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