Raff/Järvi Chandos vol. 2 - Symphony 5 etc.

[Martin Eastick]

Once again, I have noted the contents of the most recent posts here, and again, accept many of the points being made. The only concession (in my personal opinion) would be that, progressing through the 4 movements, the issue of excessive tempi becomes slightly less of an issue! I still feel that the worst excesses of the opening movement could raise a question of musicality, and at the same time do seem to test the orchestra to the absolute limit! The second movement also loses much without the spaciousness of a mor relaxed approach. Although still with reservations about the third, my sense of disappointment has somewhat lessened by the conclusion!

I would also echo other sentiments raised here concerning Jarvi's 2nd - no problems here at all!

[Mark Thomas]

I suspect, Martin, that this is just a reading which will always divide opinion. I'm not as 100% a convert as Alan obviously is, but I'm more favourably disposed towards it than are you or John. How lucky we are now to have no fewer that seven different recordings about which to debate: Herrmann, Bamert, Butt, Carthy, Stadlmair, Schneider, and now Järvi. Who'd have thought it forty years ago?

[DennisS]

I too have been following all the posts on this thread with close attention. As per my earlier post, I was very much taken aback by Järvi's fast tempi, especially in the opening movement. Following the succeeding posts and bearing in mind the programmatic content of the symphony, together with Raff's metronome indications, I endeavoured to (really) like the new interpretation of the piece. I kept telling myself that this is what the composer wanted. In spite of this, I still did "not get it"! The first movement continued to sound excessively rushed and thereby diminished my listening enjoyment! I did not however post my reservations regarding the Järvi tempi as I felt it "must be me"!!! Now, the latest posts have made me feel less foolish in not liking Järvi's interpretation and indeed, have confirmed to me that I was not incorrect in feeling the way I did. In spite of Järvi's faithfulness to Raff's metronome markings, I cannot believe that Raff would have wanted his symphony to sound "uncomfortably" rushed and thereby impacting on the listening pleasure! I do however, applaud Järvi for setting out to do what he did, interpretation wise, as we are far richer for the listening experience.

[raffite33]

I received my copy on Saturday and have to agree with those who find the first movement too fast, especially the very beginning.  I find the second movement too fast, also.  Had those movements been as close to the metronome timings as the 3rd and 4th, I think it would have made a big difference. 

Half a minute off the first might only have helped a little, but surely 10 minutes flat would have been preferable to the 8.04 accorded the slow movement.  It is still very beautiful, but now lacks that time-standing-still-for-love dreaminess.  Mind you, I intend to listen to it a lot and see if my brain & ear can adjust, but I won't be giving away my Stadlmair or Bamert anytime soon.  Maybe the Chandos issue will draw the attention of BIS to Lenore!

[adriano]

Hi there
A couple of years ago, I visited Tchaikovsky's house in Klin. There I could experiment with his travel metronome,which was but a kind of a tailor's band with marks, according to the tempi. Well, holding with one hand the band at those marks you had then to take the end of the tape with the other hand, on which a stone weight was fixed. From an angle of 90 degrees you had to loose the stone end and see the band swing.
I think discussing about tempi/lenghts and comparing them meticulously in the case of Raff's Symphonies is quite silly. One should rather compare the organics, the interpretation, the balance, the changes of tempi within one same movement - without measuring them with a modern metronome. Last but not least compare the artistic feeling and the respect towards the music's style. Very slow tempi can be wonderfully plyed by great conductors, if they know how to make them interesting.
I once discovered a man in a Zurich Tonhalle concert with an electronic metronome in his hand, that must have been a critic or some other strange man. I approached him during the break, asking him why he would do such a thing and (revealing himself a critic!) he said, that he was on the way of writing a study on Mozart's last Symphonies! I replied "good luck, you poor devil" and mentally sent him to the devil.

