Steven Schwartz wrotte:

>The long vowel movement that passes for opera singing (Lieder singers
>are generally far better at projecting both words and dramatic meaning)
>I suspect would have driven Verdi, Wagner, and Strauss nuts.

Especially Wagner I guess. *LOL*

Wagner is also performed all too slowly in many cases as a general rule.

That is though also a simplification then tempo is so much more then the
factual tempo, as the relative tempi are much more important for the
expression.  When Beecham conducted "Parzifal" for first time in England,
he was critizised for playing it slower then in Bayreuth.  Beecham then
let clock the recordings and it showed up that his tempi actually were
faster then he came through it in shorter time, but the "inner" tempi made
the feeling of the work as evolving slower.  Wagner writes some highly
interesting stuff on tempitual phrasing in his "On Conducting".  He aslo
reveals some of how his (and others) work was performed in his lifetime.
An eyewithnesses wrote that when Wagner conducted Beethoven 8, he "hold a
so high tempo that the musicians barely could play it".  Still, most of
todays recordings of Beethoven 8 hold the overall tempo (in the first
movement as example) between 152 (Scherchen) and 165 (Klemperer) on te
fourth.  But looking in the Ur-text score; the tempo Beethoven actually
wrote was .......wait for it:......208 (!!) on the fourth. And then I
promise Beethoven sounds VERY exciting.  The HIP-sters tries to play this
music much faster, but I don't think they succeed in producing recordings
of Beethoven in that tempi that are clearlined enough (though Harnoncourt
comes damned good in some of the symphonies).  Still, perhaps Norrington
will come up with yet another (and better) attempt...who knows?

Besides, a propos exciting - according to Wagners own writing; when he
himself conducted his Ouverture to "Die Meistersinger", it took "a very
little more then eigth(!!!) minutes"....

Mats Norrman
[log in to unmask]