf an d Suitner .
Up t o thi s poin t i n th e secon d movement , th e onl y conductors , amon g th e
fifty-odd recordings sampled , wh o offe r trul y satisfactory , respectfu l ye t inspire d
performances ar e Weingartne r (i n hi s late-1930 s Londo n Symphon y perfor -
mance) an d Suitne r i n hi s recen t recordin g wit h th e Berli n Staatskapelle . Ex -
cept fo r a rather slowish over-all tempo (Weingartner : j = 40 , Suitner: j = 48)
and a weak unappreciated C^ i n m.16 , all the point s covere d thu s fa r are beauti -
fully handle d wit h warmth , taste , an d intelligence .
I mus t confes s tha t whe n I firs t bega n conductin g thi s symphony , I di d no t
understand th e dynamic s i n th e accompanimen t i n mm.34—37 , especiall y the p
in m.35 . Wh y shoul d th e accompanimen t dro p out , s o to speak , in mm.35-37 ,
rather tha n full y supportin g th e uppe r strings ? I hav e sinc e realize d tha t
Brahms's dynamic s her e ar e no t simpl y 'wrong'—a s on e migh t to o hastil y as-

sume—but that , i n fact , Brahm s i s after anothe r darin g an d unorthodo x effect ,
namely, that o f the supportiv e harmonic accompanimen t functionin g on it s own
separate dynami c track : a kin d o f polyphon y o f dynamic s an d o f texture . I n
effect, th e accompanimen t recedes , almos t disappearin g like some undergroun d
river, onl y to re-emerg e i n m.3 7 i n complet e suppor t o f the melodi c line . Thi s
is the n a n ide a t o b e explore d full y an d exploite d rathe r tha n change d o r re -
jected ou t o f hand.
We shoul d not e i n passin g how ingeniousl y Brahm s maximize s the us e o f his
musical materials . B y criss-crossin g hi s tw o to p melodic/contrapunta l line s
(Ex.lSa), he i s able t o stretc h m.3 4 out t o thre e measure s (a s shown i n Ex.lSb) .
It i s thi s three-stag e bar-by-ba r descent—descen t bot h registrall y an d dynami -
cally—that undoubtedl y prompte d Brahm s t o conceiv e th e aforementione d un -
usual dispositio n o f the accompanimen t here .
Ex. 18 a
Ex. 18 b
The oboe' s lon g sinuous , exquisitel y spun-ou t lin e rise s almost imperceptibl y
out o f the recedin g diminuend o o f the string s in m.38 . When thi s movemen t i s
played a t th e righ t flowin g (andante) tempo , thi s middl e episod e ha s a re -
freshing, light , air y characte r tha t provide s a wonderfu l contras t t o th e thre e
previous sections. 31 Th e musi c seem s t o b e floatin g o n buoyant , feathery-ligh t
springs, a feeling which i s best achieve d i n th e string s by a subtl e relaxe d subdi-
vision o f th e conductor' s beat . I n man y recording s th e strings ' syncopate d ac -
companiment i s anythin g bu t feathery-light ; instea d i t i s heavy , stiff , chunky ,
and, surprisingl y often, untogether . Car e mus t b e take n tha t th e sixteenth-note s
not b e cu t to o short , a ba d bowin g habi t tha t her e destroy s the gran d lin e an d
31. Le t u s also not e tha t th e pitche s i n th e first violins here (m . 39-40) are , wit h bu t on e exceptio n
(the B» )
identical t o Brahms' s principa l openin g theme . Wit h th e entranc e o f th e clarine t fiv e bar s later ,
Brahms invert s th e accompanimen t C ßi " G A t BU> .
dissects th e musi c int o countles s tin y littl e fragments . Strin g player s mus t b e
cautioned t o play the sixteenth-note s ful l lengt h an d thin k acros s the intercedin g
rest, s o tha t a lon g uninterrupte d chai n o f floatin g syncopation s results . I t i s
surprising—and disappointing—t o hea r i n bot h Karajan' s an d Kertesz' s re -
cordings, bot h wit h th e Vienn a Philharmonic , th e string s pla y th e accompani -
ment i n mm . 39-49 not onl y very stiffly , unfloatingly , bu t i n suc h a manne r tha t
the syncopation s see m turne d around , a s i f Brahms had writte n
instead o f
(This i s probably th e resul t o f misguidedly
bowing th e passag e )
Before th e clarinet' s respons e t o th e obo e i s completed , cello s an d basse s
sneak i n wit h th e oboe' s sinuou s m.3 9 theme , ominousl y darkenin g th e moo d
of the music . I n m.4 8 car e mus t b e take n tha t th e clarinet' s fina l measur e i s not
drowned ou t b y th e enterin g flut e an d bassoon , a s happen s unfortunatel y o n
dozens o f recordings.
The uppe r strings ' syncopation s no w ar e use d b y Brahms t o considerabl y agi-
tate th e moo d (mm.49,51-52) . Surprisingly , thes e ar e agai n th e melodi c note s
of m.3, rhythmically an d transpositionall y varied.
becomes, a thir d lowe r and enharmonicall y
re-spelled, . A s i n a seethin g sea ,
waves o f churnin g syncopate d rhythm s rol l forward , crashin g ultimatel y (m.53 )

onto th e barrie r of a five-octave-deep Gtt, bringin g the musi c bac k t o the tempo -
rary bas e ke y o f Ct t minor . Th e sf p her e mus t b e sharpl y articulate d t o full y
represent th e sudde n arrestatio n o f the music' s risin g momentum. I t i s too ofte n
played a s a mediocr e sfmf, whic h hardl y doe s justic e t o wha t i s thus fa r i n thi s
movement it s mos t dramatic , almos t shocking , moment . Bu t th e tempestuou s
surge o f the musi c canno t b e hel d bac k fo r long . I t break s fort h int o a passion -
ate, richl y texture d outpourin g whic h comprise s th e clima x o f th e whol e Ct t
minor middl e sectio n (mm . 39-62) o f the movement .
Its tai l en d (mm.61-62 ) present s a rea l performanc e problem , though . I t i s
my vie w tha t th e sixteenth-not e groups , divide d amon g variou s woodwind an d
string choirs , ough t t o b e playe d s o a s t o creat e on e beautifu l Klangfarben se -
quence.32 I ca n wel l imagin e Brahm s playin g thes e tw o bar s a t th e pian o (fo r
Clara Schumann? ) i n on e unbroke n descendin g line , a s represented i n Ex . 19.
32. Ther e i s a ver y simila r passag e i n th e slo w movemen t o f th e Fourt h Symphon y (mm.57-59) ,
where th e sam e performanc e problem o f connectin g thre e disparat e instrumenta l groups int o on e
single lin e exists .
Ex. 1 9
This is much harde r to achieve, o f course, amon g differen t instrumenta l sections

than i t is on on e pian o playe d by one person , whos e on e ea r an d on e min d ar e
controlling te n fingers . Mos t o f th e time , ou t o f shee r inattentio n o r laziness ,
the firs t fou r successiv e grouping s (mm.61-62 ) ar e playe d i n a disjointe d man -
ner, mainl y becaus e oftha t universa l bad habit— a veritabl e plagu e —of cuttin g
off las t note s befor e a rest . Thi s passag e ca n b e don e correctl y if all th e player s
involved hol d thei r las t sixteent h ful l lengt h —not longer , no t shorter—an d real -
ize tha t the y hav e t o han d thei r las t not e ove r t o anothe r playe r o r grou p o f
players, jus t a s incomin g player s have t o realiz e tha t the y ar e takin g ove r fro m
another se t o f players. I t ma y tak e a bi t o f rehearsin g t o achiev e thi s continuit y
of line , bu t i t i s wel l wort h th e effort . Furtwängler' s Vienn a Philharmoni c re -
cording offer s a shinin g exampl e o f how beautifu l thi s passag e can soun d whe n
played i n th e conjoine d manne r I am suggesting .
I have several times referre d to Brahms's fondness for playing around wit h th e
beat an d th e meter . I hav e als o no t conceale d m y stron g convictio n tha t de -
spite—indeed becaus e of—thes e rhythmi c sniffings , Brahm s meant the underly -
ing puls e an d mete r als o to b e felt , t o b e implied . Thes e rhythmi c shifting s ar e
like enlarge d syncopations : they ar e no t jus t on e not e bein g syncopate d agains t
its adjacen t beat , bu t a whol e phras e syncopate d agains t a whol e measure , o r
several. Measure s 63-6 5 ar e a cas e i n point . Wherea s w e almost alway s hear i n
performances an d recording s these measure s playe d a s if Brahms had writte n a s
in Ex . 20 a (i n pian o reduction) , the y should , i n fact , soun d a s actually se t b y
Brahms, namel y Ex . 20b . Anythin g les s tha n thi s vitiate s the whol e poin t an d
Ex. 20 a
j = downbeat weigh t / emphasis

w = lesser weight, but still a clearly felt pulse
meaning o f Brahmsian syncopations, whic h shoul d hav e a n against-the-bea t lil t

to them . An d i t i s ver y disturbin g (a s wel l a s wrong ) whe n w e ar e oblige d t o
hear a n inadverten t 3/ 8 (as bracketed i n Ex . 20a ) in m.66 .
Furtwängler, wh o ha d jus t negotiate d mm.61-6 2 s o beautifully , no w lose s
himself i n suc h a slo w temp o i n m.63— J = 4 6 (eve n slowe r i n hi s Berli n
Philharmonic recording) , th e eighth s almos t a s slo w a s hi s quarter s were a t th e
beginning o f the movement—tha t th e music , no t t o mentio n th e form , loses all
shape an d coherence . Toscanini , wh o als o negotiate d m.61-6 2 relativel y well,
takes the opposit e approac h t o Furtwängler's i n m.63 , lungin g precipitousl y into
a temp o o f J = 58 , completel y ou t o f contex t wit h hi s basi c temp o fo r th e
movement an d th e kin d o f tempo waywardnes s that Toscanin i almos t neve r per -
mitted himself .
We hav e arrive d at th e recapitulation , bu t no t th e ordinar y reprise of classical
vintage. I t i s the ne w genr e o f recapitulation firs t propose d b y Beethove n i n hi s
Fifth Symphony , base d o n th e principl e o f non-repetitio n an d perpetua l varia -
tion. Th e recapitulatio n a t mm.66-6 7 i s a gloriou s revisitin g of th e mai n (an d
opening) themati c materia l o f th e movement . Measure s 1-2 7 ar e reanimated ,
vertically an d horizontall y expande d (extr a bar s ar e interpolate d thre e times :
mm.70,80,85-87), orchestrationally refurbished, and contrapuntall y enriched, t o
the poin t tha t th e half-attentiv e listener (an d musician ) ma y not eve n realiz e h e
is hearing a recapitulation .
Though th e orchestr a use d no w i s much large r tha n i n th e exposition, 33 th e
dynamic level s ar e —and shoul d be , bu t almos t neve r are—th e same . Ther e i s
nothing mor e exquisit e in musi c than a ful l symphon y orchestra playing pp, an d
33. I t i s wort h notin g tha t trumpet s an d timpan i mak e thei r firs t appearanc e i n th e movemen t a t
this point , havin g been save d unti l no w fo r jus t this purposefu l entrance .
Brahms definitel y call s fo r i t her e (mm.67-71) , th e littl e crescendo s neve r ex-

ceeding mp. Bu t sadly , thi s i s universally ignored; a n obes e m f i s usually substi-
tuted (onl y Skrowaczewsk i managed t o achiev e th e almos t Debussya n transpar-
ency an d tendernes s o f these measures) . Eve n wors e i s the predilectio n o n th e
part of so many conductor s t o forever conduc t onl y the strings , an approac h tha t
is severely damaging to the passag e in question , fo r the primar y (thematic) mate -
rial i s in th e uppe r woodwinds, 34 not i n th e strings. The uppe r string s have only
a simpl e counterlin e whic h certainl y should no t cove r or obscure th e delicatel y
orchestrated woodwinds . But to o man y conductor s exhor t th e violin s and viola s
to a passionat e outburst , startin g no t p p bu t mf , followe d b y a n enormou s cre -
scendo. Unde r thes e exhortations , th e strin g player s hav e n o choic e bu t t o
change Brahms' s bowing i n mm.67-6 8 to
1
or , wors e yet, t o
Between th e origina l m.4 and m.5 , as recapitulated here , Brahms interpolate s

mm.16-17 (reorchestrate d an d revoiced , of course), the mode l fo r this being th e
exposition's mm.15-17 . Th e origina l m. 5 the n return s i n m.72 , embellishe d
with strin g pizzicatos . Her e grea t car e mus t b e take n b y the firs t flut e an d first
clarinet t o pla y the softes t p p possibl e i n m.7 1 an d no t t o mak e to o bi g a cre -
scendo. O n th e othe r hand , th e secon d flute , firs t oboe , an d secon d clarine t
should kno w that the y hav e th e leadin g melodi c notes . ( I know of no recordin g
where thi s bi t o f sophisticate d voic e leadin g an d balancin g wa s properl y han -
dled.) I n mm.73-7 5 (th e origina l mm.6-8) , Brahm s modulate s t o a ne w tona l
region. Again , th e swee t 'dissonances, ' firs t encountere d i n mm.9-11 , mus t b e
brought out : th e nint h chord s i n mm.76 , 77 , an d th e A' s in th e 13t h chor d o f
m.78. The voicin g i s quite close , almos t a s in jaz z block-chor d writin g (Ex. 21).
Ex. 2 1
Notice particularl y the clos e voicin g of the secon d clarine t and first horn. There
are als o th e delicat e melodi c an d rhythmi c clashe s o f the resolvin g eighth-not e
Fit's agains t th e triple t Ett' s i n mm.76-78 , whic h requir e ver y precise timin g t o
bring of f correctly . I n m.7 9 th e contrastin g dynamic s (th e woodwind s peakin g
on th e secon d beat , the string s on th e thir d beat) ar e almost neve r observed , no r
is th e nee d fo r a n enormou s diminuend o fro m th e ffs o f tha t measur e t o th e
34. Brahm s undoubtedly woul d hav e wante d t o tak e th e firs t flut e u p t o th e highes t C f i n m.67 ,
but fearing—rightl y so—tha t i t would b e to o lou d ( a hig h C | o n th e flut e canno t b e playe d f>), h e
took i t down th e octave . Jochu m an d Ormand y ar e th e onl y conductor s I know of who tak e the C f
up a n octave , not t o th e bes t effect , I' m afraid .
soft, delicate , transparen t p texture s o f m.80 . I f anyon e wer e eve r t o observ e

Brahms's diminuend o i n th e string s in m.80 , th e nex t bar would commenc e pp ,
and woul d thu s be the appropriat e recapitulator y parallel t o mm. 13-17.
Brahms no w interpolate s int o th e recapitulatio n tw o previously heard phrase s
—small recapitulation s withi n th e large r recapitulation , a s i t were . Th e firs t i s
the woodwin d phras e o f mm.85-86 , a slightl y expande d reworkin g o f m.80;
the secon d a n altere d 'repeat ' o f mm.81-84, adjuste d by Brahms t o prepare th e
way fo r th e retur n o f th e secon d subjec t (th e oboe melod y o f m.18) . Agai n
much depend s o n th e respec t th e conducto r an d performer s hav e (o r d o no t
have) for Brahms's dynami c indications . A s I have emphasize d severa l times, no t
much i n th e wa y o f colo r an d timbra i richnes s ca n b e achieve d i f dynami c
variety, especiall y a t th e softe r levels , i s suppressed ; tha t is , i f th e ubiquitou s
mezzofortissimo i s pu t int o operation . Brahms' s mixin g o f colors , o f lines , o f
particular sonori c effects , o f rhythms , her e i s s o ingenious , s o delicatel y cali -
brated, tha t ever y detai l o f hi s scrupulou s notatio n mus t b e observe d an d ren-
dered accurately .
To begin wit h (se e Ex.22), th e thre e 'solo ' instrument s —oboe, horn , violin -
Ex. 2 2
have t o b e wel l balance d amon g themselve s i n mm.91-96 . ( I have los t trac k of

how man y recording s fai l t o achiev e this ; usuall y one hear s primaril y the hor n
and violin. ) Next, th e crescend o swell s i n m.9 1 mus t b e handle d ver y discreetly
lest the y overpowe r th e soloists , wh o i n self-defens e wil l then , o f course , resor t
to a mf dynami c o r more . Throug h thi s relativel y dense textur e th e harp-lik e
triplet pizzicatos o f the cello s mus t b e abl e t o projec t without forcing.
Next, th e Att' s previously referred t o i n connectio n wit h m.1 9 and m.21 , mus t
be wel l balance d agains t thei r neighborin g B's . Almost alway s ignore d i s th e
articulation Brahm s give s mos t o f th e accompanyin g instrument s i n m.9 2 an d
m.94: no t. Not e tha t th e trumpet s an d secon d hor n maintai n thi s
notation fo r the entir e first four measure s (mm.91-94), Brahms's way of showing
that thes e note s shoul d b e playe d wit h somethin g approximatin g th e soun d o f
timpani notes when playe d wit h sof t sticks , a sound like , as seen i n nota -
35
tion. The combinatio n o f cresc. and i n mm.93-9 4 has confused
musicians an d conductor s fo r years . Bu t i t i s reall y ver y simple : i n thos e tw o
35. Here , incidentally , o n thi s smal l poin t th e questio n o f tempo arise s again . Fo r i f the potentia l
duration o f a timpan i not e playe d p i n averag e acoustic s is , say, a hal f t o three-quarter s o f a second ,
then i n a n andante th e duratio n o f the timpan i note s wil l correspon d wel l t o Brahms' s notation ; i f
on th e othe r han d a temp o o f J = 3 0 i s taken , th e timpan i note s wil l fil l onl y a fourt h o f tha t
duration, soundin g lik e
bars, one i s to mak e a n overal l crescendo fro m p t o f, a t the sam e tim e incorpo -
rating a n additiona l cresc.- dim. , whic h peak s temporaril y o n th e
downbeat o f m.94, bu t onl y i n thos e instrument s (uppe r woodwinds , trumpets ,
and timpani ) tha t hav e thi s dynami c overlay .
Measure 9 5 i s difficul t t o balance , especiall y i n liv e (non-recording ) perfor -
mance, fo r several simultaneou s demand s o f th e musi c mus t b e fulfilled : th e
three sol o instrument s must no t b e smothere d b y the f o f the othe r instruments ;
at th e sam e tim e th e mai n openin g theme , enterin g i n lo w strings , bassoons ,
and contrabassoo n mus t als o be full y (i.e . deeply, richly ) represented, al l o f this ,
one hopes , no t obscurin g th e pizzicato s i n th e cellos .
Many conductor s mak e a little break, a tiny caesura, between m.9 6 and m.97 .
This i s wrong , fo r th e thre e sol o instruments ' melod y (E-B-GÍ ) shoul d carr y
directly int o th e tune' s continuatio n i n th e flut e an d clarinet . Th e interruptio n
comes i n th e next measure , ther e actually composed int o th e musi c b y Brahms.
Other tempo distortions at the hand s of many conductors aboun d i n this recapit -
ulation (m.67) , bu t non e wors e than thos e o f Bernstein, an d t o a lesse r extent ,
Rowicki. Afte r turnin g th e bea t completel y around , fo r example, i n mm.63-6 4
Bernstein no w make s a huge ritar d i n m.65 , followe d b y a n enormou s fermat a
on th e secon d bea t o f m.66 . Measur e 6 7 i s then take n u p adagississimo, bu t
then—ludicrously—m.71 i s suddenly muc h faster , bu t onl y fo r tw o bars. Fo r a t
m.73 Bernstei n slow s up dramaticall y again. Similarly , some tim e later , at m.8 9
Bernstein impose s th e huges t ritar d o f all , bu t wit h th e entr y o f the hor n sol o
(m.100) rushe s suddenl y forwar d again . However , nex t on e ca n hea r th e hor n
soloist pull th e temp o back t o where i n the large r context i t actually should hav e
been al l along . Ther e i s in al l o f this jus t to o muc h o f an "oy-vay " Weltschmerz
to b e bearable . I gues s I wil l neve r full y understan d ho w a ma n o f Bernstein' s
basic talent and intelligenc e coul d allo w himself suc h temp o excesses , wreaking
havoc wit h Brahms' s classi c form , an d i n effec t recomposin g an d restructurin g
the musi c t o hi s own whims and ego-drive n fantasies .
Not quit e i n Bernstein' s league , Rowick i nonetheles s compete s valiantl y in
the 'temp o distortion ' game . Havin g embarke d o n th e hor n sol o i n m.100 a t his
basic temp o for the Andante movement , a sluggish j = 38 , he suddenl y jumps
the temp o t o J = 4 6 i n m.104 , bu t tw o bars late r i s back dow n t o J = ca.40 .
What was he thinkin g of ?
Astonishing mixture s o f sonorities , o f rhythms , als o aboun d i n th e secon d
subject's recapitulator y extension, se t forth b y a solo horn (mm.100-104) . Let us
assume tha t th e horn , a wel l projectin g instrumen t afte r all , wil l no t fee l th e
need t o pla y loudly , wil l i n fac t star t th e sol o i n p . Thi s i s no t onl y wha t
Brahms's scor e calls for—reason enoug h t o respec t it—bu t beyond that , th e mix -
ture o f sof t flute s an d clarinet s (th e latte r continuin g th e previou s pizzicat o o f
the cellos) , sof t timpani , an d strings , al l se t i n waltz-lik e triplets ove r a sustained
pedal poin t i n cellos , basses , and on e lo w horn, wil l b e simpl y blotted ou t whe n
the hor n i s too loud . The n ther e i s the sol o violin to b e reckone d with . Many a
concertmaster ha s ha d t o pla y this sol o f, i n orde r merel y t o b e heard . Bu t al l
such forcin g o f th e sounds , whethe r i n th e hor n o r th e violin , o r othe r instru -
ments competin g t o b e heard , ruin s the delicat e textur e and air y dance-like lil t
of the music . One of the mos t elegan t and lyrica l rendition s of thi s passag e
(mm.100-104) can be heard o n Chailly' s Concertgebou w recording , with Tosca -
nini's, Levine's , Suitner's , Sawallisch's , an d Szell's , a s close runners-up . Th e las t
named feature s a particularl y elegant an d tastefu l violi n obbligat o b y Rafae l
Druian.
There i s considerable confusio n a s to ho w the sextuplet s in th e sol o violi n in
mm.103-104 shoul d b e played : i n thre e grouping s o f tw o o r tw o grouping s of
three. I lean toward s the latte r choic e fo r three reasons : (1 ) the violi n solo is first
and foremos t a n accompanyin g ornamentatio n o f th e hor n sol o an d a s suc h
should preserv e th e dupl e divisio n of the beats ; (2 ) mm. 103-104 being a variant
of mm.101-102, i t seems logica l that Brahm s was thinking t o exten d th e earlie r
sixteenths to sixteent h triplets , preservin g the dupl e divisio n of the bea t fo r that
reason; (3 ) I sugges t tha t Brahm s wa s settin g th e tw o sol o partners , hor n an d
violin, against the underlyin g triplet accompaniment—again hi s fascination wit h
two ove r three, two against three . Her e i t is very importan t als o to brin g out th e
somewhat under-orchestrate d cell o D (th e sevent h o f E major ) i n m.103 , an d
the 'dark ' Cï i n m.104.
It i s astonishing wit h wha t extraordinary economy Brahm s consistentl y works.
As i n th e firs t movemen t o f Beethoven's Fifth , ever y tin y scra p of materia l i s of
significance, regardles s of how insignifican t i t may look o r sound a t first hearing,
and i s used an d re-use d i n th e mos t imaginativ e and origina l ways. I don't think
many conductors o r orchestra musician s have realized that i n mm . 105-108 (and
in a varied form i n mm . 109-11) the three-not e melod y of the movement' s open -
ing them e i s used a s the bas s line (Ex.23) . Furthermore, th e melodi c line , split
between th e flut e an d th e violins , is taken fro m mm.21-2 2 of the secon d subject
oboe theme . Car e mus t b e taken tha t th e over-al l line, fro m th e pick-u p eighths
in th e woodwind s in m.10 4 throug h m . l l l , no t b e broken . Th e sonori c ex -
changes betwee n woodwind s an d string s shoul d b e carrie d ou t ver y smoothly.
The dynami c i n the string s in m.10 6 shoul d probabl y be mp.
Ex.23
The whol e movement i s constructed with such a wondrous over-all line , with
themes an d motive s merging almost imperceptibly into on e another , eliding and
overlapping, tha t i t i s sometime s difficul t t o tel l wher e on e sectio n end s an d

another begins . Th e cod a i s a cas e i n point . I suppos e on e migh t plac e i t i n
m.114, bu t her e to o on e phras e (i n th e winds ) elides an d overlap s with anothe r
incoming on e (i n th e strings) , making an y clea r structura l delineatio n ambigu -
ous. I have ofte n felt , despit e wha t m y mind wa s telling me , tha t th e cod a start s
in m.112 , when th e clarine t an d sol o violi n phras e ha s com e t o a restin g place,
resolving o n th e toni c key .
More themati c recyclin g now : what i s in th e wind s in mm.114—1 6 re-appear s
in th e string s i n mm . 120—22, an d vic e versa . A t th e sam e tim e th e chromati c
transitional phras e tha t w e firs t encountere d i n m. 5 i s use d twic e more , onc e
leading t o a fals e cadence , th e secon d tim e t o th e fina l resolutio n i n E major .
Again, ther e ar e man y specia l —I woul d sa y unique—Brahmsian touches , tha t
should b e bu t rarel y are observed . In m.11 8 the trumpets ' an d secon d horn' s E's
are no t audibl e i n mos t performance s an d recordings . A s the seventh s i n a sec -
ond inversio n Fi t dominant chord , thes e E' s giv e a n unusua l colo r t o th e har -
mony, also , of course, presagin g th e toni c ke y to which al l wil l soo n b e resolved.
Also, nobod y seem s t o wan t t o observ e an d respec t Brahms' s unusua l dynamic s
in mm.118-19 : th e flut e an d clarine t crescend o int o th e downbea t o f m.119 ,
while al l the othe r instrument s hav e a long two-ba r diminuendo . Th e - = = -
nuance i n mm . 122-2 3 is also ver y specia l an d rarel y performed a s written. Th e
crescendo peaks—i t i s a mil d crescend o i n an y case , onl y to p o r a t mos t mp —
in th e middl e o f the first beat (m.123) . This make s the crescend o shorte r (thre e
eighths) tha n th e ensuin g diminuend o (fiv e eighths) . When th e whol e orchestr a
observes thi s dynami c nuanc e faithfully , i t i s a ravishingl y beautiful effect , an d
in th e mos t exquisit e way prepares th e closin g five bars, contrabassoon an d tim -
pani (th e forme r hardl y eve r hear d i n performance , alas ) havin g th e fina l all -
resolving word. 36
The thir d movemen t ha s th e somewha t unusua l an d slightl y ambiguou s mark -

ing o f u n poco allegretto e grazioso — "slightly ambiguous " becaus e ther e ha s
been fro m tim e t o time i n som e circle s an uncertaint y abou t th e ter m allegretto
(is i t a somewha t slowe r allegro or jus t a lighte r one? ) an d becaus e o f th e wor d
poco (doe s i t modif y th e allegretto i n a faste r o r slowe r direction?) . I t i s really
not clear , an d i n th e absenc e o f an y metronom e markin g i t i s anyone' s gues s
what th e idea l temp o migh t be . An d indeed , th e musi c work s wel l i n severa l
tempos withi n a certai n range . I n th e man y recording s I have sample d th e slow -
est was Bernstein's ( j = 74) , th e fastes t wer e Horenstein' s J = 9 4 (surprisingly,
36. Brahm s use s th e sam e effec t o f a singl e instrumen t holdin g throug h tw o separat e concludin g
chords a s Wagner ha d don e earlie r i n Tristan un d Isolde a t th e ver y end o f the opera . Th e ide a i s
thus no t origina l wit h Brahms , who , despit e th e feudin g between th e Wagne r an d Brahm s disciples,
knew an d respecte d Wagner' s lat e opera s well , an d wa s certainly awar e of the Tristan ending .
Abhado ha s th e trumpet s als o hol d throug h wit h th e sol o violin . I assum e h e garnere d thi s idea
from Brahms' s autograph facsimile, whic h indee d ha s th e trumpet s tied acros s the las t tw o bars. Bu t
this i s clearly a n oversigh t o n Brahms' s part. Brahm s originally ha d al l th e wind s tie d acros s the las t
two bars, but the n crosse d thos e tie s out. I am certai n tha t Brahms meant t o eliminate th e trumpets'
ties a s well, bu t inadvertentl y failed t o d o so .
a conducto r generall y give n t o slowis h tempos ) an d Klemperer' s (i n hi s 192 8

Berlin recording , j = 94) ; an d the y al l seeme d t o b e possibl e interpretations .
(Talk abou t elastischer Takt!) M y own preference i s for j = ca. 80, a tempo tha t
gives th e musi c a grazioso lilt , i s unhurried , an d ye t enable s th e musi c t o b e
heard i n it s phrase length s a s phras e entities , no t jus t an arbitrar y successio n o f
2/4 bars.
These phras e length s ar e a matte r o f some impor t an d shoul d b e felt , heard ,
and understoo d b y the conducto r an d th e musicians . The y ar e rathe r unusua l
and unorthodox . Th e tw o firs t phrase s (mm . 1-5, mm.6-10 ) are , fo r example ,
five-bar phrases. But when thi s musi c i s recapitulated i n mm. 19-25 an d mm.26-
32, Brahm s ha s extende d the m t o seven-ba r phrases . I n truth , th e forme r ar e
four-bar phrase s extende d b y on e bar , th e latte r four-ba r phrase s extende d b y
three bars . I n man y recording s ther e i s absolutely n o sens e o r awarenes s of this,
nor o f th e ide a tha t th e strings ' entrance s i n m. 4 an d m. 9 ar e nothin g mor e
than a colo r adde d t o th e prevailin g winds. They shoul d blen d wit h winds , no t
take ove r fro m them .
The openin g principa l ten-ba r them e i s also a brillian t exampl e o f Brahms' s
inspired abilit y to construc t musica l idea s ou t o f th e simples t material s an d b y
the simplest , mos t economica l means , fo r the secon d fiv e bar s (mm.6-10) ar e a
melodic inversio n of the first five bars.
Measures 11-1 8 ar e almos t alway s playe d to o loud , bot h i n th e woodwind s
and i n th e string s (th e one s notate d p , th e other s pp)— only fou r recorde d per -
formances manag e t o achiev e th e textura l contras t a t m.ll , thos e o f Toscanini ,
Stokowski, Kondrashin , an d Skrowaczewski . Here too , th e woodwind s i n som e
orchestras pla y triplet s (instea d o f dotte d eighths-sixteenths) ; an d th e secon d
flute an d secon d clarine t i n mm.16-1 8 ofte n ar e unawar e tha t the y hav e th e
main voic e her e (fo r example, th e Chicag o Symphon y player s i n Levine' s re -
cording). Th e wonderfu l softl y pulsatin g pizzicato s i n th e basse s ar e als o ofte n
underplayed o r acousticall y blurred. Whe n mm . 11-18 are playe d to o loud , th e
contrasting dynami c Brahm s call s fo r i n m.1 9 canno t b e realized . Indeed , i n
some recording s th e intende d effec t i s quit e reversed : m.1 9 bein g softer tha n
mm.11-18. I n an y case, th e first violins shoul d no w sing out , playin g the clari -
net's melody a t a slightly fuller dynami c level . Occasionally clarinetist s may hav e
to b e tol d tha t th e triple t passag e (mm . 19-22) i s not a 'solo, ' tha t i t i s in fac t a
discreet accompanimen t to or embellishmen t of the violins ' tune.
What ha s bee n sai d abou t mm.11-1 8 applies , o f course , t o mm.33-44 , a
subtle re-workin g o f the earlie r passage . Somethin g quit e ne w an d differen t ha s
also been added , a n ech o phrase i n mm.39-40. I t is amazing an d shockin g how
many performance s an d recording s blithel y ignor e thi s exquisit e effect , ridin g
roughshod ove r thes e tw o bars as i f there wer e n o pp's an d ppp's there .
Indeed, i t is depressing t o realiz e ho w man y recorde d performance s b y world-
famous maestr i completely ignor e Brahms's wonderfully subtl e dynamic an d tex -
tural contrast s i n th e entire thir d movemen t expositio n (mm . 1-44). Th e lis t of
offending conductor s i s a lon g on e an d includes , mos t notoriously , Böhm, Hor -
enstein, Boult , Dohnanyi , Klemperer , Rowicki , Ozawa, Wand, wit h perhaps th e
worst offender s Munc h (wit h th e Orchestr e d e Paris ) an d Janowski , bot h o f

whom charg e i n wit h a health y mf a t m.ll , pla y m.19 softer, m.3 3 lou d again ,
and barel y giv e an y notic e t o Brahms' s ech o phras e a t m.39 . Th e conductor s
who see m t o understand an d respec t Brahms' s intention s her e are , again, Tosca -
nini, Stokowski , Kondrashin , Skrowaczewski , and, i n a half-hearte d sor t o f way,
Muti wit h hi s Philadelphians .
Many conductor s ge t overly excited i n the nex t episod e (startin g at m.45) an d
push th e tempo , havin g then , o f course , t o rela x i t agai n shortl y befor e m.62 .
Actually, a littl e rubato i n thi s ver y Hungarian-gypsy-lik e musi c i s quit e appro -
priate—in th e sens e o f Beethoven' s "Temp o de s Gefühls " (temp o o f feeling) ,
but thi s shoul d no t b e exaggerated . B e i t noted , nonetheless , tha t fo r al l th e
rhythmic driv e an d Schwung, o f thi s passag e (mm.50-53) , i t i s a varian t o f th e
clarinet's openin g theme , a s ar e th e rollin g accompanimenta l figure s i n th e
strings i n mm . 59-61. Finally , I fin d i t awfu l whe n th e woodwind s cli p of f their
last eighths i n m.5 8 and m.60 , as one ca n hear , alas , in far too many recordings .
On th e retur n o f th e openin g theme—no w th e thir d appearanc e —Brahms
extends i t fro m it s previou s seve n bar s t o nin e bars . Thi s elongatio n an d it s
concomitant diminuend o hav e le d man y conductor s t o slo w u p th e temp o i n
mm.67-70, unfortunately arriving then a t a slower tempo a t the 6/8 , whic h i s in
effect th e 'Trio ' o f thi s dance-lik e movement . (I n earlie r day s th e thir d move -
ment woul d hav e bee n a Menuet o r a Scherzo , o r i n late r day s a Ländler, a s in
Mahler). I n an y case , th e basi c temp o o f th e outgoin g 2/ 4 an d incomin g 6/ 8
should b e th e sam e (<— J = J.—>), anothe r manifestatio n o f Brahms' s consisten t
fascination wit h relationship s of two to three .
It i s quite unmusica l whe n th e wind s dro p thei r dotte d quarter s rhythmically
and/or dynamicall y (mm.71-72, mm.75-76 , etc.) , fo r i t dissect s wha t i s clearly
intended t o be a four-ba r phras e int o thre e littl e one - an d two-ba r phrases . Not e
also Brahms' s carefu l notatio n o f th e winds ' dotte d quarters , bu t th e strings '
plain quarters .
I d o no t kno w wha t t o mak e o f th e curiou s articulation—unslurre d —in th e
violins i n mm.85-86 , except tha t I think i t i s a mistake, i n bot h Brahms' s manu -
script an d th e printe d editions . On e ca n b e sur e that , sinc e th e horn s ar e
slurred, th e violin s were likewis e meant t o b e legato. This scriptura l lacuna ha s
led conductor s t o som e o f th e stranges t interpretations , mor e ofte n tha n no t
heavy détaché stroke s (which t o m y ear s soun d completel y ou t o f context) . Bu t
the mos t bizarr e solutio n wa s adopte d b y Klempere r i n hi s 192 8 recordin g i n
which h e ha d th e violin s play the tw o bars with a secco Stravinskya n staccato, a
decision abou t which h e obviousl y had secon d thoughts , fo r in hi s later Philhar -
monia recordin g he opt s for ordinary tenuto separate bows . I fin d i t ironic —even
a bi t perverse—tha t s o man y conductors , pas t an d present , wh o hav e ha d n o
compunctions abou t ignorin g or changing Brahms' s scor e a t will in hundred s o f
places, her e i n thi s on e plac e wher e logi c woul d dictat e tha t ther e reall y i s a
textual error , the y al l adher e stubbornl y t o th e misprint . Onl y fiv e conductor s
(among th e recorde d samples ) hav e ha d th e goo d sens e t o slu r thes e tw o bars :
Furtwängler, Toscanini, Munch , Norrington , and Rowicki .
Apart fro m a n almos t universa l neglect o f th e sf s i n th e wind s i n m.9 0 an d

m.94, ther e i s the tendenc y her e o n th e par t o f man y conductor s t o pus h th e
tempo enormously , eithe r fo r th e effec t o f a 'chea p thrill ' fo r th e audienc e o r
because o f an utte r lac k o f tempo control . Ho w powerfu l th e climacti c passag e
at mm.96-10 7 ca n soun d without rushing ma y b e hear d t o excellen t effec t o n
the recording s o f Suitne r an d Klempere r (Philharmonia) . Wha t i s als o almos t
always neglecte d i s Brahms's importan t an d carefu l notationa l differentiatio n i n
the bas s part betwee n th e quarter-note s o f mm.93-95 and th e dotte d quarter s of
mm.96-101. Th e latte r mus t b e playe d molió sostenuto, espressivo, powerfull y
singing with great intensity . No recordin g reall y achieved thi s but a few, Abrava -
nel's, Klemperer' s (Philharmonia) , Suitner's , an d Kondrashin's , com e close .
In m y view mm . 106-107 are no t a mere successio n o f 3/8-3/8-5/8 entities, as
they ar e almos t alway s playe d an d heard , bu t a serie s o f strongl y syncopate d
accents se t agains t (bu t no t obscuring ) th e underlyin g 6/ 8 pulse . I n orde r t o
achieve th e twi n resul t o f hearing bot h th e asymmetrica l cross-accent s an d th e
basic pulse , al l th e conducto r ha s t o tel l th e musician s i s to fee l an d thin k th e
beats (th e first and fourt h eighth s i n bot h measures ) underneat h an d insid e th e
stated notate d rhythms . Ho w excitin g thi s ca n soun d whe n performe d correctl y
can b e savore d o n Stokowski' s and Dohnanyi' s recordings .
In th e firs t endin g Brahm s seem s t o hav e omitte d a crescend o i n th e bras s
and strings . One needn' t worr y about th e brass , however , sinc e th e eighth-not e
figure, risin g ove r a n octave , wil l almos t automaticall y b e accompanie d b y a
crescendo.
One o f the mos t annoyin g liberties—becaus e s o naive , s o self-indulgen t and
thoughtless—taken i n Brahms' s Firs t Symphon y i s the ritardand o almos t every -
one make s i n th e secon d endin g (mm.108-114) . I t is 'self-indulgent' i n tha t i t is
done simpl y because 'i t feels good ' or 'I jus t like it.' I t is 'thoughtless' and 'naive '
because (a ) Brahms would certainl y have written a poco rit. i f he ha d wante d it ,
and (b ) becaus e i t mus t b e quit e clea r fro m a n intelligen t readin g o f the scor e
that Brahm s intende d fo r th e 'threes, ' no w writte n a s eighth-not e triplet s (i n
m.110 an d mm.115-19 ) bu t equivalen t t o the eighth s o f the previou s 6/8, t o be
identical (Ex . 24) . Bu t no t onl y that : Brahm s obviousl y wanted a smoot h an d
Ex. 2 4
imperceptible retur n t o th e 2/ 4 music , th e revers e o f wha t h e ha d achieve d

when th e 2/ 4 earlie r o n wa s imperceptibl y transforme d into a 6/8 . Again , th e
old Brahmsia n fascination with 'three ' versu s 'two.' Ho w ingeniou s an d wonder -
ful Brahms' s overlay and extensio n o f the 6/ 8 feeling over the retur n o f the mai n
theme (mm . 115-119)—and the n beyon d tha t i n th e clarinet s an d bassoon s
(mm. 120-124)! I ca n fin d onl y one recordin g i n whic h th e transmutatio n fro m
the Tri o back to the 'Menuet, ' that is , without an y tempo disturbance , is handled
correctly: Leinsdorf' s with th e Bosto n Symphony . Others , wh o mak e a modest ,
tasteful ritar d i n mm . 109-114 an d thu s d o no t substantiall y disturb th e flo w
of th e music , ar e Skrowaczewski , Abravanel, Janowski, Wand , Klempere r (bot h
recordings), Rowicki , and Ozawa . Som e conductors , Toscanini , Norrington, and
Karajan, ar e o f the categor y who , havin g gotte n a littl e to o excite d tempo-wis e
in mm.96-108 , ar e force d t o ritar d bac k int o thei r mor e moderat e origina l
Tempo I— a mil d an d pardonabl e sin.
But wha t som e othe r conductor s generall y perpetrat e her e border s o n th e
bizarre an d th e incredible . There ar e thos e wh o mak e a sudden , abrup t meno
mosso a t m . 109—among the m va n Beinum , Dohnanyi , Giulini , Szell , Suitner ,
Kondrashin, Järvi , Walter , Celibidache , Bernstein , Paita—wh o the n hav e t o
jump abou t 2 0 metronome point s a t m.l 15 to get back to som e kin d o f normal
recapitulation Tempo I . A few others, suc h a s Böh m an d Furtwängler , star t th e
2/4 i n temp o an d then mak e a hug e ritard . All thes e conductor s think , I sup -
pose, tha t they are, lik e old Billow , delineating th e for m fo r the audience , whe n
in fac t the y ar e tearin g i t apart . Tw o o f th e stranges t aberration s visite d upo n
these si x transitiona l measure s (mm . 109-14) ar e b y (1 ) Stokowski , who, i n a
mostly superio r recording, especiall y considering it s early date (actuall y the first
recording o f th e Brahm s First) , make s a precipitou s meno mosso ( J = 52 ) at
m.109, bu t tw o bars later jump s twenty point s (sic) forward ( J = 72 ) an d the n
accelerates furthe r (sic) into a J = 7 8 Tempo I ; and (2 ) b y Horenstein, wh o a t
first seems t o want to maintain the tempo at the 2/4 , bu t then suddenly change s
his min d fou r bar s later an d cram s a hug e ritar d int o th e fina l tw o bar s of th e
phrase.
Once again , the clarine t must lead i n mm . 115-19, as at the beginnin g of the
movement. Violin s and viola s ad d a wholly new colo r i n mm.118-19. I n m.12 0
Brahms write s th e relativel y rar e markin g molió dolce, meanin g i n thi s context
pp an d Ver y sensitive' and 'gentle.' 37 It requires a very quiet, warm , and sensitiv e
sound i n pp . Thi s als o explain s Brahms' s bowing : al l fou r bar s (mm . 120-123)
on on e bow . Yet recording afte r recordin g ignore s bot h th e molió dolce an d th e
indicated bowing , i n innumerabl e recording s th e violin s blithel y sawing away at
a health y mf —with on e bo w per bar . What then result s i s that th e lovel y rolling
triplets o f the clarinet s an d bassoon s ar e barel y audible o r eve n downrigh t inau -
dible (a s they ar e o n 5 0 percen t o f th e recording s sampled) . Le t u s note , too ,
how subtl y Brahm s recast s th e secon d par t o f th e mai n them e o f th e exposi -
tion—originally a five-bar, later a seven-ba r phras e —as a six-ba r phrase . Brahm s
does thi s s o ingeniously , s o naturally , that th e alteratio n ca n easil y go b y unno -
ticed.
Especially ingeniou s i s the wa y Brahms foreshorten s the entir e recapitulation .
The exposition , originall y sevent y bar s i n length , i s no w reduce d t o no t quit e
forty bars , reshaped int o a new sequenc e b y some typicall y skillful (an d painless)
Brahmsian surgery (in effec t cuttin g mm . 19—58 from th e exposition) . Thereafter,
the 'Trio ' i s briefl y recapitulate d an d renotate d i n 2/ 4 (instea d o f th e origina l
6/8), no w servin g as the cod a o f the entir e movement .
This coda ha s been s o variously interpreted an d misinterprete d a s to be almos t
legendary a s a 'proble m piece. ' Actuall y i t i s quit e simpl e an d clear . Brahm s
writes poco a poco più tranquillo, startin g i n m . 152, meaning i n plai n languag e
'gradually quieter, ' bu t quiete r implyin g als o 'quiete r i n tempo. ' Thi s translates ,
in othe r words , int o a ver y gradua l relaxin g o f the temp o til l th e end. 38 Onc e
again, however, i t is beyond comprehensio n wh y the vas t majority o f conductor s
can't rea d o r understan d Brahms' s marking , o r wh y the y simpl y rejec t i t a s
'wrong.' Som e star t th e ritardand o si x or eigh t bar s earlie r than indicated , som e
even befor e tha t (a s earl y a s m.142!) . Th e proble m wit h thes e ver y prematur e
37. Dolce, of course, mean s swee t i n everyda y Italian, but i n musi c i n th e 19t h century , particularly
with Beethove n an d composer s afte r him , i t too k o n a rang e o f relate d an d overlappin g meanings ,
most ofte n "gentle, " "delicate, " "soft, " "quiet, " an d perhap s a combinatio n o f these . Dolce wa s also
used b y Beethoven—an d Brahms , i n emulatio n o f Beethoven—t o mea n simpl y p. Ther e ar e hun -
dreds o f instance s i n Beethove n score s wher e dolce substitute s fo r p . Her e i n Brahms' s m.12 0 i t
means mo/t o p o r pp .
38. I am a t a loss to explai n the doubl e ba r a t m.154 . Could i t be tha t i t represents the poin t wher e
Brahms intende d th e pi ù tranquillo t o start , an d th e word s poco a poco accidentall y wer e written i n
two bar s earlier ? Ther e i s evidenc e t o tha t effec t i n th e autograp h manuscript , i n whic h ther e
appears t o b e a sligh t differenc e in th e han d writin g between poco a poco an d pi ù tranquillo, sug -
gesting tha t pi ù tranquillo wa s Brahms' s initia l impulse—i t woul d als o explai n th e double-ba r a t
m. 154—but tha t a t som e late r poin t h e though t o f th e eve n bette r ide a o f a continuou s gradua l
relaxing o f the temp o t o th e fina l ba r o f the movement . Findin g n o roo m a t m . 154 to writ e in th e
afterthought poco a poco, h e wrot e i t i n tw o bars earlier , which woul d leav e ope n onl y the questio n
of where th e slackenin g o f tempo shoul d start : m. 152 or m.154 ; no t whether. Bu t thi s seems t o b e a
moot point , sinc e mos t conductor s ignor e al l o f this anyway.
A simila r temp o modificatio n i n anothe r celebrate d masterpiece , Debussy' s L'Après-midi d'un
faune, i s likewise ignored b y the majorit y o f conductors. Ther e Debuss y place s ver y clearl y five bars
from th e en d Trè s lent e t très retenu jusqu'à l a fi n (ver y slo w and ver y hel d bac k unti l th e end) . Bu t
almost n o on e seem s t o take notice o f this marking, the las t three bars being generally played almost
twice a s fast a s th e previou s two. Similarly , Strauss' s long ritardand o (poco a poco pi ù calando si n
al fin, stretchin g acros s seventee n bars ) a t th e en d o f Death an d Transfiguration i s consistently
ignored.
ritardandos i s that , i f the y ar e carrie d ou t progressively , the y lea d t o a virtua l

standstill o f the musi c b y the las t three t o five measures , a s in th e cas e o f Furt -
wängler, Chailly , Abbado , an d Sanderling . I n th e last-named' s recording , fo r
example, th e temp o i n th e las t thre e bar s i s J . = ca.TA, whic h wit h al l du e
respect canno t b e a possible tempo i n a n allegretto movement—unles s on e sim-
ply want s t o abando n an y notio n o f forma l balance , o f proportions , an d o f
boundaries o f taste an d logic .
Beyond suc h considerations , too slow a tempo i n mm . 154-64 makes th e cod a
sound maudli n an d overl y sentimental—like somethin g o n a n 'eas y listening '
radio station—losin g tha t tensil e strengt h tha t i s always, even a t it s most lyrical
and romantic , a n essentia l feature of Brahms's music . A lithe, flowing, very grad-
ually ritardin g tempo , endin g i n th e las t fe w measure s o f th e movement , say,
around j . = 6 3 i s not onl y intrinsicall y appropriat e but , in m y view, provides
the righ t parallel to Brahms' s wonderfull y delicate, transparent , gossame r instru -
mentation o f multiple divide d strings and winds . Last, I would offe r th e though t
that a moderat e temp o make s audibl e —makes intelligible—th e three-against -
two polyphon y i n mm . 156-57 an d mm . 160-61, whic h whe n playe d a t too slow
a temp o lose s al l motion , al l flow: the dialogu e betwee n th e tw o rhythm s be -
comes s o distended a s to b e almos t meaningless .
The antipode s o f interpretation s o n recording s ar e represente d o n th e on e
hand—the excessivel y slow temp o an d prematur e ritard—b y Furtwangler , Le -
vine, Muti, Kondrashin , Järvi, Stokowski , Abravanel, Rowicki, Bernstein, Ozawa ;
on th e othe r hand—th e moderate , tasteful , almos t imperceptibl e slackenin g of
tempo—Skrowaczewski, Leinsdorf , Kertesz , Toscanini , an d Walter . Somewher e
on a middle groun d ar e a host of others, divide d into two basic categories : those ,
van Beinum , Haitink , Szell—i s thi s a peculiarl y Dutc h tradition?—an d Wan d
and Jochum , wh o make n o ritar d at all until the ver y end (perhap s the las t three
to five bars); and those , Dohnanyi , Giulini , Abbado, Tennstedt, Chailly , Munch,
Janowski, Karajan , Böhm , an d Suitner , wh o provid e a kin d o f 'rolle r coaster '
interpretation, ritardin g at first but the n rushin g forwar d wit h th e crescendo s i n
m.156 an d m.160 , onl y t o ritar d a lo t i n th e fina l thre e bars . A n especiall y
willful interpretatio n i s that o f Bernstein, who, after givin g us th e 'rolle r coaster '
treatment, incredibl y suddenly goes much faster (sic) fo r the las t three bars . With
such a divergence o f tempo interpretations , one begin s t o wis h that Brahm s had
used metronom e markings , t o a t least provid e a genera l clu e a s t o hi s temp o
feelings. Bu t probabl y that wouldn' t hav e helpe d wit h a Bernstein .
The Final e movemen t o f th e Brahm s Firs t i s fraught with majo r performanc e

problems, mostly in the real m o f tempo question s which hav e puzzled interpret -
ers for ove r a centur y an d which , t o m y knowledge , hav e neve r bee n satisfacto-
rily resolved . And perhap s the y wil l never be , a t leas t no t unequivocally , defini -
tively. I a m referrin g to th e tempo s o f the openin g Adagio introduction , the Pi ù
andante o f m.30 , an d th e mai n bod y o f th e movement , th e complexl y named
Allegro no n troppo, m a co n brio a t m.62 , an d th e possibl e tempo relationships
between an d amon g thes e thre e majo r structura l junctures.
As i n th e firs t movement , Brahm s fel t th e nee d fo r a slowe r introductio n t o

the movemen t proper , onl y thi s tim e i n tw o phases (mm.1-2 9 and mm.30-61) ,
both o f thes e furthe r partitione d b y variou s themati c intervention s an d temp o
modifications. An d a s i n th e firs t movement , thi s twi n introductio n supplie s all
the relevan t thematic/motivi c materia l tha t wil l constitute th e mai n argumen t o f
the mai n bod y o f th e movement . I n effec t th e introductio n i s lik e a giganti c
two-part overture t o th e unfoldin g drama o f the Allegro proper .
But onc e again , Brahm s give s u s n o metronom e markings , eithe r a t th e be -
ginning o r alon g th e way , no obviou s clue s t o basi c tempo s o r temp o relation -
ships. I n thi s cas e Brahms' s notatio n i s certainly no t precis e o r explicit ; Adagio
can b e legitimatel y interprete d i n a wid e rang e o f tempos —I suppos e anywher e
from J = 2 5 t o J = 60—whil e Pi ù andante i s considere d b y mos t conduc -
tors a fairl y ambiguou s temp o indication , especiall y i n thi s cas e sinc e i t i s clea r
that i t i s t o b e relate d someho w t o th e previou s Adagio; an d last , th e rathe r
vacillating marking , Allegro no n troppo, m a co n brio (no t to o lively , an d ye t
sprightly). A s can b e easil y imagined, thi s lac k o f specificity has le d t o al l kinds
of interpretations , non e o f whic h seem s t o hav e seriously , analyticall y probe d
the inheren t temp o possibilities , bu t som e o f whic h (Klemperer's , Abravanel's,
Walter's, Wand's, Dohnanyi's , Kondrashin's , fo r example) have sheerly intuitively
arrived a t admirabl e solutions . Bu t o n th e premis e —on whic h thi s entir e boo k
is based—tha t trul y penetrating , comprehensiv e analysi s can lea d t o th e mos t
illuminating, imaginative , an d inspire d musica l performances , le t u s se e wit h
what reasonabl e option s Brahms' s scor e does , i n fact , presen t us . An d indeed ,
upon close r scrutin y we d o fin d severa l importan t clue s i n Brahms' s notation ,
that provid e crucia l guideline s toward s evolvin g a cogent , coheren t interpreta -
tion.
The mos t importan t an d precis e clu e fo r solving the temp o puzzle , I believe,
occurs i n mm . 29-30 i n th e timpan i part . Bu t whil e i t i s a soli d piec e o f evi-
dence a s t o ho w thos e tw o measure s ar e intende d t o relate, b y itsel f i t doesn' t
tell u s unequivocall y what th e actual tempo s ough t t o be . Ye t m.29 an d m.30 ,
if they ar e take n literally , narrow the discussion—an d th e option s —in ver y com -
pelling an d fascinatin g ways. What Brahm s is clearly saying in th e timpan i par t
(Ex. 25)—an d i t is astonishing that h e wa s inspired to b e s o explicit—is that th e
Ex. 2 5
tripletized sixteenth s i n m.30 , notate d a s equa l th e tripletize d thirty-second s

in th e latte r half of m.29. I n moder n 20th-centur y notation w e migh t no w con -
firm thi s b y a 'metri c modulation ' notatio n o f *-* = J- > o r <-• ' = «'-». Tha t
1
3 3
much seem s clear , fo r on e canno t imagin e wh y Brahm s woul d hav e se t dow n

such a relatively complex an d intellectual , mathematical an d ver y modern nota -
tion, i f by so doing h e didn' t mea n somethin g quit e specific .
What thi s understandin g o f Brahms' s temp o conversio n signifie s i s tha t hi s
Più andante a t m.3 0 wil l b e twic e a s fas t a s th e precedin g Adagio. Bu t thi s i s
where i t gets complicated an d elusive , for if we wer e to assum e fo r the momen t
that thi s sectio n (mm.30-61)migh t b e a t a tempo , say , of J = 7 2 o r J = 60 ,
then m.2 9 woul d hav e t o b e J = 3 6 or j = 30 , respectively. Now , tha t i s a
reasonable possibilit y fo r th e openin g Adagio an d i s i n fac t th e temp o rang e
within whic h th e vas t majorit y o f conductors se t the Adagio. (Tha t mos t o f them
in tur n d o th e secon d movement , whic h i s marked Andante, jus t a s slow a s this
Adagio doesn' t see m t o distur b them particularly.)
If w e allow for the momen t th e reasonablenes s o f a J = 30-3 6 temp o rang e
for th e Adagio, w e are confronte d wit h th e apparen t unreasonablenes s o f main -
taining tha t temp o throughou t th e Adagio phas e o f th e introduction , tha t is ,
through mm.22-2 8 a s well . Bu t ther e isn' t a singl e conducto r tha t I kno w of ,
past o r present , wh o kep t o r keep s th e origina l slo w tempo i n thos e seve n mea -
sures. Wh y thi s acceleratio n occur s i s not reall y clear ; i t seem s simpl y t o b e a
long-standing traditio n wit h origin s buried i n th e distan t past . Brahm s certainl y
does no t indicat e an y accelerand o o r stringend o i n m.2 2 o r m.23 , a s h e does ,
for example , i n mm.8-1 1 an d mm . 18-19. Ye t tremendou s acceleration s o f
tempo hav e becom e d e rigeur i n thi s passage, I suppose, becaus e nobod y seem s
to b e abl e t o countenanc e th e ide a o f th e thirty-second-note s i n mm.24-2 6
dragging alon g a t a spee d of , say, Jl = 60 . And i n trut h tha t woul d see m t o b e
a musica l impossibility . Mos t conductor s reac h a tempo of around J i = 112—16 ,
the slowes t I have hear d (Boult ) a t Jl = 92 , th e fastes t (Stokowski ) at « h = 138 .
Needless to say, if the tempo is speeded u p i n mm. 22-28, then th e original Adagio
tempo i s certainly abrogated an d wit h that, o f course, th e possibilit y of retaining
the m.29/30 J) = j relationshi p I postulated earlier . We might also note i n passing
that i f the temp o reache d i n mm.25-2 8 was , for example, j = 6 0 (J) = 120) ,
Brahms's sixty-fourth-note s in th e timpan i i n m.2 9 woul d becom e clearl y un -
performable.
We seem t o fin d ourselve s thus fa r in a n impenetrabl e interpretationa l thicke t
in whic h n o temp o choices , eithe r intuitivel y or rationally arrived at, seem t o b e
structurally compatible . I f we maintai n th e origina l Adagio temp o an d adher e
to Brahms' s metri c modulatio n i n mm.29—30 , th e climacti c passag e i n mm.22 —
29 wil l b e clearl y incongruous ; i f o n th e othe r han d w e follo w ou r intuition s
and accelerat e t o a muc h faste r temp o i n th e climacti c thirty-second-not e pas -
sage, w e canno t perfor m Brahms' s metri c modulatio n i n mm . 29-30, fo r the n
the Pi ù andante temp o woul d tur n ou t t o b e somewher e aroun d J = 120 ,
depending o n ho w muc h accelerand o w e ha d mad e previously . And i t mus t b e
very clea r tha t mm.30—6 1 wit h thei r alphor n melod y an d bras s chorale , canno t
be a t a tempo o f J = 120 .
Obviously som e adjustment , som e compromise , mus t b e mad e somewhere .
My solutio n lie s i n th e recognitio n that th e agitate d syncopate d figure s i n th e
woodwinds i n mm.27-2 8 (Ex.26a ) appear als o i n mm.279-8 4 (Ex.26b ) of th e

main Allegro, an d tha t similarly , th e descendin g thirty-secon d note-run s i n
Ex. 26 a
mm.24-26 (Ex.27a ) reappea r several time s i n mm . 106-10, 234-4 2 (Ex.27b) ,

259-67. Thi s the n ma y b e a clu e a s to ho w fas t wha t I hav e bee n callin g "th e
climactic passage " (mm.24-28 , 29 ) migh t be . That , o f course , i n tur n woul d
presuppose tha t w e kno w wha t temp o th e movement' s mai n Allegro ough t t o
Ex. 27 a
Ex. 27 b
be; and here , indeed , ther e seem s t o be genera l agreemen t amon g interpreters .
Keeping in mind that Brahms's Allegro non troppo, ma con brio —note that Brahms
does not say allegro ma non troppo, but simply Allegro non troppo, the subtle differ -
ence being between 'no t too lively' and livel y but no t to o much'—has to be sig-
nificantly faster than m.30's Pz'ù andante, bu t als o slower than the coda' s (f c Pfu alle-
gro. Sinc e there i s a limit to how fast the sextuple t eighth notes in the cod a can b e
sensibly played—probabl y aroun d j = 136-144—i t suggests , b y retracing our
tempo step s back through the stringend o o f mm. 3 8 3-90 t o the mai n Allegro, that
the no n troppo allegro of m.62 will typically range somewher e between j = 10 4
(Järvi's tempo) an d J = 12 0 (Furtwängler's, Abravanel's, Abbado's, Kondrashin' s
tempo).''Transferring this range of tempos furthe r back to mm.24-29 of the intro-
duction, w e find that both cite d figures, the syncopations in mm.27-28, the thirty-
second-note run s in mm.24-26 work perfectly well within that rang e (counte d i n
eighth-notes, o f course, i.e. J) = 10 4 to J^ = 120) .
But i f that solve s the proble m o f the relativ e tempos a t m.l, mm.24-28, m.30,
39. Onl y a fe w conductors d o m.6 2 slowe r (Giulin i a t a sluggis h j = 90 , Bernstei n a t J = 92 ,
Ozawa a t J = 96) , an d onl y a fe w d o i t faste r (Toscanini , Jochum , an d Stokowski , j = 144 ,
j = 138 , an d j = 124 , respectively) . Karaja n i n som e o f his recordings can' t mak e u p hi s mind ,
starting aroun d j = 96 , then speedin g u p some measure s late r t o J = 120 .
and presumabl y m.62, i t still leave s on e loophole , namely , m.29 . Fo r i f m.29 is

somewhere betwee n j = 10 4 and j = 12 0 (as it should b e i f m.28 i s in tha t
tempo range) , the n carryin g ou t th e implie d metri c modulatio n woul d caus e
the hor n cal l a t m.3 0 t o b e als o a t a temp o betwee n j = 10 4 and j = 120 .
This w e als o kno w i s impossible, becaus e w e kno w tha t Brahm s too k thi s hor n
passage fro m a n alphor n cal l tha t i s played—b y th e way , t o thi s day—o n th e
Swiss alps , a s w e lear n fro m a postcar d Brahm s sen t t o Clar a Schuman n i n
September 1868 , tellin g he r abou t hearin g thi s cal l an d quotin g i t i n musica l
notation o n th e postcard . That alphor n cal l i s certainly no t playe d a t a temp o
of J = 96-12 0 by the cow - and goatherd s o f Switzerland. My solution t o closin g
that 'loophole ' i s a relativel y simple one : mak e a gentl e ritar d i n th e las t tw o
beats (fou r eighths ) o f m.29 , easin g th e musi c fro m th e faste r temp o int o a
slower on e a t m.30 , whic h nonetheles s respect s Brahms' s Pi ù andante i n tha t it
is 'mor e moving ' ('mor e walking, ' literally ) tha n th e initia l Adagio. Thu s th e
whole temp o schemati c ca n b e rendere d a s in Fig.7 , showin g no t specifi c deter -
minated tempo s bu t approximate , meanin g possible , temp o ranges .
Fig. 7
mm. 1-7 mm.8-10 mm. 1 1 (a tempo)-l7 mm. 18-1 9

J= 30-5 0 accel. to J = ca.l32 J= 30-5 0 accel. t o J = ca.l32
1
mm.20-21 I mm.22-2 31 mm.24-2 8 I m.2 9! m.3 0

J= 30-5 0 ! accel. t o J ) = ca. 100-120 ! J) = ca. 100-120 ! rit. i n 2 . half t o ! J = 60-72
As I indicate d earlier , certai n conductor s hav e arrive d intuitivel y a t simila r

solutions to the temp o question(s ) left unclarifie d b y Brahms. M y proffered solu -
tion provides , I believe , a logica l an d rationa l approac h t o th e proble m withi n
certain objectiv e parameters .
Having establishe d th e parameter s withi n whic h th e tempo s ma y range , th e
conductor mus t still , however , determin e a specific temp o o r a t least narro w i t
down t o a mor e limite d rang e tha n J = 30-50 . Mos t conductors , a s I hav e
indicated, ten d toward s a n excruciatingl y slo w tempo fo r the openin g Adagio, I
suppose unde r th e mistake n notio n tha t i t will ensur e th e mos t 'profound ' an d
'anguished' expression . They ought t o remind themselve s tha t Brahms' s marking
is merely Adagio, no t eve n Adagio molto, let alone Largo o r Grave. At too slo w a
tempo th e musi c lose s all line, al l tension an d inne r strength . I t simply become s
lugubrious an d empty . I n th e cas e o f som e conductors ' recordings , Bernstein' s
or Böhm's , th e musi c seem s t o com e t o a standstil l i n th e firs t fe w measures.
My preference—an d that , evidently , o f Toscanini , Klemperer , Walter , an d
Wand — is J = 46—50 . Tha t i s quit e slo w enough , an d wit h tha t temp o th e
essence o f the music , residin g in bot h it s sustained chromatic line s an d it s pedal
points, ca n b e full y expressed . Figure 8 shows the temp o choice s represente d i n
the fifty-odd recordings of the Brahm s First tha t wer e analyzed.
Fig. 8
J = 24 Bernstein +
J = 26 va n Beinum, Tennstedt* , Sanderlin g +
J=30 Munch + *, Ozawa , Suitner , Skrowaczewski , Szell, Karajan* , Abbado + *,
Solti + *
J = 3 2 Rowicki , Kertesz, Böh m *
J = 34 Stokowski , Boult , Dohnanyi *, Giulini+, Leinsdorf, Furtwängle r + (Vienna),
Walter + *,Herbig + *
J = 36 Abravanel , Kondrashin *, Janowski *, Muti+ , Ormandy +, Haitink, Levine,
Jochum + *
J = 38 Järvi , Chailly
J = 40 Horenstein , Klempere r ( 1928), Toscanini, Lehel +
J = 44 Wand *
J = 46 Klempere r (Philharmonia)
+
identifies those conductor s wh o make a fermata C^) on the fourth beat of m. l.
* identifies those conductors wh o make (made) further excessiv e ritards in mm.4 and 5 .
Just a s the temp o shoul d no t b e exaggerated , s o too th e dynamic s shoul d b e

contained withi n reason . To o ofte n al l th e f' s ar e turne d int o ffs o r fff's, th e
crescendo i n m . l i s tremendously exaggerated , and th e first timpani tril l is trans-
formed int o a terrifyin g cannonade , al l ou t o f proportion t o th e elementa l sim -
plicity an d dolefu l mood o f this introductor y phrase (se e Ex . 28a). The melodi c
line, wit h it s poignan t dro p dow n a majo r thir d i n m. 3 (i n th e violin s an d
Ex. 28 a
l.horn), wil l reappea r slightl y altere d a s th e mai n them e o f th e Allegro no n

troppo i n m.6 2 (Ex . 28b) . A t firs t glanc e thi s openin g lin e ma y see m t o b e a
two-bar phrase , bu t i t i s in fac t a four-ba r phrase, i n whic h th e thir d an d fourt h
bars ar e a near-repetitio n a varie d repetitio n o f the firs t tw o bar s (no t countin g
Ex. 28 b
the anacrusi s measure) . To o ofte n thi s openin g i s treate d a s tw o separat e two -

bar phrases, thus destroying the gran d line which, in m y view, i s more importan t
to preserv e rathe r tha n t o indulg e i n som e painfull y slo w tempo . Th e almos t
two-octave drop and intervenin g rest (in m.4 ) i n the first violin line i s potentially
disruptive enough , s o tha t on e mus t mak e ever y effor t t o creat e a lin e o f fou r
bars. Onl y thre e conductor s manage d t o preserv e th e Viertaktigkeit (th e

hyper-measure, a s i t i s calle d b y moder n musicologist s an d theorists ) o f thi s
opening phrase : Furtwängler , Toscanini , an d Norrington . Toward s tha t en d th e
chromatic windin g third s i n th e woodwind s and th e viola s can b e o f enormou s
help. A t th e sam e tim e th e intervalli c clashe s i n m. 4 an d m. 5 o f Ai > an d Fi t
against th e peda l G mus t b e mad e audible . I f the musician s involve d are mad e
to hea r an d fee l thes e harmoni c tensio n points , th e tragi c feelin g o f the musi c
is expresse d muc h mor e powerfull y tha n wit h som e impossible-to-sustai n slo w
tempo.
As fo r th e dynamic s o f th e firs t phrase , apar t fro m m y suggestio n tha t th e f p
in m. 2 no t b e to o explosive , th e remainde r o f the phras e shoul d b e containe d
within essentiall y a p dynami c range , recedin g t o a p p onl y a t th e en d o f m.5 .
The crescendo/diminuend o o f mm.2-3 i s not muc h mor e tha n a phrasin g nu -
ance, a s distinguishe d fro m a majo r dynami c modification . Brahm s ofte n indi -
cates suc h subtl e dynami c nuancin g i n hi s work s a s a confirmatio n o f wha t a
sensitive, expressive musician might d o quite naturally . Brahms was quite precis e
about suc h matter s i n hi s notation , fro m whic h w e shoul d infe r tha t whe n h e
does no t indicat e suc h phras e nuances , the y ar e no t wante d an d we , as perform-
ers, ough t no t t o impos e them .
In thi s connection , I fee l compelle d t o poin t ou t somethin g tha t seem s t o b e
little know n amon g conductor s an d instrumentalists , tha t i t i s a quit e commo n
practice o n th e par t o f composer s a s well a s musi c engravers , copyists, and edi -
tors tha t a n incidenta l 'hairpin ' nuanc e crescendo s onl y t o th e nex t
dynamic leve l above the on e fro m whic h i t starts. Thus a markin g like p
is mean t t o g o onl y u p t o mp. I f a compose r want s t o hav e a bigge r crescend o
than that , h e mus t indicat e a s muc h o r,
Admittedly, no t al l composer s adher e t o thi s notationa l principle , bu t man y do ,
and i t is a goo d rul e o f thumb t o follow . I t i s also reasonable t o assum e tha t th e
first beat o f m.3 ough t no t t o be playe d mf o r f, give n th e fac t tha t th e sustaine d
G i n th e lowe r instrument s i s marked p .
There i s a danger—an d i t i s represented o n numerou s recordings—tha t th e
violins i n m. 3 (an d violin s an d viola s i n m.14 ) mak e to o grea t a diminuend o
because o f no t 'savin g th e bow. ' A s I've mentione d before , thi s i s a world-wide
bad habi t amon g orchestra l violinists , an d unfortunatel y mos t conductor s d o
very littl e t o correc t it , o r don' t kno w ho w to correc t it . The effec t o f this exces -
sive immediat e diminuend o i s exacerbated whe n th e crescend o i n m. 2 (an d i n
m.13) i s als o overdone , bringin g th e E t i n m. 2 t o a f , fo r example , wit h th e
immediate resul t tha t th e violinist s use u p hal f th e bo w befor e th e firs t bea t i s
over. Th e furthe r resul t the n i s that beat s 2 and 3 are clos e t o p an d th e fourt h
beat pp . The n wha t usuall y happens i s that i n m.4 , afte r th e quarte r res t there ,
the violins , with a 'fres h bow, ' unknowingl y come i n m p o r p , which , o f course ,
has th e effec t o f destroying the evennes s o f the four-ba r lon g lin e (o r three-ba r
in th e cas e o f mm . 13-15). Instea d o f soundin g a s graphicall y displayed in Fig .
9a, whic h i s what Brahms' s notatio n call s for , it sound s a s i n Fig . 9b , whic h is
in n o wa y what Brahms's notation indicates .
Fig. 9 a Fig .9 b
Since th e en d o f m.5 i s pp, m. 6 mus t b e a subito p , tha t is , one dynami c level

higher. Thi s nuanc e i s hardl y eve r observe d i n performanc e an d recordings .
Indeed man y conductors produc e som e kin d of super pianississimo at m.6 that is
totally misapplied, amon g the m Bernstein , Dohnanyi , Giulini , Janowski , Ozawa,
Abbado, th e wors t bein g Mut i an d Kertesz , o n whos e recording s I ha d t o tur n
up th e playbac k leve l substantially t o b e abl e t o eve n hea r th e passag e a t all .
Even mor e disappointin g i s that o n th e vas t majorit y o f recordings i n th e ensu -
ing pizzicato passag e th e viola s and cello s play much to o softly , whil e the violin s
and basse s pla y quit e vigorously , wit h th e resul t tha t th e passag e i s distorte d t o
sound a s if Brahms ha d onl y writte n as in Ex . 29a, when i n fac t Ex . 29b i s what
Ex. 29 a
Ex. 29 b
he actuall y wrote. Th e viol a and cell o part s are the mos t important ; the y ar e th e
binding tha t give s th e whol e passag e it s unity an d line . Ho w thi s sound s whe n
well balance d ca n b e hear d t o wonderfu l effect , fo r example, o n Haitink's , Lev -
ine's, Skrowaczewski's , Norrington's an d Furtwangler' s recordings.
Another ba d habi t i s a n excessiv e accelerand o i n m. 8 an d m.9 . Firs t o f all ,
Brahms write s stringendo poco a poco fo r mm.8-11 , a s oppose d t o string, molto
in mm . 18-19. Thi s shoul d aler t conductor s t o th e fac t tha t Brahm s definitel y
wants t o mak e a difference betwee n th e tw o stringendos, wit h the first one bein g
of a moderat e an d ver y gradua l sort . Second , tha t firs t stringendo i s stretche d
across fou r bars , bu t onl y acros s tw o bar s fo r th e late r one . Instead , however ,
many conductor s (lik e Tennstedt , Chailly , Munch , Janowski , Wand, Bernstein )
have alread y made s o much stringendo b y m.8 an d m. 9 tha t the y cannot acceler -
ate an y mor e i n th e remainin g tw o measures , whic h simpl y en d u p bein g fas t
without an y accelerando , thu s completel y subvertin g Brahms' s idea . On e con -
ductor wh o get s i t right i s Toscanini, amon g the olde r conductors , an d another ,

among mor e recen t maestri , is Suitner.
At m. 12 Brahm s takes the openin g five bars and, in effect , turn s the m upsid e
down (althoug h foreshortene d b y on e measure) , jus t a s Beethoven ha d don e i n
the las t movement o f the Fift h Symphon y (see pp.214-15). The thre e anacrusis
notes i n m.1 2 ar e the upturne d counterpar t t o the first three note s o f the move -
ment, Brahm s havin g transferre d the m fro m th e lo w registe r an d th e string s
(primarily) t o th e hig h registe r an d th e woodwinds . Her e agai n th e vulga r fer-
mata (/r\ ) o n th e fourt h beat that , fo r example, Mut i does , i s to be avoided . Th e
theme, firs t hear d i n th e hig h violins , i s no w se t i n th e lowe r middl e register ,
very much a s we shall see it in it s 'main subject' for m a t the outse t o f the Allegro
(m.62). On e interestin g modification Brahms adds to this permutation b y inver-
sion i s th e mor e pronounce d sustainin g o f th e peda l tones , no w als o move d
from thei r erstwhil e lo w register to th e uppe r register . The trumpets ' an d flutes '
C's mus t b e wel l sustained , s o tha t th e momentar y dissonanta l clashe s i n
mm.13-15 —Dl> an d B 1! agains t C—ar e full y realized . Onl y a fe w recording s
exploit thi s particula r Brahmsia n (an d Beethovenian) effec t intelligentl y (van
Beinum, Haitink , Furtwängler , Suitner , Abbado , Norrington , an d Kondra -
shin).
What ha s bee n sai d earlie r abou t mm.6- 8 obviousl y applie s a s wel l a s t o
mm. 16-18.
I hav e alread y discussed the problem s relativ e t o th e passag e starting at m.22 .
I shoul d lik e t o ad d tha t i n m y view the accelerand o her e shoul d no t b e over -
done. W e shoul d recogniz e tha t Brahm s ha s alread y quadruple d th e spee d o f
the audibl e rhythm s i n mm.22-26 , compare d wit h th e opening . There w e had
movement i n quarter-notes ; a t m.2 2 and onwar d w e hav e movemen t i n thirty -
second-notes. Th e basi c feelabl e pulse a t m.2 2 is i n eighth-note s (a s i t shoul d
be and , as it is incidentally, mostly conducted). Therefore , give n this substantial
accretion o f tempo flow, already composed int o th e music , i t i s not a t all neces -
sary t o mak e an y enormou s accelerando ; th e musi c speed s u p significantl y all
by itself . M y preference is to mov e fro m a basic Adagio temp o o f j = 46-5 0 to
about j = 60 , that is Jl = 12 0 by m.24. I t is, however, also possible to stay at J
= 5 0 and rende r m.2 4 in a tempo o f /I = 100 , as, for example , Levin e does .
Boult's temp o an d Skrowaczewski' s tempo a t m.2 4 are th e slowes t o f al l th e
recordings I hav e hear d (9 2 an d 9 8 respectively) ; Stokowski' s i s th e fastest ,
clocked a t Jl = 138 .
We should not e i n passing the intimat e relationshi p between th e melodi c lin e
in mm.22-23 and that of mm.31-32 in the secon d movemen t (Ex.3 0 a,b), mate-
rial w e shall see and hea r agai n ver y prominently, somewhat transformed, in th e
main bod y o f th e las t movemen t i n m.15 6 (Ex.30c ) an d severa l othe r places .
Ex. 30 a Secon d movemen t

