For your blog post due Monday, January 13 at 9 am, please consider
our class discussion as led by Prof. Jimenez from the afternoon on Friday,
January 10, and comment in 250-500 words on the following points:
· What did you know
about today’s subject before the listening and/or discussion session?
· What did you find
most surprising about today’s subject?
· What would you
like to know more about after experiencing today’s class?
Your post should be placed directly in the comments to this blog
entry, and is due at 9 am on Monday, January 13.
I’ve never taken a conducting class so I literally know nothing about conducting Beethoven symphonies before. However, I do learn some information about early orchestration and instrumental development in music history 347 last semester. I understood that the earlier string section is already similar as we know today, the woodwind section was finally established with only single players per part; woodwind in pairs with the occasional visit of an auxiliary instrument. I also know that the brass is still under development.
ReplyDeleteThe introduction of two significant figures in instrument development is new to me. Francois Xavier Tourte for string instruments has changed the design of bow, make it able to sound from the frog to the tip by changing the weight and curve of the wood, and expanded the rage. The bow designed and improved by him is very similar to the bow nowadays using the string players. Theobal Bohm, who mainly contributed to the woodwind, redesigned the flute and also redesigned the fingering system. These methods are adopted by oboes as well afterward.
In the lecture, the part most interesting for me is about how to interpret Beethoven’s symphony. As Prof. Jimenez said, Beethoven’s manuscripts are not clear enough for others to understand. For example, the f usually means a sudden emphasis but not “a strong voice” in a broad sense; the mf does not really exist; Beethoven wants to attach notes but they are not always indicated on the score; also, the tempo needs to be discussed as well. It is kind of hilarious to see how the later musicians such as Wagner extolled Beethoven’s works while at the same time belittling some of the details of his music. He adapted Beethoven’s original to some extent because he thought some of the notes are not important or even distracting. For me, extensive erasure of the composer’s work is unimaginable, but for people of Wagner's time, perhaps such an adaptation would have been easier to understand. Like Prof. Jimenez mentioned in the lecture, it is because we know the instrument, the orchestration, and Beethoven better than earlier times so we could follow and study directly on the original manuscript now.
If there’s any chance, I would like to study more on the collaboration of an orchestra. Prof. Jimenez said there’s always a balance between the conductor’s own “ego” and the orchestra’s capability that the conductor needs to control, and I think this will be an interesting topic to discuss (but might be a little Digressive to our course).
I knew very little about the topics discussed by Professor Jimenez on Friday prior to class. I knew a little bit about the history of the trombone and when it started being used in orchestras, and I knew vaguely about the invention of valves and how trumpets and french horns were limited to the harmonic series in the Baroque and Classical eras, but unaware of how that affected Beethoven’s compositions.
ReplyDeleteIt was very interesting to learn about the evolution of orchestration, from the two violin voices and the accompanimental viola, cello, and bass, to the inclusion of woodwinds, and finally, brass. On Friday evening, I had the opportunity to watch somewhat of an evolution of orchestrations and The Cleveland Orchestra performance. I witnessed a classical orchestra instrumentation (with solo piano) in Mozart’s Piano Concerto No. 24, with 1 flute, 2 oboes, 2 clarinets, 2 bassoons, 2 horns, 2 trumpets, timpani, and strings. In the same concert was Dvorak’s Symphony No. 4 with 2 flutes (doubling on pic.), 2 oboes, 2 clarinets, 2 bassoons, 4 horns, 2 trumpets, 3 trombones, tuba, timpani + 3 percussion, and strings- a relatively typical big orchestra. Finally in this concert, was Janáček’s Sinfonietta, composed in the twentieth century, featuring 4 flutes (1 doubling on pic.), 2 oboes, english horn, 2 clarinets, e-flat clarinet, bass clarinet, 2 bassoons, 4 horns, 12 trumpets, 2 bass trumpets, 3 trombones, 2 Wagner tubas, tuba, timpani + 2 percussion, harp, and strings. Watching this concert after Professor Jimenez’s lecture allowed me to pay more attention to the roles of each instrument, and allowed me to be more attentive to the musical style of each piece, based on the instrumentation and era.
It surprised me to hear about many of the ways the technology available influenced Beethoven’s symphonies. The insight into his orchestration decisions because of limitations of an instrument is something I was unaware of, leading me to think about historical performances vs modern performances of these symphonies and just how different they would be. Would Beethoven have written differently if he had the technology of our time available to him? Would that make the symphonies ‘better?’ Should this affect our performances of his works?
