Hofzinser wrote:
Although now that I think about it a fresh thread each time might be better for tempting in new recruits so I'd maybe suggest it on that basis.

That's a good point.

Bruno wrote:
There are a number of people who indicated interest but have yet to pipe up on the Eroica Symphony.

I have been one of the lurkers - apologies for that - mainly because I don't have a lot to contribute on this particular work.

I find Beethoven's symphonies interesting mainly from a formal point of view. I listened to them a lot when I was a teenager, playing in my school orchestra, discovering classical music and learning how a classical symphony is put together (what is sonata form, what's a rondo, and so on). But nowadays, although I will still quite happily listen to the Eroica (as I did when it was suggested as this month's piece), it doesn't really grab hold of me emotionally and I can't find a great deal to say about its form that has not already been very well said by others on the thread. If I am listening to Beethoven at the moment, it's more likely to be one of the late quartets or piano sonatas than a symphony.

Very good thread though, I have been lurking with great interest and will continue to do so. Maybe I will have more to contribute in the future if we listen to some Bruckner, Mahler or Sibelius - or to something that I don't know at all and can jump in with my first impressions.

I feel a bit similar to Half Century. I have listened to the Eroica in the last few days, to a version from a mono set that I'm very fond of comprising Beethoven symphonies conducted by Hermann Scherchen. I enjoyed it, and have been mulling over the many excellent comments made here, but found I didn't have a lot to add. I, too, will be hoping to be more forthcoming about future pieces.

Skimming through the article on Scherchen you linked, I noticed the mention of his son Wulff's boyhood relationship with Benjamin Britten. This book looks to be a fascinating, very thought-provoking read. Thomas Mann leaps to mind as well, of course.

Scherchen was a remarkable conductor. The bit about often not using a baton: I've got his recording of Schoenberg's Five Orchestra Pieces (op. 16) and...you sense he's not using a baton (nor is he on the cover photo). It seems to make for a curious blend of expressionism and impressionism that sounds just about right, to me.

A couple of things before we wrap this up and move on, then.

Nobody has mentioned Beethoven's deafness yet. But the Eroica has a very different sonority to anything that went before - richer and deeper - even though the orchestra that this is scored fore isn't significantly larger than the forces required for a late Mozart or Haydn symphony. It can only be a matter of cojecture, but to what extent did the fact that Beethoven heard things differently bring this about? (There's that business of him, later in his life, having the legs of his piano sawn off so that he could "hear" the music he was composing and playing through the vibrations of the floorboards.)

And secondly, some interpretations of the work omit or add repeats of certain sections. If this is done, does it affect one's appreciation of the work? To what extent is a conductor justified in this sort of re-presentation of the composer's instructions and intentions?

On the second point, section repeats were sort of a default feature of sonata form and its predecessor ABA form. The question of whether or not to repeat the exposition section of a sonata form, before proceeding to the development section, became more subject to performer choice as the form expanded in length and complexity.

First, the repeats are almost always indicated in the early Romantic scores as a vestigial convention of the Classical period; if a conductor doesn't do the exposition repeat, it's generally because he's exercising his discretion as part of a later tradition where not repeating became acceptable. Presumably, section repeats were the product of an age where you had limited opportunities to hear and absorb current music. A person might only hear Beethoven's Eroica or Mozart's 40th performed at most 3 or 4 times in his entire life. (Hence the proliferation of piano reductions of orchestral scores, to bring this music into people's salons.)

Second, the reason the option of doing away with section repeats became acceptable and even normalized was because the repeats quite naturally signposted an outmoded convention. As sonata form became more complex and open-ended, where the exposition might want to flow seamlessly into the development section, jumping back to the beginning started to sound antiquated. Also, as expositions became ever larger (the Eroica being a prime example), repeating them could throw off the structural balance or equipoise of the movement (as it had never been the convention to repeat either the development section or the recapitulation; although in earlier ABA form the B section was often repeated).

So, I think given that we now have unlimited opportunities to hear these works played, omitting repeats isn't such a big deal and doesn't really affect my personal appreciation. That said, certain works I like hearing it more than others (Beethoven's 7th mvt. 1, for example, I could do without it, whereas I feel it's really kind of necessary in Schubert's Unfinished Symphony).

On deafness, I did mention that a page or two ago; Beethoven wasn't completely deaf until the 1810s, but I think his desire for more power was well in evidence before he started losing his hearing and would have taken that course anyway. I think what the deafness did most was contribute to the esoteric/abstruse quality of his later chamber music (the piano sonatas and string quartets).

I should correct myself slightly and say that sometimes in early sonata form, you will see a repeat marked at the end of a recapitulation indicating a return to the beginning of the development section.