Ex. 3 Ob Fourt h movemen t
Ex. 30 c Fourt h movemen t
In mos t performance s an d recording s mm.24-2 7 g o rathe r well, 40 bu t i n m.2 8

far to o ofte n th e dotte d eighth-notes , especiall y i n th e brass , ar e playe d eithe r
too short or with sudden diminuendo s ( J ) ) , or both, seriously undermining th e
effectiveness o f thi s powerfu l climax . I hav e alread y suggested tha t i t i s bes t t o

conduct mm.22-2 8 i n 'eight ' (i.e . i n eighth-notes ) — indeed eve n th e las t tw o
beats o f m.21 . I sugges t furthe r tha t m.2 9 als o b e conducte d i n 'eight, ' s o a s t o
more readil y control an d pac e bot h th e lon g diminuend o an d th e ritar d I have
spoken o f earlier a t the en d o f m.29. Th e eighth-not e beats are then converte d
directly t o equivalen t quarter-not e beat s i n m.30 .
Brahms wa s not generall y give n t o ton e painting , o r extra-musica l allusions,
especially i n hi s symphonies. Bu t i t i s quite likel y that , her e an d there , ther e ar e
hidden o r secre t scenarios . I thin k thi s i s the cas e i n mm.30-5 1 whic h begin s
with Brahm s conjurin g u p a beautifu l cloudles s sunris e mornin g o n a Swis s
aim, lik e th e on e h e ha d visite d i n 1868 , wit h a n alphor n sendin g it s simple
song acros s th e valley s an d village s below . I sa y cloudless, becaus e th e driven ,
turbulent musi c o f mm.24-28 , bu t especiall y mm.27-28, surel y evoke s i n ou r
musical imaginatio n a summer thunderstorm, particularly th e s f crashes of m.2 8
(which mus t hav e thei r precedenc e i n th e 'storm ' movemen t o f Beethoven' s
Pastorale Symphony)— a stor m tha t passe s o n a s quickl y and a s suddenl y a s i t
came. Th e lingering , disappearin g thunder i n m.2 9 i n fac t le d Stokowsk i in hi s
in man y way s remarkabl e Philadelphi a Orchestr a recordin g o f 1927 , t o ad d a
thunderous bas s drum sol o (sic) t o th e timpan i par t in mm.28-29 .
The hor n an d flut e intonings , followe d by the reverentia l 'thanksgiving ' cho -
rale, comprise on e o f the mos t magical moment s i n al l of Brahms. But it s majes -
tic, transcenden t effec t depend s o n a scrupulou s observanc e o f Brahms's score ,
especially i n respect to the designate d dynamics . The orchestra l accompanimen t
(mainly trombones, timpani , an d mute d strings 41) mus t b e a mystica l and misty
pp—the mornin g mis t risin g fro m th e valley s (i f I ma y b e permitte d on e mor e
metaphor)—and th e hor n mus t declai m it s call agains t this hushed backgroun d
40. A strange anomal y exist s i n one recording : whil e th e thirty-second-note s i n the violin s are univer -
sally playe d 'o n th e string, ' Walte r ha d the m playe d staccat o 'of f th e string, ' i n contex t a ver y od d
sounding, incongruou s effect .
41. I recommen d tha t al l th e string s be mute d here , includin g cello s an d basses , who ca n pu t o n
mutes on e b y one i n th e firs t fe w measures o f the Pi ù andante.
with nobilit y and rapture . Unfortunatel y the wondrou s effec t o f a f hor n agains t
a p p impressionisti c backdrop ca n b e hear d o n onl y a ver y fe w recordings. O n
the grea t majorit y o f recordings th e whol e dynami c leve l i s spiraled up : a bom -
bastic, blastin g horn i n ff o r fff, playin g with a bloated , oafish , obes e tone , an d
an ordinar y p o r mp i n th e string s and trombone s (whic h woul d b e eve n wors e
if th e violin s weren' t muted) . I a m als o amaze d t o discove r i n systematicall y
listening t o al l thes e man y Brahm s Firs t recordings , o n ho w man y o f them th e
horn player s play woefully ou t o f tune an d als o misrepresen t Brahms' s interest -
ing rhyth m i n m.30 , . Mor e ofte n tha n no t i t sound s a s i f Brahm s ha d
written The only horn players who get

both th e intonatio n an d th e rhyth m righ t ar e thos e i n th e Hall e (Skrowaczew -
ski), Chicag o (Levine) , Liverpool (Janowski) , Concertgebou w (Haitink) , Berli n
Staatskapelle (Suitner) , Berli n Philharmoni c (Abbado) , Londo n Philharmoni c
(Jochum), an d Philadelphi a (Stokowsk i and Ormandy ) orchestras .
The dynami c markin g i n th e secon d hor n i n m.3 1 i s apparentl y unclea r t o
many interpreters , bu t i t i s very clea r t o m e tha t Brahm s intende d th e secon d
horn playe r t o ente r gentl y i n somethin g considerabl y less tha n f , swel l quickly
and subtl y t o th e leve l o f th e firs t horn , an d the n reced e graduall y to a lesse r
dynamic, say mf. This is to be repeate d i n m.3 3 and m.35. 42 The wors t recording
of thi s passag e i s Boult' s wit h th e Londo n Philharmonic : th e horn s ar e ou t o f
tune, th e secon d hor n neve r hold s hi s note s through , th e trombone s ar e muc h
too loud , a s is the timpani ; and t o mak e matter s worse , there is a terrible editin g
splice a t m.30 .
An eve n brighte r ra y o f sunshin e no w break s through wit h th e flut e (m.38) ,
emulating th e hor n call , an d answere d gentl y b y a radian t sol o trumpet . Th e
counter-lines i n bassoons , firs t an d thir d hor n i n mm.41-4 4 mus t b e treate d
discretely, wit h modes t expressiv e dynamic swells . On Kertesz' s an d Abravanel' s
42. I t i s disturbin g t o realiz e tha t Brahms' s ingeniou s orchestratio n o f th e tw o horns , which , i f i t
were playe d a s written, i s fail-safe, i s still so ofte n mismanaged . Could i t b e tha t man y secon d hor n
players do not know how their note s fit into the over-al l declamation o f the alphor n melody ? Brahms
realized tha t i f on e hor n alon e wer e t o pla y th e entir e eight-ba r melod y wit h a health y f , ther e
would inevitabl y be a bi g breathin g gap , probabl y a whol e beat' s worth , a t th e en d o f the second ,
fourth, an d sixt h measures . T o counterac t that , Brahm s brough t i n th e secon d hor n t o i n effec t
relieve th e firs t horn , givin g th e firs t hor n playe r a chanc e t o tak e a bi g (an d necessary ) breat h
to continu e th e melody . Bu t instea d o f having the second hor n burs t i n wit h a ful l f , merel y doubl -
ing th e firs t horn , Brahm s bring s th e secon d hor n i n unde r th e firs t hor n
then swellin g t o th e leve l o f th e firs t horn , continuin g it s line , a s i t were , an d the n bowin g
out wit h a sligh t fourt h bea t diminuend o (mor e precisel y notate d a s o r
• Tha t som e secon d hor n player s don' t eve n hol d throug h th e ful l fou r
beats, whic h i s their only purpos e in bein g involve d i n thi s passage in th e first place, defie s explana-
tion; that thei r world-famou s maestr i allow the m t o d o s o i s even mor e disturbing .
recordings th e thir d hor n i s so overbearingly loud tha t i t completel y drown s ou t

the sol o flute . Als o i n severa l recordings—Clevelan d (Dohnanyi) , Lo s Angele s
(Giulini), Philadelphi a (Muti)—th e thir d hor n player s ar e painfull y shar p i n
mm.43-45 (Doesn' t anybod y hear thi s when recording?) . O n anothe r recording ,
Furtwängler's 195 2 recordin g wit h th e Berli n Philharmonic , th e thir d hor n i s
missing entirely .
Stokowski, who alway s had t o retouc h everybody' s orchestration, no t onl y uses
two bassoon s t o inflat e th e secon d bassoo n countermelod y i n mm.41—43 , bu t
adds hal f the cell o sectio n a s well.
Brahms's gloriou s organ-lik e choral e follow s —a poignan t praye r o f thanksgiv-
ing—as simple a s any i n a Lutheran hymnbook , bu t transforme d into somethin g
sublime b y th e additio n t o th e trombone s o f a contrabassoon , lik e a 16-foo t
organ pedal . Thi s choral e passag e i s usuall y playe d quit e well , althoug h I a m
often bothere d b y the excessiv e number o f breaths trombonist s tak e i n thes e five
bars—some trombon e section s a s man y a s three breaths , an d i n on e cas e eve n
four breath s (becaus e o f Bernstein's interminabl y slo w tempo)—when i n fac t th e
whole phras e ca n easil y be don e i n on e breat h —of course , onl y if it i s played p
dolce an d i n a reasonabl e tempo .
The hor n returns , thi s tim e marke d poco f (emphasi s o n poco), a notatio n
and qualificatio n which i s ignored o n almos t al l recordings , substitutin g instea d
a bellowin g ff . A s a resul t th e succeedin g flut e an d clarine t entrance s (i n m.5 4
and, m.55 , respectively ) are neve r heard . I a m als o surprise d t o fin d ho w ofte n
the interestin g trombone interpla y in mm.56-58—trul y Schubertia n trombone -
writing, b y th e way—i s no t heard . I t i s a n importan t ne w colo r specificall y
brought ou t here . Bu t someho w thi s escape s mos t conductor s an d recordin g
producers. Eve n mor e amazing—an d depressing—i s th e fac t tha t th e simpl e G
dominant sevent h chor d i n horn s an d trombone s a t m.61 , whic h close s th e
whole introduction , ha s hardly eve r been played i n tune . (Wha t i s so hard abou t
tuning a simple G sevent h chord?) . O n only on e recordin g i s this chor d i n tun e
and balance d i n a beautifu l pp: an d tha t i s Furtwängler's Vienn a recording . I n
several others—Skrowaczewski's , Stokowski's , Ormandy's , an d Leinsdorf's—th e
chord i s almost i n tune , i n al l th e other s painfull y ou t o f tune.
Before w e leave thi s section, mentio n mus t b e mad e o f the unfortunat e habi t
of man y conductor s t o accelerat e th e temp o i n mm.56-5 8 and , o f course , t o
ritard i n m.5 9 —none o f whic h i s t o b e foun d i n Brahms' s score . Th e wors t
offenders ar e Bernstei n an d Ozawa , especiall y th e former , who firs t o f all turn s
m.52's poco f into a pi ù f , goe s suddenl y faste r a t m.56 , actuall y doublin g (sic)
the temp o a t m.58 , an d the n jus t a s irrationally , relaxes th e temp o int o a very
long fermat a i n m.60 . Poo r Brahms! !
The mai n them e o f the fourt h movemen t i s one o f the mos t well-know n an d
most popula r melodie s i n al l o f the symphoni c literature , almost comparabl e t o
the popularit y of the mai n theme of the Final e o f Beethoven's Nint h Symphony ,
to which , incidentally , Brahms' s them e wa s almos t immediatel y compare d b y
listeners t o th e earl y performance s of the symphon y i n th e 1870s . I suspec t that
Brahms's subtl e allusio n to th e "Od e t o Joy " theme wa s conscious an d purpose -
fui, a kin d o f tribute t o th e maste r h e s o revered an d fro m who m h e learne d s o

much. Thi s i s th e kin d o f thin g tha t composer s hav e occasionall y don e fro m
time immemorial , sometime s i n ver y subtle an d hidde n ways , sometime s i n a
more obviou s o r over t manner . Tha t Brahm s considere d thi s referenc e t o Bee -
thoven's musi c t o b e fairl y obviou s wa s confirme d when , i n respons e t o on e
such earl y listener wh o pointe d ou t t o Brahm s th e similarit y of the tw o themes ,
Brahms rathe r testil y replied: "that' s somethin g an y as s can hear." 43 And yet , for
all o f the theme' s popularit y and celebrity , i t nevertheles s eludes man y conduc -
tors' understandin g or, alternatively, provokes them t o perform i t in way s that d o
not correspon d t o wha t Brahm s wrot e i n hi s score . Ther e is , firs t o f all , th e
question o f tempo , whic h I hav e alread y allude d to , designate d b y Brahm s a s
allegro non troppo, ma con brio. 44 To recapitulate , the rang e of temp o choice s
typically run s th e gamu t fro m th e slowes t ( J = 100 ) t o th e fastes t ( J = 120) ,
not considerin g a fe w extremist s (Celibidache , fo r example , wit h a funerea l
J J = 80 , and Jochu m wit h a headlon g J = 138 ) o n eithe r side, a rang e o f 20
points. Apparentl y thos e wh o ar e o n th e slo w sid e emphasiz e th e no n troppo
part o f th e temp o designatio n an d prett y muc h ignor e th e allegro part , whil e
those o n th e fas t sid e emphasiz e th e co n brio a s wel l a s the allegro. That's th e
way it often i s with unmetronomize d temp o markings . My ow n preferenc e i s for
a temp o o f approximatel y J = 100 , giv e o r tak e a fe w metronom e points . I
relate i t t o th e openin g Adagio o f approximatel y j = 50 , hal f th e Allegro's
tempo, bu t als o t o m y Più andante temp o o f approximately J = 66 , a s it were,
about one-thir d o f the wa y between 5 0 and 10 0 and, i n additio n t o the fina l Pi ù
allegro (m.391) , whic h I d o a t a temp o o f approximatel y J = 100 . I n doin g
so, I a m no t jus t playin g som e numbe r gam e o r obsesse d wit h th e notio n o f
mathematically relatin g al l th e tempo s o f th e movement , bu t als o tha t thos e
tempos see m bes t t o allo w a realizatio n o f all aspect s o f the music .
In an y case , th e temp o o f Brahms's Allegro i s a legitimat e conductor' s choic e
which i s left somewha t ope n b y Brahms' s reluctanc e t o us e metronom e mark -
ings. Wha t i s less ope n t o suc h a wid e rang e o f option s ar e th e dynamic s tha t
Brahms give s for th e beginnin g o f th e Allegro: poco f i n th e violins . Bu t appar -
ently man y conductor s se e onl y th e f par t o f th e designatio n an d produc e a
heavy, thick , sensuous , overwrough t strin g sound. The y als o fai l t o se e th e p i n
the horns , th e mp i n th e cello s an d basses , an d th e fac t tha t th e tw o violin
sections ar e partnered a t times (especiall y in mm.70-73 ) wit h only the on e viola
section. Th e latte r poin t i s important sinc e Brahms' s notation canno t leav e any
doubt tha t th e violi n an d viol a section s shoul d matc h i n a balance d poco f ,
which shoul d b e i n m y view something nea r o r between a mp an d mf—a t most ;
and tha t balanc e i s very difficult t o achiev e i f the violin s play to o loudly . There
are to o man y o f them (violins ) —in man y orchestra s i t migh t b e a s many a s 2 8
43. "Da s bemerkt j a schon jeder Esel" (literally : that woul d b e notice d b y any ass.)
44. W e kno w tha t Brahm s altere d th e temp o markin g fro m hi s origina l Allegro co n brio firs t t o
Allegro moderato, m a co n brio an d finall y t o th e perhap s even mor e explici t Allegro no n troppo, m a
con brio.
to 30 players—as agains t 8 to 10 violas. Obviously , if a dynami c matc h is to be

achieved, th e violins , playin g o n thei r richest , fulles t soundin g strin g (th e G
string), wil l have t o moderat e thei r dynami c level . Conductor s shoul d als o kee p
in min d tha t a t th e recapitulatio n o f thi s them e a t m.186 , Brahm s varie s th e
orchestration, a s a kin d o f augmentatio n o f th e theme' s sonori c amplitude , b y
adding amon g othe r thing s th e cello s t o the violins ' theme. 45 The tric k i s to pay
homage t o al l thre e o f Brahms's tempo an d characte r clues : allegro, non troppo,
and co n brio, that is , a basi c 'lively ' tempo , bu t 'no t to o muc h so, ' an d ye t with
a certai n sprightliness . Thi s ca n obviousl y be realize d i n severa l subtl y differen t
ways, dependin g o n ho w muc h emphasi s on e migh t giv e to eac h o f those thre e
characterizations, an d ho w on e migh t interpre t 'no t to o much. ' Fo r myself I see
no contradictio n i n th e 'no t to o lively ' an d 'bu t sprightly ' notions , fo r a moder -
ately livel y tempo ca n achiev e a certai n co n brío b y th e flow—it s forwar d mo -
tion—and b y a degre e o f lightnes s wit h whic h on e inflect s tha t tempo . I als o
see a majo r clu e i n th e rathe r unusua l staccato-do t markin g o f th e pizzicat o
cellos an d basses , a markin g observe d b y hardl y anybody, whic h signifie s t o m e
a certai n brisknes s and lightness , a s well a s a clarit y of articulation . I t i s doubly
interesting tha t Brahm s reiterate s thi s markin g whe n th e violin s and viola s have
the pizzicat o sixtee n bar s later . Ther e ar e furthe r clue s a s to th e somewha t re -
strained basi c dynami c leve l i n mm.62-7 7 (excep t fo r a midwa y crescend o an d
one sf), suc h a s the bassoon' s entr y markin g p (mm.70,72 ) an d th e retur n t o p
in th e cello s an d basse s in m.74 .
I shoul d als o poin t ou t anothe r clu e whic h seemingl y n o on e ha s observed —
primarily I suppos e becaus e i t i s no t include d i n th e scor e an d part s usuall y
used i n performances , bu t whic h ca n readil y b e see n i n Brahms' s manuscrip t
score (whic h ha s bee n availabl e t o b e viewe d fo r mor e tha n fort y year s an d
some year s ag o wa s publishe d i n facsimile ) —namely, tha t articulatio n dot s
are situate d abov e th e tw o middl e note s i n firs t an d secon d violin s i n m.6 4
I kno w o f n o performanc e o r record -
ing tha t ha s considere d thi s phrasin g articulation , whic h automaticall y lend s a

touch o f lightnes s t o th e passage , a s oppose d t o th e gluey , syrupy , 'sexy ' soun d
that mos t conductor s favo r here . A s I have sai d before , n o wonde r man y peopl e
have th e impressio n tha t Brahms' s musi c i s turgid, thick , an d heavy .
At m.7 8 Brahm s indicate s a unifor m p i n al l th e parts , a p whic h i s onl y
rarely observed . It i s definitely meant t o provid e a significan t contrast t o th e firs t
45. Tha t is why I would disagree with Toscanini's decisio n t o add a few stands of cellos t o the them e
already a t m.62 . I t i s an unnecessar y enrichment o f th e strin g soun d an d anticipates—undercut s —
what Brahm s himsel f did 12 4 bars later .
One o f th e wors t rendition s o f th e Allegro's mai n them e i s to b e hear d o n Abbado' s recording ,
where ther e i s an inep t splic e between m.6 2 an d m.63 , wit h th e fron t en d i n a temp o o f J = 96 ,
the continuatio n i n a temp o o f J = 120 . Agai n th e question : Ho w ca n a conducto r o r a recor d
producer allo w suc h a n editin g and performanc e bungle t o b e release d t o the public ?
sixteen bar s wit h a ligh t transparen t textur e an d crisp , nimbl e pizzicat o i n th e

strings an d timpani . Instea d thi s i s usuall y regarde d b y th e win d sectio n a s its
chance t o shine, t o outdo th e strings , and thu s t o 'pla y out.' Thereby not onl y is
the mentione d contrastin g effec t gone , bu t Brahms' s carefu l dynami c structur -
ing, whic h wil l lead t o a brillian t ff eventuall y i n m.94 , i s subverted. Alon g th e
same lines , I believe th e sf s i n m.7 3 and m.8 9 shoul d b e moderat e i n intensity ,
and th e strings—no t jus t th e winds—shoul d diminuend o i n m.8 9 (probabl y to
p i n m.90 ) an d thenc e begi n a ne w crescendo .
Many conductor s mak e a n accelerand o i n mm.90-93 to arrive at the animato
in m.94 . I am oppose d t o thi s ide a (a ) because i t is much mor e effectiv e an d i n
keeping wit h Brahms' s structurin g an d periodizatio n tha t th e animato b e
achieved directl y a t m.94 ; (b ) I am no t absolutel y convince d o f the authenticit y
of the animato designation—i t i s not i n Brahms' s manuscrip t scor e (bu t i t ma y
have bee n adde d b y him afte r th e premier e bu t befor e the score' s first printing);
(c) I am no t convince d tha t thi s animato (printe d i n smal l itali c letters) signifie s
a temp o change , an d i f so , a radica l temp o change , o r whethe r i t migh t mea n
just a subtl e brightening , animatin g o f th e tempe r o f th e musi c —or a subtl e
combination o f both ideas . I sugges t thi s moderat e cautiou s approac h t o m.9 4
because fo r many conductors thi s passage, especiall y the scala r runs in mm. 106 -
13, ha s becom e a n unbridle d displa y of technical virtuosity , gaining a temp o o f
around j = 144 . Thi s is , of course , superficiall y excitin g but , again , destroy s
Brahms's fin e sens e o f form, proportion, an d balanc e o f structure. Th e fac t tha t
Brahms double s th e spee d o f the note s i n m.94—th e actua l perceive d amoun t
of rhythmic activity—fro m th e mor e stai d quarter-note s o f mm.62-93 to cluster s
of eighth-note s i n mm.94-105 , an d the n double s i t agai n t o sixteenth-note s i n
m.106, provide s enoug h rhythmi c intensit y an d excitemen t no t t o requir e an y
big temp o increase. 46 Also , th e syncopation s i n mm.94-9 5 (i n th e bas s instru -
ments), whic h ar e unfortunatel y almos t neve r heard , eve n o n recordings , pro -
vide th e essentia l 'animation, ' i.e . increase d motio n an d activity , s o that, again ,
a bi g increas e i n temp o i s quite unnecessary .
These syncopation s ar e no w followe d up an d extende d i n tw o differen t ways :
the offbea t sf s i n mm.95-9 6 an d mm.99-100 , an d i n a polyphon y o f syncopa-
tions i n mm . 102-105. Thes e las t fou r bar s ar e hardl y eve r realize d correctl y
from a rhythmic poin t o f view. Brahms compound s thre e uni t level s o f syncopa-
tions int o a remarkabl e polyrhythmi c composite . Th e hig h woodwind s an d vio -
las are writte n i n ver y large syncopation s , the bras s in syncopation s
of the nex t fastes t uni t leve l th e violin s and bas s instruments i n th e
46. I t seem s t o b e almos t impossibl e t o teac h conductor s a s well a s other musician s tha t (a ) there i s
a differenc e betwee n motion—shee r rhythmi c activity—an d tempo—th e tw o concept s ar e separat e
and distinct ; (b ) grea t composer s kno w ho w t o creat e th e illusio n o f increase d momentu m i n th e
music b y increasin g the rhythmi c activit y without increasin g th e tempo ; (c ) therefor e performer s
should no t (withou t other overridin g reasons ) spee d u p th e temp o whe n th e compose r ha s alread y
composed int o his musi c a n acceleratio n o f activity. I n othe r words , sheer rhythmi c activit y creates
a sens e o f acceleration , jus t a s a decreas e o f rhythmi c activity create s a sens e o f deceleration.
meantime bein g enmeshe d i n interlockin g pattern s
— in contrar y mo-
tion yet!—whic h ar e synchronize d wit h th e othe r tw o degree s o f syncopation s

(see Ex . 31) . Thu s a rhythmi c composit e result s i n whic h ever y eighth-not e i n
Ex. 3 1
those fou r measure s i s articulate d b y som e grou p o f players . I n orde r fo r tha t

polyrhythmic complexit y t o becom e audible , i t i s necessary that al l player s per-
form thei r rhythm s wit h ver y incisiv e articulations , no t necessaril y accents , bu t
clearly articulate d attacks.
We shoul d not e i n passin g ho w ingeniousl y Brahms transforms hi s mai n 'par -
ent' them e (Ex . 32a ) int o thre e divers e variant s (Exx . 3 2 b,c,d). 47 Le t u s als o
admire in mm. 109-11 the ascending pattern o f violin runs alternating between th e
firsts and seconds , constructe d no t i n pattern s o f thirds, but o f fourths (Ex . 33).
Ex. 32 a Ex . 32 b
Ex. 32 c
and slightl y embellished
Ex. 32 d
(encircled note s reflec t th e 'parent ' theme )
47. Ex . 32 c is, of course, reminiscen t o f several similar passages i n th e first movement of Beethoven's
Fifth Symphon y a themati c allusio n which , i f i t
had bee n pointe d ou t t o Brahm s b y someone , woul d hav e undoubtedl y agai n elicite d hi s famou s
rejoinder "An y as s can hea r that. "
Ex. 3 3
Only on e conductor—Stokowsk i i n hi s 192 7 Philadelphi a recording—carrie s

this passag e ou t correctly , creatin g on e singl e superbl y balanced integrate d line .
The nex t performance proble m tha t arise s occurs a t m. 118, where man y con -
ductors an d orchestr a d o no t achiev e a rea l p dolce — instead w e ge t th e usua l
'industrial strength ' mezzofortissimo — often mad e wors e (o r perhap s eve n
caused) b y th e fac t tha t th e violas , cellos , an d basses , i n a n alread y inherentl y
heavy three-octave unison, playin g only four note s o n on e bow , us e th e ful l bo w
length, thu s automaticall y raisin g the dynami c leve l considerably . Thes e thre e
sections shoul d b e encourage d t o play very lightly: light i n dynami c an d ligh t i n
texture—using ver y littl e bow . This littl e four-not e motiv e i s derived, o f course ,
from th e firs t fou r note s (i n th e bas s instruments ) o f th e Final e movement .
Oddly enough , eve n th e f i n m.12 4 i s i n man y recording s rathe r 'lukewarm, '
odd becaus e generall y speaking musicians pounce on fs wit h irrepressible relish.
I shal l pas s over the fac t tha t mos t conductor s rus h throug h mm . 130—31 with
unrestrainable impetuosit y to poin t t o the nex t very interesting—an d mostl y mis-
or underinterpreted—passage , mm.132-35. Mos t conductors manag e some kin d
of subito p dolce a t m.132 , bu t the n fai l t o mak e a significan t crescend o and ,
even more , th e all-importan t sudden plpp a t m.136 . Onl y a handfu l o f conduc-
tors hav e brough t thi s of f successfully o n recordings : Tennstedt, Skrowaczewski ,
Janowski, Karajan , Haitink , Böhm , Kondrashin , and Walter .
The lat e Russia n conducto r Kyri l Kondrashi n make s a n interestin g poin t i n
regard t o thi s obo e sol o passage (mm.132-35 ) an d it s parallel i n th e recapitula -
tion.48 Notin g tha t mos t conductor s conduc t thi s passag e i n 'two, ' Kondrashi n
argues tha t i t i s mor e relevan t t o sta y i n four , pointin g t o th e fac t tha t th e
quarter-note triplet s in mm.134-135—an d I would add , th e syncopation s i n th e
violas—retain muc h mor e o f th e typicall y Brahmsia n rhythmi c tensio n whe n
played agains t a 4/4 beat an d feeling . I think h e i s quite right . When th e passag e
is conducte d i n 'two, ' somethin g ma y b e gaine d i n th e flo w o f the passage , bu t
the rhythm s ten d t o ge t tensionless , ver y loose . A bette r ide a o f th e rhythmi c
tensions, see n an d hear d verticall y in thre e — and eve n four—level s (se e Ex . 34),
can b e gaine d whe n feelin g and conductin g i n 'four. '
Ex. 3 4
oboe
violas
all other
strings
48. Kyri l Kondrashin , Di e Kunst de s Dirigierens (Munich , 1989) , p.37 .

It is amazing to me in how many orchestras the violas—either tolerated or urged

on by their conductors—pounc e o n th e sixteenth-not e tremol o passag e at m.142
with a vigorous mf(or eve n f ), whe n actually the prevailing dynamic is pp. Brahms
writes only marc. The secon d violin s in m.143 are asked to enter p, but, of course,
won't do so if the viola s have preceded them with a loud entrance . Als o annoying
is the bad habit of violins and violas accenting the third beats in every measure (th e
top note s i n th e pitc h contour) , whe n instea d ever y attempt shoul d b e mad e t o
create a long six-bar tremolando line , from pp to the f f o f m.148.
The nex t problem spot , rarely rendered correctly , is mm. 156-57 (also mm. 160 -
63) where the violas have to play eighth-note triplets on 'two' and 'four' without any
follow-up notes on 'one' and 'three' Thi s is indeed a difficul t
but no t impossible rhyth m to manage correctly. In most viola sections the rhyth m
turns into rathe r than , Curiously , because the y have been playing
triplets al l throug h mm . 158-59, the y usuall y pla y th e triplet s tha t follo w i n
mm. 160-65 more correctly . One o f the fe w recordings where these triplet s sound
and fee l absolutel y right is the recen t Berli n Philharmonic's wit h Abbado and th e
BBC Symphony's with Herbig.
In mm . 164-67, man y conductor s ar e seduce d b y the temptatio n t o urg e th e
orchestra int o to o earl y (and to o much ) a crescendo . Th e excessiv e /f that the n
usually result s i n mm . 168-7 5 contribute s t o a furthe r obliteratio n o f Brahms's
superb contrapunta l working s here (se e Ex . 35) , including a n expansio n o f roles
between m.16 9 an d m.173 , combine d wit h canoni c imitation s i n mm.170-71 .
Most conductor s an d orchestra s seem quit e unawar e o f these importan t motivic
relationships an d thei r performanc e implications . Eve n th e chatterin g triple t
eighth-note figure s i n th e woodwind s an d horn s (mm . 168-69,172-73), whic h
look an d soun d lik e 'mere' passag e work, turn ou t t o b e a varian t of the violins'
m.2 (o r fo r tha t matte r m.62 ) (se e Exx . 3 6 a,b) . I t i s so tha t whereve r you loo k
in th e late r page s o f a Brahm s symphonic movement , yo u will fin d tha t particu -
Ex. 36 a Ex . 36 b
lar materia l t o b e a varian t or extensio n o f some previousl y stated elements— a

theme, a motive , a n innocuou s accompanimenta l line , a bas s line . An d s o
too, fo r example , th e descendin g line s i n th e oboes , clarinets , an d horn s i n
mm. 170—71, which ar e a re-us e o f a similar descending quarter-not e lin e i n m. 2
in th e woodwinds. 49
In m.17 6 (an d mm . 178,179) th e abus e mos t commonl y visite d upo n thes e
measures i s an enormou s crescend o i n th e timpan i int o th e fourt h beat , some -
thing lik e . Needles s t o say , Brahms' s scor e ha s n o
such dynami c indicatio n yet conductors either tolerate o r encourage thi s aberra -
tion because , presumably , i t make s a gran d 'effect. ' Bu t i t i s i n fac t a vulgar ,
primitive effec t whic h simultaneousl y render s inaudibl e Brahms' s excellen t har -
monic progressio n and th e importan t woodwin d triple t runs.
In mm . 183-85 anothe r for m o f abuse occur s wit h mos t conductors : a n exces -
sive alteratio n o f th e tempo . A subtl e relaxatio n o f th e flo w o f th e musi c i s
certainly permissible, indee d desirable . It is , after all , a majo r structura l cadenc e
and a modulatio n fro m th e relativ e key o f E mino r bac k t o th e bas e ke y o f C
major. Bu t more ofte n tha n no t what happens her e i s anything but subtle . There
is usually a mighty wrenchin g bac k o f the tempo , becaus e th e conducto r ha s let
the previou s lengthy allegro section, especiall y the aforementione d animate, run
out o f control , pickin g u p a n enormou s amoun t o f excitin g speed . Bu t then ,
facing th e retur n o f the statel y main them e (a t m.186), he suddenl y realizes that
some temp o correctio n i s in order . Th e variou s treatments give n thi s passage—
all wron g an d unnecessar y i n m y view—ar e show n i n Ex . 37 . Conductors wh o
subject thes e measure s t o suc h dramati c temp o convulsion s fai l t o realiz e tha t
Brahms has already slowed down the motio n o f the musi c by reducing the speed of
the note s fro m strongl y articulated eighth s an d triple t eighths to quiet, smoothed -
out quarter-notes . All one need s t o do, assuming one ha s not inordinatel y rushed
the allegro (animate), i s to gently relax the temp o into a Tempo I in m. 186.50
49. Th e onl y reaso n th e flute s don' t hav e th e complet e descendin g lin e
-they hav e instead—i s tha t

Brahms wa s reluctan t t o writ e hig h B' s fo r th e woode n flute s o f tha t period . Substantiatio n o f thi s
can b e foun d i n mm.354—55 , wher e th e respectiv e passag e is located a thir d lowe r an d th e highes t
flute note , G , wa s technically withi n Brahms' s reach.
50. Not e th e highl y unusual omission i n m.18 2 o f B (th e fifth) and D( t (th e third ) in th e tw o chords ,
respectively.
BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHONY 361
Ex. 3 7
The retur n o f the mai n them e her e i n m . 186 i s a surprise , for i t i s not a tru e
recapitulation (a s i n a prope r sonat a form ) sinc e ther e ha s no t ye t bee n an y
development section . Brahm s her e break s wit h classica l for m an d traditio n b y
reversing th e orde r o f events : th e developmen t sectio n develop s ou t o f a n ex -
panded retur n o f th e exposition . Brahm s invent s a fascinatin g ne w form—wit h
a fe w wholly origina l element s added . Th e resul t wa s no t onl y unprecedente d
but, t o the bes t o f my knowledge, ha s neve r bee n emulate d b y any composer . ( I
would b e happ y to stan d correcte d o n thi s point. )
As Fig. 1 0 shows, the expositio n contain s no t onl y five clearly discernible sub-
sections bu t als o it s own mini-developmen t sectio n ( C throug h E) , s o that whe n
Fig. 1 0
A 62-7 7
B 78-9 3
Exposition C 94-11 7
D 118-6 7
. E 168-8 5
A1 186-20 3
Re-exposition B1 204-1 9
C1 220-3 3
Development F 234-8 4
G* 285-30 0
" D 1 301-5 1
Re-exposition cont. E1 352-7 0
Transition H 371-9 0
Coda I 390-45 7
* The developmen t sectio n contain s th e clima x of th e

movement a t m.28 5 an d a transitio n (G) fro m ther e
back t o D 1 fo r the continuatio n of the exposition .
it returns, like boxes within boxes , it is contained i n a larger—the real—develop -

ment section , whic h itsel f is encapsulated betwee n th e firs t an d secon d part s of
the re-exposition .
As we have seen s o often, Brahm s was virtually incapable o f returning to som e
previously state d materia l withou t varying , refurbishin g it i n som e way . Unde r
his principl e o f 'perpetua l variation, ' th e re-expositio n startin g a t m . 186 under -
goes exactl y such a conversion . Th e musi c i s subtly enriched an d elaborate d i n
the mos t ingeniou s ways . W e hav e previousl y noted th e additio n o f cellos t o th e
main them e here , givin g the passag e an extr a sense o f nobility and urgency . Th e
previous bas s line i s now fleshe d ou t wit h th e additio n o f the timpani . Wherea s
the earlie r version i n cell o an d bas s pizzicato s was
*
the re-expositio n no w offer s (i n basse s an d timpani , intermittentl y an d abette d
by bassoons):
(stems up =timpani; stem s dow n = basses and/o r bassoons)
It should b e obviou s that Brahm s meant thi s to be hear d (an d played ) as a single
continuous balance d bas s line , bu t judgin g b y th e many , man y recording s i n
which th e timpan i i s muc h to o loud—i n an y cas e loude r tha n th e basses—i t
seems not t o be obviou s a t all . I t is useful an d time-savin g to rehears e these two
(timpani an d basses ) alone, fo r the res t of the orchestr a t o hear . Meanwhile , th e
horns' previou s purel y harmoni c accompanimenta l functio n ha s bee n re -
assessed. I n alternatio n wit h the bassoon s (se e Ex . 38) , the horn s no w participate
in an d enric h sonicall y th e mai n melody . Althoug h mos t currentl y availabl e
scores (an d parts ) sa y poco f i n th e bassoons , Brahms' s manuscrip t clearl y say s
mf. I thin k thi s i s no t onl y a n importan t clu e a s t o Brahms' s desire d dynami c
level fo r thi s passage , i.e . th e actua l meanin g o f hi s poco f , bu t i t als o suggest s
to m e i n combinatio n wit h Brahms' s markin g o f mp fo r the horns , tha t bassoon s
Ex. 3 8
M = main theme ; A = accompaniment; bassoons uppe r staff; horns lower staf f

and horn s shoul d alternat e mf an d mp dynamic s here: mf fo r the themati c mate -

rial (M) , mp fo r the accompanimenta l materia l (A) , so indicated i n th e exampl e
above. Finally , th e reworkin g o f th e mai n them e i n th e re-expositio n i s com -
pleted b y the additio n of flutes, clarinets , and trumpet s i n a light bypla y of quasi-
pizzicato staccat o note s (se e Ex.39) , al l o f whic h for m a counterpar t t o th e
basses an d timpani .
Ex. 3 9 i ii
I hav e gon e int o considerabl e detai l regardin g thi s passag e no t onl y t o sho w
the exten t t o whic h Brahm s varies the recapitulatio n o f his Allegro main theme ,
but t o sugges t how muc h wil l b e los t if all thes e divers e element s an d differenti -
ated articulation s are no t represente d full y an d i n appropriat e balance . Inciden -
tally, the largamente a t m.18 6 i s not t o b e foun d i n hi s origina l manuscript. I f it
is Brahms's indication , i t is meant, I think, t o cancel th e previou s animato's, an d
should b e interprete d mor e a s a subtl e feelin g o f broadnes s tha n a substantia l
tempo change.
Brahms's constantl y inventiv e way s o f revisitin g previousl y state d materia l
show a t almos t ever y point alon g th e way . Take, fo r example , th e ver y sophisti-
cated dynami c nuancin g i n mm.200-204—al l o f this roundl y ignore d i n nearl y
all recording s an d performances . The matte r i s complicated b y some error s an d
omissions in th e usuall y available scores and parts . A crescendo wedg e i s missing
in th e basse s i n m.200 , whil e i n th e othe r string s th e dynamic s shoul d
be , no t A s Ex . 4 0
shows, thre e differen t separat e dynami c line s procee d simultaneously , al l resolv-

ing i n m.20 4 int o a n air y ligh t p.
Ex.40
The problem s tha t aris e in th e pizzicat o passag e o f mm.6-9 i n th e beginnin g

of the Finale—problem s o f balance, w e recall—ar e generall y t o b e foun d agai n
in mm.208-1 1 (an d mm.216-19) . Th e viola s ar e usuall y to o wea k agains t th e
rest o f the strings . On e conducto r wh o manage s thi s entir e passage , includin g
mm.212-15, exceedingl y wel l i s Kondrashin . Th e pizzicat o accompanimen t i s
crisp an d clear , well-balanced , an d nicel y flowing.
For a mere te n bar s (mm.220-29 ) th e recapitulatio n contain s a n exac t repea t
of th e exposition , befor e Brahm s veer s of f i n a differen t direction . Th e earlie r
sixteenth-note passages—thos e tha t s o ofte n ar e playe d to o fas t fo r a n obviou s
'exciting' effect—ar e thi s tim e delaye d an d combine d wit h a four-not e motivi c
fragment, whic h first made it s brief appearanc e i n mm.97-9 8 an d mm.101-10 2
(and, o f course , i n th e jus t mentione d recapitulator y passage , mm.223-2 4
and mm.227-28 ) (se e Exx.41a,b) . Thi s materia l i s no w develope d i n a mos t
Ex. 41 a
Ex. 41b (its inversion in the basses)
remarkable way , firs t i n a strikin g upwar d leapin g passag e i n th e uppe r string s

in mm.232-33 (Ex. 42a) and simultaneously , i n contrar y motion, i n a downward
bounding lin e i n th e lo w strings, consistin g miraculousl y o f the sam e pitche s a s
in th e uppe r string s (se e Ex . 42b, diagona l connectin g lines) .
Ex. 42 a
Ex. 42 b
Incidentally, I am convince d tha t Brahm s arrive d at his for the tim e extraordi -
nary nint h chord s late r i n life , a s in , fo r example , th e Doubl e Concert o fo r
Violin an d Cello , Op . 102 (se e Exx.43a,b ) b y wa y o f thes e earlie r melodic/har -
monic/contrapuntal experiments .
Ex. 43 a
Ex. 43 b
Whereas i n ou r presen t exampl e fro m th e Firs t Symphon y (th e bas s line i n Ex .

42b), th e pitche s ar e stil l strun g ou t horizontally , i.e . i n succession , i t di d no t
take muc h t o gathe r the m togethe r i n a harmoni c simultaneity , fo r exam -
ple o ro r, It wa s stil l to o earl y for Brahm s t o

venture furthe r int o elevent h (o r thirteenth) chor d territory , but, o f course, man y
composers withi n a fe w year s o f Brahms' s deat h di d jus t that ; an d thu s wer e
born no t onl y the elevent h an d thirteent h chord s o f the earl y 20th century , bu t
also bitonalit y an d polytonality . Brahms' s descendin g bas s lin e i n mm.232-33 ,
when gathere d int o a singl e chord , ca n b e hear d a s a comple x o f several triadic
or seventh-chor d formation s (Ex. 44)
Ex. 4 4
or Th e pilin g up i n thirds, as in th e
first chord displaye d directly above, becam e a favorit e devic e o f composers lik e
Schönberg an d Stravinsk y as earl y a s th e firs t decad e o f th e ne w century , an d
within ver y few years became a commonplace o f 20th-century harmonic writing.
I poin t this out primaril y to underscor e onc e agai n th e astonishin g modernit y of
Brahms's musica l conceptions , o f "Brahms th e Progressive, " a s Schönberg pu t i t
in hi s famou s essay. 51 Brahm s was in s o man y way s always on th e cuttin g edg e
51. Schönberg , Style an d idea (Ne w York, 1950).

of musica l developments , despit e hi s avowe d conservatis m an d adherenc e t o

earlier classica l model s an d values . Unfortunately , Brahms' s modernit y i s mor e
often tha n no t eithe r underappreciated , take n fo r granted or , from constan t over-
use (over-performance)—an d eve n misuse—entirel y ignored . I t i s als o wort h
mentioning tha t Brahm s ha d a n ongoin g fascination— a lov e affair—wit h me -
lodic an d harmoni c constructio n i n thirds , particularl y fallin g thirds . Th e pas -
sage jus t referre d t o is , o f course , develope d ou t o f a serie s o f thirds , clearl y
visible an d audibl e i n th e bas s line i n mm.232-33 , but disguise d i n risin g sixths
(the inversio n of thirds) in the uppe r line . Ho w consistently Brahm s returne d t o
such third s construction s ca n b e gauge d b y the fac t tha t on e o f his mos t famou s
and belove d melodies , th e openin g them e o f hi s Fourt h Symphony , i s buil t
exactly o n tha t principl e an d a similar series o f thirds (se e pp.381 , 416) .
The secon d wa y in whic h Brahm s use s th e aforementione d four-not e motiv e
(Ex.41a) i s i n a powerfu l contrapuntal/canoni c passage , mm.234-4 3 (Ex.45) ,
rhythmically foreshortene d i n strett o fashio n i n th e late r measures , a t the sam e
time pittin g th e motiv e agains t th e sixteenth-not e run s firs t hear d i n m.10 6
(which i n turn wer e derived from th e thirty-second-not e run s in the introductio n
Ex.45
etc.
of the fourt h movement) . Thi s passag e an d it s even mor e sophisticatedl y elabo -

rated recapitulatio n i n mm.257-6 7 are hardl y ever playe d wit h an y understand -
ing o f their conten t o r structura l conception . The y ar e simpl y played i n a per -
functory "run-it-down " manne r an d i n to o fas t a tempo, 52 fairl y wel l
emasculating th e music . Conductor s an d orchestra s wh o have , however , don e
well b y these passage s are Walter , Sanderling , Herbig , an d Kertesz .
The cascadin g f sixteenth-not e run s ar e suddenl y subdue d i n m.244 , turnin g
into lacy , intermeshin g p leggiero accompanimenta l figure s i n a delicat e wood -
wind interpla y base d o n th e hea d tone s o f the mai n them e ( C B C A) . Th e
passage i s cast i n tw o phase s (se e Fig . 11), firs t i n a five-ba r phrase , the n i n a n
eight-bar extensio n i n whic h ingeniousl y th e sixt h through eight h measure s ar e
a re-orchestrate d repetitio n o f mm.3- 5 o f th e firs t phase . I t i s a passag e whic h
offers fe w problem s an d normall y goes quit e well , a s lon g a s th e p an d mf dy -
namics ar e respected . Surprisingly , however, th e entrance s o f th e clarine t an d
viola (i n m.253 ) an d th e secon d hor n (i n m.255 ) ar e ofte n covered . Th e prob -
lem ma y be that Brahms gav e no dynamic s for the clarine t and viola—an d mos t
conductors don' t offe r on e t o th e players , unles s possibl y when aske d to d o s o —
52. Klempere r i n hi s 192 8 Berli n recording , for example, hit s th e amazin g speed o f J = 156 . Szel l
also pushe s th e temp o nervousl y forward an d a s a resul t th e playin g become s rathe r ragged.
Fig. 1 1
and th e horn s i n m.25 4 are marke d p p b y Brahms, rather tha n p a s in th e othe r

instruments a t tha t point . I t would b e advisabl e to chang e tha t dynami c t o p o r
even mp, les t the secon d horn' s lovel y arpeggiated

line i s los t i n th e over-al l polyphony . I n mm.257-6 7 Brahm s recapitulate s
mm.232-43 in an elaborate d form . H e begin s b y inverting th e origina l structure:
the uppe r strings ' leapin g passag e i s now i n th e lowe r strings , and th e descend -
ing jump s in third s i n cello s an d basse s are no w i n th e violin s (Ex. 46).
Ex. 4 6
Some o f those pitches , C-AI>-F-D , are the n isolate d t o begi n a highly comple x
contrapuntal elaboratio n an d enrichmen t o f th e earlie r paralle l passage . I us e
the wor d "complex " advisedly , fo r no t onl y ar e th e descendin g sixteenth-not e
scales no w recas t i n three-par t o r two-par t harmonizations (fo r example, th e par -
allel triad s in m.259), but Brahm s produces a remarkable clos e canoni c structur -
ing, tw o beats apart , whic h include s shiftin g th e leapin g quarter-not e figur e on e
beat earlie r tha n expecte d (i n m.260 , fo r example , i n th e lo w strings) . Th e
whole passag e thus become s a spectacularl y comple x an d concentrate d gri d o f
contrapuntal line s (Ex . 47). 5? Unfortunately , i n mos t performance s (an d th e
majority o f recording s sampled ) orchestr a musician s ar e blissfull y unawar e o f
any o f this intricat e polyphon y an d simpl y plo w throug h th e musi c a s best the y
53. I a m certai n tha t Brahm s wa s her e influence d o r inspire d b y th e equall y remarkabl e fugal /
canonic peroratio n i n Mozart' s Jupiter Symphon y nea r th e en d o f the las t movement .
Ex.47
can, wit h n o sens e o f ho w al l th e part s o f thi s multi-layere d textur e relat e t o

each other .
Brahms no w continue s th e strettoizatio n canonicall y a t eve n close r (i.e .
eighth-note) rang e i n m.26 4 i n th e string s —right ou t o f lat e Beethoven ! —(Ex.
48), whil e i n th e woodwind s a chai n o f sixteenth-note run s (Ex.49 ) lead s t o a
Ex.48
major climacti c sectio n a t m.268 . Thi s woodwin d passag e is , however , some -

what difficul t t o bring of f correctly. Th e proble m i s that th e flute/clarine t lin e i s
in a favorable projecting range an d ha s fou r instrument s i n octav e unison , whil e
the othe r line , i n oboe s an d bassoons , i s i n les s projectin g register s a s wel l a s
being divide d i n third s (rathe r than unison) . There i s not a singl e recordin g in
which th e oboe s an d bassoon s ar e hear d a s wel l a s th e flute s an d clarinets ,
Ex.49
thereby destroyin g the single-lin e trajector y Brahms obviousl y had intended . I t

can, o f course, b e balance d properl y by simpl y urging th e oboe s an d bassoon s
to projec t well and , i f necessary, by moderatin g th e dynamic s of th e flute s an d
clarinets. Balancin g thi s passag e sectionall y i n rehearsal , a s wel l a s wit h (an d
against) th e strings , i s well worth the trouble .
The grea t twenty-ba r climacti c passag e (mm.268-88) , i n tw o majo r phases ,
offers a numbe r o f performanc e problems . Th e strings ' sixteenth-not e run s ar e
easily burie d unde r th e weigh t o f the res t o f the orchestra' s sustaine d half-note
chords an d th e timpan i rolls . Overl y loud timpani-playing , moreover , obscure s
the unusua l bas s lin e her e featurin g thir d inversio n mino r sevent h chord s
57
(G 3 -C 5) . Also , conductor s hav e fo r decade s altered , i.e . modernized , th e
73
horn part s in mm.268-70, doubling the first horn i n mm.268, raising both horn s
an octav e highe r i n mm.269-70 , an d changin g Brahms' s origina l hor n
parts t o! I mus t confes s that I fin d i t strang e tha t
Brahms di d no t writ e fo r the horn s i n mm.269-70 , th e E^ bein g

easily produceabl e o n th e natura l hor n fo r whic h Brahm s alway s wrot e (bu t
which, by the way , no self-respecting horn playe r played any more b y the 1870s) .
Brahms use d muc h mor e difficult-to-achiev e chromati c alteration s throughou t
the Firs t Symphony . Wh y h e shie d awa y from th e above-mentione d eas y solu -
tion i s hard t o fathom . I n an y case , m y suggestio n woul d b e t o kee p th e horn s
in th e lowe r octave i n mm.269-7 0 to preserve Brahms' s initia l intentions .
Many conductor s als o indulg e i n exaggerate d temp o fluctuation s here , mos t
commonly a headlon g accelerand o i n mm.274-7 7 an d a bi g pull-bac k i n
m.278, all o f which i s quite unnecessar y an d a vulgarization of Brahms's already
sufficiently 'exciting ' music .
Measures 279-8 4 ar e on e o f Brahms' s mos t origina l an d darin g conceits .
Evolving quite organicall y out o f the previou s eleven-ba r cumulative intensifica -
tion o f the movement' s mai n theme , the y als o refe r bac k t o mm.27-2 8 o f th e
i n t r o d u c t i o n i n m.27 , i n m.279) . I t i s also on e o f
the mor e difficul t passage s i n al l o f Brahms , sinc e fo r si x entire measure s n o
one play s on th e stron g first and thir d beats—except , i n effect , th e conductor . I t
is one o f the mos t totally syncopated passages i n al l music , and a s such i s unfor -
tunately almos t always playe d incorrectly, namely, as i f written:
etc
«/
- when , o f
course, i t i s written
etc
- I t i s an -
other on e o f Brahms's remarkabl e rhythmi c inventions , shiftin g th e phrasin g t o
the weakes t beat s o f th e measure . Bu t I wis h Brahm s ha d notate d th e passag e
as follows : etc -, fo r thi s woul d hel p

players psychologicall y to ancho r th e syncopation s rhythmicall y in th e 4/ 4 met -
ric frame . On e o f the fe w recording s o n whic h thi s passag e i s right i s Skrowac-
zewski's wit h th e Hall é Orchestra : stead y an d well-paced , unfrantic , i n whic h
one ca n fee l th e underlyin g basi c puls e an d th e fac t tha t th e rhythm s ar e al l
syncopated off-beats .
These twenty-four propulsiv e syncopation s culminat e finall y i n a n eve n mor e
powerful outburs t i n m.285 , a syncopate d exclamatio n o f the alphor n them e of
m.30. I t ha s lon g bee n a traditio n t o distor t thi s passag e wit h a tremendou s
slowing dow n an d furthe r ritardin g in m.206-88 . This i s clearly wrong an d un -
warranted. Brahm s coul d certainl y hav e indicate d a ritenuto, ha d h e wante d
one; second , Brahm s ha s alread y slowe d dow n th e momentu m o f th e musi c
by augmentin g al l th e rhythmi c unit s fro m th e previou s t o
, against , b y th e way , even mor e slowed-dow n sustaine d dot -

ted halve s an d whol e notes , al l o f thi s requirin g n o additiona l ritenuto; third ,
changing th e temp o i n m.28 5 negate s th e whol e poin t o f Brahms' s rhythmi c
augmentation; fourth , th e secon d violins ' an d violas ' sextuple t rhythm s ar e a
strong clu e tha t Brahm s want s t o maintai n th e origina l allegro pulse . I hav e
heard onl y thre e conductor s wh o correctl y maintai n th e temp o here : Eric h
Leinsdorf, van Beinum, and Lehel . Toscanini almos t does. Curiously , Klempere r
and Stokowsk i both slow up i n m.28 5 bu t the n accelerat e i n th e nex t tw o mea-
sures, whic h make s littl e sense . Man y conductor s mak e a bi g fermat a o n th e
first, the empty , bea t o f m.285 . Althoug h mos t orchestra s ar e b y no w prepare d
for thi s aberration , i t i s dangerous , an d i n th e hea t o f th e battl e player s some -
times anticipat e th e ff secon d bea t (as , for instance , a bas s player doe s o n Doh -
nanyi's Clevelan d recording) . Incidentally , I sugges t a sligh t diminuend o i n al l
instruments excep t th e firs t violin s i n m.283 , t o le t th e them e com e throug h
against thi s otherwis e massiv e orchestral wall of sound.
Most conductors , havin g slowed dow n i n mm.285-88 , now have the proble m
of determinin g an d re-establishin g th e temp o i n m.289 , a n altere d recapitula -
tion o f m.30 . Mos t conductor s blithel y assum e tha t Brahm s mad e a mistak e
here an d tha t th e temp o mus t b e th e sam e a s i n m.30 . Ho w littl e the y kno w
their Brahms ! Again h e coul d hav e writte n meno mosso o r som e suc h designa -
tion, i f he ha d wante d a slowe r tempo . Also , th e timpani' s eighth-not e triplet s

in mm.289-9 7 ar e a goo d clue , relate d a s the y ar e t o m.30' s sixteenth-note
sextuplets, tha t a faste r temp o i s wanted here , especially since ther e i s a calando
in m.29 7 in mos t printe d scores. 54 The poin t is , if one i s already at a slow temp o
in m.289 , followe d b y a calando i n m.297 , th e musi c ha s t o com e t o a vir -
tual standstil l b y m.300 , which , alas , i s exactl y wha t happen s i n mos t perfor -
mances.
The relativel y obscur e markin g p f i n th e horn s an d obo e i n mm.289-90 ,
ignored i n al l bu t th e rares t o f performances , mean s simpl y poco forte; an d i n
effect shoul d b e n o mor e tha n mp, rathe r tha n th e obes e overblow n ff tha t i s
usually heard here . The appropriatenes s o f the softe r dynami c is further substan -
tiated b y the writte n p i n th e accompanimen t an d th e mf tw o bar s later i n th e
first violins (m.291) , also by the fac t tha t a genera l fi s no t reache d unti l m.293 .
Although viola s an d cello s ca n pla y p i n mm.289-9 0 wit h th e indicate d bow -
ing, the y mostl y don't , unles s challenge d t o d o s o b y th e conductor . I t i s bes t
to ad d slur s her e a s Brahm s di d i n
mm.291-92 an d surel y inadvertentl y di d no t i n mm.289-90 . On e o f th e fe w

conductors wh o handle s thi s passage intelligentl y i s Skrowaczewski.
I shoul d poin t ou t tha t th e diminuend o i n th e violin s i n m.29 9 i s incorrect .
The correct , an d muc h mor e logical , placemen t o f the hairpi n dynamic s i n all
the string s should be , a s in Brahms' s autograph
and th e dim. foun d i n th e printe d

scores shoul d b e eliminated . Th e animato i n m.301 , correspondin g t o th e on e
in m.118 , i s necessitated b y the foregoin g calando, bu t become s unnecessar y o r
self-evident i f the allegro tempo ha s bee n maintaine d al l along . Wha t i s muc h
more important , i t seem s t o me , an d almos t neve r realized , i s th e unusual ,
remarkably sombr e voicin g i n th e secon d cello s i n mm.296-300 , a sixt h belo w
the firs t cellos . Liste n t o Skrowaczewski' s and Toscanini' s recording s t o savo r
how strangely beautiful thi s passag e ca n soun d whe n don e correctly .
The conductor s wh o mak e a hug e ritar d here , usuall y with a prolonge d fer -
mata o n th e bas s B\> i n m.300 , are, above all , Giulini , Abbado, Dohnanyi , Muti ,
Suitner, Bernstein , Böhm , and—wit h th e longes t fermat a o f al l — Furtwängler
(five second s long!) .
Measures 302-2 4 ar e fo r th e mos t par t a fairl y litera l repetitio n o f mm . 118-
40, transpose d o f course ( a fourt h higher ) an d elaborate d her e an d there , a s i n
the additio n o f the four-not e descendin g motiv e i n th e woodwind s in mm.303 -
310. Th e animato designatio n i n m.30 1 lead s man y conductor s t o plung e
through thi s sectio n a t enormou s speed . Whe n thi s occur s afte r a n over -
54. Thi s calando an d animato i n m.301 , however, ar e no t i n Brahms' s autograph, and ar e a late r
addition t o th e score , probably by Brahm s himself—after th e premiere.
extended fermat a i n m.300 , i t i s an especiall y annoying ruptur e o f the form . I t

is difficul t t o understan d ho w a n intelligen t conductor , Rowicki , fo r example ,
can justif y a t m.310 the incredibl e temp o o f J = 160 .
Brahms's dynamic s i n mm.316-2 0 ar e mostl y ignore d o r misunderstoo d —
only Skrowaczewski , Horenstein , Abravanel , Toscanini , Suitner , an d Herbi g
seem t o hav e pai d clos e attentio n t o them—eve n thoug h simila r to th e paralle l
passage mm.132-36 . I t shoul d b e clea r tha t th e poco f m th e violin s i n m.31 6
represents a subito meno f—something lik e a mf — followe d i n mm.318-1 9 by a
crescendo, succeede d b y another subito meno f i n m.320 , Brahms' s notate d mf .
Be i t noted tha t i n Brahms' s autograph th e bassoons ' dynami c i n m.316 i s p, no t
mf; als o tha t Brahm s ha s marke d th e firs t hor n p i n m.32 0 agains t th e sol o
oboe's mf . This , again , i s a dynami c nuanc e whic h i s rarel y observe d b y hor n
players an d conductors .
Everything tha t ha s bee n sai d previousl y abou t th e extende d episod e
mm. 142-83 shoul d appl y to it s parallel, mm.326-67 .
The cadenc e a t mm. 366-67, no w in the bas e ke y of the symphony , C minor ,
is use d b y Brahms t o initiat e a transitio n t o th e coda , piu allegro and C major .
And wha t a magnificen t transitio n i t is! But als o how fraught with al l manne r o f
performance problems , som e o f which ar e cause d b y engraving error s mad e b y
the Simroc k editor s ove r a centur y ag o fo r th e firs t edition . Thes e errors , ex -
clusively i n dynami c markings , occu r primaril y i n th e firs t eigh t measure s o f
the transitio n episode . I n genera l Brahms' s hairpi n dynamics , especiall y i n th e
strings (an d bassoon s i n mm.371-74) , shoul d pea k o n th e thir d bea t o f
the secon d measur e o f eac h two-ba r phrase , no t th e firs t bea t a s al l printe d
scores hav e it . (Th e correcte d version , perhap s presente d her e fo r the firs t tim e
in th e histor y o f thi s symphony , ca n b e see n i n Ex.50. ) What Brahm s ha s i n
mind i s that th e risin g arpeggiated melodi c figure s
and thei r inversio n i n th e
woodwinds, particularl y in th e bassoons ,
should crescendo—slightly , b y th e
way—to thei r final highest an d lowes t notes, respectively . The trombones , enter -
ing i n m.37 1 afte r onl y ver y sporadic us e sinc e th e en d o f the movement' s intro -
duction an d thu s a fascinatin g new colo r here , wer e marke d p b y Brahms , no t
pp. Fo r m e th e mos t wondrou s aspect s o f thi s eight-ba r passag e ar e (1 ) th e re -
markable harmoni c progressio n i n mm.367-7 4 and (2 ) the entranc e o f the con -
trabassoon o n it s low contr a D! > i n m.373 . I believe thi s harmonic progressio n is
wholly origina l with Brahms, to m y knowledge neve r compose d o r hear d befor e
in an y music . I also believe that par t o f the beaut y and mysteriou s effec t o f this
sequence o f harmonie s lie s i n it s remarkabl e symmetrica l construction . Con -
Ex. 5 0
sider tha t th e firs t tw o chord s ( C mino r an d E I» minor ) ris e b y a third , a mino r

third a t that , whil e th e tw o final chords ( F majo r an d D t minor ) fall b y a third ,
a major third . This , combine d wit h th e risin g melodi c figure s ove r th e first two
chords an d th e falling figure s ove r the fina l tw o chords—all s o sophisticated an d
complex i n it s conceptio n an d ye t s o pur e an d simpl e i n it s outwar d effect -
creates a magical moo d o f mystery that, i t seems to me, i s uniquely Brahmsian. 55
The passag e fit s superbl y Schönberg' s classi c definitio n o f superio r creativity ,
paraphrased: "[I n a grea t work ] th e profundit y o f th e rea l meanin g [doe s not ]
interfere wit h th e eleganc e o f the presentatio n an d th e polis h o f the surface." 56
How extraordinar y this passag e (mm.371-76 ) ca n soun d ca n bes t b e hear d o n
Stokowski's an d Haitink' s recordings .
55. Furthe r simila r o r analogous , primaril y harmony-induced , magica l moment s occu r i n man y o f
Brahms's othe r works , no t onl y th e othe r thre e symphonie s bu t th e German Requiem an d th e A/t o
Rhapsody a s well .
56. Schönberg , Style an d Idea, p . 190.
The ai r o f mystery , of ominous suppresse d tension , continue s i n m.375 , an d

now build s dramaticall y unti l it s ultimat e releas e i n th e brillianc e o f th e C
major stretto-cod a (m.391) . Bu t thi s ai r o f myster y is rarely well serve d i n mos t
performances. Again , the proble m lie s with to o little attentio n give n to Brahms' s
dynamic markings . Mos t seriously , the man y sf' s ar e generall y exaggerate d an d
overblown—except curiousl y enoug h fo r th e tw o importan t trumpe t sf's i n
mm. 3 80-81, which i n mos t performance s and recording s ar e ofte n woefully un -
derplayed 57 —and, second , conductor s eithe r deman d o r tolerat e a too-muc h
and too-earl y crescendo . There i s no over-all crescendo until m.381. I n additio n
many conductor s (Szell , Bernstein , Abbado , Celibidache , Ozawa , Ormandy ,
Järvi, Sanderling , Dohnanyi , Tennstedt , Furtwängler , Herbig , Weingartner ,
Muti, Norrington , an d Skrowaczewski ) start Brahms's stringendo of m.383 muc h
too early . Wha t result s the n i s tha t bot h a ff an d th e pi ù allegro temp o ar e
reached fou r t o five bars too early , making the rea l intende d culminatio n o f the
crescendo an d stringend o i n m.39 1 a n anti-climax . This is , o f course, a muc h
easier wa y o f rendering—actuall y mis-rendering—thi s passage , fo r i t make s th e
establishment o f the pi ù allegro much 'safer, ' i t having been reache d severa l bars
earlier. The harder , bu t als o the bette r way , is to pace the stringend o a t first less
and the n progressivel y more, hittin g th e ne w faste r temp o onl y a t m.39 1 (più
allegro).
Moreover, i f the stringendo i s done to o muc h to o early , the secon d violi n and
viola part s i n mm.385-8 7 becom e virtuall y unplayabl e and , i n suc h perfor -
mances, usuall y end u p i n rhythmi c uniso n wit h th e cello s an d basses . Jus t as
important, bu t seemingl y unknow n t o most conductors , th e aforementione d sfs,
are al l poco sf's, tha t is , i n th e contex t o f a basi c p dynami c level . Thi s i s espe -
cially crucia l i n th e thir d trombone , cellos , an d basses , but als o i n th e violins .
Be i t note d a s well that the bas s instruments (includin g bas s trombone) hav e n o
crescendo i n mm.375 , 377 , an d 379 . (Th e diminuendo s i n th e bas s trombon e
in m.37 6 and m.37 8 are spurious, undoubtedly th e wor k of an overzealou s Sim -
rock editor. ) Th e sam e migh t appl y t o th e woodwinds , wh o often , despit e
Brahms's differentiate d dynamics, ten d t o mak e variou s phrase an d over-al l cre -
scendos. Th e violin s must alway s return t o p i n mm.377 , 379 , 381 , which , o f
57. I suspec t tha t thi s ma y b e du e t o th e fac t tha t Brahrns' s trumpet-writin g is considered b y mos t
musicians, includin g conductors , no t ver y 'exciting,' an d a s a consequenc e littl e attentio n i s paid t o
the symphonies ' trumpe t parts . It i s true, of course, tha t hi s trumpet-writin g was extremely conserva-
tive an d unadventurous , muc h mor e s o than hi s horn - o r trombone-writing . Brahm s wa s the onl y
late 19th-centur y compose r wh o adhere d t o a us e o f the trumpe t tha t goe s al l th e wa y back t o th e
very introductio n o f trumpets int o th e orchestr a i n th e lat e 17t h an d earl y 18t h century , tha t is , in
permanent associatio n with the timpani . This wa s a long-standin g traditio n harkin g back t o th e day s
when trumpet s an d kettledrums , o n horseback , wer e th e essentia l instrument s i n marches , parades ,
and militar y and roya l festivities .
Brahms use s th e trumpet s exclusivel y as 'natural ' trumpets—eve n thoug h th e valve d instrument
had bee n i n existenc e sinc e Haydn' s day—an d primaril y partner s the m wit h th e timpani . Still, h e
occasionally find s wonderfull y imaginativ e way s o f employin g th e trumpets , as , fo r example , th e
beautiful radian t entranc e o f th e trumpe t in m.3 9 o f th e las t movement , o r th e powerfu l sustained
ff i n m.2 5 i n th e introductio n to th e firs t movement .
course, the y ar e no t likel y to d o i f th e whol e orchestr a i s already starte d o n a

big over-al l crescend o an d a prematur e accelerando . Le t th e reader—an d th e
prospective performer—b e assure d tha t th e mor e th e crescend o an d stringend o
can b e hel d dow n o r delayed , th e mor e excitin g and overwhelmin g wil l be th e
releasing clima x at the pi ù allegro (m.391). The conductor s wh o mos t correctl y
and ye t mos t excitingl y realiz e thi s passag e o n recording s ar e Toscanini , and ,
more recently , Skrowaczewski.
A varian t o f th e mai n them e
forms th e basi c materia l fo r th e coda , whic h als o incorporate s a recapitulatio n

of th e choral e them e hear d i n th e introductio n (mm.47-51) . Althoug h i t ap -
pears her e (m.407 ) i n a totall y differen t context— a brillian t allegro rather tha n
a moderat e andante — most conductor s unfortunatel y treat th e cod a choral e i n a
ponderous stentorian manner , as if Brahms ha d bee n incapabl e o f writing meno
mosso o r pi ù maestoso o r largamente o r som e suc h terminolog y t o indicat e a
slower tempo . Brahm s surel y meant th e choral e t o b e rendere d thi s tim e i n a
blaze o f glory , i n triumphan t return— a kin d o f Hosanna o r Hallelujah, no t a
sad melanchol y prayer . I submit als o that th e combinatio n o f a slow- and heavy -
paced choral e followe d by a headlong charg e fo r the finish line a t m.417, which
most conductor s see m t o favor , i s on e o f th e cornies t an d cheapes t o f effects .
Keeping th e temp o i n the 'chorale ' not onl y preserves Brahms's organic structur-
ing bu t make s th e remainin g closin g musi c o f the movemen t eve n mor e excit -
ing, mor e driving , because i t is more logical , mor e organicall y generated.
I realiz e tha t conductor s wh o hav e alway s done—or hear d th e choral e don e
—slowly, ar e no t likel y to b e persuade d b y the ide a tha t i t i s much mor e effec -
tive i n th e brigh t tempo . Bu t shoul d anyon e wan t o r nee d evidenc e t o tha t
effect, a liste n t o Leinsdorf' s an d Skrowaczewski' s recordings, t o nam e jus t tw o
of th e ver y fe w that respec t Brahms' s scor e an d wisdom , shoul d b e convincing .
Toscanini stay s almost in tempo, while Bernstei n with his penchant fo r exaggera-
tions drop s a staggerin g 7 0 metronome point s (sic ) (fro m j = 12 0 a t m.39, to
j = 5 0 for the 'chorale') . Although Stokowsk i also makes a huge ritar d into th e
'chorale'—and ha s th e nerv e t o doubl e th e orchestr a wit h a ful l diapaso n or -
gan—he i s the only conducto r wh o bring s out th e Bl > i n th e bas s instruments i n
m.406, a mos t crucia l not e i n leadin g th e musi c int o th e brillian t A majo r of
m.407. I n th e vas t majorit y o f recording s th e Bl > i s totally inaudible , obliterate d
by the timpani .
The sudde n alternatin g wave s of triplets , dramaticall y new an d refreshin g in
this otherwis e ver y muc h duple-oriente d movement , fin d thei r releas e i n th e
three powerfu l quasi-uniso n 'commands ' i n mm.431-43 . Bu t Brahm s her e i s
once agai n u p t o hi s favorit e tric k of seemingl y shiftin g th e beat . Bu t i t i s only
an illusion . Like the wor k o f a grea t magician, the fea t i s anchored i n logi c an d
reality: th e music' s underlyin g pulse mus t no t b e destroye d i n performance . I t
is, a s alway s i n suc h passages , th e tension betwee n th e audibl e rhyth m an d th e
underlying puls e tha t mus t b e upheld . Thi s canno t b e don e i f the conducto r
and orchestr a simpl y convert th e musi c t o
Matters ar e mad e wors e whe n tim -
pani player s are encourage d (o r allowed ) t o mak e a murderou s crescend o int o

and a culminatin g accen t o n th e las t quarter-note o f mm.434, 438,443 . Al l tha t
needs to b e don e t o perfor m thi s passag e correctl y i s for the entir e orchestr a t o
think an d feel th e downbeat s i n eac h measure , an d abov e al l not t o diminuendo
on eac h note , a s i f written —whic h
is the wa y it is most ofte n played . In mm.439-4 3 there is , however, an orchestra -

tional o r balanc e problem , har d t o resolve . I t i s a cas e o f Brahm s runnin g ou t
of instrument s t o full y realiz e hi s idea . Lookin g closel y a t thes e fiv e measures ,
one wil l not e tha t tha t th e firs t tw o pitches , C an d A , ar e reiterate d canoni -
cally—and, significantly , o n th e stron g beat s i n certai n instrument s (Ex . 51) .
Ex. 5 1
However, whe n Brahm s arrived at the F an d D whic h complet e thi s phrase , h e

found tha t h e ha d indee d ru n ou t o f instruments t o continue th e canoni c reiter -
ations; fo r the F h e foun d onl y on e instrument , th e first clarinet, an d non e fo r
the D . Wit h thes e on-the-bea t pitc h alliterations , I believ e Brahm s wante d t o
restore partially the metri c equilibriu m in th e thir d and final of the thre e uniso n
'commands,' wit h a n ey e (an d a n ear ) toward s th e ful l unequivoca l re -
establishment o f th e puls e i n m.444 . I t i s a sham e tha t Brahm s di d no t hav e
enough instrument s i n hi s orchestr a t o realiz e full y thi s remarkabl e idea. I hav e
not hear d a singl e recordin g amon g th e fift y o r s o I hav e studie d i n whic h th e
conductor seeme d eve n awar e of this problem, le t alon e attendin g t o i t in som e
way. (I n m y ow n performances , so as not t o tampe r to o muc h wit h th e score , I
merely as k the firs t clarine t t o pla y it s F ff f wit h a goo d accen t i n m.44 2 —also
taking awa y the connectin g slur—an d as k the secon d clarine t t o joi n i n unison ;
its A i s alread y well represente d b y th e firs t trombone . I leav e th e D unreiter -
ated, reluctantly.)
The final , fina l performanc e proble m tha t remain s i n th e closin g fourteen
bars of the symphon y occurs in mm.450-52 , where the magnificent , imperiously
rising bas s lin e i s usuall y mad e

completely inaudibl e b y over-enthusiasti c timpanist s an d conductor s goin g fo r
the ultimat e cataclysmi c applause-gettin g effect .
This accoun t o f Brahms Firs t Symphon y recording s ha s no t bee n pleasan t to
write, although I have done m y best to poin t out whereve r possible the felicitou s
and occasionall y grand interpretation s of certain fin e conductors . I would muc h
rather hav e writte n a mor e positiv e report , i n whic h respec t fo r Brahms' s mag -
nificent scor e wa s much mor e evident . I t i s staggering—and I ca n wel l believ e
that man y reader s wil l rea d m y finding s i n disbelief—t o realiz e tha t a master -
piece a s virtually perfect as this great symphony could b e s o consistently abused
and misused , misunderstoo d an d misinterpreted , it s myria d notationa l detail s
cavalierly ignored . I t i s indeed a sa d commentar y o n th e conductin g profession.
But al l the mor e prais e fo r those relativel y few who hav e distille d from Brahms' s
score a moving, imaginative , compellin g performance—withou t excessiv e distor-
tions an d deviations : Toscanini , Weingartner , Leinsdorf , Kondrashin , Suitner ,
Haitink, Skrowaczewski, and eve n Stokowski , who despit e som e o f his capricious
eccentricities, reall y loved an d understoo d thi s work.
Brahms: Fourth Symphony
Although i t took Brahm s mor e tha n twent y year s o f painstaking, often struggling
effort t o complet e hi s Firs t Symphony , th e Secon d Symphon y appeare d almos t
instantaneously an d wa s premiere d withi n a yea r o f th e First' s premiere . Th e
Third Symphon y followe d i n anothe r si x years and th e Fourt h tw o years later; a
mere 3 0 opus number s separat e i t from th e First . Thus the thre e las t symphonie s
were create d i n les s tha n hal f th e tim e o f th e prolonge d gestatio n perio d re -
quired fo r the Firs t Symphony .
This i s remarkable enough , especiall y i f one consider s tha t i n th e sam e nine -
year perio d Brahm s als o wrot e som e ninety-fiv e othe r compositions , includin g
the staggerin g numbe r o f sixty-eigh t songs . Bu t perhap s eve n mor e remarkabl e
and interestin g i s the fac t tha t hi s fou r symphonie s ar e a t onc e totall y original ,
and i n moo d an d conceptio n completel y differen t fro m on e another . A s
uniquely distinctiv e a s eac h o f th e fou r symphonie s is , al l ar e quintessentiall y
Brahmsian an d could , b y n o stretc h o f th e imagination , hav e bee n writte n b y
anyone else , no t eve n b y Dvorak, Brahms's closest artisti c colleague an d musica l
soulmate.
This uniquenes s i s particularly appreciabl e i n Brahms' s Fourt h Symphony , a
work which , eve n mor e tha n th e First , combine s th e mos t astonishingl y 'mod-
ern' an d intrinsicall y complex musica l idea s wit h a fundamenta l adherenc e t o
classical an d pre-classica l models , a s particularl y manifested i n th e Passacaglia
Finale movement . Fo r al l it s complexity an d frequen t darin g an d radicality , th e
elegance an d polis h o f it s surface , it s shee r naturalnes s an d accessibility , ar e
never disturbed . Brahms' s extraordinar y inventiveness an d ingenuit y i n exhaus -
tively exploitin g ever y motivie/themati c feature—wha t on e ma y aptl y cal l th e
'intellectual' sid e o f Brahms' s creativity—i s no t ver y muc h appreciate d b y th e
average listener , althoug h h e ca n diml y sens e th e logi c an d attractivenes s of
what h e i s hearing. Unfortunately , most orchestr a musician s and mos t conduc -
tors hav e little more understandin g and appreciatio n of Brahms's musical intelli-
379
gence than th e public . They relish the grea t tunes, reve l in the obviou s climaxe s
and ric h harmonies , bu t rarel y appreciat e th e extraordinar y craft , skillfu l struc -
turing, forma l contro l o f the musica l material s that wen t int o th e creatio n o f his
mature works .
This shoul d b e eviden t fro m th e precedin g perusa l o f th e Firs t Symphon y
and it s recorde d performances . Tha t minutel y detaile d account , i f rea d wit h
care, wil l sav e m e —and th e reader—fro m examinin g th e Fourt h Symphon y i n
similarly exhaustiv e detail . Al l m y previou s inveighing s agains t prematur e acce -
lerandos an d crescendos , agains t inattentio n t o dynamics , agains t exaggerate d
modifications o f tempo , agains t willfu l arbitrar y deviation s fro m th e scor e —in
short th e whol e pett y paraphernali a o f misguide d musica l conduct—applie s a s
well t o th e discussio n o f th e Fourt h Symphony , savin g u s a lo t o f unnecessar y
redundancies. Ther e are , however , man y moment s i n th e wor k tha t ar e uni -
formly abused , misinterprete d o r i n som e crucia l wa y ignored , tha t are , more -
over, specia l an d uniqu e t o the Fourth , an d which , therefore , mus t com e unde r
discussion.
The firs t eighteen-ba r statemen t o f the firs t movement , on e o f the mos t be -
loved an d popula r them e exposition s i n al l classica l music , i s nonetheless rarel y
played correctly . Leavin g asid e fo r th e momen t th e alway s vexin g proble m o f
tempo—tempo consideration s hav e alread y bee n ventilate d to o man y time s t o
warrant furthe r reiteratio n now—ther e ar e subtle r performanc e question s tha t
are rarel y even noted , le t alon e resolved . Take fo r example th e violins ' first eight
bars, a them e whic h surel y everybod y thinks the y kno w an d kno w ho w i t i s t o
be played . Th e fac t i s tha t i t i s almos t neve r playe d correctly ; moreover , i t i s
very difficul t t o pla y reall y correctly. Wha t on e usuall y hear s i s any on e o f fou r
versions (Exx . la,b,c,d).
Ex. l a Ex. I b
What Brahm s actuall y wrot e ca n b e see n i n Ex . le . Th e proble m wit h th e fou r
Ex. l e
misinterpretations (wit h th e possibl e exceptio n o f Ex . Id ) i s tha t the y dissec t

what shoul d b e a n eight-ba r lyri c themati c statemen t int o eigh t tin y separat e
motivic fragments , strun g together i n succession , lik e so man y link sausages . To
maintain th e lon g lin e Brahm s obviously ha d i n min d bu t mad e mor e problem -
atic t o achiev e b y the inclusio n o f the quarter-not e rest , on e mus t sustai n eac h
BRAHMS: FOURT H SYMPHON Y 38 1
half-note th e exac t length—fou r eighth-notes ' worth—withou t diminuend o o r

tapering off , an d feel o r think acros s th e res t t o th e nex t upbea t quarter-note .
To d o tha t precisel y an d musically , tha t is , no t mechanicall y bu t feelingly , i s
extraordinarily hard , but wit h car e and concentratio n ca n certainl y be done.
Most conductors , o f course, conduc t th e violin s here, a gesture tha t look s fine
in th e audience—especiall y sinc e i t offer s th e audienc e th e conductor' s hand -
some profile—bu t i t doe s no t necessaril y d o justic e to th e fullnes s o f Brahms' s
musical idea . I t lead s rathe r quickl y to a n over-balancin g o f th e violins , to th e
detriment o f the woodwinds . Bu t th e woodwinds , wh o shado w th e violin s a t a
respectful distanc e o f tw o quarter-not e beats , ar e a n integra l par t o f th e them e
and mus t no t b e slighted . I f the woodwind s ar e attende d t o at all by conductors ,
one usuall y hear s onl y th e flutes , whil e th e clarinet s an d bassoon s i n les s proj -
ecting register s remai n virtuall y inaudible . (Disbelievin g reader s ar e invite d t o
sample an y availabl e recording.) Th e bassoon s especiall y ad d a slightl y darken -
ing colo r t o th e three-octav e counterplay , a favorit e orchestrationa l devic e o f
Brahms, a s we hav e alread y note d severa l times .
Even th e arpeggiate d accompanimenta l figure s i n th e cello s an d viola s do no t
necessarily 'pla y themselves, ' a s the sayin g goes. Eac h ba r shoul d compris e on e
single upwar d gestur e —if w e ca n imagin e Brahm s playin g an d composin g thi s
at th e piano , w e wil l com e clos e t o realizin g ho w i t shoul d soun d —each mea -
sure the n connectin g wit h it s successo r int o a twelve-ba r understructur e o n
which th e melod y ca n floa t an d sin g it s song. Th e viola s shoul d no t approac h
their figur e a s i f i t wer e a ne w entry , bu t rathe r a s a continuatio n o f wha t th e
cellos hav e initiated . M y suggestio n t o hel p toward s thi s long-lin e effec t i s t o
bow th e viola s an d cello s a s i n Ex.2 . I ca n fin d onl y tw o recording s o n
Ex. 2
n
= down-bow; v = up-bow
which al l aspect s o f this wondrou s openin g subjec t ar e treate d intelligently , mu -
sically, an d i n balance . The y ar e Toscanini' s (NBC ) an d Walter' s (Columbi a
Symphony).
The astut e reade r wit h a goo d memor y wil l note a clos e relationshi p betwee n
the Fourt h Symphony' s mai n subjec t and a similarl y constructed passag e i n th e
First Symphon y i n th e las t movemen t (se e Exx.4 2 an d 46 , pp . 36 4 an d 367) .
The fac t i s that Brahm s love d t o construc t idea s ou t o f fallin g thirds . A s in th e
First Symphon y example , th e Fourth' s mai n theme' s firs t fou r measure s ar e re -
ally derive d fro m th e followin g sequence o f pitches i n descending third s
while th e nex t fou r bar s ar e buil t
out o f ascending third s Moreover ,

as the Englis h write r Ivor Keys ha s pointe d ou t i n hi s Brahm s biography, 1 ther e

is in thi s E mino r symphon y a remarkable concentration o n an d emphasis , bot h
melodically an d harmonically , o f th e minor-sixt h C , which , however , almos t
always resolve s back t o the fifth , B . In th e openin g subjec t the C i s brought ou t
by invertin g th e descendin g major-thir d E- C int o a n ascendin g mino r sixth ,
which b y m. 4 ha s resolve d bac k t o th e B . The reiterate d C' s i n mm.9-12 , re -
stated i n varie d for m i n mm . 153-56, eve n mor e pronounce d i n th e rhythmi c
augmentation o f the openin g subjec t i n mm.246-58 , an d th e fina l restatemen t
of th e them e i n mm.394-406 , a s wel l a s i n severel y concentrate d for m i n
mm.422-29—to poin t ou t onl y som e o f th e mor e salien t moments—continu e
the interpla y with C throughou t th e movement . Th e pla y continue s wit h th e
harmonic ambiguit y of the unharmonize d beginnin g o f the symphony' s secon d
movement, whic h unti l E majo r i s established i n m.4 , ca n certainl y b e hear d
in C major ; o r i n th e fina l measure s o f tha t movemen t th e magnificen t shif t
from E majo r t o C (mm . 114-16), which i n tur n prepare s fo r the C majo r thir d
movement, an d th e man y C-emphasizin g A minor diversion s in th e las t move -
ment. Perhap s i t i s this emphasi s o f th e mino r sixt h —and frequentl y of F (th e
minor secon d o f th e toni c key)—tha t give s th e symphon y it s melanchol y ye t
consoling tona l flavor.
Great confusio n exist s regardin g a Brahm s marking , use d ofte n i n thi s
symphony, a shor t hairpi n dynami c i n mm.9-12 , place d i n suc h
a wa y notationally tha t i t ca n lea d t o variou s interpretations . Doe s .

mean o r ' or , a s som e conductor s eve n sugges t
. Actually , it doesn' t mea n an y o f these; i t simply means a
certain bo w or left-hand (vibrato ) warming of the sound , i n effec t a subtle espres-

sive accentuation . Violinist s an d conductor s shoul d avoi d a n automati c diminu -
endo i n m.10 , jus t becaus e th e phras e falls ; m.1 0 i s stil l par t o f th e over-al l
crescendo whic h shoul d no t reac h mor e than mf i n m.12 , a s it als o shoul d no t
in the varie d and expande d repetitio n (mm . 19-38) of the mai n subject . Measure
31 shoul d no t ris e abov e m f s o a s t o b e abl e t o complet e th e crescend o t o f i n
mm.33-37. Mor e o n tha t later.
A well-hidden problem exist s in mm . 17-18, where th e first note o f the oboe' s
entrance i s hardl y eve r heard , eve n o n recordings . I mus t confes s tha t I a m
on a one-ma n campaig n t o restor e this beautifu l phrase t o it s rightfu l plac e i n
the melodic/themati c schem e o f things . Th e poin t i s tha t Brahm s wrot e
as a beautifull y archin g line . Bu t

this i s invariabl y destroye d b y th e firs t violins ' over-enthusiasti c crescendo i n
1. Ivo r Keys , Johannes Brahms (London , 1989) , pp. 188-89.

m.17 (usuall y on th e G strin g wit h a thic k heav y vibrato) , completely coverin g

the oboe' s firs t B . My suggestio n i s to remov e th e violins ' crescend o i n m.1 7 (i t
will happe n anywa y with th e octav e rise) , modif y th e woodwinds ' dynami c t o
poco f o r mf (especiall y th e fou r horns) , an d urg e th e obo e t o pla y it s mos t
projecting lowe r B . Th e onl y recordin g o n whic h th e oboe' s initia l B ca n b e
heard i s Mehta's (probabl y accidental). Notic e ho w the oboe' s C resolve s to th e
second violins ' B —again tha t C t o B resolution —initiating i n tur n a remarkabl e
transformation o f the mai n subject .
The violins ' theme i s now broke n u p int o alternatin g eighth-note fragments ,
antiphonally divide d between th e tw o violin sections . An d yet the fragmentatio n
should no t lea d t o mor e isolate d 'sausag e linking. ' This is , however, wha t invari-
ably happen s whe n violinist s indulg e thei r aforementione d ba d habi t o f chop -
ping off—throwin g awa y through inattention—thei r las t notes i n eac h littl e four -
note grouplet . I n orde r t o mak e th e mai n them e surviv e a s a theme, th e tw o
violin section s mus t no t drop thei r las t notes , eithe r rhythmicall y or dynamically,
and, beyon d that , shoul d tr y to think/fee l acros s th e rest s betwee n them . Al l i t
takes i s an awarenes s o f the proble m an d a kin d o f responsive playin g tha t tw o
violinists woul d d o automaticall y i n a chambe r music—say , a strin g quartet —
situation. Meanwhile , i n m.1 9 th e forme r woodwin d 'echoes ' o f mm. 1-8 hav e
been relocate d i n th e cello s and basses , but a fifth lower. I see this no t a s a mer e
accompaniment but , a s far as the dynami c leve l i s concerned, a s an integra l par t
of the theme/mai n subject .
One o f th e mos t abuse d passage s i n th e earl y page s o f thi s symphon y i s th e
eighth-note figuration s i n th e viola s an d woodwind s i n mm . 19-26. Almos t n o
one seem s t o hav e th e imaginatio n t o comprehen d wha t Brahm s mean s b y the
annotation legg. Legg. (leggiero), o f course , mean s 'lightly ' i n Italian , an d i s
Brahms's wa y of tellin g u s tha t thes e descendin g line s ar e t o b e playe d lightly ,
as a kin d o f embroiderin g accompanimen t t o th e mai n subject , fillin g i n th e
rhythmic gap s lef t b y the rest s i n th e primar y theme. Bu t thes e line s ar e usually
played by the respectiv e player s and section s a s 'solo' passages, thereby obscurin g
and threatenin g th e priorit y of the mai n them e (i n the violins) . W e should not e
that eve n thes e leggiero line s are an embellishe d variant—embellishe d wit h pass-
ing tones—o f th e firs t thre e note s o f the mai n subjec t (se e Ex.3a) , delineatin g
an E mino r triad . Whil e th e fourt h them e note , C , appear s prominentl y i n th e
first violins (m.20) , th e remainin g themati c note s appea r i n th e viol a par t i n
Ex. 3 a
(encircled notes are thematic)

m.21 (Ex.3b) . I n th e meantim e th e clarine t and bassoo n i n m.2 0 an d th e flut e
in m.2 2 ech o i n embroidere d fashio n th e cellos ' an d basses ' version s
Ex. 3 b
of the them e (Exx . 3c and d , respectively) , again a t the respectfu l distanceo f two
or thre e beats . Thu s ingeniously , thes e line s ar e doin g doubl e duty , a s i t
Ex. 3 c Ex .3d
were: (1 ) servin g a s a n embellishe d horizontalize d varian t o f th e woodwind s

mm. 1-4, an d (2 ) simultaneously, a s a variant of the cellos ' an d basses ' recastin g
of that ver y sam e material . Tal k abou t economica l us e o f materials!
In m.2 3 Brahm s convert s th e eighth-not e garland s fro m singl e measur e ex -
changes to half-bar alternations, al l still marked /egg . These are invariabl y played
too loud , especiall y by the woodwinds , treate d b y the player s as expressive 'solo'
passages, rather than a s the discree t accompaniments the y reall y are. Nor shoul d
there b e an y crescend o i n thes e fou r measures . (Brahm s originally had a poco
cresc. in m.2 3 but , accordin g t o the autograph , had secon d thoughts and move d
it fou r bar s later. ) Moreover , ever y effor t mus t b e mad e t o collec t thes e eigh t
four-note bundle s int o on e Klangfarben line : oboe s an d violas, 2 alternatin g her e
with flutes , clarinets , an d bassoon s i n Brahms' s favorit e three-octav e distribu -
tion.3
The wors t offender s i n thi s passag e ar e Furtwängle r an d Celibidache . Th e
former make s an enormou s crescend o i n mm.23-26 , surging to a ful l fi n m.27 ,
when i n fac t th e scor e tell s u s tha t tha t ba r shoul d stil l b e p . Celibidache' s
dynamic distortion s are eve n mor e extravagan t and peculiar . Lik e Furtwängle r
(whom Celibidach e idolize d an d mimicke d earl y in hi s career) , h e start s a bi g
crescendo in m.24 , continues it through mm.27-30 , arriving a t a ful l f m m.31 ,
and the n make s a bi g two-bar diminuendo (sic ) to star t m.33 i n pi—all a reverse
of what Brahms has written .
I hav e alread y alluded t o a specia l performanc e proble m i n mm.33-36 . In -
stead o f an over-al l four-bar crescendo i n th e violins , now i n paralle l thirds , on e
invariably hear s th e dynami c renditio n o f Ex.4a . Eve n mor e musica l damag e
Ex. 4 a
2. Not e ho w ofte n i n hi s symphoni c work s Brahm s associates th e viola , almos t hi s favorit e instru -
ment (almos t as much a s the mezz o sopran o or alt o voice), with woodwinds.
3. I suggest , b y th e way , to shorte n al l group-endin g quarter-note s to eighth-note s s o tha t a bette r
over-all lin e ma y b e achieve d an d th e harmonicall y destructive unpleasant dissonances resulting
from a pedanticall y precise renditio n of the quarter-note s avoided.
BRAHMS: FOURT H SYMPHON Y 385
is don e whe n th e violin s dro p thei r fina l note s i n eac h measur e (dynamicall y
and rhythmically) . Betwee n thes e tw o misinterpretation s th e resul t i s fou r
huffing an d puffin g short-breathe d phrase s instea d o f on e gran d over-archin g
crescendo line.Thi s occur s throug h shee r inattentio n o n th e par t o f conductors,
concertmasters an d violinists , an d no t listenin g t o th e produce d result—m y
'third ear ' (se e p.17-19) woul d d o wel l t o com e int o pla y here—to se e whethe r
what i s being playe d i n fac t relate s to wha t i s i n th e score . T o hel p counterac t
any musica l an d physical / technical tendency t o diminuendo i n m.3 4 and m.36 ,
the bowin g i n Ex . 4b suggest s itself . Th e onl y recordin g tha t manage s t o repro -
Ex. 4 b
duce thes e fou r measure s mor e o r les s correctl y is Skrowaczewski's, while Mrav-
insky's and Furtwängler's fai l utterly : Mravinsky with huge hairpin s (-= ===~)
per measure bu t n o over-al l crescendo , Furtwängle r i n a full , virtuall y out o f
control ff , wit h n o possibility o f a crescendo .
The rhythmi c problems i n the famou s transition them e i n mm. 5 3-56 (an d its
many late r incarnations ) are to o wel l know n t o warran t muc h commen t here .
Brahms's vivi d rhythmi c imaginatio n concoct s a them e whic h contain s i n i t five
different rhythmi c unit s i n ingeniou s juxtapositions . To
play i t accuratel y i s no t altogethe r easy , but i t i s generall y a t leas t take n rathe r
seriously b y orchestr a players , except , however , fo r th e initiatin g Ft , a not e
which i s almost alway s playe d too short , tha t is , as i f Brahms had written :
Don't as k m e why ! Le t u s notic e als o tha t th e unusual , od d characte r o f thi s

theme, apart from it s rhythmic uniqueness, reside s largely in the aforementione d
C (mino r sixth) to B (fifth ) relationship , only here transposed u p on e ton e to D -
C*.
At thi s theme' s nex t appearanc e ther e i s real performanc e trouble . I t i s abso-
lutely astonishin g that o n no t a singl e recordin g ar e mm.73-7 5 an d mm.77-7 9
(and al l simila r paralle l passages) played correctly , eve n Carlo s Kleiber's , Skro -
waczewski's, an d Reiner' s i n s o man y way s splendi d recordings . Wha t i s eve n
more astonishin g i s the manner i n whic h thi s passag e i s played incorrectly : th e
last note s o f eac h rhythmi c laye r (se e Ex . 5 ) i n eac h measur e ar e alway s
Ex. 5
played together ! I n this , on e o f Brahms' s mor e brillian t rhythmi c invention s —

once agai n pittin g 'three ' agains t 'two'—th e dupl e rhyth m players ' fourt h bea t
must fal l betwee n th e secon d an d thir d note s o f th e conflictin g triplet . Bu t
somehow i n al l orchestra s —I sa y in al l orchestras—th e tw o rhythm s accommo -
date eac h othe r i n som e convenien t way , endin g u p togethe r an d thereby , o f
course, takin g al l th e inventio n an d tensio n ou t o f Brahms's idea . And n o con -
ductor seem s eve r t o notic e thi s discrepanc y an d attemp t t o correc t it . Aston -
ishing an d lamentable ! (Onc e again , I invit e an y disbelievin g reader t o chec k
any recordin g o f their choosin g fo r verificatio n of what I have jus t stated. )
It i s a mos t disturbin g exampl e o f th e casualness—an d sloppiness—wit h
which rhythm s ar e generall y treate d i n mos t orchestras , especiall y triplets. 4
Granted, th e tim e differentia l betwee n th e fourt h beat an d eithe r on e o f the last
two note s i n th e triple t group i s minuscule an d no t probabl y feelable o r techni -
cally controllabl e i n relatio n (o r i n reaction ) t o on e another . A t a tempo , say ,
of à — 72 , a commo n temp o fo r thi s movemen t an d thi s passage , th e elapse d
time betwee n th e attac k o f th e secon d triple t not e an d th e fourt h bea t o f th e
measure i s about one-sixt h o f a secon d (o r equivalen t t o a bea t a t metronom e
360), a time spa n no t reall y controllabl e b y the averag e instrumentalist . S o on e
can perhap s understan d ho w easily the tw o rhythms can becom e congruent : al l
that need s t o happe n i s for the fourth-bea t not e t o b e playe d a hai r late , an d i t
will coincid e wit h th e las t o f the triple t notes ; o r alternatively , i f the triple t i s a
tiny bit rushed, its third note wil l coincid e wit h the fourt h beat. (Thi s i s precisely
what happen s o n man y recording s wher e th e woodwind s an d tw o C horn s
play instea d o f -as , fo r example , o n