[sdtom]

I have the advantage of never hearing the previous versions before so this was a real treat for me. I thought it was wonderful and while I can't comment on Herrmann I can't imagine the first movement being over 5 minutes longer. I like the Super Audio recording also as they add a little extra to the listening experience.
Tom

[Mark Thomas]

That's valuable testimony, Tom. There's no doubt that living with one way of interpreting a piece for 40-odd years will inevitably tend to make one feel that that's the way it should sound.

[sdtom]

It is so true Mark. Do our archives contain a Herrmann recording of the Raff? At some point I would like to hear it.
Tom

[Mark Thomas]

No, Tom, there's no Lenore in our archives I'm afraid.

[adriano]

I could make a MP3 or WAVE file of the Herrmann Lenore recording (which I like very much) and send it to an appropriate address via wetransfer.com, but only starting next tuesday, since I am still in Moscow :-)

[DennisS]

Following this thread has been really stimulating and thought-provoking. Since my last post, I have listened two more times to Järvi's Lenore and still feel as before that I still don't get it, in spite of really wanting to – the first movement being the main stumbling block! UC has taught me to not merely make a statement but give reasons why; not always easy to put into words. In trying to understand why I don't get it, I took a look again at Raff's notes on each movement's programme. I would just like to very briefly refer to his notes regarding movements one and four only. Raff describes the first movement as depicting "the longing for and striving after happiness in love", the fourth "as containing the catastrophe.... Lenore gives herself up to despair .... Rushes into the arms of her lover --- the ride to the churchyard begins", leading to Lenore's death and the conclusion of the movement points to "peace and redemption". For me, the first movement still sounds uncomfortably fast, I would go so far as to say that there is a frantic, frenzied element to the music that I find unsettling, particularly as the listener is thrown into this sound world without any preamble, we go from nothing to all out frenzy. This seems to me to not really fit with Raff's description of the first movement. On the other hand, the faster tempo in the fourth movement lends itself far better to the idea of frenzied, frantic music that the storyline calls for. I guess I am trying to say that I could make a case for justifying the faster tempo of movement number four but not for Järvi's  super-fast movement number 1!

I would also like to make a comment on what we, as listeners, are used to hearing when listening to Raff's Symphony no 5. It has already been stated in this thread that we have been conditioned to hearing Lenore played with much slower tempi that those indicated by Raff's metronome markings. It thereby follows from this statement that that is the way we feel the music should sound. On the other hand, because Järvi has followed almost religiously Raff's metronome markings (more faithfully that any other conductor  - but let's not forget that Järvi has opted for a fractionally faster tempo vis-à-vis Raff's metronome indication in movement no 1!! ) , we should now believe that this is the way the music should sound as per the composer's wishes. For me, this remains a bit of a dilemma. Which sound world has the most validity? Ultimately, the decision rests with the listener, who has to decide which version is the most emotionally satisfying. I prefer Stadlmair's version obviously (even at the risk of this not being what Raff intended?) but others may prefer Järvi's. I am not saying that Järvi's version is bad, nor am I saying it doesn't work – it just doesn't work for me as well as Stadlmair's for example!

I would like to finish this post (sorry for it being so long!) by asking a question. Is there a historical basis why all previous conductors (pre  Järvi) opted for much slower tempi in this symphony, in spite of Raff's metronome markings? I will just add that I again commend Järvi for being true to Raff and although Järvi's version will not be my favourite version, I will return to it every so often for a change of pace –  as Mark has said, it's wonderful to now have seven versions of Lenore for our delectation!

[Mark Thomas]

Is there a historical basis why all previous conductors (pre  Järvi) opted for much slower tempi in this symphony, in spite of Raff's metronome markings?

