Schumann memorably
termed Beethoven’s Fourth Symphony
"a slender Grecian maiden between
two Nordic giants". Well, with
a standard orchestra Philippe Herreweghe
shows her svelte aspects but she also
packs a punch as from the same stable
as Beethoven 3 and 5. His introduction
is clean, cool, concentrated, with
an air of pleasant expectancy, the
quavers lightly treated. The Allegro
vivace explodes gaily, the first
part of its second theme (tr. 1 3:32)
light and jocular, the second part
(4:01) smooth and contented on clarinet
and bassoon but bracing in the strings’
response. This is typical of the many
outbursts and Herreweghe brings a
fresh exuberance to them all with
lively attention to and vivid realization
of Beethoven’s strong contrasts of
dynamic.
The slow movement’s
cantabile theme is spaciously
presented which clarifies its shape
yet the texture is kept lean and transparent,
the ticking accompaniment crisp. The
clarinet solo second theme (tr. 2
2:11) is expansive yet melting. The
central section (4:12) is a little
sterner but still trim and the return
of the opening theme on the flute
has a refreshingly pristine quality.
This is unfussy, classical presentation,
yet with bite where appropriate. Herreweghe’s
ability quickly to contrast verve
and suaveness is again to be heard
in the scherzo. The trio, marked less
fast, fittingly has a touch more lilt
in the wind but the strings remain
ever restless and propulsive. In the
finale the second theme (tr. 4 0:31)
is more blithe and Herreweghe brings
to the playful strings an improvisatory
feel, as in the deft cellos and basses’
take up (0:37) while the mettlesome
tuttis are busy, eager and
exultant. Altogether, then, Herreweghe’s
Beethoven 4 is very attractive: light
on its feet, lively, firmly contrasted
and with a classical discipline. But
for mystery and a romantic focus on
drama, look to the ever pacier Järvi
with chamber orchestra. Here are the
comparative timings
Timings |
i |
ii |
iii |
iv |
total |
Herreweghe |
11:26 |
9:22 |
5:44 |
6:45 |
33:17 |
Järvi |
10:50 |
8:35 |
5:28 |
6:08 |
31:01 |
To the introduction
of the first movement Paavo Järvi
brings mystery and colour. The presence
of the horns (tr. 1 0:52), then the
string bass (1:11) imparts an ominous
feeling. Järvi’s Allegro vivace
eruption is more spicy and animated
than Herreweghe’s. The first part
of Järvi’s second theme (tr.
1 3:28) is as light but rather merrier
than Herreweghe’s while the second
part (3:57) moves from blithe clarinet
and bassoon to vivacious strings in
a sheer irrepressible sweep. You feel
you’re in the midst of a great uprising
and caught up in it. This is partly
the immediacy of the recording and
committed music making, partly Järvi’s
ability to convey the broad architecture
as well as immediate detail. Dynamic
contrasts emerge as strongly as with
Herreweghe but Järvi makes them
more the servant of realizing the
overall spirit of the movement. Accordingly
the development is felt as a journey,
eagerly engaged, whose atmosphere
and articulation, e.g. the spiky lower
strings at the outset (from 6:40),
are as vividly and intensely realized
as with period instrument performances.
Järvi’s slow
movement is pacier than Herreweghe’s
but his flowing tempo creates a warmer
cantabile. Järvi’s pace
brings more sense of incident and
dramatic experience though I feel
the forte accents are a touch
overdone. It does, however, allow
Järvi to make the second theme
(tr. 2 2:01) by contrast more magically
seem a phase of suspended animation.
His central section (4:02) has a more
grave bite than Herreweghe’s, out
of which the violins’ arabesques appear
the more delicate. Järvi’s return
of the opening theme on the flute
has a gambolling character.
Järvi’s scherzo
initially seems rather deliberate
in articulation but takes flight on
its reappearance. In the trio the
wind are more formal and hymn-like
than Herreweghe’s which allows Järvi’s
violins’ responses to be of a cheekier,
jubilant winsome nature, to delightful
effect. In the finale Järvi’s
second theme (tr. 4 0:28) has a cheeky
élan while the whole has a
scampering buzz. By contrast the pauses
in the coda are drawn out to relish
the humour. So Järvi’s approach
to Beethoven 4 is more stunning and
vibrant than Herreweghe’s. His chamber
orchestra brings more athletic drive,
suppleness and flexibility. While
Herreweghe allows you to sit back
and savour the music, Järvi with
prodigious energy sweeps you through
every incident.