Weingartner's 193 8 Londo n Symphon y an d DeSabata' s 193 9 Berli n Philhar -
monic recordings ; or, as on Celibidache' s 195 9 Milano concer t recording , where
the sam e player s play a convenient Eithe r or both o f these
misreadings invariabl y occur, alas—mostl y th e former—a s an y numbe r o f re -
4. I t i s astonishing—and ver y depressing—tha t th e vas t majorit y o f musician s d o no t kno w ho w t o
play triplet s precisely , especiall y so-calle d 'large ' triplets , i.e . (a ) o r
(b) o r (c ) Everyon e doe s prett y wel l o n th e 'small '
triplets, i.e . I , less wel l o n . Almost universally , 'large'
triplets ar e playe d not a s , but a s Th e quic k solutio n

to thi s problem—and hardl y anyone seem s t o teach thi s anymore—i s t o g o t o th e nex t fastes t levels
of triplet s a s needed , whic h means , i n tryin g to pla y (a) , above , correctly—precisel y wit h th e righ t
feeling—thinking or , i f tha t doesn' t achiev e th e righ t result ,
I. Thi s i s suc h a n elementar y rhythmi c lesso n tha t I a m

continualiy~surprised tha t i t hasn't bee n learne d (seemingly , it is not bein g taught).
cordings wil l attest . O n a ver y fe w recording s on e ca n hea r a dim , accidenta l

awareness o n th e par t o f th e musician s — not th e conductor , min d you—tha t
those las t note s i n eac h rhythmi c configuratio n shoul d no t b e together . Curi -
ously, th e basse s an d cello s o n thos e recording s ente r th e fourt h bea t almos t o n
time i n th e firs t measur e o f th e passag e (m.73) , bu t b y m.7 4 hav e bee n se -
duced—or intimidated—int o sidin g wit h th e triplets , playin g tha t measure' s
fourth bea t lat e an d i n perfec t congruenc e wit h th e violins ' las t triple t note .
And, shockingly, nobody—no conductor , n o musician , n o recordin g producer—
ever notice s thi s an d challenge s th e conducto r and/o r themselve s t o wor k ou t
the problem .
The onl y way this remarkable rhythmic ide a ca n b e properl y realized i s if the
duple rhyth m player s concentrate o n playin g the fourt h beat exactly i n tim e —it
may soun d easy , bu t i s actuall y rathe r difficul t t o d o (a s th e countles s inep t
recordings readil y show) —and i f the triple t rhyth m player s concentrate equall y
hard o n playin g thei r rhyth m precisely. Remember tha t wit h eve n th e slightes t
rhythmic deviatio n o n eithe r side—16 6 millisecond s ar e an infinitesima l instant
of time—the two attack points will come together. I f then i n addition the players
observe th e s f o n thei r las t notes , Brahms' s intende d effec t wil l b e finall y full y
realized. An d ho w extraordinar y and uniqu e i t is ! Most musician s an d reader s
will no t kno w what I mean , sinc e i t has hardl y ever bee n hear d properl y played
by anybody . I kno w tha t whe n I hav e expose d th e proble m t o orchestra s an d
rehearsed thi s passag e ver y carefully , ther e i s general amazemen t upo n hearin g
it finally played a s written—and consternatio n an d chagri n tha t they have neve r
before playe d correctl y something s o elementary .
What make s matter s wors e i s that ther e ar e i n th e Fourt h Symphon y a t leas t
half a dozen simila r rhythmic passage s which, t o the bes t o f my knowledge, hav e
never bee n playe d correctly , an d certainl y no t o n an y o f th e thirty-od d re -
cordings o f this symphon y tha t I hav e studied . (W e shal l retur n t o thes e place s
at th e appropriat e time. )
Triplet an d duple t rhythm s battle i t out i n Brahms' s symphonies al l the time :
so too i n mm.91-94, where the triplet s in the viola s and cello s are almost always
suppressed b y conductors, a s a kind o f rhythmic annoyanc e agains t the 'ecstatic '
violin an d hor n melody .
Skipping ove r variou s interpretive an d performanc e questions , I tur n briefl y
to mm . 110-11, wher e th e half-note s in th e woodwinds , within th e p p dynamic ,
must b e firml y sustaine d an d fo r th e precis e duration . Thi s i s easier sai d tha n
done, a s man y recording s testify ; fo r invariabl y what on e hear s i s J- o r
or bu t no t wha t Brahm s wrote : J withou t Tha t Brahm s was
quite seriou s abou t thes e durationa l aspect s i s see n i n th e variou s succeedin g
versions o f thi s 'fanfare ' passage , wher e w e se e an d an d
One o f the mos t remarkable rhythmic passages ever written in th e entir e sym-
phonic literatur e occurs i n mm . 128—32. I t i s also another passag e which, a s far
as I know , i s neve r playe d correctly . Afte r anothe r cross-accen t passag e

(mm. 127-29) simila r t o th e on e discusse d above , combinin g triple t an d duple -
rhythms, Brahm s top s i t al l wit h a multi-layere d structur e o f suc h complexit y
that I dare sa y there i s nothing lik e it even i n th e Rite o f Spring; on e ha s t o tur n
to Ives' s Fourt h Symphon y t o fin d a parallel . Capitalizin g an d expandin g upo n
the tw o mos t predominan t musica l idea s Brahm s ha s bee n jus t workin g wit h —
the littl e 'fanfare ' motiv e an d th e triplet-against-duple t secon d subject—whic h
until no w hav e bee n kep t separat e an d hear d onl y i n succession , the y ar e sud -
denly throw n togethe r i n a three-wa y collisio n o f rhythms . Leavin g asid e th e
violas' fas t sextuplet s which almos t soun d lik e a tremolo, w e have quarter triplets
in th e violins , , in th e bas s instruments w e hav e reg -
ular quarter-note s , and i n th e flutes , oboes , horns , an d trum -

pets th e 'fanfare ' motiv e . Ther e i s eve n a fourt h rhythmi c
layer i n th e timpani , i n effec t , although writte n as
Putting thes e rhythm s al l together— I hav e
marked the m a,b,c, — and relatin g the m verticall y we se e tha t Brahm s ha s cre -
ated a composit e rhyth m which ,
counting al l th e attac k points , i s astonishingly intricat e an d indee d difficul t t o

render accuratel y i n it s multi-layere d complexity . Notic e that , a s i n a bel l pat -
tern, th e thre e layer s coincide rhythmicall y only no w and then , i n thi s cas e o n
the firs t an d thir d beat s (se e Ex.6) . Th e exampl e doe s no t includ e th e viol a
Ex. 6
sextuplets, bu t show s whic h note s belon g t o whic h laye r (alphabetized) . A s if

this wer e no t enough , Brahm s has shifte d th e phrasin g o f the quarter-not e laye r
(c) on e bea t early , startin g o n th e fourt h bea t o f m.12 9 an d stretchin g i t t o six
beats, the resul t being tw o 6/4 entities stretched acros s three 4/ 4 measures. 5 This
is born e ou t b y the wa y Brahms continues thi s bas s line i n mm . 133-34 (Ex.7) ,
the rhythmi c anticipatio n an d shiftin g no w reduce d fro m a quarter-not e t o a n
Ex. 7
5. Thi s i s not unlik e th e famou s 6/ 4 passag e i n th e Rite o f Spring a t th e en d o f the "Cortèg e o f th e

Wise One, " rehearsa l numbe r 70 .
eighth-note. I t shoul d b e obviou s tha t al l thi s rhythmic , polyphoni c multi -

layering take s grea t car e i n rehearsin g an d performing , which , alas , i t almos t
never seem s t o receive . I hav e foun d onl y on e recordin g i n whic h thes e mea -
sures (mm . 130-31) ar e playe d correctly , a quit e obscur e recordin g a t that , b y
György Lehe l an d th e Budapes t Philharmonic . Th e Fourth' s performanc e an d
interpretation a s a whol e i s rathe r unspecial , an d th e orchestra' s playin g an d
ensemble ar e generally lax and roug h (no t to mention th e recording' s poor tech -
nical quality) . Therefore, i t i s a littl e difficul t t o vouc h absolutel y fo r th e accu -
racy o f performance i n thes e thre e measures , bu t a s far a s m y ear s ca n discern ,
it sound s correct . Withou t havin g been presen t a t th e sessions , ther e i s no way
to tel l wh y thes e thre e measure s wer e playe d correctly—uniquel y s o i n th e his -
tory o f recordings o f this work . Whether i t was Lehel wh o sa w the proble m tha t
no on e els e seem s t o hav e bee n awar e of , an d the n rehearse d i t carefully ; o r
whether i t wa s th e firs t trumpe t playe r wh o mad e hi s colleague s pla y th e six -
teenth rhythm s correctly , I canno t tel l fo r sure . Bu t I ten d t o thin k th e latter ,
judging b y th e forcefull y secur e manne r i n whic h tha t playe r seem s t o lea d
his colleagues . O n anothe r recording , Levine' s wit h Chicago , on e ca n hea r
the grea t trumpete r Adolp h Herset h tryin g t o fi t th e trumpets ' tw o sixteenth s
correctly int o th e over-al l rhythmi c scheme , bu t t o littl e effec t sinc e th e res t
of th e orchestra' s rhythm s ar e playe d s o imprecisely . On e o f th e mos t anoma -
lous an d vexin g renditions o f thi s passag e i s DeSabata' s wit h th e Berli n Phil -
harmonic. Th e orchestr a i n a technicall y virtuall y impeccabl e performanc e
—the Berli n Philharmoni c wa s i n 193 9 i n it s absolut e heyday—play s th e
rhythms i n mm . 130-32 as accurately as I have bee n abl e t o hear , excep t fo r th e
fact tha t someon e (DeSabata? ) change d th e woodwin d an d bras s part s t o
(Yes, I didn' t believ e i t either ,
and ha d t o liste n t o i t i n disbelie f several times t o verif y th e fact. )
I kno w that whe n I have tackle d thi s passag e i n m y ow n performance s o f th e
symphony, i t has require d a t least fifteen to twenty minutes o f rehearsing time —
sorting ou t an d clarifyin g th e thre e discret e rhythmi c layer s section b y section—
to finall y arriv e a t th e correc t (desired ) result , muc h t o th e consternatio n an d
amazement (an d self-satisfie d delight ) o f the musicians .
Of th e man y performanc e an d balanc e problem s tha t occu r aroun d th e
Scheinreprise (fals e recapitulation) , mm.145-68 , I singl e out : (1 ) th e nee d t o
make sure that the E o f the basse s in mm . 139-40 balances well and expressively
with th e B-majo r dominan t chor d i n the winds—mos t conductors an d recordin g
producers see m t o sh y awa y fro m thi s 'dissonance' : (2 ) th e nee d fo r th e thir d
horn playe r to know that h e i s to blend wit h the tw o clarinets i n m.153 , in effec t
a thir d clarinet , no t th e littl e 'solo ' tha t mos t hor n player s think the y have ; (3 )
the nee d fo r th e violi n section s i n mm . 153-56 t o shuttl e thei r littl e motive ,
which first appeared i n m. 9 (an d whic h i s a clos e relativ e of the Firs t Sympho -
ny's las t movement' s mai n theme) , bac k an d fort h s o a s t o creat e on e inter -
locking line . Wha t usuall y happens instea d i s that , throug h unawareness , the
players—with conductors ' blessing s —drop th e las t not e eithe r rhythmicall y or
dynamically o r both , makin g an y linkin g up o f th e alternatin g phrases impossi-
ble for the listener . The sam e wil l apply twelve bars later to the sol o woodwinds.
A similar droppin g of final notes occurs almost always in the flutes and bassoon s
in mm . 156-65, a transforme d and transpose d (t o G minor ) varian t of the mai n
theme. Fro m etc. , Brahm s derives ,
with passin g note s added ,
etc.
As i n th e cas e o f th e beginnin g o f th e symphony , a wa y mus t b e foun d t o

make on e gran d lin e ou t o f these eigh t three-not e bundles , an d surel y the way
to achiev e tha t i s not t o pla y I t also
does no t hel p whe n i n m.16 1 th e clarinet s burs t i n to o loud , a s i f the y hav e

some importan t 'sol o passage, ' whe n i n fac t the y are merel y the continuatio n o f
the leggiero accompanimenta l line s starte d i n m.15 7 (which , o f course , har k
back t o thos e analogou s figures in mm . 19-26). Brahm s evidently forgot t o mark
m.157, m.15 8 (violins ) and m.16 1 an d (clarinets ) leggiero; h e di d s o tw o bar s
later—that is , two bar s too late—fo r th e violins .
Notice als o th e tin y melodic/harmoni c clashe s Brahm s build s int o thi s G
minor episode : Ct t an d A agains t C 1! an d Bl > respectivel y (m.157) , F t an d D
against F> l an d E\> (m.158) , an d eve n mor e piquantly , CI/ A agains t Ei>/C N i n
rn.160, an d s o on . Thes e dissonanta l delicacie s mus t b e brough t out , mus t b e
heard i n a performance . Generally , however , th e conducto r an d musician s in -
volved—flutes, bassoons , violins—see m t o b e unawar e o f anythin g interestin g
going o n a t all ; the note s glid e b y unnoticed, unheard , unsavored—an d bland .
In m.16 8 w e com e t o on e o f the mor e comple x an d motivicall y convolute d
passages i n al l music , a s two three-note (o r six-note) fragments, generated i n th e
previous Scheinreprise, battl e i t ou t contrapuntally , canonically , i n a fierc e f -ff
fray, whic h i s finall y resolve d i n m.184 . T o d o ful l justic e t o thi s extraordinary
passage i n performanc e i s very difficult , becaus e i t presumes tha t ever y player in
the orchestr a woul d know exactly at every point whic h co g of this gigantic wheel
he i s representing , th e proble m bein g exacerbate d b y th e fac t tha t th e role s
initially assigne d t o specifi c instrument s an d player s change an d ar e give n over
to other s a t various times durin g th e sixteen-ba r passage.
Let m e se e i f I ca n sor t ou t thes e multipl e motivi c strand s i n a n easil y
graspable format . To begin , le t u s isolat e th e tw o mai n motivi c fragments : one ,
the flutes'/bassoons ' varian t o f th e mai n them e (mm . 157-60) i s furthe r trans -
formed int o (a ) appearin g initially

in th e violin s an d i n canoni c imitatio n tw o beat s late r i n th e bassoons , onl y to
appear fou r bar s later in the cellos/basse s and canonicall y in tw o horns. Its inver-
sion ( a ') appear s initiall y in th e cel -

los and basses , but i s then transferre d to the violin s (mm. 173-78).
The othe r motivi c fragmen t (b ) i s derive d

from th e violins ' mm . 15 3-54, also , o f course, fro m
or, a s condensed ,
. I t appear s initiall y i n tw o horns , bu t i s late r
given ove r to flutes and oboes . It s inversion (5 1)
appears initiall y i n flute s an d oboes , bu t i s the n hande d ove r t o clarinet s an d

bassoons. Thu s th e followin g polyphoni c structur e (Exx . 8 a an d b ) evolves , a t
least i n it s first two phase s (mm . 169-76). T o hel p th e reade r throug h thi s laby -
rinthian comple x i n musica l notatio n (simplifie d and reduced) , th e variou s frag -
ments an d strand s are identified by a (th e first one cited above) , a ' its inversion,
b th e secon d motive , b l it s inversion. Notic e agai n th e dissonanta l clashe s (E t
and E^ , m.169 , 173 ; A\- an d A\ mm.170,174).
Ex. 8 a
Ex. 8 b
Then, a t th e en d o f m.172 Brahm s invert s th e entir e previou s four-bar struc -

ture, somewha t a s Beethoven ha d don e at one poin t in the las t movement o f the
Fifth Symphony . W e shoul d als o note that muc h o f the structur e is metrically off
kilter. Th e b motiv e ha s bee n shifte d ove r t o the wea k fourth an d secon d beats ,
and eve n th e a motive , wit h it s canonic interlockin g an d unifor m accentuation ,
gives the impressio n o f being i n a constant stat e o f ambiguous rhythmi c flux . I n
effect, th e entir e passag e i n al l its component parts sounds strangel y unanchored
rhythmically/metrically; and i n fact , i t needs t o be playe d i n a kind o f agogically
'neutral' way.
At th e en d o f m.17 6 th e fearsom e contrapunta l structur e undergoe s stil l an -
other se a change . Brahms , headin g fo r a n eventua l cadenc e an d resolutio n o f
the polyphoni c struggle , simplifie s the structur e somewhat . Bu t again , h e doe s
so ingeniousl y an d utterl y logically . I n mm . 172-73 w e fin d i n th e firs t violin s
the following : . Th e G\> an d F 1! ar e

the las t tw o note s o f th e a (mai n theme ) material ; th e A* i i s an extr a note , no t
part o f an y themati c reference , adde d simpl y t o provid e som e harmon y (th e
third i n a n F majo r chord) ; th e nex t B t is , as we hav e alread y seen, a par t o f an
inversion o f th e mai n theme . Brahm s no w take s thes e thre e pitches , F-A*l-BI> ,
and fashion s a new three-note motiv e fro m them , puts i t in th e woodwinds , an d
uses i t a s a lin k betwee n successiv e violi n phrase s (se e Ex.9) . Thi s ide a i s then
Ex.9
further expande d a t th e en d o f m.178 (alon g wit h a sudde n f f ) , the woodwind s
reiterated (an d transposed ) i n cello s an d basse s an d im -

mediately canonicall y imitate d i n th e uppe r woodwinds , whil e th e violins ,
bassoons, an d horn s tak e u p th e secon d three-not e par t o f th e them e
. A few measures o f this an d Brahm s

can brin g th e might y contrapunta l interpla y t o conclusio n (i n m.184) .
I hav e gon e t o som e lengt h t o detai l th e constructio n o f thi s interlocking ,
multi-layered, timbrall y delineated structur e (mm . 169-84) t o indicat e it s com -
plexity an d difficult y o f performance, a complexit y o f design whic h ca n b e ren -
dered meaningfu l in performanc e onl y if , as I suggested above , al l th e perform -
ers are awar e of the inne r working s and constructio n o f the entir e passage . This
is, o f course , neve r th e case . Orchestra s usuall y jus t plo w throug h thi s passage
as bes t a s they can , no t reall y knowing where eve n on e not e i n thei r part s be -
longs, o r wh y i t i s there . Musicians , n o matte r ho w goo d o r ho w intelligent ,
cannot jus t fro m thei r individua l part glea n anythin g o f the intricac y of structur-
ing o f the variou s relationship s tha t thei r part s hav e t o al l th e othe r parts . Th e
only way to mak e thi s aurall y and intellectuall y clea r t o th e musician s i s for th e
conductor t o separat e ou t al l th e componen t parts , an d the n rehears e the m al l
separately i n a serie s o f tin y 'sectio n rehearsals. ' Tha t take s time , bu t i s wel l
worth th e effort . I hav e ofte n rehearse d th e passag e thi s way , an d no t onl y ha s
the resultan t performanc e bee n mor e 'intelligent ' an d 'understanding ' o n th e
part o f the musicians—a n intelligenc e whic h transmit s itsel f to th e audienc e i n
performance—but als o th e musician s see m actuall y quit e relieve d (a s wel l a s
pleased wit h themselves ) t o hav e bee n abl e t o brin g som e sens e t o a passag e
which the y previousl y considered merel y dens e an d obscure .
In mm . 184-85 (an d subsequen t simila r passages, like mm.202-203 ) th e prob -
lem i s tha t almos t everyon e play s
instead o f Brahms's
Skipping t o m.219 , I fin d tha t i n virtuall y al l performance s (an d recordings )

too muc h attentio n i s given b y conductor s t o th e clarinet s an d bassoons , rathe r
than th e recapitulatio n o f the mai n them e i n th e pizzicat o string s and flutes.
Measures 227-4 6 i s one o f those heavenl y passage s whic h onl y Brahms coul d
devise. I t i s made u p o f a ver y beautiful an d origina l chor d progressio n and tw o
little motives , first heard i n m. 9 and m.10 . Thi s sound s simpl e enoug h and , o n
the fac e o f it , unproblematic ; an d ye t I hav e rarel y hear d thi s passag e playe d
well. Th e proble m i s tha t th e Klangfarben connections , bot h i n th e melodie s
and th e underlyin g harmonies , ar e difficul t t o achieve , give n tha t th e players ,
just starin g a t thei r parts , hav e littl e o r n o ide a who m the y follow , who m the y
succeed, ho w th e entir e twent y measure s functio n musically . I t als o take s a bi t
of painstakin g rehearsin g t o mak e sur e tha t al l th e hairpi n dynamic s ar e
matched u p betwee n al l the differen t player s and sections .
The chor d progressio n (Ex.10) , distribute d amon g alternatin g wind s an d
strings, i s in itsel f a thin g o f beauty. Highlightin g thi s wondrou s progressio n ar e
Ex. 1 0
the harmonie s i n m.22 9 an d m.23 0 (an d it s sequence fou r bar s later), the on e a
third inversio n & dominan t seventh , darkene d b y it s seventh i n th e bass , fol -
lowed instantl y b y th e other , a brigh t widel y spread C majo r sevent h chor d i n
root position . Th e melodi c line , meanwhile , colore d wit h a t least fou r differen t
timbres, shoul d soun d a s follows (Ex.11), that i s to say, one continuou s Klangfar-
ben melody .
Ex. 1 1
It takes enormous concentratio n o n th e par t of the harmon y players to sustain

the whole-not e chord s exactl y the righ t length , an d a t the sam e tim e maintai n
the righ t p dynami c so a s t o b e abl e t o han d th e chor d over , a s i t were , t o th e
next succeedin g grou p o f players ; also fo r al l participant s t o produc e th e sam e
degree an d rhythmi c timin g o f the hairpi n crescendo-diminuendo s i n eac h mea -
sure. Th e sam e applie s t o th e melod y players , whethe r individua l soloist s o r
entire sections . O n almos t al l recordings , the y dro p thei r las t eighth-note s dy -
namically, makin g a musica l connectio n t o th e nex t ba r impossible . On e re -
cording o n whic h thes e ninetee n bar s are beautifull y played is Mehta's wit h th e
New York Philharmonic . Nea r the en d o f this episode, sa y from m.24 0 on, man y
conductors mak e a ritardando and, worse, even mor e s o at m.243 where Brahm s
has already slowed the rhyth m fro m eighth-note s t o half-notes. As Strauss already
complained (se e p.90) , "subject s whic h th e compose r ha s alread y draw n out ,
should no t b e draw n ou t further. " Th e wors t offender s her e are , onc e again ,
Furtwängler, Celibidache , an d Fischer-Dieska u (th e latte r tw o probabl y imitat-
ing Furtwängler) , wh o slo w t o a n incredibl e J = 3 8 a t m.243 , afte r havin g
shuttled bac k an d fort h betwee n th e mid-60 s an d lowe r 80s . Bu t Chailly ,
Mengelberg, an d Sanderlin g ar e no t fa r behind , slowin g t o hal f spee d whe n

Brahms ha s already done i t in hi s composition .
A simila r exaggerated temp o distortio n occurs i n dozen s o f recording s in th e
beautiful passag e mm.246-58 . Her e Brahm s take s th e firs t eigh t note s o f hi s
opening mai n them e an d elongate s the m t o th e followin g (Ex . 12) .
The long-hel d C an d B ar e i n effec t written-ou t fermata s (si x times th e lengt h

of th e origina l notes) . Still , conducto r afte r conducto r doe s thi s alread y drasti -
cally 'slowed-down' musi c a t a snail' s pace , al l bu t destroyin g Brahms's forma l
proportions an d basi c allegro m a no n troppo pacing . Wagner' s "imperceptible, "
"hardly noticeable" temp o modification s would be muc h mor e appropriate here.
Our discussio n can ski p the recapitulatio n (whic h seems to start in m.25 9 bu t
which i s actually already i n progres s as o f m.246) , excep t t o not e tha t th e cre -
scendo i n m.27 7 thi s tim e reache s a ful l f b y m.281 , quit e differen t fro m th e
earlier paralle l passage in mm.9-12 .
Another battl e o f 'three-against-two ' occur s i n mm . 387-89, th e two s i n th e
winds, th e three s i n string s an d timpani . Simple r tha n th e othe r rhythmicall y
complex passage s I hav e referre d t o earlier , nevertheless eve n thi s on e i s rarel y
played correctly . O n innumerabl e recordings , notabl y Walter' s an d Celibi -
dache's, th e wind s an d timpan i pla y their notate d duple t quarter-note s squarely
with th e strings ' triplets. The thre e bar s mm. 3 87-89 ar e anothe r plac e wher e a
horrendously lou d timpan i has ruine d man y a recording.
The tota l effectivenes s o f th e towerin g climacti c passag e a t m.39 4 depend s
very muc h o n tw o factors : (1 ) tha t th e half-note s be wel l sustained , tha t is , no t
tapered dynamically ; and (2 ) that they not b e hel d to o long , tha t is , as <J > „J \
which i s the wa y they are unfortunatel y almost always played. (This is in essenc e
the sam e proble m a s at the ver y beginnin g of the Symphony. )
There ar e tw o additiona l very specia l moment s i n th e firs t movemen t o f th e
Brahms Fourt h tha t warrant specific mention , an d particularl y fascinate m e a s a
composer an d orchestrator . One i s the remarkabl e and wholl y original harmonic
progression i n mm.418-20 , centere d an d voice d i n ope n tenth s i n th e lowe r
instruments (Ex.13) . I t i s itsel f a n inversio n o f a simila r bu t descendin g
line i n thirds (not tenths) i n mm.414-15. This is in turn an elaborate d recapitu-
Ex. 1 3
lation o f m.45 an d mm . 49-5 0 i n th e exposition , the latte r i n tenth s i n contrar y

motion (Ex.14) . Wha t make s thi s ascendin g progressio n s o unusua l i s it s wide
Ex. 1 4
'open tenth ' spacin g an d th e augmente d second s (brackete d i n Ex . 13) , whic h

in earlie r harmon y manual s use d t o b e calle d 'fals e relations. ' Brahm s i s her e
reaching ou t toward s a harmonic languag e an d voicing , a parallelism that antici -
pates Debuss y an d Rave l an d othe r earl y turn-of-the century modernists .
The passag e become s eve n mor e remarkabl e —and woul d eve n soun d start-
ling, i f it s 'remarkableness ' wer e eve r appreciate d b y conductor s an d musician s
who, throug h over-use , blithel y glid e throug h thes e measure s a s i f the y wer e
very ordinary—whe n on e realize s that th e rising tenths ar e complemente d b y a
line o f falling tenth s i n th e hig h registe r (Ex.15) . Th e resultan t harmoni c
Ex. 1 5
clashes (marke d x i n th e example ) agai n ar e rarel y appreciated an d heard/fel t

(or brough t out ) b y performers . Thi s amazin g passag e mus t b e playe d wit h a
rich, vibrant , intens e sound—especiall y i n th e cello s an d basses—t o attai n it s
full powe r o f expression. O f al l th e recording s sampled , th e onl y one s tha t cap -
tured thi s powe r an d intensit y are thos e o f Maazel, Mravinsky , and Toscanini. 6
Even mor e startlin g is a slightly later passage (mm.428-30 ) o f shifting parallel
6/4 chord s (Ex.16) , a remarkabl e progression , whic h woul d hav e bee n consid -
ered 'wrong, ' 'inept, ' an d 'impermissible ' onl y a fe w decade s earlier—an d wa s
probably stil l considere d s o b y conservative s at th e tim e o f th e appearanc e o f
this symphony . Bu t unfortunatel y eve n thi s uniquel y Brahmsia n passag e has ,
through decade s o f repeated performances , los t al l it s novelty an d modernit y for
most player s an d conductors . I hav e ofte n bee n successfu l i n rekindlin g som e
wonderment i n orchestra l player s ove r thi s progressio n b y isolatin g th e tw o
6. Le t u s not e i n passin g th e frequen t us e o f hig h B' s an d C' s i n th e flute s i n thi s symphony , an

advance ove r Brahrns' s mor e restricte d us e (onl y up t o A) i n th e Firs t Symphony.
Ex. 1 6
chords i n m.42 9 i n rehearsal , havin g the musician s hea r i t ou t o f context i n al l

its startlin g nakedness . Th e reade r migh t kindl e (o r re-kindle , a s the cas e ma y
be) th e sam e sens e o f wondermen t fo r th e passag e b y goin g t o th e pian o an d
playing i t to himself .
Finally, I feel oblige d t o protes t the ubiquitou s vulgarization of the firs t move -
ment's fina l measure s o n th e par t o f countless conductors , b y either slowin g th e
tempo inordinately , ofte n a s early as m.430, o r b y a n overl y bombastic timpani ,
especially i n th e las t tw o measures—o r a combinatio n o f both. (Th e wa y som e
conductors over-indulg e i n thes e mannerisms , on e woul d thin k the y wer e con -
ducting th e en d o f th e Shostakovitc h Fift h o r th e Mahle r Third. ) On e o f th e
worst offender s i s Celibidache, wh o slow s suddenly i n m.43 0 t o a pedantic J =
76, afte r surgin g alon g a t a brigh t J = 9 2 fo r mos t o f th e coda , an d expand s
further int o a ponderou s timpan i bombardmen t i n th e penultimat e measure .
DeSabata, Mengelberg , an d Maaze l ar e no t fa r behin d i n thi s typ e o f tasteless
(but audience-grabbing ) trivializatio n of Brahms's noble an d statel y ending .
The Fourt h Symphony' s secon d movemen t i s als o ful l o f wondrous , uniquel y

Brahmsian moments , a fe w of which I woul d lik e t o dwel l upo n here . Th e firs t
is th e ver y introductio n o f th e movemen t an d it s transition t o th e mai n them e
at m.5 . Apar t fro m th e unusua l harmoni c ambiguit y o f th e opening—i s i t C
major o r E mino r phrygian ? —let u s not e an d appreciat e th e organ-lik e instru -
mentation o f mm. 1-4. Brahm s wa s not unfamilia r with th e orga n an d it s litera-
ture—in hi s younge r year s he ha d compose d an d performe d (conducted ) a fai r
amount o f chora l music , ofte n fo r jus t femal e choir , wit h orga n accompani -
ment—and i t seems t o m e tha t h e wa s here i n m. 2 playin g th e organist , tha t is,
bringing i n th e four-foo t sto p wit h th e oboe s an d th e two-foo t with th e flutes ,
gradually eliminatin g the m agai n i n m.4 .
I thin k wha t happen s i n m. 4 i s mos t extraordinary . Having tease d u s fo r th e
first three measure s wit h a harmonicall y undefine d them e statement , Brahm s
suddenly resolve s th e ambiguit y b y th e unequivoca l establishmen t o f E majo r
in th e secon d hal f o f m. 4 (i n th e clarinets) . Unequivocally , yes , bu t als o i n
typically Brahmsia n fashion , quietl y an d subtly . I tak e Brahms' s very precisel y
marked dynami c notatio n i n m. 4 t o mea n tha t th e uniso n E's , especiall y thos e
reiterated a s lat e a s th e fift h eight h o f m. 4 b y th e horns , shoul d envelop e an d
subtly mas k th e E-majo r entranc e o f th e clarinets . By that readin g the entr y of
the clarinet s (an d firs t bassoon ) mus t no t merel y b e trul y p p bu t unobtrusiv e
and barel y audible . Th e effec t the n i s o f the E majo r risin g quietly out o f th e
previous harmonic vagueness , just as an islan d migh t ris e out o f the disappearin g
morning mist s in a lake or shoreline scen e (Hea r how wonderful this can soun d
on Celibidache' s recording. ) I t takes impeccable contro l o n th e par t of the play-
ers, especially the thre e enterin g voice s of clarinets and bassoon , who must ente r
as a perfectl y balanced an d blende d trio . I n mos t performances , alas, on e hear s
a to o lou d first clarinet—thinking i t has a 'solo'—an d a too sof t an d self-effacin g
second clarinet , an d a n eithe r to o lou d o r unblendin g bassoon . Admittedly, this
is all very difficult t o manage , as, by the way , any secon d bassoonis t will tel l you,
having to enter pp i n m.6 , taking over fro m th e secon d clarinet .
The entir e ensuing, quiet, march-like procession must not be disturbed by either
the flutes entering too obtrusively in m.8—flutist s ten d generally to overplay, that
is, over-compensate i n their low-register passages—or, for that matter, the horn s i n
m.13. Thes e shoul d merel y continu e th e softl y flowin g clarine t melodi c line .
(Many horn players see this as an importan t 'solo' entrance, and on e seldom hear s
a true 'clarinet' pp here.) A beautifully executed transitio n from a clarinet to a horn
sonority can b e heard onl y on a few recordings, notably Levine's, Reiner's , Barbi-
rolli's, an d Kempe's . O n Mengelberg' s recording , o n th e othe r hand , th e horn s
mindlessly invade the quie t with an implacable, obese mf.
As sof t a s the horn s an d bassoon s mus t pla y here , the y mus t nonetheles s sus -
tain ever y one o f their notes , especiall y in th e importan t harmoni c suspensions ,
to achiev e th e ful l effec t o f Brahms' s beautifull y melanchol y harmonization .
Consider th e typicall y Brahmsian darin g o f th e followin g key points , extracte d
and thu s isolate d fro m th e complet e passag e i n Ex.17 .
Ex. 1 7
and an d
Another detai l tha t call s fo r specia l mentio n i s th e exchang e o f overlapping

phraselets betwee n firs t bassoo n an d secon d clarine t i n mm.20-21 , bot h to -
gether providin g the 'bas s line' fo r the entir e phrase . A caution als o for conduc -
tors t o no t allo w the first clarinet to diminuend o to o earl y or indee d t o pla y th e
passage to o softly : i t i s fa r to o ofte n playe d i n a mer e (thoug h mellifluous ) mf ,
instead o f ful l f . No r shoul d th e typicall y Brahmsian sophistication o f grouping
the sixteenth s i n mm.20-21 , i n bot h pitc h organizatio n an d articulation/phras -
ing, i n si x groups o f thre e b e allowe d t o undermin e th e basi c underlyin g 6/ 8
march-like pulse .
In mm.22-2 6 Brahm s conceives one o f the mos t remarkabl e —and origina l —
7. Th e sam e admonitio n must be voice d i n regar d to th e unusua l clarine t phrasin g i n mm . 11-12.

musical ideas , fo r which I hav e no t bee n abl e t o fin d a paralle l i n an y music ,

either b y Brahm s o r an y othe r compose r (a t least i n an y absolute , text-les s mu -
sic).8 I a m referrin g t o th e gradua l fragmentatio n an d distensio n t o whic h
Brahms subject s hi s mai n them e i n mm.22-26 . Th e phras e start s ou t a s ex-
pected i n m.22 , but alread y in m.2 3 Brahms excise s a bea t an d a half's worth of
theme—compare m. 6 an d m.23—onl y t o continu e late r i n th e sam e measur e
as if the phras e ha d bee n full y carrie d through . I n th e process , however, Brahm s
subtly drop s th e horn , whic h ha d bee n temporaril y i n th e lead , allowin g th e
melody t o revert back to the clarinet , the pizzicat o string s in turn having , almos t
unnoticeably, fille d i n th e ga p lef t b y the missin g melodi c fragment .
But the n suddenly , i n mm.24-25 , th e mos t extraordinar y thin g happens :
Brahms interrupt s th e clarinet' s phras e again, and wherea s i n m.2 3 th e incisio n
in th e melod y i s momentary an d doe s no t impai r th e origina l structuring of th e
phrase, thi s tim e th e them e come s t o a complet e halt—i n a kin d o f phmsis
interruptus. A t first thought Brahm s seem s t o wan t t o liquidat e th e theme ; bu t
surprisingly h e pick s it u p exactl y one ba r late r an d continue s wit h i t as if ther e
never ha d bee n an y interruptio n a t all 9 (Ex.18).
Ex. 1 8
This uncanny—an d subtl y humorous —bit o f musical legerdemai n i s accom-

plished wit h suc h sl y skill and ingeniou s artlessness , that on e i s apt t o no t eve n
take not e o f it . Jus t a s Brahm s ri d himsel f o f th e hor n i n m.23 , h e no w goe s
about eliminatin g (i n m.25 ) th e pizzicat o accompaniment , continuin g th e
phrase i n tha t measur e solel y with a quinte t o f winds, without benefi t o f strings.
It i s interesting to not e i n th e autograp h scor e a più p i n th e string s on th e sixt h
beat o f m.24, as well as a diminuendo wedg e i n m.23 , both marking s confirming
his intentio n t o liquidat e th e string s gradually . Brahms , however , crosse d ou t
both marking s fo r his final draft , probabl y reasoning that the p p a t m.22 wa s soft
enough no t t o requir e furthe r dynami c moderations . Bu t I thin k hi s origina l
impulse wa s right—an d I usuall y ask th e string s to pla y eve n softe r here , o r a t
least no t le t the m pla y louder, tha t is , soloistically.
I hav e n o documente d proo f to corroborat e m y just-related scenario, bu t fro m
8. Suc h exists—as , fo r example , i n th e text - an d scenario-oriente d interruption s i n Beckmesser s
serenade t o Ev a i n th e secon d ac t o f Wagner's Di e Meistersinger; o r th e so-calle d ech o ari a i n th e
Cantata, "Flösst , mei n Heiland , flöss t dein Namen, " o f Bach's Christmas Oratorio. Bu t I hav e no t
found an y i n purel y instrumenta l music .
9. I t remind s m e o f a hilariou s routin e b y th e grea t comedian-musicia n Victo r Borg e i n whic h
sentences ar e constantl y interrupte d b y variou s distraction s an d interpolations , onl y t o b e blithel y
continued second s late r a s if there ha d neve r ha d bee n an y interruptio n a t all.
all interna l evidenc e o f th e music , i t seem s t o m e a t least a highl y plausible

one. Furthermore , i n th e autograp h facsimil e p.56 , whic h begin s wit h m.2 5
there i s clearl y t o b e see n —unmistakably i n Brahms' s hand— a caesur a sig n || ,
used b y musician s t o indicat e a brea k i n a phrase . I n an y case , I d o no t recal l
in th e man y time s tha t I playe d thi s symphon y a s a hor n playe r an y conductor
ever offerin g suc h a n explicatio n o f on e o f Brahms' s mos t ingeniou s devisings ,
or fo r tha t matte r an y explanatio n a t al l o r eve r stoppin g eve n t o rehears e thi s
passage. No r ca n I fin d an y recordin g i n whic h th e performer s see m t o hav e
understood tha t somethin g highl y unusua l i s goin g o n her e (possibl y Carlo s
Kleiber's, Chailly's , an d Suitner's) .
To mak e m y interpretatio n o f thi s passag e clea r i n performance , I as k th e
quintet o f wind s i n m.2 5 t o breath e afte r th e quarter-not e (o r a t least t o subtl y
interrupt th e phrase) , eve n thoug h they , o f course, hav e n o nee d fo r a breath .
But i f Brahms had no t interrupte d an d delaye d th e phrase , tha t is , left i t intact ,
then a quic k breat h woul d certainl y hav e bee n needed , a s i s th e cas e i n th e
original mai n them e a t thi s poin t (m.8) . I als o as k the clarinet s an d bassoo n a s
best a s possible to thin k acros s the rest s in m.24-25—t o 'hol d th e thought, ' a s it
were—and t o continu e th e them e (i n term s o f attac k an d dynamics ) exactly
as the y ha d lef t i t i n m.24 , i n othe r word s a s i f th e phras e ha d neve r bee n
interrupted.
Before w e leav e thi s passage , on e othe r aspec t call s fo r particula r mention ,
namely, th e crescend o al l th e wa y to f m m . 27 an d immediatel y back dow n t o
p i n m.28 , s o differen t fro m th e initia l statement o f the sam e theme .
In th e glorious , warml y singing passag e of mm. 3 0-36, car e mus t b e take n t o
bring ou t (o r at least no t underplay ) the highl y unusua l Alt's i n m.3 2 an d m.33 ,
and t o no t ignore th e remarkabl e d i s s o n a n c e i n m.3 3 (fourt h

beat).10
Similarly, th e tension-producin g harmoni c suspension s i n th e woodwind s i n

m.34 mus t b e wel l sustained—sun g out , a s i t were—t o assur e th e ful l effec t
intended b y Brahms . And on e othe r performanc e proble m i n thi s passag e mus t
be noted , namel y the crescendoin g 'too-much-too-early ' syndrome . To crescend o
prematurely take s awa y fro m th e glowing , quietl y ecstati c beaut y o f th e begin -
ning o f the secon d subjec t (mm.30-31). Man y conductor s stok e th e crescend o
fires immediately (Masur , Janowski , Szell, Mehta , Toscanini , fo r example , and ,
worst o f all , Furtwängler , wh o reache s a ful l ff b y m.32) . I t i s eve n wors e t o
reach a climactic pea k at the beginnin g of m.34, then diminuend o a s the violins '
10. I hav e fo r man y year s theorize d tha t Stravinsky , wit h hi s remarkabl e harmoni c ear , i n hi s neo -
classic work s learne d t o tak e chords , suc h a s th e on e jus t displaye d here , whic h h e hear d an d
discovered lik e s o man y 'foun d objects ' strew n al l throug h th e grea t classica l an d Romanti c litera -
ture, an d use d the m withou t resolvin g the m harmonically—a s Brahm s certainl y still ha d t o do .
line dips down registrally, only to come up agai n a t the en d o f m.35—an inadver-
tent 'misinterpretation ' whic h unfortunatel y happens fa r too often . Eve n a mod -
est knowledge o f and sensitivit y to acousti c matter s an d relativ e registra l projec-
tion o f instruments ough t t o alert interpreter s t o the realit y that, fo r example, o n
a violin, the note s o n th e E strin g project more readil y than note s o n th e thicke r
G string . Thus , i n th e passag e i n questio n (mm . 34-3 5) th e firs t fe w note s i n
m.34 project well and brilliantly , but a s the lin e descend s i n th e secon d par t of
the measure , it s projectio n als o lessens , whil e a t th e en d o f m.35 , a s th e lin e
skips bac k u p int o th e hig h register , the projectio n increase s again dramatically.
The resul t in notationa l term s i s , certainly not

what Brahm s intended. Thi s dynami c roller-coaste r effect i s easily avoided if the
initial crescendo , startin g i n m.31 , i s held t o a modes t increase , arrivin g at n o
more tha n mf i n m.3 4 an d the n makin g sure tha t a furthe r crescend o i s main-
tained. Brahms' s phrasin g and bowin g in mm. 34-3 5 lend themselve s excellentl y
to suc h a gradua l augmentation o f the dynamic . I t i s sheer lazines s and inatten -
tion tha t allow s this passag e t o b e 'misinterpreted ' i n th e manne r described . O n
recordings, thos e conductor s wh o solve d thi s proble m wel l ar e Maazel , Suitner ,
Haitink, Reiner , and , abov e all , Skrowaczewski , whos e beautifu l pacing , dy -
namic control , an d war m singin g sonoritie s in thi s passag e contribute t o making
his recordin g o f the Fourt h Symphon y on e o f the fines t ever .
In th e soulfu l secon d subjec t 'cello episode' of mm.41-49 care mus t b e take n
that (1 ) th e violas , whil e cedin g priorit y t o th e cellos , mus t nonetheles s b e
clearly audibl e a s the 'bas s line ' throughout ; an d (2 ) that th e secon d violin s i n
m.42 sustai n their fina l note s well—ther e i s no diminuendo ! —so a s to rende r i n
its full darin g the extraordinar y clash o f pitches wit h th e viola s and bassoon s o n
the las t eighth—actuall y a cluster . We should not e that a s soulful

and poignan t a s this cello melod y is , it i s derived fro m it s opposite, a somewha t
rhetorical, stubbornl y rhythmi c passag e tha t enter s th e fra y i n m.3 6 (compar e
the tw o in Exx.l9 a an d b). 11
Ex. 19 a Ex . 19 b
One o f m y special interpretiv e bêtes noires is the manne r i n whic h mm . 57-

59 are usuall y performed, namel y a s if Brahms had written :
11. A t th e en do f thi s episod e (m.51) ,I wis h tha t Brahm s ha d writte n

as h e ha d don e i n th e thre e directl y previou s presentations of
this motiv e (clarinet an d first violins, m.50 ; bassoon, m.51) . I t would have mad e a more logica l and
smoother over-al l line.
alternating Vln. + Fl. alternatin g Va. , Vin.

that is , shortening eac h secon d not e i n the descendin g chai n o f note pairs . Apart
from th e fac t tha t Brahm s wa s quite capabl e o f putting staccat o dot s ove r note s
that h e wante d playe d short—hi s score s ar e ful l o f such examples , bu t her e i n
mm. 5 7-59 ther e ar e n o shortenin g dot s —it i s silly an d mindles s to perfor m th e
beginning o f the passag e as I have described an d the n hav e the violas , who hav e
the ful l continuou s patter n startin g i n th e middl e o f m.59 , pla y i n a sustaine d
manner, a s invariabl y happens, absen t an y conductoria l suggestio n t o th e con -
trary. I t ma y hel p thos e wh o adher e to—o r inadvertentl y permit—thi s typ e o f
disjunct phrasin g t o thin k o f Brahms composin g an d playin g the passag e a t th e
piano, a s wa s his wont . I t i s highl y unlikel y tha t Brahm s woul d hav e playe d i t
in suc h a disjointe d fashion. I n an y case , i f a conducto r feel s som e compellin g
need t o interpre t mm.57-5 9 i n tha t erroneou s manner , the n tha t conducto r
should als o extrac t a simila r interpretatio n fro m th e viola s an d al l th e othe r
strings i n mm.59-63 , an d beyon d tha t i n th e ensuin g win d accompaniment s
(mm.64-71). O r i s that to o logical?
I pas s quickl y on t o th e recapitulatio n o f th e secon d subjec t i n mm . 88-97.
This tim e th e melod y i s in th e firs t violins . Again ther e i s the 'cluster ' clas h i n
the secon d ba r (m.89) , B-A-GI , wit h th e Gtt , however , no w i n a lowe r non -
adjacent octave . Bu t i n Brahms' s re-castin g o f thi s alread y harmonicall y an d
contrapuntally rich second theme , h e dispense s with the earlie r descant garlands
in th e violins , raises the dynami c level fro m p dolce t o poco fespr., an d enriche s
the textur e b y expandin g th e numbe r o f voice s i n th e accompanimen t fro m
three t o seven , a t time s eve n eight . Thi s especiall y copiou s an d dens e musica l
weave i s made al l th e mor e remarkabl e b y Brahms' s wholl y original us e o f low
divided cellos , wit h th e secon d cello s addin g a particularly 'dark' colorin g t o th e
entire passage . Unfortunatel y thi s typicall y Brahmsia n soun d i s suppresse d o r
ignored i n recordin g afte r recording ; onl y a handfu l o f conductor s (Haitink ,
Skrowaczewski, Maa/el, Szell , Reiner , Barbirolli) sees the specia l dar k beauty of
this unusua l instrumentation .
I wil l assum e tha t conductor s an d performer s know b y no w tha t th e specia l
magic o f th e woodsy , impressionisti c passag e nea r th e en d o f th e movemen t
(mm. 106-10) depend s cruciall y o n everyon e involve d playin g a rea l pp p — noi
just 'mezz o softly. ' Th e rustlin g strin g tremolo s an d softl y throbbin g timpan i
thirty-seconds combine d wit h veile d horn s an d bassoon s provid e a gossame r
sonic carpe t fo r the delicat e p p clarine t an d obo e solos . I f the diminuend o an d
smorzando i n m.10 9 ar e observed , presumabl y causin g th e phras e t o en d i n
pppp i n m.110 , then th e ful l p o f the recurrin g clarinet them e appear s to bloo m
forth wit h th e intende d dynami c an d textura l contrast . Th e poin t i s tha t th e
clarinet theme shoul d not hav e to be played more tha n p, les t it lose its nostalgic
'sad farewell ' mood . I t also should no t los e it s feeling o f momentary reanimation
after th e near-stillnes s of the previou s pastoral passage ; but tha t canno t happe n
if th e latte r i s not playe d a t tha t heart-stoppingl y sof t level . Th e fe w conductor s

who realize d thi s passag e (mm . 106-12) beautifull y o n recording s ar e Chailly ,
DeSabata, Skrowaczewski , and, abov e all , Carlo s Kleiber .
After th e pensiv e resignatio n o f th e clarine t phrase , Brahms' s nex t mov e
comes as a total surprise , if not actua l shock . Th e ver y opening of the movemen t
is recapitulated , bu t no w unequivocall y i n E majo r an d harmonicall y tremen -
dously enriched . Indeed , th e particula r harmonizatio n i s ver y specia l i n
Brahms's canon . I know of nothing lik e i t in th e res t of Brahms's oeuvre; in fact ,
I canno t quit e explai n th e unmistakabl e Spanis h Andalusia n flavo r o f this cod a
(m.113). Th e reade r ma y wel l ask : "Spanish ? Wha t Spanish? " Compare , then ,
Brahms's
and t o a simila r quintessentiall y Spanis h Andalusia n
theme, fro m th e "Córdoba " movemen t o f DeFalla' s Nights i n th e Gardens o f
Spain t o cit e jus t on e strikingl y
similar example . (Ther e ar e hundred s i f not thousand s o f other example s i n th e

Spanish orchestr a o r guitar literatur e wit h th e sam e harmoni c progression. ) Per -
haps i t is a mere coincidence , resulting fro m combinin g a phrygian melod y with
an E majo r harmonization , th e standar d ke y fo r flamenc o guita r music . Bu t i f
it i s coincidence, i t i s certainl y a highl y unusua l one , an d on e t o b e especiall y
savored i n performances .
What make s thi s cod a passag e eve n mor e strikin g i s th e galvanic , puissan t
clash o f th e cellos ' E agains t th e horns ' F o n th e thir d bea t
of m.113 an d m.114 . And i f one ma y wonder whethe r th e movement' s openin g

is i n E o r i n C , Brahm s tell s u s i n th e movement' s conclusio n i t coul d hav e
been i n either . Hi s sudde n mov e t o C majo r i n th e middl e o f m.114 , coordi -
nated wit h th e entranc e o f th e brigh t soundin g high-registe r 'two-foo t stop '
flutes, make s a dramati c harmoni c shift . Brahms , o f course, resolve s back t o th e
tonic, althoug h no t withou t lettin g a bassoo n an d viol a F* i ru b agains t a sus -
taining E i n m.116 : Brahms' s fina l comment , a s i t were , o n th e movement' s
ongoing fascinatio n wit h th e juxtapositio n o f E an d F , bot h melodicall y an d
harmonically.
I wil l limi t m y observation s regarding the thir d movemen t t o a fe w of the mos t

grievous misrepresentation s o f Brahms's score . I n thi s movemen t w e encounte r
once agai n wha t many consider t o be Brahms' s 'shiftin g o f the beat ' or his 'met-
ric ambiguity. ' Indeed , muc h o f thi s movemen t sound s rhythmicall y off-kilter ,
but tha t i s mostly because o f the wa y it is usually performed —in m y view erron-
eously. Th e problem s begi n almos t immediately : i f one di d no t kno w tha t th e
movement wa s in a lively 2/4 throughout an d hear d th e averag e tradition-bound
performance o f th e firs t ninetee n bars , fro m m. 5 o n on e woul d assum e th e
music t o hav e bee n compose d i n a metri c patter n o f on e 3/4 , tw o 4/ 4 bars ,
seven 2/ 4 bars , an d on e fina l 3/ 4 ba r (se e Ex.20) . Clearl y thi s i s no t wha t
Brahms wrote or intended (se e Plate IX) , and i t puzzles me mightil y why almost
all conductor s conside r th e renditio n (a s i n Ex.20 ) o f Brahms' s scor e i n thi s
Ex. 2 0
manner appropriat e or stylisticall y authentic. I have severa l times state d m y rea-

sons wh y suc h a n 'interpretation ' canno t b e i n th e spiri t an d intention s o f
Brahms. And, indeed , i f conductor an d player s merely keep Brahms' s 2/4 mete r
continually i n mind , feelin g th e weigh t o f th e downbeat s (no t necessaril y
accenting them), Brahms' s cross-accents (a s in mm . 10-16) turn ou t to be power-
ful syncopations . Th e effect , onc e heard , i s infinitel y mor e excitin g an d
more original . What I find particularly annoying is the universal , senseless habi t
of choppin g of f th e held-ove r note s i n mm . 11,13,15, an d 17 , a s i f Brahm s
had writte n . Again, ha d h e wante d suc h
an effec t h e certainl y coul d an d woul d hav e writte n a s much , a s indee d h e
does i n th e timpan i par t i n m.l l an d m.13 , fo r example . Whe n thes e tied -
over quarter-note s ar e sustaine d int o th e succeedin g eighth-not e triplets , a t th e
same tim e feelin g th e weigh t o f th e downbea t pulse , th e effec t i s electrifying.
I kno w o f n o performanc e o r recordin g tha t attempt s t o preserv e th e integrit y
of th e basi c 2/ 4 pulse , tha t is , attempt s t o d o justic e bot h t o th e underlyin g
meter an d th e shifte d cross-accents . Thi s the n i s anothe r passag e i n whic h
Brahms's intention s hav e bee n continuall y and foreve r subverte d an d misrepre -
sented.
How wonderfully Brahm s immediately re-use s his expositional thematic mate -
rial is seen i n mm. 19-31 in several instances . The four-not e lea d line in mm.6-
8 o f piccolo, oboe , firs t violin s i s re-interpreted lyrically i n mm . 19—23, bu t wit h
the harmonizatio n of mm.8—10 . Th e furtiv e eighth-not e figure s i n th e string s i n
m.23 (Ex.21 ) ar e obviousl y derived from th e firs t thre e note s o f the movement ,
Plate I X Brahm s Fourt h Symphony , openin g o f the thir d movemen t
while th e sinuou s violi n figures in mm.21-2 3 an d mm.27-3 1 hav e alread y ap-

peared i n mm.8-10 . And finally the pseudo-recapitulatio n i n mm.35-3 8 i s sim-
Ex. 2 1
ply mm . 1-4 turne d upsid e down : wha t wa s i n th e violin s i s no w i n th e bas s

instruments, wha t wa s in th e basse s is now i n th e violins.
The brilliant , hurtlin g E majo r passag e i n mm . 133-38 work s best whe n th e
two competin g an d orchestrationally/registrall y separate d motivi c fragment s
and ar e reconnected , splice d togethe r

again, a s it were , by the players . Fascinatingly , there ar e tw o way s o f doing this ;
both work , but one—th e first cited —is probabl y preferable over the other . Look -
ing a t Ex . 22 , a reduce d transcriptio n o f the passage , we ca n se e tha t tw o lines
Ex. 2 2
are constructe d o f th e sam e material , th e 'bass ' lin e representin g th e origina l

formation (a s in m.23) , th e 'treble ' lin e representin g it s converse. Becaus e th e
phrase jumps , so to speak, across sections o f the orchestra , th e individua l motivic
components nee d t o be reunited . Bu t ho w this i s to b e accomplishe d i s impossi-
ble fo r the player s to glea n fro m merel y thei r printe d parts . A conductor ha s t o
sort i t ou t fo r th e orchestr a i n rehearsal , an d onc e hear d b y th e musicians , th e
passage play s in a mor e coherent , cohesiv e way.
Because o f the particula r interrelationship of the tw o motivic fragments , there
are, a s mentioned , tw o way s o f makin g th e desire d connections . Th e on e i s to
make th e first violins and woodwind s aurally aware of their interconnectio n (th e
treble lin e i n Ex.22) , and , a s well , th e othe r string s o f their s (lowe r lin e i n
Ex.22). Th e othe r way , which I hav e trie d o n occasion—an d whic h als o work s
12. Thes e fragment s ar c derived , o f course , fro m (m.22 ) an d

further elaborate d (eve n fugally ) i n th e firs t part of th e developmen t sectio n (mm.117-32) .
very wel l —is, o n th e on e hand , t o interconnec t aurall y al l th e sixteenth-not e
fragments, an do n
the othe r hand , th e dotted - eighth - sixteent h material ,
. W e shoul d not e that,i n an y case ,
the tw o fragments are furthe r cross-relate d b y virtue o f the fac t tha t the y operat e
in octav e unisons : first and las t note s o f the four-sixteent h fragment s coincidin g
octavally with th e othe r fragment .
As I say, the firs t cite d approac h i s probably preferabl e since i t preserve s mor e
the themati c integrit y o f th e origina l phrase . Bu t eithe r approac h produce s a
cohesive, incisive , clearl y audibl e result , whic h i s preferable t o th e rathe r mind -
less helter-skelte r wa y i n whic h thi s passag e i s usually rattled off.
Speaking no w to a small detail , I a m puzzle d b y the notatio n dim. i n m.17 5
(see Plat e X) , fo r i f on e follows Brahms' s dynami c marking s strictl y an d i f th e
dynamic i n th e wind s i s still assumed t o be th e previou s pp , on e woul d hav e t o
either arriv e at a pp p i n m.17 7 (wit h the n a furthe r diminuend o i n m.179) , o r
interpret th e p p i n m.17 7 a s a suddenl y slightl y loude r dynamic . Bu t bot h o f
these proposition s see m illogica l an d overl y fussy. I suspec t tha t Brahm s simpl y
forgot t o indicat e a fres h dynami c fo r th e wind s i n m.174 : p , o r possibl y eve n
the strings ' mf, fro m which , o f course , a "dim." t o p p coul d easil y b e made . I
have take n tha t approac h (i.e . p i n m.174 ) i n m y ow n performance s o f th e
symphony, which i s what mos t orchestra s see m t o d o anyway , quite naturally.
What i s much mor e bothersome , however , i s that nin e conductor s ou t o f ten
completely ignor e o r otherwis e re-compos e Brahms' s musi c here , includin g th e
tempo indication(s) . Ther e i s onl y on e temp o modificatio n indicated : th e un -
usual bu t ver y explici t markin g poco meno presto ( a littl e les s fast) . Wha t tradi -
tionally happen s is that this poco meno presto is turned int o a n adagio Romanza.
Brahms's molto p sempre (se e Ex.23) , a ver y specia l marking , i s also completel y
Ex. 2 3
ignored, thir d an d firs t horn s usuall y interpreting thei r line s a s expansive 'solos, '
usually aroun d mf . Bu t thi s take s al l th e mystery , all th e patho s an d sentiment ,
out o f th e passage . Her e w e ar e suddenl y i n th e ke y o f Dl>—min d you , i n a C
major piec e —a ver y specia l momen t indee d i n th e over-al l scheme , an d i t i s
turned int o a ver y ordinary , maudli n chanson. Furthermore , whe n th e horn s
and bassoon s pla y to o lou d here , th e incomin g obo e (m.187) , marke d m f an d
Plate X Brahm s Fourth Symphony , mm.168-18 8 of the thir d movemen t
which i s therefor e mean t t o to p th e horn s dynamically , canno t possibl y

do so , an d Brahms' s carefull y calibrate d progressio n o f gradua l intensification
is completel y thwarted . B e i t note d i n passin g tha t thi s lovel y Di > hor n them e
is ingeniousl y a lyri c recastin g o f th e explosiv e cross-accen t musi c tha t form s
the secon d hal f o f th e movement' s expositor y statement , specificall y mm .
10-17.
But eve n befor e the horns ' entranc e i n m.18 1 there i s usually already trouble.
If conductor s wonde r abou t ho w t o ge t fro m th e basi c Allegro giocoso tempo t o
the poco meno presto, Brahm s havin g no t indicate d an y ritardand o o r caland o
anywhere, an d decid e therefor e t o mak e a ritar d betwee n m.17 7 an d m.181 ,
that i s one thing . (Ho w much ritar d is, of course, anothe r question—th e answer
to which shoul d be: Ver y little.') Bu t when conductors—an d mos t d o this (again
one o f thos e allegedl y Venerable ' traditions)—star t a hug e ritar d a s earl y a s
m.175, tha t i s quite anothe r matter , an d on e fo r whic h I ca n fin d n o justifica -
tion. I have onl y been abl e t o fin d tw o recordings that mor e o r less navigate the
interpretive reef s o f thi s interlud e sectio n well : Barbirolli' s an d Maazel's , al -
though th e latte r ritard s to o muc h i n m.17 5 (bu t at leas t observe s Brahms' s
molto p afte r that) .
But th e bes t solutio n i n m y vie w i s t o follo w Brahms' s scor e precisel y (see
Plate X) , namely , no t t o mak e an y ritard , eithe r a t m.17 5 o r a t m.177 . Onc e
again, Brahm s ha s alread y slowed dow n th e momentu m o f the music , comin g
from eighth-note s t o tie d half-note s (i n effec t whole notes) i n mm . 177-80.
Clearly, n o furthe r ritardatio n of the temp o i s needed. An d i f one postulate s tha t
the basi c allegro giocoso tempo (take n by most conductors ) i s around J = 120 -
32, the n droppin g to, say, j = 90-10 4 a t the poco meno presto is a very reason-
able assumption . I t retain s a nic e flo w i n th e music , i n keepin g wit h th e ide a
that thi s movemen t is , afte r all , a kin d o f livel y Scherzo , an d i s thu s muc h
preferable t o the portentou s 'adagio Romanza' tha t i s most o f the tim e mad e ou t
of thi s lovely , innocen t transitiona l interlude—transitiona l t o th e movement' s
recapitulation.
Before w e leav e thi s section , i t i s well wort h pointin g ou t tha t thi s Scherzo ,
constructed rigorousl y i n a combinatio n Rondo-and-Sonat a for m (se e Fig. 1) is
one o f Brahms's terses t symphoni c movements , an d tha t therefor e an y exagger -
ated distending , bloatin g o f th e form—anywhere—i s detrimental . Th e forma l
plan exist s o n tw o interlockin g level s simultaneously : one, a Rond o form , th e
other a Sonat a form . Th e movemen t thu s partake s of the mos t salien t features
of both forms .
In th e recapitulatio n o f th e secon d subject' s extensio n (mm.258—81 ) — in ef -
fect a brie f development sectio n withi n on e o f the Rond o episodes—ther e arise
some seriou s performance problems. Th e gentl y liltin g grazios o second subjec t
has her e bee n transforme d into a powerfully rhythmi c affirmation. Bu t there ar e
problems, mostl y o f balance an d o f sortin g ou t th e intricatel y interrelated the-
matic/motivic materials . The passag e ca n onl y b e playe d reall y correctly, tha t
is, a s originall y conceive d b y Brahms , i f ever y musicia n —and, o f course , th e
conductor—understands ho w hi s o r he r particula r par t fit s int o th e over-al l
Fig. 1
Sonata Rondo
A m m 1-18
B m m 19-34
Exposition A m m 35-51
C m m 52-88 (als o Sonat a secon d subject )
• A m m 89-117
B m m 118-81
Development sectio n
. D m m 182-98 (Interlude )
A m m 199-207
Recapitulation [ B m m 208-23
,
A m m 224-46
C m m 247-82 (Sonat a secon d subject recapitulated )
Coda mm 283-357
scheme of things. Again, as so often i n Brahms , i t is deceptively easy and simpl e

looking, whe n i n actualit y it i s astonishingly complex.
Let u s begi n wit h th e primar y voice : th e thir d horn , i n a staccat o varian t
of th e erstwhil e grazioso secon d subject . I t i s embellishe d i n near-uniso n wit h
interpolated eighth-not e triplet s i n th e violin s (se e Ex . 24) . Bu t thi s violi n figu -
ration i s also derive d i n par t fro m th e fanfare-lik e cross-accente d figure s i n th e
exposition (mm.10-17) . I n addition , th e uppe r strings ' triplets are anticipate d i n
each measur e b y simila r triplet s i n th e cello s an d basses—an d timpani . An d
Ex. 2 4
etc.
therein lie s th e rub . Th e timpani , unabl e t o doubl e al l o f the basses ' pitche s —
it i s relegated t o jus t thre e pitche s —i s lef t t o merel y hamme r
out repeate d notes , an d fo r si x measure s o f thi s 18-ba r segmen t (a s th e musi c
modulates t o key s lik e D an d E major ) i s forced t o la y out altogether . Th e firs t
problem the n i s to balanc e timpan i wit h cello s an d basse s i n suc h a wa y tha t
(a) th e latter' s importan t note s ar e no t obliterate d b y the timpani ; an d (b ) that
when th e timpan i stop s playin g (mm.266-71) , i t i s not s o blatantly noticeable .
Unfortunately, a s mos t recording s wil l attest , suc h sensibilit y is i n rar e supply ;
this passag e i s regularl y ruined b y over-playe d o r over-recorde d timpani . (Th e
timpanist i n Fischer-Dieskau' s Czec h Philharmoni c completel y mar s thi s pas -
sage—and mos t o f th e recording—wit h hi s unmusical , hard , loud , constantl y
over-accented playing. ) Thi s i n tur n make s whatever pitch relationship s Brahms
has compose d int o hi s triplet s (se e Ex . 25 ) inaudibl e an d pointless . Finally,
BRAHMS: FOURT H SYMPHONY 411
etc.
the regula r reiterate d quarter-note s hav e a s thei r runnin g partner , a s i t were ,

the eighth-not e triplets . They , too , mus t b e hear d a s a continuou s chai n
as shown i n Ex.2 5 by the diagonall y

connecting lines .
The cod a (m.282 ) mus t begi n wit h a hushed , controlled , suppresse d excite -
ment. Dozen s o f brie f figures , al l hear d previousl y i n th e movement , ar e scat -
tered ove r a G peda l point , dartin g out o f the subdue d textur e like so many tiny
snake tongues . I t i s as i f the musi c i s slowly gathering forc e again afte r it s previ-
ous exertions—ther e i s n o crescend o fo r a t least fourtee n measures ! —and
Brahms i s gathering al l th e littl e scrap s o f motivi c materia l togethe r fo r a fina l
consummation i n th e elaboratio n o f the coda . Th e sudde n interruptiv e f i n th e
horns i n m.29 4 i s usuall y wel l managed , bu t th e answe r i n lo w clarinet s an d
bassoons (se e Ex . 26) , bot h a n inversio n and a retrograd e o f the horns , i s rarely
heard, particularl y if timpani an d string s are to o lou d here .
Ex. 2 6
In m.31 7 a mos t astonishin g thin g happens , whic h I have , however , neve r

heard consciousl y brought t o the for e b y any other conductor : th e lea d note s i n
mm.317-25, A-B-C-D-Et, are identica l to the first five lead note s o f the Passaca -
glia them e a t th e beginnin g o f th e las t movement , transposed . On e migh t b e
forgiven fo r no t hearin g o r seein g th e relationshi p for , in th e Scherzo , th e me -
lodic lin e skip s back an d fort h acros s tw o octave s (Ex.27) . Bu t th e note s (pitc h
classes) ar e identica l b y transposition . Th e questio n the n arises : whic h cam e
first, the Scherz o o r the Final e theme ? Th e questio n i s complicated b y the fac t
Ex. 2 7
that w e kno w tha t Brahm s dre w hi s Passacagli a them e i n par t fro m a Bac h
chorale (fro m Cantat a No . 150). So , wa s that them e alread y i n hi s min d whil e
writing the Scherzo , o r wa s it chance tha t thes e note s cam e t o hi m durin g th e
writing o f the Scherz o coda ? O r wa s it the coincidenc e o f Brahms writing thes e
notes an d then , by chance, comin g upo n the Bac h chorale , muc h the sam e way
that Alba n Ber g lat e i n th e writin g of hi s Violi n Concert o cam e upo n a Bac h
chorale whos e firs t fou r note s happene d t o b e identica l t o th e las t four note s o f
the Concerto' s tone row ? Or di d Brahm s earl y on kno w tha t h e woul d b e usin g
the Passacagli a them e an d simpl y foun d a wa y t o snea k i t int o th e Scherz o
movement? W e wil l probabl y neve r know . Bu t i n an y case , i t i s wel l wort h
alerting the orchestr a t o this wonderful Brahmsia n touc h and t o bring the them e
out i n th e relevan t instruments .
What I hav e suggeste d fo r th e earlie r cross-accente d tied-ove r quarter-note s
should obviousl y apply a s well t o mm.329-3 1 and , abov e all , mm.337-46 .
One fina l suggestio n fo r th e Scherz o movement : th e quic k ru n i n m.35 2
rather under-orchestrate d (i n onl y th e firs t violin s

against th e whol e orchestra ) an d therefor e usuall y inaudible , ca n b e helpe d b y
having hal f o r eve n a majorit y o f th e sectio n pla y th e note s separate-bow . Th e
extra articulatio n make s th e passag e project muc h better .
The las t movemen t o f Brahms's Fourt h Symphony , althoug h th e cleares t o f th e

four movement s i n it s over-al l for m an d continuity—thirt y variation s o n a n
eight-bar Passacagli a theme plu s a coda —nonetheless contains innumerabl e per -
formance problems , man y o f whic h ar e ver y seriou s an d basic , an d hav e rarel y
if eve r been resolve d appropriately .
I believ e tha t basi c t o a n authenti c an d informe d performanc e o f the move -
ment are th e tw o following premises: on e i s the audibl e presenc e o f the Passaca -
glia them e a t al l times , not , o f course , necessaril y at th e expens e o f othe r pri -
mary materials , bu t stil l a continuousl y fel t presence ; th e othe r i s th e
preservation o f the integrit y o f the 3/ 4 mete r an d it s pulse. Unfortunatel y thes e
are precisel y th e tw o element s o f Brahms' s i n som e way s perhap s fines t
symphonic achievemen t tha t ar e the mos t neglected , th e mos t ignore d o r misun -
derstood. I t baffle s m e wh y thes e s o ver y elementar y aspect s o f th e Fourth' s
Finale ar e s o thoroughl y disregarded . On e ca n hea r performanc e afte r perfor -
mance, recordin g afte r recording , i n whic h nar y a shre d o f th e Passacagli a
theme i s heard , excep t perhap s i n th e mos t obviou s places ; o r i n whic h th e
innumerable rhythmi c an d metri c wonder s o f th e movemen t remai n unhear d
and unfelt .
I believ e tha t a full y comprehending , intellectuall y an d emotionall y represen -
tative performance , reflectin g th e fullnes s o f Brahms' s genius , i s no t possibl e
without ever y player i n th e orchestr a knowin g the Passacagli a them e an d keep -
ing i t i n min d throughou t th e performance , no t onl y t o b e immediatel y aware
of i t when i t appears i n thei r ow n parts , but , perhap s eve n mor e importantly , to
know whe n i t i s i n someone else's part an d t o respec t that . I' m afrai d tha t suc h
an approac h i s a n idea l whic h wil l rarel y be attained , especiall y i n th e majo r
orchestras who mostl y thin k they know th e Brahm s symphonie s thoroughl y an d
feel the y hav e reall y nothin g ne w t o lear n abou t them . On e i s mor e likel y to
have succes s with the allegedl y 'lesser' o r 'less famous ' orchestras , who ofte n ar e
still read y an d eage r t o lear n somethin g abou t th e musi c the y ar e performing .
In any case, playing the Fourt h Symphony' s Final e withou t knowin g the Passaca-
glia them e an d withou t bein g constantl y awar e o f i t i n al l it s myria d incarna -
tions, i s lik e tryin g t o driv e a ca r withou t knowin g wher e th e steerin g whee l i s
and ho w to us e it .
Since th e Passacagli a them e (Ex . 28 ) i s at time s partiall y hidden o r disguised
or se t i n unexpecte d places—a s wel l a s being , o f course , a t othe r time s clearl y
prominent—it wil l b e bes t t o plo t it s cours e a s i t wend s it s wa y throug h th e
Ex. 2 8
movement. I n th e firs t eigh t bar s th e them e i s obviousl y i n th e lea d voice s

(flutes, firs t oboe , firs t trombone) , bu t i n th e firs t variatio n (mm.9-16 ) i t i s
tucked awa y in th e firs t violins ' pizzicato , whic h i s easily covered an d rendere d
inaudible b y overly boisterous horn s and timpani . I n th e nex t variation it i s even
more 'hidden, ' give n a n octav e lowe r t o pizzicat o viola s an d firs t cello s (an d
temporarily tw o horns). Th e proble m her e i s that mos t conductor s concentrat e
entirely o n th e woodwin d lines , leavin g th e Passacagli a them e t o fen d fo r it -
self—with th e resul t tha t i t i s simply no t present . Th e reade r ca n confir m thi s
on dozen s o f recordings.
In variatio n 3 (mm.25-32 ) th e them e i s distribute d amon g a numbe r o f in -
struments. I n th e first four measure s it is to be foun d not onl y in th e first violins'
pizzicato chords , bu t als o i n firs t hor n an d trumpe t a s wel l a s th e sol o wood -
winds, whil e i n th e remainin g fou r measure s onl y i n th e violins , firs t oboe ,
second flute , and , fo r part o f the phrase , firs t clarine t an d trumpets . Note , too ,
that th e firs t fou r bar s of variation 3 are played , excep t fo r a few sustained notes ,
very staccato , wherea s th e woodwind s an d horn s i n th e secon d grou p o f fou r
bars ar e marke d marcato an d b y implication mor e sustained .
In variatio n 4 , mos t maestr i conduc t th e firs t violins—a s i f they neede d th e
conductor's hel p an d woul d otherwis e no t b e heard—i n th e meantim e neglect -
ing the Passacagli a theme , which i n its powerful octave leap s should b e energeti -
cally intone d b y th e cellos , basses , an d bassoons . Th e basse s retai n th e them e
in th e nex t variatio n i n heav y f f pizzicatos . I hav e foun d tha t bas s section s ar e
so thrille d t o fin d ou t tha t the y hav e th e principa l voic e an d tha t a conducto r
will occasionall y pay som e attentio n t o them , neglecte d 'underdogs ' tha t the y
are, tha t the y respon d enthusiasticall y wit h might y pizzicato strokes , propellin g
the entir e accompanying structure forward.
The basses ' leadin g rol e continue s i n variatio n 6 a s the y no w sin g ou t th e
theme i n a dee p espressivo (mm.49-57) . I n th e nex t variatio n they , along with
second bassoo n an d contrabassoon , retai n onl y th e slightes t hol d o n th e them e