An interesting question, Dennis. Apart from Raff's metronome markings, the only evidence which we have for the duration of the Symphony in 19th century performances is in Theodor Müller-Reuter's Lexikon der Deutschen Konzertliteratur, which gives indicative performance timings of many then current major works, including those by Raff. The Lexikon gives these startling timings (I've added a comparison with Järvi):

Müller-Reuter:
I.  8 mins  II. 9 mins  III. 7 mins   IV. 10 mins   Total: 35 mins

Järvi:
I.  10:33   II. 8:08     III. 9:17      IV. 11:55      Total: 39:54

Now, Müller-Reuter knew Raff well (he was his pupil) and respected him. He could well have heard Raff conduct the Symphony, which Raff did on several occasions, and presumably he observed at least the spirit of his own tempi indications. I must admit that I find it very hard to believe that those timings are accurate for an uncut performance of the work, but Reuter is at pains in his introduction to the Lexikon to make it clear that his performance timings are the average of many observations of full performances, and Lenore is by no means the only Raff symphony to have very fast timings - Reuter reckons that the Seventh (over 50 mins in modern performances) would be over in 33 mins! On the other hand, several of the shorter symphonies have indicative durations which are very similar to modern performances. So, make of Reuter what you will. 

Because the Symphony was played so infrequently during the 20th century, I doubt whether Herrmann had ever heard it played before he took it up. Toscanini had performed Im Walde in the USA, but not Lenore, I believe. So the recent performance tradition, such as it is, was created by him in his 1970 LP recording. But, he had conducted it at least once before, in 1949, for a live broadcast on CBS radio in the USA. Once again, it's interesting to compare his timings:

1949:
I. 12:20    II. 10:45    III. 11:04    IV. 14:41    Total: 48:50

1970:
I. 15:02    II. 14:03    III. 12:36    IV. 14:46    Total: 56:27

Interesting, isn't it? Apart from the finale, his view of the Symphony became substantially more expansive in the intervening years, and his earlier view of it was much more in accord with that of, say, Stadlmair amongst our modern interpreters. Yet, because many of us Raff enthusiasts had only Hermann's 1970 performance  to listen to for twenty years, that, by default, became the benchmark against which we tend to judge newcomers.

I'm not sure what conclusion to draw from all this, except to echo Adriano's point that mere overall movement timings aren't in themselves indicative of very much.

[mjkFendrich]

But, he had conducted it at least once before, in 1949, for a live broadcast on CBS radio in the USA. Once again, it's interesting to compare his timings ...

Do you perhaps have this recording? ... and maybe even post it as download (regardless of sound quality) ? 
That would be great!

[Mark Thomas]

Mike, I do have the recording. It is in poor sound and missing the first few bars of the first movement. I'll happily post it, but not yet. As you can see here, I have a major problem with MediaFire at present, which seems to have wiped all my UC downloads, and I'm not posting anything, anywhere, until that's resolved. Remind me if I forget, please.

[mbhaub]

This issue of timing is quite interesting. I haven't heard the Jarvi yet - but I do recall years ago when the Nicholas Carthy recording came out that there was a lot of discussion about his relatively brisk (12:25) first movement. I liked it, others didn't. In general I like faster tempos and it's no surprise that one of my favorite conductors of the past was Paul Paray who moved music along at quite a good clip.

Last night, after a rehearsal of Scheherazade, at a nearby pub we got to talking about the differences in tempo we were taking vs. the markings in the score. The conductor was present and offered this: quite often, "composer's time" is different from "performer's time" vs. "listener's time". As a composer himself, he said that while he was composing something he would think thru it mentally and come up with what he thought would be an ideal tempo. Yet, when someone else played it - at the marked tempo - even he thought it sounded wrong. His internal clock said one thing, but hearing it was a different matter. And he said the same thing happens as a conductor. He might think he's going at a moderately quick tempo, but listening to the playback reveals he was going too fast. So the idea of tempo is more fluid than we might think. He also added that as orchestras grew larger, tempos just naturally slowed - a kind of musical inertia. That would explain why during the 20th c Beethoven got so much slower as the big bands grew to over 100 players and a modern, period-instrument orchestra (COE) can play so much quicker.

Anyway, maybe that's part of the answer: what Raff heard in his head, what he heard while he was conducting wasn't the reality for the audience. But by any measure, 8 minutes (!) for the first movement seems impossible - there had to be cuts.