I previously knew a fair amount about historical instruments and modern developments because of the music history class I took this past semester, The History and Development of Musical Instruments. I’m especially familiar with the history of the horn, both because it’s what I play and because the winter term project I did my first year was an introductory class on the natural horn. I knew that Beethoven’s symphonies were written almost entirely for natural horn, which I think about when I play excerpts from them. I was also familiar with how he wrote for trumpets and trombones, both from my history of musical instruments class and from Music History 101.
ReplyDeleteThe thing I would say I found most surprising about Friday’s lecture was when we talked about the invention of the metronome. It was mentioned briefly in class a few days ago that the tempo markings Beethoven added in seem questionable, but I didn’t even know that Beethoven wrote in tempo markings before we talked about it. I think I previously assumed that tempo markings were added in by editors or publishers after Beethoven wrote the piece.
After Friday’s class, I would like to know more about the revised editions of Beethoven’s symphonies that Mahler and Wagner arranged. I didn’t know that they did this before Friday’s class; we talked in Music History 101 about how several people changed and reorchestrated Handel’s Messiah, but I didn’t realize that this was done with Beethoven’s works.
I’m also very curious about the clarinet– I didn’t realize that Beethoven was so fond of it before this class. I find the clarinet very intriguing because, unlike other instruments, it wasn’t really going through new developments before reaching a new version– it was just simply a new instrument. I find it interesting that Beethoven took to the clarinet, and would like to know more about his relationship with it.
Before Friday's lecture, I was already familiar with some of the ideas presented, having taken the conducting courses III and IV with Professor Jimenez (and played in Oberlin Orchestra many times) and having explored other ideas on my own. The prevalence of Beethoven excerpts on orchestral audition lists, Classical orchestration and the orchestration of Beethoven's symphonies, rhythmic assimilation, Beethoven's caution with winds in high registers, the limitations of the natural horn, the amazing creativity of Beethoven's timpani writing, troubles with interpreting articulation marks, Beethoven's mastery of dynamics, the metronome controversy, and Professor Jimenez's philosophy for choosing tempos were all familiar to me, as well as a bunch of other specific things.
ReplyDeleteI didn't know the name of the man - Theobald Bohm - to come up with the modern fingering system for flute (and oboe and clarinet, after a fashion). I'm curious to know more about that, as I'd always thought that the oboe and clarinet had different key systems. I imagine multiple sources contributed to the modern versions, some shared some not. I'd like to learn more about this!
I've always found Beethoven's woodwind writing very distinct and recognizable, but hadn't realized that it was generally high, nor that Beethoven's use of the clarinet is what helped glue the sounds of the different instruments together. I definitely want to study his woodwind writing more.
Before Friday, I knew that some composers, including Mahler, had re-orchestrated Beethoven's symphonies for larger orchestras and instruments with more octaves available, but not much more about the subject. Unlike Wagner, who seemed to want to get to some strange Platonic ideal of Beethoven's music, I think that limitations make creative and artistic works better. Beethoven is known for developing entire pieces from tiny motives. The limitation makes the music organic and impressive. Another example is the limitation of the natural horn that Professor Jimenez talked about: In the first movement of Symphony No. 5, Beethoven gives the statement leading into the second theme to the horns in the exposition but to the bassoons in the recapitulation. In my opinion, this is much better and more interesting than giving both iterations to the horns. In a Classical way, giving the statement to a different instrument when it is in a different key helps the audience hear the difference on first listen. When I hear the bassoons I know "Oh, it's different this time - the instrument is different, the character is different, the meaning is different - and we're going somewhere new!" This orchestration choice was forced by limitation, but lead to a more interesting result than might have been achieved without limitation.
I really enjoyed the lecture Friday from Maestro Jiménez and I learned a lot. I previously knew how orchestration worked – listing the numbers to show how many parts per section of the orchestra – and I knew many of the excerpts for other instruments to which he referred in the nine symphonies. I also knew how Beethovenian articulation styles worked, but I didn’t realize that many of those marks in Beethoven’s scores were ambiguous!