(Ex. 29 , circle d notes), 13 bu t i n variatio n 8 an d 9 the y com e bac k ful l
force (Ex . 30 ) with , remarkably , som e fo r tha t tim e ver y unusua l an d darin g
double stops , marke d sf . The basse s finall y relinquis h th e Passacagli a them e i n
Ex. 3 0
variation 10 , handing i t ove r t o a serie s of divers e instruments , virtuall y hidden

in th e chorale-lik e chorda l progressio n (Ex.31) , bu t nevertheles s t o b e brough t
out o r at least hinte d a t i n performance .
Ex. 3 1
Now cello s an d viola s divide th e them e u p amon g themselve s (Ex . 32) , at least
for fiv e measures . Fro m ther e o n vi a a cycl e o f fifths, the cello s han d th e phras e
Ex. 3 2 _
over t o th e sol o flut e an d a chang e fro m 3/ 4 to 3/2 . Se t ove r a quietl y pulsatin g

tonic peda l point , th e flut e variation , expanded t o twice the lengt h o f the earlie r
variations b y wa y of the 3/ 2 meter , i s one o f the mos t masterfu l (an d memora -
13. W e should , however , tak e not e i n passin g o f th e strikin g dissonances , o f virtuall y Stravinskia n
modernity, tha t Brahm s ha s squirreled awa y in severa l places, includin g th e followin g gems i n varia -
tion 7 . Th e second-bea t sixteenth s i n mm . 58, 59 , an d 6 0 compris e th e followin g thre e chords ,
respectively: Tr y these o n th e pian o t o full y appreciat e thei r shoc k value.
Since thes e startlin g discordances , i n sixteenth-not e duration s fli t b y i n abou t a n eight h o f a

second, nobod y take s notic e o f them—not conductors , no t musicians , no t audiences . The y remai n
one o f Brahms's littl e hidden treasures , tiny precious details that he lavishe d on s o many of his works.
ble) themati c elaboration s i n th e entir e symphoni c literature . I t is , alon g wit h

the flut e sol o i n Ravel' s Daphnis e t Chloé, th e mos t notabl e celebratio n o f
the flut e a s a lyri c instrumen t i n th e orchestra l repertory . I t i s als o a momen t
of repose , o f calm , no t th e 'dramati c climactic ' declamatio n man y flutist s an d
conductors lik e to mak e o f it . I n tha t connection , I believe tha t th e pea k o f th e
solo i s in m.10 1 (th e theme' s fift h measure ) an d tha t Brahm s forgo t t o indicat e
dim. i n m.10 2 (a s he did , however , in th e accompanyin g instruments ) an d that ,
therefore, th e sol o mus t graduall y reced e dynamicall y toward s it s fina l p ca -
dence, th e dynamic s i n th e fina l tw o measure s bein g merel y within p phras e
nuances.
Other sof t woodwind s no w tak e ove r i n variatio n 13 , the musi c stil l floatin g
over a n E peda l poin t (wit h slyl y insinuatin g 'lower-neighbor ' Dtt's) , an d th e
Passacaglia theme' s note s subtl y disguise d i n th e melodi c an d harmoni c fabric .
In th e meantime , fro m th e plaintiv e flut e solo , stil l i n E minor , th e musi c ha s
suddenly turned t o the majo r an d a lighter , airie r mood .
The sarabande-lik e nex t tw o variation s retur n th e Passacagli a them e t o it s
rightful bas s position—it is heard i n th e secon d bassoon . Trombones, tacet since
the movement' s firs t fou r them e statements , no w return t o intone, lik e a congre-
gation i n prayer , a solem n chorale . Th e quie t eleganc e o f these tw o variations,
clearly a kin d o f sublime , statel y danc e music , i s unfortunatel y almos t always
marred b y the lac k of tempo contro l o f most conductors . Th e reade r will find it
hard t o believe , bu t o n thirt y ou t o f th e forty-od d recording s th e tw o silen t
beats i n mm . 114,116,122, an d 12 4 (se e Ex.33 ) ar e completel y disregarded .
It i s shockin g t o fin d famou s maestr i lik e Dohnanyi , Chailly , DeSabata ,
Ex. 3 3
Carlos Kleiber , Haitink , Suitner , Ma x Fiedler , an d Janowsk i bring th e instru -

ments i n m.11 5 (o r 123 ) a whol e o r a hal f a bea t (o r wors e yet , fou r fifth s o f a
beat) early , in othe r word s already in th e previou s measure. A s I have mentione d
before, i f an orchestra l musicia n decide d t o come i n on e bea t early , there woul d
be hel l t o pay . But whe n conductor s d o i t willy-nilly , unconsciously , incompre -
hendingly, nothin g i s said—a t leas t no t i n public . (Unfortunatel y such misde -
meanors ar e neve r eve n notice d b y critics , managers , boar d members , o r othe r
taste- an d decision-makers , wh o collectivel y determine wh o ou r orchestras ' nex t
conductors wil l be. )
In variatio n 16 , a clos e relativ e o f the origina l them e statement , th e Passaca -
glia them e i s clearl y i n th e lea d voices , bu t i n th e nex t variationa l phas e
(mm.137—44) i t i s heard, half-hidden , i n sof t sixteent h sextuple t tremolo s i n th e
cellos. Fo r variations 18 through 2 1 the them e i s transformed —and therefor e for
most listener s disguised —into melodicall y altered variants, for example, in varia -
tion 1 8 o r i n varia -
(the origina l primary pitches indicate d wit h x)

ation 21 , chromaticall y altered as:
(simplified, condensed )
In variatio n 2 2 (mm . 177-84) th e them e i s sacrificed , retainin g onl y it s har -
monic implications . W e fin d instea d i n th e first fou r bars , over a chatty spiccat o
E peda l point , a not e patter n i n fallin g third s (Ex . 34 ) whic h i n essenc e i s a
reminiscence o f the first movement's mai n subject .
Ex. 3 4
Variation 2 3 put s th e them e squarel y in th e first horn an d first violins, while

in th e nex t tw o variation s i t appear s i n dissecte d márcate triplet s i n th e hig h
register lea d instrument s (violins , flutes) or first horn (i n variatio n 25).
In variatio n 26 the musi c shift s t o C major , jus t as it had don e i n variatio n 3.
Along wit h th e ne w key , eac h variatio n no w goe s mor e an d mor e melodicall y
afield, leavin g i t mainl y t o th e harmonie s t o carr y the Passacagli a message . I n
variations 2 9 an d 3 0 the falling-third s patterns return , i n a hushed , furtiv e p i n
the former , in the latte r in stentorian canonic formations . Even her e th e Passaca-
glia them e i s ingeniously embedde d i n th e serie s o f thirds, show n encircle d i n
Ex. 35 . But thes e fallin g thirds , already anticipated eigh t bar s earlier in variation
Ex. 3 5
29, ar e agai n nothin g mor e tha n a transposed , rhythmi c re-workin g o f th e

pitches o f the symphony' s openin g mai n subject , transposed (se e pp.380-81).
At th e en d o f variation 30 , in th e poco rííczrd14 we hea r th e ol d ambivalenc e
14. Thi s poco rilará i s frequentl y exaggerate d b y conductor s (Skrowaczewski , Carlo s Kleiber ,
Fischer-Dieskau, fo r example ) int o a hug e molto ritard, i n m y vie w t o rathe r trivia l effect . I be -
lieve on e shoul d thin k o f thi s ritar d no t s o muc h a s a holdin g bac k o f th e temp o a s a n expan-
sion, a n enlargement, of th e bea t an d pulse , jus t befor e th e oncomin g drivin g Pi ù allegro.
between E an d C tha t w e hav e encountere d s o ofte n i n thi s symphony . Th e

ritard stems th e relentles s tid e o f the musi c onl y temporarily , boundin g fort h i n
the cod a (m.253 ) wit h renewed energ y (più allegro)— and a brand-ne w slan t o n
how t o furthe r exploi t th e Passacagli a theme . Afte r a powerful , clear , althoug h
re-harmonized an d melodicall y truncate d statemen t o f i t (mm.253-60 ) —in ef -
fect th e thirty-firs t variation—Brahm s take s th e las t fou r note s o f th e theme ,
three o f which h e ha d no t use d i n thi s las t variation , an d construct s a remark -
able contrapunta l design , b y which mean s h e als o modulate s th e musi c t o th e
remote ke y o f F major . A s Ex . 3 6 shows , th e complet e contrapunta l gri d i s of
considerable complexity , a n intricac y of design, which i s made al l the harde r t o
bring ou t i n performanc e becaus e a numbe r o f instrument s enunciat e differen t
segments o f th e motiv e (rathe r tha n complet e statement s o f it) , whil e other s
share i n onl y tw o o f th e fou r notes . Thu s i t i s imperative , onc e again , fo r th e
performing musician s t o kno w precisel y what par t o f the contrapunta l we b the y
are representin g and—jus t a s important—whe n the y ar e no t a par t o f it . Thi s
can b e achieve d i n extensive , detailed rehearsin g (i f there i s time) o r by marking
the part s i n som e elucidatin g way . Unfortunately , neithe r happen s normally ,
and orchestra s generall y jus t plo w throug h th e passage , energetically , bu t als o
mindlessly, wit h Brahms' s ingeniou s contrapunta l desig n lef t t o chance .
Ex. 3 6
Brahms begin s th e passag e wit h a E^, th e expecte d pitc h whic h ha d bee n

withheld i n th e previou s eight-ba r variation . Thi s give s hi m a B X^XQXF
motivic shape and , b y transposition upward , the succeedin g iteration s of the mo -
tive. Bu t th e choic e o f transposition i s hardly arbitrary—nothin g i n Brahm s ever
is—but rather i s linked to the canoni c respons e o f the first motivic fragment, a re-
sponse i n the bas s instruments beginnin g i n m.26 3 at a distance of two bars. Th e
pitch chose n b y Brahms for the entr y of this secon d voic e is C, i n othe r word s in
unison wit h it s canonic partne r at that point . Once this linkage is established, th e
whole passag e modulate s its way upward—crab-wise, i f you will—unti l i n twelve
bars it has fulfilled on e o f its major functions, namely, to modulate to some remot e
key, in this case F.
But Brahm s i s apparently no t satisfie d wit h th e resultan t deart h o f harmon y
in hi s canoni c construct . Rathe r tha n harmonizin g i t in som e intuitiv e way, he
invents anothe r voic e (see n i n th e thir d stav e i n Ex.3 6 above), a B-A-C-H-lik e
motive whic h also , crab-wise , wend s it s wa y upward . Considerin g th e multi -
layered structurin g involved here—tw o of the thre e line s multiplied int o forcefu l
three-octave unison s —Brahms's orchestration , wit h a limite d resourc e o f instru-
ments, ca n onl y be calle d masterful . And ye t bringin g i t to correc t acousti c lif e
doesn't necessaril y happen b y itself. One woul d lik e t o thin k tha t i f every musi-
cian woul d pla y hi s o r he r par t i n a well-balance d integrate d way , the passag e
would pla y itself , s o t o speak . Bu t thi s rarel y happens . Al l tha t ha s t o occu r i s
that on e playe r o r on e sectio n play s a littl e to o soft—o r a littl e to o loud—an d
the whol e contrapunta l hous e o f card s break s down . And , a s prove n b y th e
available recordings , it i s indeed a rar e performance tha t render s Brahms' s won -
drous polyphoni c achievemen t accurately .
If w e as k ourselves where befor e hav e w e see n th e note s i n th e declamator y
trombone them e pronouncemen t i n mm.273-76 , th e answe r i s i n th e third
movement i n tha t remarkabl e premonitio n o f th e Passacagli a them e I referre d
to earlie r (se e Ex.27 , p.411).
Finally, two more remarkable theme variants call for particular mention. Hav -
ing exhausted—presumably—virtuall y al l potentia l variant s o f th e Passacagli a
theme, Brahms nonetheless, o n the verg e o f the ultimat e dynami c climax of the
movement, a s if in triumph , find s on e mor e transmutatio n o f the theme . Bifur -
cated, th e on e par t th e transpositiona l inversio n o f th e othe r (se e Ex.37 ) an d
further harmonize d i n thirds , Brahm s i s apparentl y s o happ y wit h i t tha t h e
repeats i t immediatel y (of course, slightl y altered), thus als o completin g th e ex -

pected eight-ba r phrasing . Notic e tha t Brahm s manage s t o snea k i n th e firs t
three note s o f the them e (a s here reconstituted ) i n th e viol a an d trombon e i n

mm.291-93.
The fina l triumphan t statemen t o f the much-use d them e i s also th e firs t on e
that, instea d o f dippin g dow n th e octav e i n it s sevent h bar , stride s confidentl y
upward toward s the toni c (Ex . 38) . A simple idea , i n a way , but th e timin g an d
Ex. 3 8
placement o f it at the ver y en d o f the movement—meanin g amon g othe r thing s

that Brahm s wa s abl e t o resis t fo r a remarkabl y lon g tim e th e temptatio n t o
round ou t th e them e i n thi s ultimat e an d fulfille d form—ar e a mar k o f hi s
perfect craftsmanship , his discipline d creativity—i n short , hi s genius. 15
The length y exploratio n abov e o f the arduou s pat h traverse d by the Passaca -
glia them e was , unfortunately , necessar y give n tha t i n mos t performance s an d
recordings thi s seem s t o b e unexplore d territor y fo r conductor s an d orchestr a
musicians alike . While tha t theme' s cours e i s a factua l and objectifiabl e matter ,
and therefor e hardl y arguable , th e othe r majo r fourt h movemen t performance /
interpretation issu e I raise d earlie r i s perhap s mor e subjectiv e —more i n th e
realm o f pur e interpretation , exegesis , an d connotation . Nonetheless , fo r th e
reason I have given several time s previously , I firml y (thoug h modestly ) believe ,
if no t i n th e 'absolut e correctness' 16 of my theory of metric integrit y in Brahms ,
in it s possibl e rightful applicability . At th e ver y least , I believ e i t offer s anothe r
viable interpretationa l performanc e option . Certainl y th e result s o f such a real -
ization ar e startling—a s we shall see—especially to anyone wh o ha s never hear d
such a 'rightful ' interpretation . Th e premis e i s reall y a ver y simpl e one : t o d o
full justic e to Brahms' s extraordinary rhythmic inventiveness , specificall y fully t o
honor bot h th e basi c metri c desig n an d pulse , a s wel l a s th e actua l rhythmi c
configurations an d thei r particula r feeling. And le t m e emphasiz e tha t this ana -
lytical exercis e i s no t abou t mathematics , mechanics , abstractions , o r a mani a
for precision . O n th e contrary , it is about feeling , expression, about th e sensatio n
the musi c create s i n th e listener ; i t is , therefore , abou t th e actua l expressive ,
communicative conten t o f th e music , no t merel y it s artifact s o f construction .
But tha t fullnes s o f expressio n canno t b e achieve d withou t a complet e under -
standing—and complet e rendering—o f th e creative/intellectua l construction ,
the technique s o f composition, withou t whic h composer s coul d no t creat e thei r
great an d endurin g works.
The interpretationa l problem s I refe r t o begi n —in thei r subtles t form , t o b e
15. I t i s interesting t o not e i n th e autograp h scor e tha t a t som e poin t i n th e creatio n o f th e wor k
Brahms ha d considere d addin g th e markin g sost. t o th e risin g scalar them e i n m.29 7 an d the n a n
accel. fou r bar s late r (m.301) . Bu t evidentl y he soo n change d hi s min d an d crosse d out bot h mark -
ings—wisely so , I think.
16. Ther e i s no suc h thin g a s 'absolut e correctness ' i n music , jus t a s ther e i s no suc h thin g a s a —
or the— 'definitive performance, ' a s 1 have state d earlier .
sure—immediately i n mm.9-16 . Her e th e singl e quarter-not e interjection s i n

trombones an d string s shoul d b e playe d wit h tha t particula r feelin g tha t i s
unique t o a secon d bea t i n a 3/ 4 meter. 17 Th e differenc e betwee n tha t sugges -
tion an d th e wa y i t i s universall y played, namely , simpl y a s a lou d f stresse d
note, i s subtle bu t crucial . T o simpl y hav e eigh t heav y pizzicat o 'plunks ' i n thi s
phrase (th e same proble m occur s i n th e nex t eight-ba r variation , mm . 17-24, as
well) i s t o depriv e th e passag e o f it s tru e feelin g an d meaning . Th e problem s
intensify i n mm . 16-24. Her e Brahm s ha s superimpose d o n th e Passacagli a
theme melodi c woodwin d line s whic h i n term s o f phrasing and articulatio n star t
always o n th e secon d bea t o f a measure . Thi s 'construction ' ha s le d musician s
for ove r a century , I a m sure , t o pla y th e passag e a s i f Brahm s ha d writte n
instead o f wha t h e actuall y wrot e
etc. But wit h merel y th e slightes t
stress o n th e downbeats , th e slightes t sens e o f th e expressiv e primac y o f thos e

first beats, th e passag e no t onl y take s o n a whol e ne w feeling , bu t i n fac t doe s
full justic e t o Brahms' s belove d sens e o f rhythmi c compositenes s an d ambiva -
lence. Ther e i s anothe r wa y t o argu e th e point , namely , tha t i f th e passag e i s
played i n th e usua l off-kilte r manner , i.e . simply shifting th e ba r line s on e bea t
later, the n ther e occur s o f necessit y a t th e en d o f th e eight-ba r phras e a dis-
turbing metri c shif t (se e Ex. 3 9 fo r a hypothetica l notation) , whic h Brahm s
could certainl y not hav e wanted .
Ex. 3 9
We encounter another categor y o f Brahmsian rhythmi c ambivalenc e —and in -

genious inventivenes s — in mm.41—4 8 i n th e woodwinds , a passag e which, onc e
again, is hardly ever played correctly, that is, as written. Only in Reiner's and Mravin-
sky's recording s ca n on e hea r a semblanc e o f what Brahm s actuall y wrote . For,
some woodwind s hav e th e followin g rhythmi c phras e
while at the same time others have —onc e again Brahms's
17. Se e m y discussio n o f th e hierarchica l distribution of beats withi n certai n basic tim e signatures,
3/4 o r 4/4, and thei r dispositio n in term s o f strong (stressed ) o r wea k (unstressed ) beats (p.110) .
fascination wit h 'thre e agains t two. ' Obviousl y mos t o f thos e note s shoul d no t
sound together , an d ye t that i s exactly what happen s i n recordin g afte r recording ,
performance afte r performance . A s we sa w in certai n rhythmicall y unusual pas -
sages i n th e Fourth' s first movement , th e musician s simpl y accommodate them -
selves in some casua l unthinking way to each other, makin g the passage come out
in a blan d rhythmi c uniso n tha t i s not onl y wron g bu t infinitel y less interestin g
than wha t Brahms actually wrote.
These single-bar phraselet s woul d hav e been eas y to play (and woul d probably
be playe d mostl y correctly ) i f Brahm s ha d include d i n eac h lin e a downbea t
first not e instea d o f th e eighth-not e rest . Give n th e imprecise , casua l wa y i n
which mos t musician s generally play rhythms, an d give n the closenes s o f timing
between th e respectiv e first notes i n eac h rhyth m pattern , a matter o f about 10 0
milliseconds (o r one-tent h o f a second), 18 an d give n th e almos t unavoidabl e
natural tim e la g betwee n a musician' s impuls e t o pla y a not e an d it s actua l
acoustical appearanc e — musicians, afte r all , ar e no t machines—i t i s easy t o se e
why thi s passag e i s rarely if ever played correctly . But, o f course, i t can b e done .
It takes two things: a n awarenes s on th e musicians ' par t o f the proble m a t hand ,
and a bi t o f extr a rehearsing , separatin g th e triple t figure s ou t fro m th e dupl e
figures. Wit h a littl e attentio n t o th e passag e o f tha t sor t o n th e par t o f th e
conductor, i t quickl y yields the righ t results , as I hav e bee n abl e t o experienc e
many time s i n m y own performance s o f the work .
Before w e leav e thi s fift h variatio n (m.41) , I mus t poin t ou t b y wa y o f re -
minder tha t the hairpin nuance s •< = • i n the strings extend ove r two measures
at a time , bu t i n th e woodwind s ar e containe d i n singl e measures . Whe n per -
formed correctl y thi s make s fo r a wondrousl y ric h dynami c diversity , a kin d o f
polyphony o f dynamics. 19
18. A t a basi c conventional natura l tempo o f J = 108± .
19. Variou s constraints preven t m e fro m dealin g wit h the man y dynamic-related question s and prob -
lems i n thi s Passacagli a movement . Som e comment s o n a fe w specia l place s ar e nonetheles s i n
order an d wil l hav e t o stand fo r all others. Brahms' s scor e i s in thi s regard at times no t entirel y clear.
For example , afte r a crescend o i n mm.38-3 9 (fourt h variation ) from a previou s f, th e beginnin g o f
variation 5 is lacking in dynami c explicitness . Shoul d th e string s continue a t their jus t newl y arrived
at ff ? Surel y not . Th e woodwinds ' markin g o f poco f lead s on e t o thin k tha t th e melodi c string s
should star t thei r two-ba r phrase s mf, wit h th e basse s a ful l f o r ff pizzicato . The ensuin g crescend o
sempre pi ù (m.45 ) wil l brin g th e string s to ful l f o r /fa t m.49 . This implie s i n tur n tha t th e pi ù f of
m.57 represent s th e ultimat e climacti c dynami c thu s fa r i n th e movement . Bu t thi s mean s tha t
strings an d woodwind s mus t reced e t o a mer e f an d m f respectively , no t th e bow-breakin g f f wit h
which mos t conductor s charg e int o m.65 , variatio n 8 . Th e majorit y o f conductor s unfortunatel y
arrive a t a f f b y m.33 , an d sta y at tha t pea k leve l fo r th e nex t thre e minute s o f music , resultin g i n
an unrelieve d acousti c org y which render s th e musi c bot h borin g and brutalized .
The othe r spo t tha t i s almos t neve r conducte d o r playe d righ t i s th e two-ba r scala r phras e
mm.175-76. Rarel y doe s a n orchestr a com e dow n t o a tru e p p afte r th e thre e previou s trombon e
'explosions,' but wors e ye t almost everyon e make s to o muc h crescend o i n m.17 6 an d n o subito p i n
m. 177. Admittedly , Brahms' s notatio n i s somewha t ambiguou s here , fo r th e crescend o wedge s i n
m.176 fai l t o indicat e ho w muc h crescend o i s t o b e made . I s i t t o f b y th e en d o f th e measure ,
followed b y a sudde n p o n th e nex t bar , o r i s i t i n th e bras s an d string s a crescend o fro m p p onl y
to p ? No on e knows ; and w e wil l probabl y never kno w Brahms's true intentions . But i s it to o muc h
to expec t conductor s ocassionall y t o tr y some o f th e alternativ e realization s jus t mentioned , rathe r
than th e ver y ordinary , 'mostly ff' solution .
No rhythmic/metri c problem s occu r unti l variation s 2 4 an d 25 . Bu t thes e

have remaine d unresolve d an d ignore d forever , judgin g by th e evidenc e o f re-
cordings. Measure s 193-20 0 represen t a giganti c augmentatio n an d intensifica -
tion o f the first Passacaglia variation (mm.9-16), especially in terms o f orchestra-
tion. Bu t rhythm s ar e als o intensified . Th e secon d beats , originall y simpl e
staccato quarter-notes , ar e no w transforme d into—one ca n almos t gues s what —
a comple x mi x of duple eighth-note s an d eighth-not e triplets—anothe r skirmish
between 'three ' and 'two' : eighths i n the woodwinds , eighth triplet s in the strings
(Ex. 40) . A t eve n a moderatel y livel y tempo , le t alon e th e inordinatel y fas t
Ex.40
(continues fo r si x more bars)
ones som e conductor s tak e startin g with variatio n 1 6 (m.129), keeping thos e two
rhythms apart , playin g them exactl y right, i s not eas y at all . I t require s a degre e
of rhythmi c precisio n o n th e par t o f al l th e musician s involve d tha t i s almost
never demanded . An d th e conducto r ca n d o ver y little excep t t o len d hi s ear s
and monito r th e result s o f rehearsing . All tha t i s no t t o sa y that wha t Brahm s
asks fo r cannot b e achieved , bu t i t will require painstakin g rehearsing, certainly
choir b y choir . I hav e i n m y ow n conductin g o f the wor k alway s bee n abl e t o
achieve th e desire d result , bu t onl y by din t o f very tough , extensiv e rehearsing ,
sometimes takin g as much a s ten t o twent y minute s o f precious rehearsa l time.
The precis e proble m is , as in som e o f the similarl y complex rhythmi c figura-
tions i n th e first movement, tha t i f the dupl e player s are eve n th e tinies t bit lat e
with thei r second eighth-not e and/o r th e string s are , similarly , earl y wit h thei r
third triple t note , th e tw o note s com e together . I n mos t orchestra s th e string s
play thei r triplet s to o fast , somethin g lik e o r. It i s relativel y easy

to er r i n thi s way , because th e string s have n o thir d bea t t o pla y which , i f they
did, woul d hel p t o firml y ancho r th e rhythm . I t i s infinitely harde r t o
play correctl y t h a n . 2 0 Wha t I hav e ofte n
done i n rehearsin g thi s passag e i s to as k the string s to pla y a note—an y note , i t
doesn't matter—o n th e thir d beat , whic h afte r a fe w trie s help s them t o hea r
what th e correc t speed o f their triplet s should be . Afte r a fe w rehearsings i n thi s
fashion, th e crutc h o f the thir d bea t ca n b e take n away , and then—wit h perhap s
a fe w relapse s no w an d then—th e triplet s begi n t o b e playe d correctly . A t th e
very least th e player s ar e no w intensel y awar e o f a ver y difficul t problem , o f
which the y wer e previousl y totally unaware.
This unawarenes s is , o f course , th e rea l problem . An d i n truth , wh y shoul d
string players , unles s the y ar e scor e reader s and/o r someho w kno w exactl y i n
every detai l wha t Brahm s committed t o paper , kno w tha t th e woodwind s have
20. Thi s i s th e identica l proble m a s i n th e las t movemen t o f th e Brahm s Firs t Symphon y i n
mm.156-63, wher e the viola s hav e isolate d triple t figures, unanchored i n an y surrounding beats .
plain eighth s i n mm . 193-200. Similarly , why should win d player s know that th e
strings hav e competing , conflictin g triplets . The y certainl y canno t glea n thi s
information fro m thei r instrumenta l parts ; an d havin g neve r hear d th e passag e
played correctly , the y hav e n o inklin g tha t there i s something wron g i n wha t i s
usually played, tha t ther e i s a problem here . But, m y goodness, isn' t the conduc -
tor, wh o ha s the score , suppose d t o notic e this ? How can on e explai n tha t no t a
single conductor—no t Toscanini , no t Furtwängler , no t Dohnanyi , no t Ozawa ,
not Muti , no t Carlo s Kleiber , no t eve n th e rhythmicall y meticulousl y finicky
George Szel l —at least judgin g by the recordings , ha s ever addressed thi s difficul t
but fascinatin g performanc e problem. 21 I t ca n b e solved , o f course ; an d I ca n
vouch fo r the fac t tha t onc e th e orchestr a musician s hav e hear d ho w the passag e
sounds whe n playe d correctly—inevitabl y their first time—they are amazed, an d
delighted wit h themselve s fo r achieving wha t a t first they didn' t fee l coul d eve r
be done , wha t a t first they didn' t eve n kno w wa s wrong. A s I say , there i s not a
single recordin g wher e thi s rhythmi c detail , s o quintessentiall y Brahmsia n an d
in th e schem e o f things s o important, i s dealt wit h correctly .
The proble m i s exacerbated i n th e nex t variation , a clos e relativ e (b y way of
augmentation) of variation 2 . Here (mm.200-208) the violins , violas , oboes , an d
bassoons pla y an intensifie d versio n o f what th e woodwind s ha d earlier . An d a s
there, her e to o thes e instrument s mus t firml y re-establis h th e 3/ 4 mete r an d
downbeat pulse s t o counterac t th e stron g second-bea t attack s o f the entir e res t
of th e orchestra . Moreover , t o complicat e matters—bu t reall y t o heighte n th e
intensity o f expressio n ove r th e precedin g variation—th e contestin g eight h trip -
lets an d duplet s ar e redistributed : flutes , oboes , horns , trumpets , an d timpan i i n
triplets; trombones , bassoons , cellos , an d basse s i n duples . Again , t o sor t al l this
out t o trul y reflect what i s in Brahms' s score , i s very difficul t an d wil l take tim e
to rehearse . Bu t i t i s well wort h th e effort ; th e result s are startlin g and exciting !
We end thi s critica l traversal of the Fourt h Symphon y an d it s recorded perfor -
mances o n a happie r not e b y considerin g a ver y interestin g possibl e notationa l
error i n bot h th e printe d scor e an d Brahms' s autograph . I n m.23 3 h e give s th e
flute th e lin e i n Ex . 4 1 t o pla y (note , b y th e way , i n a hemiol a configuration) .
Obviously th e secon d pai r o f measure s i s a n imitatio n an d variatio n o f th e
Ex.41
first tw o measures , an d a s suc h it s sequenc e o f note s i s perfectl y logica l an d

'correct.' Bu t i f we notic e tha t th e pitche s i n thes e tw o bars, except fo r the thir d
beat G i n m.23 5 an d secon d bea t C i n m.236 , are identica l t o the first six notes
of th e symphony' s mai n them e (se e Ex . 1) , we ma y b e forgive n for speculatin g
21. Ther e ¡ s a precisel y identica l proble m i n Stravinsky' s Octet wher e i n th e secon d movemen t
there ar e triple t eighth s i n th e tw o woodwind s agains t plai n dupl e eighth-note s i n th e trumpets ,
confined t o on e beat . Ther e too , o n al l recording s and performance s I hav e hear d —and I admi t I
have, o f course, no t hear d the m all—thi s passag e i s played incorrectly; in som e mysteriou s way th e
musicians accommodat e eac h othe r an d pla y th e rhythm s together rathe r than untogether .
that thi s G an d C shoul d hav e bee n E an d A respectively . Thu s th e phras e

would hav e bee n a s i n Ex . 42; i t would hav e bee n jus t lik e Brahm s t o pla y this
Ex.42
kind o f not e game . Whe n on e the n finds , a s i f to confir m ou r conjecture , tha t

eight bar s late r (mm.341-44) , secreted awa y in th e first viola part , th e identica l
pitch sequenc e a s th e flut e ha s i n mm.233-3 6 (excep t fo r th e tw o anomalou s
notes), i t give s on e paus e fo r thought . I n othe r words , i n th e viol a par t i n
mm.243-44 th e pitche s o f th e symphony' s openin g melod y ar e exactl y repli -
cated—which i n tur n does mak e on e wonde r i f Brahm s mean t t o creat e th e
same effec t i n the flute , an d i f not, wh y not. I t is a curious matter and , I suspect,
will alway s remai n a n 'unanswere d question. '
Finally, I wish t o poin t ou t t o th e seriou s studen t o f Brahm s score s tha t i n a
half-dozen place s i n th e las t movemen t Brahm s contemplated , sometime s be -
tween th e initia l finalizatio n o f the scor e (i n ink ) an d it s engraving for publica -
tion, certai n temp o modification s (in heav y pencil). A sost. and largamente wer e
added i n m.193 , a tranquillo i n m.217 ; anothe r sost . i n m.249 ; ye t another sost.
in m.297 , followe d b y a n accel. i n m.301 . Befor e a conducto r o f th e free -
wheeling, capriciousl y variable tempo schoo l jump s with th e jo y at thi s discov-
ery, assuming that these annotation s b y Brahms give justification fo r taking those
and othe r temp o liberties , I should poin t ou t quickl y that Brahms , before print-
ing an d publicatio n crosse d al l thes e change s out , substitutin g poco rit. fo r on e
of the crosse d ou t sost. markings (i n m.249) .
These fact s ough t t o serv e a s anothe r reminde r t o u s tha t Brahm s di d no t
relish temp o modificatio n i n hi s work s beyond thos e h e specificall y indicates i n
his scores . That ough t t o b e sufficien t proo f that h e wa s most inten t o n preserv-
ing th e classica l symmetry, integrity, and logi c o f his forms .
Strauss: Til l Eulenspiege l
Strauss's Till Eulenspiegel i s unquestionably on e o f the composer' s mos t popula r

works, an d ha s bee n s o sinc e it s premier e unde r Fran z Wullner' s directio n i n
1895. Indeed , bot h Till an d Do n Juan, tha t wondrousl y exuberant, slightl y ear-
lier 188 9 masterpiece , wer e no t onl y outrageousl y popula r righ t fro m th e star t
with audience s an d critic s alike , bu t ha d a profoun d impac t o n th e cours e o f
music i n tha t bot h works , having mor e o r les s abandone d th e classica l sonat a
and variatio n forms , successfull y explored th e ne w free r narrativ e form o f th e
'tone poem. ' Whil e Lisz t wa s the rea l invento r o f the ton e poe m an d Wagne r
contributed—for al l hi s respec t an d lov e fo r Beethoven' s symphonie s —enor-
mously throug h hi s opera s t o th e break-u p o f the classica l symphonic forms , i t
was Strauss , i n Do n Juan, Till Eulenspiegel, an d som e o f his othe r ton e poems ,
who brough t thi s literary-oriente d genr e t o worl d center-stage . Th e ton e poe m
clearly stoo d i n direc t oppositio n t o Brahm s and hi s classica l forms, an d le d th e
revolution, alon g wit h othe r brillian t break-throug h works , lik e Debussy' s
L'Après-Midi d'un faune (1892-94) , an d th e virtua l decimatio n o f th e sym -
phonic form(s ) b y Mahle r i n hi s symphonie s an d Dcz s Lied vo n de r Erde, tha t
eventually brough t dow n th e entir e hous e o f classical forms.
It i s o f mor e tha n passin g interes t t o us , i n vie w o f th e foregoin g extensive
discussion o f tw o o f Brahms' s symphonies , tha t Do n Juan wa s compose d onl y
five years afte r th e olde r master' s Fourt h Symphony , an d tha t Till Eulenspiegel
was complete d tw o year s before Brahms' s death , whe n Brahm s wa s writin g hi s
two elegia c clarine t sonatas.
Strauss wa s only thirty-one whe n h e compose d Till, whic h ma y ver y wel l be ,
along with th e fina l scen e o f Salomé, hi s mos t masterfu l work, certainly its most
perfectly constructe d work , with a n econom y o f mean s that , interestingly , rivals
Brahms i n thi s respect. As in Brahms' s best works , ther e i s in Till no t a n iot a of
extraneous material . I f eve n th e 'leas t significant-looking ' materia l i s exploited
for al l i t ca n yield , what ca n w e sa y about th e work' s tw o principa l themes:
425
Ex. l a
Es war ein - mal (ein Schelm)
and th e famou s leaping hor n theme :
Ex. I b
Strauss's constan t re-inventio n o f the mai n themati c material s result s i n on e o f

the mos t tightl y (and , perfectly ) constructe d work s i n th e entir e 19th-centur y
repertory. No t sinc e Mozart' s Jupiter Final e an d Beethoven' s Fift h Symphon y
had ther e bee n anythin g quit e a s succinctl y integrate d a s Till. Nor—lookin g
forward toward s th e 20t h century—wa s ther e t o appea r anythin g a s rigorously
developed a s Till unti l som e o f Webern's score s o f the 1920s .
It wil l be countered , undoubtedly , tha t Till Eulenspiegel doe s pa y som e alle -
giance t o on e olde r form , th e Rondo . Bu t thi s occur s mor e i n nam e tha n i n
actual practice . Straus s i s himsel f playin g a roguis h game , a pla y o n words ,
when i n hi s ful l titl e o f the work , Till Eulenspiegels Lustige Streiche, nach alter
Schelmenweise i n Rondeauform fü r groses Orchester gesetzt, 1 h e refer s t o th e
'rondeau form ' use d b y troubadours and poet s i n Frenc h medieva l an d Ar s Nova
times, a form whic h bear s only a minima l resemblanc e t o the muc h late r Italian
rondo wit h it s rather stric t alternation o f a principa l them e an d variou s second -
ary episodes . I n th e wor k itsel f Straus s i s —if h e eve r intende d a tru e classica l
rondo—so fre e wit h tha t for m a s t o leav e littl e evidenc e o f it s possibl e initia l
inspiration. I suspec t tha t whateve r Strauss' s original intention s ma y hav e been ,
as h e worke d o n th e piece , usin g hi s ow n personall y devised Eulenspiege l sce -
nario, i n tur n culle d fro m man y differen t extan t version s o f Till's (Tyl' s i n th e
original ol d German ) tale , Straus s foun d himsel f followin g those narrativ e im -
pulses rathe r tha n adherin g t o an y stric t classica l form . Eve n Till's short-live d
'recapitulation,' slightly varied and spli t into tw o episodes (mm.430-3 3 and mm .
466-85), i s more representativ e o f the narrativ e 'tone-poem' conceptio n tha n of
the sonata-rond o form .
Our admiratio n fo r Till Eulenspiegel mus t t o a larg e exten t als o deriv e fro m
Strauss's spectacula r and , fo r th e time , ver y darin g us e o f th e orchestra . An d
finally, i t ha s endeare d itsel f to musicians , audience s —and eve n critics—fo r it s
restoration o f humor t o music . A s Busoni onc e pointe d ou t abou t Strauss' s Till,
not sinc e "Pap a Haydn " ha d an y compose r "handle d lightnes s an d humo r s o
masterfully." Ye t fo r al l it s popularit y an d consisten t adoratio n b y th e musica l
world, performance s (an d recordings ) o f Till Eulenspiegel hav e o n onl y the rar -
1. Till Eulenspiegel's Merry Pranks, after a n Ol d Rogues 'l'aie i n Rondo Form for Large Orchestra.
STRAUSS: TILL EULENSPIEGEL 427
est o f occasion s don e ful l justic e t o th e work . T o thi s da y man y o f Strauss' s
most brillian t idea s an d explici t notationa l instruction s remai n largel y ignore d
or unrealized , a s we shal l se e i n th e ensuin g discussion .
Since s o much o f the wor k center s o n an d derive s fro m Till's hor n theme , ou r
discussion mus t o f necessity begi n wit h i t and a n analysi s of its correct rendition .
The poin t i s tha t o n non e o f th e forty-od d recording s I hav e sample d i s thi s
famous passag e playe d reall y correctly, no r ar e it s man y variant s an d permuta -
tions throughou t th e piec e rendere d a s intende d b y th e composer . Th e prob -
lems—apart fro m th e hor n solo' s shee r technica l difficulty 2 —are two-fol d i n
that Straus s devise d a them e whos e firs t tw o phras e segment s compris e seve n
eighths, overlaid, however, on an underlying 6/8 meter; and , second, tha t in addi-
tion, th e tw o parts o f the sol o ar e prescribe d i n ver y explicit, contrastin g temp o
terms. Thi s startlingl y novel idea—eve n fo r today , le t alon e 1895—ha s resiste d
proper interpretatio n fo r the sam e reaso n tha t metri c ambivalenc e i n Brahm s is
generally inaccurately rendered. I t must b e obviou s to any thinking reader—and
musician—that i f a 7/ 8 patter n i s overlai d o n a 6/ 8 meter , th e patter n wil l o n
each successiv e repea t appea r on e eight h late r i n th e metri c structur e (se e
Ex.lb: th e 7/ 8 phras e i s bracketed) . Thus , onc e agai n resortin g t o th e com -
monly use d 'stressed ' an d 'unstressed ' markings , - * an d "- % th e firs t hal f o f th e
horn them e shoul d b e phrase d a s i n (Ex.Za) , thereb y preservin g th e 6/ 8
Ex. 2 a
feeling an d dance-lik e lil t o f th e music . Wha t on e invariabl y hears instea d i s

one o r th e othe r o f the followin g versions, i.e . rhythmi c distortion s (Exx.Zb , c) .
Far to o often—a s ca n b e confirme d i n literall y dozens o f recordings—th e G # is
Ex. 2 b
2. Th e stor y is told, althoug h i t ma y b e apocryphal , that whe n th e younge r Straus s showed hi s Till
Eulenspiegel hor n them e t o hi s father , Fran z Strauss , th e mos t famou s an d reputedl y bes t hor n
player i n German y a t th e time , playin g ofte n a t Bayreut h i n Wagner' s operas , Straus s senior com -
plained bitterl y about th e difficulty , eve n 'unplayability, ' o f th e passage . Straus s i s repute d t o hav e
countered with , "But, m y dea r father , I have hear d yo u practis e simila r passages almost ever y day of
your life ; i t i s afte r al l base d o n th e horn' s basi c harmoni c series. " Straus s senior , w e ar e told , wa s
neither amuse d no r placated !
I remembe r i n m y younger days as a horn playe r tha t th e Till Eulenspiegel them e was still consid -
ered technicall y ver y difficult , an d w e youn g player s practise d i t man y time s ever y day . The hor n
player wh o i n thos e day s coul d pla y the Till them e securel y an d wit h relativ e ease wa s considere d
almost phenomenal . Ironically , thoug h nowaday s man y hor n player s ca n perfor m thi s sol o wit h
consummate technica l control , an d eve n hig h schoo l student s 'polis h i t off ' severa l time s a day ,
almost nobod y plays i t correctly conceptually, i.e. rhythmically/metrically .
Ex. 2 c
etc.
held onl y two eighth s o r tw o an d a hal f eighths , bu t no t three . Unde r th e cir -

cumstances, th e conducto r an d th e violin s (with their accompanyin g sixteenth -
notes) ar e relegate d t o vaguel y following along, hookin g up , i t i s hoped , wit h
the hor n playe r at m.10 (th e hig h D) .
Indeed, i n th e earl y days , conductor s wer e quit e conten t t o merel y follo w
along n o matte r wha t the hor n playe r did, because i n mos t case s the conductor s
were relieve d to have a player who coul d ge t all the notes . Any kind of rhythmic
distortion was acceptable, an d hor n player s liberally recomposed Strauss' s them e
into whateve r wa s most comfortabl e or seeme d safest . Earl y recordings show —
for example , Furtwängler' s 193 0 recordin g wit h th e Berli n Philharmonic—tha t
in thos e day s hor n player s took a breat h i n th e middl e o f m.8, addin g a whol e
eighth an d stil l more rhythmic/metri c distortion to the passage . (Nowadays horn
players usuall y pla y th e entir e passag e i n on e breath. ) Straus s himself , a s i s
evident fro m hi s 194 4 performanc e wit h th e Vienn a Philharmonic , ha d t o ac -
cept th e considerabl e restructurin g (including a n altogethe r wron g note) o f the
horn solo. 3 Th e poin t i s tha t Strauss' s hor n them e i n Till i s on e o f hi s grea t
strokes of genius 4 Moreover, ther e i s a real significance to Strauss' s 7/8 phrasing,
for wha t bette r wa y coul d a compose r fin d t o describ e i n musi c Till' s ribal d
character. I n on e fel l swoop , Straus s depicts al l o f Till's basi c characteristics : his
anti-authoritarian, free-wheeling , irreveren t nature , alway s a t odd s wit h societ y
and especiall y with th e pomposit y o f bureaucratic authority—th e 7/ 8 patter n a t
odds with th e basi c 6/ 8 metric design ; his nimble quick-footedness , heard i n th e
bouncy staccat o o f th e horn' s theme ; hi s "quick-witte d an d elusiv e manner "
depicted, a s Norma n de l Ma r ha s pointe d out, 5 i n th e syncopate d shiftin g 7/ 8
pattern; an d finally , Til l a s a fol k her o represente d b y a horn , s o ofte n cas t i n
the lat e 19t h centur y a s the idea l instrumen t associate d wit h heroe s (especially ,
of course , i n Wagner' s works) . Thu s th e 7/ 8 patternin g i s no t som e arbitrary,
meaningless gesture , eve n les s a creativ e laps e o n Strauss' s part, 6 bu t rathe r a
3. However , thi s ma y not hav e bothere d Straus s particularly , sinc e h e tende d t o b e rathe r casua l i n
his conductin g o f hi s ow n works , a s i s testified t o b y man y observers , fro m Arnol d Rosé , long-tim e
concertmaster o f the Vienn a Philharmonic , t o Frit z Busch , a close associat e o f the compose r durin g
the man y year s o f successiv e Straus s oper a premiere s (startin g wit h Salomé) a t th e Dresde n Stat e
Opera, a s well a s the evidenc e o f his ow n recording s o f his works.
4. I woul d ad d t o thi s th e fina l scene s o f Rosenkavalier an d Salomé, an d th e openin g thirt y bar s of
the Alpine Symphony , a remarkable musica l depictio n o f the cloud s (or mists) descendin g upo n an d
blanketing a n Alpin e valley .
5. Norma n de l Mar , Richard Strauss, a Critical Commentary o n Hi s Life an d Works, Vol . 1 (Lon -
don, 1962) , pp.125-26 .
6. I recall giving a talk fo r the Ne w Yor k Philharmoni c Frida y afternoon Pre-Concert Lectur e Serie s
many year s ag o o n th e occasio n o f a performanc e o f m y Symphony fo r Brass an d Percussion, whic h
features i n th e las t movement a repeate d 9/ 8 patter n i n th e horns , overlai d on a 4/4 (i.e . 8/8) meter .
I allowe d tha t I ha d bee n inspire d i n thi s ide a b y Strauss' s Till Eulenspiegel hor n theme , an d
STRAUSS: TILL EULENSPIEGEL 42 9
master stroke , portrayin g i n musi c i n th e mos t succinc t wa y the man y comple x

aspects o f Till Eulenspiegel' s characte r and hi s pranksteris h exploits.
But ther e i s mor e tha t th e scor e tell s us , al l points , alas , tha t ar e regularl y
ignored o r subverte d i n performance . First , Straus s indicate s quit e clearl y tha t
the beginnin g temp o o f the hor n sol o shal l b e i n th e exac t relationshi p o f a 6/ 8
dotted quarte r equalin g th e eight h o f th e previou s 4/ 8 (Ex.3) . I n nin e ou t
Ex. 3
of te n recording s (an d performances ) this instructio n i s completely disregarded ,

the hor n sol o usuall y starting i n muc h to o slo w a tempo . Straus s himself i s on e
of th e fe w conductor s wh o doe s th e temp o conversio n righ t (i n hi s Vienn a
Philharmonic performance) . Second , Straus s indicate s allmählich lebhafter
(gradually livelier , meaning a gradua l accelerando ) i n m.8 , arrivin g at th e ful l
tempo b y m.1 3 (Volles Zeitmass, sehr lebhaft [ful l tempo , ver y lively]) . Her e
Strauss picture s Til l a littl e hesitan t a t first, as if slyly makin g sur e that th e coas t
is clea r befor e venturing forth . Bu t a t m.1 4 h e i s full y confident , wit h th e hor n
accordingly no w i n ful l tempo . Strauss' s dynamic s underlin e thi s scenario : th e
first 'call ' i s p fo r fou r bars , the n crescendo s a littl e (t o mf o r mp), whil e th e
repeat a t m.1 4 start s mf, crescendo s tw o bar s earlie r tha n i n th e firs t phras e al l
the wa y to /fat m.19 . Neithe r th e dynamic s nor the temp o indication s ar e gener -
ally observed , th e firs t 'call ' usuall y (a s mentioned ) startin g to o slow bu t als o
crescendoing immediately , an d reachin g th e ful l temp o severa l bar s to o early ,
the secon d 'call ' usuall y no t reachin g th e bras h ff Straus s call s for.
For all th e reason s given, i t i s imperative tha t thi s theme b e playe d absolutely
correctly i n al l respects . Instead , betwee n th e rhythmic/metri c distortion s an d
the failur e t o hono r th e temp o an d dynami c indications , i n th e vas t majority o f
performances an d recording s the entir e meanin g an d essenc e o f the brie f under -
lying scenari o o f mm.6-19 are lost .
On recordings , onl y a few players came clos e t o capturin g bot h th e spiri t and
the lette r o f this passage : Chamber s (Bernstein , Ne w Yor k Philharmonic) , Rol f
Götz (Masur , Leipzi g Gewandhau s Orchestra) , Sator u Umed a (Paternostro ,
NHK Symphony , Tokyo) , Gre g Husti s (Mata , Dalla s Symphony) . Eve n so , o n
no recordin g i s th e fascinatin g relatio n betwee n th e hor n theme' s 7/ 8 patter n
and th e underlyin g 6/8 meter brough t out .
As I alread y indicated , Till's hor n them e function s a s th e centra l thematic /
motivic materia l throughou t th e entir e work— I coun t som e 5 5 appearance s o f
began t o wa x lyrical, almos t ecstatic, about Strauss's ingenuit y i n creatin g thi s remarkabl e theme , so
extraordinary i n it s invention , particularly fo r 1895 . I wa s suddenl y brought u p shor t whe n a littl e
old lad y i n th e fron t ro w interrupte d m e an d wit h a steel y voic e irritatedl y demande d t o know :
"Well, what' s s o great about that? "
it—in jus t abou t a s man y guise s a s Till i n rea l lif e i s alleged t o hav e assumed .
Therefore it s correct renditio n i s important no t onl y in it s four sol o settings , bu t
wherever i t appears throughou t th e work.
Turning no w t o th e five-ba r prologue , whic h parallels , accordin g t o Straus s
himself, th e openin g lin e o f an y fol k o r fair y tale—a s i n "Onc e upo n a tim e
. . . " ("E s wa r einmal" ) (i n German)—w e fin d th e othe r Till them e (se e Ex .
la) se t i n th e simples t folk-son g manner . Th e theme' s gentl e characte r an d
lovely turn-of-phrase nee d t o b e handle d wit h th e utmos t car e an d taste . Unfor -
tunately thi s them e ofte n sound s straine d an d edgy , a s th e violinist s us e to o
much bo w an d to o muc h bo w pressur e wit h a resultan t heav y mf, instea d o f
Strauss's p . Mos t annoyin g i s th e striden t accen t o n th e B^ l on e hear s i n man y
performances. Thi s i s usually the resul t of aural carelessness , combined wit h th e
following bowin g
particularly
when to o muc h bo w i s used o n th e firs t up-bow , thu s landin g to o lo w o n th e

bow fo r th e B , i n tur n causin g a heav y mezzofort-is h sound . Jus t a s annoyin g
are th e stretchin g an d distortin g o f the rhyth m an d temp o i n th e firs t measur e
(particularly a n over-lon g CI) , whic h goe s agains t Strauss' s gemächlich temp o
marking an d th e intende d simplicit y of th e phrase . Th e idea l bowin g i s as fol-
lows: etc -
The reade r migh t not e her e th e specifi c slu r notatio n
, whic h wa s under discussio n i n connectio n wit h

the firs t an d secon d movemen t o f th e Brahm s Firs t Symphon y (se e pp . 300 -
303). I f mos t conductor s an d player s insis t o n separat e bow s i n mm.54-5 7 i n
those Brahm s movements, convince d tha t th e phras e markin g ther e prescribe s
separated bows , the n th e sam e markin g i n th e openin g o f Till Eulenspiegel
ought als o t o resul t i n separat e bows , i.e . , which,

of course , n o on e i n hi s righ t min d woul d consider , no r d o I know o f anyone' s
ever thinkin g of such a phrasing . Thi s jus t confirm s the inconsistenc y an d con -
fusion i n interpretatio n whic h thi s particula r phrasin g notatio n seem s t o gen -
erate.
I coun t a s the mos t beautiful rendition s of Till's openin g phras e on recording s
those o f Fricsay , Blomstedt , Furtwangle r (1930) , Karaja n (Vienn a Philhar -
monic), Busch , and Mata .
In m. 2 clarinet s and bassoon s have a sfzp marking , which , however, is almost
always ignored , flattene d ou t int o a mil d non-committa l pseudo-accent . I n m. 4

all violin s and viola s play instea d o f thu s ignorin g the intende d over -
lap wit h th e entranc e o f the clarinets . Fo r thei r part , clarinet s rarel y mak e th e
(admittedly difficul t bu t no t impossible ) diminuend o Straus s call s for. And wh y
do almos t al l clarinetist s make a n accelerand o i n m.4 ? I s it becaus e th e phras e
rises i n pitch ? Hardl y a valid reason. Th e sfzp i n th e flute s i n m. 5 ha s a slightly
better succes s rat e fo r som e reaso n tha n th e sam e markin g i n m.2 , bu t coul d
still stan d improvemen t o n mos t recordings .
Thus w e fin d i n jus t five simple uncomplicate d measure s hal f a doze n point s
of negligenc e i n mos t performances/recordings , detractin g seriousl y fro m th e
beauty an d invitin g enchantment o f this mos t memorabl e an d lovelies t of intro-
ductions.
What ha s bee n sai d abou t th e hor n them e applies , o f course , t o th e firs t
variants oftha t them e i n th e oboe s (m.21 ) an d clarinet s (m.26) . These passages
invariably soun d a s if they ha d bee n rhythmicall y notated as :
rather tha n Strauss's :
The integrity , the feeling , o f the underlyin g 6/ 8 puls e mus t b e preserve d a t al l

costs; otherwis e Strauss' s particula r notatio n i s rendere d meaningles s an d hi s
conception nullified .
The subtl e — I woul d ad d sly , Tillia n — metric ambivalenc e Straus s create s
here often upset s orchestra and conducto r in the entranc e of bassoons and lowe r
strings i n m.30 . Indeed , thi s passage, i n whic h Straus s readjusts th e hor n them e
to fi t int o th e 6/ 8 meter , onc e gav e orchestra s tremendou s problems , a s man y
shaky performances in earl y recordings o f the wor k attest (althoug h no t i n Albert
Coates's excellen t lat e 1930 s Londo n Symphon y Orchestr a recording) . Though
eminently manageabl e nowadays , orchestras stil l hav e t o b e o n thei r bes t aler t
to execute mm.30-3 3 without a rhythmic hitch .
Having negotiate d thes e particula r musica l rapids , man y conductor s no w
drive th e orchestr a inordinatel y to achieve , presumably , some kin d o f 'audience-
exciting' clima x at mm.39-45. Once again , ha d Straus s wanted suc h a n acceler -
ation, h e wa s quite capabl e o f indicatin g a s muc h an d writin g another allmäh-
lich lebhafter. Bu t i t is in fac t muc h mor e 'exciting ' to let this climax accumulat e
through th e orchestration, throug h th e constantl y adde d voice s a s th e phras e
rises int o th e uppe r register . The passag e rise s chromatically to a f C 7 chord i n
m.39—be i t note d only t o f. 7 Ye t virtually al l conductor s pus h th e orchestr a (o r
7. I n Karajan' s 197 3 recording mm.39/4 0 ar c simpl y left out—cu t (sicl). S o muc h fo r Karajan' s an d
producer Han s Weber's musical acumen an d artisti c integrity .
allow the orchestr a t o race ) prematurel y t o a ful l ff. Th e rea l ff shoul d no t com e
until tw o bars later , signalling th e tru e clima x of the 'introduction. '
In m.44 , a totall y differen t proble m arises : intonation . Th e woodwind' s four -
octave uniso n i s indee d har d t o tun e correctly , althoug h i t ca n b e done , o f
course. I t takes a little mor e attentio n tha n mos t player s or conductors ar e appar -
ently willin g t o giv e it , judgin g b y th e recordings . O n twenty-si x of th e mor e
than fort y recording s analyzed, this measur e i s painfully ou t o f tune. A t the sam e
time, hardl y an y orchestras/conductor s pla y m.44' s rhyth m correctly . Straus s
wrote
but (almost ) everybod y plays
In m.4 6 w e hea r fo r th e firs t tim e Tilt's othe r theme , a varian t o f th e ver y
opening introductor y phrase o f the work , here turne d int o a n irreverent , mock -
ing, nose-thumbin g gesture , playe d o n th e D clarine t (nowaday s on th e E I» clari-
net). The proble m her e i s that nin e ou t ofte n clarinetist s fail t o play this, and all
similar places i n th e piece , a s Strauss wrote it , in 6/ 8 (Ex.4a) , but a s if notated a s
in Ex.4b .
Ex. 4 a
Ex. 4 b
Measures 51-5 4 present n o enormou s problems , othe r tha n tha t man y orches -
tras play this jaunt y passage—Till at his most carefree , sauntering i n the country -
side—much to o loud , i n lie u o f Strauss's p. I n mm . 5 5-62, Straus s gives us Till's
'mocking' them e i n th e horns , bu t grossl y fragmente d an d rhythmicall y dis -
sected, tor n t o shreds , as it were—a remarkabl e ide a whic h th e conducto r mus t
ensure i s prominently hear d (Ex.5) . On man y recording s i t i s virtually inaudible
through shee r neglect .
Ex. 5
In mm.63-66 , Straus s calls for the distinctio n i n th e string s between primar y

motivic materia l (/ ) an d harmoni c accompanimenta l materia l (mf), whic h
again, however , i s largel y ignore d b y player s an d conductors . Bu t thes e dy -
namic shading s are ver y crucial i n makin g Strauss' s relatively complex an d fleet-
moving polyphon y texturally clea r (Ex.6) . I n m.6 2 an d m.6 8 w e encounte r th e
first of man y place s i n Till wher e woodwin d runs , especially in bassoons , clari -
nets, an d bas s clarinet , wit h whic h Straus s love d t o fles h ou t hi s allegro pas-
Ex. 6
sages,8 are seen i n the scor e but neve r hear d i n performance. We shall encounte r
many of these i n Till Eulenspiegel. I n m.62, the El > clarinet's chromatic ru n ca n be
made audibl e i f the clarinetis t reall y plays out an d th e othe r instrument s (othe r
woodwinds and uppe r strings ) hold bac k jus t a little, savin g their ff for the down -
beat of m.63. Similarly, the bassoons' and & clarinet' s runs in m.68 (Ex.7) can be
Ex. 7
clearly heard i f they ar e encourage d t o pla y out an d i f Strauss's dynamics— mf's,

mostly—are no t over-played , an d i f the horn s i n particula r restrai n themselve s
to a tempere d bu t healthil y exuberan t f , no t th e all-ou t f f on e usuall y hears .
Attention t o suc h details—an d ther e are thousand s i n Till and , fo r that matter ,
in al l o f Strauss' s matur e work s —is o f paramoun t importance . Realizatio n o f
them full y give s thi s wor k a n entirel y differen t loo k an d feel . A s Mies va n de r
8. Straus s has ofte n bee n accuse d o f overloading hi s score s with 'gratuitous ' passag e work, all man -
ner o f decorative filigre e an d ornamenta l clutter . Ther e i s some trut h t o th e charges , althoug h w e
should recogniz e tha t thi s 'instrumenta l clutter ' i s th e resul t o f a n extraordinaril y fertile musica l
imagination, one tha t ofte n was reluctant t o leave an empt y spot o n a score page . And indeed , muc h
of this ingenious an d dazzlin g passag e work usually remains unhear d i n performance , buried i n th e
always intricate orchestration an d comple x textures . On th e othe r hand , i t is also true that performers
(conductors, orchestras ) could d o muc h bette r i n makin g these secondar y ornamental passage s audi-
ble. I t takes care an d attention : th e player s involved in suc h passages—usuall y fast runnin g figures -
must b e mad e awar e o f their relativ e importanc e an d encourage d t o pla y out (no t ignore , a s the y
usually do) ; and , second , th e othe r player s i n an d aroun d thes e passage s must restrai n themselves
dynamically. Fo r i f th e latte r pla y on e iot a to o loud , th e secondar y material s will , o f course , b e
covered an d rendere d inaudible . But thes e ar e agai n thing s th e conducto r mus t hea r an d contro l
Unfortunately mos t don't .
Rohe said , "God i s i n th e details, " an aestheti c messag e mos t conductor s woul d
do wel l to take t o heart .
In m.73 , w e encounte r th e firs t o f man y ensembl e problem s relate d t o th e
timpani part s i n Till Eulenspiegel. Straus s double s th e las t fou r note s o f Tz'/f s
'irreverent, nose-thumbing' theme (Ex.3a) , set here i n lo w strings an d bassoons ,
in th e timpani , markin g th e latte r wit h th e sam e ff a s th e othe r instrument s
(Ex. 8) . Th e proble m i s tha t i f th e timpanis t reall y play s hi s ful l ff , especiall y
Ex. 8
with har d sticks , h e wil l completel y overbalanc e no t onl y th e othe r themati c

instruments, bu t i n fac t th e whol e orchestr a a t tha t point . I fin d i t curiou s tha t
Strauss, th e maste r orchestrato r an d meticulou s notator , woul d throughou t hi s
life mar k timpan i part s i n a doublin g situatio n wit h th e sam e dynami c a s th e
other instruments , a practic e whic h man y lat e 19th-centur y composer s ha d be -
gun t o abandon b y the 1890 s (Mahler , Tchaikovsky , Rimsky-Korsakov). Perhaps
for Straus s i t wa s stil l a relevan t notationa l conventio n (a s i n Beethoven) , o r
perhaps timpanist s aroun d th e tur n o f th e century , stil l playin g o n calf-ski n
heads, simpl y di d no t produc e suc h thunderous , all-obliteratin g sounds 9 tha t
modern timpanist s nowaday s no t onl y ca n produc e bu t see m t o enjo y un -
leashing. Most conductor s als o don't see m t o mind tha t i n a passage such a s just
cited (Ex.8) , after th e first three them e note s :, one usually

hears onl y timpan i an d nothin g o f th e primar y themati c instruments . I n an y
case, i t i s wise —if no t imperative—t o mar k al l suc h timpan i part s a t least tw o
degrees lower , i.e. softer , wit h the resul t that th e timpan i note s wil l blen d natu -
rally int o th e themati c context . Th e sam e wil l appl y t o m.7 5 an d m.7 9 an d
dozens o f similar places i n Till. Indee d i n m.75 , a loud timpan i rol l will simply
blot out the all-importan t primary thematic materia l in the string s (Ex.9). 10 Her e
not onl y th e timpani' s dynami c mus t b e moderated , bu t al l woodwind s
Ex.9
and horn s mus t diminuend o i n tha t measure—perhap s t o mf o r a t least t o f —

for the y to o wil l otherwis e cove r th e strings , a s an y numbe r o f recording s wil l
9. Thi s ma y als o b e th e explanation—an d solution—fo r Beethoven' s timpani parts, for example, in

many place s in th e Sevent h Symphon y (see pp. 246 , 248 , 254 , 272).
10. Le t th e dynami c adjustment s i n thes e tw o timpani-relate d passages stan d a s solution s for th e
balance problem s i n al l simila r situation s (especiall y mm . 149, 243 , 279 , 477-84 , and , abov e all ,
mm.560-72).
attest. Th e onl y recording s o n whic h th e string s ca n b e hear d a t al l ar e Bern -

stein's an d Toscanini's .
Very muc h th e sam e proble m occur s fou r bar s late r i n mm.79-80 . Her e
Strauss's fertil e musica l min d devise s a n ingeniou s polyphoni c constructio n
(again i n th e strings ) (Ex.10) , al l forge d fro m th e sam e 'mocking ' Till theme .
Here th e horn s ha d bette r joi n in th e othe r brass' s diminuendo.
Ex. 1 0
The nex t proble m spo t i s mm.89-90 , wher e th e flee t figure s i n thir d flut e
and thre e clarinet s ar e consistentl y covered . I def y an y reade r t o fin d on e re -
cording (o r identif y on e performance ) i n whic h th e fou r woodwind s (Ex.11 )
Ex. 1 1
2. Cl.
are audible . If , as i n mos t performance s and recordings, 11 th e remainin g instru -
ments d o no t observ e Strauss' s p an d bowings , al l i s lost . I have , fo r example ,
never conducte d a n orchestr a i n Till Eulenspiegel i n whic h (a ) th e first violin,
viola, an d cell o part s weren' t divide d int o tw o bow s (instea d o f one , startin g
mid-bow), an d (b ) th e secon d violin s didn't fai l t o observ e Strauss' s pp i n m.8 8
and didn' t avoi d a crescend o i n th e ascendin g ru n o f tha t measur e
Strauss's crescend o wedg e i n th e

flutes, first violins, an d violas , I mus t admit , doe s no t hel p matters , an d i s bes t
suppressed. I t ha s usuall y take n m e fiv e t o te n minute s o f rehearsing—ofte n
much resente d b y som e o f th e strin g players—to restor e balance s an d bowing s
to th e poin t wher e ever y precious detai l o f those tw o wonderfu l measure s ca n
be heard . I t i s certainly worth the tim e an d effort . Similarly , care mus t b e take n
that th e wonderfu l thir d flut e par t i n mm.93-9 5 i s clearly heard.
11. Including , alas, Strauss' s own recording ; also Toscanini's , and eve n that of Fritz Busch , who wa s
one o f the fine r Straus s conductors.
In mm.97-102 almost all orchestras rush—especially the flutists—and in addi-

tion los e al l sens e o f the 6/ 8 meter . Rarel y does on e hea r anythin g bu t a series
of 4/8 measures , a s i f Strauss had merel y writtte n
leav-
ing n o sens e o r feelin g of the fac t tha t th e passag e i s set i n a 6/ 8 meter . On e o f

the fe w conductors wh o kept thi s passag e in chec k wa s Fritz Reiner .
A quit e differen t (an d deplorable ) rhythmi c subversio n o f Strauss' s notatio n
and musica l intention s ca n b e hear d i n man y recording s i n mm . 113-22.
Strauss's
is usually rendered as (Coates , Blom -

stedt, Karaja n (Vienna) , Krauss , Maazel, Mackerras , Marriner , Masur , Slatkin ,
Stokowski, Fricsay , Stock , Sawallisch , and Straus s himself), or eve n mor e oddl y
(Bernstein, Ormandy , Solti , Stein -
berg, Toscanini) , o r simpl y (Reiner ,

Karajan (Berlin) , Haitink) . Th e passag e i s als o rarel y playe d i n a tru e p , an d
anything but grazioso: 'spook y an d lumbering ' migh t b e a mor e appropriat e de -
scription. O n onl y five recordings ca n thi s fascinating passage be hear d correctl y
played i n al l respects : Furtwängler' s 193 0 recording , a s well a s those o f Kempe ,
Henry Lewis , Mata , an d Busch . (Munch , Dorat i an d Szel l ge t th e righ t
rhythms, bu t n o grazioso p. )
What I hav e writte n earlie r abou t Strauss' s timpan i part s ca n b e applie d t o
virtually al l th e percussio n part s i n Till. A cas e i n poin t i s the cymba l cras h i n
m.135, unfortunatel y marke d fff. Th e proble m i s tha t i f th e cymbalis t reall y
plays fff, wit h hi s larges t crash cymbal s a t that , on e migh t a s wel l sen d th e El »
clarinet player an d th e res t o f the woodwind s and viola s home. Th e poin t i s that
all thre e successiv e clarine t entrance s i n mm.133-3 5 (Ex.12 ) an d thei r as -
cending run s mus t b e well-heard . This depict s Till' s chargin g int o th e town' s
Ex. 1 2
marketplace o n horseback , overturning all th e cart s and tables , with th e wome n

screaming (flutes , oboes : mm . 135-36) an d scurryin g around in startle d fright . A
forceful, shor t cymbal crash (with medium-sized plates) not only allows the Ei > ciar-
inet to be heard, but produces a much more dramatic, incisive and surprising effect
than the all-obliterating, cataclysmic explosion that has become standard practic e
here. On Haitink' s CD th e cymbal crash actually causes a total distortion.
With car e an d attentio n o f the sor t mentione d earlie r (i n referenc e t o m.6 2
and m.68) , al l th e run s i n th e bassoon s (m.138 ) an d clarinet s (mm . 141-42,
145-46) ca n be mad e audible. On e usuall y gets to hear onl y the horn s in m.14 1
and m.14 7 and th e ratche t an d flutter-tonguing trumpets.
Note th e dynamic s i n m.153 : p i n th e clarinet s an d uppe r strings , bu t a
whacking big ff pizzicato G i n th e basses . It i s Strauss's humorous wa y of signal-
ing th e abrup t unceremoniou s en d o f tha t episode , a s Till beat s a hast y retrea t
from th e demolishe d marketplace .
The basses ' G i s slyl y continue d i n th e contrabassoo n i n m.155 , marke d p .
Note tha t al l othe r instrument s her e ar e marke d eithe r p p o r ppp, dynami c
differentiations tha t appea r no t t o b e observe d o n eve n a singl e recording.
Every tim e I hav e conducte d Till Eulenspiegel I hav e ha d t o cautio n th e
cellos (i n mm . 159-60), th e secon d violin s (in mm . 163-64), an d first violins (in
mm. 167-68) t o pla y thei r pizzicato s mor e forcefully . Strauss' s p p markin g i s
misleading, especiall y sinc e thes e note s ar e se t i n three-par t divisi, 12 meaning
very few players on eac h o f the thre e pitches .
Even mor e problemati c i s th e eight-ba r transitiona l modulator y passage ,
mm. 171-78. I a m applyin g the ter m "transitional " becaus e Strauss' s Till i s very
much lik e a shor t orchestra l oper a wit h scene s an d quic k scen e changes , eac h
describing differen t episode s i n Till' s life . Scen e I start s a t m.51 , fo r example ,
Scene I I a t m.133 , Scen e II I a t m.155 , Scen e I V a t m.179 , an d s o on . I n be -
tween, ther e ar e transitiona l 'scene changes, ' suc h a s mm . 111-32 and , a s jus t
mentioned, mm . 171—78. Th e performanc e proble m i n th e las t i s on e o f bal -
ances an d dynamics , an d t o mak e Strauss' s mai n melodi c lin e clea r (se e
Ex. 13)—which i t i s unfortunately in onl y thre e o r fou r recordings : Busch' s an d
(barely) Masur's , Haitink's , Kempe's an d DeWaart's .
I firs t learne d Till, afte r havin g hear d i t a numbe r o f time s i n performanc e
and recordin g (particularl y Fritz Busch' s earl y 78 rp m recordin g wit h th e BB C
Orchestra), i n m y earl y teen year s from th e composer-approve d pian o reductio n
made b y Otto Singer . Ther e on e ca n clearl y see an d hea r th e six-ba r Klangfar-
ben chai n o f running sixteenth-not e figure s (Ex.13) . The performanc e problems
here ar e two-fold : (1 ) t o produce , despit e th e half-ba r segmentation , on e lon g
connected instrumenta l line , a t th e sam e tim e makin g i n effec t a n over-al l di-
minuendo fro m f (m.171 ) t o p (m . 176); (2 ) t o preven t the accompanyin g instru-
ments fro m coverin g thi s lin e onc e i t i s i n place . Unfortunately , Strauss' s dy-
12. A famous German-speakin g concertmaster of the Berli n Philharmonic (wh o shall remain name-
less) onc e argue d with m e tha t Strauss' s dreifach markin g indicates a triple-sto p an d that , a s such,
the pizzicat o is automaticall y louder, the implicatio n being 'lou d enough. ' Thi s woul d i n fac t b e
the case , excep t that dreifach doe s not indicat e a triple-stop , but, rather , quit e th e opposite : divided
into three parts. This is proven also by the fact that in the cellos the three notes cannot in
any way be played as a triple-stop! *^
Ex. 1 3
namic notations her e ar e not much help , and nee d t o be slightl y adjusted. Sinc e
the player s cannot easil y divine al l thi s fro m thei r individua l printed parts , eve n
after the y hav e bee n adjusted , this passag e require s considerabl e rehearsa l tim e
to brin g of f correctly, tha t is , to achiev e a clea r balanc e betwee n th e (primary )
melodic lin e an d th e (secondary ) harmonic accompaniment . Th e outlin e o f the
latter ca n b e see n i n Ex.14 .
Ex. 1 4
Rather tha n listin g the dynami c adjustment s I'm speakin g o f individually and
verbally, i t i s mor e practica l t o sho w the m i n score , a s i n Ex.15 . Not e tha t al l
sf s hav e bee n change d t o poco s f and , i n an y case , nee d t o b e playe d i n th e
context o f the prevailin g dynamic . I f (1) the dynami c adjustment s here cite d ar e
adhered to , an d (2 ) i f every player involve d i n thi s passag e understand s hi s spe -
cific function(s ) i n it , I ca n almos t guarante e tha t thi s passag e wil l becom e
structurally and expressivel y absolutely clear, as opposed t o the ambiguous , arbi -
trary rendering s on e hear s o n virtuall y all recordings. 13
13. Th e reader , awar e b y no w tha t I a m vigorousl y opposed t o re-orchestratin g th e masterwork s of

the literature , ma y wonde r wh y suddenl y I a m makin g a n exceptio n here , 'retouching ' Strauss' s
score. Fo r m e t o sa y that I a m i n principle, fundamentally oppose d t o retouchin g i s no t a co p out ,
because I do hol d strenuousl y to that principle. But ever y rule, every principle, does hav e somewhere
along th e lin e a n exception . Furthermore , wha t I a m suggestin g her e i s no t th e wholesal e re -
touching/re-orchestrating tha t ha s becom e commo n i n Beethove n an d Schumann , eve n Brahm s —
while generall y ignoring temp o an d dynami c indication s —but simpl y a mil d (cosmetic ) adjustin g
Ex. 1 5
of som e dynamic s (upward , b y th e way ) to mak e Strauss' s five-and-a half Klangfarben sixteenth-not e
line becom e clear , automaticall y audible .
Of course , som e reader s and conductor s wil l say that that' s exactl y what al l conductor s contend :
they ar e simpl y tryin g "to hel p th e composer' s intention s becom e clearer. " Tha t certainl y was what
Mengelberg, Mahler , Klemperer , an d other s claimed . Bu t ultimately , i n m y vie w i t shoul d b e th e
exception, no t th e rule ; als o i t i s a matte r o f degree , tha t i s (a ) a matte r o f what on e i s retouching,
(b) ho w much —many o f th e retouching s o f th e pas t constitute d complet e re-composing s o f th e
passage, changin g notes , re-instrnmentatin g th e wor k —i.e. i s i t micro-surger y o r majo r surgery ? —
and (c ) automatically accepting th e retouching s without eve r questionin g them .
In th e exceptiona l exampl e 1 have cite d here , a fe w dynamic s hav e bee n slightly adjusted . Thi s
hardly come s unde r th e categor y of re-orchestrating .
It defie s understandin g a s to wh y almost n o orchestra s an d conductor s respec t

Strauss's dynamic s in m.17 9 (pi) an d m.18 7 (mf). (Perhap s it i s because Straus s
himself di d no t d o s o i n hi s ow n recordings. ) Onl y Fricsay , Blomstedt , an d
Kempe (al l basically fine Strauss conductors) do , althoug h i n Kempe' s Dresde n
recording, th e dynamic s prematurel y snea k u p i n mm . 18 3-86 t o th e upcomin g
mf (m.187) . I t i s importan t t o observ e th e p dynami c i n m.17 9 no t onl y be -
cause Straus s wrot e i t an d ther e i s n o over-ridin g reason t o ignor e o r adjus t it ,
but becaus e th e dynami c her e bes t expresse s th e moo d an d characte r o f thi s
scene (Scen e I V in the over-al l scenario), which depict s Till, dressed as a monk ,
joining a processio n o f clerics , spoutin g religiou s platitudes . Till' s sermonizin g
is a t firs t unctuousl y devout , thu s p , the n eigh t bar s late r mor e brazenl y bur -
lesquing, thu s mf . Th e low-registe r line i n contra -
bassoon, bas s clarinet, tuba , basses , and tw o low horns, depict s th e rea l Till slyl y
peeking ou t fro m hi s monk' s cloa k an d laughin g "roguishly " ("schelmisch" ) i n
m.191 (El > clarinet).
Till's snicker is now imitate d i n the sol o violin (mm. 194-96)—a quirk y carica-
ture o f Till' s 'mocking ' them e (Ex . 16)—as Till , eve r bolder , taunt s th e rea l
monks, sneerin g a t wha t h e consider s thei r holier-than-tho u fatuousnes s an d
Ex. 1 6
clerical hypocrisy . I t seem s t o m e tha t Till' s sarcas m i s superbly characterize d

by Straus s i n th e sol o violi n passage . An d yet , unfortunately , almos t nobod y
plays, i.e . interprets , th e passag e i n th e suggeste d satiri c manner . I t i s usually
played a s a romantic , sentimental , vibrato- y solo, completel y a t odd s wit h th e
intended sardoni c characterization . No r i s it playe d wit h th e righ t rhythmi c in -
flections. Furthermore , ther e see m t o b e ver y fe w person s wh o recal l tha t i n
some o f th e earlies t edition s o f Till Eulenspiegel th e E' s i n mm . 194-95 wer e
marked wit h a smal l circle , meanin g t o pla y th e not e o n th e ope n E-string .
When thi s i s done , i t immediatel y add s a grating , sneerin g expressio n t o th e
passage whic h i s perfectl y i n keepin g wit h Strauss' s musical-descriptiv e inten -
tions. Th e onl y concertmasters o n recording s who playe d this sol o rhythmicall y
correctly and wit h the ope n E strin g are Coates' s an d Stock' s leaders , an d Rafae l
Druian o n Szell' s Clevelan d recording . Oddl y enough , Druian's successor , Dan -
iel Majeski , play s th e ope n strin g o n onl y th e firs t tw o E's—no t o n th e thir d
one—on Maazel' s recordin g wit h th e sam e orchestra .
As fo r th e rhythmi c aspect s o f th e passage , i t i s sa d t o repor t tha t the y ar e
rarely rendere d correctly . What on e usuall y hear s i s a s i f Straus s ha d writte n
:o r
=, i n effec t completel y subvertin g an d

turning aroun d th e beat , an d turnin g Strauss' s purposel y twiste d phras e int o
something quit e ordinar y an d boring . (Se e Ex.1 6 fo r wha t Straus s actuall y
wrote.) A tiny accent o n th e hig h D an d a carefu l countin g o f the sixty-fourths
and dotte d sixteenth s i n eac h eighth-not e wil l easily rectify th e problem .
I truly don't like the accelerando s o many conductors mak e i n mm. 197-98. It is
sufficient t o observ e Strauss' s doppelt s o schnell (twic e as fast), withou t escalatin g
that wit h anothe r temp o acceleration , especiall y sinc e thes e si x measure s
(mm. 196-202) represent i n Strauss's scenario a n ominous premonitio n o f the sol-
emn judgmen t an d deat h sentenc e hande d dow n eventuall y b y the authorities .
Hurrying the phrase just makes it sound a bit silly and trivial. Strauss's instrumenta -
tion here i s rather unusual: muted brass and fou r mute d sol o violins. What is curi-
ous is that the bras s are marked mf, whil e the string s are marked pp an d muted . If
these dynamic s are taken literally , given the inheren t projectio n capacitie s o f the
two type s of instrument s (bras s and violins) , the resul t wil l be a tremendou s dy -
namic imbalance. Could this be what Straus s had in mind? O r could the violins'
pp be an error? Later, in m.605, the violins' notes—both full section s now playing
and unmuted—ar e marke d mf. On e o f the mor e interestin g and logica l solution s
to the seemin g dilemm a thu s presented i n m.196 is one tha t Frit z Busch turns to,
namely, to have the trumpets an d horns play p. This makes sense because, a s I just
pointed out , the initia l appearance o f this passage is in the natur e o f a foreboding,
a tentative hint of things yet to happen.14
The scor e is , b y th e way , i n erro r i n m.202 . Th e annotatio n wieder noch
einmal s o langsam —a curiou s wa y o f putting it , literally : agai n onc e a s slow —
should hav e bee n place d i n th e middl e o f m.202 , no t a t th e doubl e ba r o f
m.203. For , i f take n literall y a s printed , th e thre e violi n note s i n m.20 3
would hav e t o b e playe d i n th e 'twice-as-fast ' tempo o f m.197—a

clear impossibilit y technically an d a bizarre ide a musically .
The transitiona l episode (mm.209-22) — after th e famou s chromatic descend -
ing violi n sol o —is usuall y playe d wel l enough , althoug h perhap s a bi t loudly ,
especially fo r th e delicat e instrumentatio n i n mm.215-1 8 o f on e flute , thre e
oboes, fou r sol o strings , all marke d pp . However , i n th e nex t 'scene ' —in whic h
Till fall s i n lov e (mm.229-52) , bu t i s peremptorily rejected , throwin g hi m int o
a violen t rag e (m.253 , wütend (furious ) —many smal l an d larg e performance /
interpretational problem s abound . Th e entir e scen e i s musically quit e challeng -
ing, i n term s o f it s myria d instrumentationa l details , dynami c balances , an d
structural complexity . As usual, most o f the problem s aris e from conductors ' an d
musicians' inattentio n t o wha t th e scor e actuall y prescribes , whil e a fe w prob -
lems—a ver y few—ar e th e resul t of ambiguous notation .
Dealing wit h th e latte r first, I woul d cit e th e crescend o i n trombones , tuba ,
14. Fo r th e record , Straus s in hi s ow n recordin g wit h th e Vienn a Philharmoni c has th e fou r sol o
violins pla y f t o mor e o r les s matc h th e mute d brass.
and timpan i i n m.224 . I t woul d hav e bee n usefu l fo r Straus s eithe r t o hav e
added poco to the crescend o wedg e (—= ) or—eve n better—t o hav e indicate d
a termina l dynamic , lik e p o r mp. Bu t i t would seem t o m e tha t an y intelligen t
conductor ough t t o b e concerne d abou t th e degre e o f crescendo i n m.224 . As
it is , on mos t recording s th e crescendo , especiall y i n th e timpani , usuall y goes
all th e wa y t o f , completel y coverin g th e othe r instruments : flutes , bassoons ,
string trills. In th e sam e measur e the oboe s an d Englis h hor n shoul d hav e bee n
marked mf— no t p— to matc h th e flutes , E\> clarinet , an d secon d violins . Th e
solo-viola trill shoul d als o be marke d mf. I t is audi-
ble o n onl y tw o recordings . I t woul d perhap s als o hav e helpe d i f Straus s ha d

given som e dynami c indication s for the 'lov e theme' i n th e first violins, El» clari -
net an d thir d flute . Give n th e accompanimenta l contex t i n mm.229-44 , I sug-
gest tha t th e dynami c i n m.22 9 shoul d b e p , m.23 3 mp , followe d b y Strauss' s
specified m f i n m.23 7 and th e fuithe r crescend o t o /fin m.243—th e increasin g
dynamic level s representing Till's mountin g ardo r and passion .
The rea l problem i n thi s entire episode is that hardly anybody wants to accep t
Strauss's p' s an d pp's, scattere d throughou t th e entir e scene. 15 I a m convince d
that Straus s thought o f th e strin g pizzicato s (se e Exx.lT a an d b ) a s a delicat e
Ex. 17 a
15. Le t u s not e th e specia l subtlet y o f Strauss' s dynami c nuancin g here: p whe n th e 'lov e theme '
appears i n G minor , pp whe n i t appears in G major !
Ex. lib
guitar: Till serenading his amour. Th e onl y recordings on whic h thes e dynamic s
can be heard correctly are Blomstedt's and Kempe's , both wit h the Dresde n Staat -
skapelle. (I suspect that this excellent orchestra, so well trained in the Straus s tradi-
tion, had these sof t dynamics ingrained in their playing of these passages). As I have
mentioned before , for me ther e i s nothing quit e a s exciting as a whol e 85-piec e
orchestra playin g a subtle, refine d pp . An d a true collectiv e p p i n mm.245-5 2 is
especially ravishing , capturing th e intimac y o f TilPs ardo r an d th e voluptuous ,
dance-like lilt of the pizzicat o accompaniment, makin g Till's sudden furious ff out -
burst at m.253 all the mor e exciting and dramati c by contrast.
As Till' s fur y mounts , swearin g reveng e o n th e world , Straus s build s t o a n
extraordinary clima x i n whic h Till's 'mockin g theme' is elaborately expande d i n
rhythmic augmentation , supporte d b y massive , wildl y modulatin g chord s (Ex .
18). Her e a specia l effor t i s neede d i n m.27 6 an d m.28 0 i n th e woodwind s
to mak e th e end s o f bot h descendin g run s audible—the y ar e inaudibl e o n al l
but on e o r two recordings. The flute s can' t help muc h here , descendin g a s they
do, to their weak middle register ; but th e clarinet s certainly can b y crescendoin g
as muc h a s possible to thei r fina l notes .
In a brie f transitiona l interlud e (mm.287-93) , Til l quickl y forget s hi s anger ,
Ex. 1 8
tripping gaily off in searc h o f further mischievou s adventures . A new theme , first
heard i n a quinte t o f thre e bassoons , contrabassoon , an d bas s clarine t (Ex.19) ,
Ex. 1 9
is juxtapose d wit h a ne w varian t o f Till's hor n theme . I n thi s scen e (Scen e VI ,

mm.293-370), Til l i s in a n encounte r wit h th e mos t learne d pedagogue s o f th e
land, plyin g the m wit h incomprehensibl e fact-distortin g question s (th e hor n
theme variant) , to whic h th e academi c philistine s ca n fin d n o logica l answers .
Their confusio n an d dumbfoundednes s ar e depicte d brilliantl y b y Straus s i n
various rhythmicall y 'confusing ' passages , th e professor s al l arguin g amon g
themselves i n ingeniou s doubl e canon s (mm . 319-29) an d helples s stuttering s
(mm.335-46). A t m.30 8 Straus s write s int o hi s scor e abov e Till's them e i n th e
violins lustig (merry , comical) , depictin g Til l laughin g heartil y a s th e learne d
men—in th e 'bassoo n quintet ' no w doubled b y cellos an d basse s —in all earnest-
ness conside r Till' s ludicrou s questions . Thi s passage , wit h it s conflictin g
rhythms, take s a ver y steady , poise d conductoria l hand , whic h i t evidentl y
doesn't ofte n get , judgin g by th e man y recording s i n whic h thi s passag e i s very
shaky—as confuse d a s the bewildere d professor s it describes. Th e entir e episod e
shows Straus s a t onc e a t hi s mos t darin g creativel y an d hi s mos t brillian t an d
imaginative i n th e handlin g o f th e orchestra . Thi s make s thi s sectio n als o ex-
tremely difficul t t o perform , especiall y i f one i s intent o n realizin g ever y one o f
the myria d detail s of the score . Th e tw o canonic episode s mentione d abov e ar e
particularly difficult . A s the musica l example s (20 a an d 20b ) show , th e canon s
are on e bea t apar t i n th e firs t instance , bu t onl y a n eight h apar t i n th e secon d
instance. Thi s darin g rhythmic/metri c dislocatio n o f th e pedagogues ' them e —
from t o
—goes beyon d wha t Brahm s wa s do -
Ex. 20 a
Ex. 20 b
ing i n thi s respec t i n hi s symphonies , an d presage s i n 189 5 wha t Charle s Ivé s

was t o d o a decad e o r s o later , takin g thi s ide a o f metri c dislocatio n much ,
much further.
One wonder s ho w musicians—an d conductor s —coped wit h thes e difficultie s
in 1895 , fo r the y ar e stil l challengin g t o thi s day 16. Whil e mos t orchestra s ca n
now dea l effectivel y wit h th e rhythmi c aspect s o f this section, for the mos t part ,
dynamics an d balance s remai n elusiv e an d unrealized , especiall y th e thre e su -
bito p's/pp's (mm.318, 335, and 358). On only a very few recordings—notably
Blomstedt's, Kempe' s —are thes e dynami c differentiation s realized an d th e vari -
ous intricat e contrapunta l line s clarified .
At m.344, Straus s again over-marked the timpan i an d bas s drum. I f they really
play thei r indicate d ff, th e trombone s an d tuba—le t alon e th e lo w strings —
might a s well g o home fo r al l they'r e goin g t o b e heard . Testimon y fo r this ca n
be foun d o n innumerabl e recordings . (Hea r especiall y the ridiculousl y thunder-
ous percussio n o n Mata' s an d Karajan' s recordings , makin g even th e trombone s
in effec t inaudible. )
The nex t problemati c passag e occur s nea r th e en d o f the scen e (m.362) , i n
which a n amazin g serie s of triadic harmonie s (Ex.21 ) leads t o th e clima x of th e
scene. Becaus e eac h chor d i s set i n a differen t instrumentation , th e specific s of
which canno t b e gleane d fro m a player' s individua l part (onl y from a score) , i t
is not eas y to achieve a balance amon g th e discret e chords an d produc e a n over -
all musica l line . Tha t i s where th e conducto r ha s t o ste p i n and , b y rehearsin g
and balancing , creat e a continuit y i n whic h al l th e instrument s involve d ar e
properly heard , t o arbitrate , a s i t were , betwee n trombone s an d bassoons , o r
trumpets an d clarinets , for example. In mos t recording s the trombone s an d per -
16. Som e orchestra s an d conductor s stil l ha d trouble s wit h thes e rhythm s i n ou r ow n time , a s
witness Steinberg' s 197 0 Bosto n Symphon y recording oí Till Eulenspiegel.
Ex. 2 1
cussion ar e by far the loudest , th e lo w trumpets th e weakest , and th e woodwind s

fend variousl y for themselves i n th e melee. Th e proble m o f balancing an d actu -
ally hearin g th e disparat e harmonie s i s mad e mor e difficul t b y th e spee d wit h
which al l o f this i s happening: a lively tempo o f somewhere aroun d J . = 120 . I
have foun d onl y a few recordings i n whic h thi s remarkabl y daring and inventiv e
passage reflect s wha t Straus s actuall y wrote: Szell's , Solti's , Blomstedt' s (almost) ,
and Ormandy' s (however , at a sluggishl y slow tempo) .
The scen e build s t o a ff-fff clima x with Till derisivel y taunting the perplexe d
academics (fou r times ) , culminating i n a stri -
dent trille d chord , which Straus s called "di e gross e Grimasse" (th e
big grimace) : Till thumbin g hi s nos e a t the outrage d professors .
Till now flits away (mm.371-74), dashing down the neares t alley and whistling
a commo n popula r tune— a Gassenhauer, a s Strauss puts it . It i s amazing t o m e
how many conductors ruin this delightfully witty scene by ignoring its most salient
features: the accelerand o i n m.372, the p at m.375, and—even mor e important—
the pp at m.378. The accelerand o depict s Till's quick escape, the pp his disappear-
ance off into the distanc e — all perfectly realized on Fricsay' s recording.
The musi c evaporates , a s i t were , befor e ou r ver y eye s an d ear s int o a shad -
owy, purposely tenuous passag e (Ex.22) as Till contemplate s hi s nex t move. Th e
music i s fragmented , mad e u p o f distorte d bit s o f T¿//' s 'mockin g theme. ' Car e
must b e take n t o distinguish clearl y in m.38 9 and m.39 3 between th e extremely
short clarine t sixteenth s an d th e longe r full y sustaine d quarter-not e F' s —a dis -
tinction mad e o n almos t n o recordings . No r i s Strauss's tempo/character admo -
nition— schnell un d schattenhaft (fas t an d shadowy)—generall y respected , mos t
conductors slowin g dow n t o a blan d adagio. Tal k abou t missin g th e 'spirit ' o f
the music—a s wel l a s the 'letter' ! Wha t thes e conductor s als o completel y mis s
is the ide a tha t thi s musi c i s already distended rhythmically—fro m th e previous
eighth-notes t o three-times-as-slo w half-notes—an d therefor e doe s no t nee d an y
further slowin g dow n o f th e tempo , an d tha t th e entir e 'shadowy ' episod e i s
structurally a bridg e passag e t o wha t wil l eventuall y become th e recapitulatio n
of Tz7/' s exposition . Th e poin t i s that th e poco rit. i n mm.408-40 9 shoul d lea d
to, i.e . elid e into , th e etwas gemächlicher 17 o f m.410, no t ritar d beyond it , an d
17. Gemächlich, Strauss' s 'tempo ' markin g for th e Prologu e an d use d i n m.41 0 a s a n importan t
tempo referenc e point , i s a virtuall y untranslatabl e wor d meanin g somethin g betwee n leisurely ,
comfortably, an d easy-going.
Ex. 2 2
thereby causin g a kin d o f a tempo a t m.410 . No r shoul d th e basi c temp o prio r

to m.41 0 b e s o slo w a s t o requir e a n a tempo there . Moreover , i f th e bridg e
passage i s take n to o slow , th e ingeniousl y twisted , distorte d obo e phrase s
(mm.403-409)
lose thei r wonderfu l grotesquerie , an d becom e instea d som e sweetl y romanti c

solos tha t ar e quit e ou t o f place i n thi s scene . Last , these obo e solo s should no t
be gemächlich (leisurely) , fo r the n the y anticipat e an d annu l th e effec t o f th e
real, wonderfull y amiabl e gemächlich o f mm.410-28 . Strauss' s etwas gemäch-
licher i n fac t refer s b y inference t o bot h th e immediatel y precedin g sectio n an d
to the temp o o f the work' s opening Prologue . In the first instance, etwas gemäch-
licher ( a littl e mor e leisurely ) clearly implies tha t th e previou s section mus t b e
at a faste r tempo—w e shal l se e i n a momen t ho w muc h faster—an d i n th e
second instanc e ha s th e clea r implicatio n tha t th e temp o a t m.41 0 shoul d in -
deed b e tha t o f the openin g Prologue . State d i n rhythmic notation , th e j . o f the
m.410 6/ 8 equals the j o f the gemächlich Prologue .
By an y accurate , respectfu l readin g o f th e scor e th e temp o i n mm.375-8 5
(the Gassenhauer tune ) shoul d b e quit e fast—fo r several reasons . I f w e assum e
that the basi c 6/8 temp o for Till Eulenspiegel is anywhere betwee n j. = 100
and J . = 120 , the temp o rang e adopte d b y most conductors, the n —obviously—
the three-ba r accelerand o mm.372-7 4 wil l pus h th e temp o u p t o a somewha t
faster spee d level . At m.375 (2/4 ) Strauss says "leichtfertig j = j . de s 6/8" (frivo -
lous, 2/ 4 j = 6/ 8 J.). Thi s clearl y means tha t th e 2/ 4 tempo shal l equa l (vi a a
J. t o j conversion ) th e temp o reache d a t th e en d o f m.374 . Thi s coul d b e
anywhere betwee n J = 11 2 an d 132 . I f w e no w respec t Strauss' s schnell un d
shattenhaft (m.393 ) —i.e. avoi d slowin g dow n —and observ e th e poco rit. i n
m.408 (no t molto rit.), then w e hav e a temp o uni t relationshi p between m.40 9
and m.41 0 of <— J = j . —» . I f the temp o a t m.375 were, for example, j = 13 2 —

more o r less the practica l uppe r temp o limi t considering the fas t triple t figures in
bassoon an d obo e —or, state d i n hal f notes , J = 66 , the n th e littl e poco rit. i n
mm.408-409 might retar d the temp o effectivel y t o j. = 6 0 at m.410. Suc h a se-
quence o f tempos no t onl y fulfills al l the expectation s o f Strauss's score and nota -
tion, but has the furthe r virtu e of positioning us in exactly the righ t tempo t o allow
for th e retur n o f the mai n hor n them e (m.429 ) t o be a replication o f its original
appearance in the exposition—the recapitulation I mentioned earlier .
There i s an excellen t wa y from a baton-technica l poin t o f view to achiev e al l
of this , namely , t o conduc t m.37 5 throug h m.38 5 i n a fas t 'two ' (having , to b e
sure, mad e th e previou s accelerando), g o int o 'one ' a t m.38 6 (maintainin g th e
same speed , o f course) , tha t 'one ' convertin g (vi a th e littl e poco rit), int o th e
'two' o f the new , slightl y slowe r temp o a t m.410 . I n mathematical-metronomi c
terms th e sequenc e woul d b e state d a s i n (Fig . 1).
Fig. 1
mm.386-407 m.408 (rit. ) m.410

