Hugo Kauder Symphony No.1 (1920-1)

[Alan Howe]

So is this a case of an over-careful performance under Botstein?

[Mark Thomas]

Maybe he wanted to emphasise Kauder's debt to Mahler, the broader tempi certainly do that somehow.

[Ilja]

Personally, and this is of course pure speculation, it is my impression that Botstein observed the Mahlerian affinities of the work and "Mahlered it up" even further. The urge to "bend" an unknown work towards familiar territory is not an uncommon phenomenon among performers.

Edit: while I was typing, Mark posted a similar thought. Great minds and all that. Sorry.

[Alan Howe]

Have we any idea what the (original) source of the 30-minute duration time is?

For comparison purposes, let's consider recordings of Brahms 4 (excluding period-instrument performances): Giulini in 1989 took 46:19, whereas Chailly in 2007 took 38:31 (there are no issues with repeats here). My guess is that most performances would come in at around half way between these extremes. So, is there any merit in positing a duration time for Kauder 1 of around 34-35 minutes? How might that sound?

Also: all recordings of symphonies from the broad romantic era exhibit a wide range of tempi, so why should we be surprised when Botstein comes in on the slow side here? (Unless there are other issues, such as the technical ability of the orchestra...)

[Mark Thomas]

The duration time estimate is given in the concert programme. Presumably that came from the person who produced the modern edition of the score from the manuscript (but it's only an assumption), who would have totted up the bars and applied the tempo markings. If Kauder used metronome markings then that might give a rough guide to at least what he thought it should sound like, even though we know how unrealistic some composers' metronome markings are. If Kauder didn't use them, though, then it's the editor's tempo guesses we're dealing with and something like "bewegt" is so vague, who knows what the tempo should be? I faced this problem with about 60% of Raff's unrecorded music when estimating durations for my catalogue. In most cases, where a recording has subsequently surfaced, I've been relieved that I'm not too far off the mark, but the longer the span of music the more unreliable they get. For Samson, for example, my estimate of 2 hours 30 minutes was exceeded by a full 30 minutes in the Weimar production, the tempi of which I didn't think unduly slow.

Of course I agree with what you say, Alan, about the general variability of timings and none of it really matters, except to say that adopting a generally faster tempo resulted in a more convincing work, at least to the ears of two of us! 

[Alan Howe]

Frankly, I now find the first movement rushed. It's all so subjective, isn't it? I'd still like to know where that 30-minute figure originally came from. Until we know for sure I'm sticking with Botstein because it's a real-world performance.

[Mark Thomas]

Oh absolutely. I don't find the speeded up first movement rushed but to be honest I can't say that I think very highly of the Symphony, whether it be Botstein's actual performance or an artificially faster one. I have no real knowledge of Kauder but I see he composed a substantial catalogue. Did he have a worthwhile reputation in his lifetime?

[Ilja]

With the unsungs, there is the general problem of the lack of a performance tradition, of course. Giulini's Brahms 4 is a very conscious departure from the performance standard of his time (which lay around the forty minute markt). With Kauder, there's no such standard, so a performer can be forgiven for just seeing what works. That does, however, make the whole thing even more subjective, and there certainly those that consider less known works as a free-for-all to just play with the orchestra. One particularly horrid Taneyev 4 in Rotterdam comes to mind, which started my since-justified loathing of Valery Gergiev.

[Alan Howe]

Just one problem: performance traditions aren't uniform. It may be possible to calculate some sort of 'standard' given a large enough sample, but in reality there's always a wide range of (perfectly valid) approaches affecting all aspects of performance, including tempi. Consider, for example, the approaches to the slow movement of Beethoven's 9th - and how they're being affected by today's thinking on the matter.

What we really need to know is the reasons behind the choices made by Botstein. Suppose his timings are actually fairly 'standard' (whatever that might mean) and the figure of 30 minutes is the outlier (or some kind of pre-performance estimate)? How on earth can we know - unless we have chapter and verse from the man himself? And does it actually matter?