Turning to Beethoven’s
Seventh Symphony the question occurs
is more weight needed than Järvi’s
chamber orchestra can supply? Does
Herreweghe’s full orchestra bring
more formality and heroic quality?
I’d say the latter is true but not
the former. The immediacy of the RCA
recording and Järvi’s more animated
approach are compensating factors.
Here are the comparative timings
Timings |
i |
ii |
iii |
iv |
total |
Herreweghe |
14:11 |
8:48 |
9:38 |
9:32 |
41:29 |
Järvi |
13:13 |
7:43 |
8:52 |
8:26 |
38:14 |
In the first movement
introduction the contrast between
the tutti chords and the woodwind
solos is more vividly realized by
Järvi because his chords have
more heft and the woodwind a more
glowing, open tone. The strings’ rising
scales are at first lighter, then
more penetrating. There’s more urgency
and guts in the experience than with
Herreweghe. On the other hand Herreweghe
displays bright chords streaming across
memorably lyrical woodwind and his
strings’ rising scales have a suitably
imposing heroic edge. The Vivace’s
first theme on flute is headier from
Herreweghe, more joyful from Järvi.
To the following tutti Herreweghe
brings both excitement and rigour,
the important horn parts splendidly
prominent. Järvi’s approach has
more of a skipping quality and the
emphasis is rather on rhythmic exultation
right across the orchestra. The second
theme is treated more firmly by Herreweghe
(tr. 5 5:07), with more of a swaggering
flourish by Järvi (tr. 5 4:32).
Both conductors effectively point
the lower strings’ groundswell in
the coda, Herreweghe to provide a
heroic conclusion, Järvi to create
a build up of exciting inevitability.
To the slow movement
Herreweghe brings a dense solemnity
yet perceptible flow. The appearance
of the counter melody on violas and
cellos (tr. 5 0:52) is eloquent in
an abstractly tragic way. The added
texture of first violins and later
wind is like a procession coming into
view. The central section (3:15) is
a calm interlude but the overall atmosphere
remains sad. The fugato development
(5:44) seems abstractly musing before
a stark and stoic coda. Järvi’s
quieter tone yet quicker tempo for
this movement is even more doleful
in effect. His counter melody (tr.
5 0:44) is more a lament and as it
gets quieter still more despairing.
The added orchestral layers seem to
detail minutiae of grief of a body
of mourners gathering. Järvi’s
central section (2:48) is a more consolatory
fond recall of happier times but his
recapitulation has the nervous energy
of grief that won’t settle which also
informs the fugato development (5:02)
though this is lightened somewhat.
Herreweghe offers
a breezy, urgent scherzo which impresses
as a show of force rather than contrast
of forceful and lighter material.
The trio attempts a persuasive warmth
but the prevailing urgency prevents
it becoming serene. The close of its
second strain has full majesty, another
show of force. The trio’s second appearance
is more benign and its climax more
triumphant. Järvi’s scherzo is
lighter on its feet, with more vividly
a sense of involvement of the whole
spectrum of instruments from lowest
to highest because with chamber forces
the woodwind are more evenly balanced
against the strings. Järvi’s
trio is rosier and more flowing, its
second strain close more triumphant
from the outset. His scherzo’s second
appearance, initially softer, is more
humane and appealing than Herreweghe’s
veiled manner. Järvi’s trio return
is at a tempo which sweeps with conviction
to its brilliant culmination.
Herreweghe’s finale
is commanding in power and weight
yet in comparison with Järvi
seems a little lumbering in tempo.
Järvi shows more momentum and
fire. His strings’ semiquavers are
lighter, more dance like and the apex
of the opening theme is thereby more
festive. His second theme (tr. 8 1:10)
is more attractively darting whereas
at his slightly slower tempo Herreweghe
(tr. 8 1:19) simply imposes the aggression
of heavy loud accents. Järvi
provides more internal contrast, light
and shade while the end of his exposition
still has an eruption of power and
excitement. Herreweghe has the more
splendidly blazing coda where Järvi
is more athletic than sonorous but
Järvi’s brooding cellos and double
basses are more insistent and a greater
presence.
How do you like your
Beethoven? Both Herreweghe and Järvi
have many commendable features and
come naturally and spaciously recorded
in surround sound. Herreweghe is more
considered and Olympian, Järvi
more spontaneous and varied in mood.
Overall I find Järvi the more
gripping and the use of chamber orchestra
and greater immediacy of the RCA acoustic
draw you into his interpretation the
more.
Michael
Greenhalgh