J = 66 J = 66, rit. to J = 60 *-J = J.->
J. = 60
In mm.410-2 8 there ar e two aspects tha t requir e some specia l attention . On e

is t o brin g ou t (o r at least no t allo w to b e under-played ) the lovel y cello count -
ermelody th e othe r i s to achiev e a

dynamic an d articulativ e equilibriu m betwee n th e first clarinet an d th e tw o vio-
lin lines , se t i n canoni c imitatio n (se e Ex.23) . (Notic e th e cleve r recyclin g of
Ex. 2 3
Till's hor n them e (brackete d i n th e musica l example) , se t agains t Till's othe r
main them e i n a gemächlich augmentatio n Th e clarine t

has b y nature , eve n whe n playe d legato, a cleare r notc-by-not e articulation ,
while th e string s playe d legato ten d inherentl y t o b e muc h smoother . I believe
if Straus s had pu t th e secon d an d first violin i n secon d clarine t and flut e respec -
tively, th e canoni c interpla y between th e thre e line s woul d b e automaticall y
clear. A s i t is , on e ha s t o admonis h th e violin s t o pla y wit h a certai n kin d o f

left-hand articulatio n t o mak e th e intimat e relationshi p betwee n th e thre e line s
explicitly clear . (Thes e correspondence s betwee n clarine t an d violin s becom e
critical agai n a little late r i n mm.451-64. )
In th e short-live d pseudo-recapitulatio n (m.429) , al l th e points—dynamics ,
tempo—made earlie r regardin g Till's hor n them e ar e applicabl e again , includ -
ing, o f course, th e thir d hor n solo : Till's theme , no w i n th e ke y of D. 18
Horns continu e t o dominat e th e entir e nex t sectio n (mm.449-63 ) (se e Exx .
24a,b,c,d); an d whil e hor n player s hav e lon g ag o mastere d thes e 'solos ' techni -
Ex. 24 a Ex . 24 b
Ex. 24 c Ex . 24 d
cally19, i t is depressing to note tha t non e attemp t t o pla y the fou r passage s in th e
correct rhythmic-metri c configuration ; nor evidentl y do any conductors insis t on
any correc t rendering . I t i s as i f Strauss had writte n
in m.449 .
18. A s an exampl e o f how traditions—no t necessaril y vali d traditions—ar e formed , I migh t cit e m y
own recollection s fro m m y years as a young horn playe r in Ne w York . The Ne w Yor k Philharmonic' s
horn sectio n al l throug h th e Mengelberg-Toscanini-Barbiroll i year s was dominate d b y a marvelou s
horn player , Bruno Jaenicke : no t th e flashiest technician o n th e horn , bu t th e consummat e expres -
sive artis t o n th e instrument . Tw o brothers , relate d b y marriag e t o Jaenicke—Adol f an d Rober t
Schulze (th e latte r m y teacher)—an d a n Italian , Luig i Ricci , complete d th e hor n section . Stylisti-
cally Ricci , originall y hire d b y Toscanini , di d no t fi t int o thi s otherwis e all-German-traine d hor n
section, althoug h i t mus t b e sai d tha t Ricc i tried hi s bes t t o blen d tonall y and dynamicall y with hi s
three hor n partners . Ricci, lik e man y Italia n horn player s of that era , ha d a fantasti c virtuoso tech -
nique, a n incredibl y fas t tongue , an d a flashy , pepper y styl e o f playin g that wa s reall y ligh t years
removed fro m Jaenicke' s conception . Throughou t m y youn g year s I hear d Till Eulenspiegel, a bi g
favorite i n th e Ne w Yor k Philharmoni c repertory , many , man y times ; an d fo r al l thos e year s Ricci
played th e D hor n sol o (mm.436—42 ) faste r an d flashie r tha n i t had eve r bee n playe d before . Ricci
became legendar y fo r hi s technica l prowess—h e neve r misse d a not e i n thi s sol o (o r i n an y other ,
for tha t matter)—an d single-handedl y set a tradition, at leas t in Ne w York , o f playing the thir d hor n
solo i n Till a s a dazzlin g virtuoso display, a 'tradition ' whic h wa s followe d i n Ne w Yor k orchestra s
for decades , an d whic h n o conducto r dare d t o oppose . Th e mora l o f this anecdote i s that a kind of
exceptional technica l virtuosit y determine d th e interpretatio n o f the work , while th e wor k itself—it s
character, it s musica l essence , it s for m an d continuity , it s stylisti c integrity—becam e interpreta -
tionally irrelevant , alas .
19. Nonetheless , i t i s surprising ho w man y third horn s mis s th e C i n m.450 , a s any num -
ber o f recordings will attest .
In the secon d par t of the recapitulatio n (mm.465-84)— a recapitulatio n some -

what modifie d i n orchestratio n an d elongate d b y tw o measures—al l previou s
comments an d suggestion s shoul d obviousl y apply again.
One ca n quibbl e abou t missin g o r ignore d detail s i n th e accompanimen t t o
the exuberant , triumphan t transformatio n (mm.485-500)
of Till's hor n them e —details lik e
the trumpe t fanfare s (no t audibl e o n th e vas t majorit y o f recordings ) an d

some o f th e frolickin g woodwin d run s an d trills—but , i n general , thi s passag e
is played reasonabl y well. I suggest , however , that ever y effort b e mad e t o brin g
out th e tril l i n basse s an d lo w woodwind s i n m.499— a uniquel y Straussia n
touch.
In th e nex t sectio n (mm.500-573) , leadin g to Till's captur e an d arraignmen t
by the authorities , many wonderful details are unfortunately ignored o r misinter-
preted. T o begi n with , th e deliriousl y witt y trumpe t par t i n mm.500-50 8 (Ex .
25) i s rarely heard (bu t hea r i t splendidly on Fricsay' s an d Haitink' s recordings).
Ex. 2 5
Strauss lavishe s all o f his dazzlin g orchestrational skill s o n th e fina l climacti c

section o f the work . It is masterful in conceptio n an d refinemen t o f detail: noth -
ing, no instrument , no motivi c idea , escape s Strauss' s attention an d imagination .
Indeed, i t i s so ric h i n detai l tha t on e wonder s whethe r an y performanc e ca n
ever d o ful l justic e to i t all . I shal l limi t mysel f to som e o f the mor e importan t
and consistentl y ignore d o r misrendere d aspects. 20 I n m.51 6 throug h m.527 ,
20. I rais e a questio n a s t o th e accurac y o f th e hig h F i n th e bassoo n i n m.514 . I hav e alway s
m. 512
wondered i f this shouldn't hav e bee n a hig h C ,
as i n th e otherwis e absolutel y identica l sol o viol a part . Arguin g for th e hig h C i s th e fac t tha t i t
makes a mor e logica l musica l line , an d tha t droppin g suddenl y down t o th e F make s a n awkward
jump an d ver y poor 'voic e leading'; i t also better parallel s the viol a part. Arguing against the hig h C
is th e fac t tha t i n m.51 4 th e lowes t 'bass ' not e i s tha t ver y same F . I t i s possibl e tha t
Strauss wante d t o sustai n tha t F , otherwis e represente d i n onl y tw o tin y eighth-note s i n th e tutt i
violas. Moreover , the bassoon' s F wa s perhap s considere d b y Straus s a dominan t resolvin g t o th e
upcoming (temporary ) tonic o f B t majo r (m.516 )

in virtuall y all recorde d performances , al l on e ca n reall y hea r ar e th e flute s

and th e horns , an d nar y a soun d fro m th e all-importan t 'horn ' mai n them e
in th e oboe s an d violins . It is typical
of the genera l proble m jus t mentioned, namely , tha t Strauss' s fertile imaginatio n
creates a n abundanc e o f polythematic layers , all o f which ofte n have equal statu s
and mus t therefore be correctl y balanced an d integrated . This takes a very sharp,
caring, an d constantl y monitoring conductoria l ear . I n thi s particular passage all
three themati c layer s are marke d eithe r p grazioso (flutes) , o r p p (horns , oboes ,
violins) an d th e remainin g accompanyin g instrument s (trumpet , violas , etc.). I n
nine ou t o f te n performances , however , th e flute s play—an d ar e allowe d t o
play—mf, th e hor n somewher e aroun d mp, an d th e poo r oboes , oddl y enoug h
playing a rea l pp , reced e int o th e distance. 21 Flutists , b y the way , do no t hel p
matters when the y rus h throug h thei r themati c figure s or , in thei r anxiety
to ge t al l th e
notes in , ente r on e eight h early , i.e. o n th e downbea t (a s can b e hear d o n innu -

merable recordings : Toscanini's , Maazel's , Mata's , Steinberg's , Paternostro's ,
among others) . Hor n player s sometime s als o d o no t pla y Till's them e correctly ,
adding t o th e rhythmi c confusion . Fo r example , o n Mackerras' s recordin g with
the Londo n Philharmonic , th e first horn ingeniousl y converts Strauss's
in m.52 0 int o hi s own persona l ver-
sion: which , i f an y compose r actu -

j
ally wrot e suc h a thin g an d aske d a playe r t o rende r i t accurately, woul d imme -
diately elici t a stor m o f wrath an d grumblin g disdain.
Problems o f thi s sor t aboun d i n thi s climacti c sectio n o f Till. Ther e ar e fa r
too man y t o enumerat e here , bu t som e o f th e mor e salien t dereliction s ar e
worth mentioning , t o serv e a s examples . Th e fp's i n mm.532-38 , followe d b y
crescendos t o ff, ar e ignore d o n al l bu t on e recording : Kempe's . O n al l other s
one get s a t bes t a kind o f grudging f - mf 01 an accente d f . No r ca n on e rel y o n
the uppe r string s to make the diminuendo s i n their parts in mm.532-39, diminu -
For a n interestin g paralle l case , wher e Straus s allow s th e ascendin g lin e t o ris e t o it s expecte d
high point , se e ram.169-7 1 i n th e viola s an d Englis h horn :
21. Ther e ar e als o many recordings on whic h the whol e orchestr a her e simpl y plays loudly—m f or
/"—notably Bernstein's , Karajan's, an d Solti's .
endos o f grea t importanc e sinc e the y g o simultaneousl y agains t th e risin g cre-

scendos i n th e lowe r strings , woodwinds , an d horns . A s a resul t o f suc h care -
lessness in th e dynamics , the fantasti c high woodwin d figurations are all but los t
in th e shuffle . Ver y fe w conductor s an d orchestra s mak e th e crucia l dynami c
differentiations i n mm.544-4 8 between fff, ff, an d f . Again , only Kempe, Dorati ,
Reiner, an d Haitin k rende r thes e correctly , whil e Blomstedt , Marriner , Masur ,
Karajan, Maazel , fo r example, d o not .
One o f th e mos t miraculousl y inventiv e passage s i n al l o f lat e 19th-centur y
music i s the climacti c sectio n mm.558-65 , a chai n o f forty-tw o contrapuntall y
organized, wildl y divergen t chords , playe d b y th e entir e orchestra . Thi s mos t
extraordinary harmoni c tou r d e forc e is , however, rarely—i f ever—don e ful l jus -
tice, mos t ofte n becaus e th e timpani , enterin g i n m . 560, marke d f f an d playin g
thirty-five reiterate d D's—note s whic h fo r th e mos t par t d o no t fi t int o an y o f
the chords—simpl y obliterate s th e res t o f th e orchestra . Nothin g o f th e won -
drous harmoni c progressio n is then heard . Tw o things nee d t o be don e i n orde r
for thi s extraordinary passage to b e performe d a s originally conceived b y Strauss.
First, th e timpan i need s t o b e marke d dow n t o a t least mf, particularl y with th e
hard woode n mallet s tha t Straus s calls fo r (fo r rhythmic clarity) . Second , all th e
accented themati c notes—variant s o f Till's 'mockin g theme ' (se e Ex.26a ) —
Ex. 26 a
should b e brough t ou t ff , whil e al l othe r non-themati c note s nee d t o b e playe d

substantially softer , i n orde r fo r th e mai n lin e o f canonic-motivi c interpla y
(Ex.26b) to become aurally clear. I would als o suggest that the conducto r ha s the
orchestra pla y through th e entir e passag e i n slo w motio n s o tha t everyon e ca n
hear an d savor—eve n tun e an d balance—thi s mos t remarkabl e chor d progres -
sion.22 It is then al l the mor e excitin g when thi s tonally completely unanchored ,
almost cacaphonous , musi c i s released int o a pure , brillian t D majo r (m.567) .
Among th e bette r realization s of this entir e passag e is Toscanini's, wh o take s th e
timpani wa y down, an d Blomstedt's , Reiner's , Fricsay's , Sawallisch' s and Henr y
Lewis's. B y comparison , Barenboim's , Solti's , an d Maazel' s 'readings ' o f thi s
22. I hav e don e thi s wit h grea t succes s wit h a numbe r o f orchestras , whe n even th e mos t blas é o f
musicians hav e bee n amaze d a t what the y ar e hearin g fo r the first time. I n truth , rattle d throug h a t
full speed , especiall y with a cannonadin g timpani, even th e bes t an d mos t intereste d musicia n can-
not possibl y hear what Straus s ha s wrough t here. I t i s a pleasure to repor t that, once playe d through
very slowl y chor d b y chord , th e passag e make s mor e sens e t o a n orchestr a and, whe n the n playe d
at ful l tempo , attain s a harmoni c clarity tha t i s startling and otherwis e unachievable .
Ex. 26 b
passage ar e amon g th e worst : no t onl y raucousl y lou d an d insensitiv e t o th e

harmonies, bu t (i n th e cas e o f the latte r two ) almos t fallin g apar t rhythmically
(in mm.563-65)— a rea l mess!
There follow s th e famou s scene o f Till's being apprehende d an d sentence d t o
be hange d o n th e gallows , replet e wit h th e tribunal' s judgment s i n heav y F
minor chord s an d th e executioner' s muffle d drums . I a m oppose d t o th e long -
standing traditio n o f adoptin g a slowe r tempo a t m . 5 77—for a numbe r o f rea -
sons. Again , th e compose r ha s alread y considerably slowe d dow n th e momen -
tum o f th e music—fro m th e fas t eighth-note s o f th e previou s sectio n t o heav y
dotted half-notes . Second , th e fermata s i n mm.581,58 9 an d th e fermata-lik e
elongated chord s i n mm . 596-97,600-601 ar e portentou s an d threatenin g
enough s o that furthe r temp o deviation s ar e quit e unnecessary . Third , Straus s
calls fo r a n etwas breiter ( a littl e broader ) a t m.602 , a clea r indicatio n tha t th e
preceding sectio n shoul d no t b e playe d a t a broade r tempo . I a m als o vehe -
mently oppose d t o th e 'chea p trick ' o f inserting a subito p a t m.602 , a s one ca n
hear, fo r example, o n Blomstedt' s recording. 23
One o f th e wors t instrumenta l abuses , eithe r tolerate d o r aide d an d abette d
23. Blomstedt' s Till recordin g is actually, al l i n all , on e o f the best , on e o f the mos t intelligen t an d
notation-respectful, wel l playe d an d beautifull y recorded . Bu t i t i s als o a bi t humorles s an d rarel y
captures th e Capriccio characte r of the piece .
by countles s conductors , i s th e trombones ' an d tuba' s bad , laz y habi t i n th e

entire 'judgment ' episod e (mm.577-603 ) of dropping thei r sustaine d dotte d half -
(drohend)
notes: . Th e wor d drohend mean s
threatening, ominous , an d i t ough t t o b e self-eviden t that th e mor e firml y sus -

tained thes e 'judges ' pronouncements' ar e intoned, th e mor e effective , th e mor e
dramatic thei r musica l impact . Ther e i s simply n o excus e o r reaso n fo r playing
(on Munch's , Reiner's , Masur's , Sawallisch's ,
Lewis's recordings) o r ¡ (a s o n Slatkin's , Solti's , Ormandy's ) o r
(as on Karajan's , Krauss's , and thos e o f many others).
A descendin g sevent h i n lo w bras s and woodwind s signals
Till's deat h sentence . H e i s hoisted u p o n th e gallow s (m.615),
dangling i n mid-ai r a s hi s las t
shuddering breath (in the flute) escapes him.

Strauss's graphi c depictio n know s n o bounds . Th e grisl y 'gallows ' chord , firs t
heard i n squealin g hig h woodwind s (m.618 ) (incidentall y th e sam e

chord tha t i s par t o f Tiff s El > clarine t theme—se e Exx.4a, b —except inverted) ,
then, afte r Till' s bod y i s brought down , thre e octave s lowe r i n lo w woodwinds
and mute d horn s , is resolved to F majo r a s Till expires . These two horn
chords (mm.623-24 ) ar e no t eas y to tune an d balance , espe -
cially a s they ar e muted . Th e F chord , moreover , i s not se t i n th e usua l man -
ner bu t i n a n od d voicin g , emphasizing th e thir d o f the chord ,
the lowe r A , in a n unusuall y lo w position, an d i s practically inaudibl e o n mos t

recordings.
The Epilogu e (m.632) , all of it in sof t orchestra l colors, is an expande d variant
of the Prologue , on e o f Strauss's most gentl y lyrical creations . It speaks clearly of
the affectio n w e have for Till despit e his roguishness—o r perhap s because of it: a
kind of German Robi n Hood. In performance it should have the feeling of reminis-
cence, of a fond farewell and a poignant memory . Th e Epilogue' s temp o markin g

Doppelt s o langsam (twic e a s slow) is very important , servin g as an unequivoca l
reminder o f what th e relationshi p betwee n th e basi c lebhaft (allegro)—the mai n
6/8-2/4 bod y o f the piece—an d th e Prologue/Epilogu e i s to be. 24 Sinc e Straus s
does no t us e metronom e marking s i n Till Eulenspiegel, nowher e doe s h e tel l u s
anything precise and specific about what tempo—w e have to divine that fro m th e
Prologue's gemächlich, applie d t o the 4/8 meter. Bu t the temp o conversio n at m.6
and the "twice as slow" indication at m.632 tell us at least—and unequivocally so—
that whateve r tempo w e do commit ourselve s to at the beginning , i t should deter -
mine th e lebhaft temp o a s well, i.e. twice as fast as the Prologue . Th e poin t i s that
Strauss's Volles Zeitmass (sehr lebhaft) i n m. 1325 is not a precise tempo indication .
We only find out nea r the en d of Till, a t the Epilogue , tha t it means twice as fast as
the Prologue tempo .
Several small , typicall y Straussian details i n th e Epilogu e ar e ofte n neglecte d
or misinterpreted . For example, th e singl e triangle note i n m.644—suc h a splen -
did touc h —is inaudibl e o n numerou s recordings . I n mm.645-4 6 Straus s plays
around wit h Till's 'hor n theme , now i n a 2/ 4 context i n subtl y differen t variants.
As Ex.2 7 shows , th e fina l tw o note s o f th e motiv e ar e rhythmicall y on e
Ex. 2 7
sixteenth apart . Strauss' s cautionar y = = - i n th e horn s is , unfortunately , rarely

observed —it i s har d (bu t no t impossible ) t o mak e a diminuend o int o a hig h
note o n th e horn—an d thus , o n mos t recordings , whil e th e clarinet s maintai n
their p o r eve n diminuend o int o thei r las t note , th e subtl e rhythmi c pla y be -
tween th e tw o pairs of instruments i s generally lost : one hear s almost onl y horns .
How this shoul d an d ca n soun d ca n b e beautifull y heard o n Kempe' s recording .
The sublim e diminuend o int o m.64 0 is bes t
achieved an d enhance d i n th e first violins by staying on th e A string.

I am oppose d t o the bi g ritardando that mos t conductor s mak e i n mm.647-48,
as i f Strauss's diminuend o wer e no t enough . Th e delicat e suspende d surpris e AI»
chord — just befor e th e rowdy , boisterous fina l eight-ba r coda—i s muc h
24. Toscanin i evidently did no t understan d this relationship. Although his program note write r refers
to the identit y of tempi betwee n Epilogu e and Prologu e an d claim s that Toscanini observes this, th e
Maestro i n fac t doe s not , takin g an inordinatel y slow tempo i n th e Epilogue .
25. Ful l temp o (ver y lively )
more o f a surpris e when i t is not prepare d fo r o r hinte d a t b y an obviou s ritard;

it should com e ou t o f nowhere.
The other—an d final—vulgaris m visite d upo n Till Eulenspiegel, perpetrate d
by man y conductors , i s a i n mm.653-54— a rea l corn y 'Holly -
wood sho w business ' effect . Hea r it , fo r instance , o n Marriner' s recording .
Strauss ha s mad e Till's sneerin g chor d i n it s fina l appearanc e mor e

interesting b y way of instrumentation: th e trombone s an d tub a dro p ou t i n th e
middle o f th e measure , th e secon d hor n quarte t a t th e en d o f th e measur e
(Ex.28). Bu t thi s mean s tha t th e remainin g instrument s mus t maintai n thei r ff
Ex. 2 8
at ful l strength . I t als o mean s tha t th e instrument s tha t dro p ou t mus t d o s o

accurately an d audibly , i.e . n o diminuend o fading . I n an y case , th e corn y ffp
effect i s completely ou t o f place .
Why an y conducto r woul d distor t an d re-compos e Strauss' s 6/ 8 rhythm s i n
the las t fou r measure s o f th e piec e —or allo w the m t o b e distorte d —is beyon d
my comprehension . O n quit e a fe w recordings , mos t shamefull y Karajan' s an d
Stock's, th e music , writte n b y Straus s (Ex.29a) , i s re-composed (Ex.29b) . Unbe -
lievable!
Ex. 29 a Ex . 29 b
Even i n thi s relativel y exhaustive perusa l o f Till Eulenspiegel an d it s perfor-

mance/recording history , I hav e bee n abl e t o touc h upo n onl y th e mos t seriou s
interpretive problem s an d abuses . Give n th e extraordinar y fertility o f Strauss' s
musical imaginatio n an d inventiveness , ther e i s a wealt h o f othe r detai l tha t
might b e discussed . Bu t eve n thes e brie f deliberation s ma y giv e a mil d ide a o f
not onl y ho w man y hundred s o f musica l detail s a performance , a recording ,
should hav e t o address , but als o ho w fa r mos t performance s stray fro m th e in -
tended path , fro m th e notate d score .
Ravel: Daphni s e t Chlo é
Second Suite
It is hard to name a composer wh o was more meticulou s an d detaile d i n his musi-

cal notatio n tha n Mauric e Ravel . Debussy , Stravinsky , Prokofiev , Scriabin ,
Schönberg, Berg , and (especially) Webern are possible contenders, but I doubt that
they surpasse d Rave l in th e exactitud e wit h which h e normall y finalized and re -
fined his scores. The increasin g complexity of music in the first decade of the 20t h
century—in the Frenc h school th e subtle use of varied timbrai mixtures , of multi-
ple divis i i n the strings , in the Viennes e schoo l th e dramaticall y increased us e of
polyphony, a more fragmented continuity combine d wit h a more instrumentall y
individualized chamber music approach, i n the Russia n school th e greater us e of
massive harmoni c an d rhythmi c structures , carefully differentiated orchestral/re-
gistral layerings—al l thi s virtually compelled composer s t o scripturall y 'fix' thei r
musical conceptio n more completel y an d precisel y than had eve r been necessary
earlier. Composers suc h a s Bach, Mozart, Beethoven—eve n Liszt and Wagner—
could rely on a high leve l of established performing traditions, in which their nota -
tion stoo d fo r a great deal mor e tha n actuall y appeared o n th e printe d page . Bu t
with th e eve r mor e rapidl y developing advance s i n musica l conception s an d th e
emergence o f highly differentiated nationalis t styles, stylistic awareness on the par t
of orchestra l musician s (an d conductors ) coul d n o longe r b e take n fo r granted .
Composers, virtuall y in self-defense, resorted to ever greater precision of notation ,
hoping t o pin dow n as many minutiae an d detail s of composition a s notation per -
mitted. Ravel' s Daphnis e t Chloé i s a remarkable exampl e o f such notationa l raf-
finement an d precision , severa l majo r scriptura l discrepancie s no t withstandin g
(more on these later). And yet, considering that the Secon d Suit e from Ravel's bal-
let i s one o f the mos t popular an d mos t performe d earl y 20th-century scores , i t is
staggering to discover that it is rarely played correctly, rarely played as it was writ-
ten, to o ofte n performe d in considerabl e disregard of the hundred s o f details of
instrumentation, dynamics, tempo relationship s Ravel lavished on this, one o f his
most brilliant, perfectly realize d creations.
459
As jus t mentioned , th e Secon d Suit e score , a s printed b y Duran d i n 1913 , i s

not withou t error s an d misprints . Som e ar e quit e serious , suc h a s th e wron g
metronome indicatio n a t m.10 6 (i t should hav e rea d J > = 66) ; o r th e inten t o f
Ravel's retenez i n m.77 . Les s serious , becaus e Ravel' s intention s ca n b e readil y
deduced fro m th e prevailin g context, ar e th e missin g dynamic s i n th e string s at
m.60 an d i n th e lowe r string s i n m.76 , i n th e pizzicat o string s i n m.124 ; th e
missing p p dynamic s i n horns , alt o flute , an d har p a t m.20 , an d numerou s oth -
ers o f the sam e sort .
To reconcile an d clarif y suc h notationa l omission s and ambiguities , th e musi -
cologist an d conscientiou s conducto r normall y turn to the composer' s autograp h
or, alternatively , whe n suc h doe s no t exist , t o a pian o reduction , usuall y pub -
lished a shor t tim e afte r th e initia l ful l scor e edition . B y an ironi c twis t o f fat e
neither o f these sources i s of much hel p in th e cas e of Daphnis e t Chloé. Ravel's
autograph l turn s ou t t o no t onl y contai n almos t al l th e sam e error s as the Du -
rand score , bu t i s ful l o f omission s and discrepancie s whic h were late r rectified
in th e printe d Duran d score . Viewin g th e autograph , a s I have , tw o thing s be -
come clear : th e scor e show s sign s o f grea t haste , a fac t confirme d b y wha t w e
know abou t th e circumstance s durin g th e fina l month s befor e Diaghilev' s Bal -
lets Russe s premier e i n 1912 . Thi s presumabl y migh t explai n th e surprisin g
number o f error s an d omissions . Fo r example , muc h o f th e percussio n part s is
entirely missin g i n th e autograph , evidentl y intende d t o b e fille d i n a t a late r
stage i n th e proces s o f producing th e parts , editing an d printin g th e score . (Th e
percussion part s ar e remarkabl y detaile d an d near-perfectl y represente d i n th e
Durand score. )
Second, i t i s clea r fro m th e autograp h manuscrip t tha t i t wa s use d b y th e
editor an d engrave r a s the basi s for the engravin g of the publishe d score , sinc e
every pag e contain s indication s superimpose d i n anothe r han d i n re d penci l o f
how man y staves would b e require d fo r each printe d scor e page . This mean s i n
turn, a t least conjecturally , tha t eithe r anothe r mor e complet e scor e b y Rave l
existed an d wa s used supplementaril y t o arriv e at th e fina l engraving , o r Rave l
himself complete d an d refine d th e engrave d scor e i n th e proces s o f proofread-
ing. Bu t thi s i s truly conjectura l o n m y par t since , despit e year s o f researc h i n
this matter , I have bee n unabl e t o fin d an y evidenc e tha t suc h a supplementar y
score eve r existed , o r an y absolut e evidenc e tha t Rave l actuall y proofrea d th e
engraved score . That is , however, a reasonabl e an d generall y accepte d assump -
tion.
As fo r th e pian o reductio n o f Daphnis e t Chloé, mad e b y Rave l himself an d
published i n a n unusua l turnabou t i n 1910 , nearl y tw o year s befor e th e pre -
miere an d thre e year s before th e publicatio n o f the ful l score , i t contain s man y
of th e sam e error s an d indee d ha s a fe w o f it s own, no t i n th e orchestra l scor e
(see, fo r example, th e andante temp o markin g a t the first entrance o f the Danse
générale music , p.9 2 o f the pian o score).
1. Ravel' s Daphnis e t Chloé autograp h i s locate d i n th e Harr y Ranso m Librar y an d Humanitie s
Research Cente r o f th e Universit y o f Texa s i n Austin , havin g bee n sol d som e year s ag o t o tha t
insitution b y Durand, Ravel' s publisher.
RAVEL: DAPHNIS E T CHLOÉ SECON D SUIT E 46 1
As a resul t w e ar e lef t wit h a conductor' s scor e whic h fo r th e mos t par t i s

remarkably detaile d and precise , but whic h a t the sam e time contain s a numbe r
of irresolvabl e discrepancie s an d ambiguities , regardin g which n o on e ca n sa y
with absolut e certaint y wha t Ravel' s intention s ma y hav e been. 2 (W e shall dea l
with thes e question s a t th e appropriat e momen t i n ou r analyti c perusa l o f th e
score.) Thi s als o leave s u s wit h th e myster y o f how , b y wha t process , b y whos e
hand, th e printe d scor e becam e a much mor e complet e an d detaile d realization
of Ravel's work than hi s ow n autograp h score .
Measure 1 (rehearsal numbe r 155 ) show s a temp o markin g o f lent J = 50 .
This metronomizatio n turn s ou t t o be , upo n close r scrutin y o f th e score , o f
crucial relevanc e sinc e man y othe r tempo s i n th e Secon d Suit e are , eithe r ex-
plicitly o r implicitly , mathematically relate d t o thi s openin g tempo , a fac t mos t
conductors ar e seemingl y unawar e of . I n th e hand s o f man y conductor s an d
orchestras, Ravel's Daphnis e t Chloé Secon d Suit e ha s become primaril y a virtu-
oso showpiece , i n whic h supe r fas t tempo s ar e see n a s a sure-fir e mean s o f
'knocking th e audienc e out ' an d gainin g thei r thunderou s ovation s an d
screamed bravos.
Although th e famou s Danse générale i s mos t conductors ' favorit e par t fo r
pushing th e temp o t o th e edg e o f th e impossible , th e tranqui l openin g o f th e
Suite i s n o les s immun e t o temp o distortions . Mos t conductor s ignor e Ravel' s
J = 5 0 and, a s Fig. l shows , th e gamu t o f tempos range s al l th e wa y from a n
immobilizing, desultor y J = 3 6 (Dervaux ) an d a to o deliberate , to o slow
J = 4 2 (Munc h an d Mengelberg ) t o a nervousl y driven J = 6 2 (Thoma s an d
Fig. 1
j = 3 6 Dervau x
J = 42 Munch , Mengelberg , Muti , Mehta , Barbirolli , Levi
J = 44 Haitink , Casadesus, Barenboim , Martine n (Chicago) , Slatki n
J = 46 Toscanini , Ansermet , Commissiona , Previn , Boulez , Schwarz , Gaubert ,
Nagano, Nowak , Rattle
J = 48 Abbad o (LSO) , Skrowaczewski , Dohnanyi, Paray , Ozawa, Sinopoli , Mata,
Inbal, Jansons , Levi
J = 50 Solti , Dutoit , Rosenthal , d e Burgos , Slatkin, Ormand y
J = 5 2 Mackerras , Tortelier
J= 54 Kondrashin , Levine, Abbado (BSO )
J= 5 6 Bernstein , Monteux, Stokowsk i (1970), Koussevitsky (1944), Karaja n
J = 60 Maaze l
J = 62 Koussevitzk y (1928) , Thomas
2. I t i s unfortunate tha t th e severa l errat a list s published i n th e Conductors Guild Newsletter—Vol.

6, No.4 (1985) , Vol. 7, No. l (1986) , Vol. 11 , Nos . 1 & 2 (1990)-although dealin g with a n immens e
amount o f valuable notational detai l an d minutia e (includin g wrong pitches) , fail eve n t o allud e to ,
let alon e resolve , some o f th e major question s an d ambiguitie s referre d t o above . Th e same , alas ,
needs t o b e sai d abou t th e newl y publishe d scor e b y Clin t Niewig .
Koussevitzky (1928)) . Th e livelie r tempo, apar t fro m bein g disrespectfu l of Ra-

vel's conception , tend s to mak e th e flut e an d clarine t passag e wor k in th e open -
ing measures sound lik e virtuoso exercises, rather than th e evocatio n o f the quie t
beauty o f earl y dawn an d th e gentl e murmurin g rustlin g sound s o f nature . Ra -
vel's score read s "Aucun brui t qu e le murmure de s ruisselets amassés par la rosé e
qui coul e de s roches " (N o soun d bu t th e murmu r o f rivulet s o f de w flowin g
down ove r the rocks. )
In m. 2 w e encounte r th e first relatively serious performance problem . Ther e
seems alway s to b e considerabl e confusio n a s to wha t note s th e violas ' an d cel -
los' harmonic s ar e t o produce , eve n thoug h th e scor e i s quit e clea r o n thi s
point.3 Second , o n almos t al l recording s thes e viol a an d cell o harmonic s ar e t o
all intent s an d purpose s inaudible ; an d third , almos t n o conducto r seem s t o
realize tha t th e horn s (muted ) ar e t o blen d an d balanc e wit h thos e strin g har -
monics. O n onl y a ver y fe w recording s (Mackerras , Karajan , Skrowaczewski ,
Abbado) ca n som e o f th e viol a an d cell o harmonic s b e hear d a t all , an d the n
not reall y blended wit h th e mute d horns .
There ar e fou r note s i n th e violas , soundin g al l i n harmonics ,
produces produce s produce s
, an d produce s (Al l these harmonic s ar e produce d

on th e C string) . The lowe r staf f i s often interprete d (an d i s so rendered i n th e
printed viol a part ) a s whic h woul d produc e Thi s i s defi -

4
nitely wrong, bu t i s wha t on e hear s clearl y o n th e recordin g b y Dutoit , a
French-speaking conducto r wh o should reall y know better. Why? Becaus e Ravel
clarifies th e potentia l ambiguit y by writing 2nds abov e th e C an d 1r s below th e
G, verifyin g tha t ther e ar e tw o note s her e (no t one ) an d tha t th e c 1 , thoug h
written abov e th e G , i s to b e playe d b y the "seconds " o n thi s staff , actuall y th e
fourth par t i n a tota l four-par t divisi. Havin g n o stem s availabl e in whol e notes ,
this wa s the onl y wa y Rave l coul d indicat e whic h viol a play s wha t note . Thi s
disposition o f th e fou r part s i s furthe r confirme d i n m.6 , where—becaus e th e
meter i s 3/4 , thu s allowin g fo r not e stems—th e matte r i s unequivocall y clear .
But mor e important , i n furthe r answe r t o th e questio n why , i t i s becaus e th e
four pitche s i n th e viola , alon g wit h th e tw o harmonic s i n th e cello s an d thre e
pitches i n muted horns , combin e to make th e followin g beautifully voiced nine -
part chor d Th e cell o note s ar e soundin g
3. Th e confusio n i s compounded b y th e fac t tha t th e printe d part s do no t correspon d to th e score ,

leaving th e concerned , inquisitiv e violis t i n eve n mor e o f a quandary.
4. Tha t al l thi s wa s misunderstoo d b y th e origina l editor/engrave r i s clea r fro m th e "e n 3 " i n th e
viola an d cell o parts in m.2 , no t i n Ravel' s autograph score.
sounding bot h playe d o n th e C string . (Not e th e
respective 1r s and 2d s indication s again. ) Th e horn s hav e thre e note s

pitches whic h coul d no t b e produce d a s easil y i n strin g harmonics . Th e fac t
that th e tw o to p note s o f th e strin g chor d ar e i s confirme d b y th e

presence o f these sam e pitche s i n the clarinets ' top notes , i.e . th e first pitches i n
each 12-not e gruppetto.
This understandin g o f m.2 shoul d mak e conductor s (an d players ) realize tha t
the violas , cellos, and horn s shoul d blend int o a single balanced nine-par t chord.
This i s rarel y th e case , an d usuall y lef t t o chanc e b y mos t conductors , mos t
being unawar e ther e i s even a problem . Usuall y the horns , bu t particularl y th e
first horn, overbalanc e th e viola s an d cellos . I t woul d see m obviou s tha t strin g
harmonics, havin g a basicall y soft 'muted ' veiled sound , hav e t o b e dynamically
adjusted. Ravel , lik e mos t composers , her e indicate s th e resultan t an d desire d
dynamic level: pp. I t is likely—disregarding for the momen t such othe r variables
as acoustics, th e siz e and strengt h o f the viol a section, th e skil l o f the player s in
playing harmonics , th e qualit y o f thei r instrument s i n producin g harmonic s
clearly, and , finally, the differen t dynami c level s a t which th e fou r differen t har -
monics i n th e viola s respond—tha t eac h violis t will hav e t o pla y p o r mp rathe r
than pp . Bu t this i s also subject to another variable , namely, the typ e and quality
of horn mute s use d an d th e hor n players ' abilit y to produce a n evenl y balance d
three-part p p chord . I t shoul d als o b e obviou s tha t th e harmonic s i n mm.2- 6
should b e playe d withou t mutes , which , alas , i s made ambiguou s o r confusing
by th e indicatio n t o remov e mute s i n m. 7 an d m.8 , a n indicatio n which , how -
ever, i s valid onl y i n th e contex t o f the entir e ballet . I strongl y suggest tha t th e
violas an d first and secon d cello s pla y without mute s fro m th e beginnin g o f th e
Suite. I n an y case , th e fina l resul t shoul d b e tha t th e clarinet s an d viola/cello /
horn ensembl e matc h eac h other , al l i n pp ! Exampl e 1 clarifie s ho w th e har -
monics i n m. 2 procee d t o the nex t measure .
On onl y a fe w recording s (Mackerras , Skrowaczewski , Ansermet, Stokowski ,
Kondrashin, Tortelier , Abbado , Levine ) ca n som e o f these harmonic s b e hear d
at al l (usuall y jus t th e viol a G) , an d the n no t reall y blende d wit h th e mute d
horns. O n onl y on e recordin g ar e al l fou r viol a notes audible : Karajan's .
One fina l point : thes e delicat e harmonic s ar e har d enoug h t o brin g out ,
even whe n no t muted , an d eve n whe n th e res t o f the orchestr a play s really pp
(as prescribe d b y Ravel) . Bu t th e harmonic s hav e n o chanc e o f bein g hear d
when th e flutes , clarinets , an d harp s pla y to o loud , a s the y d o i n s o man y re -
cordings, fo r example , Bernstein's , Mata's , Maazel's , Slatkin's , Kondrachin's ,
even Toscanini's . A s mentioned , i n Dutoit' s recordin g th e viola s don' t eve n
play the right notes, a clearly audible high G was not intended by
Ravel.
From th e foregoin g i t seem s logica l tha t th e cello s i n th e firs t seve n bar s
should als o b e divide d into fou r parts : thir d an d fourt h fo r
in uniso n (wit h basse s a n octav e lower) , an d firs t an d
second a s indicated i n Ex.1 .
Ex. 1
It i s distressin g t o hea r o n th e majorit y o f recording s th e lowe r cello s an d

basses draggin g thei r eighth-not e triplet s (i n mm . 1—7). As a result , a t th e down -
beats o f eac h measure , th e woodwinds , in ful l flo w an d unabl e t o wai t fo r th e
low string s —nor shoul d the y hav e t o —are ahea d o f the latter , causin g consider -
able ensembl e an d harmoni c disarray , as on e ca n hear , fo r example , o n Kara -
jan's, Abbado's , Solti's , Schwarz's , Mackerras's , Rattle's , Nagano's , an d Janson' s
recordings. Eve n wors e ar e th e performance s by Dervaux—wh o actuall y slow s
up a t th e en d o f eac h measure—an d Muti , wit h who m th e cello s an d basse s
play th e triple t eighth s i n th e spee d o f regula r eighths , forcin g th e flute s an d
clarinets t o loite r uncomfortabl y on their las t three o r fou r thirty-second-notes .
The openin g o f the Secon d Suit e is , of course, no t onl y abou t correc t temp o
and th e prope r realizatio n o f the viola' s and cello' s harmonics . I t i s in fac t on e
of th e mos t ravishingl y beautiful an d evocativ e moment s i n al l music , an d I
dare sa y nothing lik e i t had eve r appeare d i n musi c before . I t i s all shimmerin g
colors and atmosphere . I t seems to m e almos t fail-safe i n it s extraordinarily imag-
inative orchestration . Eve n so , no t ever y conducto r manage s t o captur e th e
magic o f thi s opening . Toscanin i allow s th e flut e an d clarine t 'rivulets ' soun d
like a technica l exercise , rathe r 'strangling ' th e music , whil e Bernstein' s musi -
cians pla y wit h a n exhibitionisti c virtuos o mf (rathe r tha n Ravel' s delicat e pp),
thereby makin g any magi c o r atmospher e quit e impossible . In man y recordings
the flutes ' an d clarinets ' figures are poorl y coordinated. In Ozawa's , fo r example,
the flutes are both untogethe r rhythmicall y and slowe r than th e clarinet s in m.2.
In Rosenthal' s an d Kondrashin' s recordings , the clarinet s are substantially louder
than th e flutes , playin g als o wit h a n edgy , brittl e sound , quit e inappropriat e for
this passage . Conductors wh o manag e thi s openin g beautifull y ar e Boulez , Hai-
tink, Skrowaczewski , and Previn .
The nex t proble m arise s a t m.8 . Almost al l conductor s allo w thi s measur e t o
sound p or mp, rathe r than pp . Granted , th e horn s are no w open, and th e 1 . an d
2. bassoon part s are har d t o play really pp. Som e conductor s eve n encourag e th e
first bassoo n an d firs t basse s t o 'pla y out / a s i f i t wer e a n importan t 'solo .
However, thi s al l goe s agains t Ravel' s intention s o f havin g th e themati c mate -
rial ente r unobtrusivel y out o f the mist y sonorities of th e
first seven measure s o f the introduction , eventuall y rising to th e first f clima x (at
m.15). Thus , m. 8 represent s a momen t o f elision , no t a n obviou s interruptio n
by the mai n theme .
In m.9 , car e mus t b e take n tha t th e thre e sol o violin s balance int o three-par t
chords. On e ofte n hear s onl y th e to p violin . Moreover , thi s wonderfu l bi t o f
Ravelian onomatopoeia , evokin g the first tentative bir d calls at dawn—th e scor e
says "O n perçoi t de s chant s d'oiseaux"—se t i n thre e sol o violins , piccolo, an d
flute, doe s no t alway s com e of f so well i n performance s an d recordings , mainl y
through lac k of attention o n th e par t of conductors. As any numbe r o f recordings
attest, som e part s o f thi s passag e ar e usuall y inaudible , b e i t th e violi n trill s i n
m.ll an d m.14 , th e piccol o i n mm.12 , 15 , and 16 , or th e violi n harmonic s i n
m.12. Th e proble m i s tha t mos t conductor s ar e unabl e o r unwillin g t o kee p
Ravel's ver y gradua l crescend o i n mm.8-1 4 fro m peakin g to o early , thereb y
drowning ou t th e 'bir d calls, ' especiall y i n th e thre e sol o violins . It i s a shame ,
because Ravel' s dynami c marking s ar e unequivoca l an d right , pacin g th e cre -
scendo eve r s o precisely : mm.8- 9 pp , mm.10-1 1 t o p , mm.12 -
13 mf, m.1 4 t o fin th e 'peak ' measur e 15 . I t i s surprising
and disheartenin g tha t eve n o n recordings , wher e balance s ca n s o easily be ad -
justed, thi s wondrously imaginative passage i s so rarely rendered correctly . Onl y
a fe w recording s d o ful l justic e t o it : Skrowaczewski's , Jansons's, Ormandy's ,
Dohnanyi's, Ansermet's , Previn's , Rosenthal's , Gaubert's , and , abov e all—nearl y
perfect—Martinon's Chicag o recording with Walfred Kujala , on e o f the ver y few
to pla y the piccol o par t reall y correctly.
In m.1 5 over-al l balance ca n easil y be a problem. Horn s an d trombone s mus t
not b e allowe d t o pla y mor e tha n thei r writte n f . Th e indiscriminatel y 'loud '
sound s o ofte n hear d her e completel y drown s ou t th e firs t violins , whic h ar e
divided a 4 (Ex.2) , meaning tha t i n mos t orchestra s ther e ar e onl y three , a t best
four players , pe r individua l part , whic h eve n on e overl y lou d trombon e ca n
easily rende r inaudible .
Another frequentl y encountere d proble m i s tha t her e (an d i n man y simila r
passages, fo r example , mm.38-49 ) th e harpist s pa y n o attentio n t o Ravel' s pre-
5. I have even see n an d hear d conductor s double th e first hassoon i n m. 8 wit h the secon d bassoon.
Ex. 2
eise glissand o markings . The glissando s shoul d encompas s onl y two octaves (i n
the uppe r register) . Mos t harpist s pla y larg e sweepin g four-octav e glissandos,
with th e resul t tha t throug h th e greate r spee d o f th e sweepin g hand s an d th e
fact tha t no w all the mos t projectin g thicker mid-rang e string s are activated , th e
glissandos becom e inordinatel y lou d an d soloistic , thereby obscurin g th e othe r
important primar y thematic/melodic material. 6
Too man y conductor s disregar d Ravel's pp i n th e clarine t an d viola s in m.20 ,
causing a bi g 'dramatic ' entranc e here . Th e resul t i s vulgar and obvious . Ho w
beautiful thi s ca n soun d whe n playe d p p ma y be hear d o n Schwarz' s altogether
excellent recording . Three bars later a slight crescend o t o p (o r at most mp) wil l
suffice, th e highe r dynami c an d slightl y greate r expressivit y being dissolve d i n
the collectiv e diminuend o o f m.25. Accordingly, the phrase-endin g dynamic s in
m.20 i n th e harp , horns , bas s clarinet, an d alt o flut e shoul d b e pp .
Regarding th e piccol o par t (m.26-27) , Rave l intende d thi s t o b e playe d i n
staged ballet performances on-stag e or off-stage, (i.e. not i n the pi t or the orches-
tra), wit h th e directio n "A u loin, u n berge r pass e ave c so n troupeau " (I n th e
distance, a shepherd passe s with his flock) . I t is not unequivocall y clear whethe r
Ravel's markin g o f mf i s th e resultan t intende d dynami c fo r th e audience , o r
whether th e piccol o player , playing off-stage, fo r example , shoul d pla y m f wit h
the actua l effec t i n th e audienc e bein g mor e lik e p . (Th e sam e applie s t o th e
Et clarine t passag e a t m.31). 7 Arguabl y the latte r resul t represent s Ravel' s tru e
intentions, tha t is , a n audibl e p , slightl y abov e th e p p o f th e orchestra . Bu t i f
the piccol o par t i s performed on stage , i t should b e playe d p , no t mf .
There ar e thre e notationa l error s i n th e piccol o par t i n m.2 6 i n al l thre e
sources: autograph , printe d score , an d pian o reduction , namely , th e doubl e do t
in th e thir d bea t should obviousl y be a single dot , th e first ascending ru n shoul d
6. Althoug h th e harpist s i n Rosenthal' s recordin g pla y thei r part s quit e correctly , th e secon d har p is
seriously umferrecorded , whil e th e firs t har p i s badl y overrecorded , almos t turnin g th e wor k int o a
'Harp Concerto. '
7. I hav e i n m y ow n concer t performance s o n severa l occasion s ha d thes e piccol o an d & clarine t
passages playe d off-stag e wit h wonderfu l effect .
have a modifyin g "9, " whil e th e las t si x sixty-fourth s i n bea t 4 shoul d hav e a
modifying "6" : Thi s i s a moot point , however , since, t o
my knowledge , onl y a fe w rar e player s hav e eve r playe d th e thir d an d fourt h
beats rhythmicall y correctly . Instea d o f every -
body play s somethin g lik e , excep t th e piccol o
players i n Barbirolli' s Hall e Orchestra , Gaubert' s Strara m Orchestra , an d Sino -

poli's World Philharmoni c Orchestra .
There i s scarcel y a recorde d performanc e tha t avoid s the self-indulgen t cre-
scendo i n mm.27-2 8 i n th e viola s and clarinets . Rave l wa s perfectly capable o f
writing — • or cresc. if that i s what h e ha d wanted . Absen t such a n indica -
tion, w e hav e th e clea r obligatio n t o perfor m thes e bar s withou t crescendo —
until Rave l himsel f call s fo r on e a t th e en d o f m.29. Indee d man y conductor s
and violist s change Ravel' s phrasing and bowin g fro m
with, o f course , a resultan t heav y thic k mf. Th e proble m the n i s tha t Ravel' s
thirty-second-note 'rivulets, ' which ru n al l the wa y through th e first scene (Lever
du jour)—some 7 5 measures!—becom e quit e inaudible . Again, Schwar z i n hi s
Seattle recordin g find s th e perfec t balance fo r this magica l passage , and s o does
Gaubert i n hi s 192 8 recordin g wit h the Concert s Strara m Orchestra .
In bot h Ravel' s autograph an d th e printe d scor e a cresc. i s inadvertently miss-
ing i n the first violins in m.30 . By the sam e token , th e first violins' thirty-second-
note passag e a t m.3 1 shoul d b e marke d mf , o r els e i t remains simpl y inaudible.
A fairl y seriou s erro r b y omissio n occur s her e (m.31 ) i n bot h autograp h an d
the Duran d score . Fortunatel y here th e pian o reductio n come s t o our aid . Sinc e
there i s a crescend o i n m.3 5 t o p o r mp i n m.3 6 (se e th e oboe , horn, an d violi n
parts), i t i s obvious tha t somethin g i s missing betwee n thos e measure s an d th e
last previous dynamic, namely , mfat m.31 . What i s missing is a one-bar diminu -
endo i n m.3 1 t o a basi c p fo r mm.32-3 4 (thi s i s clearl y indicate d i n Ravel' s
piano reduction) . Thi s notationa l oversigh t ha s cause d conductor s t o com e u p
with al l kinds of makeshift 'solutions, ' the stranges t of which i s Rosenthal's,8 wh o
maintains a vigorous mfin m.31,3 2 an d th e first two beats o f m.33, the n make s
a sudde n one-beat diminuendo (= — ) t o p i n m.34 .
8. Manue l Rosenthal , ninety-on e i n 199 6 an d stil l activ e a s a conductor , studie d wit h Rave l an d
became th e composer' s leadin g disciple, protege, an d musica l confidant . A s a compose r h e i s best
known fo r his symphoni c suites Joan o f Arc an d Musique d e table, but als o as a brillian t orchestrator
of som e o f Ravel's songs and work s fo r piano.
It i s important tha t th e ascendin g chromati c lin e i n th e cello s an d alt o flut e

in mm . 3 2-3 5 i s well heard , bot h a s a counter-lin e t o th e viola s an d clarinet s
and a s a modifie r of the underlyin g harmoni c progression . (I n m.3 4 th e flute' s
G shoul d obviousl y be a Git. ) Measure s 36-3 7 are a clea r instanc e o f the scrip -
tural lacuna e i n Ravel' s autograp h score , mentione d a t th e beginnin g o f thi s
section. Th e dynami c -= : = - w e al l kno w s o wel l an d s o indicate d i n th e
Durand score , exist s only i n th e hor n part s in Ravel' s score. Thi s i s clear proo f
that som e othe r documen t (anothe r workin g score ) o r proces s (proofreading)
intervened t o achieve th e fina l notatio n o f the printe d score .
Up t o this point th e basi c tempo o f J = 5 0 should hav e bee n maintained . A
slight harmony-resolvin g ritardando (kadenzierend i n German ) i s possible a t th e
end o f m.37 , followe d b y a n a tempo a t m.38 , o f course . Bu t here , alas , to o
many conductor s allo w themselve s extraordinar y tempo liberties . Th e wors t of
these offender s ar e Bernstei n an d Mengelberg . Bot h i n m.1 4 an d late r i n m.37 ,
Bernstein elongate s th e fina l quarte r beat s t o suc h a n extan t tha t thei r eighth -
notes are as slow as the basi c quarter beats, so that these 3/ 4 measures become i n
effect 4/ 4 measures . Both conductor s mak e matter s worse in th e secon d passag e
mentioned, by indulging in a huge—in the cas e of Mengelberg abrupt—accele-
rando alread y i n m.35 , followed , o f course , b y the aforementione d hug e com -
pensatory ritard in m.37. These vulgar excesses not onl y totally distort the music ,
destroying Ravel's superb sense o f pacing an d th e wonderfu l aubade-like serenity
of th e introduction , bu t mak e muc h o f th e filigre e passag e wor k completel y
unplayable. (Pit y the poo r violinist s in mm . 3 5-3 7 whe n th e conductor' s temp o
climbs t o aroun d J = 9 6 i n thos e measures! ) I n addition , man y conductor s
disregard th e seductiv e p a t m.38 , allowin g (or urging ) th e violin s to pla y much
louder, followin g it with a big crescendo i n mm.39-40. Again, as in mm.26-27 ,
this passag e i s much mor e expressiv e and poignan t whe n playe d withou t a cre -
scendo. O n th e othe r hand , o n som e recordings , lik e Levine' s (Vienna ) an d
Abbado's (Boston) , the choru s and mos t of the orchestr a sin g and pla y so loud-
way beyon d Ravel' s p— that on e ca n barel y hea r th e beautifu l mai n them e i n
the violins.
The proble m w e encountered i n mm.27-2 8 recur s i n it s reorchestrated vari -
ant i n mm.45-46 . Ther e ar e ver y few recordings tha t avoi d the immediat e cre -
scendo i n th e strings , a crescend o Rave l withhold s unti l m.48 . Agai n Bernstei n
and Mengelber g completel y ignor e Ravel' s p , substitutin g a n unsubtl e heav y
molasses-like mf. Amon g th e fe w recordings i n whic h thi s passag e is beautifully
realized ar e Rosenthal's , Gaubert's , Previn's , Schwarz's , an d Pau l Paray' s alto -
gether superio r renditio n wit h th e Detroi t Symphon y i n 1961 . Sinc e th e string s
will start wit h an up-bow , there is , if they us e th e ful l bow , th e
automatic, virtuall y unavoidabl e result of a crescend o o n thos e tw o notes . Thi s

is the n usuall y followe d b y a ful l down-bo w o n th e Ft t i n m.46 , an d anothe r
crescendo o n th e succeedin g fou r eighth-notes . However , al l o f thi s unwante d
increased soun d i s easil y avoidable , if th e strin g players realize tha t the y must
RAVEL: DAPHNIS E T CHLOE SECON D SUIT E 469
not us e heav y full-length bows here, wit h whic h th e aforementione d crescend o

bulges ar e virtuall y inevitable.
In mm.43-4 4 Rave l devise s on e o f the mos t sublim e an d ye t mos t simpl e of
harmonic progression s i n al l o f music : th e mov e fro m D ma''7 an d D 6 t o C 6
(Ex.3). Par t o f th e magi c o f thi s passag e derive s fro m Ravel' s imaginativ e an d
Ex. 3
highly origina l instrumentation , fo r th e softer dynami c (p) a t m.4 4 i s achieve d

with a larger orchestra : trombone s an d choru s ente r her e a s ne w additiona l
voices. Unfortunately , on numerou s recording s thi s superna l effec t i s ruine d b y
poor ensemble . The beaut y of the passag e i s all the mor e strikin g when conduc -
tors d o no t indulg e i n a ritardand o i n m.43 ; there i s an adde d sens e o f surprise
and revelatio n whe n th e C majo r harmon y arrive s i n tempo. A ritar d i n m.4 3
complicates matter s considerably, because no w the fou r woodwind s have t o slow
their thirty-second-not e figure s t o confor m t o th e ritar d as they d o clearl y in th e
Jansons recordin g (force d als o to adjus t agai n i n th e nex t measure) . Mos t wood -
wind sections , however , d o no t adjus t t o th e conductor' s ritard , wit h th e resul t
that the y arriv e at thei r C majo r well befor e th e res t o f the lingerin g orchestra.
(The wors t example o f this ca n b e hear d o n Ozawa' s an d Levi' s recordings.)
Ravel compose d a suddenl y surgin g crescendo fro m p t o fin on e ba r (m.48) ,
a muc h mor e interesting , inventiv e us e o f dynami c coloratio n an d phrase -
building tha n th e gradua l crescend o on e usuall y hear s i n thi s passage . Ex. 4
shows th e desire d bo w positions fo r the entir e passag e (mm.45-48) .
Ex.4
In m.4 9 th e bras s ar e easil y to o loud , coverin g bot h th e string s an d wood -

winds. O n man y recording s (includin g Boulez' s an d Martinon's ) th e latte r two
sections ar e virtuall y inaudible . Th e secon d bea t particularly , i n th e strings , is
usually los t completely . Th e standar d bowin g
does no t wor k wel l here, especiall y

since 9 0 percen t o f all strin g players use almos t th e whol e ful l bo w o n th e firs t
quarter-note alone, makin g the secon d bea t automatically muc h to o weak . Sav -
ing bo w o n th e firs t bea t wil l help , o f course , bu t a stil l bette r solutio n i s th e
following bowin g (firs t violins , Ex.5a , 2n d violins , violas , cellos , Ex.5b) . Thi s
bowing/phrasing i s certainl y justified , sinc e Ravel' s lon g slu r ove r thre e bar s
Ex. 5 a
Ex. 5 b
is clearly a phrasing indicatio n o f a long legato , no t a bowing .

Grievous sin s are committe d i n mm.52-5 4 by almost all conductors . Ver y few
recordings sample d revea l an y respectfu l treatmen t o f Ravel' s dynami c indica -
tions here . Viola s an d clarinet s ar e marke d p wit h sligh t hairpi n nu -
ances pe r beat , no t th e commonl y hear d nervou s mf o r f. Thes e thre e measure s
(mm. 5 2-54) shoul d evolv e subtly (though, o f course, clearly ) out o f the previou s
three-bar diminuend o passag e —more i n th e sens e o f an elisio n tha n a n abrup t
new start .
The othe r distortio n visited upon thi s passage is that i t i s often playe d too fast ,
that is , with a sudde n pi ù mosso. Apar t fro m th e fac t tha t Rave l wa s perfectl y
capable o f indicatin g plus vite o r pressez i f that's wha t h e wanted—ther e ar e
dozens o f secondar y temp o change s i n th e Secon d Suit e alone , an d hundred s
in th e entir e Daphnis e t Chloé ballet—th e thirty-second-not e group s i n th e first
violins are a clear indication tha t th e temp o shoul d remai n a t the basi c J = 50 ,
in keepin g wit h al l th e othe r previou s thirty-second-not e runs . Furthermore ,
Ravel ha s ingeniousl y give n th e thre e bar s (mm.52-54 ) a faste r feeling—but i n
the sam e tempo—b y th e subdivisio n o f the musi c int o si x eighth-note beat s pe r
bar, i n effec t doublin g th e tempo . A t an eighth-not e o f «h = 100 , thi s passage is
fast an d anguishe d enough ; n o additiona l temp o increas e i s needed. Finally , if
a plus vite i s taken here , m.5 4 ha s t o ritar d i n orde r t o ge t bac k t o th e origina l
tempo a t m.55 . Al l o f thi s i s unnecessar y an d unwanted . True , Rave l write s
angoissé i n th e score ; bu t tha t i s a stag e directio n fo r th e danc e pantomime ,
hardly a specifi c indicatio n o f a temp o change . No r i s i t a licens e t o pla y th e
whole three-ba r passag e f o r mf , a s s o man y orchestra s ar e encourage d (o r al -
lowed) t o do . O f th e recording s sampled, only Haitink' s (wit h th e Bosto n Sym -
phony), Skrowaczewski's , Paray's, Rosenthal's , Ansermet's , Jansons's , an d Ab -
bado's brin g thi s somewha t difficul t passag e of f quit e well , whil e Bernstein's,
Mengelberg's, Barenboims's , an d Mackerras' s ar e rough , loud , an d messil y

played. Bu t eve n thos e performance s tha t observ e Ravel' s pp a t m.5 2 an d main -
tain th e correc t temp o ar e almos t al l flawe d b y tha t alread y often-mentione d
careless habi t o f dropping las t note s befor e a rest . Rave l writes
in th e viola s an d
in th e violins . Bu t o n al l recording s th e las t
notes i n eac h phras e segmen t (circle d i n th e examples ) ar e totally inaudibl e —

in Kondrashin' s recordin g wit h th e Concertgebou w a s i f Rave l ha d writ -
ten
Having traverse d th e firs t fifty-plu s measure s o f th e Secon d Suit e i n som e
detail, I believ e i t i s necessar y t o sho w i n a summar y sequentia l manne r ho w
some conductor s ar e ignoran t o f or choos e t o ignor e wha t th e composer' s scor e
indicates. I f Muti' s an d Karajan' s recording s o f Daphnis e t Chloé wer e excep -
tional, on e migh t b e abl e t o disregar d the m a s singula r aberrations . Th e sa d
truth i s that thei r performance s ar e typica l o f the customar y misrepresentation s
of Ravel' s score . I n bot h recording s cello s an d basse s dra g th e triplet s i n th e
opening measures , i n Muti's , a s already mentioned, to the poin t wher e th e flutes
and clarinet s hav e t o slo w u p drasticall y thei r fina l thre e o r fou r thirty-second -
notes, obviousl y seriousl y interrupting th e intende d flo w o f the music . I n m.6 ,
as i n almos t al l recordings , th e lo w Ft t i n cello s an d basse s i s sharp , a s th e
musicians, no t understandin g th e bitona l harmon y o f G 7 ove r FU , inadvertentl y
reach hig h t o fi t thei r Ft t into th e G o f th e C majo r chord . Mut i no w take s a
much slowe r temp o i n m.8 , an d bot h conductor s crescend o muc h to o early ,
thereby drownin g ou t th e all-importan t bird-son g material . Karaja n reache s mf
as earl y a s m. 10—see Ravel' s indicate d dynami c sequenc e (p.465 ) fo r compari -
son—while Mut i reache s a ful l f b y m.13 .
In m.2 0 Mut i an d Karaja n ignor e Ravel' s pp , enterin g wit h a beef y thickis h
mf i n the violas , tha t completely misses the quie t early-dawn awakening-of-natur e
atmosphere o f th e music . Mut i make s matter s wors e b y stretchin g hi s alread y
painfully slo w temp o t o a lugubriou s J = 32 . Al l upcomin g p' s an d pp's
(mm.27,32,38,46) ar e ignored , favorin g instea d a heav y mf , wit h th e resul t tha t
in Muti' s recordin g i t i s impossibl e t o hea r an y o f th e ripplin g thirty-second -
note figure s i n th e violins . At least Karaja n avoid s Muti' s hug e vulga r ritards in
mm.37,43,48—the las t 3/ 4 bar re-compose d b y Muti int o a 4/4 bar .
Measures 52-5 4 mus t coun t a s possibly th e mos t maltreate d thre e measure s
in th e entir e work . Muti' s an d Karajan' s distortion s are typical . Bot h conductors ,
9. Whe n thi s them e return s i n augmentation , rhythmicall y slightly altered , i n th e Danse générale
in m.269 , th e sam e performanc e proble m occur s (se e pp.492-93).
ignoring Ravel' s delicate p an d pp , lung e int o m.5 2 wit h a n aggressive , offensiv e

f an d a t a suddenl y faste r tempo . Muti' s Philadelphian s struggl e throug h thes e
(complex an d difficult ) thre e measure s mor e o r les s successfully , but Karajan' s
Berliners, completel y throw n b y his 'interpretation ' an d hi s vague beat , produc e
an incredibl e mess .
To continu e no w wher e w e previousl y left of f (around mm.52-54) , tw o usefu l
changes (improvements ) ca n b e see n i n Ravel' s autograph . Accordin g t o th e
manuscript, onl y on e obo e wa s intended t o pla y i n m.5 3 (a n excellen t ide a t o
achieve th e desire d p dynamic) , an d Rave l ha d marke d th e horn s (i n m.53 )
handstopped ( + ).
Great car e mus t b e take n t o mak e accuratel y an d naturally/organicall y th e
transition fro m a dupl e divisio n of the bea t i n m.5 4 to, i n effect , a triple division
of th e bea t i n Ravel' s 9/ 8 i n m.55 . (I t i s ver y shak y o r unclea r i n man y re -
cordings.) I n addition , t o give full meanin g to Ravel' s E minor 71-9' chord a t m.55,
the D i n the thir d hor n an d secon d trombone—th e onl y instrument s sustainin g
the importan t 7t h o f the chord—mus t b e clearl y projected . Thi s becomes eve n
more importan t whe n th e Cl' s i n th e bassoons , strings , an d thir d trumpe t i n
m.56 clash momentaril y wit h th e sustainin g D. Jus t as the transitio n fro m dupl e
to tripl e beat-divisio n i s critica l a t mm.54-55 , s o th e revers e a t m.5 7 i s jus t a s
crucial.
For som e reaso n man y conductor s (an d firs t violi n sections ) lik e t o mak e a
huge crescend o i n mm.60-61 , endin g f a t m.62 . Thi s i s quit e wrong , fo r th e
following thre e reasons : (1 ) The dynami c a t m.6 2 i n al l othe r instrument s is pp,
clearly indicatin g tha t th e alt o flut e an d first violins' dynamic mus t relat e t o this
underlying sof t sound . Thu s th e solutio n i s certainly no t a beef y f , bu t a t mos t
a mp, mor e likel y a p . (2 ) The firs t violin s ar e double d i n th e alt o flute . Ther e
is n o alt o flutis t i n th e worl d who ca n produc e a f Fi t (concert ) comparabl e t o a
whole violi n sections ' f , an d certainl y no t withou t takin g a hug e breat h befor e
the previou s B k Therefore , logi c compel s on e t o conclud e that , i f Ravel' s alt o
flute doublin g i s to hav e an y meanin g (an d an y chanc e o f bein g heard) , the n
the violins ' crescendo mus t b e kep t t o a moderate increase . (3 ) The usua l violi n
f a t m.6 2 completel y cover s th e p p entranc e o f the bassoon , secon d cellos , an d
first basses wit h wha t i s unquestionably a n importan t primar y theme.
The first entranc e o f any percussion occur s here : timpani i n m.62 , suspende d
cymbal i n m.66 . A relatively high-pitched shimmerin g cymba l soun d i s wante d
here, s o tha t th e tw o percussio n instruments—th e cymba l high , th e timpan i
low—embrace th e entir e orchestr a i n a graduall y encroachin g wav e o f soun d
which break s and peak s at m.70 .
Ravel mount s hi s bigges t clima x a t m.7 0 wit h a f f i n al l instruments . Thi s
should mak e clea r tha t th e previou s dynamic peak s (a t mm. 15, 49, and 55 ) must
never b e allowe d to over-reach , les t th e effec t o f the ultimat e clima x a t m.7 0 i s
reduced t o a n anti-climax . Her e i t i s ofte n necessar y t o exhor t th e celest a an d
glockenspiel (Rave l preferre d th e keyboar d jeu d e timbre, a rar e instrumen t i n
the Unite d States ) t o pla y reall y ff , t o preserve , alon g wit h th e triangl e an d tw o
harps, th e ful l brilliant , scintillating , iridescen t effec t o f thi s climax . (Fo r th e
record, on not on e recordin g are the celesta , jeu de timbre, and triangl e audible.)
There i s also a t m.7 0 a fantasti c sens e o f release and affirmation , a s Rave l con -
firms the music' s basi c tonic tonalit y of D major .
The temp o distortion s tha t usuall y occur her e (especiall y m.69) ar e extreme .
Most conductor s tur n th e 3/ 4 int o a 4/ 4 b y stretchin g th e las t tw o eighth s int o
quarter-notes, amon g the m Bernstein , Dutoit , Rattle , Jansons , Barenboim , Der -
vaux, Koussevitzk y an d Boulez . Maaze l an d Slatki n distor t th e measur e eve n
more grotesquely . Instead of Maaze l contort s th e measur e int o
a, whil e Slatki n deform s i t eve n further :

But Mehta' s disfiguremen t o f thi s measur e i s th e mos t blatan t o f all : startin g
m.69 a t J = 3 4 (instead o f J = 50) , he make s tw o huge fermata s on th e two
eighth-notes o f th e thir d beat , th e secon d o f whic h i s four seconds long, i.e .
longer tha n on e entire measure at Ravel' s designated tempo !
Care mus t b e take n a t mm.70-71 tha t th e whol e orchestr a doe s no t diminu-
endo, tha t i t sustain s the ful l intensit y o f the climax , fo r at leas t tw o an d a hal f
measures. A t the sam e time , som e attentio n mus t b e pai d t o no t coverin g th e
main melod y i n th e firs t violins , violas, alto flute , oboes , an d Englis h horn . As
the mai n them e subsides , fallin g t o eve r lowe r octav e

positions and reache s th e thir d violas in m.76—th e divisi en 3 of m.74 continue s
into m.7 8 — it i s well t o mar k the viola s p an d dim. (missin g in scor e an d parts) .
Ravel's retenez in m.77 is one o f the mos t consistently misinterpreted markings
in th e entir e score , for it has been erroneousl y assumed b y several generations of
conductors that this retenez refers only to m.77, and that somehow Ravel forgot to
indicate an au Mouv* at m.78. The resultan t a tempo (o r even piu mosso) i n m.7 8
which on e ca n hea r o n man y recordings (Munch's , Dervaux's , Ozawa's, Dutoit's ,
Jansons's, Rosenthal's , Martinon's , Solti's , d e Burgos's , Rattle's Kondrashin's , and
Barbirolli's, for example) has always sounded awkwar d and abrup t to my ears, and
seems to me to be a complete misconstructio n of Ravel's intentions. A much mor e
plausible interpretation i s that Ravel's retenez indicates the beginnin g of a subtle ,
eleven-bar graduate d ritardand o whic h lead s eventuall y to th e 6/ 8 J ^ = 10 4 at
m.88. There are several reasons that argu e fo r such a realization; most importan t
(1) th e four-ba r repetitiv e thematic phras e i n th e clarinet s startin g m.76; (2 ) th e
lack of a tempo modification in m.87 to lead to the explicit /) = 10 4 in m.88; and
finally (3) the meaning of the Frenc h term retenez.
To tak e th e firs t point , i t make s littl e sens e t o hav e th e clarinet s pla y
one measur e slo w (m.76 ) an d th e nex t measur e fas t (m.77) . Indeed , matter s
are mad e wors e i n tha t someho w man y conductor s fee l compelle d t o jum p
to a muc h faste r temp o a t m.78 , instea d o f at leas t retainin g the basi c J = 5 0
(J. = 5 0 i n 9/8) . The y d o s o probabl y because the y se e m.7 8 a s a bran d ne w
episode i n th e over-al l continuity , and fee l impelle d t o mak e tha t audibl e with
a bran d ne w tempo . Bu t i t i s no t a ne w phase ; i t i s instea d th e fina l outgoin g
phase o f th e Suite' s Lever du Jour (Daybreak ) introduction. I n tha t view , Ravel

uses on e o f his favorit e device s of elision in m.78 , where on e primar y theme (i n
the clarinet ) overlaps and elide s with a new incomin g motiv e (in th e oboe) . Hi s
intention wa s not to make a n obviou s structural break here, bu t rathe r a smooth ,
subtle transitio n fro m on e musica l ide a t o another . I t doe s no t hel p matter s
either whe n th e oboist s ar e allowe d (o r encouraged ) t o pla y mm.78-8 5 a s a
grand solo, ofte n a t a m f dynami c level , whil e a t th e sam e tim e th e a t leas t
equally importan t mai n them e i n th e clarine t i s ignored o r suppressed. O n sev -
eral recording s (Haitink , Munch , Solti , Dutoit ) thi s clarine t melod y i s literally
inaudible; i t i s as i f it had neve r been writte n b y Ravel . The liltin g lulling obo e
motive10 i n thi s (my ) interpretatio n i s graduall y slowe d dow n unti l i t elide s
with a rhythmicall y augmented versio n in th e clarinet . At this point th e music' s
movement come s almos t t o a standstill—almos t i n th e sens e o f a cadentia l fer-
mata—to b e quietl y reanimated i n th e thre e oboe s a t m.88.
A secon d stron g clue a s to the intende d eleven-ba r ritard is given b y Ravel in
the las t ful l bea t o f th e firs t an d secon d obo e part s i n m.87 , wher e th e fina l
sixteenth-note (i n 9/8 ) i s obviously intended t o matc h th e sixteenth s i n m.88. 11
If on e accept s th e usua l interpretatio n o f a 9/ 8 j . = 5 0 at m.78 , a sixteent h i n
that temp o woul d equat e wit h 30 0 o n th e metronome . I t make s littl e sens e t o
have thi s sixteent h a t 300 , bu t th e one s a t m.8 8 J i = 208 . Mos t conductor s
sense this , o f course , an d ge t aroun d th e proble m b y makin g a ritar d aroun d
m.86, a ritard , needles s t o say , no t indicate d b y Ravel . Thi s substitut e ritard ,
furthermore, seem s quit e gratuitou s an d inappropriate , sinc e Rave l ha s already
composed a relaxatio n of the music' s pac e b y means o f rhythmic augmentation
in th e clarine t (m.86)—th e clarinet' s note value s are mor e tha n twic e a s slow as
the precedin g oboe' s note s —making a n additiona l sudde n belate d ritar d quit e
unnecessary an d unjustified .
The thir d reaso n for my suggested gradual relaxation of tempo betwee n m.7 7
and m.88 , i s the ter m retenez itself . Note tha t Rave l use s th e imperativ e form ,
not th e pas t participle retenu o r ralenti, clearly indicating an instructio n t o 'hold
back,' implyin g a continuing , ongoin g holdin g back . I n thi s conceptio n on e
ritards imperceptibly per measur e to arrive in m.87 a t the J (J. ) = ccz.3 4 tempo ,
thus allowin g a subdivisio n of th e las t bea t o f m.8 7 int o thre e eighth s i n 9/8 ,
each eight h equallin g Jl = 104 , th e temp o give n b y Ravel for the nex t formal
episode.
A handfu l o f conductor s interpre t th e retenez mor e o r les s i n th e manne r
suggested here , includin g Dohnanyi , Schwarz, Boulez, Barenboim, Paray, Tosca-
10. Gaubert' s 192 8 recordin g (mad e unde r Ravel' s supervision ) i s th e bes t proo f tha t thi s temp o
destortion i s wrong an d unwanted . Thi s obo e motiv e i s derived fro m th e firs t measur e o f the Suite ,
being a distillatio n an d simplificatio n o f the firs t flut e part' s thirty-second-not e openin g runs , essen -
tially preservin g th e flute' s origina l rang e an d contour s i n th e oboe .
11. Th e Englis h hor n par t shoul d hav e bee n rewritte n a s o ras

nini, Stokowski , Mackerras, and , suprisingly , Mengelberg , wh o ca n s o ofte n b e

idiosyncratically expressiv e and willfu l i n hi s tempo modifications , but wh o her e
(mm.78-87) maintain s hi s basi c slo w temp o J (J. ) = 40 . Unfortunately , he
undermines hi s ow n concep t o f th e passag e b y irrationall y jumpin g suddenl y
to J = 5 0 at the entranc e o f the clarine t i n m.85 . Boule z doe s exactl y the sam e
thing, a s do man y other conductors . Koussevitzk y in hi s 192 8 Bosto n Symphon y
recording, on e o f the firs t eve r o f Daphnis e t Chloé, take s a differen t approach .
He adopt s a temp o o f J (J. ) = 5 2 at m.78 (afte r a subtl e ritar d in m.77) , hold s
that temp o throughou t th e succeedin g te n bars , an d the n simpl y double s th e
tempo a t th e 6/ 8 é 1 = 10 4 in m.88 . Hi s interpretatio n is , however, marre d by
the curiou s anomal y tha t th e oboe s an d Englis h hor n pla y an eighth-not e pick -
up i n m.87 , rather than Ravel' s sixteenth.
Finally, I offer ye t another rational e for my interpretation o f the score' s retenez
as a n ongoin g eleven-ba r ritardando . I n additio n t o th e elisional , transitional
character o f thi s passage , ther e i s a n importan t harmoni c progressio n here ,
which carrie s the musi c vi a three ingeniousl y chose n harmonie s fro m D majo r
to the ne w implie d ke y of B minor a t m.88. Thi s tonality will basically dominate
the entir e nex t sectio n o f the work , the so-calle d Pantomime episode , includin g
the magnificen t flut e sol o o f Chloé' s danc e (mm . 106-30) o n th e secondar y
dominant Fi t minor, resolvin g eventuall y dow n a fift h t o th e toni c B majo r a t
m.207.12 Th e thre e harmonie s Rave l uses t o modulat e fro m D majo r (m.78 ) t o
B mino r (m.88 ) (o n a secon d inversio n peda l poin t Fit ) ar e C 7*4 (m.80)— A
minor (m.82 ) — Ft9 (m.83) , al l harmoni c station s prominentl y encountere d i n
the firs t (lent) sectio n o f th e Suite . Furthe r tyin g thi s passag e t o th e openin g
Daybreak musi c i s th e reappearanc e o f th e four-not e motiv e (a t mm.79 -
80 an d m.82-83 , heard
earlier i n mm.60-62 , no w slightl y varie d an d re-orchestrated . Note , too , tha t

the harmoni c progressio n her e (mm.78-83 ) —D - C 7 - FÏ 7 —is a condense d
microcosmic varian t of the tw o basic alternatin g harmonie s o f the Suite : D ma -
jor 9 (m.l ) an d th e bitona l mixtur e of C an d Fi t major 13 (m.2) . I t is by means of
that C/F Ï mixtur e that Rave l arrives ultimately a t the 'dominant ' Ft peda l point ,
mentioned earlier , i n m.84 . However , thi s F t sound s virtuall y inevitable t o ou r
ears, sinc e i t i s constantl y presen t an d reiterate d i n th e obo e part s mm. 78-8 5,
the thir d o f th e ke y o f D thu s bein g transmute d int o th e fift h o f the ne w ke y
of B minor . Al l o f thi s combine s t o confir m unequivocall y tha t th e passag e
12. Th e Suite' s fina l tumultuou s Danse générale i s basically in A major , thu s yieldin g an over-al l
four-part harmonic/forma l scheme fo r th e entir e Suit e of : D major—F t mino r (flut e solo)— B mi -
nor/B major— A major .
13. Thi s bitona l chor d i s often referre d t o a s the "Petrushk a chord " becaus e o f its prominent us e i n
Stravinsky's famou s 191 1 ballet—althoug h i t should be note d tha t Fran z Lisz t used the sam e bitonal
harmony, distinctiv e and unresolve d (in F an d B major) , a s earl y a s his 183 1 Malediction Concerto
when h e wa s jus t twent y years old(!) .
476 THE COMPLEAT CONDUCTOR
mm.76—88 i s (1 ) transitional , comprisin g a crucia l harmoni c modulator y func -
tion; (2 ) was intended t o relax—t o 'cadence,' a s it were—gradually int o th e ne w
section a t m.88 .
The flute' s F t i n mm.85-8 6 is often playe d to o loud wit h a luxuriant vibrato ,
as i f it were som e importan t sol o passage . It is instead a subtle, quie t pedal poin t
extension o f the clarinet' s Ft , an d shoul d b e playe d mor e i n th e manne r o f a
string harmonic .
It i s amazin g ho w conductor s hav e ignore d an d continu e t o ignor e Ravel' s
tempo markin g J> = 10 4 at m.88, mos t o f them b y a very wide margin, as Fig.2
shows. Clearly , the y can' t al l be right !
It has long been a tradition variously to distort and dres s up th e fou r measures ,
mm.91-94, wit h exaggerate d rubato s an d gratuitou s glissandos . Especiall y an -
noying an d unmusica l i s the silly , uncalled fo r Luftpause hesitatio n between th e
last tw o sixteenth s o f m.92 . Thi s phrase , obviousl y a harmonic , thoug h no t a
rhythmic, varian t of the oboe/Englis h hor n passag e fou r bar s earlier , should no t
be phrase d an y differently . Ravel' s separatio n o f int o
two slurs gives no licens e t o distort the give n rhythm. I t is a cute, 'sexy ' seductiv e
idea tha t someone (wa s it Koussevitzky?) starte d and , lik e weeds i n a n untende d
garden, ha s bee n impossibl e t o stam p out . Again , Rave l was capable o f writing
some hesitatin g Luftpause rhythm , i f he wante d to , a s he demonstrate s handil y
Fig. 2
J> = 64 Nagano , Lev i
Jl = 70 Stokowsk i (1970 )
Jl = 72 Koussevitsk y (1928) , Mackerras , Sinopoli , Skrowaczewsk i
/) = 74 Bernstein , Barenboi m
,h = 76 Boulez , Janson s
J} =78 Abbad o (Boston) , Ormand y
J) = 80 Muti , Dohnany i
J) = 82 Ozawa , Previ n
Jl = 84 Levine , Maazel , Haitink , Martinen , Inbal , Rattl e
.h = 86 Karajan , Mehta , Abbado (Londo n Symphony) , Nowa k
.h = 88 Koussevitsk y (1944), d e Burgos , Slatkin , Janson s
«h = 90 Mat a
«h = 92 Tortelier , Schwar z
«h = 94 Munch , Toscanini, Para y
«h = 96 Slatkin , Mengelberg , Kondrashi n
J)= 100 Solti , Dutoit , Monteux , Casadesu s
J)= 104 Commissiona , Gauber t
.h =106 Rosentha l
J) =112 Dervau x
Jl= 128 Anserme t
.h =138 Barbiroll i
enough
OJ
in m.97 —surely a first in musical his-
tory i n rhythmi c raffinement an d meticulousnes s o f notation . H e coul d easil y

have don e somethin g simila r i n m.92 , bu t didn't . No r i s there an y justificatio n
for th e long-standin g aberratio n an d misinterpretatio n o f Ravel' s très ralenti
in m.93 . Th e passag e i s usuall y playe d
This commo n distortio n o f Ravel' s notatio n i s har d t o explai n i n an y rationa l

terms, fo r what Rave l wrote i s quite clea r an d simpl e (Ex.6) . Notice, b y the way,
Ex. 6
the pas t tens e (très ralenti), meanin g "ver y held back " (no t "holdin g back") , i n
effect a meno mosso — indicating a slowe r temp o fo r th e entir e thre e bar s o f
mm.93-95. Rave l di d no t forge t a n a u Mouv ' i n m.94 , a s so many conductor s
seem t o hav e arbitraril y assumed . H e di d pu t i t tw o bar s late r i n m.96 . Wha t
possible reaso n i s there t o doub t an d chang e thi s conception ? I n addition , Ra -
vel's = = — i n th e latte r hal f o f m.9 3 bring s th e dynami c bac k t o p p a t m.94 ,
where i t shoul d remai n unti l th e las t eight h o f m.95 . Al l o f thi s make s totall y
inexplicable th e subito p p usuall y heard i n m.94 .
That all these tempo, dynamic, and phrasing distortions were established i n the
first decade o f the work's existence—by whom I do not know— is proven by the fac t
that they can already be heard on one of the two earliest recordings of the Daphnis
et Chloé Secon d Suite , Koussevitzky' s 192 8 Bosto n Symphon y recording . The y
can not be heard o n Gaubert's recordin g of the sam e year, recorded unde r Ravel's
supervision. I t i s a remarkabl y faithful, intelligent , clea r an d (fo r the time ) stun -
ningly well-played performance.14 Ho w unmannere d an d warml y expressive this
beautiful Pantomime passag e sounds , whe n rendere d withou t al l th e aforemen -
tioned distortions , ca n als o b e hear d o n Toscanini's , Stokowski' s (1970) , an d
Mengelberg's recording s (the last's, however, marred by the Concertgebouw' s pic -
colo and flute players moving to their D^ l in m.95, three whole beats (J.) early!).
14. Phillipp e Gaubert (1879-1941) , probably best remembere d toda y by flutists for his many beauti-
ful flut e composition s (h e himsel f was a leadin g flutis t i n Franc e aroun d th e tur n o f the century) ,
was als o on e o f France' s fines t an d mos t activ e conductor s i n th e decade s betwee n th e tw o world
wars, leadin g both th e Pari s Conservatoire and Pari s Opera orchestras . His man y fin e recording s all
made i n th e lat e 1920 s and earl y 1930 s comprised mostl y French repertor y (Debussy's Nocturnes,
Dukas's L'Apprenti Sorcier, Franclc' s D Mino r Symphony) , in man y case s firs t recording s of suc h
works.
The a u Mow* i n m.9 6 refer s t o th e temp o a t m.88 , i.e . J > = 104 , a

fact prett y muc h ignore d b y mos t conductors . (On e o f th e odde r interpreta -
tions o f thi s a tempo i s Skrowaczewski's , who , afte r havin g selecte d a ver y
slow temp o fo r th e oboe/Englis h hor n tri o o f m.88-9 1 (j > = 72) , a t th e a u
Mouv* o f m.9 6 return s no t t o tha t slowe r tempo , bu t t o a muc h faste r one ,
•h = 92. )
Many conductor s (fo r example, Previn , Dervaux , Kondrashin , Solti ) d o quit e
the opposite , takin g a fairl y livel y tempo a t m.88 , the n slowin g dramaticall y for
m.92, som e (lik e Dutoit ) addin g a hug e silen t fermat a (/r\ ) i n th e middl e o f
m.91, causin g th e musi c t o com e t o a dea d stop . I n Mehta' s Lo s Angele s re -
cording, i n m.9 6 th e obois t manage s t o recompos e th e phras e fro m
apparently with the blessing s of both th e conducto r an d th e recordin g producer .