In the final analysis we only have one real-world recorded performance to go on. I'll stick with that - for now.

[eschiss1]

Don't know what his reputation was. Unfortunately of his symphonies only no.4, for 10 instruments, appears to have been published (by Seesaw Music) to date...

[Alan Howe]

Update: I have emailed Botstein, so maybe we'll soon have an answer...

[Mark Thomas]

Thanks, Alan, it'll be fascinating to see what he says.

[Ilja]

Just one problem: performance traditions aren't uniform. It may be possible to calculate some sort of 'standard' given a large enough sample, but in reality there's always a wide range of (perfectly valid) approaches affecting all aspects of performance, including tempi. Consider, for example, the approaches to the slow movement of Beethoven's 9th - and how they're being affected by today's thinking on the matter.

A good point; however, while traditions may not be uniform, there is usually a certain degree of uniformity. Huge differences are, at least in my observation, the exception rather than the rule. And, in an age of constantly traveling conductors and globalized orchestras, increasingly so. There is a reason why, for instance, Celibidache's Bruckner performances evoke such strong reactions: they stray from an - admittedly vague - performance consensus.

From what I've heard, Botstein is generally quite conventional in his choice of tempi, sometimes faster (e.g., Schreker's Psalm 116) and occasionally slower (e.g., Dohnanyi's D minor symphony) than the "competition". It'd be great to hear more about his choices in this work.

[Alan Howe]

an - admittedly vague - performance consensus

I think you're making my point for me. A 'consensus' is often vague - to the point of meaninglessness. It's the lack of uniformity which has caused me to acquire so many different versions of works in the standard repertoire and which piques my curiosity when it comes to new recordings of works that have, say, only been recorded once or a few times.

Huge differences are, at least in my observation, the exception rather than the rule. And, in an age of constantly traveling conductors and globalized orchestras, increasingly so

Well, not all such huge differences are modern phenomena. Consider, for example, Knappertsbusch's extraordinarily slow Parsifal from 1952 (4:32:02) or Weingartner's almost HIP-swift Brahms 3 from 1938 (29:18).

Anyway, we'll soon know with regard to Kauder's 1st whether there's any substance to the 30-minute estimate. I suspect there isn't...

[Alan Howe]

Here are the relevant parts of Mr Botstein's reply to my email:

<<The figure of 30 minutes in the concert program must have been an approximation by the writer based on the writer's perusal of the score. There is another possibility. The work was performed before the Second World War, but if my memory serves me correctly, even in the original performance, a movement was omitted. Our performances were apparently the first complete performances.>> (my emphasis)

<<As you no doubt realize, this was for all intents and purposes, a first performance of a new but old work without any performance history by a composer who is no longer alive. Tempo markings, structural strategies, and transitions all had to be adjusted without changing any notes in order to give the work what I thought would be the most persuasive reading. I am sure there were variations in the timings of the three performances themselves, particularly the one at Carnegie Hall, in part as a result of a necessary adjustment to the acoustics.>> (again, my emphasis)

Apparently we can look forward to a recording, but I'm omitting details until the release is actually announced by the label concerned.

I think we can now be sure that there's no actual substance to the 30-minute duration estimate. It was an approximation, not a recommendation - and wasn't based on any actual performance. In other words, it was merely an educated guess which wasn't borne out by the exigencies of real-world performance and should accordingly be quietly forgotten. We certainly shouldn't attach any claim of authenticity to the 30-minute estimate - however much we might subjectively prefer an artificially speeded-up version.

Any glance at the estimated durations of works listed at IMSLP will demonstrate the difficulties involved, especially with regard to compositions with little or no performance history. The same is true with Toskey's 'Concertos for Violin and Viola'. Take, for example, Hermann Grädener's 2nd Violin Concerto: Toskey's estimate is 30 minutes; however the recording on Toccata comes in at 38:03!  Sound familiar?

There's also no suggestion that Botstein 'Mahlered up' the performance.