th<\/sup> is slightly more flexible than in the earlier symphonies. There are more obvious mistakes than in the other symphonies, and in the case of the Trio of the Scherzo and the Turkish March in the Finale, I\u2019m not satisfied with any of the simple solutions put forward (generally of the \u201cright number, wrong unit\u201d variety).<\/p>\nMany scholars feel the \u00a0“old” dotted-quarter=84 \u201ccan\u2019t\u201d be right. It is pretty slow. Therefore, they suggest that Beethoven gave Karl the right number, but the wrong unit- that the tempo Beethoven really mean was dotted-half=84.<\/p>\n
The instrumental music of the Turkish March actually sounds rather witty at the dotted-half=84 suggested by Jonathan Del Mar and most HIP conductors (and I agree that dotted-quarter=84 does sound slow). However, Beethoven was far too concerned with text to expect a tenor to sing that many words at that speed- it sounds like a German speed-reading exercise rather than music or poetry, when it should be both. Just getting the notes out at that speed is something only the most agile tenors can do. Guys who can sing that fast are Handel tenors, not Beethoven tenors. Note that the soloists on most recorded fast\u00a0 versions of the Turkish March are incredibly close-miked.<\/p>\n
Also, the fugue that follows and the big 6\/8 restatement of the \u201cJoy\u201d theme sound unintentionally comical at dotted-half=84. I take that section at\u2026.. wait for it\u2026.. the tempo of a rather brisk Turkish March\u2026.. About dotted-quarter= 126.<\/p>\n
Turning back to the second movement, even Jonathan Del Mar seems to have given up hope of making sense of the metronome marking of the Trio (“thh true metronome marking of the Trio is irretrievably lost”). Printed as Presto<\/em>, half-note=116 in many editions, this seems perverse because this Presto<\/em> follows a Molto vivace<\/em> and a stringendo<\/em> that starts at, you guessed it, dotted-half=116. \u00a0Taken at face value, this would mean we accept that Beethoven was asking the performer to speed up from a Molto vivace<\/em> to a Presto<\/em> that was slower than the music that preceded it (remember, if half=116, then dotted-half would be 78).<\/p>\nSome have suggested the correct marking is bar=116 the marking in the old Breitkopf edition, but this is impossibly fast.<\/p>\n
I think, hover, that there is a clue in the fact the markings are the same. LvB dictated the metronome marks to his nephew Karl (poor kid). I think he got to the Presto and shouted to Karl, \u201cstringendo to Presto<\/em> and then the unit speed stays the same,\u201d so Karl wrote down the same metronome marking. What I think Beethoven meant was that the speed of the quarter note should stay the same as one goes through the double bar between \u00be and 2\/2. That means my Trio is in one, and pretty darn fast, but not 116. \u00a0About 84 to the bar. Del Mar suggests half-equals 160, which is very nearly the same speed, but, in my opinion, absolutely the wrong “feel.” This music cries out to be felt “in one,” not “in two.” Everything about the phrase structure and the harmonic rhythm indicates there is one impulse per bar.<\/p>\nI think there are some interesting threads to explore between the different markings. Rather than using a marking as an absolute measure of speed, it provides a very useful measure of relative speed. One can look at the whole piece and see that Beethoven conceived of some sections or movements as sharing tempi, while others are very closely juxtaposed as slightly faster or slightly slower than ones with which they share thematic or harmonic relationships.<\/p>\n
Surely it is no accident that the first and last tempos in the symphony are the same (the beginning is quarter=88, the final Prestissimo<\/em> is bar=88), especially given that Beethoven uses the same shift from subdivision in 8 to 6 (or 6 to 8 ) in both sections.<\/p>\nLikewise, the tempo of the opening of the 3rd<\/sup> mvt, Adagio molto e cantabile<\/em>, is the same as the Adagio, ma non troppo, ma divolto,<\/em> 60 beats\/minute.\u00a0 The Allegro ma non tanto<\/em> episode (bar 763 in the Finale) is marked 120 bpm. This is interesting, because I and just about every other conductor I know makes a 2-1 tempo relationship at the following poco adagio<\/em> (bar 810 and again at bar 832). I always did this instinctively, then much later realized that this landed me, in theory, at the same tempo as the other two Adagio<\/em>\u2019s in the symphony, 60 bpm. This is also the same tempo as the final Maestoso<\/em> at bar 916.<\/p>\nOn the other hand, I probably take the very end of the symphony a little faster than bar=88, maybe bar= 96, and I take the very beginning of the symphony a little slower, maybe 76 or 80.\u00a0 In spite of the discrepancy, I\u2019m mindful of the connection between the two sections. I hope that comes through in performance.<\/p>\n
Also, I\u2019ve always felt the Allegro ma non tanto<\/em> worked best for me a little slower than the printed 120 bpm, usually settling around 112. I did this for many years on instinct, feeling that it allowed more room to build the tempo in the ensuing Presto<\/em> and Prestissimo<\/em>. How pleased am I to find out that this slightly slower allegro tempo means that my 3 Adagios,<\/em> all settle at the same speed, since I\u2019ve always found 60 bpm for the 3rd<\/sup> mvt Adagio<\/em> to be a little pressed.<\/p>\nThus, whenever I see the same metronome mark appear twice, it almost always turns out to be important. The exception for me is the 84 bpm of the Turkish March (bar 331 in the Finale) and the double fugue (Allegro energico e sempre ben marcato, bar 655). As I said above, I\u2019ve got pretty grave reservations about the legitimacy of the 84 bpm marking for the March because of the word setting (unless one accepts the old, slow marking). On the other hand, I\u2019m sure the marking for the fugue (dotted-half=84) \u00a0is basically right, even though it\u2019s a good bit slower than most people, especially conductors of a \u201cscholarly\u201d bent, take it. I think when you take it slow-ish lots of good things happen. First, the players can play the notes. The running sextuplets in the strings are usually a sad, totally faked mess, even when played by great orchestra, at the keystone cops tempo for the fugue one so often hears. Second, at a slower tempo the music has genuine grandeur and epic power. I like that. Third, at Beethoven\u2019s tempo, you can hear the moments of dissonance, and follow the contrapuntal interplay far more acutely. Finally, it causes the skies to open, and the holy power of the cosmos to shower down good energy on the audience. Okay, I can\u2019t actually prove that one.<\/p>\n
Whatever you make of the tempo of the Turkish March, there is a continuum of tempi in the \u201c80\u2019s\u201d throughout the Finale. The first appearance of the \u201cJoy\u201d theme is 80 bpm. The double fugue is a little faster, 84 bpm, but made of the same musical material (the \u201cJoy\u201d theme, now combined with the \u201cSeid umschlungen\u201d theme), then the final Prestissimo<\/em> (also made from the \u201cJoy\u201d theme) is 88 bpm; as already mentioned the same tempo as the opening of the symphony. I see this process of tempo intensification as structurally important. The exact numbers might, maybe even should, vary from night to night, \u00a0orchestra to orchestra, conductor to conductor, but I do think\u00a0 each of those three sections needs to get faster. With all that in mind, I also think the logical case for the Turkish March being dotted-quarter=84 becomes stronger.<\/p>\nThat which Beethoven says must be the same, that which he says must be faster must be faster, that which he says must be slower must be slower.<\/p>\n
Or at least in the neighborhood thereof\u2026..<\/p>\n