The ritar d i n m.9 7 i s als o ofte n exaggerated , particularl y by Bernstein , Previn ,
Dohnanyi, Rattl e —even Paray , wh o a s a Frenchma n shoul d certainl y hav e un -
derstood Ravel' s ver y specia l markin g cédez très peu, meanin g i n essenc e "ver y
little ritard " (literally : yieldin g ver y littl e [i n tempo]) . Indeed , th e tw o scor e
pages encompassin g mm.96-10 5 ar e amon g th e mos t performance-abuse d o f
the entir e work , thi s i n spit e (o r i n defiance ) o f Ravel' s mos t detailed , precise ,
and unambiguou s notation .
Apart fro m th e frequentl y exaggerate d ritar d i n m.97 , th e tin y paus e a t th e
end o f that measur e i s often hel d muc h to o long . (Ca n anythin g b e cleare r tha n
Ravel's très court?—ove r a thirty-second-not e rest! ) Ho w arbitrar y and illogica l
conductors ca n b e i n thei r 'interpretations ' i s shown b y comparin g th e passag e
here unde r discussio n i n tw o recording s b y tw o conductor s presumabl y exper t
and knowledgeabl e i n th e Frenc h repertory , Boulez an d Martinon . Th e forme r
/f\
seemingly can' t rea d French , becaus e h e make s a ver y long fermat a 7 i n m.9 7
when th e scor e clearl y say s très court. Martinon , o n th e othe r hand , doe s a
very shor t fermata, but the n ignore s Ravel' s cédez très pe u i n th e sam e measure ,
making a huge ritardando . I n m.9 8 rarel y i s th e a u Mouv 1 reall y a tempo;
equally rarel y i s th e p dynami c i n m.99 , contrastin g wit h m.96' s mf, re -
spected.
The pressez of m. 100 is generally misinterpreted to refe r onl y to the obo e run ,
which i s additionally taken to o fast , an d the n followe d by some kin d o f slower a
tempo a t m.101 . Ravel' s pressez, signifyin g a gradua l 'pushin g th e tempo, ' i s
eventually cancelle d ou t i n m.10 5 b y the complementar y retenez. Thi s mean s
in simpl e languag e that , startin g a t th e secon d hal f o f m.10 0 ther e i s a poco a
poco accel. unti l th e ritar d i n m.105 . A further mor e precis e refinemen t oftha t
idea suggest s that , i n effect , th e pressez o f m.10 0 cancel s ou t th e immediatel y
previous cédez, thereb y restorin g th e temp o t o a tempo (J > = 104 ) i n m.101 .
From ther e th e temp o continue s t o pres s forward . A good thin g too , fo r i n th e
muted string s i t i s al l bu t impossibl e t o maintai n a stron g f in m.10 2 o n th e
long note , even a t an accelerate d tempo. 15 The oboes ' Ct majo r arpeggi o
is no t onl y generall y played to o fas t bu t wit h a n enormou s crescendo , instea d o f
Ravel's fina l pp . T o matc h th e oboes ' near-forte hig h notes , conductor s the n
arbitrarily chang e th e firs t violins ' pizz. t o f — as i f tw o wrong s woul d mak e a
right. Althoug h thi s obo e passag e i s difficult , i t ca n b e playe d correctl y wit h
Ravel's dynamics , especiall y if not playe d to o fast. 16
15. Typica l o f th e disregar d o f composers ' detaile d notatio n b y conductor s i s th e recordin g o f

Daphnis e t Cúloé b y th e lat e Kyri l Kondrashin , a conducto r ofte n praise d fo r hi s "precis e an d
faithful reproductio n o f th e score. " H e wa s als o notoriou s wit h orchestras , s o on e i s told , fo r de -
manding pianissimo s an d diminuendo s fro m hi s players . Hi s book, Di e Kunst de s Dirigierens, is , as
I hav e mentione d earlier , a valuable an d insightfu l manua l o n "th e ar t o f conducting." Bu t evidentl y
Kondrashin was , lik e man y conductors , no t on e t o practic e wha t h e preached . Th e dozen s o f im-
portant pianissimos i n th e Danse générale o r the crucia l p' s in th e Lever du Jour, say , in mm.20 , 27 ,
45 ar e anythin g but p , mor e lik e mf, even f !
In th e Pantomime sectio n Kondrashi n i s anything bu t 'precise ' an d 'faithful ' t o th e score . A s one
instance, havin g take n a tempo o f J) = 9 6 for the 'obo e trio ' mm.88-91, h e no w drops th e temp o
precipitously t o J > = 8 8 at m.92 , causin g som e confusio n an d poo r ensembl e i n th e orchestr a (th e
Concertgebouw, no t generall y a rattleabl e orchestra) . Then , i n th e middl e o f m.9 2 Kondrashi n
makes a huge ritard , suddenly snap s back int o temp o i n th e beginnin g o f m.93, followed b y another
ritard i n th e secon d hal f o f that measure . I n m.9 4 h e continue s th e ritar d (Ravel' s très ralenti), bu t
then irrationall y indulge s i n a hug e accelerando i n th e piccol o an d flut e i n mm.94-95 , jumpin g
to J l = ca . 100. A quic k glanc e a t Ravel' s scor e wil l sho w tha t non e o f thes e yoyo-lik e temp o
distortions can b e foun d therein .
Incidentally, wh y d o thos e conductor s wh o indulg e i n rhythmi c distortion s i n m.9 2 refrai n fro m
doing th e sam e i n m.102 . (Actually , Bernstei n an d Sinopol i do , makin g matter s eve n worse. )
A wor d abou t Bernstein , on e o f the mos t famou s and revere d conductor s o f al l time , i s perhap s
in order— a wor d tha t man y o f th e million s o f Bernstein' s fan s wil l undoubtedl y rejec t summarily.
The trut h i s that o n th e on e sid e Bernstei n wa s at onc e on e o f the mos t remarkabl e musical talent s
ever to be bor n i n thi s country (o r anywhere els e fo r that matter) an d yet , o n th e othe r side , a n ofte n
confused an d even tragi c figure , wh o wa s in man y way s tor n apar t by hi s man y talents . Althoug h a
multi-gifted pianist , composer , conductor , musica l televisio n evangelist , h e seriousl y misuse d an d
abused hi s talents throug h hi s ego-drive n distortions , exaggerations , podium histrionics , ignorings of
the composers ' texts—no t always , bu t mos t o f the time .
Recent biographie s of Bernstein have dealt with his drinking, his often outrageou s behavior , his pur-
suit of the trend y and chic , hi s bisexuality, as well as the genius , th e brilliance , the charm . An d wha t
emerges i s a picture o f a life of frustrations, non-fulfillments , of a man wit h almost too much talent, too
profusely squandered i n too many directions.
Bernstein had ver y little discipline and n o shame. H e seemingl y needed t o be loved passionately by
millions o f music lovers . And insofa r a s he continuousl y catere d t o thes e extra-musica l demands— a
moth draw n t o the flame—h e wa s much th e lesse r artis t for it . As someone wh o kne w Bernstei n ex -
tremely well—since 194 3 when we first met—I can attest to the veracity of these comments. A t his best
he was a brilliant all-around virtuoso; at his worst his influence was dangerous and damaging .
Bernstein constantl y vacillate d i n hi s praise an d recollection s o f his two main teachers , Koussevit-
zky an d Reiner , dependin g o n expediency , place , an d occasion . H e sometime s claime d Reine r a s
his mos t importan t teacher , sayin g among othe r things , "Reine r i s responsible fo r my ow n ver y hig h
standards" (n o modest y there!) . Yet Bernstein's podiu m antic s an d athleti c exhibitionism , wonderful
for audience s an d television , giv e th e li e t o tha t myth . Indeed , afte r on e o f Bernstein' s telecast s i n
which h e ha d give n one o f his more physica l conducting displays , Reine r was heard t o remark , "He
didn't lear n that fro m me " (quote d i n Phili p Hart' s Fritz Reiner: A Biography (Evanston , 1994) , p .
66).—Levi unmute s th e uppe r string s a t m.101 . Why ?
16. Th e Gt t (pizzicato ) i n th e first violin s i n m.10 1 i s spurious, nonexistent in th e autograp h score;
it shoul d b e eliminated .
Ravel was , o f course , on e o f th e suprem e orchestrator s o f al l time , an d

Daphnis e t Chloé is replete wit h one remarkabl e orchestrational innovatio n afte r
another. I t i s beyond th e scop e an d inten t of this book to dea l exhaustivel y wit h
this aspec t o f Ravel' s oeuvre, excep t wher e especiall y relevan t t o th e structurin g
and continuit y o f the musi c and , therefore , particularl y relevant t o the conduc -
tor. A case i n poin t i s the passag e presentl y unde r discussion , i n whic h Rave l
ingeniously prepare s fo r th e arriva l of th e ke y of F t mino r an d th e famou s ex-
tended flut e solo . Over a Ct t peda l poin t (th e dominan t V o f the upcomin g key )
Ravel weave s a serie s of sevent h chord s (Ex.7) . To reinforc e the Ct peda l
Ex. 7
point, Rave l add s thre e furthe r Ct' s i n harps , woodwinds , an d cellos , droppin g
from th e highes t piccol o C t ove r fou r octave s t o th e cello' s Ct t (Ex.8) . It i s a n
Ex. 8
idea Rave l was very fond of , using i t in man y differen t format s in man y o f his or-
chestral works , and first used in the Secon d Suit e in mm.88-91 (Ft peda l point) ,
reiterated i n mm.92-9 3 (viola s an d harps) , an d no w varie d an d extende d i n
mm.102-105. While Ravel's orchestrational devisings usually work by themselves,
requiring little help from the conducto r or the players , th e C t passag e under dis-
cussion require s a littl e extr a attention . Th e proble m i s the cello' s C t harmoni c
(marked wit h a smal l circl e i n Ex.8 ) i n mm.104-105 . Th e effec t o f descendin g
octave leap s i n different overlappin g instrumentations shoul d wor k perfectly well,
except fo r the fac t tha t (1 ) the cello' s C t harmoni c project s rather feebly; and (2 )
most cellist s i n an y give n orchestr a (a s well a s their conductors ) ar e usuall y un -
aware of the crucial linking function ofthat not e and that they must take that not e
over from the flute in the middl e of m. 104. I n mos t performances an d recording s
one can usually hear the piccolo, oboe , and harps well enough, bu t in the next bar
the flute and Englis h hor n ar e often underplayed, thes e player s not realizing that
they ar e th e middl e lin k i n a three-wa y chai n o f descending Ct's . But , a s men -
tioned, eve n les s audibl e usuall y i s th e cell o harmoni c i n m.104 , whic h mus t
emerge fro m th e flute' s fina l C t i n Klangfarbenmelodie fashion . I n orde r fo r this
passage t o com e of f as intended, th e cello s ma y hav e t o pla y mf rathe r tha n th e
score's mp. Onl y o n Stokowski' s London Symphony , Paray' s Detroi t Symphony ,
and Nagano' s recording s is this cello Ct effectivel y projected.
Chloé's danc e —Ravel's inspire d flut e solo , on e o f hi s crownin g achieve -
ments—is also , alas, one o f his most misinterpreted , both b y flutists and conduc -
RAVEL: DAPHNIS E T CHLOÉ SECON D SUIT E 481
tors. The mos t conspicuou s misrepresentation s occu r i n the real m o f tempo an d

rhythm. Ther e ar e th e usua l interpreter s —flutists an d conductors—wh o righ -
teously believe that since i t is a major solo , akin to an entir e slo w movement i n a
mini-concerto, any interpretiv e libertie s an d rhythmi c freedom s ar e permissible.
Happily ther e ar e als o thos e wh o rightl y interpret th e whol e episod e a s a stately
dance (i n tempo) , perhap s i n th e manne r o f ancient Gree k dram a an d dance ,
in keepin g wit h th e basi c sourc e o f th e ballet' s origin , th e legen d o f Daphnis
and Chloé a s told b y the third-centur y A.D. Gree k poe t Longos .
A degree o f interpretive uncertainty and divergenc e o f views ca n undoubtedl y
be lai d a t Ravel' s feet, o n tw o accounts . First , al l thre e sources , th e autograph ,
the printe d Duran d scor e an d th e pian o reduction , contai n a majo r erro r in th e
tempo markin g a t m.106 , namely , th e metronom e indicatio n J = 66 , whic h
even a t a firs t glanc e seem s discrepan t wit h Ravel' s temp o markin g très lent.
Second, i n m.10 8 th e scor e read s suivez l e solo ("follo w [o r accompany ] th e
soloist"), a n admonitio n tha t has , o f course, give n man y a flutis t an d conducto r
leave t o perpetrate an y license tha t migh t com e t o mind .
As fo r th e metronomizatio n a t m.106 , i t i s easil y prove n t o b e wron g b y de -
duction an d a littl e sleuthin g i n th e score , althoug h oddl y onl y retroactivel y
from th e vantag e poin t o f a late r passag e i n th e work . I n m.139 , a s mentione d
earlier, ther e i s a temp o indicatio n vif (lively) , an d J = J\ précédente, meanin g
that th e quarte r beat s i n m.13 9 shal l b e equivalen t to th e sixteenth s o f the pre -
ceding tempo . This , however , i s clearl y technicall y impossibl e i f tha t previou s
tempo i s J = 66 ; and , sinc e al l th e prio r temp o fluctuations , mostl y slow -
ing dow n th e pulse , ar e cancelle d i n eac h instanc e b y au Mouv 1 ( a tempo), w e
must assum e tha t m.13 8 i s in th e origina l m.10 6 tempo . W e als o alread y know
that J = 6 6 i s not a possibl e temp o fo r th e immediatel y precedin g eigh t mea -
sures, fo r th e variou s sixty-fourt h not e run s i n th e flute s i n mm . 132, 134 , an d
138 (se e Ex.9a , 9b , 9c ) ar e als o unplayabl e a t tha t temp o (i t i s impossibl e t o
Ex. 9 a
Ex. 9 b
Ex. 9 c
play eigh t note s i n th e tim e o f an eighth-not e a t 138 , eve n mor e s o in mm . 13 2,

134, wher e th e scor e say s pressez, i.e . accelerando) . Something , therefore , i s
drastically wrong . Bu t i f w e assum e tha t th e score' s J = 6 6 i n mm . 106—38
should hav e bee n J ^ = 66 , everythin g fall s int o plac e an d everythin g Rave l
wrote becomes possible and playable . It, of course, means as well that the metri c
modulation i n mm . 138/139 ^-J^ J _ > i s in fac t quit e correct .
Incidentally, on e ca n easil y see ho w Rave l was misled int o thinkin g that th e
flute's eigh t sixteenth s i n m.13 9 coul d neatl y matc h it s eigh t sixty-fourth s i n
m.138, a s long a s at tha t momen t h e ha d i n min d th e slowe r Ji = 6 6 tempo .
Turning the metri c equatio n th e othe r way , if the temp o in m.138 were indeed J
= 6 6 and on e hel d t o the J ^ = J metri c modulation , the n th e entir e ensuin g
section o f flut e run s become s absolutel y impossibl e t o play , sinc e the n th e
tempo a t m.13 9 would hav e t o b e J = 264 ; an d tr y playing septuplet sixteent h
runs a t that tempo , no t t o mentio n dealin g wit h th e severa l plus animés an d e n
animants that ar e scattered throughou t the nex t several score pages, culminatin g
in th e spectacula r piccolo-to-alto flut e descendin g four-octav e run i n mm . 180 -
82.
Thus b y retrograd e calculatio n w e ca n safel y establis h tha t m.10 6 an d th e
ensuing flute solo was meant t o be se t in a tempo o f J^ = 66 . This i s confirmed
by Ravel's indication très lent i n m.106 . Fo r if in hi s nomenclature h e call s J =
50 (th e Suite' s openin g tempo ) lent, the n très lent coul d easil y be J = 3 3 (or Jl
= 66) . That tempo als o suits well the entir e flute solo conceived, a s I suggested,
by Rave l a s a ver y statel y danc e o f Gree k antiquity , an d whic h als o contain s
several sixty-fourth-not e groups. I a m convinced , to o tha t Rave l meant i t t o b e
played a s a dance , tha t is , with a stead y pulse. Th e evidenc e fo r thi s i s i n th e
score, bot h explicitl y and b y inference : (a ) i n mm . 124, 126 , an d 12 7 the com -
poser clearl y indicates temp o variations , in tur n signifyin g tha t a t othe r point s
he doe s no t expec t any ; an d (b ) th e flut e sol o alread y ha s al l th e rhythmi c
variation i t ca n possibl y contain . Thu s an y furthe r temp o deviation s ar e no t
only no t needed bu t woul d actually cancel ou t an d subver t Ravel's extraordinary
rhythmic invention . A passag e which ha s i n i t sixtee n differen t division s of th e
beat hardl y requires , o r ca n tolerate , an y furthe r rhythmi c addition s o r liber -

ties.
It i s astounding tha t thi s majo r notationa l erro r wa s neve r correcte d b y Du -
rand i n scor e an d parts, 17 considerin g the enormou s success , innumerable per-
17. I t i s rn y understandin g that a ne w revise d scor e (an d parts ) i s no w bein g produced by Durand ,
to b e availabl e i n th e nea r future .
formances, an d therefor e tremendous royalt y income, Daphnis e t Chloé ha s en -

joyed. A s alread y mentioned , th e recen t Niewe g scor e an d th e variou s
Conductos Guil d Newsletter s unfortunatel y offe r n o ne w o r valuabl e informa -
tion on , this majo r notationa l error .
In 1922 , Ernest Anserme t evidentl y sent Rave l a telegra m askin g for clarifica -
tion o f the temp o questio n a t m.106. Rave l responde d indirectl y to Ansermet i n
a lette r t o Jacque s Durand , date d Marc h 23 , 1922, 18 allowin g tha t "complet e
lunacy" [un e loufoqueri e intégrale ] reigne d ove r the temp o indications . "A t the
très lent i t shoul d rea d é 1 = 66, " the n addin g tw o additiona l revisions : a n a
tempo a t m.136 and "l e double plus vite" (doubl y faster) a t m.136. "Therefore a t
m.139 (vif) th e J equal s the precedin g ^." Somehow—and unfortunately—Rav -
el's clarificatio n to Anserme t neve r wa s widely published an d neve r ha d muc h
currency. Thus the confusion s throughout thi s section continu e t o this day.
As fo r th e indicatio n "suivez l e solo" i n m . 108 (incidentally , not i n Ravel' s
autograph), i t is , admittedl y somewha t confusing , and ha s give n man y a flutis t
license t o tak e Ravel' s written rhythmi c variant s rather lightly . It i s conceivable
that Rave l —in 191 2 —realized tha t thi s sol o migh t caus e it s earl y protagonist s
some performanc e problem s an d thu s fel t incline d t o allo w fo r som e colla
parte freedom . This goe s alon g wit h hi s furthe r annotatio n "expressif e t souple."
But I can't believ e tha t eithe r o r bot h o f these indication s were mean t t o com -
pletely annu l o r re-arrang e Ravel' s richl y imagnativ e an d ingeniou s rhythmi c
invention.
As fo r th e dynamics , Rave l mark s th e sol o initiall y p, meaning , o f course , a
'solo p.' I don' t thin k i t i s to o muc h t o as k tha t flutist s observ e thi s dynamic ,
instead o f the usua l heavy-breathin g f. For , playin g the sol o a t a highe r dynami c
level tha n indicate d create s considerabl e breathin g problems , tha t i s to say , th e
louder a wind playe r plays, the mor e h e wil l ten d t o ru n ou t o f breath. Thi s fac t
has through th e year s force d man y a conductor t o speed u p i n tempo t o accom -
modate th e flutis t (especiall y at mm . 115-116, 117 , 118 , an d 124-25) . At m.115
a sligh t crescendo —or a t leas t ful l maintenanc e o f the soun d —is suggested , no t
only leadin g t o Ravel' s clearl y indicate d mf a t m.11 6 bu t parallelin g th e cre -
scendo i n th e strings.
The accompanimen t i n strings , harp, an d tw o horn s i s almost neve r realize d
in it s ful l harmoni c beaut y an d ingenuity . As we hav e seen , tw o sevent h chord s
(B7 an d Ctt 7 ) i n mm.104-10 5 lea d chromaticall y t o a D 7 chor d i n m.10 6 i n
the uppe r string s (arc o an d pizzicato) , suspended ove r a doubl e peda l poin t o f
Ctts an d Ftts . Afte r si x bar s o f D th e harmonie s progres s i n subtl e chromati c
alteration throug h on e o f Ravel's mos t inspire d harmoni c creation s (se e Ex.10) .
The Ct t in the secon d cellos , secon d hor n an d secon d har p in mm.106—111 mus t
be clearly heard, clashing with the D and C directl y above and below. But beyond
that most of the abov e chords clash with the pulsatin g bass Ftt and Ct t pizzicatos. It
is ver y usefu l t o rehears e thes e strin g harmonie s (mm . 106—26) slowly , tempo -
18. I a m indebte d t o Arbi e Orenstei n fo r thi s information , containe d i n hi s Maurice Ravel: Lettres
Écrits, Entretiens (Paris , 1989) , p.217 .
Ex. 1 0
rarily playin g al l pizzicat o note s arc o t o hea r bette r th e poignantl y dissonan t

clashes.19
There ha s bee n ove r th e year s considerabl e controvers y o r confusio n ove r
the openin g scal e o f th e flut e sol o (m.108) . Ther e ar e thos e wh o insis t an d
claim t o kno w tha t th e scal e shoul d contai n a Dt , som e other s argu e fo r a D t
and a n Et . Th e fac t i s tha t nobod y reall y know s wha t Rave l intended , fo r al l
three source s offe r a differen t version . Th e pian o reduction , th e earlies t pub -
lished source , ha s both th e D t an d Ett . Ravel' s autograph scor e ha s only th e Dl .
The Duran d scor e ha s neithe r D t o r Et , Dï an d E> 1 instead . Th e D t o f th e
autograph, makin g i t a melodi c mino r scale (i n F t minor ) i s a possibility, except
that i t clashes wit h th e man y very clear DN' s i n th e accompaniment . I t is for that
reason tha t som e conductor s hav e argue d fo r the "harmoni c minor " scal e (D^ -
Et). Thi s latte r choic e woul d see m als o t o b e confirme d b y Gaubert' s 192 8
recording, recorde d a s mentione d wit h Rave l i n attendance . I t seem s tha t
through th e variou s stage s o f compositio n an d publishing , Rave l revise d an d
refined th e passage , finalizin g i t i n th e las t proof s fo r th e printe d editio n a s we
see i t i n tha t scor e (Dk - E*l) .
There have been a number of fine recorded performances of the flute solo, nota-
bly Moyse's with Gaubert, Kincaid' s with Stokowski and the Philadelphias, Colin
Fleming wit h Tortelier an d th e Ulste r Symphony, Pete r Lloyd with Previn, James
Pellerite wit h Paray , an d a n unidentifie d flutis t wit h Sinopoli' s Worl d Philhar -
monic. Bu t ther e hav e als o been rendition s ful l o f willful temp o distortion s an d
idiosyncratic liberties . Th e mos t commo n deformatio n i s th e accelerand o i n
mm. 115-16, where many flutists, not preparing for this long Ct, ru n out of air. The
conductor the n oblige s the m b y making a bi g accelerando: Haitin k an d Dorio t
Dwyer (i n a n otherwis e well-played though overl y intens e solo), 20 Sidne y Zeitli n
19. G\ agains t Fi t i n mm.116-17 , D agains t Ct t i n mm . 117-20, E l agains t Fi t i n mm.121-22 , G
and C agains t F t an d Ctt , respectivel y in mm.124-25 . I n m.12 4 a p p i s missing i n bot h scor e an d
parts i n th e first violins, second violins , first violas, an d secon d cellos .
20. Changin g the openin g ru n fro m t o
is als o hardl y a justifiabl e o r necessar y 'interpretation'.

with Skrowaczewski , Dwyer (again ) with Munch , an d Joshu a Smit h wit h Doh -
nanyi (th e las t make s matter s wors e b y makin g a hug e ritardand o i n m.114) .
Though Bernstei n rushe s mm . 115-16 tremendously , hi s flutis t (Juliu s Baker) ,
still canno t sustai n th e C t fo r it s ful l writte n duration. 21 Bu t th e stranges t an d
most inep t renditio n o f al l recording s sample d occur s o n Mengelberg' s 193 8
performance. Mengelber g apparentl y wante d t o believ e th e erroneou s J = 6 6
metronome markin g i n m.106 . Hi s flutist bravely embarks upo n th e solo , how -
ever—in self-defense—startin g on e eight h early . Bu t b y m.11 0 h e ha s pulle d
back the tempo , realizin g that m. l 11 i s quite unplayabl e at J = 66 . Thence th e
solo lurche s an d wobble s forwar d an d backward—th e flutis t basicall y playin g
each firs t bea t o f a give n measur e i n tempo , th e secon d bea t hel d back . Th e
result i s a completel y distorted , na y re-composed , flut e solo , whic h make s n o
musical sense . I t mus t hav e ha d th e poo r bas s players , tryin g t o sta y wit h th e
erratic beat , o n tenterhooks . Th e pizzicat o violin s an d viola s also ha d n o ide a
where t o plac e thei r notes . Actually , conductors startin g the danc e a t a relatively
lively temp o —although no t a s livel y a s Mengelberg's—i s a fairl y commo n oc -
currence. Th e flutist s inevitabl y are forced t o pull th e conducto r bac k i n m. l 10
or m. l 11, as can b e hear d on , amon g others , Muti's , Mehta's , Rosenthal's , Du -
toit's, Sinopoli' s recordings . Karajan' s attemp t t o live n u p th e flut e sol o i s almost
comical. H e start s a t a bris k jl = 76 , bu t hi s flutist, Karlheinz Zöller , quickl y
pulls hi m dow n t o ¿> = 58 . So does Christin a Smit h i n Levi' s recording .
Another on e o f the mor e amazin g distortion s ca n b e hear d i n m.l3 0 i n Bern -
stein's recordin g (wit h Baker) , in whic h afte r a makin g a bi g gratuitou s ritar d i n
m.l22, but a t the sam e tim e ignorin g in m.l2 4 Ravel's retenu légèrement, m. 130
is deforme d int o
In m.l2 9 horn s ar e ofte n rathe r laz y an d slo w abou t quietin g dow n t o

p immediatel y afte r thei r entrance , mos t hor n section s doin g s o muc h late r
than indicated . I n tha t sam e measur e th e Duran d scor e ha s misplace d th e
f i n th e flut e part ; i t shoul d b e a t th e beginnin g o f th e measur e
The a u Mouv" o t m.lil reters—i t should b e obvious—to the Hut e solo's basic
tempo (J i = 66) . I mention thi s because almos t all conductors tak e this passage
too fast , mor e o r les s i n th e wron g temp o o f J > = 132 , som e a s fas t a s / > =
150, on e (Rosenthal ) eve n a t J^ = 180 . I t is , of course, quit e impossibl e t o play
the secon d flut e par t i n m.l3 2 (Ex.11 ) a t suc h fas t tempos . Ther e i s no flutis t
on eart h wh o can play sixteen sixty-fourth-note s in one J=7 0 or J = 9 0 beat .
21. Lauren t and Koussevitzk y 'solve ' th e proble m i n thei r 192 8 recordin g by having the second flut e
hold th e Ct t i n in.115-1 6 fo r th e firs t flut e (als o th e Al t in m.124) , whic h i s no t a n unreasonabl e
idea, excep t when i t i s done a s unsubtl y and noticeabl y as i n thi s recording.
Ex. 1 1
But th e fac t that , i n consequence , flutist s ar e force d t o fak e thei r wa y throug h

the passage , usuall y leaving ou t a t least hal f the writte n notes—hea r Cleveland' s
flutist completel y swallo w th e las t si x note s —doesn't see m t o bothe r Maazel ,
Nagano, Chailly , Levi , Slatkin , o r Meht a a t all . I n onl y Muti' s an d Mata' s re -
cordings, take n a t to o fas t bu t a t leas t a playabl e temp o ca n on e hea r al l th e
notes Rave l wrote. More troubl e a t m.138, where agai n Ravel' s eight sixty-fourths
cannot b e playe d a t th e fas t tempo s conductor s tak e here . Th e resul t i s a mes s
of on e kin d o r another : th e sixty-fourth s change d t o thirty-second s (i.e . twic e as
slow) o r eve n t o sixteenth s (Ansermet) , garblin g th e note s badl y (Commissiona ,
Slatkin, Karajan , Levine) , o r leavin g som e ou t (Jansons , Rattle , Mata : fou r o f
the eighth-note s totall y missing) . Boulez 'solves ' th e proble m b y makin g a bi g
ritard i n mm . 13 7-3 8 an d i s als o wrong . Ho w wonderfu l thi s entir e passag e
sounds whe n don e a t th e righ t temp o ca n b e hear d o n Toscanini' s an d Paray' s
recordings.22 Th e slowe r (correct ) temp o o f jl = 6 6 als o work s beautifully for
mm.136-37, giving time fo r the tw o echoes, f - mf- p , to be controlle d an d wel l
heard. I n thos e tw o measure s th e flut e shoul d obviousl y als o hav e a two-ba r
diminuendo.
The nex t episode , marke d vif. i s usually rendered fairl y correctly , a t least unti l
mm. 148-51. Here flutists pay no attentio n t o Ravel' s very special dynamics , play-
ing the passag e the sam e wa y as in mm . 142-45 (assuming , I suppose, tha t Ravel
'must have mad e a mistake') . Whereas th e dynamic s o f the earlie r four measure s
naturally sui t th e flute' s lac k o f projectio n i n th e lowe r register , therefor e p i n
m.143 an d m.14 5 ( f i n m.14 4 an d m.146) , Rave l ask s the absolut e opposit e i n
mm. 148-51: th e hig h note s (mm.148,150 ) soft , th e lo w note s (mm . 149,151)
loud. I hav e no t hear d a singl e recordin g wher e thi s remarkabl e ide a wa s cor -
rectly realized , althoug h apparentl y Haitin k an d hi s Bosto n flutist s a t least trie d
to achiev e th e desire d effect , without , however , full y succeeding . (Ozaw a i n hi s
innumerable performance s o f th e Daphnis e t Chloé musi c ha s consistentl y ig -
nored thi s typicall y Ravelian raffinement.)
Much o f the nex t (mostl y flute-led ) episod e offer s n o seriou s interpretational /
re-creative problems . W e shoul d onl y quickl y not e tha t a p dynami c i s missin g
in scor e an d part s i n m.154 ; an d indee d hardl y an y wind s an d string s pla y a p
here, forcin g the sol o flut e i n self-defens e t o als o pla y f . I n mm . 184 an d 188 ,
we ofte n hav e th e revers e problem , namely , tha t th e mute d hor n canno t b e
heard a t all . Followin g the acceleratin g animez an d e n animant o f mm. 170 and
174, respectively , Ravel follows wit h a moins animé a t th e clima x of the passag e
22. I n m.13 2 ther e i s also a dange r o f coverin g u p th e run s o f th e secon d flute . I sugges t tha t th e
harp's dynamic s be change d t o p —= : mf .
(m. 180). I t i s a goo d ide a t o thin k o f a specifi c metric modulatio n i n preparin g

for thi s sudden an d difficul t temp o change . If , for example, on e ha s arrive d at a
tempo o f J = 17 5 at m.179 , an d i f one though t o f the septuple t sixteenth s i n
mm. 180-82 a s being th e sam e spee d a s the previou s plai n sixteenths , the n th e
moins animé temp o woul d b e J = 100. 23 Thi s flut e ru n i s impeccably playe d
by th e fou r flutist s o n Schwarz' s recording .
The temp o i n m.18 3 (très lent) i n Ravel' s autograph an d pian o reductio n i s j
= 4 0 (missin g i n th e Duran d score) . Als o missin g i s a diminuend o wedg e
, for the second beat of m.182 in the alto flute, and a /"at the beginning
of m.183 , bot h item s i n Ravel' s manuscrip t score . I n m.18 4 an d m.186 , i t i s a
rare occasion i f the flute s pla y what i s written:
What on e usuall y hear s i s . Also o n man y re -

cordings i n m.18 4 th e Dt t o f the alt o flut e (writte n Gi ) i s not full y hel d ou t t o
the en d o f the measure , tha t is , beyond th e releas e o f the piccol o an d flutes . I n
Bernstein's recordin g the alt o flut e i s inexplicably not hel d throug h (m.186) an d
over int o m.187 .
Apart fro m th e fac t tha t almos t n o on e observe s th e p p i n m.18 7 an d m.193 ,
the nex t bi g performanc e proble m occur s i n mm.191-9 2 an d it s parallel place ,
mm.197-98. Her e fo r some reaso n n o one—absolutel y n o one 24 —pays an y at-
tention t o Ravel' s unusual dynamics , despit e th e fac t tha t th e score' s indication s
are unequivocall y clear—and , I migh t add , remarkabl y inventive . A s Ex.1 2
shows, the orchestr a i s divided into tw o separate an d distinc t rendering s o f these
two-bar phrases , bot h rhythmicall y an d dynamically . A s intende d b y Rave l —
although ignore d b y everyone—woodwind s an d tw o horn s hav e tw o quic k un -
usual dynami c swellings , whil e th e string s an d secon d an d fourt h hor n hav e
a long six-bea t diminuendo fro m f t o pp , no t th e usua l
Also, mos t conductor s mak e matter s wors e b y imposin g a ritardand o o n thes e

two measures, in n o wa y intended b y Ravel; also by making two one-bar phrases ,
rather tha n on e two-ba r phrase .
Just a s universall y ignore d i s Ravel' s ver y clea r retenez—peu—à—peu i n
mm.201-206. Wit h bu t fe w exception s (Koussevitzk y (1928) , Toscanini , Paray ,
Stokowski (1970) , Mackerras , Casadesus ) th e majorit y o f conductor s an d con -
certmasters mak e a ritar d i n mm.201-20 2 (Ravel' s retenez), ofte n ver y substan-
23. A t J = 175 , . = 700 ; at tempo j = 100 , ,= 700 ; therefore m.179= m.ISO' s

24. Gauber t doc s no t quit e succee d either , although there i s evidence on hi s recordin g that h e an d
the orchestr a trie d t o realiz e Ravel' s unusua l dynamics . Gaubert's renditio n o f these measure s is, in
any' Ocase , the leas t distorted o f all extan t recordings
THE COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R
Ex. 1 2
tial, but then make a considerable accelerando (sic) in the risin g violi n line , jus t
where th e scor e clearl y says pe u à peu, meanin g unequivocall y t o continu e th e
ritard littl e b y little.'
Ravel's a u Mouv t i n m.20 7 i s marked J = 8 0 in the autograp h scor e an d th e
piano reduction , bu t i s inadvertentl y left ou t o f the Duran d score . Al l kind s of
tempos hav e bee n attempte d here , rangin g al l the way from Dervaux' s j = 50 ,
Koussevitzky's j = 63 , and Munch's j = 68 , to Solti's J = 108 , an d the most
ridiculous (becaus e virtuall y unplayable i n flutes/clarinets and completel y ou t of
context), Bernstein' s J = 120 .
The lent metronom e markin g a t m.21 2 i s an importan t one , fo r i t no t onl y
refers bac k t o th e openin g temp o o f th e Suit e an d forwar d t o th e nex t lent,
m.221 (als o marked j = 50) , but, I firmly believe, i t also offer s a strong clue , if
not absolut e proof pe r se , that th e animé o f the Danse générale was intended t o
be taken at J = 15 0 that is , three time s the spee d o f the variou s lents. (I n purely
metronomic term s the equation is : lent J > = animé j , or lent j = animé J.) .
There i s additiona l substantiatio n o f thi s concep t i n mm.290-303 , wher e th e
climactic passag e o f mm . 5 5-59 i s recapitulated , althoug h transposed , slightl y
varied rhythmically , an d reconstitute d i n a differen t mete r (Se e Exx.B a an d b) .
To be a n exac t replicatio n o f the origina l phrase i n th e ne w mete r an d tempo ,
Ex. 13 a
Ex. 13 b
it woul d hav e ha d t o hav e bee n writte n a s i n Ex.l3c , bu t th e resemblanc e i s

obviously clos e enoug h t o justif y th e assumptio n tha t th e tw o passage s shoul d
Ex. B e
etc.
be mor e o r les s identica l i n tempo , whic h the y wil l be i f the Danse générale5/4
is take n a t J = 15 0 (J . = « J 50 , J = 75) . Anothe r clue , suggestin g suc h a
tempo relationship , ar e th e las t eighth-not e triplet s i n m.216 , whic h equa l th e
quarter-notes i n m.21 7 (4/ 4 J 3 = 5/ 4 J).
The lent o f mm.212-16 i s generally played ver y well, 25 a s is indeed th e entir e
rest of the Secon d Suite . Perhap s th e reaso n i s that th e Danse générale i s techni-
cally ver y demanding , a virtuos o tou r d e force , leavin g ver y little , i f any, roo m
in it s inexorabl e rhythmi c driv e fo r an y interpretiv e deviations . Generally , th e
only majo r departur e fro m th e scor e i s in fac t i n th e real m o f tempo. Fo r mos t
conductors tak e a muc h faste r temp o tha n th e on e I hav e suggeste d i s inheren t
in Ravel' s conception , undoubtedl y thinkin g tha t th e fastes t possibl e temp o i s
the mos t 'exciting, ' the mos t likel y to 'thrill' the audienc e int o a rousing standing
ovation. I thin k tha t conceptio n actuall y sell s Ravel' s magnificen t scor e short . I
would argu e tha t whil e th e faste r temp o doe s creat e a kin d o f superficial excite -
ment, i t als o lead s t o a fai r amoun t o f 'faking ' i n th e orchestra , wherea s a t a
tempo close r t o J = 15 0 any fin e orchestr a ca n pla y Ravel' s dazzlin g passage
work wit h crystal-clea r clarify , incisiv e excitin g articulations , an d a greate r con -
trast o f texture an d dynamics .
One possibl e reaso n fo r the adoptio n o f thi s faste r animé temp o ma y b e th e
tempo markin g animé j = 16 8 at m.217 i n the pian o reductio n fo r four hand s
(although I a m no t a t al l convince d tha t man y conductor s hav e looke d a t tha t
publication). Paradoxically , the sam e measur e i n th e two-hand pian o reductio n
has th e completel y irrationa l markin g andante j = 68 , obviousl y a complet e
misreading b y th e engrave r an d no t detecte d i n proofreadin g (b y Rave l o r th e
editor).
The slowes t Danse générale tempos o n th e fifty-five recordings I sampled wer e
Barbirolli's ( J = 144) , Ansermet' s an d Paray' s ( J = 152) , an d Previn' s
(J = 156) , while the fastest wer e Bernstein's and Schwarz's , a ridiculous j = 20 4
and j = 200 , respectively , wit h mos t conductor s mor e i n the middl e t o uppe r
25. Mengelber g i s the gran d exception . Fo r som e implausibl e reason , h e fel t th e nee d t o stri p th e
trumpet part s her e o f al l thei r slurs , offerin g instea d a harsh , quit e out-of-context , heavil y tongue d
marcato o n ever y note .
170s. At least those ar e th e tempo s wit h whic h thes e conductor s start the animé.
Most (Koussevitzky , Munch , Toscanini , Jansons , Rattle , Monteux ) settl e dow n
by m.24 1 t o a less franti c j = 156-62 , a tempo muc h close r t o Ravel' s inten -
tions. Bernstein' s supe r fas t J = 204 , mostl y unplayabl e eve n b y the remarkabl e
virtuosos o f th e Ne w Yor k Philharmonic , graduall y bog s dow n t o a stil l ver y
swift J = 184 . Boulez , ofte n toute d a s the parago n o f conductors i n th e reper -
tory o f Debuss y an d Ravel , i s oddl y waywar d in temp o i n th e Danse générale.
Starting ou t wit h a goo d an d reasonabl e j = 15 6 at m.221 , h e the n slow s to
j = 14 4 in th e secon d hal f o f the Danse (m.304) , pushe s u p t o J = 15 0 by
m.218, bu t a t th e en d (aroun d m.362 ) goe s al l ou t fo r a 'flas h finish ' a t
j = 176 . S o much fo r inexorableness o f tempo!
These fas t tempo s caus e anothe r immediat e proble m i n that , i f the conducto r
wants t o adher e t o th e J = 5 0 lent i n m.221 , h e wil l hav e t o ritar d int o tha t
measure a t th e en d o f m.218 , a ritar d which , o f course , i s no t i n Ravel' s scor e
and surel y no t envisione d b y him .
Most o f th e othe r performanc e dereliction s o r misinterpretation s ar e i n th e
realm o f dynamics, a s can b e hear d o n virtuall y all Daphnis recordings . Ravel's
important dynami c nuance s ar e s o universally ignored tha t the y ca n b e summa -
rized an d liste d a s follows :
1) the crescendo , especiall y in th e flute s an d oboe s fro m mf t o f in m.22 3
2) th e subito p p fo r al l player s in m.22 4
3) th e clearl y marke d p p subito i n m.22 9 (Solti , Previn , an d Rattl e ar e th e
only one s t o observ e this wonderfu l pp).
4) th e p p i n m.25 0 (secon d beat )
5) th e subito p i n m.25 8 (secon d beat) , sometime s don e sor t of half-heartedl y
6) th e p i n m.26 9 (o n virtuall y all recording s thi s i s playe d wit h a vigorous,
insensitive m f or, a t best, mp).
7) th e p p a t m.306 ; th e p a t m.31 1 (Casadesu s an d Janson s ar e amon g th e
few conductor s wh o observ e thes e dynamics) 26
8) th e p a t m.316 , a s well as the ensuin g m f in m.31 7
9) th e subito p p i n m.31 8 (again , Casadesus doe s thi s well)
10) only p a t m.32 1
11) th e p i n m.32 6 (secon d beat) , sometime s don e bu t half-heartedly ; simi -
larly m.33 0
26. I ca n remembe r a s a young teenag e hor n playe r notin g tha t i n al l recording s and performance s
of Daphnis I hear d i n thos e year s th e mute d horn s i n m.308— a passag e I ha d alread y diligently
practiced—were alway s frustratingly inaudible . I ingenuousl y reasone d tha t Rave l ha d marke d th e
horn part s to o sof t an d tha t w e hor n player s simpl y ha d t o pla y the passag e loude r i n orde r t o b e
heard. What I didn't realiz e unti l I studied th e scor e mor e carefull y year s later wa s that Ravel' s horn
dynamics wer e quit e perfect , an d tha t i t wa s conductor s an d th e othe r instrument s (bas s clarinet ,
bassoons, an d lowe r strings ) tha t wer e alway s to o loud , ignorin g Ravel' s pp— their actua l m f o r / "
automatically obscurin g th e mute d horns .
The sam e proble m occurred—an d stil l occur s t o thi s day—i n th e nex t measur e where th e alt o
flute canno t b e hear d i f the othe r instrument s do no t observ e Ravel's p dynamics . Instead o f paying
attention t o that , man y conductor s simply change Ravel' s orchestratio n and pu t th e alt o flute part
in m.30 9 i n on e o r tw o clarinet s — a quit e unnecessar y revision .
12) subito p an d p p i n m . 362, usually only approximated (excep t on Skrowac -

zewski's recording )
Additionally, o n man y recording s th e E I» clarine t an d firs t trumpe t (i n
mm.245-47, 248-49 , respectively ) fai l t o mak e th e per-ba r diminuendo s
(Ex. 14a). Solti' s discipline d Chicagoan s ar e ver y goo d here , wherea s wit h Hai -
Ex. 14 a Ex . 14 b
tink's Bostonian s it remains a split decision: th e & clarine t make s the := = —, the
first trumpe t doesn't . I n Bernstein' s recordin g a unifor m f prevails , whil e
on Karajan' s recording , hi s El » clarine t playe r rearrange s th e par t a s i n
Ex.l4b.
Another commo n failing , presen t o n al l bu t a fe w recordings (Sinopoli's , for
example), i s the tota l suppressio n o f the eighth-note s i n th e basse s in th e entir e
passage, mm.304-33. All one ca n hea r i n th e vas t majority o f performances an d
recordings ar e th e quarter-note s ( a reverse bowing i s very helpfu l here).
In m y discussion of the firs t movemen t o f Brahms's First Symphon y I referred
to th e confusio n tha t surround s th e markin g (se e p.300) . Her e i n

Ravel's Daphnis th e proble m surface s agai n —in m.31 2 (trumpets) , mm.313-1 4
(woodwinds)—for man y conductor s erroneousl y make their player s play the las t
note i n tongued , whil e other s (correctly ) have the m pla y

the las t note staccat o bu t slurre d into .
A curiou s anomal y i s the omissio n o f a timpan i par t i n m.28 6 i n scor e an d
parts. I t i s probably impossible t o kno w definitively a t thi s lat e dat e whethe r th e
omission wa s intentional , o r t o kno w ho w thi s 'error ' (i f i t i s one ) cam e t o b e
made, give n the fact , a s mentioned earlier , that Ravel' s autograph scor e i s virtu-
ally devoi d o f timpani an d percussio n parts . On e possibl e reaso n fo r th e empt y
measure i s that Rave l may hav e though t i t wa s necessary in orde r t o tun e fro m
the El » an d G t o f m.28 5 t o th e D an d G o f m.287 . However , thi s i s rathe r
remote sinc e (a ) Rave l wa s writing fo r chromati c timpan i an d (b ) th e tw o sec -
onds tha t m.28 6 last s d o no t offe r al l tha t muc h extr a tim e anyway . To repea t
m.285 i n m.28 6 i s entirely possible o n moder n timpani , an d I strongly urge tha t
this 'correction ' b e made . O n onl y a fe w recording s (Mehta' s an d Karajan's )
does th e timpan i pla y in m.286 .
Ravel's magnificen t fanning-out harmoni c progression s (Exx . 15a an d b ) ar e
often poorl y balanced, especiall y i n th e brass , because eac h o f the twelv e bras s
players canno t easil y tel l fro m hi s par t ho w h e fit s int o th e over-al l crescend o
and harmoni c scheme . (Bernstein' s recordin g typifie s ho w conductor s an d or -
chestra ca n sai l uncomprehendingl y throug h thes e passages. ) I hav e foun d tha t
playing throug h these harmoni c sequences slowly in rehearsa l helps the orches -
Ex. 15 a
Ex. 15 b
tra tremendously i n understandin g wha t is going on , t o really hear an d fee l thes e

remarkable chor d progressions .
There i s often amon g conductor s an d bras s players som e confusio n regardin g
certain mutin g indication s i n the Danse générale. The first trumpet shoul d tak e
the mut e ou t i n m.25 0 (th e printe d scor e i s i n erro r here) . Som e conductors ,
like Muti an d Levine , hav e th e trombone s (no t the tuba ) mistakenl y play mute d
in m.277 , presumabl y because th e trumpet s ar e marke d muted , a s i f that wer e
sufficient reason . Th e markin g ôtez l a sourdine i n m.31 4 refer s onl y to th e thir d
trumpet, leavin g the first and secon d trumpe t mute d throug h mm.318-22 .
One o f th e worst intonatio n problem s ofte n occur s i n th e trombone s i n
mm.256-57. Along wit h th e othe r bras s and woodwinds , th e trombone s pla y an
Alt mino r (o r B I» minor ) chor d her e agains t an A majo r bass— a strikin g example
of Ravelia n bitonality . Unles s th e trombonist s kno w an d hea r thi s i n it s tru e
harmonic function , ther e i s hardl y an y wa y tha t the y ca n pla y thei r note s i n
correct intonatio n (excep t by accident) .
Finally, ther e i s on almos t al l recording s a blatan t droppin g o f fina l note s i n
the string s i n mm.269-7 0 (violins , violas), mm.273-74 (cellos) , a sloppines s of
phrasing tha t dissect s wha t shoul d b e two-ba r phrase s int o fragmente d one-ba r
units. Ravel writes but what we usu-
ally ge t t o hea r i s , with the las t G' s

virtually inaudible . Only o n Gaubert' s 192 8 recordin g ca n thes e tw o passages be

heard a s Ravel actually wrote them .
Let u s close thi s discussion o f the Daphnis e t Chloé Secon d Suit e b y pointing
to th e mos t bizarr e performanc e aberratio n s o fa r impose d upo n thi s piece .
Stokowski, lik e Bernstein , alway s fel t compelle d t o rearrange , recompose , reor -
chestrate, an d 'improv e upon ' th e work s h e conducted . I n hi s 197 0 recordin g of
the Secon d Suite , Stokowsk i adds after Ravel's last ba r a trash y Hollywood end -
ing: a long-sustained ffA . majo r chor d i n th e choru s a capella (sic). A s the saying
goes: "Folks , I don't mak e thes e thing s up ; I jus t repor t what I hear." Hea r i t for
yourself i f you don' t believ e me .
Schumann: Second Symphony
The performanc e an d interpretationa l problem s i n Schumann' s symphonies —

or bette r said , alleged problems—hav e bee n a matte r o f discussio n and contro -
versy almos t eve r sinc e th e work s wer e writte n i n th e 1840s , continuin g wel l
into ou r ow n day . Suc h discussion s hav e generall y centere d o n tw o aspect s o f
Schumann's symphoni c oeuvre: hi s orchestration—mostl y negative—an d th e in -
fluence o f Beethoven's symphonies—mostl y positively.
Through th e year s many conductor s (a s well a s critic s an d composers ) hav e
contended tha t th e grea t fla w i n Schumann' s orchestra l musi c wa s his "poor, "
"weak," eve n "inept " orchestration , premise d o n primaril y the notio n tha t hi s
music wa s intrinsically pianisti c an d i n hi s symphonie s wa s not translate d int o
truly orchestra l music . A s a resul t o f suc h thinking , Schumann' s symphonie s
have been instrumentall y re-touched, re-written , re-orchestrated no t onl y by ma-
jor conductor-composer s suc h a s Mahler an d Weingartner , but b y virtually every
significant lat e 19th - and earl y 20th-century conductor. Whethe r such alterations
really constitute 'improvements ' remain s questionable , or at least arguable.
As fo r th e questio n o f Beethoven' s influenc e o n Schumann' s symphoni c
works, althoug h i n genera l positivel y viewed, I fee l i t i s on th e on e han d over -
stated—Bach's and Schubert' s work s had muc h greate r impac t o n mos t o f Schu-
mann's musi c —and, o n th e othe r hand , curiousl y disregarded i n precisel y such
works wher e Beethoven' s influenc e was quite specifi c an d profound .
In vie w of the unavoidabl e redundancy i n th e analysi s and evaluatio n of th e
six previousl y discussed majo r work s and thei r recordings—unavoidabl e mostl y
because o f th e endles s recurrenc e o f th e sam e interpretationa l transgressions
and ba d habit s —it shoul d not b e necessar y to inflic t upo n th e reade r a blow-by-
blow accoun t o f ho w th e Schuman n Secon d Symphon y has suffere d (o r bene -
fited) a t th e hand s o f generation s o f greate r o r lesse r conductors . I wil l limi t
495
myself therefor e t o a discussio n o f the tw o topics mentione d above : th e on e i n

need o f a more thoroug h airin g than th e clich é o f Schumann's "poo r orchestra -
tion" generall y receives, the othe r (Beethoven' s influence ) a matte r o f very spe -
cific concer n i n regar d to the Schuman n Second' s Final e movement—an d onl y
that movement .
The reade r ma y hav e gathere d fro m th e abov e tha t I d o no t entirel y agre e
with th e commonplac e 'wisdom ' that Schumann' s orchestratio n i s 'inept' and i n
constant nee d o f 'improvement. ' I t i s to o sweepin g a generalization , an d on e
particularly inapplicabl e t o th e Secon d Symphony . Conside r th e ravishingl y
beautiful an d imaginativ e us e o f woodwinds in th e Symphony's slo w movement ,
its idiomati c us e o f horn s an d trumpets , an d abov e al l th e luminous , ecstati c
quality of the strin g writing (especially in th e slo w movement's tw o great surging
climaxes); th e fin e orchestrationa l symmetrie s and contrast s i n th e tw o Trios o f
the secon d movement ; ' th e inspire d dialogu e betwee n clarine t an d pian o i n
Schumann's Pian o Concerto ; the darin g adventurousnes s of the hor n writin g in
the Konzertstück fo r Four Horns an d Orchestra; the solem n beaut y o f the trom -
bones i n th e slow movement o f th e "Rhenish" Symphony—t o nam e jus t a few
outstanding examples .
I d o no t believ e i n al l instances , especiall y in hi s orchestra l work s from 184 5
on, tha t th e homogeneit y an d uniformit y of orchestral soun d w e hea r i n man y
Schumann work s ar e th e resul t o f 'ineptitude,' bu t rathe r I fin d the m t o b e a n
integral par t o f hi s particula r soun d world , sound vision . That thi s timbra i uni -
formity wa s in par t a reflectio n of the coloristicall y limited palett e o f his favorit e
instrument, th e piano , ca n hardl y be denied . Bu t I think thi s wa s not merely —
and certainl y no t always—du e t o a n inadequat e knowledg e o f th e orchestra l
instruments, bu t rathe r a purposefu l choic e t o se t of f by contras t thos e specia l
orchestral color s an d texture s tha t are , i f on e b e hones t abou t it , scattere d
throughout hi s works , even hi s earlies t ones . I a m convince d tha t Schuman n
often strov e for a certai n ric h an d consisten t instrumenta l palett e i n plac e o f th e
more differentiate d contrastin g color s o f th e earlie r classical , sa y Mozartean ,
orchestra. I believ e thi s becaus e h e trie d t o reflec t th e singula r ye t overtone -
abundant sonorit y of the piano , an d als o because tha t soun d t o him wa s the ric h
mixed-color sound , whic h embodie d th e Romanti c fantas y aestheti c tha t h e
helped t o advance an d establis h in th e earl y 19t h century . Schumann' s concep t
of a n orchestrall y blende d soun d i s the sonori c analogu e t o hi s notio n o f th e
new Romanticism , unifyin g an d combinin g th e poetic , literary , fantastic , an d
humanistic. Indeed , h e referre d t o thi s concep t a s "tiefcombinatorish " (pro -
foundly combinatorial) , an d i t i s th e instrumenta l conbinatorialit y i n muc h o f
his orchestra l writin g tha t i s i n fact—righ t o r wrong—Schumann' s distinctiv e
sound world . This als o answer s directly to Schumann' s oft-criticize d —I believ e
over-criticized—tendency o f multiple doublin g o f individual melodic o r contra -
puntal lines.
1. I n Tri o I th e primar y voice s o f wind s ar e answere d b y strings , i n Tri o I I th e exac t reverse , bot h
trios i n tur n contrastin g wit h th e full-orchestr a whirlwin d o f the Scher/ o proper .
SCHUMANN: SECON D SYMPHON Y 49 7
In an y case , tha t i s part an d parce l o f Schumann' s soun d aesthetic , ver y spe -

cial an d characteristi c i n it s ow n way ; an d i t ough t no t t o b e automaticall y
dismissed o r tampere d with . For , althoug h i t ma y no t nee d "improvement " i n
re-orchestration, i t ma y indee d nee d improvemen t i n performanc e an d realiza -
tion. (Mor e o f that below.)
I a m no t s o foolis h a s t o argu e tha t Schumann' s us e an d knowledg e o f th e
orchestra wer e alway s the mos t accomplishe d an d natural , let alon e inspired . I n
his earlies t orchestra l works 2 w e ca n discer n th e sign s of struggle as he i s trying
to wea n himsel f awa y fro m th e 'mother' s milk ' o f th e piano . Clearly , som e o f
these firs t foray s int o th e orchestra l real m constitut e a fairl y routin e note-for -
note orchestratio n o f ver y pianisticall y idiomati c pian o music . I t shoul d b e
noted, however , that, paradoxically , Schumann' s pian o music , eve n hi s earliest ,
is replet e wit h instrumenta l coloration s an d associations . Obviousl y i t too k hi m
some year s an d som e experienc e t o translat e thes e sonoritie s successfull y int o
an orchestra l garb . As with almos t an y compose r strikin g out i n ne w directions ,
some experience s i n Schumann' s cas e prove d misleading . H e wa s not th e onl y
composer i n th e histor y o f musi c wh o change d th e instrumentatio n o f thi s o r
that passage in a given piece , misle d b y a n inep t first rehearsal o r a poor perfor -
mance. W e know thi s happene d t o Schumann , eve n i n hi s matur e years , a s his
friend Brahm s testifies. Th e latter , writin g about th e first version o f Schumann' s
D mino r Symphony , o f which h e owne d th e score , recall s how upset Schuman n
was "b y a first reading, whic h wen t s o badly" tha t som e tim e late r h e fel t com -
pelled t o re-orchestrat e th e work . Brahm s continues : "th e origina l scorin g ha s
always delighted me . I t is a real pleasure to see anything so bright an d spontane -
ous expresse d wit h correspondin g eas e an d grace . Everythin g [i n it ] i s so abso -
lutely natura l tha t yo u canno t imagin e i t different." 3
By distinguishin g betwee n th e first and earlie r orchestra l work s and th e later ,
more matur e ones , I als o wan t t o remin d u s tha t aroun d 1845 , th e yea r o f th e
creation o f the Secon d Symphony , Schumann , accordin g t o hi s ow n diary , be-
gan "t o creat e an d wor k ou t everythin g i n m y head , developin g thu s a whol e
new way of composing."4 The greate r latitud e an d innovativ e spirit in the instru -
mentation o f Schumann' s late r work s ar e undoubtedl y ascribabl e t o thi s ne w
development.
As I suggeste d earlier , th e 'allege d problems ' wit h Schumann' s symphoni c
2. Symphon y No.l , Overture , Scherzo , an d Final e an d Symphon y No.4 (bot h writte n i n 184 1 bu t
later substantiall y revised), as well as the incomplete d earlie r 183 2 G Mino r Symphon y an d several
unfinished pian o concertos .
3. Containe d i n a letter b y Brahms to Heinric h vo n Herzogenberg , October , 1886 . I n anothe r lette r
(dated two months later) , this tim e writte n t o his close friend , th e conducto r Fran z Wullner , Brahms
expresses himself even mor e emphatically : " I fin d i t enchanting ho w this lovely work sounded [origi -
nally] i n it s loveliest , mos t fittin g garment . Tha t Schuman n wa s late r induce d t o bedec k i t ["be -
hängt"] s o heavil y ha s undoubtedl y t o d o wir h th e ba d performanc e b y th e Düsseldor f orchestra .
Unforunately al l th e symphony' s beautiful, unfettere d an d gracefu l freedo m o f movemen t ha s be -
come impossibl e in th e ne w unwield y garment.
4. Berthol d Litzmann, Clara Schumann, Künstlerleben; Nach Tagebüchern un d Briefen, Vol. 1 (Leip-
zig, 1902 ) pp.372-73.
works may , i n fact , no t li e wit h thei r orchestratio n bu t wit h ho w the y ar e per -

formed. Give n th e specia l natur e o f Schumann' s instrumentation , a s detaile d
above, i t takes a specia l sensitivit y in matter s o f timbrai blendin g an d balancin g
to realiz e full y Schumann' s intentions . I have neve r fel t th e nee d actuall y to re -
orchestrate o r re-voic e an y o f Schumann' s symphonies . I als o fin d th e re -
touchings, eve n thos e o f Weingartner, Mahler , Klemperer , Szell , Masur , Schur -
icht, Mehta , Celibidache , an d other s no t s o muc h 'improvements ' a s changes ,
which drasticall y alter an d ofte n subver t th e ver y natur e an d characte r o f th e
music. While suc h re-orchestration s ma y i n a purel y technical sens e (an d fro m
a poin t o f vie w wholly differen t fro m Schumann's ) constitut e "improvements, "
"enhancements," "corrections " o f th e material , the y ar e reall y a negatio n an d
refutation o f th e ver y essenc e o f Schumann' s music . Wha t I hav e don e —and
what i t seem s t o m e i s sometimes necessar y to do—i s t o adjus t i n minut e an d
subtle way s balances , dynamics , inne r voices , and harmoni c details , i n orde r t o
bring ou t instrumenta l colors , importan t harmoni c shifts , polyphoni c lines , as
the cas e ma y be. Thi s i s not t o rewrit e or re-orchestrate th e musi c (b y doubling
or addin g instruments) , but merel y subtly to clarif y wha t i s already there.
But beyon d tha t i t i s absolutely essentia l tha t i n Schumann' s musi c perform-
ers, especiall y i n th e woodwind s an d brass , no t onl y blen d an d balanc e i n th e
usual sens e but , whe n needed , merg e thei r sound s i n a symbioti c "combinato -
rial" rappor t which , a s a resul t o f th e merging , produce s entirel y ne w an d dis -
tinctive sonorities. 5 Thi s i s no t a s eas y a s i t sounds , an d take s sensitiv e an d
caring musicians , no t th e s o ofte n unintereste d bored-with-Schuman n player s
one find s i n mos t famou s orchestras . Incidentally , non e o f these thing s ca n o r
will happe n i f conductors conduc t onl y th e to p o r mos t obviou s melodi c line s
in Schumann' s work s (usuall y the violins) . The conducto r mus t be awar e of and
elicit ever y subtl e adjustmen t an d calibration , constantl y monitorin g th e re -
sults—again, m y "thir d ear. "
To giv e a mor e precis e ide a o f what I mean , le t m e briefl y elaborat e o n tw o
passages i n th e firs t movemen t o f th e Secon d Symphony . ( I wil l dea l wit h th e
last movemen t mor e extensivel y furthe r on. ) Th e firs t excerp t comprise s
mm.73-104 (se e Plate s XI, XII).
In m.7 3 th e degre e o f sf mus t b e well-considere d an d balance d i n th e flut e
and uppe r strings , the former' s sf i n it s most projectin g highest registe r an d th e
latter's s f i n a mor e flexibl e rang e mus t b e adjuste d t o eac h other . I n m.7 4
the othe r woodwind s line mus t b e balance d dynamicall y an d sonoricall y with
the cello s an d basse s (o r vic e versa) , whil e th e horn s mus t subtl y under-pla y
their implie d f s o as no t t o interfer e with th e mai n melodi c material . All o f th e
above wil l apply , o f course , t o al l th e succeedin g pair s o f measures , wit h th e
addition tha t th e tremolo s i n violin s and viola s startin g i n m.7 8 mus t b e down -
graded t o mf, or , i n an y case , mus t b e playe d i n a lyrical , melodic , non -
5. Thi s i s no t onl y necessary and tru e fo r Schumann , bu t man y othe r earl y Romanti c composers ,
such a s Mendelssohn , Cherubini, Bellini, Donizetti , Hummel , Clementi , an d Chopi n (i n hi s or -
chestral works) .
Plate X I Schumann , Symphon y N° 2 , first movement, mm.77-9 0
Plate XII Schumann , Symphon y N ° 2 , first movement, mm.91-10 2
boisterous way , lest the y overpowe r th e woodwinds . Th e trumpet s enterin g i n

m.79 mus t moderat e thei r f t o fi t int o th e over-al l dynami c context , paire d a s
they ar e (i n m.79 ) wit h two clarinets.
To ski p t o m.85 , agai n th e s f i n th e violin s has t o b e though t about . I n m y
view i t i s a moderat e sf , i n th e basi c dynami c of , say , mp. Tha t wil l allo w th e
three sol o woodwind s to b e wel l heard, eve n i n p . Car e mus t b e take n tha t th e
clarinets an d horn s balance/blen d int o a singl e clearl y hear d harmon y
The strin g sf's i n mm.90—9 1 mus t b e graduate d within the over -
all crescendo , i.e . i n m.9 0 i n mp , i n m.9 1 i n mf.

In m.9 2 thing s ge t eve n mor e complicated . Th e firs t violin s mus t no t b e
allowed t o dominate o r overpower the legato woodwind quarte t of two flutes and
two oboes , whil e a t th e sam e tim e th e conducto r mus t kee p a n ea r o n th e
secondary staccat o counte r lin e i n th e secon d violins . I n m.9 6 th e bassoon s
must b e allowe d t o com e t o th e fore , bringin g out a new color , whic h wil l only
happen i f the entir e res t o f the orchestra—wind s an d tremoloin g strings—care -
fully moderat e their f's (an d sf's). I n mm . 100-104, it seems to me tha t it is well
to emphasiz e an d brin g out th e entir e win d section, whil e makin g sure tha t th e
timpani blen d wit h cello s and basses , and no t overpowe r them.
In th e secon d passag e (mm . 126-42, se e Plate s XIII, XIV)—an d it s transposed
partial recapitulation (mm.l50-ccz. 166 ) —our concerns mus t be slightly different.
Here the conducto r mus t make sure that the eigh t woodwinds are not only all dy-
namically balanced bu t ar e alike in their phrasing, so that Schumann' s fine alter-
nating colorations are faithfully represented , an d tha t out of the mosaic-lik e struc-
turing, lon g eight-ba r Klangfarben line s ar e created . Meanwhile , th e seemingl y
fragmented lin e i n th e violin s must also be pulle d togethe r int o a single musical
idea. Again, precise identica l dynami c balancin g an d phrasin g will produc e th e
desired result . In mm . 134-42, both section s o f violins must merel y (softly ) colo r
the woodwinds , and thei r fp 's (as well as those o f the woodwinds ) must b e gently
expressive in p, not the hard, harsh fp's on e hear s here so often.
The reade r ca n no w wel l imagin e th e exten t o f th e performin g challenge s
Schumann's Secon d Symphon y presents. I have her e deal t wit h onl y some fifty-
odd measures ; bu t ther e ar e 39 1 in th e first movement alone . Thes e challenge s
have nothin g t o d o wit h 'poo r orchestration' ; the y merel y represen t th e subtle r
interpretive refinement s one mus t brin g to thi s piece—in actuality , of course, to
any kin d o f fine , special , an d origina l music . Tha t proces s begin s wit h under -
standing an d really caring! 6
The influenc e o f Beethoven i n Schumann' s wor k can b e see n mos t explicitly
in th e Final e o f the Secon d Symphony , i n particula r the direc t influence of the
first movemen t o f Beethoven' s Fifth . Havin g herei n previousl y examine d an d
analyzed tha t work , i t wil l b e interestin g t o se e ho w i t serve d a s a mode l fo r
6. Anyon e wanting to hear how magnificen t Schumann' s orchestral musi c is and ca n sound , without
re-orchestrating it , shoul d liste n t o Levine' s super b recordin g of Schumann' s Symphon y No.l (th e
"Spring" Symphony ) with the Philadelphi a Orchestra.
Plate XII I Schumann , Symphon y N° 2, first movement, mm . 126-5 3
Plate XI V Schumann , Symphon y N° 2, first movement, mm . 154-7 8
what i s arguably, in certai n respects , Schumann' s mos t Beethovenia n work . I a m

referring, o n th e on e hand , t o the movement' s basi c phras e structurin g and , o n
the other , t o th e characte r o f som e o f it s melodic/themati c material , especiall y
the lyrica l second subject . And jus t a s the specifi c phrase structurin g in Beetho -
ven's Fift h i s generally disregarde d an d subverted , s o i t i s in mos t performance s
of th e Schuman n Second . A t best , conductor s an d player s ar e diml y awar e o f
some sor t o f four-bar phrase structuring , bu t ar e appallingl y unawar e o f exactly
where th e four-ba r phrase s fall . Th e result , a s an y numbe r o f recording s wil l
attest, i s that th e weight s an d stresse s withi n phrase s ar e all—o r mostl y al l —in
the wron g place .
I thin k thi s proble m arise s here fo r basically the sam e reaso n i t also occurs i n
performances o f the Beethove n Fifth : a ver y fast temp o notate d i n a mete r an d
note value s which mak e whol e stretche s o f measures loo k absolutel y alike , pro -
viding n o instantl y obviou s wa y of distinguishing phras e structuring , phras e be -
ginnings, an d phras e endings . Beethoven' s first movement , th e reade r wil l recall ,
was writte n i n 2/ 4 « J = 108 , Allegro co n brio. Schumann' s Final e movemen t i s
written i n 2/ 2 (<^ ) 0 = 85 (actuall y J = 170) , Allegro molto vivace. Th e onl y
difference i n performance i s that the Beethove n is conducted in 'one,' the Schu -
mann i n 'two ' —although certai n section s o f i t ca n als o b e (an d shoul d be )
conducted i n 'one. ' Schumann' s somewha t slowe r tempo allow s the musi c t o b e
conducted i n 'two ' —in man y place s i t demand s it—an d i t i s jus t slo w enoug h
to admi t th e us e o f sixteenth-not e passages , a s i n th e ver y firs t measur e
(There ar e n o sixteenth s i n th e
first movement of Beethoven's Fifth.)7

There ar e n o seriou s interpretiv e problem s regardin g phras e structurin g an d
periodization i n th e firs t 13 7 measures, thes e bein g constructed , wit h bu t thre e
exceptions, entirel y o f four-ba r phrases , whic h a t time s accumulat e variousl y
into eight-ba r o r even sixteen-ba r entities . Th e thre e exception s ar e two nine-ba r
phrases (mm . 13-21 an d mm . 109-17) an d on e five-ba r phras e (mm.22-26) ,
which, combine d wit h th e firs t on e i n nin e bars , simpl y restore s th e periodiza -
7. Th e tw o temp o marking s i n questio n her e ar e illustrativ e of the variabilit y with whic h differen t
composers specif y relativel y simila r temp o situations , dependin g o n th e particula r rhythmi c an d
melodic conten t (se e discussion o f this matte r i n Par t I ; also Rudolf Kolisch's aforementioned articl e
on Beethoven' s metronom e markings) . On th e fac e o f it, Schumann's Allegro molto vivace ¿ = 170
looks quit e a bi t faste r tha n Beethoven' s Allegro co n brio à = 108 . Bu t i n realit y the Schuman n
sounds a t time s muc h faste r tha n i t looks, fo r the metronomizatio n (170 ) refer s t o the two-beats-per -
bar basi c puls e o f the music . O n th e othe r hand , th e feelin g o f the musi c whe n conducte d i n on e
beat pe r ba r i s considerabl y mor e relaxed , i.e . slower , tha n i n th e Beethoven , showin g agai n tha t
what counts is not the nomenclatur e per se, but th e actua l rhythmi c content and inheren t pulse of
the music .
For th e recor d mos t conductor s tak e th e movemen t clos e t o Schumann' s metronom e temp o
(usually aroun d J = 160) , but some ar e off (slower) by a mile: Klempercr J = 120 , Kubelik, Anser -
mct J = 132 , Mehta, Marrine r J = 136 , Patanc , Zinman , Commission a J = 144, Sawallisch , Sem -
kow J = 148 .
SCHUMANN: SECON D SYMPHON Y 505
tion t o binar y structuring, puttin g th e nex t 8 6 bar s firml y bac k o n th e four-ba r

phrase track. 8
The secon d nine-ba r phras e constitute s th e closin g o f th e firs t par t o f th e
exposition an d lead s directl y into wha t appear s at first hearing to be a recapitula-
tion o f th e ver y openin g o f th e movement , onl y no w o n th e dominan t rathe r
than th e tonic . Bu t Schuman n quickl y steers thi s 'deceptive ' recapitulatio n i n a
quite differen t direction : rapi d canoni c imitatio n i n th e string s (Ex.1) , whil e
above the m woodwind s 'sing' in beautiful sustained chorale-lik e harmonies . Th e
Ex. 1
etc
contrast betwee n th e statel y wind s an d th e agitate d strin g scales—whol e

notes agains t sixteenths—i s quit e wonderfu l whe n full y exploite d i n perfor -
mance. O n man y recording s (Janowski's , Mehta's, Pfitzner's , Celibidache's , an d
Klemperer's, fo r example ) th e wind s ar e barel y present , an d al l on e hear s i s
strings.9
I digres s to poin t ou t tha t i n thi s symphony , a s in s o many earl y 19th-century ,
early-Romantic works, horns and bassoon s must b e absolutely matched i n perfor -
mance, dynamicall y and , a s muc h a s possible , sonorically . I n th e per-measur e
alternation o f quarter triplets startin g i n m . 134, for example, horn s an d bassoon s
must for m a continuou s rhythmi c chain . Thi s take s o n especia l importanc e be -
8. Agai n ther e i s on e exception , a six-ba r phras e (mm.75—80) , whic h i s merely—ver y muc h a s i n

Beethoven's Fifth— a two-ba r extensio n o f a four-ba r phrase .
9. Masur , Schuricht , Mehta , an d Patan e don' t hel p matter s her e a t al l by adding trombones . That
helps t o brin g ou t th e winds ' 'chorale ' al l right , bu t add s a dar k low-registe r colorin g t o th e soun d
which fill s i n (an d muddie s up ) th e orchestra l mid-range , an d thereb y completel y vitiate s Schu -
mann's conceptio n o f registra l an d timbra i contrast : luminou s wind s agains t darksom e strings . How
beautiful thi s passag e ca n soun d ma y b e hear d o n Zinman' s altogethe r excellentl y playe d Baltimor e
recording.
ginning i n m.142 , whe n horn s an d bassoon s for m a n unbroke n ripplin g line o f

reiterated D' s (Ex.2) . Unfortunately , i n th e vas t majorit y o f performance s th e
etc.
horns seriousl y overbalanc e th e bassoons , s o tha t n o continuou s lin e i s heard .

How wonderfu l and excitin g this ca n soun d ca n b e hear d t o excellen t effec t o n
Haitink's, Mehta's , Sawallisch's , an d Kubelik' s recordings .
In m.13 9 Schuman n break s into th e b y now well-established binary (four-bar )
structuring with a three-bar phrase. This i s brought abou t b y one o f Schumann' s
favorite devices : elisio n an d overlappin g o f phrases . A s Ex. 3 shows , th e viola s
and cello s ente r i n m.140 with a marcato half-not e motive (derive d from mm.2 -
4 i n th e exposition) , forcing , i n effect , a truncation—a n incompletion—o f th e
Ex. 3
violins' an d basses ' intende d four-ba r phrase . Tha t i s to say , the latter' s phras e
would hav e finishe d i n m.142 . Bu t wit h th e violas ' an d cellos ' 'early ' entranc e
in m.14 0 overlappin g an d elidin g with the outgoin g phrase , th e whol e structure
is shrun k b y on e measure . I t i s imperative , i n orde r t o d o ful l justic e t o th e
music, tha t conducto r an d player s understan d th e (i n effect) intricat e polymetri c
structuring here . Thi s i s especially urgen t fo r th e viola s and cello s a s the y cu t

across th e phras e constructio n o f the res t o f the orchestra .
Furthermore, i f thi s structurin g i s no t appreciated , i n al l likelihoo d Schu -
mann's nex t remarkable idea i n the succeedin g measure s will also be completel y
missed an d misunderstood . I refe r t o th e successiv e sf's, startin g in m.15 0 an d
continuing fo r over twenty measures. One i s startled to discover that all these sf' s
are o n 'twos ' an d 'fours ' i n th e four-ba r structuring, acting therefor e a s powerful
syncopations, not th e heav y 'downbeat' accent s a s they ar e almos t alway s univer-
sally played.
The interlockin g canonic , stretto-lik e constructio n her e (se e Ex.4 ) produce s a
Ex.4
ten-bar edific e (no t countin g th e anticipator y viola/cell o entranc e o f m.140) ,

which Schuman n elaborate s int o a prolonge d climacti c passage , relentlessl y
spiked wit h s f syncopation s an d cross-accent s (Ex . 5a) . Tha t thes e ar e trul y
Ex. 5 a
syncopations ca n perhap s be bette r see n whe n re-notate d wit h smaller note val-
ues (a s in Ex . 5b).
Ex. 5 b
This typ e o f syncopated cross-accent s was , o f course, no t origina l with Schu -

mann. Beethoven was the first to consistently use them as a powerful, expressive —
not merely rhythmic —device. Examples abound, but, suffic e i t to mention onl y a
few outstanding instances: Beethoven's Seventh , Eighth, an d Ninth symphonies.
Let m e emphasiz e tha t i n th e Final e o f Schumann' s Secon d Symphon y w e
are no t a s likely to se e thes e sf's immediatel y as off-beat accents , because o f th e
particular alia breve notatio n o f half-notes and whol e note s stretche d acros s four
measures, rather than i n eighth- an d quarter-note s contained i n a single measure
(as i n Ex.5b) . I t i s onl y whe n on e engage s i n th e kin d o f structura l analysi s I
have undertake n her e tha t on e ca n discove r the tru e characte r an d meanin g o f
these sf's . An d wha t a differenc e it make s t o hea r thes e sf' s playe d a s 'two' an d
'four' syncopations . It gives an entirel y new an d fres h feelin g to the music , muc h
more interestin g tha n th e ordinar y 'one' an d 'three ' stresse s on e usuall y hears
here. Ho w wonderfu l thi s passag e ca n soun d whe n playe d correctl y ca n b e
heard, alas , o n onl y a fe w recordings , thos e o f Ansermet, Masur , Mehta , Sem -
kow, Haitink , Paray, and o n Pfitzner' s rathe r excellen t ol d 192 8 Berli n recording.
Schumann continue s t o pla y with suc h off-bea t syncopation s i n th e mos t re -
markable ways . Fo r example, i n m.16 5 we see—and this shoul d b e mad e clearl y
audible —an ide a firs t explore d b y Beethove n i n th e expositio n o f th e Sevent h
Symphony's Finale , namely , wha t I called i n th e discussio n of that wor k 'double
syncopations.' We can se e the similarit y clearly by comparing the thre e following
music example s (Ex.6a , Beethoven , an d Exx.6b,c , Schumann) , reduce d her e t o
their essentia l rhythmic/metri c configurations) ,
Ex. 6 a
Ex. 6 b
or Ex.6 b reduce d t o Beethoven' s rhythmi c units:

Ex. 6 c
upper registe r etc.

lower register
Note, b y th e way , ho w Schuman n pointedl y assert s th e ide a o f thes e doubl e

syncopations conceptuall y an d instrumentall y b y reinforcin g flute s an d oboe s
with trombones , who—t o furthe r emphasiz e th e point—mak e thei r firs t en -
trance i n th e movemen t here , Schuman n havin g saved them unti l now .
Second, th e sf's i n m.17 2 an d m.17 6 tur n ou t t o b e 'twos, ' off-bea t syncopa -
tions i n th e phras e structuring—no t 'ones, ' a s they ar e usuall y rendered. Thes e
accentuations ar e the n develope d i n diminution , whe n accent s —in effec t th e
former sf's—no w appea r ever y ba r o n th e 'weak, ' i.e . secon d beat , a furthe r
rhythmic/expressive intensificatio n o f th e musi c a s i t reache s th e en d o f th e
exposition. Wherea s i n mm . 149-72 th e cross-accen t syncopation s occurre d ev-
ery two bars (see again Ex.5a) , now in m.17 9 they occur i n every measur e (Ex.7),
Ex. 7
as th e harmonie s fa n ou t i n i n contrar y motion . Note , too , th e extraordinar y

Beethovenian dissonance s alon g th e wa y (marked x i n Ex.7) , further energizin g
the cross-accents. 10
In m . 19 1 Schuman n introduce s th e firs t o f tw o 'secon d subjects.' 11 I t i s
presented her e a s th e primar y themati c material , dominatin g th e entir e nex t
phase o f the movemen t (mm.191-279) . Bu t w e hav e hear d thi s elegantl y ellip -
tical melod y before , no t onl y earlie r i n thi s movemen t (partl y hidde n i n th e
contrapuntal fabric) , bu t lon g befor e tha t a s th e mai n them e o n whic h th e
10. Celibidache , wh o i s fond of'improving ' Schuman n scores , allow s himsel f th e terribl e an d taw -
dry ide a o f addin g a crescendoin g twelve-ba r timpan i rol l (o n D— a not e t o whic h Schuman n di d
not hav e acces s i n thi s symphony) .
11. Remarkably , th e Final e o f Schumann' s Secon d Symphon y ha s n o developmen t section , bu t
instead tw o lyric second subjects . It also honors the cyclica l conception o f thematic linking s between
movements b y recapitulating , in (wha t amount s to ) th e coda , th e 'signal ' theme , firs t hear d i n th e
brass i n th e ver y openin g o f the symphony .
beautiful slow movement i s built. There th e melod y appear s i n it s primary form

in C mino r a t the hea d o f the movemen t (Ex . 8a) , then immediatel y transpose d
to El > majo r in th e obo e (Ex . 8b) .
Ex. 8 a
Ex. 8 b
In th e Final e th e hea d note s o f this them e appea r quit e suddenl y an d unex-

pectedly i n m.6 3 i n th e violas , cellos , bassoons , an d lo w clarine t (Ex.9) , o f
Ex.9
course, i n rhythmi c augmentatio n an d ye t significantl y faster tha n i n th e slo w

movement. W e als o hea r th e theme' s second-through-fourt h note s i n a kin d o f
hocquet patternin g i n mm.80-8 9 (Ex.10 , reduced i n outline) .
Ex. 1 0
i
A littl e bi t late r (m.191 ) Schuman n present s thi s sam e them e i n th e sol o
clarinet i n inversio n (Ex.11) . Whil e th e clarinet' s presentatio n o f th e them e i s
Ex. 1 1
obviously positione d s o a s t o confor m t o th e underlyin g four-ba r nexus ,

when Schuman n give s i t t o th e violins , flutes , an d oboe s twent y bar s late r
(m.211) —answered i n it s prim e (uninverted ) for m b y cello s an d basse s i n
m.213 —h e varie s an d elaborate s th e them e i n

such a wa y a s t o provid e a recapitulatio n o f th e off-bea t syncopation s hear d

earlier. Again , thei r off-beat-nes s i s not readil y discernible fro m a casua l perusa l
of the score . On e ha s t o analyz e th e over-al l substructur e t o realiz e tha t th e sf's
starting i n m.22 0 i n violin s and cello s ar e onc e agai n 'twos ' an d 'fours ' (respec -
tively): agai n syncopation s agains t the beat , no t th e 'downbeat ' stresse s one usu -
ally hear s in performance .
Here agai n tha t universa l ba d habi t o f droppin g o r choppin g of f last phras e
notes come s t o th e for e (mm.211-25) , especiall y i n th e strings . I t make s th e
music soun d nervous , fragmente d an d disjointed , whe n i n fact—eve n wit h th e
bars rest—w e nee d t o creat e long , archin g melodi c line s (spannin g sixtee n t o
twenty-four bars) , i n which , indeed , th e silen t bar s ar e a s muc h a par t o f th e
melody (th e music ) a s the note s i n th e playe d bars . Ho w fulfillin g an d singin g
this passag e sound s whe n playe d correctl y ca n b e hear d o n onl y a fe w re -
cordings, notabl y Barenboim's , Pfitzner's , Celibidache's , an d also , partially , o n
Masur's. Bu t o n th e last-name d onl y th e upper-rang e instrument s sustai n th e
last phras e notes , whil e th e answerin g cellos an d basse s do not .
It i s truly beautiful ho w Schuman n no w manage s t o wor k th e fina l measure s
of th e Adagio's mai n them e an d it s obo e varian t int o th e Finale . Measure s
227-30 com e directl y fro m th e violi n them e
(compare wit h mm.5- 6 o f Ex.Sa) , whil e th e nex t fou r measure s (mm.231-34 )
are a varian t o f th e oboe' s las t ba r (compar e
with Ex.Sb) . I n al l thi s time , th e Viertaktigkeit, a s i n Beethoven' s Fifth , ha s

never bee n disturbed . Comparin g th e las t tw o musi c example s directl y above ,
each comprisin g a four-ba r phrase , w e ca n readil y se e ho w Schuman n shifte d
his fp's aroun d withi n a phras e i n orde r t o achiev e a syncopate d effec t
(mm.227-30), whil e a t othe r time s (mm.231-34 ) h e shift s th e stresse d note s t o
their norma l hierarchica l position .
If on e follow s th e four-ba r structurin g systematicall y throug h t o th e en d o f
this sectio n o f the movement , on e wil l see that th e C mino r resolutio n i n m.27 4
falls squarel y o n a 'one, ' wit h onl y on e six-ba r phras e extensio n (mm.267—73 )
needed—as i n Beethoven—t o arriv e a t th e toni c (Ex.12) . I f thi s i s no t under -
stood, i n al l likelihoo d th e entir e res t o f th e movemen t wil l b e metrically ,
Ex. 1 2
structurally ou t o f kilter . O n no t a singl e recordin g hav e I hear d an y perfor -

mance tha t seeme d t o understan d where thes e fou r C mino r chord s fal l phrase -
wise. The y ar e usuall y playe d vaguely , amorphously , indiscriminately , mad e

worse o n numerou s recording s b y a n enormou s ritar d (Sawallisch , Karajan ,
Muti, Kubelik , Semkow , Szell , Mehta , Janowski , Masur , Barenboim , Celibi -
dache) lz —not asked for by Schumann—as if the movemen t ha d com e t o a final
cadence. I t i s anything bu t that ; i t is instead a mer e temporar y hal t i n the musi c
(Exx. 13a,b), t o b e immediatel y followe d b y th e second 'secon d subject ' them e
(m.280). Th e bes t wa y to realiz e th e inten t an d feelin g of this interi m cadentia l
resolution i s t o us e th e bowing s indicate d i n Ex . 13a. A n easie r wa y t o
Ex. 13 a
catch tha t 'inten t and feeling ' i s to see i t notate d i n 4/ 4 a s in Ex.l3b .