ReplyDeleteThere were lots of parts of the talk that were interesting to me and new information. For example, I didn’t know the Beethoven used the “classical orchestra” mostly until the 5th symphony, where he begins to experiment and expand. As I now consider the difference in sound between the symphonies with the classical orchestra and those with an expanded orchestration, I can recognize the difference in color possibilities. What I found most interesting in the lecture was the material describing the points of view of Wagner and Mahler. I understand the divorcement of the music from the orchestration. I think that musical ideas probably exist in a plane elevated from the physical instruments at our disposal to manifest them. However, it’s tricky – Beethoven’s musical ideas, on some level, must have been tied to the instruments that would represent them, and therefore he wanted what he wrote down. It seems silly to think that someone that isn’t Beethoven would be able to do a better job at notating Beethoven’s ideas, regardless of technological improvements. I think it’s easier to accept it in a scenario like the flute/violin range issue that the Maestro pointed out. However, as soon as phrase lines are altered and the notes are more substantially changed, it makes me uncomfortable to think that someone else would make those decisions for him!
I look forward to hearing more of the symphonies and thinking more about the orchestration topics that Maestro Jiménez discussed. I think that it will make me think deeper about what musical ideas consist of and how Beethoven’s use of instruments affects my perception of the music.
I’ve never taken a conducting class before, so I don’t know much about conducting, let alone how to conduct Beethoven’s symphonies. Before Prof. Jimenez’ lecture, I also didn’t know how precise Beethoven was with his orchestrations of the symphonies, and how much Beethoven influenced orchestration. For example, in some symphonies he used doubling in the woodwind section, which wasn’t used often in the classical era. Beethoven remained conservative in his percussion, because he only used two drums, like was customary of the time. However, as Prof. Jimenez said in his discussion, he was so creative in his use of the drums.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate Prof. Jimenez’ observation about conducting in general: instrumentalists have the wonderful opportunity to construct a musical interpretation, try it out, adjust and perfect it; however, conductors have to do a lot more in their own mind with the score, because they only have a few rehearsals where they can truly hear the music.
I found it interesting to learn that Beethoven struggled over the right color and balance of the instruments. I was fascinated, for example, to hear that Beethoven was so infatuated with the sound of the clarinet and its role as a “glue”.
I found it quite surprising that the articulation markings (e.g. wedge vs dot staccato) in Beethoven’s manuscripts are very unclear because of his poor handwriting. Since I have never personally seen them, it makes me curious to see the original manuscripts! Also, I support Prof. Jimenez’ viewpoint regarding Beethoven’s unrealistic tempi, because I’ve always felt that it is more honorable to strive for a convincing sound and interpretation than to slavishly follow the composer’s suggestions. Prof. Jimenez subsequently stated that composers, even modern ones, frequently misjudge their tempo suggestions, because a faster tempo sounds good in their mind’s ear, but not necessarily in reality.
It was nice that Prof. Jimenez also talked about the technological development of the orchestral instruments, and later composers’ arrangements of Beethoven’s symphonies. It is interesting that later composers, like Wagner and Mahler, re-orchestrated Beethoven’s symphonies for larger orchestras and contemporary instruments (which had more octaves). But I found it quite weird that Mahler added the tuba to the ninth symphony! When I recently heard Mahler’s orchestration of the 9th, I found the sound (with added tuba) a little too “modern” for what I recognize as Beethoven’s style/sound.
Prof. Jimenez’ lecture makes me want to be more attentive to the instrumental configuration of an orchestra whenever I attend an orchestral performance.
This class was really excellently taught; it was unfortunate I had to leave when I did because I really did appreciate hearing someone which such a practical and intimate familiarity with Beethoven discuss orchestra make up of the period as well as the peculiarities of Beethoven’s written tempos. I tend to think of the orchestra as always existing more or less as it does now, as a finished product, so it was eye-opening to hear how even in Beethoven’s time elements of the orchestra were still being figured out and even some instruments were still being adjusted and updated, with innovations such as Tourte’s violin bow and Stoelzel’s valves for brass instruments.
ReplyDeleteOne of the previous instructors had mentioned briefly that some people theorize Beethoven's metronome might have been off, so I appreciated the in-depth discussion of the problems with Beethoven's tempos, as well as the unplayable tempos of some modern-day classical music. It was also interesting hearing how Wagner and others, while still worshipping Beethoven and his music, sought to "clarify" it through edits. This is somewhat bizarre to me in part because my ear is so untrained I can't really hear the problems they have and also in part because I never think of legends of the literary world such as Shakespeare ever having their work adjusted after their deaths. This leads into my question: was Beethoven alone in how his work was edited after his death or was this standard practice for composers at the time?