The main thing I picked up from it was a sense of uncertainty, a tentative feeling. Which makes sense if he was breaking new ground - it's lonely in the vanguard. If this is heroism, it's a very complex, nuanced heroism, more Watchmen than Superman.

The point about it having a beat was well-made. I can't recall tapping a foot to Haydn or Mozart, but this - the propulsive first movement in particular - positively demands rhythmic engagement.

Feel free to carry on my account too – I’ve managed to have one listen so far and it’ll probably be tricky for me to give a considered comment, such as it would be anyway, for a while yet.
I was talking on the phone to a mate the other night who’s in a similar boat as me, both of us listen to a wide variety of pop and associated forms but more recently dabbled with a little bit of classical (the Planets seems to be a common gateway drug) and we agreed that we don’t exactly get what we’re listening to, in the sense that a little background reading is needed to comprehend what’s going on, why such and such a piece is a departure or what’s being alluded to etc. I’m trying not to do that for this exercise, only skimreading the earlier responses. Maybe that’s a mistake, but we’ll see.
The recording I’ve got of “Eroica” is from Vienna in 1933. What struck me more than the actual music was that feeling I sometimes get with black and white films that everyone involved in that night (or afternoon, maybe it was a matinee) is long dead – possibly an infant or two from the audience may still be about. The long gone world Bruno alluded to on another thread.
I was slightly surprised as to how unstriking I found the actual music, perhaps a grower? I found the third movement the most immediate.
I was going to say that I thought Beethoven wasn’t entirely deaf until later, but I see that’s been dealt with…

1933 was still the early days of electrical (monophonic) recording of course, so it's possible that the recording quality influenced your reaction. I'm very much a scratchy record buff but they may not provide the best introduction to certain music. (Mahler's symphonies, for example, got a lot more popular once recording technology had started to catch up with the sonic demands of the music, which I don't think was a coincidence.)

The Eroica (any Beethoven symphony) should sound very dynamic, and a recording from the early 30s is going to be significantly limited in range and not pack nearly the same punch as a good modern one.

As for "comprehending what's going on" it should always be secondary to simply enjoying the music. If it weren't viscerally appealing it never would have made waves in the first place.

NEWSFLASH!!

BBC Radio 3's Discovering Music is featuring the Eroica between 5 and 6:30pm a week on Sunday (21st February).

The programme will examine the symphony stage by stage and then there will be a full performance by the BBC National Orchestra of Wales. Assuming it follows previous "episodes" of the show, this one should also be available for Listen Again pretty much in perpetuity.

Ooh, excellent. Thanks for the heads up.

Well, I think there's still a bit of life in the discussion of the Eroica yet, so I expect this thread to continue for a little while - especially if anybody picks up some points from that (usually very illuminating) BBC radio programme. However, I'll suggest that Bruno gets ready to kick off the next topic some time in the next few days. I don't think there'll be much harm if we discuss something else in parallel with this Beethoven - and it may even be the case that some comparison and contrast might be helpful.

If I wanted to hear this BBC program how would I go about it?

And yes, I'll ponder our next move over the weekend.

The archive of past programmes is at

www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/discoveringmusic/listeninglibrary.shtml

so the Eroica one should be available there at the appropriate time.

However, very often BBC stuff on their webpages isn't accessible from outside the UK. If it isn't, you'll probably need someone to record it for you, or find a way of getting the download to you.

Just a reminder that the programme is on at 5pm later today!

Did anybody listen? And if so, did it add anything to the piece for you?

I missed the broadcast because I was away last week, but I intend to try to catch up with it some time soon.

I recorded it and have just listened to it. In summary, the presenter's main points were:

In the first movement Beethoven uses (groundbreaking) dissonance to signify the failure of a tragic hero, who doesn't quite reach the vital summit of his task.

For the second, funeral march movement, the presenter looks back through Beethoven's notes at how he went through 32 versions before arriving at the final version in which phrases collapse and are separated by silences, suggesting that words cannot express the sense of failure and loss.

The presenter avoids the third movement, which he says is theeasiest to grasp on one hearing. It denotes vibrant life returning after the bleakness.

The fourth movement brings us a new hero, Prometheus. Heroism is gradually put back together again from the skeleton fragments early in the movement to the fleshed out, fully fledged tune at the end.

The final movement depicts warfare between science and the arts / creativity. Repeating high B flat notes over and over again shows the success of this new hero in contrast to the failed hero of the first two movements.

Ooh, thanks for that. I still haven't got round to listening to it myself.

Hmm, I'm not sure I'm buying the 'failed hero' narrative. Sounds a little too Mahlerian.