Ex. 13 b
Now w e com e t o th e mos t fascinating , unusual , an d origina l par t o f the Fi -

nale—and, I mus t add , the mos t consistentl y misinterpreted . For , the phrasin g
from her e t o th e en d o f th e movement—som e 300-plu s measure s —is shifte d
one ba r of f fro m where , a t firs t glance , th e periodizatio n appear s t o be . Th e
oboe's phras e positionin g (mm.380-83 ) i s no t
but rathe r
Just looking at the phras e
12. Man y conductor s ar e quit e confuse d b y the empt y "G.P. " (genera l pause ) measure s an d som e
(like Meht a an d Karajan ) eve n mak e hug e fermata s o n th e empt y measure s o r o n th e C mino r
chords —or bot h —not realizin g that th e empt y measure s ar e a n integra l par t o f th e musi c an d it s
continuous flow . Hea r ho w wonderfu l thi s C mino r cadenc e sound s whe n playe d i n temp o o n
Paray's excellen t recording.
in th e score , a phras e precede d b y pause measure s an d seemingl y ambiguously

placed toni c chords , also encompassed b y a single phrase slur , one i s apt quickly
to assum e tha t th e structurin g i s a s i n exampl e (a ) above . Bu t close r scrutin y
and analysi s of the metri c substructur e revea l tha t i t i s in fac t a s i n exampl e (b )
above, makin g m.38 0 a n anacrusi s (upbeat ) measure. 13
That thi s i s so i s further confirme d i n m y min d b y th e clos e resemblanc e o f
this lovel y theme t o the 'secon d subject ' them e i n th e first movement o f Beetho -
ven's Fifth . I a m firml y convince d tha t Schuman n wa s directl y influence d b y
Beethoven's theme , jus t a littl e shor t o f reveren t plagiarization . (Fo r anothe r
reference t o Beethoven , se e belo w p . 516). I f we compar e th e tw o theme s (Exx .
14a an d b)—th e Schuman n exampl e (14b ) altere d notationall y t o b e i n th e
Ex. 14 a
Ex. 14 b
Schumann •yv ' ~
P
same metric/rhythmi c format—w e se e tha t bot h hav e th e sam e genera l shap e
and contour , wit h th e melodi c hig h poin t comin g i n th e thir d ba r (th e secon d
in th e phras e structure) . An d i f w e hypotheticall y chang e th e E t i n th e firs t
measure o f Beethoven' s them e t o a C (Ex . 14c), th e similarit y become s eve n
Ex. 14 c
more striking— a similarit y emphasize d stil l mor e whe n Schumann' s 'secon d

subject' them e i s conducted i n 'one, ' whic h i t almos t alway s is.
In an y case , see n fro m thi s poin t o f view , no t onl y i s m.28 0 a n anacrusi s
measure, bu t s o ar e mm.284 , 28 8 (i n th e strings) , m.29 2 (flut e an d clarinet) ,
and m.296 . I n m.30 1 an d m.309 , Schuman n recapitulate s th e doubl e syncopa -
tion passag e o f m . 165, re-orchestratin g i t i n th e proces s (Ex.15) . I t i s crucial t o
follow (an d observ e i n performance ) th e four-ba r structuring , an d probabl y t o
annotate th e orchestr a musicians ' part s accordingly . Fo r i t i s otherwise impossi -
13. Onl y a fe w conductors (an d oboists ) see m t o understan d th e phras e structurin g here . I n fact , of
all th e recording s I sampled , onl y o n Haitink's , Patane's , an d Paray' s i s this passag e playe d correctly .
Pfitzncr phrase s i t right , bu t ruin s i t al l b y droppin g t o a lugubriousl y slo w (J = 108 ) tempo , th e
only majo r aberratio n i n wha t i s fo r th e mos t par t a ver y fin e interpretatio n an d whic h contain s
much fin e playin g b y th e orchestr a (Neu e Sinfoni e Orcheste r Berlin) , especiall y for 1928 . I t wa s
probably th e first recording o f the Schuman n Secon d Symphony .
Ex. 1 5
ble fo r th e violin s to know"jus t fro m thei r part s th'a t m.31 6 (sub.p) i s a 'four, ' o r
for the bras s to kno w tha t m.32 4 an d m.32 8 are 'upbeat ' measures . I t i s curious
that mos t conductor s an d orchestra s feel thi s passag e (mm.301-32) , with it s syn-
copated cross-accents , correctly , eve n thos e wh o interpre t mm.289-9 9 incor -
rectly. The y manag e this—probabl y unknowingly—b y adjustin g t o a five-ba r
phrase (mm.296-300) . Thi s i n tur n put s the m o n th e righ t phras e footin g i n
m.316, th e aforementione d subito p—a dynami c which , unfortunately , i s no t
observed b y th e majorit y o f conductors , wh o op t instea d fo r a beefy , inelegan t
mf. (Scor e an d parts , b y th e way , ar e obviousl y wron g i n th e horn s i n 316-17 .
The p shoul d b e i n m.316 , clearl y a printing error . And ye t o n recordin g afte r
recording th e erro r i s perpetuated fo r posterity.)
The temptatio n t o crescendo i n m.33 1 i s enormous, especiall y with th e risin g
melodic line . Bu t tha t shoul d b e strenuousl y resisted—a s wel l i n m.339—fo r th e
real crescend o doe s no t com e unti l m.343 . I t i s a temptation ver y few orchestras
and conductor s ar e abl e t o resist , judgin g b y th e recordings . Onl y Barenboi m
and Para y manage t o kee p th e p mor e o r les s unde r control .
In m.35 9 an d th e entir e succeedin g forty-od d measure s th e performe r (con -
ductor) i s face d wit h ver y seriou s scriptura l problems , unfortunately , I believe ,
of Schumann' s making . Th e cresc. marking s i n mm.367-6 8 an d m.37 6 mak e
little sense , i f the earlie r crescend o startin g i n m.34 3 i s to brin g th e musi c t o a
fat m.359 . Ho w can ther e b e tw o more extended crescendo s afte r that , starting
from a f base , an d arriv e onl y a t a ff i n m.391 ? Th e answe r obviousl y i s tha t
there canno t b e and , accordingly , th e scor e mus t b e wron g a t m.359. I think th e
error lie s i n th e fac t tha t th e f p w e se e i n th e horn , trumpet , an d timpan i part s
was mistakenl y lef t ou t i n al l th e othe r parts . Thi s i s born e ou t fo r m e i n tha t
the flute , oboe , an d violi n part s hav e n o f , whic h presumabl y woul d b e th e
terminal dynami c afte r th e previou s fifteen-ba r crescendo . I f one interpret s th e
sf's i n th e scal e passage s a s sfp's (Ex.16 ) or , bette r yet , startin g i n m.36 0 a s sf's
Ex. 1 6
in p , the n th e tw o late r (aforementioned ) crescendo s ca n mak e sense , an d i n

fact ca n b e use d t o brin g th e musi c t o it s firs t majo r mid-movemen t clima x
(Ex.17). I t woul d als o allo w th e man y successiv e sf' s t o b e interprete d i n th e
context o f th e ever-escalatin g crescendo . Thi s woul d mean , fo r example , tha t
the sf' s i n m.37 5 woul d b e i n mp, reac h a m f level by , say, m.383, an d th e ful l
f sf onl y i n m.387 . Th e beaut y o f thi s approac h i s tha t th e clima x a t m.392 ,
Ex. 1 7
when i t finall y explodes , s o t o speak , i s al l th e mor e meaningfu l an d ex -

citing afte r a prolonge d twenty-five-ba r build-up.14 Le t u s note , too , that th e sf's
in mm.374-8 0 ar e al l o n 'twos ' an d 'fours, ' thu s agai n phras e syncopation s i n
effect, followin g ver y muc h th e sam e patter n Schuman n presente d earlier , i n
mm. 149-86.
I thin k th e musi c tha t no w follow s i s some o f the mos t beautifu l Schuman n
ever achieved . I t i s simpl y masterfu l th e wa y th e musi c build s graduall y bu t
inexorably to it s ultimate clima x and affirmation . Th e majo r performanc e prob -
lems her e ar e (1 ) not t o allo w the musi c t o ris e to it s highest dynami c level s too
early; (2 ) to preserv e the integrit y and feelin g of the four-ba r phras e structuring.
As fo r th e firs t point , conducto r (an d orchestra) should no t b e carrie d awa y by
Schumann's—perhaps too many—crescendos an d piu f's, which, I suspect, were
added (understandably ) in th e shee r excitemen t an d whit e hea t o f creation. As
seen i n th e score , the y ca n b e misleading . I t i s best t o not e tha t th e firs t sig n of
a crescend o doe s no t com e unti l m.426 , and tha t th e firs t rea l f doe s no t occu r
until m.474—an d a /f not unti l thirty-fiv e bar s after that, in m.508 ! The dynami c
pacing mus t therefor e b e ver y wel l controlled , especiall y i n th e brass , whos e
dynamic markings , i t shoul d b e noted , ar e alway s slightl y under—i.e . softe r
than—the rest of the orchestra. 15 (I t is only in th e coda , which I place a t m.537,
that th e ful l bras s and timpan i begi n t o dominate , wit h th e timpan i havin g th e
'final word ' i n th e las t five bars of the movement. )
After th e grea t dominant-sevent h climax—o n th e dominan t (G)—th e soft ,
gently swaying melody i n m.39 4 (Ex. 18a) ha s a remarkabl y calming an d seren e
Ex. 18 a
14. I presen t this suggestio n a s at leas t a s interestin g an d viabl e a n alternativ e a s simply playin g th e
whole passag e unrelievedl y lou d fo r thirty-thre e measures . Evidentl y Zinma n an d Anserme t ar e o f
the sam e mind—th e onl y ones—judgin g b y the recording s sampled .
15. T o clarif y thi s ver y gradua l ris e i n dynami c leve l fo r th e bras s players , I sugges t markin g th e
entire sequenc e a s follows : m.44 5 — p; mA61—mp; m.46 9 — mf; m.481 — poco f ; an d m.489— f (a s
written b y Schumann) .
effect.16 (I t shoul d therefor e b e conducte d i n 'one.' ) I t i s eve n mor e beautifu l

when th e performer s understan d tha t m.39 4 i s an anacrusi s (upbeat ) measure .
More ofte n tha n no t i t i s playe d a s i f i t wer e a 'downbeat, ' a 'one ' (Ex.lSb) ,
even changin g Schumann' s phrasin g an d bowing . I n strin g players ' partia l de -
Ex. 18 b
fense i t mus t b e sai d tha t Schumann' s phrasings , i.e . slurs , whic h readil y ca n
be take n a s bowings , ca n b e misleadin g i f onl y viewe d fro m th e part , rathe r
than fro m th e scor e an d th e music' s phras e infrastructure . A phras e suc h a s
or
will obviousl y be see n a t first glance a s starting on th e 'ones ' o f four-bar phrases.
But the fac t i s that i n this work phrasings/bowings and th e metri c understructur e
do no t alway s coincide ; indeed , the y ar e ofte n totall y a t odds . Similarly , flutists
might b e forgive n if , seein g -espe -
cially afte r twelv e bars ' rest—i n thei r parts , they assum e thi s t o be a typical four -
bar phras e startin g o n 'one. ' An d ye t i t isn't ; i t start s o n a 'four ' wit h a lightl y
syncopated upbea t feeling .
In an y case , ver y fe w conductor s attai n th e righ t phras e feelin g her e
(mm.394-417). T o m y ears , onl y Mehta , Pfitzner , Szell , Ansermet , Schuricht ,
and Janowsk i do, bu t th e latte r fiv e partiall y spoi l thing s b y disregardin g Schu -
mann's p dynamic . Th e accente d E (m.402 ) an d th e woodwinds ' fp's (mm.406 ,
410) ar e 'fours, ' sligh t accents—no t aggressive fp's —in the prevailin g p dynamic .
Two six-bar phrases interven e i n th e otherwis e systemati c four-ba r structuring.
The extr a two bars are needed fo r the brasses ' 'signal ' theme, borrowed fro m th e
very openin g o f th e symphony , t o modulat e th e musi c i n th e firs t instanc e t o
the supertoni c ( D minor) , an d i n th e secon d instanc e bac k t o C major .
Without disturbin g th e four-ba r structuring, Schuman n no w overlay s a wood -
wind them e i n tripl e mete r (Ex . 19) , agai n borrowe d fro m th e firs t movemen t
16. Man y musician s have observe d th e similarit y of thi s phras e t o a lin e i n th e las t son g o f Beetho -
ven's A n di e feme Geliebte : Whethe r thi s wa s
consciously a near-quotation b y Schumann o r whether th e melod y was , as I suggest, inspire d instea d

by th e Fift h Symphony' s firs t movemen t 'secon d subject'—o r bot h —is har d t o prov e or , fo r tha t
matter, t o disprove , there bein g n o documentar y evidenc e t o suppor t either thesis . Bot h idea s wil l
have t o remai n conjectural.
Ex. 1 9
(m. 15), o n to p o f th e basi c continuin g 2/ 2 (al l obviously conducted i n 'one') .

When th e 'triplet' 17 overlay s are abandone d an d th e alia breve secon d subjec t
returns i n th e woodwinds , i n m.474 , i t i s answere d canonicall y i n th e violins ,
the latte r startin g on a 'two, ' the forme r on a 'four. '
After severa l more six-ba r interspersions, 18 th e mountin g wave s of sound hav e
reached f , marke d co n fuoco (wit h fire). This exhortatio n doe s no t mea n t o 'pla y
as lou d a s possible'—as , unfortunately , i t i s usually interpreted—bu t merel y t o
play i n f wit h grea t intensit y an d passion , no t necessaril y a matte r o f sheer vol-
ume. (Conducto r an d orchestr a mus t sav e somethin g fo r the /fa t m.508. ) Thi s
triumphant passag e occupies mor e o r less th e sam e plac e i n th e over-al l form of
the movemen t a s the ver y simila r passage nea r th e en d o f the Beethove n Fifth' s
first movement (m.439) . Melodically/thematicall y ver y similar, it als o hint s a t a
similarly fragmented instrumentatio n (Ex.ZOa) , although no t a s contrastingly var-
ied a s in Beethoven' s exampl e (Ex.20b) .
Ex. 20 a Schuman n
Ex.20b Beethove n
17. Althoug h writte n i n tripl e mete r (3/2) , th e effec t i s tha t o f triplet s ove r a dupl e base :
or . Musica l notatio n happen s t o allo w thi s t o b e writte n eithe r way . (Se e
Schumann's us e o f the triplet s i n mm.560-70. )

18. Measure s 455-60 , 469-75, 487-92.
A vulgar tempo distortio n i s perpetrated her e b y man y conductor s (mm . 514-

15): a hug e ritar d and , eve n worse , a n immens e fermat a o n m.51 5 (Semkow ,
Kubelik, fo r example) . Apar t fro m no t bein g calle d fo r i n Schumann' s scor e —
which ough t t o b e reaso n enoug h no t t o d o it—suc h a holdin g bac k o f th e
tempo destroy s th e whol e momentu m an d forwar d thrus t o f th e music , whic h
has bee n buildin g for man y minutes , i n fact—i f th e equall y unwarranted ritar d
in mm.273-7 9 i s not taken—sinc e th e ver y beginning o f the Finale .
This temp o pull-bac k als o serve s the nex t passag e (mm.516-36 ) ver y poorly ,
for i t take s al l th e surpris e out o f th e sudde n subito p i n m.51 6 an d th e glori -
ously inventiv e chain o f abrupt modulation s tha t ensue s (Ex.2la , b) . I t also kills
Ex. 21 b
The sam e passag e seen i n harmoni c abstract .
the surprisin g effec t o f th e entir e passag e bein g off-kilte r structurally/rhythmi -

cally. Bot h th e phras e beginning s an d harmoni c shift s ar e o n 'fours ' —not o n
'ones,' a s unfortunatel y virtually al l recording s interpre t it . Indeed , thi s glorious
passage seem s t o b e a signa l fo r conductor s t o indulg e i n variou s interpretive
excesses. Eve n i f they hav e observe d the sub. p o f m. 516—so startlin g and excit -
ing afte r th e precedin g eighty-ba r crescend o build-u p t o ff (mos t conductor s
simply ignor e it)—the y tend t o crescendo too-much-too-early , s o that th e nexiff,
to b e reache d onl y i n m.53 7 (heraldin g the arriva l o f the coda) , climaxe s abou t
sixteen bar s too early , rendering th e rea l f f a meaningles s anti-climax.
Another terribl e distortio n o f this passag e i s perpetrated b y Szell , wh o make s
eight successiv e two-ba r crescendo s instea d o f on e lon g nine -
teen-bar graduate d crescendo . Th e othe r favorit e indulgenc e i s to acelérat e th e
tempo tremendously , I suppose , t o achiev e som e audience-electrifyin g rac e t o
the finis h line. 19 Al l tha t i t reall y achieve s i s t o degenerat e thi s strikin g an d
19. Man y conductor s — such a s Barcnboim , Sawallisch , Celibidach e — rush th e temp o eve n muc h
earlier, a s earl y a s m.359 . Marrine r outdoe s everybod y else, however , b y takin g a n unbelievabl e
tempo o f J = 22 0 a s early a s m. 394.
inherently nobl e passag e t o a chea p 'effect ' (wha t Beethove n ha d alread y calle d
Effekthascherei). Her e agai n th e sf s startin g i n m.52 6 mus t b e graduated , logi -
cally a s follows: m.526—sf i n mp , m.530— sf i n mf, m.534— sf i n f .
The four-ba r structurin g continue s al l throug h th e coda . Bu t rathe r tha n let -
ting tha t b e a constrain t o n hi s rhythmi c inventivenes s an d imagination , Schu -
mann keep s thing s livel y and ful l o f surprises (a s he ha s al l alon g i n thi s move -
ment) b y means o f cross-phrasings and off-bea t accentuation s an d syncopations .
These appea r t o b e confusin g o r incomprehensibl e t o mos t conductor s an d or -
chestras, wh o generall y reac t arbitrarily , intuitively, with whateve r seem s t o b e
the easies t o r most comfortabl e interpretation . T o be sure , ther e i s not muc h a n
orchestra musicia n ca n glea n fro m th e instrumenta l par t alone; a s the bar s rush
by, a t breaknec k tempo , the y al l loo k structurall y alike . Bu t th e conducto r
should hav e n o suc h excuse , a s any basi c analysi s of the wor k will readil y reveal
its intrinsi c structuring. An d ye t i n recordin g afte r recordin g on e hear s
4
instead of . To achiev e
the desire d resul t i n th e firs t violins , th e followin g bowing i s advisable (Ex . 22).
Ex. 2 2
At poin t 0 (m.550 ) car e mus t b e take n t o remai n mor e o r less a t mid-bow ; in

any case , th e thrus t an d directio n o f th e phras e mus t g o t o th e whol e notes .
These tie d whol e note s i n mm.552-5 3 woul d certainly , at a quic k glance , lea d
one t o thin k tha t the y ar e 'one-two ' i n a phras e (o r a t leas t a 'three-four') , bu t
they ar e neither . They are a 'four-one. '
Schumann's fina l inspiratio n i s to plac e wha t look s lik e a phras e beginnin g
(m.560) no t o n a 'one, ' bu t o n a 'two ' —another phras e syncopation , analogou s
to a n accen t o n th e secon d bea t o f a 4/ 4 bar . (Measure s 553-5 8 ar e a six-bar
phrase.)
We should not e tha t th e timpani' s final bar mean s t o indicate ,
in al l likelihood , that th e tril l (o r roll ) shoul d sto p o n th e secon d bea t a s i s th e

case a s well i n m.393 . (Th e fermat a i s there pr o forma, a s i t were , becaus e th e
entire orchestr a ha s a fermat a for the whol e bar.)
I hav e shown a t considerabl e lengt h an d i n som e detai l the tru e structurin g and
periodization o f Schumann' s Final e movement . I f performed with a n awareness
throughout o f this basi c infrastructure, 20 th e entir e movemen t wil l soun d com -
pletely differen t fro m th e usua l ordinary renderings, infinitel y more interesting —
virtually like a brand-new piece—and i n fac t lik e the remarkabl y original master-
piece i t is.
20. O f al l th e 2 8 rendition s sampled, onl y tw o conductors—Para y i n hi s Detroi t recordin g an d

Bernardi i n hi s Calgar y recording—get almos t the entir e movemen t right .
Tchaikovsky: Sixth Symphony
There ar e certai n aspect s of Tchaikovsky's Sixt h Symphony that ar e ver y special ,

if no t unique , t o thi s wor k an d t o thi s composer' s conception , tha t i n tur n re -
quire ver y specia l car e an d attentio n i n performance , i n 'interpretation. ' Thes e
unusual interpretiv e problem s com e i n additio n t o al l th e mor e conventional ,
general interpretational/notationa l issue s a t stak e i n an y majo r orchestra l sym -
phonic work . That bein g th e case , I will not reiterat e all those fundamental an d
customary performanc e issue s alread y extensively examined herein , but , rather ,
address onl y thos e whic h ar e peculia r t o Tchaikovsky' s Sixt h Symphony .
These performanc e an d notationa l aspect s are , onc e again , primaril y in th e
realm o f tempo an d dynamics , th e notatio n o f whic h Tchaikovsk y had b y th e
end o f his lif e refine d an d expande d t o a remarkabl e degree , t o m y knowledg e
more tha n an y othe r prio r compose r o r compose r o f hi s generation . Thi s ma y
surprise man y readers , becaus e Tchaikovsk y i s generall y regarde d a s a highl y
emotional, unreservedl y expressive , eve n a t time s unsurotl e composer , an d no t
given t o tidy , fastidiou s subtletie s o f thought, le t alon e t o intellectua l precision .
It i s common knowledg e tha t man y 'intellectuals ' i n music—historians , critics ,
theorists, an d suc h —consider muc h o f Tchaikovsky' s musi c incline d t o vulga r
emotionalism, thu s irresistibl e t o a mas s audience , an d therefore , almos t b y
definition, a musi c devoi d o f any discipline , refinement , an d discriminatin g in-
telligence. Indeed , most performance s — interpretations — of Tchaikovsky tend i n
that direction , wallowin g indulgentl y i n ever y expressiv e effect , wearin g thei r
emotionalism ostentatiousl y on thei r sleeve , and disregardin g those aspect s o f his
music tha t reflec t th e working s o f a brilliant , discipline d mind . I n fact , man y
conductors hav e mad e entir e career s o f exploitin g th e mor e obviou s superficial
emotional effect s o f Tchaikovsky's music , some (Bernstein , for example) throug h
incredible exaggeration s and distortions , findin g ne w depth s o f vulgarity tha t ar e
nothing mor e tha n a n offens e t o th e musi c an d t o Tchaikovsky's genius.
Bernstein's Tchaikovsk y renderings represen t an extreme , however. Still , mos t
521
conductors, pas t an d present , approac h Tchaikovsk y performances—especiall y

of his last three symphonies—a s a kind of emotional 'fiel d day, ' where all whims,
liberties, an d indulgence s ca n b e safel y indulged . Suc h performance s ar e i n
general stubbornl y blin d an d dea f t o th e intellectua l an d notationa l rigo r wit h
which Tchaikovsk y no t onl y sought t o balanc e an d tempe r th e emotiona l con -
tent o f his musi c but , i n m y view, brilliantly succeeded i n doin g so—i f onl y we
would perfor m faithfull y wha t h e wrote . Indeed , I woul d argu e tha t precisel y
because Tchaikovsky' s musi c i s so inherently emotionall y highly charged, tha t i t
is al l th e mor e necessary , no t s o muc h t o restrai n ourselve s expressively , as t o
unequivocally respec t thos e ver y markings and indication s with whic h Tchaikov -
sky himself refine d an d discipline d hi s art.
Let m e la y ou t th e mai n point s o f contentio n here . I n th e real m o f temp o
and temp o modification s Tchaikovsky, in hi s Sixt h Symphon y (an d man y othe r
late works , lik e hi s Sleeping Beauty an d Nutcracker balle t scores ) evolve d a
highly subtl e an d explici t cod e o f notation , i n tur n supporte d an d comple -
mented b y metronome marking s of grea t precisio n an d variety . Analogously , in
the real m o f dynamics, Tchaikovsky refine d and elaborate d hi s notation t o com -
prise eleve n an d twelv e dynami c gradations , no t th e usua l si x or eigh t use d b y
the vas t majorit y o f 19th-centur y composers . Th e sa d trut h i s that i n thes e tw o
fundamental respects , Tchaikovsky' s notation s ar e eithe r roundl y ignore d or , by
many conductor s considere d a typicall y Tchaikovskian notationa l excess , which
in tur n i s re-interpreted t o allo w the performe r any license h e ma y wish to take.
In hi s eve r mor e subtl e temp o distinction s Tchaikovsk y was merely elaboratin g

on wha t Beethove n i n hi s lat e work s had begu n t o explore : a wa y of notatin g
in a n increasingl y precise manner—bu t stil l wit h conventiona l Italian-languag e
indications—the subtl e variation s o f tempo s tha t earl y 19th-centur y composer s
were hearin g an d incorporatin g i n thei r music . I t wa s nothin g mor e tha n a n
attempt a t definin g for the performe r through notatio n Beethoven' s "Temp o de s
Gefühls." An d jus t lik e Beethoven , Tchaikovsk y use d metronom e marking s t o
confirm an d giv e substance t o his Italian-language verbal annotations. Th e won -
derful variet y and subtlet y of his temp o indication s ca n b e appreciated , virtually
at a glance, i n th e followin g table (Fig.la , b).
Notice ho w logica l an d consisten t i s th e relatio n betwee n th e verba l temp o
indications and thei r respectiv e metronom e markings , as well as the us e o f modi-
fying term s lik e poco, molto, mosso, quasi (a s in quasi adagio), no n troppo, no n
tanto. Taken al l together, Tchaikovsk y provides us with a networ k o f tempos an d
tempo relationship s whic h i s no t onl y intrinsicall y clear but , whe n it s compo -
nents ar e see n i n relatio n t o on e another , i s consisten t an d logical , an d thu s
should leav e n o roo m fo r misunderstanding. We should als o note tha t Tchaikov -
sky i s consistent i n nomenclatur e an d metronom e markin g fro m movemen t t o
movement. Moderato assai ( J = 88 ) i s use d bot h i n th e firs t an d las t move -
ments, a s is andante ( J = 69) . Whil e th e fac t tha t both allegro vivo and allegro
con grazia ar e define d b y a metronomizatio n o f J = 14 4 ma y a t firs t see m
TCHAIKOVSKY: SIXT H SYMPHON Y 523
Fig. l a
vivace
allegro molt o vivace (152)
allegro viv o (144) , allegr o co n grazi a
un poc o pi ù animat o (132)
allegro no n tropp o (116 )
moderato moss o (100 )
moderato assa i (88 )
andante moss o (80 )
andante (76) , andante giust o (76 )
andante (69 )
andante no n tant o (60)
quasi adagio
adagio moss o (60) , adagi o poco men o ch e prim a (60)
adagio (54) , adagio lamentoso (54)
Fig. I b
stringendo molt o ritenuto

stringendo rallentando poc o
affrettando rallentando
un poc o animand o ritardando molt o
animando
incalzando
più moss o
strange, i t i s really quit e logical , for the forme r i s a livel y allegro 4/ 4 wit h a puls e
of fas t quarter-notes , whil e th e allegro co n grazia (Ex.1 ) o f th e 5/ 4 secon d
Ex. 1
movement i s actually fel t i n a muc h mor e leisurel y puls e o f half-note s an d dot -

ted half-note s ( J = 7 2 and J . = 48 , respectively). 1
1. Thi s i s th e sam e interestin g issue , namely , th e sam e temp o indicatio n allowin g fo r differen t
tempo feelings and , conversely , differen t temp o indication s permittin g similar temp o feelings , a s
discussed a t som e lengt h i n Par t I (pp . 40-43).
Let i t be noted , finally, that Tchaikovsky' s tempos fo r the Sixt h Symphon y ar e

in on e sens e al l quit e conventional . Th e basi c tempo s rang e fro m adagio t o
allegro an d allegro vivo, the metronom e marking s from J = 5 4 to J = 152 . In
other words , we d o no t fin d i n thi s scor e an y indicatio n a t al l o f extrem e tem -
pos—fast o r slow—o r o f an y o f th e excessiv e supe r slo w an d supe r fas t tempo s
taken i n thi s wor k b y the majorit y o f conductors . The y see m t o fee l tha t ther e
is som e har d evidence—evidenc e certainl y no t i n th e score—tha t Tchaikovsky
was inten t o n expandin g th e rang e o f tempos , somethin g tha t actuall y can b e
said o f Beethove n bu t clearl y no t o f Tchaikovsky. Th e questio n the n remains :
why d o mos t conductor s fee l justifie d i n takin g tempo s thirt y o r mor e metro -
nome point s slowe r than Tchaikovsky' s marking s (i n slo w tempos ) an d similarl y
proportionately faste r i n fas t tempos ? Typica l example s are : fo r th e andante
(J = 69) , firs t movement , m.8 9 (se e Ex.2 ) J = 3 8 (Furtwängler , Bychkov ,
Celibidache, Martinon , Ormandy , Giulini) ; fo r th e nex t moderato mosso
(m.101, J = 100 ) J = 6 2 (Celibidache) , J = 8 6 (Coates, Ormandy , Giulini) ;
for th e en d o f th e Scherz o movemen t J = ca.18 6 instea d o f Tchaikovsky's
J = 15 2 (Martinon, Furtwängler) ; for the andante J = 7 6 in the Final e (m.37 )
j = ca.4 6 (Furtwängler , Monteux , Celibidache , Martinon , Ormandy) , J = 3 6
(Giulini); fo r the nex t pi ù mosso (m.71 ) j = ca.11 2 (Monteux , Furtwängler )
instead o f J = 9 6 (Monteux , Furtwängler) ; fo r th e moderato assai (m.116 ,
J = 88 ) J = 14 4 (Furtwängler, Barenboim).
As I pointe d ou t i n connectio n wit h th e widesprea d floutin g o f Beethoven' s
metronomizations, I would argu e i n th e cas e o f Tchaikovsky that, i f a conducto r
has a n antipath y fo r metronom e marking s an d feel s compelle d t o ignor e o r
change them , that i s one thing ; i t is quite another t o read int o th e ter m moderato
assai ( a Very moderate ' tempo ) a temp o tha t clock s i n a t J = 144 !
The ultimat e iron y o f al l thi s i s tha t Tchaikovsky' s temp o an d metronom e
markings ar e perfect : th e slo w tempo s ar e no t to o slo w and th e fas t tempo s no t
too fast . Indeed , i f faithfully adhere d to , the y give his symphonie s a mor e power -
ful expression , a tensil e strength , an d a forma l clarity , unity, balance , an d pro -
portion, a sense o f unfolding drama, tha t al l the usua l exaggerations , distortions,
and distension s of form ca n neve r achieve . Analogously , the pervasiv e disregard
of Tchaikovsky' s dynamic marking s is similarly destructive o f th e tru e qualit y of
his work . Th e utte r banalit y an d crudenes s o f interpretatio n tha t resul t whe n
the Sixt h Symphony' s dynamic s are reduce d t o the usua l one-dimensiona l thre e
levels o f 'a s lou d a s possible, ' 'relativel y soft, ' an d a mediocr e 'in-between, ' ar e
such tha t eve n thi s great wor k ca n barel y withstand it.
Admittedly, Tchaikovsky's rarefied scal e o f dynamics is not s o eas y to achieve ,
certainly no t withou t som e rea l effor t an d concentratio n an d chang e o f playing
habits. Bu t wha t i s s o exasperatin g i s tha t hardl y an y conducto r seem s eve n t o
recognize tha t ther e i s a problem here , a very interestin g on e a t that, technically
and conceptually ; exasperatin g also tha t thes e dynamic s ar e eithe r casuall y dis-
missed a s unrealizable or a s the meaningles s aberrations of a compose r give n t o
excessive extremes . No r i s ther e an y justificatio n fo r th e notio n hel d b y som e
conductors, wh o hav e a t leas t note d Tchaikovsky' s unconventiona l dynami c
markings, tha t h e wa s obviously intent o n expanding th e dynami c rang e o f th e
orchestra, tha t h e wante d t o produc e eve n loude r climaxe s an d eve n mor e
whisper-soft pianissimos.
The fac t i s that Tchaikovsky' s us e o f fiv e an d si x p's (ppppp an d pppppp) a t
one en d o f the scal e an d quadrupl e fs (ffff) a t the othe r en d ha d nothin g t o d o
with playin g louder o r softer . No r coul d i t i n reality . For al l instrument s hav e
finite limitation s o f their dynami c range ; an d a compose r coul d writ e fiftee n f s
for al l that an y instrument coul d pla y any louder than it s natural acousti c limita-
tions permit—except , o f course, through th e ban e o f amplification .
Tchaikovsky wa s fascinate d wit h somethin g muc h mor e interestin g tha n
merely playin g loude r o r softer : i t wa s t o achiev e mor e refined , mor e dis -
criminating gradation s o f dynami c levels , whic h h e ha d note d th e bes t play -
ers (i n chambe r music-playing , fo r example ) coul d command , an d i n fac t
used quit e naturall y i n givin g subtle r profil e t o thei r phrasin g and musica l ex-
pression. I t i s thos e in-betwee n dynamics—betwee n f a n d mf, betwee n p an d
mp—which ever y goo d musicia n use s all the time , tha t h e wante d t o capture i n
notation.
Fig. 2
A= Usua l dynamic levels (8) B = Tchaikovsk y Sixth Symphony's dynamic

level (12 ) (o n a scal e of 1 to 1000 )
To decod e an d correctl y expres s thi s mor e refine d notatio n require s som e

adjustment fro m th e norma l usag e o f dynamics. As Fig.2 shows , since th e oute r
dynamic level s remai n th e same , al l th e dynamic s i n betwee n tak e o n ne w
positions i n th e twelve-ste p scale. 2 Thi s i s only logical, fo r i f Tchaikovsky's ffff i s
to correspon d t o th e usua l fff, an d hi s pppppp i s to equa l th e usua l ppp, the n a
f i n hi s notation , fou r level s awa y fro m th e ffff, wil l have t o b e somethin g mor e
like a mf; conversely , a p , si x levels above ppppp, wil l hav e t o b e mor e lik e a n
mp. I a m no t advocatin g tha t Tchaikovsky' s twelv e dynami c shading s shoul d
be—or i n fac t ca n b e —produced wit h absolut e scientifi c accuracy , bu t rathe r
that th e f s i n hi s score , fo r example , b e no t th e usua l all-ou t full-forc e powe r
blasts (especiall y in th e brass ) that on e usuall y hears, bu t a modifie d f, a poco f ,
allowing fo r thre e additiona l subtl y delineate d dynami c level s befor e reachin g
the maximu m level . Th e sam e adjustmen t woul d appl y t o th e lowe r dynamic s
where, i n Tchaikovsky' s score, th e p woul d hav e t o b e mor e lik e a mp, t o allow
for anothe r fiv e o r si x dynamic gradation s belo w tha t leve l t o reac h th e softes t
possible sound .
When approache d thi s way , Tchaikovsky' s Sixt h Symphon y take s o n classi c
proportions an d a transcenden t quality , a variet y o f expressiv e shading s an d a
glow o f orchestra l colors , tha t th e usua l 'slam-bang ' 'get-the-audience-aroused -
into-a frenzy-of-applause ' performance s ca n neve r achieve .
How detaile d an d carefu l Tchaikovsk y coul d b e i n hi s notation—an d there -
fore i n hi s clea r definitio n o f ho w h e intende d a give n passag e t o soun d — is
seen i n ou r first excerpted example : th e famou s and justifiabl y popula r andante
theme fro m th e Sixt h Symphony' s first movement (Ex.2) . Even a cursor y glance
at th e exampl e reveal s tha t every measur e ha s th e mos t exactin g dynami c nu -
ances. Analogously , i n th e twelv e bar s i t comprise s ther e ar e fou r temp o modi -
fications, apar t fro m th e initia l andante ( J = 69) . Tha t temp o markin g is ,
alas, one o f the mos t ignored . Indeed , mos t o f Tchaikovsky's andantes ar e turne d
into adagios. I f a n orchestr a an d it s conducto r reall y faithfull y observ e Tchai -
kovsky's dynamic s an d tempo s here , th e musi c take s o n a plasticit y and subtl e
expressiveness tha t i s fa r remove d fro m th e prevailin g over-sentimentalized ,
maudlin interpretation s on e usuall y encounters . Not e tha t th e accompanyin g
instruments (horns , bassoon , clarinets , secon d violins , violas , basses ) ar e al l
marked on e dynami c leve l lowe r tha n th e mai n them e (i n mute d firs t violin s
and cellos) .
If scrupulously followed, Tchaikovsky's temp o modification s also add tellingl y
to th e originalit y of this passage : not merel y some obviou s sentimental popula r
tune. Th e incalzando (pressin g forward ) mus t b e don e gradually , stretched ove r
two bar s (mm.93-94) , an d the n cancelle d i n perfec t symmetr y b y tw o bar s of
ritenuto (mm.95-96) . (Th e come prima i n m.9 7 refers , o f course , t o th e incal-
2. Actually , Tchaikovsky uses th e ful l rang e o f twelve dynamics in th e Sixt h Symphony , at th e lo w

level a six-fol d p (pppppp), use d onl y onc e fo r th e fou r bas s clarine t note s befor e th e firs t move -
ment's allegro vivo.
Ex. 2
zando o f m.93). This passage return s two mor e times , onc e wit h th e ful l orches -
tra (mm.130-41) , an d th e las t tim e a s a sof t clarine t sol o accompanie d onl y b y
quiet string s an d timpani . I t i s intende d t o b e a distan t reminiscenc e o f th e
music's firs t appearance , no w marke d adagio mosso ( J = 60 ) — no longe r an -
dante—and i n th e softest dynamics, gradually fading away (ppp m.153 , pppp
m.157, pppp m.159 , an d finall y si x p's in th e bas s clarinet i n m.160) .
A degre e o f cautio n an d restrain t i s advisable i n som e o f the mor e climacti c
brass-heavy moment s o f th e work , a s fo r exampl e i n mm.189-9 7 (Ex.3) . I t i s
Ex. 3
very tempting for the brass , seeing ff f i n thei r parts , to play their absolut e loudest ,
not realizin g a t the momen t tha t ther e ar e several eve n mor e climacti c passage s
marked ffff, i n th e symphony . Th e sam e cautio n applie s t o mm.242-4 7 (Ex.4) ,
where, despit e th e ffs an d ff f s , a balanc e mus t b e achieve d s o tha t al l thre e
choirs o f th e orchestr a (woodwinds , brass , an d strings ) ar e equalized . (I n mos t
performances brasse s overwhel m th e res t o f the orchestra. )
A tempo questio n arise s around m.22 0 t o m.225 , wher e hundred s o f conduc -
tors hav e traditionall y impose d a hug e ritard , presumabl y unde r th e influenc e
of—and a s a paralle l to—th e prolonge d fourteen-ba r diminuend o afte r th e cli -
max o f m.214. 3 This automati c correlatin g o f diminuendo an d ritardand o is , of
3. W e shoul d note , a s a n exampl e o f Tchaikovsky's mcticulousness an d conscientiousnes s i n nota -

tion, tha t i n m.21 6 h e write s dim. u n poco, no t merel y dim., i n th e hope s o f preventing too muc h
and to o quic k a diminuendo , a ver y commo n faul t amon g player s an d conductors . Tchaikovsky' s
Ex.4
course, on e o f the mor e universall y practiced ba d habits , and som e conductors ,

like Furtwängler , fo r example , buil t a n entir e caree r o n thi s mistake n notion. 4
When w e consider that (a ) here Tchaikovsk y indicates no temp o change—ther e
is no ritardand o or ritenut o i n th e score—an d (b ) that i n dozen s o f other place s
in thi s symphon y ther e ar e numerou s eve n mor e subtl e temp o modification s
clearly given , b y al l logi c i t doe s rais e th e questio n whethe r w e ough t t o allow
ourselves t o indulg e i n suc h unindicate d re-interpretations . Moreover, shouldn' t
we pa y som e respec t t o th e fac t tha t th e themati c materia l i n thi s passag e
(mm.230-37) i s the sam e a s a t th e
intentions ar e confirme d b y th e cautionar y f i n m.21 7 an d m.218 . Not e als o tha t th e composer ,

realizing that th e secon d an d fourt h horn s ar e resting i n m.216, reiterates th e dim. u n poco especiall y
for the m i n m.217 . No t man y composer s oftha t er a too k car e t o b e s o explicitly clear.
4. Furtwängler , i n hi s man y way s wonderfu l an d remarkabl e 193 8 Berli n Philharmoni c recordin g
of th e Sixt h Symphony , drops some fort y metronom e point s betwee n m.21 4 and m.229 . The corres -
ponding crescend o tha t follow s is, of course, als o accompanie d b y a tremendou s accelerando !
beginning o f the movement' s first allegro
and fo r tha t reaso n alon e ough t t o
retain som e semblanc e o f a livel y allegro character, no t th e lugubriou s andante

one hear s so often? I suppose that a slight relaxation of the temp o aroun d m.22 9 is
appropriate — although I woul d emphasiz e no t absolutel y necessar y (th e p p dy -
namics alon e ca n giv e the rea l meanin g an d expressio n to the passage) 5 —but to
drop fro m twent y t o fort y metronom e point s i s a willfu l deconstructio n o f th e
music.
Another temp o distortio n tha t ha s becom e traditiona l occurs a t m.276 . Again
Tchaikovsky's scor e doe s no t indicat e an y chang e (slowing ) of tempo , an d ye t
countless conductor s indulg e i n a tremendous stretching of the temp o here . Th e
fact i s tha t Tchaikovsk y ha s alread y composed a slowe r feeling int o th e music .
From fast moving sixteenth-, eighth-, and quarter-notes—the basic pulse in quarter-
notes—Tchaikovsky drops to half-notes and whol e notes, a slowing of the momen -
tum o f the musi c by a factor of two or three at least (if one relates it to the precedin g
turbulent sixteenths) . When mm.276-303 are kept i n tempo, that is , allegro, but
felt in J or o, the musi c takes on an overwhelming power of expression that canno t
be matched b y the various adagio versions one usually hears. This is not some tear-
ful maudli n exercis e i n bathos , bu t rathe r a musi c o f extrem e anguish , an d o f
anger, a desperate outcry of pain, culminating in the quadrupl e f(ffff) o f m.298.
What make s th e usua l over-distende d temp o stretching s her e s o ludicrous—
and I might add virtuall y impossible to perform from a technical, practica l point
of view , especially i n th e brass , wh o hav e t o tak e untol d number s o f breath s t o
get throug h th e passag e —is th e fac t tha t n o playe r i n th e worl d ca n pla y
mm.298-99 i n tha t adopte d slow temp o an d stil l adher e t o Tchaikovsky' s dy-
n a m i c s D o z e n s o f recording s attes t t o this , i n
which on e ca n hea r eithe r a sudde n speedin g u p o f th e temp o i n thos e tw o

measures o r a dro p t o p a s earl y a s th e thir d bea t o f m.298 . I f kept i n tempo ,
Tchaikovsky's extrem e dynami c expressio n i s difficult, bu t entirel y possible .
The Scherz o o f th e Sixt h Symphon y i s eve n today , a hundre d year s afte r i t
was first performed, technically an d conceptuall y challengin g enoug h tha t i t is
treated wit h considerabl e aw e an d respec t and , a s a result , usuall y played rela -
tively well . I wil l therefor e limi t m y comment s t o onl y three somewha t specia l
interpretive/performance problems . Th e firs t o f these— a misreadin g o f th e
text—would hardl y be wort h mentionin g i f it weren' t suc h a n annoyingl y care-
less mistak e an d s o universall y and blatantl y misrendered . I hav e ye t t o hea r a
single recordin g o n whic h th e mai n them e hear d nea r th e beginnin g o f th e
movement (mm.9-16 ) i s played a s written.
5. I n fact , playin g m.229-3 6 reall y p p bu t i n ful l fas t temp o ha s it s own wonderfu l dramati c excite-
ment, whic h th e slowing-dow n interpretatio n can neve r achieve.
TCHAIKOVSKY: SIXT H SYMPHON Y 53 1
The usua l rendition , successivel y i n oboes , trombones , an d horns , i s
.6 D o no t Slatki n an d al l th e othe r famou s

maestri wh o hav e th e privileg e o f recordin g thi s grea t symphoni c masterpiec e
hear tha t thei r musician s ar e playin g something othe r tha n wha t th e compose r
wrote? Evidentl y they don't , o r else the y don' t care .
The secon d question— a muc h mor e interestin g on e —involves bowin g i n th e
strings i n m.9 7 (als o mm.101 , 105 , 109-10) . Th e scor e indicate s successiv e
down-bows: an d. I f playe d
with tha t bowing , th e actua l acoustica l resul t wil l no t b e bu t

or o r dependin g o n th e
degree o f laziness with whic h th e performer s approach thi s passage . (Th e 'retak -
ing' o f the bo w an d th e maintainin g o f the soun d fo r the longes t possibl e dura -
tion take s a lo t o f extr a effor t an d concentration. ) However , whe n th e sam e
passage i s recapitulate d late r o n i n th e bras s an d woodwind s (mm.253 , 257 ,
261), ther e obviousl y bein g n o bowing s involved , th e half-note s o n th e fac e o f
it ar e mean t t o b e full y sustained . Thi s i s i n m y vie w

further confirme d b y Tchaikovsk y a fe w bar s late r when , developin g an d ex -
panding upo n thi s themati c fragment , h e change s th e rhythm s (durations ) un -
equivocally to maintaining that rhythmic version for an
entire si x measure s (mm.265-70) . Clearly , Tchaikovsk y mean t t o differentiat e
between thes e tw o settings . Bu t tha t bein g th e case , ho w d o w e reconcil e th e
fully sustaine d half-note s in th e bras s with th e impossible-to-sustai n half-note s i n
the string s earlie r on ? Di d Tchaikovsk y expec t t o hea r a differenc e i n th e tw o
renditions? O r di d h e expec t th e bras s to emulat e th e string s by shortening th e
half-note durations ? Tha t make s littl e sens e i n vie w o f hi s ow n varyin g of th e
rhythm i n m.265 . I t i s hard t o imagin e tha t Tchaikovsk y di d no t realiz e tha t i t
is physicall y impossibl e full y t o sustai n thos e half-note s wit h successiv e down -
bows. O r di d these down-bow marking s originat e not with Tchaikovsky , bu t wit h
the edito r o f the firs t publication ?
There ar e n o easy , obviou s answers to thes e questions , an d therefor e n o easy ,
obvious way s t o resolv e th e performanc e proble m involved . M y ow n suggestio n
is t o abando n th e successiv e down-bo w ide a an d bo w th e passag e a s i t come s
( n v n v n v ) ; or, at the ver y least , conductor s wh o wish to retai n th e specia l articu -
lative feelin g o f th e all-down-bo w version , shoul d exhor t thei r strin g player s t o
not tak e ful l bow s with eac h stroke . Fo r if they do , an d th e mor e the y do so , th e
bigger th e gap s between th e individua l note s wil l perforce become. Conversely ,
6. Not e tha t Tchaikovsk y present s thi s them e i n variou s durationa l alternatives ,
, fo r example , includin g (mm.214 , 216) , obviousl y wishin g t o

distinguish an d discriminat e between al l these alternat e J versions.
the les s lengt h o f bow on e takes , th e les s tim e i t wil l tak e t o 'retake ' th e bow .
And her e one-tent h o f a secon d make s a bi g difference . No r shoul d th e string s
play with al l thei r forc e and might—th e passag e i s marked (only ) ff, wit h fff an d
ffff stil l in th e offing. 7
The just-mentione d bras s an d woodwind s passag e (mm.265-70)—an d it s
close relative , mm . 301-08—is m y thir d exampl e o f Scherz o passage s tha t re -
quire specia l car e an d attention . A s alread y noted , Tchaikovsk y write s
. Thi s i s actuall y a relativel y rarel y use d notation ; mos t
composers, fo r convenience's sak e and t o sav e time, writ e How -
ever, th e latte r notation , althoug h identica l i n meanin g t o th e alternativ e ver -
sion, is , for reason s I d o no t full y understand , usuall y played ver y sloppily, am-
r
biguously, imprecisely . The mos t commo n rendition s are an d
Interestingly, i f th e pitc h change s o n th e eighth-note , mos t player s will , o f
course, mak e that not e chang e audible , If , however, th e pitc h remain s th e sam e
on th e eighth-not e (a s i n ou r Tchaikovsk y example) , i t i s usuall y droppe d dy -
namically, losin g whateve r harmoni c an d rhythmi c impac t i t i s intende d t o
have.8 I t i s even wors e whe n composer s writ e p. Tha t Tchaikovsk y went t o th e
trouble o f writin g twelv e time s i n eightee n differen t part s mean s t o
me tha t he mean t th e tied-int o eighth-not e t o be clearly heard harmonicall y and
rhythmically. (Th e onl y notatio n I kno w t o mak e tha t cleare r i s
or I n an y case, if so played, the passag e i n questio n take s on a tremen-
dous firmness, a surging power, that th e rathe r lame versio n ca n neve r

achieve.9
The Final e o f th e Sixt h Symphon y i s ful l o f performanc e challenges , espe -
cially i n respec t t o temp o an d dynami c questions . Takin g th e forme r first , i t
should b e perhap s sufficien t t o reiterat e tha t Tchaikovsk y here mark s his scor e
with remarkabl e detail an d precision , a subtlety o f notation tha t one wil l find in
very few (if any) 19th-centur y composer s unti l th e adven t of Strauss and Mahler .
In a mere ninetee n scor e pages (comprisin g 17 1 measures) ther e are , apart fro m
7. Furtwängle r an d hi s Berli n Philharmoni c string s manag e thi s proble m superbly , usin g a s littl e
bow a s possibl e with a moderat e ff .
Furtwängler's recordin g of the Tchaikovsk y Sixt h Symphon y i s an altogethe r astonishin g achieve-
ment, i n man y way s on e o f the ver y finest recordings eve r made . Althoug h on e canno t agre e wit h
some o f hi s interpretiv e ideas , especiall y i n regar d t o tempo , h e present s hi s interpretatio n i n suc h
a convincin g manne r an d wit h suc h a magica l sens e o f line an d continuity , that on e i s irresistibly
drawn t o hi s conception . Bu t abov e all , i t i s th e super b playin g o f th e orchestr a tha t make s thi s
recording suc h a magnificen t listenin g experience . Th e playin g rival s tha t o f th e bes t America n
orchestras o f the tim e (Ne w York , Philadelphia , Boston) , a fac t difficul t t o contemplat e an d diges t
when on e realize s that by 193 8 th e personne l o f the Berli n Philharmoni c consisted , i n the majority,
of Nazi Part y members .
8. I have already referred t o thi s proble m i n connectio n with simila r rhythmic/articulativ e questions
in th e las t movemen t o f Beethoven's Sevent h Symphony .
9. Simila r performance/notational problem s occu r i n mm.323-26 .
TCHAIKOVSKY: SIXT H SYMPHON Y 53 3
the initia l Adagio lamentoso, twenty-nin e temp o marking s (temp o changes ,

tempo modifications) . T o sa y tha t these , includin g th e movement' s basi c
tempo j = 54 , are generally ignored o r rather arbitraril y treated i s to understat e
the matte r considerably .
It wil l b e har d t o convinc e th e reade r (an d m y conducto r colleagues ) tha t
Tchaikovsky's tempo indications , inclusiv e of his metronome markings , are won -
derful an d perfect , becaus e I canno t poin t t o an y recording s excep t (t o som e
extent) b y Giele n an d Rozhdestvensky , i n whic h th e indicate d tempo s ar e re -
spected an d adhere d to . I onl y know from m y ow n performance s o f the work —
and incidentall y th e positiv e (an d amazed ) reaction s o f th e musician s in -
volved—that Tchaikovsky' s temp o marking s wor k perfectl y well —in fact , really
perfectly.
As for the dynamics , rangin g i n thi s movemen t fro m on e ppppp (m.146 ) t o a
number o f fff 's: the y als o "wor k perfectly. " Indeed , the y giv e th e music , wit h
all it s expressio n o f anguish , sorrow , an d resignation , a plianc y an d nobility , a
humaneness, tha t i n mor e crudel y undifferentiated performance s simpl y canno t
come t o realization . Beside s the norma l contro l o f dynamics tha t an y great mu -
sic require s o f us performers , in th e Sixt h Symphon y w e hav e t o b e eve n mor e
careful no t t o overpla y the f s an d ffs, fo r example—the y shoul d no t incu r th e
loudest possibl e playing—whil e th e p' s and pp's shoul d hav e enoug h bod y an d
substance t o allo w for still softe r an d mor e refine d lower dynamics.
Thus th e ver y openin g o f th e Final e wit h it s remarkable , a t th e tim e ver y
innovative, voic e crossing s i n th e strings, 10 nee d no t b e playe d 'a s lou d a s possi-
ble,' bu t rathe r wit h a full-bodied , unforce d soun d an d a n intens e inner expres-
sion. Othe r point s fo r cautio n ar e mm.39 , 47 , 54 , an d 63— pp, p , mf , an d f ,
respectively—important expressive differentiations I have rarel y heard mad e cor -
rectly.11
The entir e openin g passag e (mm . 1-18) is , o f course , on e o f th e mos t pro -
foundly expressiv e moment s i n 19th-centur y music . I t i s also remarkabl y 'mod-
ern' i n conception , no t onl y i n th e twistin g chromati c harmonie s o f m . l an d
the plangen t dissonance s i n mm.5 , 7 , 9-12 , encircle d i n Ex.5 . It i s essential, i n
order t o giv e thes e dissonance s thei r ful l expressiv e meaning , t o maintai n a n
absolutely equa l dynami c balanc e betwee n string s and woodwinds . This ca n b e
achieved b y the string s not bein g loude r o r heavier tha n th e woodwind s and b y
the latte r sustainin g thei r suspensio n note s (th e encircle d note s i n Ex.5 ) at th e
full require d level . I also feel that , althoug h th e string s appear t o hav e the domi -
nant voic e a t first, by measur e 5 the role s begi n t o chang e an d th e woodwind s
gradually becom e primary , th e string s graduall y accompanimental. M y reaso n
for suggestin g a s muc h i s tha t th e woodwinds ' risin g lin e take s o n increasin g
melodic character , unti l a t m.1 2 i t clearl y dominate s a s th e primar y themati c
material. Furthermore , i n tw o o f th e thre e recapitulation s o f thi s subject , i t i s
10. Interestingly , in th e otherwis e exact recapitulation of these openin g measures in m.90, Tchaikov-
sky relinquishe s the voic e crossing s and use s instead th e mor e conventiona l paralle l voicing.
11. Th e annotatio n co n lenezza e devozione i s partl y i n error . There i s n o suc h wor d i n Italia n a s
lenezza; i t wa s probably meant t o b e lentezza (slowness) .
Ex. 5
again th e wind s (bassoon s an d horn s respectively ) tha t dominat e melodically -

thematically.12
Last, I shoul d lik e t o poin t t o th e remarkabl e dark , torture d harmonie s i n
every alternat e measur e i n th e las t sixtee n bar s o f the movement , al l th e mor e
anguished fo r being se t in the lowes t orchestra l registe r (see Ex.6). The appropri -
ately melancholy , gloom y moo d o f thi s mos t extraordinar y endin g (o f a sym -
phony) depend s no t onl y o n renderin g i t i n th e righ t (Tchaikovsky's ) dynami c
levels, includin g it s moderate , deepl y expressive , singin g sf's, bu t als o a dar k
sonic coloratio n i n al l th e instrument s a s wel l a s lettin g th e harmoni c disso -
nances (marke d x i n Ex.6 ) assert their mos t anguishe d expression .
While ther e i s much , muc h mor e tha t coul d b e sai d abou t th e Tchaikovsk y
Sixth Symphony' s interpretiv e problem s an d demand s an d ho w thi s grea t work
has been cheapene d an d bowdlerize d b y generations o f conductors i n the indul -
gence o f every possible Effekthascherei, th e recountin g o f it would merel y reiter -
ate s o much o f what ha s alread y been se t forth .
12. I recal l whe n conductin g th e Sixt h Symphony some year s ago with th e Ne w Yor k Philharmonic
that som e o f the strin g player s (especially i n th e firs t violins ) wer e deeply offended a t th e suggestion
that the y give u p thei r 'primar y role ' t o th e woodwind s around m.5 .
Ex. 6
Even th e fe w point s I hav e raise d i n thi s brie f discussio n o f th e Sixt h Sym -

phony ough t t o awaken in u s a deep concer n fo r respecting Tchaikovsky's metic -
ulous attentio n t o detail , especiall y i n regar d t o temp o an d dynamics . T o put i t
another way , ho w dar e w e question—an d reject—wha t thi s grea t maste r wrot e
in th e las t anguished month s o f his life !
It ca n onl y be hope d tha t th e overwhelmin g factua l (no t anecdotal ) evidenc e
presented herei n wil l arous e conductor s an d performer s of al l stripe s t o rededi -
cate themselve s t o serving , rathe r tha n using , th e ar t o f musi c —espousing th e
notion an d principl e tha t a grea t composer' s creation s ough t t o b e inherentl y
respected an d cherished . Perhap s on e coul d the n supplan t th e mott o "nobod y
gives a dam n abou t th e composer " wit h th e mor e benign , gracious—an d sim -
ple—"all fo r the composer. "
Postscript
If th e reade r ha s faithfull y followe d m e throug h th e foregoin g analyse s o f th e

recordings o f eigh t majo r work s o f th e symphoni c repertory , he/sh e wil l hav e
had t o com e t o th e sa d conclusion (a s I have ha d to ) tha t i n th e cumulativ e w e
have hundred s (i f not thousands ) o f recording s an d performance s whose mai n
and commo n characteristi c i s that they ignor e virtuall y all the basi c information
contained i n th e score s o f the grea t composers . A s orchestras hav e becom e dur -
ing thi s century—sinc e th e adven t o f symphoni c recording s i n th e teen s an d
twenties—in increasin g measur e technicall y proficien t and flexible , th e over-al l
artistic resul t is the parado x of a plethora o f incorrect, willful , imperfect interpre -
tations, fo r the mos t par t technicall y perfectly performed . The consummat e skil l
with whic h orchestras , especiall y nowadays , follo w an d realiz e an y interpreta -
tion, n o matte r ho w aberran t o r unmusica l o r incorrect , i s nothin g shor t o f
amazing. I t i s also saddening . Fo r i t mean s i n tur n tha t orchestra s hav e littl e o r
no interpretiv e sa y i n th e re-creatio n o f a work , give n th e condition s o f thei r
employment, an d tha t the y fo r the mos t par t don' t care—o r probabl y also don't
know anymore—wha t a correct , appropriate , respectful-of-the-compose r realiza -
tion migh t be . Excep t fo r th e occasiona l personalizatio n o f a sol o passag e by ,
say, a win d solois t o r th e concertmaster , orchestr a musician s dutifull y follo w
the conductor' s ever y whi m an d wish , n o matte r ho w righ t o r ho w wron g o r
illogical.
Given th e hundred s o f example s presente d herei n o f incontrovertible , de -
tailed evidenc e o f how conductor s mis-interpret , over-interpret , under-interpret ,
the grea t work s o f Beethoven , Brahms , Strauss , Tchaikovsky , Ravel , Schu -
mann—and b y extensio n th e res t o f th e classical-Romanti c repertory—th e
reader ma y no w understan d wh y I wa s originall y tempte d t o entitl e thi s boo k
"Nobody Give s a Dam n Abou t th e Composer, " a title, I am sure , considere d b y
most reader s at first glance quite outrageou s and off-putting . Bu t i f anything, the
general knowledg e I hav e ha d fo r a lon g tim e tha t conductors , b y an d large ,
tend no t t o kno w o r choos e t o ignor e wha t i s actuall y stated i n a composer' s
537
score, wa s painfull y confirme d i n th e cours e o f writin g thi s book ; an d I no w

find m y origina l title postulatio n t o b e rathe r mild . I t hardly doe s justic e to th e
situation an d th e actua l stat e o f affairs .
The majo r proble m remain s th e same : th e averag e audience , eve n man y mu -
sic professional s an d 'experts, ' ha s littl e o r n o ide a what , say , a Brahm s scor e
really contains , wha t i t really says . A s a result , i f th e orchestr a play s a perfor -
mance technicall y wel l —meaning essentiall y n o obviou s wrong notes—a n audi -
ence i s likely to assum e (ho w ca n i t d o otherwise? ) tha t wha t the y ar e hearin g
corresponds t o wha t th e compose r wrote , especiall y i f the y hav e gotte n som e
emotional charg e fro m th e performance . (A s I hav e explaine d man y time s i n
the cours e o f this book, th e emotiona l charg e a n audienc e ma y get fro m a given
performance ma y no t b e on e intende d b y th e composer , an d ma y b e quit e
extraneous t o th e music , ma y indee d b e a substitutio n b y the conductor. ) Th e
audience, th e averag e listener , i s lef t onl y wit h th e abilit y to measur e a perfor -
mance b y a sens e o f whether i t was 'exciting' o r 'not exciting. '
The writin g o f thi s boo k ha s been , o f course , a tremendous , i f somewha t
depressing, learnin g experienc e fo r me . An d ho w I wis h I coul d hav e instea d
written a boo k fille d wit h prais e o f conductors , o f orchestras , o f thei r music -
making, an d o f their interpretations ! O n th e on e hand , eve n I became shocke d
at the depth s o f musical/interpretive debasemen t s o many recording s revealed —
including man y recording s I ha d someho w no t previousl y encountered. Eve n I
was no t prepare d fo r th e amazin g rang e o f misinterpretation s tha t conductor s
are capabl e of .
On th e othe r hand , I cam e t o tw o interesting—an d rathe r positiv e —realiza-
tions: 1 ) that b y an d larg e 20th-centur y music , especiall y newe r contemporar y
music, i s performed muc h bette r an d muc h mor e respectfull y than ar e the 19th -
century classics ; (2 ) m y origina l sens e tha t th e conductor s o f the earlie r par t of
this century—th e conductin g superstar s o f th e 1930s , '40s , an d '50s—wer e i n
general inherentl y an d consistentl y superio r t o th e reignin g conductor s o f today
is a notio n I n o longe r fin d tenable . Indeed , man y o f m y forme r heroes—Furt -
wängler, Toscanini , Klemperer , Walter—hav e falle n fro m thei r hig h pedestal s
on which , a s a young musician , I had place d them . I n ligh t o f the close , critica l
scrutiny t o whic h I hav e subjecte d thei r recordings—a s clos e an d critica l a s I
have scrutinize d th e wor k o f today' s conductors—onl y no w substitutin g precis e
analysis fo r m y earlie r mor e generall y impressionisti c reactions , man y o f th e
'great ones ' o f the pas t ar e reveale d a s being pre y to th e sam e foible s and weak -
nesses a s the presen t generation(s ) o f maestri —or perhap s eve n mor e so .
Some wil l argue tha t evaluatin g the wor k of conductors solel y o n th e basi s of
recordings give s a fals e pictur e o f thei r actua l qualit y a s musicians . Ther e i s a
kernel o f truth i n this , althoug h onl y i n respec t t o some conductor s and , mor e
important, no t enoug h trut h t o negat e th e whol e ide a tha t official , commercia l
recordings ar e i n th e vas t majority o f cases accurat e representation s o f a conduc -
tor's basi c interpretation. 1 Also , som e o f th e mor e famou s conductors, pas t an d
1. Th e recording s o f Furtwängle r ar e perhap s a cas e i n point . I t i s surprisin g to realiz e ho w fe w
studio recording s Furtwängler mad e i n hi s lifetime , give n hi s extraordinar y fame . Th e majorit y o f
POSTSCRIPT 53 9
present, have ha d a chanc e t o recor d man y o f the majo r staple s o f the repertor y
several times , i n th e cas e o f Karajan, Solti , Bernstei n or Stokowski , for example ,
four o r fiv e times . T o argu e tha t non e o f thes e recording s ar e representativ e of
their interpretiv e intentions i s disingenuous.
Older reader s with fond memorie s o f Toscanini o r Furtwängle r o r Walter per -
formances an d recording s ma y themselve s b e rathe r surprise d t o fin d i n revis -
iting thei r recording s o f th e 1930 s t o '50 s tha t thes e ar e no t entirel y unflawed ,
and tha t th e nostalgi a of the 'goo d ol d past ' ma y indee d clou d thei r judgment .
There i s also the fac t tha t i n th e concer t hal l mos t listener s ar e mor e inten t o n
watching a conducto r tha n jus t hearing th e music . That , however , i s what on e
is pe r forc e oblige d t o d o i n listenin g to a recording . I have ofte n wondere d wh y
people ar e s o draw n t o watchin g a conductor , a s i f there wer e ove r a spa n o f a
forty-minute symphon y somethin g al l tha t excitin g t o watch . Th e worl d woul d
be a muc h bette r place—an d conductor s woul d no t b e see n a s suc h god-lik e
mythological creature s —if audience s didn't watc h th e conducto r i n suc h a mes -
merized fashion , if they close d thei r eye s o r bowe d thei r head s an d jus t listened
to th e music . Granted , Toscanin i an d Furtwängle r wer e rathe r fascinatin g to
watch, eac h i n hi s totall y differen t way , bu t I maintai n tha t a t th e sam e tim e
watching them coul d easil y b e distractin g from fully , clearl y hearing th e music .
The fac t i s that th e averag e audienc e wil l hea r mostly—o r perhap s only—tha t
to whic h th e conducto r i s specifically, visuall y addressing his attention. 2
In an y case , I don' t thin k th e earl y decades o f this centur y ha d som e kin d of
monopoly o n 'grea t conductors, ' an d tha t w e ar e no w i n a n er a uniquel y beref t
of major conductoria l talents . There i s only more competitio n i n th e fiel d today,
because ther e ar e man y mor e peopl e conductin g no w tha n ther e wer e i n th e
past; an d man y fin e conductor s ar e fo r on e reaso n o r anothe r no t i n majo r
positions with majo r orchestra s and majo r recordin g contracts .
As for the poin t tha t th e moder n orchestra l literatur e is played infinitel y bette r
than th e bi g 19th - centur y repertory , I had a di m sens e o f this som e tim e befor e
writing this book. But listening t o the hundred s o f recordings that comprise d th e
main researc h i n thi s effort , an d comparin g the m wit h a simila r numbe r o f
Furtwängler's recording s available today are no t studi o recordings but taping s of 'live' performances,
in man y case s poorl y o r inadequatel y recorded, and/o r no t necessaril y representativ e of hi s bes t
work. His fines t recordings are i n fac t som e o f his 'studio' recording s (Tchaikovsky's Sixth, Schubert's
"Great" C major , Beethoven' s Fifth) , bu t i t is known that he himsel f was dissatisified wit h a number
of others .
A simila r situatio n exist s wit h th e recording s of Mitropoulo s and DeSabata , wit h bot h o f whom
there ar e mor e 'live ' concer t performance s than 'studio ' recordings . And ther e is , o f course , th e
special cas e o f Celibidache , wh o has , sinc e th e earl y day s o f hi s career , refuse d t o mak e an y com -
mercial recordings , which, however , hasn' t prevente d a floo d o f pirate d recording s o f hi s concer t
performances fro m bein g issued.
2. Televisio n and th e televisin g of concerts , that is , th e pre-arranged , pre-determined visualizatio n
of performances, ha s mad e matters eve n worse. Fo r no w i t i s the televisio n directo r wh o i s directing
and controllin g the watchin g audience's attention to limited, specific, pre-selecte d aspect s of a piece,
not t o other s an d no t t o al l o f th e piec e (excep t perhaps i n certai n camera lon g shots) . An d i t is
well know n tha t the averag e listene r hear s mostly, o r only , tha t which h e sees .
recordings an d performance s o f contemporar y musi c i n m y regula r lif e a s a

very activ e conductor , composer , an d publishe r (o f new music) , thi s poin t wa s
unequivocally substantiated . Th e reason—o r reasons—fo r thi s i s actually quit e
simple. Firs t o f all , mos t o f th e famou s maestr i wh o trave l al l ove r th e worl d
with thei r bi g recordin g contract s an d thei r memorize d repertor y of about thirt y
pieces don' t touc h an y musi c o f a certai n modernit y o r complexity . The y cer -
tainly avoi d an y contac t wit h mos t musi c sinc e 1945 , unles s i t i s an occasiona l
easy-to-listen-to neo-classica l o r neo-Romanti c piece , especiall y i f it i s schedule d
to be a world premiere. B y and large , they avoi d like the plagu e th e repertor y of
the Secon d Viennnes e Schoo l an d an y o f their stylisti c offspring, a s well a s any
truly comple x an d challengin g moder n musi c o f an y othe r school. 3 Fo r the m
such musi c i s indeed a plague , a s it i s also fo r mos t o f their audiences , wh o ar e
usually gratefu l t o thei r musi c directo r i f he doesn' t d o to o muc h "o f that mod -
ern stuff"—bette r i f he doe s none .
The exception s t o this , lik e Abbado , Mehta , Dohnanyi , Levine , Slatki n
(among a fe w others ) —in earlie r day s th e gran d exception s wer e Mitropoulos ,
Koussevitzky, an d Stokowsk i —intelligently blend a fai r amoun t o f new an d 'dif -
ficult' musi c int o thei r programming . The y d o thi s partl y out o f convictio n fo r
the validit y of the bes t o f the contemporar y repertory , and partl y ou t o f a sens e
that the y owe it to thei r audience s an d th e youn g generation s o f musicians com -
ing along , t o infor m the m o f the lates t an d bes t o f the ne w musi c an d it s direct
early 20th-centur y antecedents .
Except fo r thes e fe w just-mentione d valian t souls, th e fiel d o f contemporar y
music —'contemptible music, ' a s som e wag s woul d hav e it—i s lef t t o th e 'con -
temporary musi c specialists, ' t o thos e relativel y numerous mostl y younge r con -
ductors wh o labo r i n th e orchestra l minor league s o r who lea d th e hundred s of
contemporary musi c ensembles , an d wh o no t onl y don't hav e the bi g recordin g
3. Brun o Walter' s rational e fo r no t conductin g contemporar y musi c i s a s lamentabl e a s i t i s wide-

spread amon g conductors . Walter , lik e s o man y o f his colleagues , hide s behin d a serie s o f specious
arguments, whic h neve r even adjoi n th e rea l issue . Tryin g t o justif y hi s avoidanc e o f ne w music ,
especially i n hi s late r post-193 0 career , Walte r invokes—rathe r self-righteously , i t seem s t o m e —
ranking "m y responsibilit y toward s th e art , t o whic h m y lif e i s dedicated , highe r tha n m y dut y
towards the present ; and i t would hav e been wron g for me t o make mysel f the advocat e o f tendencie s
which, I am convinced , ar e leadin g t o it s corruption." Ignorin g the remarkabl e achievement s i n th e
realm o f ne w musi c o f conductor s suc h a s Koussevitzky , Reiner, Goossens , Stokowsk i an d Mitro -
poulos, an d blamin g "atonalit y and dodecaphony " for causing "th e deca y o f music," h e indict s suc h
music o f "abstractness " an d o f bein g "divorce d fro m life. " H e accuse s composer s o f thi s persuasion
of "lacking i n fundamenta l musicality," substituting constructivism, intellectualism, "th e artificia l fo r
the artistic, " turnin g "fro m musi c t o non-music. " Zigzaggin g bac k an d fort h betwee n a genera l
condemnation o f new musi c an d disingenuou s protestations o f his "feeling s of responsibility towards
and profoun d interes t i n th e present, " h e feel s tha t h e "coul d no t bea r t o witnes s [music's ] abuse ,
still les s abe t it. " H e paint s the presen t a s merely "transient, " invokin g his nee d t o remai n "mindfu l
of the unchanging demand s o f yet higher powers " (Italic s mine). Finally , i n a holier-than-tho u pos e
he claim s tha t "i n spit e o f m y attempt s t o d o justic e t o th e present , I alway s endeavore d t o lif t m y
eyes up " —one ca n se e hi s hal o —"above th e distressin g contemporar y scen e toward s th e regio n
whence com e t o u s thos e timeles s sources of strength." (Walter , O f Music an d Music-making (Ne w
York, 1957) , pp.206-11.)
POSTSCRIPT 54 1
contracts bu t wh o wil l never ge t them fro m th e Sony's , BMG's , EMI's , Telarc's ,

Philips's, etc. , precisel y because the y d o "to o muc h moder n music. " The y ar e
then als o presume d t o hav e n o abilitie s i n th e classica l repertory . Bu t thes e
conductors have , b y and large , a keen respec t fo r the composer' s score , realizin g
on the on e han d tha t composer s toda y for the mos t par t are meticulousl y precis e
and conscientiou s i n notatin g thei r works—Mr . Dohnany i t o th e contrary—an d
on th e othe r han d that , ther e bein g n o traditio n (ba d o r good ) o r previou s
knowledge o f the wor k to fal l bac k on , thei r onl y salvatio n is to d o (a s best thei r
talents allow ) what the compose r ha s written .
I fin d tha t eve n th e 'world-famou s maestri, ' whe n fo r som e od d reaso n o r
other the y ar e force d to venture fort h int o th e reall y modern repertory , becom e
all o f a sudde n ver y respectfu l o f th e composer' s scor e —again t o th e limit s o f
their abilitie s (which limit s ar e ofte n rathe r circumscribing) . Their attitud e sud -
denly changes ; eve n thei r conducting , i.e.. , their bato n technique , becomes sud -
denly simpler and clearer , and les s exhibitionistic, less directed towards audience
pleasuring. As opposed t o assuming that they know everything about th e Beetho -
ven Fift h o r Brahm s First , fo r th e rar e an d occasiona l difficul t ne w piec e —I
don't mea n Barber' s Adczgzo-they usuall y realize tha t the y know nothing, an d i n
a reall y ne w piec e actuall y can , o f course , hav e n o prio r knowledg e o r experi -
ence. Thei r onl y salvation , then , is , as bes t the y can , t o d o wha t i t say s i n th e
score. Suddenl y Toscanini' s come è scritto takes o n rea l meanin g fo r them, an d
becomes a kin d o f professional/philosophical life-raft .
In an y case , I have notice d fo r years that th e musi c o f the earl y 20th century ,
say, th e fin e work s of Bartok, Prokofiev, Milhaud, Honegger , Stravinsk y (except
for Th e Firebird), Walton , Nielsen , Szymanowski , Respighi, an d th e lik e —even
late Debuss y (lik e Jeux an d Sa n Sebastian)—aie conducte d wit h infinitel y mor e
deference an d accurac y tha n an y Beethove n o r Brahm s o r Tchaikovsk y sym -
phony eve r receives . An d th e mor e recen t ne w musi c (o f the las t fifty years) is
even mor e respectfull y treated.4 Again the reason s ar e quit e simple . Mos t o f th e
music o f the 20th-centur y ha s no t ye t been betraye d b y false tradition s and fals e
interpreters. Wha t al l thi s ironicall y comes dow n t o i s that th e mor e a wor k is
played, th e mor e familia r i t is , the mor e popula r i t becomes , th e mor e likel y it
is t o b e bastardize d an d vulgarized , and it s composer' s intention s disregarded .
The ne w challengin g musi c o f today has no t ye t had th e misfortun e of acquiring
such a n 'elevated ' popula r status .
There i s anothe r interesting , thoug h disappointing , revelatio n tha t ha s
emerged ver y clearly fo r me fro m th e wor k and researc h o n thi s book ; i t seem s
4. I t wa s no t alway s thus , o f course . I ca n easil y recal l tha t eve n fift y year s ago , i n m y youth ,
performances o f contemporar y music—o f almos t an y ilk—wer e quit e disma l an d inept . No t onl y
were mos t conductor s unabl e t o grappl e wit h th e ne w musi c o f th e time , bu t man y orchestra l
musicians als o had grea t problems wit h it , from a technica l poin t o f view as well as dealing wit h th e
newer comple x 'irrational ' rhythms , th e extravagan t instrumenta l gestures and wide-rangin g lines,
with intonatio n problems, in short , with a whole spectru m of new musica l concepts. Sinc e then , o f
course, ther e ha s bee n a remarkabl e revolution in thes e respects , and mos t professional s toda y take
all form s o f contemporary demands pretty much i n stride .
that th e mor e explici t composer s ar e wit h thei r notation , th e mor e expressiv e

marks they use, the mor e precisel y they try to monitor th e structur e and continu -
ity o f a piece , th e mor e roo m fo r error , fo r negligence , ther e seem s t o b e i n
carrying ou t thes e intentions/instructions . I sometime s ge t th e impressio n that ,
paradoxically, Bach' s music , wit h it s minimu m o f performanc e informatio n —
relatively fe w and rathe r imprecis e dynami c indications , rarely even an y temp o
markings—is generally better serve d i n performanc e than Beethove n o r Brahms.
Am I on slipper y ground whe n I say that? Yes, of course, fo r we may neve r really
know explicitl y how Bac h intende d hi s musi c t o b e performed . W e believe we
have com e a considerabl e wa y in recen t time s i n understandin g his musi c an d
grappling wit h it s performanc e practice . Bu t suc h informatio n stil l remain s
rather conjectural , which—then—allow s interpretiv e imagination s — healthy,
strong ones—t o flesh out th e bar e notation i n myria d and ofte n ver y compellin g
ways. And wh o i s to sa y that on e o r th e othe r Baroqu e interpretation/realization
is wrong, i s bad? Well, n o on e —really.
But whe n i t come s t o post-Mozart/Hayd n literatur e with it s much mor e pre -
cise notationa l paraphernalia , we can begin—rightl y so—t o invok e the compos -
er's tex t a s a specifi c guid e t o a certai n kin d o f interpretatio n o r realization —
not on e interpretation , no t a definitiv e on e (ther e i s n o suc h thing) , bu t a n
interpretation whic h operate s withi n certai n prescribed/describe d limits . Th e
problem her e i s that, whil e Bac h force s yo u t o us e you r bes t intelligenc e an d
musical imagination—failin g that, performances of Bach ar e really deadly—Bee-
thoven specificall y challenge s yo u a s a re-creato r i n ways , a s th e recor d show s
(pun intended) , mos t interpreter s ar e incapabl e o f meeting , fo r al l th e reason s
given i n thi s text . Anothe r wa y o f statin g thi s i s t o sa y th e margi n fo r error ,
neglect, abus e i s muc h greate r becaus e i t i s mor e measurabl e —measurable
against th e mor e prescriptiv e text.
As I hav e stated , mos t 20t h centur y musi c (say , Prokofiev , Bartók , Britten ,
Copland, Carter , e t al. ) i s ultimatel y performe d mor e accurately—a t leas t re -
spectfully—than th e grea t literatur e o f the 19t h century . That i s not t o sa y that
there isn' t roo m fo r improvemen t o n tha t fron t (especiall y th e mor e modern ,
complex atona l literature) ; but a s a genera l truis m i t i s valid an d stand s u p t o
close scrutiny . My argumen t o n tha t poin t ha s been no t s o much tha t therefor e
there i s more understandin g o f contemporar y musi c —in specialize d contempo -
rary ensemble s tha t i s sometime s th e case , bu t i t canno t b e broadene d t o a n
industry-wide generalizatio n —just tha t newnes s an d unfamiliarit y force s a cer -
tain degre e o f respectfulness and blin d relianc e o n th e text , a t leas t technically ,
while over-familiarit y wit h th e classic s breeds a kind o f willfulness, arbitrariness,
interpretive self-indulgence , ego-driven interference , tha t i s deeply disrespectful
and damaging .
What is the answe r to thes e problems ? A group o f answers come t o mind : (1 )
a better , mor e thorough , mor e discriminatin g education—for performer s as well
as composers; (2 ) a bette r mor e painstaking , detailed educatio n o f composers i n
the meaning , th e effect , th e ramifications , and th e possibilitie s of notation. To o
many composer s toda y kno w too littl e abou t th e vas t fiel d o f musica l notation,
POSTSCRIPT 54 3
or o n th e othe r han d ar e hell-ben t o n inventin g ne w notationa l device s and/o r

systems, ignorin g o r erroneousl y duplicatin g wha t ha s alread y bee n give n an d
used fo r decades , re-inventin g th e whee l a s i t were ; (3 ) highe r industr y stan -
dards, mor e artisti c integrit y an d honest y i n th e field ; a mor e discriminating ,
(again) bette r educated , mor e culturall y literat e audienc e an d critica l frater -
nity—goals an d dream s o f which w e hav e falle n severel y short i n recen t times .
I shoul d als o ad d a t thi s point , fo r th e benefi t particularl y o f thos e reader s
whose 'favorit e conductor(s) ' I have ha d t o treat wit h somethin g less than praise,
that almos t al l the conductor s referred to i n thi s boo k hav e mad e both ver y good
and ver y ba d recordings—b y th e way , to reiterat e m y earlie r point , onl y rarel y
poorly played b y th e orchestras . Fo r i t i s a realit y tha t almos t al l conductor s ar e
weak i n som e repertor y area s an d stron g i n others . I also hav e no t bee n abl e t o
discover amon g an y o f th e fines t conductor s an y wh o ar e (o r were ) entirel y
artistically consistent , eithe r i n thei r approac h t o certai n work s o r acros s th e
range o f their repertory. 6 There ar e man y conductor s wh o ma y b e wea k o r fee l
uncomfortable i n th e classica l Germa n repertory , bu t wh o ar e quit e excellen t
in th e brilliant , splash y earl y 20th-centur y orchestra l repertor y (Ravel , Bartók ,
Prokofiev, etc.) . And the n ther e ar e thei r opposites . Thus, I would ventur e t o say
that i f I criticized negativel y a reader' s favorit e conductor her o in , say , a Beetho -
ven o r Brahm s recording , th e chance s ar e tha t tha t conducto r ma y have don e a
5. A striking example o f this kind of artistic dissociation is the cas e o f Mengelberg, whos e work doe s
not com e of f very well in thi s book but whos e recording of Strauss' s Ein Heldenleben, mad e i n 1928
with th e Ne w Yor k Philharmonic , i s unquestionabl y one o f the greatest , mos t beautifull y 'interpre -
ted,' mos t perfec t recording s ever made .
6. I a m tempte d t o exclud e fro m thi s lis t o f fin e bu t inconsisten t conductor s a fe w lik e Roge r
Désormière, Lovr o von Matacic , Issa y Dobrowen , Ataúlfo Argento. Bu t I ma y be o n slipper y ground
here, fo r these conductor s an d other s mentione d belo w either recorde d relativel y little—to o smal l a
sampling t o mak e a fai r judgment—o r recorde d non e (o r little ) o f th e bi g majo r repertory , such a s
that deal t with i n thi s book, b y which ultimatel y any conducto r mus t finally be judged.
This i s a goo d momen t t o mentio n tha t I wis h tha t I coul d hav e brough t int o th e discussio n a
number o f other fine conductors, who, like the fou r name s mentione d directl y above, recorded non e
of th e eigh t work s unde r consideratio n herein . Apar t fro m Désormière , Matacic , Dobrowe n (th e
latter tw o amon g othe r thing s super b accompanists) , an d Argento , m y lis t woul d includ e Frit z
Stiedry an d Jone l Perle a (bot h o f whom I worked with a t th e Metropolita n Opera) , Bohda n Wodic -
zko, Walte r Straram , Kar l Muck , Sigmun d Hausegger , Oswal d Kabasta , Paav o Berglund , Vaclav
Talich. I t would als o hav e bee n fascinatin g t o includ e Henr y Wood an d Lando n Ronald , tw o turn-
of-the-century Englis h conductors , wh o i n th e ver y earlies t day s o f recording s contribute d signifi -
cantly t o th e establishmen t o f criteri a an d highe r standard s i n th e performanc e an d recordin g o f
classical music . Finally, in th e categor y of more o r les s 'obscure' conductors , a s far as popularity and
eminence goes , there i s Ernst von Schuch , a highl y respected, even revered , conductor i n th e earl y
years o f this century who, however, neve r recorde d a t all.
Many reader s wil l hav e noticed tha t there i s no mentio n o f women conductor s i n thi s book. Th e
reason i s simple : I kno w o f n o wome n conductor s wh o hav e recorde d (commercially ) the eigh t
works unde r discussio n here, wit h th e exceptio n o f Victoria Bond, wh o jus t recentl y ha s recorde d
Tchaikovsky's Sixt h Symphon y wit h th e Shangha i Symphon y Orchestra . Havin g had a numbe r o f
talented wome n student s i n m y conductin g classes a t Tanglewoo d an d i n m y summe r Festiva l i n
Idaho, 1 have n o doub t tha t wome n conductor s —many o f the m ar e a s goo d o r bette r tha n thei r
male counterparts—wil l i n th e futur e occup y prominent conductin g positions an d b e contracte d by
record companie s to recor d the majo r work s o f the repertory .
superb recordin g o f a Walto n o r Vaugh n William s symphony , o r a Rave l L a

