Glenn Miller wrote: >Can someone explain to me how Beethoven could not figure out that the >performance was over, that he was still beating time, and the soprano had >to turn him around to face the wildly applauding audience. I have read >several versions of the story and none of them make sense. Option 1: the story is apocryphal. Option 2: Yes B. was there and may have indicated what the tempos were for each movement or section within a movement, but he may not have stood up front and beat time a la a conductor of today. The story as it's been handed down to us seems to draw B. as a pathetic/romantic figure here. >One story has a deaf Beethoven conducting with a real conductor behind >him, the orchestra following not B, but the conductor. Something tells >me that there may be some truth but it does not add up. >Here is my question: If a deaf B is trying to conduct, can he not see that >the musicians placement of hands on the instrument is not in alignment with >his conducting? Your question has merit since B. also watched the bowings and fingerings of members of a quartet when op. 132 (the A-minor quartet) premiered or was rehearsed. Why didn't he do the same for the orchestral performance of the Ninth? >It seems ludicrous and insulting to have B up there making a mockery of >the whole thing. If the performance is over and the audience is applauding >then the musicians are no longer playing--why is B still conducting or >beating time and the soprano has to turn him around? His eyes must have >been closed too. So if anyone can explain how this can happen, I would >appreciate it. The version of the story I read is that he was conducting with his nose in the manuscript and didn't realize the performance had finished. Mark K. Ehlert