Valse o r a Rimsky-Korsakov Scheherezade, o r whatever—works that I happen no t
to hav e discusse d i n thi s book .
By th e sam e token , th e man y musica l interpretiv e misdemeanor s committe d
by conductor s describe d herei n represen t onl y a tiny sampling o f what is perpe -
trated acros s th e widt h an d breadt h o f th e entir e repertory . What occur s tim e
and tim e agai n i n th e performance s o f the eigh t work s discussed i n Par t III ca n
also b e hear d i n th e severa l hundre d othe r work s that roun d ou t th e standar d
symphonic repertory . I n othe r words , th e example s cite d herei n mus t stan d fo r
all th e other s i n th e res t o f the repertory ; they ar e certainl y no t limite d t o th e
eight work s discussed here. Fo r the reade r will hav e note d tha t th e performanc e
problems cite d i n thi s accoun t ar e consistentl y th e sam e an d fal l int o a fe w
broad categories : respectin g tempos , dynamics , th e ful l valu e of rhythms, details
of articulatio n an d phrasing , an d respectin g th e meanin g an d feelin g o f meters
and tim e signatures . But collectivel y an d briefl y stated , the y al l come dow n to a
basic disrespec t fo r an d disloyalt y to th e score . An d the y ar e al l a matte r o f
attitude an d o f ethical conscience, no t necessaril y of capability. To put i t another
way—simple an d dramatic : i f these matter s wer e attende d t o mor e respectfull y
and precisel y b y conductors an d orchestras , thi s boo k woul d neve r hav e ha d t o
be written.
This i s analogous t o th e though t I hav e ofte n ha d tha t i f musicians an d con -
ductors coul d b e counte d o n t o rende r accuratel y the first time—or a t least th e
second time—wha t composer s hav e written , ther e woul d b e n o nee d fo r exten-
sive rehearsing . On e coul d ge t almos t immediatel y t o th e hear t o f th e matter ,
namely, th e essence , th e tru e expressio n of the musi c a t hand, an d eliminat e all
those second , third , an d fourt h rehearsal s mos t orchestra s hav e pe r week , i n
which s o much tim e i s spent i n dealin g with merely technical matter s and weed -
ing out ba d habits (an d bad traditions) . This way one coul d eve n mak e th e dail y
life o f orchestra l musician s mor e enlivening , mor e inspiring , mor e resistan t t o
the potentia l doldrum s o f day-in, day-out , year-in, year-out routine .
Am I assuming too much? And what about the technica l difficultie s containe d
in th e music ? What technical difficulties ? I ca n hardl y think o f a singl e work in
the standar d repertory , u p t o an d includin g th e earl y 20th-centur y 'moderns, '
which present s technica l problem s t o th e musician s sittin g i n ou r orchestras ,
especially the orchestra s of today. There i s nothing i n an y Beethove n o r Brahms
or Tchaikovsk y o r Dvora k symphon y o r Straus s ton e poem , jus t t o mentio n
a fe w examples , tha t an y musicia n in , say , th e Chicag o Symphon y o r Berli n
Philharmonic o r Concertgebouw Orchestra , o r even th e Cincinnati , BBC , Stutt -
gart, NHK , an d Reykjavi k symphonie s canno t instantl y rende r wit h technica l
ease. The y hav e lon g ag o —dozens i f not hundred s o f times—conquered thos e
technical problem s tha t perhap s stil l gave musician s trouble a hundre d o r eve n
fifty years ago.
I personall y eve n know—an d hav e know n i n th e past—quit e a fe w musicians
who play(ed ) thei r individua l parts perfectly , technicall y an d musically , every
time, especiall y in th e standar d repertory. And I know there ar e on e o r two such
POSTSCRIPT 54 5
musicians i n ever y orchestra worth mentionin g i n thi s context . An d i f they ar e

not eve n remotel y th e majorit y o f musicians , the y ar e sufficien t i n numbe r t o
prove that th e totall y accurate an d respectfu l rendition o f a given orchestral par t
is absolutel y withi n th e real m o f possibility. (Suc h musician s occasionall y eve n
manage t o pla y their part s absolutel y correctl y an d perfectl y in defiance o f thei r
conductors—a remarkabl e an d laudabl e accomplishment , i f one think s about i t
and wha t tha t entails. ) No, clearly , the problem s wit h th e standar d repertor y do
not li e i n th e real m o f instrumenta l techniqu e an d virtuosity , with digita l an d
embouchuric skills . They d o resid e i n al l th e othe r musical , interpretive , intel -
lectual aspect s o f musical re-creation , includin g th e fac t tha t th e readin g of mu-
sic, familia r o r unfamiliar , by mos t orchestr a musician s ha s bee n turne d i n re -
cent decade s int o a visual rathe r tha n a n aural skill . That i s to say , musicians
nowadays rea d musi c technicall y wit h a spee d an d note-accurac y unhear d of ,
say, fift y year s ago : definitel y a n enormou s gain . However , thi s ha s bee n
achieved a t a n enormou s loss , for , at th e sam e time , mos t musician s n o longe r
hear harmonically , no r wit h an y sensibilit y or accurac y regardin g dynamics , le t
alone (al l bu t th e mos t obvious ) ensembl e aspects . Ther e i s now almos t every -
where a singula r (an d impressive ) abilit y t o sight-rea d fast , t o concentrat e o n
'getting the notes, ' an d gettin g the m mor e o r less technicall y 'perfect, ' bu t a t the
expense o f hearin g an y othe r aspect s o f musi c re-creation : harmony , dynamics ,
instrumental an d sonori c balances , al l manne r o f musical/structura l interrela -
tionships. Mos t player s are littl e island s unt o themselves—i n th e vas t se a o f th e
orchestra — concentrating solel y o n thei r ow n part s (linearly/technically) , with
virtually n o interes t in , curiosit y about, o r knowledg e o f what i s going o n i n th e
rest o f th e orchestr a aroun d them , i n voice s abov e an d belo w them , i n wha t
precedes o r succeed s them . N o wonde r tha t i n thi s challenge-les s proces s an d
routine, man y musician s ge t bored—or e bored—an d fin d lif e i n a n orchestr a
somewhat les s tha n enlivenin g an d inspiring . Fo r al l thei r technica l prowess ,
most orchestr a musician s se e and hea r onl y the meres t surfac e of the music .
Add t o tha t a plethor a o f bad o r laz y habits, amon g whic h I lis t mos t promi -
nently: (1 ) droppin g las t note s (rhythmicall y and/o r dynamically ) before a rest ;
(2) similarly , not sustainin g long o r hel d note s (especiall y string players), always
making little hole s (caesuras , Luftpausen) i n phrases ; (3) a general lac k of atten -
tion t o dynamics , abov e al l t o differentiation s between , say , p an d p p o r f an d
ff; (4 ) rhythmi c inaccuracies , an d ver y littl e attentio n t o th e subtle r detail s o f
rhythmic differentiations ; (5) a remarkabl e unconcern fo r how on e end s (leaves )
a note , muc h attentio n bein g give n t o ho w on e enter s o r attack s a note , bu t
almost non e t o ho w on e exit s a note ; and , finally , (6 ) makin g crescendo s (a s
well a s diminuendos) muc h to o quickl y and to o early.
But, ultimately , th e rea l problem s li e no t wit h th e musician s bu t wit h th e
conductors. Fo r i t i s they wh o hav e th e obligatio n an d responsibilit y to no t le t
bad playin g habits—of whatever kind—become th e performanc e norm. An d be-
yond that , i t i s the y wh o finall y shap e an d contro l a performanc e (an d re -
cording). I t i s they who eithe r elici t from thei r musicians erroneous misinterpre-
tations o r tolerat e th e ba d musica l habit s man y musician s ten d t o acquir e i n
their lif e i n a n orchestra , or , alas , ten d t o brin g wit h the m t o a n orchestr a fo r

lack o f a prope r an d complet e musica l training .
The conductor' s role , hi s mission , a s i t were , ough t t o be—an d i t s o rarely
is—to interpre t accuratel y an d respectfully , i.e . re-creat e th e work s the y hav e
chosen t o conduct , an d a t the sam e tim e teac h th e musicians , to the exten t tha t
it becomes necessary , t o trea t thei r wor k with th e sam e accurac y an d respect .
And s o w e hav e com e ful l circl e t o th e sens e o f humility , love , an d respec t
which conducto r an d musician s shoul d brin g t o thei r respectiv e tasks , th e
thought wit h whic h I bega n many , man y page s ago . Fo r I trul y believ e tha t
the musica l interpreter—conductor , instrumentalist , singer , whoever—i s give n a
unique privilege : tha t o f re-creatin g an d re-producin g th e masterpiece s greate r
geniuses tha n w e interpreters ca n eve r be, hav e give n us . And with tha t privileg e
and hono r com e a profoun d obligatio n an d commitmen t t o humbly , faithfully
'realize' thos e works , t o brin g the m accuratel y to acoustica l life , an d thereb y t o
serve th e ar t o f music . Fo r i f we musician s serv e th e ar t o f musi c an d it s grea t
creative visionarie s with humility , i n th e deepes t sens e w e als o bes t serv e our -
selves an d thos e wh o pu t thei r fait h i n us—ou r audience s an d fello w huma n
beings.
Afterword
As a fina l denouemen t o f the complex , almos t encyclopedi c plottings , analyses,

critiquings presented i n thi s book, I want to offe r on e illustratio n that represents ,
indeed epitomizes , i n a summar y fashio n s o muc h o f wha t I hav e been , alas ,
constantly force d t o asser t i n thi s book . I t i s a recording , a performance , o f
Strauss's Till Eulenspiegel b y th e world-famou s Concertgebou w Orchestr a o f
Amsterdam conducte d b y Bernar d Haitink . Clearly , Haitin k i s on e o f th e ver y
best conductor s aroun d today—innatel y musical , well-trained , intelligent , no t
given t o ego-drive n extreme s o f over-personalize d interpretations , a musicia n o f
taste an d balance—obviousl y a t th e zenit h o f a mos t distinguishe d an d cele -
brated career . Th e Concertgebou w i s similarl y one o f th e great , venerabl e or -
chestras o f the world , wit h it s own distinguishe d histor y reaching bac k wel l int o
the nineteent h century .
Their recordin g o f Tz7 / unde r Haitink , mad e i n th e gloriou s acoustic s o f th e
orchestra's home hall , the Concertgebouw , i s one tha t ever y music lover , recor d
collector, Straus s aficionado woul d wan t t o own—an d probabl y does . Th e play -
ing o f th e orchestr a i s magnificent, th e soun d o f th e recordin g state-of-the-art :
clean, rich , beautiful , thrilling—all-in-al l a splendi d soni c feast . I ca n wel l un -
derstand ho w anyon e hearin g thi s recordin g o n th e radi o woul d fee l immedi -
ately compelled t o want t o own this CD .
The proble m fo r me—and fo r anyone wh o really know s the scor e an d know s
in detai l wha t Strauss' s score actuall y contains —is tha t thi s technically magnifi -
cently rendere d performanc e simpl y ignore s and/o r reject s many , man y im -
portant compositional/notationa l aspect s o f the work . Leaving asid e th e earlier -
mentioned embarrassin g digital/electroni c distortio n cause d b y th e overl y lou d
cymbal crash— a mino r split-secon d technica l blemish , of ultimately little conse -
quence—the 'interpretation ' b y th e orchestr a and/o r conducto r represent s ex -
actly th e dilemm a tha t ha s been , i n effect , th e mai n thesi s o f thi s book : th e
relative interpretationa l willfulness an d lac k o f respec t fo r th e wor k itself , th e
text, whic h embodie s bot h th e spiri t an d th e lette r o f Strauss' s remarkable cre -
547
ation. Man y dynamic , rhythmic , balance , ensembl e detail s ar e blithely , care -

lessly, tha t is , incorrectly , rendere d —and the n superbly played. Unfortunatel y
superb playin g o f somethin g tha t i s wron g o r imperfectl y interpreted doe s no t
make i t right o r good .
With i t all, Haitink' s recordin g o f Till i s still comparativel y one o f the best , i f
we allow , in thi s context , fo r a somewha t restricte d meanin g o f that wor d 'best, '
which i s als o t o sa y that ther e ar e man y muc h wors e recordings . Bu t i t i s em -
blematic o f what ail s this conductin g profession , even a t th e higher/highes t lev -
els, an d th e closel y relate d activitie s o f orchestr a performanc e an d recording .
And I only wish i t were otherwise .
Discography
This discograph y represent s al l th e recording s studie d an d analyze d i n th e

writing o f this book . The y ar e liste d a s CDs unles s otherwis e noted : + fo r 78s ,
* fo r LPs . Fo r convenienc e sake , I hav e liste d quit e a fe w recording s a s CDs ,
even thoug h I ma y hav e listene d t o th e work s i n questio n o n 78 s o r LP s (be -
cause o f their superio r technical , sonori c quality).
Discographical listing s hav e becom e quit e comple x i n recen t decades, * no t
only becaus e th e numbe r o f recor d companie s ha s multiplie d a hundredfold ,
but als o becaus e man y recor d companie s hav e merge d i n recen t years , whil e
others hav e spli t int o variou s subsidiar y labels ; stil l other s hav e change d name s
several times—th e forme r Columbia Record s first became CB S an d then , mor e
recently, Sony . Furthermore , i n th e vas t reissue program s of the las t three an d a
half decades , initiall y fro m 78 s t o LPs , an d late r fro m LP s t o CDs , eac h ne w
format acquire d ne w numberin g systems . T o mak e matter s mor e complicated ,
during th e L P er a man y o f th e mos t popula r recording s wer e reissue d severa l
times, eac h tim e wit h a ne w catalogu e number . Thus , i n th e cas e o f th e fiv e
Beethoven Fift h recording s mad e b y Karaja n betwee n 194 9 an d th e 1980s ,
many wer e no t onl y reissue d several time s o n LP , alway s with a ne w number ,
but additionall y reissue d (i n bot h L P boxe d set s an d C D formats ) i n variou s
collections, comprising , fo r example , severa l (o r sometime s all ) Beethove n sym -
phonies. I believe that i f one wer e to list ever y reissue o f all five Karajan Beetho -
ven Fift h recordings , th e listin g would fil l a n entir e page .
In addition, many previously available records (LPs as well as CDs) ar e presently
no longer i n stock. Also very few record companies lis t and sell recordings in perpe-
tuity. Mos t label s tak e record s ou t o f their catalogu e afte r a certai n time , eithe r
dropping them altogethe r or , if reissued, giving them new numbers.
*In 194 1 Irvin g Kolodin' s Guide t o Recorded Music liste d onl y eigh t recording s o f th e
Beethoven Fift h Symphony . Some recen t Schwan n Catalogue s hav e listed as many as one
hundred. B y my estimat e thi s work ha s bee n recorde d commerciall y nearly 17 0 times.
549
Under all these circumstances, if one wants to keep a discography brief, it is hard
to know by which of many possible numbers on e shoul d identif y a certain much -
reissued work. Even the latest numbering may be obsolete i n a few months.
All o f thi s i s t o sa y tha t th e catalogu e numbe r b y whic h a reade r know s a
certain recordin g ma y no t b e th e on e liste d i n thi s discography . Further , i t
would hav e bee n pointless , wastefull y complex , an d exhaustin g t o lis t al l pas t
and presen t editions , versions, and reissue s of any given performance .
It shoul d als o b e note d tha t no t ever y recordin g liste d her e i s necessaril y
mentioned i n th e text , although most , o f course, are .
It woul d hav e take n eve n mor e exhaustiv e research t o accuratel y establis h i n
what yea r a recordin g wa s made . I hav e contente d mysel f wit h datin g ( I hop e
accurately) onl y certai n recording s mad e befor e th e 1960 s an d recording s o f
historical importance .
BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y
Conductor Orchestra Record Label/Number Date
Abbado BPO DGG 427306^ 2

Ancerl Czech Phi l Supra 11193 7
Ansermet Suisse Romand e *Lon ST S 1546 4 (1960)
Ashkenazy Philharmonia *Lon 7104 0
Beecham Royal Phi l *EMI 764 4 6523 (1951)
Bernstein NYP CBS MY K 3671 9
Bernstein NYP *ColM 3181 0
Böhm VPO DGG 439681- 2
Böhm BPO "Decca 994 2 (1960)
Boulez New Philharmoni a *Col M 3008 5
Boult Philharmonia "Vanguard 35 9 (1960)
Brüggen Orch 18t h Cen t Philips 434087-2
Cluytens BPO *Seraphin 607 1
Davis, C . BBC 'Philips 6500.46 2
DeSabata NYP Melodram (1960)
Dohnanyi Cleve ''Telare 8016 3
Dorati Minn *Merc 5001 7 (1957)
Dorati LSO *Merc 1401 6 (1963)
Ferenczik Hung Stat e Orc h *Danube 1 1457
Fricsay BPO *DGG 1881 3 (1962)
Furtwängler BPO +RCA 426 (1938)
Gardiner Orch Revolutionair e Archiv 439900-2
Giulini LA *DGG 253204 9
Haitink Concertgebouw Philips 42054 0
Haitink LPO 'Philips 950006 7
Hanover Ban d Nimbus 500 7
Harnoncourt Ch Orc h Europ e Teldec 2292-46452- 2
DISCOGRAPHY 551
Herbig BBC IMP 9123

Hickox North Sinfoní a (England ) ASV QS 605 4
Hogwood Acad Anc' t Musi c Oiseau 42 5 644- 2
Jochum Concertgebouw Philips 657016 6
Jochum Bavar (Munich ) DGG 427195-2 (I960)
Karajan BPO *DGG 41905 1
Karajan Philharmonia * Angel 35231 (1957)
Kempe Munich Phi l * Seraphim 6093- 4
Kleiber, C . VPO DGG 4 1 5861-2
Kleiber, E . Concertgebouw Lon LL91 2 (1953)
Klemperer Philharmonia *EMI Classic s CD M 6386 8 (1957)
Kletzki Czech Phi l Supra 110619- 2 (1967)
Knappertsbusch BPO *Arkadia 72 3 (1956)
Koussevitsky BSO 4-RCA LM 102 1 [*Cam 103] (1944)
Krauss VPO *Koch
Krips LSO "Yorkshire 27000
Kubelik Bavar (Munich ) DGG 253540 7
Leibowitz Royal Phi l Menuet 16 0 019-2 (1962)
Leinsdorf BSO *RCA 7745-2 (1960)
Maazel Cleve *CBSM5K 45532
Maazel VPO *CBSIM 36711
Markevitch Lamoureux Theorema 12121 9 (1959)
Masur Leipzig Philips 434 156-2
Mehta NYP *Col 3589 2
Mengelberg Concertgebouw *Philips 676700 3 (1940)
Mitropoulos NYP Música Viv a 90031 (cassette) (1957)
Monteux LSO *Lon 443479- 2 (1961?)
Munch BSO RCA 6803- 2 (1957)
Muti Philadelphia Angel CD C 4744 7
Nikisch BPO *DGG 272 1 070 (1913)
Norrington Lon Classica l EMI 749816-2 ; 74956- 2
Ormandy Philadelphia "Col M 3163 4 (1957)
Ozawa BSO *Telarc 1006 0
Paita Philharmonia *Lodia 78 1
Previn LSO "Angel 3692 7
Prince's Orc h +Col A 542 2 (Andant e only) (ca.1911)
Reiner Chicago *RCA LM 234 3 (I960)
Rodzinski PSO Londo n "West WST 1400 1 (1948?)
Sanderling Berlin Symp h Orc h Capriccio 10018
Sawallisch Concertgebouw EMI Classic s CDC 754504- 2
Sawallisch NHK (Tokyo ) RCA 60534-2
Schalk VPO + HMV 7105 (1928)
Scherchen PSO Londo n *WestXWN 18310 (1957)
Schuricht Conservatoire (Paris ) "Trianon 33.33 5 (1959)
Schwarz LSO Délos 302 7
Solti Chicago Lon 21580- 2
BEETHOVEN: FIFT H SYMPHON Y (continued)
Solti VPO *Lon 4101 6

Steinberg Pitts *SQN 145/ 7 (1957)
Stokowski All Amer Youth Stokowski So c LSS CD 4 (1940)
Stokowski LPO *Lon 430218- 2 (1974)
Stransky NYP +Col A 595 4 (Andant e only) (1917)
Strauss Berlin Stat e Oper a Koch 3-7115-24 1 (1928)
Suitner Staatskapelle Berlin Denon 801 3
Szell Cleve *Epic L C 319 5 (1957)
Szell Concertgebouw 'Philips 80276 9 (1967)
Thomas Eng C h Orc h *Col 3728 8
Toscanini NBC *RCA LM 175 7
Toscanini NBC +RCA D M 640 (1951)
Van Otterlo o Sydney *Chandos GBR 4001
Victor Concer t
Orch +RCA 1812 4 (Andant e only) (1920)
Walter Col Symp h Col M L 536 5 (1960)
Wand NDR RCA 09026-61930-2
Weingartner LPO Music Memori a 3037 8 (1935?)
BEETHOVEN: SEVENT H SYMPHONY
Abbado VPO DGG 423364- 2

Ansermet Suisse Romand e *Lon C M 904 3 (I960)
Ashkenazy Philharmonia Lon 430701- 2
Barenboim BPO Sony SK4583 0
Batiz LSO Várese 1000-16 0
Beecham Royal Phi l Music & Arts CD-281 (1959)
Bernstein NYP *Col M L 543 8
Bernstein VPO *DGG 274021 6
Böhm VPO *DGG 437928-2
Boult Promenade (Lon ) »Vanguard 2005 (1960)
Bruggen Orch 18t h Cen t Philips 426846-2
Cantelli Philharmonia "EMI 2D2M B 8821 7 (1956)
Casals Marlboro Sony SM K 4589 3
Celibidache Stuttgart ArkadiaCDGI 737.1 (1964)
Cluytens BPO Angel 3552 6 (1960)
DISCOGRAPHY 553
Collegium Aureum »Pro Arte 12 3

Davis, C . LSO »Philips 950021 9
DeBurgos LSO Collins 3019 2
Dohnanyi Cleve Telare 8016 3
Dorati Minn *Mercury
Ferencsik Hungarian Stat e Orc h »Qualiton 1179 1
Fricsay BPO *DGG 13875 7 (1962)
Furtwängler BPO »DGG 427775-2660
Furtwängler BPO *Fonit Cetr a (Arkadia ) FE 4
Furtwängler VPO *Electrola 9001 6 (1950)
Gardiner Orch Revolutionär e Archiv 439900-2
Giulini Chicago *Angel 3604 8
Haitink Concertgebouw Philips 420540- 2
Haitink LPO *Philips 674730 7
Harnoncourt Ch Orc h o f Europ e Teldec 229 2 46452-2
Hogwood Acad Anc't Mu s Oiseau 425695-2
Jochum Bavar (Munich ) *Quint 712 8
Jochum Coneertgebouw »Philips 750501 0
Karajan BPO DGG 41 5 12 1
Karajan Philharmonia *Angel 3500 5 (1957)
Karajan VPO *RCA L M 253 6 (1961)
Keilberth BPO *Tele 804 0 (1961)
Kempe Munich »Seraphim 6093- 6
Kleiber, C . VPO DGG 4 1 5862-2
Kleiber, E . Concertgebouw *Lon ST S 1547 4
Klemperer Philharmonia »Angel 3533 0 (1957)
Kletzki Czech Phi l »Mus He r 16 9
Krips LSO »Yorkshire 2700 0
Kubelik VPO »DGG 274015 5
Leibowitz Royal Phi l Menuet 16 0 020-2 (1962)
Leinsdorf BSO RCA 7997-2 (1963)
Maazel Cleve »Odyssey YT 42484
Masur Leipzig »Philips 657004 8
Mehta LA »Lon C S 687 0
Mengelberg Concertgebouw »Philips 6767.00 3 (1940)
Monteux LSO Lon 443479- 2
Muti Philadelphia »Angel 3753 8
Norrington Lon Clas s EMI CD C 749816- 2
Ormandy Philadelphia »Col 3ML401 1 (1957)
Paray Detroit »Merc 5002 2 (1957)
Previn LSO Angel 3711 6
Previn Royal Phi l RCA 7748- 2
Reiner Chicago RCA 6376- 2 (1960)
Sanderling Philharmonia DuMaurier 523 9
Scherchen V S t Oper a »West 1831 9 (1957?)
5 54 TH E COMPLEA T CONDUCTO R
BEETHOVEN: SEVENT H SYMPHON Y (continued)
Schuricht Conservatoire (Paris ) "Trianon 3333 7 (1953)

Solti Chicago Lon 425525-2
Solti VPO *Lon 609 3 (1960)
Steinberg Pittsburgh *SQN 14 5
Stokowski Philadelphia +RCA 17 (1928)
Strauss Berlin Stat e Oper a Koch 3-7115- 2 (1926)
Suitner Staatskapelle Berli n Denon 703 2
Szell Cleve Sony SB K 481 58
Täte Dresden Berlin Classic s 109 5
Thomas Eng C h Orc h CBS MD K 44789
Toscanini NBC *RCA LM 199 1
Toscanini NYP *Camden 35 2 (1936)
Walter Col Symp h *CBSMK 4201 3 (1960)
Weingartner VPO +Col 260 (1938?)
BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHONY *
Abbado BPO DGG 4 3 1790-2

Abravanel Utah "Vanguard 1011 7
Ancerl Czech Phi l Supra 11194 1 (1962)
Anonymous Anonymous Critics Choic e CCD 9 1 3
Barbirolli VPO *Angel SD C 373 2
Bernstein VPO DGG 4 3 1029-2
Bernstein NYP *Col M L 560 2 (1961)
Böhm VPO *DGG 271101 7
Boult LPO SQN 13 9 (1961)
Celibidache Milano Arkadia CDG I 764. 3 (1959)
Chailly Concertgebouw Lon 421295- 2
Dohnanyi Cleve *Teldec 24497 2
Dorati LSO *Merc 5026 8
Furtwängler BPO DGG 4 1 5662-2
Furtwängler VPO *Odeon 14 7 50336 (1947)
*A remarkabl y goo d performanc e o f th e Brahm s Firs t Symphony , issue d o n Critic s
Choice (CC D 913 ) i n 1990 , i s played by an otherwis e unidentified orchestr a called "Th e
English Philharmoni c Orchestra." N o conducto r i s listed (sic).
DISCOGRAPHY 555
Giulini LA *DGG 253205 6

Haitink Concertgebouw «Philips 651422 8
Herbig BBC Collins 3049 2
Horenstein LSO *Quint 702 8
Janowski Liverpool ASV CD 53 1
Järvi LSO Chandos 865 3
Jochum LPO ''Angel SD C 384 5
Karajan BPO DGG 423141- 2
Karajan VPO Lon ST S 1519 4
Karajan Philharmonia * Angel 3500 1 (1957)
Kempe BPO Cap G-720 8 (1960)
Kertesz VPO Lon C S 683 6
Klemperer Berlin Stat e Oper a Koch Legac y 7053- 2 (1928)
Klemperer Philharmonia * Angel 3548 1 (I960)
Kletzki Royal Phi l "Angel 3561 9 (I960)
Kondrashin Concertgebouw *Philips 412071- 1
Krips VPO *Lon ST S 1514 4 (1957)
Kubelik Bavar (Munich ) "Orfeo 07083 4
Lehel MagyarRadio (Budapest) *Hungar 1227 3 (1983)
Leinsdorf BSO *RCALM2711 (1964)
Levine Chicago *RCAARL 1-132 6
Maazel Cleve *Lon 700 7
Masur Leipzig "Philips 676900 9
Mehta VPO *Lon C S 701 7
Mengelberg Concertgebouw Philips 416210- 2 (1933)
Mravrinsky Leningrad *Memoria 991.00 6 (1950)
Munch Orch d e Pari s * Arabesque 805 8
Munch BSO RCA7812-2 (1957)
Muti Philadelphia Philips 426299- 2
Norrington Lon Clas s EMI CD C 754286- 2
Ormandy Philadelphia Col 3 ML 447 7 (1957)
Ozawa BSO *DGG 253089 9
Paita Nat Phi l *Lodia 77 9
Reiner Chicago *RCA
Rowicki Warsaw *MusHerORB251
Sanderling Dresden Eurodisc 69220- 2
Sawallisch LPO EMI Classic s 754359- 2
Scherchen V S t Opera "West XWN 1844 8 (1957)
Skrowaczewski Halle *MCA 2518 8
Solti Chicago *Lon C S 719 8
Steinberg Pittsburgh *SQN 774 4 (1961)
Stokowski Philadelphia +RCA D M 30 1 (1927)
Suitner Staatskapelle Berli n Ars Vivendo
Szell Cleve *Epic L G 337 9 (1957)
Tennstedt LPO 'Angel D S 3804 1
Toscanini NBC RCA L M 170 2 (1957)
BRAHMS: FIRS T SYMPHONY (continued)
Van Beinu m Concertgebouw *Epic L C 360 3 (1959)

Walter Col Symp h *Col MS 6389 (I960)
Wand NDR *Pro Arte SD S 62 6
Weingartner LSO Centaur CR C 212 4 (1939)
BRAHMS: FOURT H SYMPHONY *
Abbado BPO DGG 435349- 2

Abravanel Utah Vanguard SV C 172 0
Amsermet Suisse Romand e *Lon ST S 1538 3
Anonymous Anonymous Critics Choice CCD9 13
Barbirolli VPO Seraphim TOCE 7 1 37
Barenboim Chicago Erato 4509-9 5 194-2
Bernstein VPO DGG 410084- 2
Böhm VPO DGG 271 1 017
Boult LPO Angel 3703 4
Celibidache Milano Arkadia CDG I 764. 3 (1959)
Chailly Concertgebouw Lon433151-2
Davis, C . Bavar (Munich ) RCA 60383- 2
DeSabata BPO *DGG 4237 1 5-2 (1939)
Dohnanyi Cleve Teldec 244972- 2
Dorati LSO *Merc S R 9050 3
Fischer-Dieskau Czech Phi l Quint PM C 709 4 (1976)
Furtwängler BPO *Electrola 9099 5
Giulini VPO *DGG 429403- 2
Haitink BSO Philips 434991- 2
Janowski Liverpool ASV DC A 53 3
Järvi LSO Chandos CHA N 859 5
Jochum LPO *Angel SD C 384 5
Jochum BPO Memories H R 4246 (1951)
Karajan BPO DGG 4 3 1593-2
*A remarkabl y good performanc e o f th e Brahm s Fourt h Symphony , issue d o n Critic s

Choice (CC D 913 ) in 1990 , i s played b y an otherwis e unidentified orchestra called "Th e
English Philharmoni c Orchestra. " N o conducto r i s listed (sic).
DISCOGRAPHY 557
Karajan Philharmonia *Angel 3529 8

Kempe Munich Phi l *BASF 2022394- 9
Kempe Royal Phi l * Pantheon 1842 8
Kertesz VPO *Lon C D 683 8
Kleiber, C . VPO DGG 400037- 2
Klemperer Philharmonia EMI Classic s COM 6964 9
Krips LSO *Lon L L 20 8
Kubelik Bavar (Munich ) *Orfeo 07083 4
Lehel Magyar Radi o (Budapest) *Hungar 1227 6 (1982 )
Leibowitz Royal Phi l Chesky 6 (1963 )
Leinsdorf BSO *RCALSL3010
Levine Chicago *RCA ARL 1-262 4
Maazel Cleve *Lon C S 709 6
Masur Leipzig »Philips 676900 9
Mehta NYP Col 3583 2
Mengelberg Concertgebouw Teldec 24 3 724- 2
Mitropoulos NYP Hunt 3402 0
Mravinsky Leningrad Memoria 99100 6
Munch BSO «RCA LM 229 7
Muti Philadelphia Philips 422377- 2
Ormandy Philadelphia *Col 3163 6 (1960? )
Paray Detroit *Merc 5005 7
Previn Royal Phi l Telare 8015 5
Reiner Royal Phi l *Quint 718 2
Rowicki Warsaw Mus He r OR B 25 4
Sanderling Dresden Eurodisc 69220- 2
Skrowaczewski Halle IMP Classic s PC D 89 7
Slatkin St. Loui s 'Telare DG-1005 3
Steinberg Pittsburgh SQN 13 9
Stokowski New Philharmoni a "RCAARL 1-071 9
Suitner Staatskapelle Berli n ArsVivendo2100170
Szell Cleve *Odyssey HB3 X 45823
Toscanini NBC *RCALM 171 3
Van Beinu m Concertgebouw Epic L C 356 3 (1960 )
Walter Col Symp h Odyssey MB K 44776 (1959 )
Wand NDR Har Mu n 56 7 169530 2
Weingartner LSO Centaur CR C 212 8 (1938 )
STRAUSS: TILL EULENSPIEGEL
Abbado LSO *DGG 253209 9

Ashkenazy Cleve Lon 42 5 112-2
Barenboim Chicago Erato 2292-45621- 2
Bernstein NYP *Col M S 716 5
Blomstedt Dresden Denon 7380 1
Böhm BPO *DGG 2535208
Busch BBC +RCA 1172 4 (1936)
Celibidache Stuttgart Arkadia 48 7 (1962)
Coates LPO RCA 927 2
DeWaart Minn Virgin 5923 4
Dohnanyi Cleve Lon 43 6 444- 2
Dorati Detroit *Lon 7102 5
Dorati Minn Merc 43 4 348- 2 (1955)
Fricsay BPO *Decca D L 952 9
Furtwängler BPO DGG 274026 0 (rehearsal ) (1930)
Furtwängler BPO DGG 274026 0 (1930)
Haitink Concertgebouw Philips 44 2 281- 2
Järvi Scottish Na t Chandos 857 2
Jochum Concertgebouw *Epic 303 2
Karajan BPO DGG 253034 9
Karajan Philharmonia *Angel63316
Kempe Dresden EMI 6434 2
Koussevitsky BSO *Camden 10 1 (1945)
Krauss VPO *Lon 2320 8
Lewis Royal Phi l *Lon SP G 2105 4
Maazel Cleve CBS MD K 44909
Mackerras LPO *SQN 200 7
Markevitch Radio Franc e Angel D-3544 2
Marriner Stuttgart Capriccio 1 0 36 9
Masur Leipzig ????
Mata Dallas Pro Arte 403
Munch BSO *RCA LS C 256 5
Ormandy Philadelphia *RCA AGL 1-140 8
Paternostro Tokyo Koch 31117 7
Previn VPO Angel D S 3775 3
Reiner VPO *Lon ST S 1558 2
Rodzinski NYP *Col M L 4884 (1946?)
Sawallisch Philadelphia EMI 5518 5
Slatkin LPO *RCA 5959- 1
Solti VPO *Lon 2632 1
Steinberg BSO *RCALSC 3155
DISCOGRAPHY 559
Stock Chicago Chicago Symp h (1s t 10 0 years) (1940)

Strauss VPO * Vanguard 32 5 (1944)
Szell Cleve *Col M Y 36721
Toscanini NBC RCA 09026-60296- 2 (1952)
RAVEL: DAPHNIS E T CHLOÉ
Abbado BSO DGG 253003 8

Abbado LSO DGG445519-2
Barbirolli Halle 'Vanguard S-17 7
Barenboim Orch Pari s "DGG 253204 1
Bernstein NYP *Col M Y 3671 4
Boulez Cleve *CBS M 3065 1
Cantelli Philharmonia Testament 101 7
Casadesus Lille HarmMun 39006 4
Chailly Concertgebouw Lon 443934- 2
Commissiona Houston "Vanguard 2502 2
DeBurgos New Philharmoni a *Angel S-3647 1
Dervaux Colonne (Paris) *SQN 777 4
Dohnanyi Cleve Teldec 97439- 2
Dutoit Montreal *Lon 7102 8
Furtwängler BPO DGG 427783- 2 (1944)
Gaubert Straram (Paris ) In Syn e C-41 34 (cassette ) (1928)
Haitink BSO Philips 42 6 260- 2
Inbal Orch Na t Franc e Denon 179 6
Jansons Oslo EMI 749964- 2
Karajan BPO DGG 427250- 2
Kondrashin Concertgebouw 'Philips 412071- 1
Koussevitsky BSO RCA D M (1928)
Koussevitsky BSO RCA 09026-6 1 392-2 (1942)
Levi Atlanta Telare 80352
Levine VPO DGG 4 1 5 360- 2
Maazel Cleve *Lon C S 689 8
Mackerras LSO Centaur 209 0
Martinon Orch Pari s Quint PM C 701 7
Martinon Chicago RCA L M 280 6 (1965)
Mata Dallas *RCA 345 8
RAVEL: DAPHJV/ S ET CHLOÉ (continued)
Mehta LA *Lon 669 8

Mengelberg Concertgebouw KICC 206 1
Monteux LSO *Lon ST S 1509 0
Munch BSO *RCA 1 1674
Muti Philadelphia *Angel DS-3788 5
Nagano LSO Erato 4509-91712- 2
Nowak LSO ASV DC A 53 6
Ormandy Philadelphia *RCAARD 1002 9
Ozawa BSO *DGG 2530567
Paray Detroit Merc 434306- 2 (1961)
Previn LSO "Angel 3786 8
Rattle Birmingham EMI 7 54303-2
Rodzinski Cleve *Col 3M L 4884 (1957)
Rosenthal Nat Oper a Orc h (Paris ) ADES 1407 4
Schwarz Seattle Délos 311 0
Sinopoli World Phi l (Japan) Valois 460 1
Skrowaczewski Minn *Vox Bo x CD X 503 2
Slatkin St. Louis Telare 8005 2
Solti Chicago Chicago Symp h (1s t 10 0 years)
Stokowski LSO *Lon SP C 2105 9
Szell Cleve *OdysseyY31928
Tortelier Ulster Chandos 150 4
Toscanini NBC RCA 09026-60322-2
SCHUMANN: SECON D SYMPHON Y
Ansermet Suisse Romand e *Lon 1528 5

Barenboim Chicago *DGG 253 0 939
Bernard! Calgary CBC 506 7
Celibidache Rome Nova Er a 013.632 7
Celibidache Stockholm ArkadiaCDGI 373.1
Commissiona Houston Pro Art e 39 4
Haitink Concertgebouw •Philips 412852
Janowski Liverpool ASV 608 4
Karajan BPO "2530170
Klemperer Philharmonia "Angel S-3660 6
DISCOGRAPHY 561
Kubelik BPO *DGG2535 117

Mackerras LSO Centaur 100 7
Marriner Stuttgart Capriccio 1099 7
Masur LPO Teldec 229 2 46446-2
Mehta VPO *Lon 720 6
Mitropoulos Minn Nickson N N 100 8 (1940)
Muti Philharmonia *Angel 3760 2
Paray Detroit "Mere 5010 2 (1957)
Patane Hung S t Orch Qualiton 1227 8
Pfitzner Berlin Stat e Oper a Koch 3-7039- 2 (1928)
Sawallisch Dresden 'Arabesque 810 2
Schuricht Conservatoire (Paris ) *SQN 14 3
Semkow Warsaw *Muza 132 9
Solti VPO *Lon2310
Szell Cleve *Epic 115 9
Weingartner LPO Música Memori a (1933)
Zinman Baltimore Telare 8018 2
TCHAIKOVSKY: SIXT H SYMPHON Y
Bernstein NYP Sony SM K 476 3 5 (1964)

Bond, Victoria Shanghai Protone 220 5
Bychkov Concertgebouw Philips 4341 50-2
Celibidache Milano "Melodram ME L 21 7 (1959)
Coates BPO Beulah 1PD 6 (1945)
Dorati LSO Merc 434353- 2 (I960)
Furtwängler BPO +RCA553 [His t Per f HPS8 ] (1938)
Ciclen SW Germa n Radi o Gielen IN T 860.92 3
Giulini Philharmonia * Seraphim 7243 5 68531-2
Jansons Oslo Chandos 844 6
Martinen VPO *Lon ST S 1501 8
Mengelberg Concertgebouw Teldec 4509-93673- 2 (1948)
Monteux BSO *RCA Vies 100 9
Ormandy Philadelphia RCA 09026-60908-2
Reiner Chicago RCA 09026-01246- 2 (1955)
Rodzinski PSO Lo n WestXWN 1804 8 (1957)
Rozhdestvensky LSO IMP Classic s PCD 87 8
Slatkin St. Loui s RCA 09026-60438- 2
Index
Note: Boldfac e indicate s extensiv e discussion .
Abbado, Claudio , 107 , 200n , 202 , 235 - Baker, Juliu s (flutist) , 48 5

36, 237n, 238 , 244 , 253 , 273, 276 , Ballets Russes , 46 0
307-308, 317-18 , 325 , 336n , 342 , Bamberger, Carl , 94n
345, 355n , 359 , 371 , 462, 464 , 468 , Barber, Samuel , 53 9
540 Barbirolli, Si r John, 27 , 103 , 398 , 402 ,
Abravanel, Maurice , 300 , 309 , 315 , 325, 409, 450n , 467 , 48 9
340, 342 , 345 , 35 2 Barenboim, Daniel , 71 , 232 , 235, 244 ,
Academy of Ancient Music , 220 , 222 n 272n, 273 , 278 , 311 , 453 , 471 , 473 ,
Albrechtsberger, Johan n G. , 273 n 511, 514 , 518n , 52 4
Analysis, 62 , 11 2 Bartok, Bêla , 22 , 52 , 171 , 539-4 1
Ansermet, Ernest , 161 , 168 , 179 , 211 , Barzin, Leon , 5 0
218, 254 , 272n , 465 , 483 , 489 , Batiz, Enrique , 232 , 243
502n, 508 , 515n , 51 6 Baton technique , 7 , 17 , 59-61, 62, 71 ,
Argento, Artuolfo , 543 n 78, 78n, 119,297,449,54 1
Ars Nova, 53n , 22In , 255 , 426 Beecham, Si r Thomas, 5 0
Artistic integrity , 15 , 22-24, 10 7 Beethoven, Ludwi g van , ix , x, xi, 5 , 7, 9 ,
Ashkenazy, Vladimir, 161 , 168 , 179 , 11, 13 , 14 , 21-23, 25 , 29-30, 34-38 ,
193n, 211 , 235 , 262n, 26 5 42n, 43-44, 46, 53 , 53n , 59 , 61, 63 ,
Authenticists, 14n , 25n , 35-36 , 69 , 170 , 69, 71 , 74n , 75-77 , 82 , 85, 87, 90,
185, 210 , 219n , 229 , 308 n 94-98, lOOn , 100-102 , 106-107 ,
109-278, 279-81, 286n , 287-88,
Babbitt, Milton , viii , 45n, 53 , 63n 291n, 297 , 300 , 308-310 , 312 , 318 ,
Bach, Car l Phili p Emmanuel , 76 , 331, 335 , 338 , 350-51 , 352 , 357n ,
225 368, 392 , 425-26, 434 , 438n , 459 ,
Bach, Johan n Sebastian , 13 , 71, 73 , 88n , 495-96, 501 , 504 , 508-509 , 511,
158-59, 189 , 245 , 267 , 285n , 319n , 515n, 517 , 524-25 , 537 , 541-4 4
326n, 399n , 412 , 418 , 459 , 495 , 54 2 First Symphony, 120n , 181 , 28 1
Si. Matthew Passion, 13 , 88 n Second Symphony, 77
563
564 INDEX
Beethoven (continued) Brahms, Johannes, 5 , 9, 13 , 21-22 , 29 ,

Third ("Eroica") Symphony, 13 , 16 , 79 , 31n, 33 , 38,43,46,48, 52n , 53 , 59,
94,98, 130n , 181 , 193 n 61, 63, 86n , 91n , 98 , 102 , 106 ,
Fourth Symphony, 26 , 35 , 28 1 133n, 207n , 228 , 233 , 256 , 270n ,
Fifth Symphony, 10 , 34 , lOOn , 105n , 279-424, 425, 430 , 445 , 491 , 497 ,
109-229, 286n , 291n , 308-309 , 331, 536-37, 540-4 3
335, 357n , 392 , 426, 504-505 , 506n , First Symphony 30 , 33 , 47n, 48 , 233 ,
509, 513 , 517, 54 1 279-377, 379 , 381 , 389 , 422n , 430 ,
Sixth ("Pastorale") Symphony, 25n , 491, 53 9
192, 35 1 Second Symphony, 291-93 , 39 9
Seventh Symphony, 15 , 95, 181 , 231 - Third Symphony, 37 9
278, 280 , 287n , 508 , 533 n Fourth Symphony, 13 , 47, 270n , 288n ,
Eighth Symphony, 25n , lOOn , 50 8 320n, 323n , 329n , 379-424 , 425
Ninth Symphony, 36 , 96, 353 , 508 Double Concerto, 364-6 5
Egmont Overture, 85 Horn Trio, Op . 40 , 29 2
Fidelio, 152n , 266n Britten, Benjamin , 54 2
Leonore Overture No. 3 , 90, 100 , 270 n Bruckner, Anton, 94 , 190 , 26 5
MUSS i n c minor, 3 7 Brüggen, Frans , 129n , 137n , 161n , 164 ,
Berg, Alban, 13 , 35, 52,412,45 9 176, 197 , 219n
Berglund, Paavo , 543 n Billow, Han s von , 8 , 30 , 46, 70 , 79, 84 -
Berlin Philharmonic , 119 , 130n , 185 , 87,90, 102 , 102n , 1 1 In, 121n , 123 ,
238, 243 , 272n , 331 , 352 , 386, 389 , 133, 138 , 221, 265, 316n, 34 0
426, 433 , 437n , 531n , 543 Burk, John, 15 9
Berlioz, Hector , 14 , 67, 69 , 79 , 99 , 101 , Busch, Fritz , 41, 50 , 58 , 194 , 428n , 430,
175, 198 , 219n , 264 n 435n, 436-37, 442
Corsair Overture , 133 n Busoni, Ferrucio, 42 6
Bernard!, Mario , 518 n Bychkov, Semyon , 52 4
Bernstein, Leonard , 4 , 9 , 9n , 30 , 33 , 69,
71, 89n , 122n , 126 , 129 , 136n , 138, Canisius, C. , 192 n
153-54, 159 , 161 , 166 , 167n , 168 , Cantelli, Guido , 233 , 253 , 271, 272 ,
207,211,227,237,257,271,298, 272n
305, 324 , 334 , 336 , 340 , 342 , 345n , Cantrell, Scott , 39 n
346, 353 , 371, 375 , 429, 435-36 , Carse, Adam , 73 n
452n, 464 , 468 , 470 , 473 , 478 , 479 , Carter, Elliott , viii, 53 , 63n, 54 2
487-89, 491, 493 , 521 , 539 Caruso, Enrico , 120 n
Blomstedt, Herbert , 430 , 436 , 441 , 444 , Casadesus, Jean-Claude , 459 , 485 , 48 8
446-47, 453-54 Casals, Pablo , 232 , 251, 257
Böhm, Karl , 41, 134 , 176 , 194 , 207 , 218, Celibidache, Sergiu , 96n , 231 , 239-40,
234, 266 , 340 , 34 6 37 1 244, 275n , 283 , 286 , 302 , 304 , 307 ,
Bond, Victoria , 543 n 317, 324 , 340, 354 , 384 , 386 , 394 -
Borge, Victor, 399 n 95, 398 , 498 , 505 , 509n, 511 , 518n ,
Boulez, Pierre , 18 , 45n, 53 , 181 , 461 , 524, 539 n
465, 469, 473 , 475, 478, 48 6 Chabrier, Emmanuel , 288 n
Boult, Adrian, 146 , 232 , 241 , 284 , 306 , Chailly, Riccardo , 308-309 , 311 , 315,
344, 35 2 317, 335 , 342, 394,400,403,41 5
Bowing/bow distribution , 23 , 23n , 27 , Cherubini, Luigi , 498n
27n, 2 8 Chopin, Frederic , 74 , 286n , 498 n
Bozarth, George , 295 n Clementi, Muzio , 498n
INDEX 565
Coates, Albert, 431, 436 , 44 1 197, 204 , 218 , 248 , 262n , 271 , 273 ,
Collegium Aureum , 233 , 241-42, 252, 278, 436 , 453 , 45 7
272 Druckman, Jacob , 5 3
Color (timbre) , instrumental, 26 Druian, Rafael , 335 , 441
Commissiona, Sergiu , 461, 504 n Druschetzsky, Georg , 264 n
Concertgebouw Orchestra , 15 , 47, 131 , Dukas, Paul , 477 n
249n, 25In , 266 , 268 , 272n , 335, Durand, Jacques , 482n , 483
477, 479n , 54 4 Dutoit, Charles , 461-63 , 473-74, 478
Conducting prerequisites , 6-7 , 9 , 18 Dvorak, Antonin, x , 21, 133n , 288-89n ,
Conductor's ear , 17-1 8 379, 54 4
Conductor's ego , 6 , 48, 50 , 101-10 3 New World Symphony, x , 133n , 288 -
Conductors Guild , 46In , 483 89n
Contemporary music , viii, ix , 15 , 541-43 Dwyer, Dorio t (flutist) , 484-8 5
Copland, Aaron, 542 Dynamics, viii , 17 , 18 , 23-27, 48 , 54 , 58 ,
62-63, 94, 98-100, 106 , 112n , 128 -
Dannrenther, Edward , 74 n 130, 142 , 161 , 163 , 169 , 222 , 225 -
Davidovsky, Mario , 45 n 227, 240 , 282 , 286 , 309 , 320-21 ,
Davis, Si r Colin, 170,211,234-3 5 324-25, 327-28 , 333 , 336-37, 347 -
De Burgos , Fruhbeck , 235 , 256 , 47 3 48, 350-51 , 354 , 372 , 374 , 380 , 401 ,
Debussy, Claude , x , 9, 53n , 61, 100 , 160 , 407, 415 , 421 , 424 , 432-33 , 434n,
332, 34In , 396 , 425 , 459 , 477n , 435, 438n , 441 , 446 , 449-50 , 459 -
490, 54 1 60, 477, 483 , 486 , 490 , 498 , 521 ,
Jeux, 54 1 524-26, 532-35 , 542 , 544
The Martyrdom o f St . Sebastian, 54 1
DeFalla, Manuel , 40 3 Ear, 17-19 , 23 , 166n , 267 , 312 , 324,
Definitive interpretation , 13-14 , 20 452, 498
Del Mar , Norman , 1 1 In, 428 n Edison Company , 295 , 295n
Dervaux, Pierre , 461, 464 , 473 , 478 , Ego, 6 , 50-51 , 101 , 103 , 18 0
488 "Elastischer Takt" ("elasti c time") , 69 ,
De Sabata , Victor , 159 , 168 , 386 , 389 , 71-72, 98 , 222 , 337
403,415, 539 n Epstein, David , 281n , 290 , 291n , 295 ,
Désormière, Roger , 543 n 316
Dessoff, Feli x Otto, 102n , 316 n Ewen, David , 8 7
DeWaart, Edo , 43 7
Diaghilev, Serge , 46 0 Fellinger, Richard , 295n
Dickson, Harr y Ellis, 320 n Ferenczik, Janos , 233-35 , 23 7
DiDomenica, Robert , 45 n Fétis, François , 19I n
Dobrowen, Issay , 543 n Fiedler, Max , 415
Dohnanyi, Christop h von , 35 , 44, 107 , Fischer, Johan n C. , 264
159, 168-69 , 181 , 235 , 237, 252 , Fischer-Dieskau, Dietrich , 394 , 410 , 41 6
257, 278 , 306-307 , 309 , 339-40 , Fitzpatrick, Horace , 222n , 224n
343, 353 , 370-72,415,423,465, Fleming, Coli n (ñutist) , 484
478, 485 , 540-4 1 Forkel, Johan n Nikolaus , 74n
Dolmetsch, Arnold, 221n , 223 , 223n Franck, César , 228 , 477n
Donington, Robert , 221n , 223 , 223n Fricsay, Perene , 233 , 235, 243, 254 , 266 ,
Donizetti, Gaetano , 498 n 272n, 278 , 420, 436 , 441 , 447 , 451 ,
Dorian, Frederick , 266 n 453
Dorati, Antal, 5 , 50 , 107 , 171 , 174 , 179 , Frisch, Walter, 290 , 29 5
566 INDEX
Furtwängler, Wilhelm, 15 , 18 , 67, 70-71, Hemiola, 288 n

84-85,94,98, 109 , 113 , 113n , 115, Henze, Han s Werner , 53
115n, 126 , 126n , 128n , 136n , 153 , Herbig, Günther, 308 , 311 , 317 , 359 ,
161, 173 , 176 , 194,211,218,232 , 366
234, 241 , 243, 265-66 , 283 , 298-99, Herseth, Adolph, 38 9
308, 311 , 315 , 317, 330-31, 338 , Hess, Willy , 192 n
340-41, 345 , 348 , 353 , 371, 384-85, Hickox, Richard , 19 7
394, 400 , 423 , 428 , 430 , 522 , 524, Hiller, Ferdinand , 102 n
529n, 532 , 538-39 Hitchcock, Alfred, 323 n
Hoffman, E.T.A. , 13 8
Gardiner, John Eliot , 14 , 18 , 107 , 137n , Hogwood, Christopher, 14n , 168 , 170 ,
161, 164 , 176 , 181 , 218 , 219n , 174, 181 , 197 , 222-25 , 227-2 8
221n, 229 , 235 , 237 , 239n, 244 , Honegger, Arthur, 541
250, 252 , 276, 27 8 Horenstein, Jascha , 283, 298, 307n , 315,
Gaubert, Phillippe , 461, 465 , 467-68 , 337, 34 0
477, 484 , 487n , 49 3 Horowitz, Joseph, 23n , 85
Geiringer, Karl , 295n Hugget, Monica , 22 0
Gericke, Wilhelm , 320 n
Gershwin, George, 109 n Imbrie, Andrew , 145-46 n
Giulini, Carl o Maria , 71 , 177 , 290n , 298 , Inbal, Eliahu , 461
324, 340 , 345n , 353 , 37 1 Ivés, Charles , 287n , 388 , 44 6
Gluck, Christop h W , 99 , 100
Goosens, Eugene , 50 , 540 n Jackson, Milt , 2 6
Gould, Glenn , 6n Jaenicke, Bruno , 450n
Graupner, Christoph , 264 n Janowski, Marek , 308-309 , 314n , 317 ,
Greenberg, Noah , 22 1 n 325, 327 , 352,415 , 505 , 516
Grove, Si r George, Hi n Jansons, Mariss , 461, 464-65 , 470, 473 ,
Gülke, Peter , 146n , 155n , 174n, 192n , 490
195, 198 n Järvi, Neemi, 298 , 300 , 311 , 317 , 325,
340, 34 5
Habeneck, Françoi s Antoine, 69, 96, 97, Jochum, Eugen , 69 , 94, 176-77 , 204,
265 207, 217 , 249n , 271 , 300 , 307-309 ,
Haitink, Bernard , 18, 22, 107 , 163-64 , 317, 332n , 345n, 352 , 354
166, 177 , 179 , 218 , 244 , 247 , 280 , Junker, Kar l Ludwig , 68-69, 72 , 74-77,
284, 324-25 , 352 , 377, 401-402, 85n, 101 , 180
415,436-37,451,453,465,474,
484,486, 506 , 508 , 513n , 54 7 Kabasta, Oswald , 543 n
Haie, Philip , 320n Kalliwoda, Wilhelm, 102 n
Handel, Georg e Frederic , 73 , 161 , 19 0 Karajan, Herber t von , 4, 130n , 131,
Hanover Band, 14n, 170 , 173-74, 220-28 134n, 169 , 173 , 185 , 197 , 200n ,
Harnoncourt, Nikolaus , 137n , 159 , 163 , 204, 217 , 221, 243, 252 , 273, 329 ,
169, 176 , 210 , 219n, 221n , 234, 340, 345n, 430 , 436 , 446 , 452n ,
239n, 252-53 , 271-7 2 453, 455, 457, 462-64, 471, 485 ,
Hart, Philip , 479 n 491, 512n , 53 9
Hausegger, Sigmund , 54 1 n Keilberth, Joseph, 23 3
Haydn, Fran z Joseph, 11 , 73 , 74n , 76 , Kempe, Rudolf , 50, 398, 436-37, 441 ,
85n, 98, 118 , 127 , 129 , 157 , 161, 444, 446 , 452-53 , 45 6
190, 223 , 225, 262, 268-69 , 281, Kertesz, István , 329 , 342, 349, 352 , 366
311,426, 54 2 Keys, Ivor , 38 2
INDEX 567
Kincaid, William (ñutist) , 48 4 Leppard, Raymond , 221 n, 22 9
Klangfarbenmelodie (tonecolo r melody) , Levi, Hermann , 8 7
133, 136n , 257 , 329 , 384 , 393-94 , Levi, Joel, 461, 469 , 476 , 479n , 485
437, 480 , 50 1 Levine, James , 317 , 335 , 337, 349 , 352 ,
Kleiber, Carlos , 9 , 15 , 18 , 107 , 129n , 389, 398 , 463 , 468 , 486 , 492 , 501n ,
131, 133 , 161 , 166 , 189 , 193-94 , 540
203-204, 235-36 , 241 , 252-53 , 257 - Lewis, Henry , 436, 453 , 455
58, 271 , 276, 278 , 280 , 385 , 400, Liszt, Franz , 85 , 102n , 425, 475 n
403, 415 , 416n, 42 3 Lloyd, Pete r (flutist) , 48 4
Kleiber, Erich , 71 , 107 , 131 , 134 , 136n , Löhlein, George Simon , 225
161, 163 , 169 , 194 , 249n , 252 , 258, London Classica l Players , 220, 225
268 Long, Marguerite , 8
Klemperer, Otto , 122n , 164 , 170 , 180 ,
200n, 204 , 218 , 235, 247, 258 , 269 , Maazel, Lorin , 161 , 255 , 257, 262, 272,
272n, 298 , 308 , 315 , 316n, 317-18 , 396, 401-402 , 409, 436 , 441 , 452 -
335-38, 343 , 346 , 366n , 370 , 440n , 53, 463 , 473 , 486
498, 504n , 505 , 538 Mackerras, Charles , 54 , 221n, 223n, 229,
Kletzki, Paul , 184n , 190n , 220 , 247, 271, 436, 452 , 462, 464 , 469 , 475 , 48 7
278 Mahler, Gustav , 22 , 24n , 70 , 87 , 99, 100 ,
Knappertsbusch, Hans , 168 , 177 , 179 , 105, 106n , 130 , 152 , 219, 226 , 265,
184 319n, 338 , 397 , 425, 434, 440n ,
Knussen, Oliver , 5 3 495, 498 , 53 2
Kohon, Benjamin , 120 n Majeski, Daniel , 44 1
Kolisch, Rudolf , viii , 35 , 37n , 41 , 502 n Malcolm, George , 22 1 n
Kondrashin, Kyril , 62 , 300 , 317 , 337-40 , Mälzel, 22 4
343, 345 , 358 , 364 , 377 , 465, 471 , Markevitch, Igor , 121n , 155n , 192n ,
473, 47 8 207n, 21 3
Koussevitzsky, Serge , 5 , 122 , 170 , 217, Marpurg, Friedric h Wilhelm , 73 , 76
461, 473 , 475-77, 479n, 485n, 487 - Marriner, Si r Neville, 436, 453 , 457,
88, 490 , 54 0 504n, 518 n
Krauss, Clemens , 436 , 45 5 Martino, Donald , 5 3
Krenek, Ernst , vii i Martinon, Jean , 465, 469 , 473 , 478 , 52 3
Kretzschmar, Hermann , 198 , 198 n Masur, Kurt , 153 , 161, 171 , 204 , 239n ,
Krips, Josef , 147 , 159 , 161,21 7 278, 400 , 429 , 436-37 , 453 , 455,
Kubelik, Rafael , 137 , 176-77 , 239n , 498, 505n , 508 , 511
504n, 506 , 51 8 Mata, Eduardo , 429-30, 436, 446 , 450 ,
Kujala, Walfri d (flutist) , 46 5 463, 48 6
Matacic, Lovr o von, 543 n
Lachner, Franz , 102 n Mattheson, Johann, ix , 67, 69, 71-72,
Lang, Pau l Henry , 74n 101, 18 0
La Scal a Orchestra , 118 n Mehta, Zubin , 129n , 137 , 180 , 211 , 218,
Laurent, George s (flutist) , 485 n 381, 394 , 400 , 473 , 478 , 485-86 ,
Lebrecht, Norman , 4 491, 498 , 504n , 505-506 , 508 , 512n ,
Lehel, György , 298 , 370 , 38 9 516, 54 0
Leibowitz, René , 35 , 129n , 146-47 , 159 , Memorization, 56-5 9
179, 23 4 Mendelssohn, Felix , x, 45, 69 , 87 , 87n ,
Leinsdorf, Erich , 9, 50 , 55n , 70, 271, 88, 96n, 102n , 113 , 152-53n, 191n ,
283, 309 , 315 , 327, 340, 342 , 353, 228, 319n , 498 n
370, 375 , 377 Hebrides Overture , 45, 87 , 87n , 8 8
568 INDEX
Mengelberg, Willem , 8 , 47-48, 70 , 147 , 349-50, 353 , 371, 423, 464 , 471-72 ,
159, 163 , 167 , 167n , 170 , 177-78 , 485-86, 492
200, 204 , 249n , 254 , 257 , 266 , 268 - Mvravinsky, Evgeny , 385 , 396 , 42 0
69, 272n , 273 , 277n, 395 , 398 ,
440n, 450n, 461 , 468 , 471 , 475 , Nagano, Kent , 476
477, 485 , 489 , 543 n Newman, Ernst , 40-45, 50 n
Methfessel, Ernst , 102 n New Yor k Philharmonic , 120n , 2 0 5 n,
Metric modulation , 481-8 2 244, 273 , 278 , 322n , 394 , 428n ,
Metric placement/displacement / 450n, 490 , 534n , 543 n
ambivalence, 286 , 289-91 , 290n , Nielsen, Carl , 53 9
293,295, 310,427,431,445-4 6 Niewig, Clint , 46In , 483
Metronomization, viii , 14 , 20n, 22-23 , Nikisch, Arthur, 70, 85 , 87 , 119-20 , 126 ,
34-37, 42-44, 53 , 73, 78-79, 85, 131, 138 , 155 , 162, 178 , 180,24 1
87-88, 121 , 123 , 124n , 158-161 , Norrington, Roger , 14n , 47 , 116 , 122n ,
176-77, 179-80 , 211-12, 221n , 224 , 160, 164 , 171 , 181 , 197 , 218 , 220 -
226-27, 232-33 , 252 , 259, 264-66, 21, 224-30 , 265 , 281 , 286 , 299 , 312 ,
280-81, 315-20 , 334 , 336 , 343-47, 315n, 316 , 338, 340 , 348 , 349 , 37 4
354-56, 448-49, 456, 461 , 479 , Notation, musical , 11 , 14 , 14n , 22 , 25 ,
481-83, 485-90, 504n , 522-24 , 526 , 30, 39,40 , 52 , 105-106, 11 2
530, 53 3 Nottebohm, Gustav , 121 , 192 n
Metropolitan Opéra , 40 , 543 n Nowak, Grzegorz , 46 1
Milhaud, Darius , 54 1
Mitropoulos, Dimitri , 5 , 15 , 50 , 57 , 60n , Orenstein, Arbie , 48 3 n
147, 158 , 539n , 540 , 540 n Ormandy, Eugene, 147, 208, 211, 309,
Molter, Johann , 264 n 318, 332n, 352-53, 436, 447, 455 ,
Monteux, Pierre , viii , 9 , 18 , 50, 55 , 57 - 465
58, 71, 490, 52 4 Ozawa, Seiji , 9 , 57 , 58 , 197 , 283 , 340 ,
Monteverdi, Claudio , 22I n 345n, 353 , 423, 464 , 469 , 48 6
Morel, Jean , 50
Moyse, Marcel , 48 4 Paita, 314n , 34 0
Mozart, Leopold , 73 , 95, 95n, 22 5 Paray, Paul , 461, 468 , 478 , 480 , 484 .
Mozart, Wolfgan g Amadeus, 9 , 11 , 13 , 486-87, 489 , 508 , 512-13n , 514 ,
25, 40-42 , 53n , 73-77, 80 , 85n, 98 , 520n
102n, 127 , 129 , 133n , 151, 169 , Passacaglia, 379 , 411-20 , 421n , 42 2
198, 223 , 225, 247, 268-69 , 281 , Patane, Giuseppe , 504n , 505n , 513 n
286n, 311 , 319n, 367n , 426 , 459 , Paternostro, Roberto , 429 , 45 2
496, 54 2 Pellerite, James, 48 4
Don Giovanni, 40-41 , 77n Period instruments , 14n , 35 , 130n , 219n ,
Magic Flûte, The, 40-4 1 220-21, 235 n
Marriage o f Figaro, Overtur e 25n , 53n , Perle, George , 45n , 5 3
77n Perlea, Jonel , 50 , 541 n
Muck, Karl , 70, 543 n Petri, Johan n Samuel , 73 , 76
Müller-Reuter, Theodore , Hin , 122 n Pfitzner, Hans , 70 , 505 , 508 , 511 , 513n ,
Munch, Charles , 54 , 211, 337-38 , 436 , 516
455, 461 , 473-74 , 485 , 488 , 49 0 Physical attributes/limitations , 9-1 0
Munrow, David , 22I n Präger, Heinric h Aloys , 78
Mussorgsky, Modest , 1 3 On Prausnitz, Frederick , 59n , 67
Muti, Riccardo , 129n , 146 , 181 , 197 , Previn, Andre, 234 , 247 , 278 , 465, 468 ,
247,254, 266 , 269,298 , 311 , 338, 478, 484 , 489-9 0
INDEX 569
Prince's Orchestra , 120 n Schenker, Heinrich , 107 , lll-13n , 120n ,
Prokofiev, Serge , 52 , 459, 541-4 3 124, 127 , 130n , 134-35 , 144-46 ,
149-51, 184 , 191-92n , 197n , 205n ,
Quantz, Johann Joachim , 73 , 225 211,213, 22 0
Scherchen, Hermann , 59n , 67 , 190n ,
Rameau, Jean Philippe , 269 , 285 n 198
Rattle, Simon , 461 , 464 , 473 , 478 , 49 0 Schiller, Gottfried , 7 7
Ravel, Maurice , x-xi , 7-8, 13 , 31n , 52 , Schindler, Anton , 36 , 77, 95 , 120n , 12 1
59, 288n , 396 , 415 , 459-493, 537 , Schönberg, Arnold, viii , 13 , 31n, 35 , 43 ,
543 52, 54 , 232-33, 256n , 297 , 305n ,
Daphnis e t Chloé, 415, 459-493 365, 373 , 45 9
Reger, Max , 29 5 Schubert, Franz , x , 25n-26n, 160 , 195n ,
Reimann, Heinrich , 8 7 255,297, 319 , 353,495 , 539 n
Reinicke, Carl , 102 n Octet, 26n , 195 n
Reiner, Fritz , viii , 5 , 9, 9n , 41 , 50 , 55n, "Unfinished" Symphony, 25 n
57-58, 70, 107 , 179 , 181 , 190n , 204 , Schuch, Erns t von , 541 n
207,211,217-18,234,236,243, Schulze, Adolf , 450n
247, 250 , 265 , 278 , 280 , 385 , 398 , Schulze, Robert , 450 n
401-402, 420, 436 , 453 , 455, 479n, Schumann, Clara , 329 , 34 6
540n Schumann, Robert , 21-22 , 68-69, 87,
Respighi, Ottorino , 54 1 130, 133n , 228 , 297 , 319n , 438n ,
Retouching o f scores/reorchestration , 495-520, 537
20n, 46 , 184n , 210 , 220 , 438n, 493 , First Symphony, 504 n
498 Second Symphony, 495-52 0
Rhythmic dislocation , 291-95 Schuricht, Karl , 134 , 149 , 169 , 183 , 221 ,
Ricci, Luigi , 450 n 498, 505n , 516
Richter, Hans , 8 7 Schwarz, Gerard, 461 , 464 , 466-68 , 487 ,
Riemann, Hugo , 1 1 In 489
Rietz, Julius, 102 n Seriaban, Alexander, 459
Riezler, Walter, 192 n Seidl, Anton, 26 5
Rimsky-Korsakov, Nicolai , 434, 54 3 Semkow, Jerzy , 504n, 508 , 51 8
Rodzinski, Artur, 50 , 70, 146 , 14 8 Sessions, Roger , vii i
Ronald, Si r Landon, 543 n Seyfried, Igna z von , 77n , 9 5
Rosé, Arnold , 428 n Shostakovich, Dimitri , 22 , 39 7
Rosenthal, Manuel , 461 , 465 , 466n , 467 - Simpson, Robert , 192 n
68, 48 5 Singer, Otto , 437
Rossini, Giacchino , 3 1 Sinopoli, Giuseppe , 461 , 467 , 479n , 484 ,
Rousseau, Jean , 7 2 491
Rousseau, Jean Jacques , 72 n Skrowaczewski, Stanislav , 18 , 107 , 280 ,
Rowicki, Witold, 290n , 303 , 306 , 311 , 283-84, 290 , 298 , 309 , 315 , 332,
315, 318 , 334 , 338 , 37 2 337, 342 , 350 , 352-53 , 358 , 370-72 ,
Rudolf, Max , 50 , 59n , 6 7 374-75, 377 , 385 , 401-403, 416n ,
462, 465 , 478 , 485 , 49 1
Salieri, Antonio, 264n , 277 n Slatkin, Leonard , 436 , 455 , 473, 486 ,
Sanderling, Kurt , 233-34, 243 , 247 , 266 , 531, 54 0
286, 308 , 342 , 366 , 39 5 Solti, Si r George , 56-57 , 159 , 166 , 168 ,
Sawallisch, Wolfgang, 324-25, 335 , 504n, 170, 184 , 189 , 208 , 253 , 257, 434,
506, 518 n 445, 450n , 453 , 455, 464, 478 , 488 ,
Schalk, Franz , 15 3 490-91, 53 9
570 INDEX
Smith, Christin a (flutist) , 48 5 Syncopation, 269-71 , 303 , 328-29, 356 ,

Smith, Joshu a (flutist)' , 48 5 370
Sontag, Susan , 8 Szell, George , viii , 18 , 41, 50 , 56 , 70 ,
Specialization, 5 1 137,208,211,218,252, 335 , 340 ,
Spohr, Ludwig , 37n, 78 , 95, 198 , 366n, 402 , 423 , 436 , 441 , 447 , 498 ,
264n 516, 51 8
Spontini, Gaspare , 7 8 Szymanowski, Karol , 52 , 53 9
Stadler, Peter , 34 n
Stamitz, Johann , 76 , 94 Talich, Vaclav , 543n
Steinberg, William , 5 , 70, 164 , 197 , 207 , Taruskin, Richard , 14n , 74 n
218, 218n , 257 , 267, 273 , 436 , Täte, Jeffrey , 240 , 243 , 25 6
446n, 452 Tchaikovsky, Piotr , 13 , 21-22, 29 , 45n ,
Steuermann, Edward , vii i 85, 100 , 270n , 285n , 434, 521-35 ,
Stiedry, Fritz , 543 n 537, 543n, 54 4
Stokowski, Leopold , 5 , 18 , 50 , 54n , 89n , Sixth Symphony, 85 , 270n, 521-35 ,
161, 167n , 168 , 183 , 184n , 190n , 539n, 543 n
215, 218 , 220, 227 , 232, 235, 237, Tempo, viii , 14 , 17-18, 23-24 , 26 , 33,
237n, 238 , 241 , 257 , 258n, 259 , 36, 47-48, 53-54 , 62-63, 68-69, 71,
272n, 273 , 278 , 280 , 282-85 , 298 , 73, 84 , 89, 93-94, 97, 106 , 112 , 121 ,
300, 303-304 , 306-307 , 316n , 318 , 154, 161 , 167n , 179 , 222 , 226-27,
325, 337 , 339-40, 342 , 344 , 345n , 231-32, 235 , 241, 264 , 278 , 280 -
350-52, 358 , 370 , 373 , 375 , 377 , 283, 315-18 , 333n , 334 , 342 , 346 ,
436, 480 , 484 , 493 , 540-4 1 354, 356n , 380 , 429 , 447-49 , 455 -
Stotein, Jaap , 47 56, 459, 464 , 468 , 473 , 476-77 ,
Stransky, Josef , 120 n 481-82, 489 , 504n , 518 , 522-26 ,
Straram, Walter, 543 n 528-29, 532-33 , 535 , 544
Strauss, Franz , 427 n Tempo modification/relationships /
Strauss, Richard , 22, 67, 69, 75, 89-90, fluctuations, 14 , 17 , 71-76, 78-82,
100-101, 130 , 133 , 138 , 152-53 , 84,88-89,91,94, 101 , 132 , 154,
160-61, 163 , 167n , 168-70 , 181 , 190, 222 , 229, 341n , 343 , 380 , 395 ,
194, 197 , 218 , 245 , 255 , 258, 266 , 407, 424 , 473 , 522-23 , 527 , 533
268, 273 , 288 , 341n , 425-457 , 532, Tempo rubato , 37 , 71, 72, 73n, 74 , 76-
537, 543n , 54 4 77, 79 , 82 , 85 , 87n , 90 , 95 , 173 ,
Alpine Symphony, 24n , 428 n 222, 232 , 266 n
Don Juan, 42 5 Tennstedt, Klaus , 309, 311 , 317 , 32 4
Ein Heldenleben, 543 n Textual fidelity , 19-21 , 30 , 40, 48, 70 ,
Salomé, 425 , 426 n 84-85, 88n , 89,91,93,98 , 211,
Till Eulenspiegel, 288 , 425-457 , 547 221, 223 , 229, 237 , 241 , 27 2
Stravinsky, Igor , viii, 5 , 13 , 29, 34-35 , 43 , Thayer, Alexander , 74n, 192n ,
52, 54 , 171 , 288n , 338 , 365 , 400n, Thomas, Michae l Tilson , 134 , 167 , 177 ,
414n, 423n , 459 , 475n , 54 1 179, 189 , 221 , 268 , 273 , 461
Octet, 423 n Tortelier, Yan Pascal, 461-62, 48 4
Petrushka, chord, 475 n Toscanini, Arturo , viii, 5 , 8, 23n , 27n , 30 ,
Sacre du Printemps (Rite of Spring), 35, 50 , 55, 57-58, 60n , 69-71 , 84 -
288n, 388 , 388 n 85, 87 , 88n , 89 , 98 , 101 , 102n , 107 ,
Suitner, Otmar , 107 , 162 , 168 , 280 , 283 - 120n, 122n , 126 , 129 , 134 , 142n ,
84, 286 , 290 , 291n , 298 , 300 , 308 , 161, 168 , 183 , 197 , 211,217,221 -
325, 327 , 335, 339-40, 350 , 352, 22, 232 , 243-44, 254 , 265 , 267-68 ,
371, 377,400-401,41 5 273, 278 , 280 , 283-84 , 298 , 300 ,
INDEX 571
311, 321 , 331 , 335 , 337-38 , 340 , 131, 137-38 , 140 , 142n , 1 5 In, 159 ,
342, 345n , 346 , 348 , 350 , 355n , 162-63, 167 , 170 , 177 , 194 , 211,
371, 375 , 377 , 381 , 396 , 423 , 435 - 218, 272n , 273 , 281, 284 , 288n ,
36, 450n, 452-53 , 456n, 464 , 477 , 298, 311 , 340 , 342-43 , 346 , 351n ,
486-87, 490, 539-4 1 366, 381 , 395 , 539-4 0
Tovey, Si r Francis , 31 7 Walton, William , 541 , 54 3
Townsend, Douglas , 319n , 326 n Wand, Günter , 136n , 153 , 308, 340 , 343 ,
Turk, Danie l Gottlob , 73 346
Weber, Car l Mari a von, x, 42, 43 , 67 ,
Van Beinum , Eduard , 300 , 315 , 324, 77-80, 87n , 9 0
340, 37 0 Freischütz Overture , 80-82 , 89
Van de r Rohe , Mies , 433-3 4 Oberon Overture , 8 0
Vaughn-Williams, Ralph , 543 Weber, Gottfried , 7 8
Verdi, Giuseppe , 44 , 45n, 28 0 Weber, Hans , 43I n
Vienna Philharmonic , 131 , 208 , 236-38 , Webern, Anton , viii , 13 , 35 , 52 , 54 , 426 ,
243-44, 283 , 299 , 329-30 , 353, 459
428-30, 442n, 468 Weingartner, Felix , 30 , 50 , 67, 69 , 71 , 75 ,
Von Herzogenberg , Heinrich , 497 n 78, 85 , 87 , 89-90, 100 , 102 , 104 ,
108n, 109 , 1 1 In, 113 , 118n , 138 ,
Wagar, Jeanine , 20n , 35 , 228 163, 181 , 210 , 218 , 232 , 300 , 302 ,
Wagner, Richard , ix, 6n, 7 , 22, 27n, 28 - 327, 377 , 386 , 495 , 49 8
29, 37n , 43, 45 , 59 , 61, 69 , 75-77 , Über da s Dirigieren, 78, 85 , 87 , 102n ,
79-86, 88 , 88n, 90 , 94, 96-102, 104, 108 n
119n, 120 , 132 , 152 , 171 , 180 , 190 , Wodiczko, Bohdan , 543 n
231, 263 , 273 , 280 , 296-97,336n , Wood, Henry , 543 n
395, 399n , 425, 427n, 428, 45 9 Wüllner, Franz , 425, 497n
Die Meistersinger, 80, 82 , 399 n
Parsifal, 8 2 Yannatos, James, 288 n
Siegfried Idyll, 6 n
Tristan un d Isolde (Prelude) , 96 , 336 n Zaslaw, Neal , 42n
Über da s Dirigieren, 27n , 37n , 50n , Zeitlin, Sydne y (flutist) , 48 4
79-85, 90, 94 , 97n-101n, 11 9 Zelter, Kar l Friedrich , 88 n
Walter, Bruno , viii , ix , 6, 15 , 37 , 41, 48 , Zinman, David , 504n , 505n , 515 n
51, 55n , 67, 69 , 75 , 90 , 103 , 108n , Zöller, Karlhein z (Outist), 48 5

(Gunther Schuller) The Compleat Conductor PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Gunther Schuller) The Compleat Conductor PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Compleat Conductor

This page intentionally left blank

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

Copyright © 199 7 by Günther Schuller

I ,ibrary of Congress Cataloging-iii-Pnblication Dat a

classical an d Romanti c piece s o f the standar d literature . Readers—an d compos -

or inappropriat e outcom e o f a performance , i t was essential tha t a grea t par t of

I ow e thanks t o s o man y wh o hav e i n on e wa y or anothe r helpe d m e wit h thi s

me certai n importan t recording s an d out-of-prin t reference book s centra l t o m y

NOTE: A s a specia l accessor y t o Th e Compleat Conductor, ther e i s availabl e i n

Conducting i s surel y the mos t demanding , musicall y all-embracing , an d com -

podium exhibitionists . But these fo r the mos t par t demea n th e ar t of conducting ,

Such servic e ough t t o exten d t o th e musi c o f ou r ow n time , an d I beg , no t

intellectual, an d emotiona l capacitie s to translate a musical scor e int o a n appro -

intellectual capacit y t o analyz e a scor e i n al l o f it s myria d interna l detail s an d

prêter m a musique , i l faut l e réaliser. " (On e shoul d no t interpre t m y music , on e

3. Marguerit e Long , A u Piano avec Maurice Ravel (Paris , 1971) , p . 21 .

The stat e o f conducting , alas , i s today—with som e notabl e an d wonderfu l ex-

something. Mos t o f u s ar e no t fre e enoug h i n ou r arm s an d tors o t o contro l

and 'interpretation ' ar e self-contradictory , sinc e th e wor d 'interpretation ' b y

'interpretation' which , i n conjunction wit h man y othe r considerations , (suc h a s

by Germa n Unite l television . (Thi s typ e o f s f i s especiall y effective—b y wa y of

ing a score , o f what constitute s fine , intelligent , artisti c conducting : harmonic ,

namics; (4 ) timbre; (5 ) rhythm an d articulation ; (6 ) balance an d orchestrational

Certain critics—an d man y conductors , soloists , an d chambe r musician s —have

turn airil y defende d th e takin g of individual interpretive libertie s with th e com -

someone i s to o 'objective ' i n hi s performance , to o cold , to o intellectual , to o

even th e simplicit y and directness—o f Beethove n ar e los t an d mad e t o soun d

by eve r louder , artificiall y produce d performin g levels , mad e possibl e b y th e

the instrument s that th e compose r hear d i n hi s time an d fo r which h e wrot e his

proaches. The y ar e no t willy-nill y interchangeable. Sinc e thes e grea t masters—

by moder n electroni c technology , particularl y th e microphone , th e amplifier ,

gent bo w distributio n is a virtually lost art. Probably it i s very little considere d o r

stantly occu r i n music , suc h a s . If , fo r instance ,

the decisio n ha d bee n mad et o bo w th e phras ea s follows :

then, i f the playe r is not careful , tha t is , conscious

of ho w th e bo w distributio n can negativel y (or positively ) affect th e resul t an d

result wil l b e . I f th e origina l dynami c an d pre -

ferred bowin g ha d bee n , then, with careles s bow-

ing habits , the resul t wil l b e . Such ba d habit s ar e

rampant no w i n America n orchestras , a proble m t o which , alas , man y conduc -

tained i n a composer' s score ? The answe r is an unequivoca l no ; the y aren't; and

likely unbeknownst t o th e casua l uninforme d listener) ; and i f done t o excess , as

these lon g crescendos—ofte n a s long a s sixtee n (o r more ) bars—woul d perhap s

an exquisit e balanc e o f th e intellectua l (tha t is , o f th e mind ) an d o f th e

was uttere d a fe w year s bac k b y Christop h vo n Dohnanyi , a s interviewe d an d

first movemen t ar e th e sam e spee d a s th e sixteenth s o f th e Finale . Wha t i s

tingly, caustically , tha t thes e "fou r principa l temp i d o no t posses s nearl y th e

pression, th e feeling , o f increased momentu m withou t actuall y speedin g u p th e

the conducto r shoul d no t ritar d th e basi c temp o (unless , again , th e compose r

orchestra ca n pla y a piec e i n a wron g tempo , an d hardl y anyon e wil l b e th e

opposing arguments , hopin g t o giv e both th e compose r an d th e performe r their

will affec t a tempo , particularl y i n a voca l piece . Furthermore , i t seems clea r t o

33. I t ma y b e tha t Newma n go t confuse d i n hi s mathematic s o r state d the m clumsily . I t i s possible

cies. Weber , fo r example , mark s on e largo J = 84 , anothe r J = 50 ; andante

fallible, an d occasionall y do make mistake s under variou s time an d energ y con -

elusions, fo r eve n the y se e th e irrationalit y of that . Fo r i f on e begin s b y ques -

namics, of articulation, o f form—throughout th e wor k that needed Mengelberg' s

critical an d self-critica l facultie s a s well . Composin g consist s a s muc h o f re -

based. Bu t perhap s Weingartne r sai d i t best 38 i n speakin g o f the homogeneit y o f

their personalitie s o r behavio r an d th e qualit y o f thei r talent : i n bot h group s

There i s not s o much vita l informatio n normally t o b e foun d outsid e a com -

In a quit e differen t way , the matur e work s o f Webern ar e base d o n th e strict -