Phonograph Monthly Review, Vol. 2, No. 4 (1928-01)

January, 1928 The Phonograph Monthly Review 127 Brahms' Symphony No. 1—Years ago, when the Weingartner version was published, the thrill of owning a command performance of Brahms’ first symphony was great indeed. The glorious composition revealed itself in a most satisfying manner and although at times one wished a more forceful vigor or a more buoyant pianissimo, the fact remained that here was a very vivid sug- gestion of the real thing. And this perhaps is where its great virtue lay, it remained a sugges- tion and demanded the exertion of the imagina- tion to fully recreate the glories of a concert per- formance. To own the new Stokowski version seems al- most to own the Philadelphia Symphony Orches- tra and the actual performance. One is struck at once by the realism of the playing—certainly little here is left to the imagination! Stokowski reveals a most personal conception of the sym- phony and reads a fine vigor and insatiable force into the score. It is a Brahms First that moves steadily and with compact unity from the first note to the last. It is a remarkable stark and vivid and indeed many subtleties of the com- poser’s inner thoughts are sacrificed to attain the broad sweep of the whole. To Stokowski here truly is the Tenth Symphony. To Weingartner it is the first of Brahms. 1st movement. Both conductors can be se- verely criticized in one thing—lack of dynamic range. The older recording with a loud-toned needle varies little from an mf, the Stokowski ver- sion with a medium needle ranges from mf to / with an occassional p, and yet the score is chuck full of p's and pp's. The conductors are probably less to blame than the recording, and yet today surely one can expect the full range from the pp to the ff. It is generally conceded that the first movement has inherently a wide range of expres- sion. Stokowski, in spite of the limited dynamic range, gives a fine sense of this variety without detracting from his conception of the symphony as a whole. Weingartner holds to a more rigid beat levelling off the emotional peaks and valleys until his picture becomes tinged with monotony. Obviously the first movement goes to the Phila- delphians. 2nd movement. One seldom hears such an out- spoken andante sostenuto as Stokowski here gives us. This slow movement for him is cer- tainly not an introspective pause in the activity of the work but carries on logically the statement of the first movement. His opponent (in this * eloquent musical debate) allows a greater play to the andante’s ethereal poetry and very strongly intimates that if he had had the use of electrical recording methods, his version would be the more satisfying. 3rd movement. Again the Weingartner, judged as an isolated movement must be admired for its fine and charming spirit. The Stokowski astonishes as a recording but in his conception (as with the second movement) the strong drift toward the gravitational center, the finale, com- pels a subordinated third movement. Finale. One must marvel at the fine dramatic sense of the Philadelphia leader. It is impossible to imagine a more effective introduction to the horn theme and when the allegro is reached, with its compelling and full-throated song, Stokowski is so electrifying that one is seriously tempted to join in and sing with the orchestra. Here is a finale as strong in its affirmation as is the close of Tchaikowsky’s Pathetique in its despair. Sto- kowski by giving full release to its jubilancy re- alizes its inner essence. Weingartner is less dramatic and assumes a certain solemnity in the allegro. Surely this entire movement must be voted to Stokowski. To find a Brahms work so entirely character- ized, as is this Stokowski first, by vigorous, straightforward expression is somewhat novel. It is however an exciting conception and shows how close Brahms can be brought to the rugged forcefulness of Beethoven. With this interpreta- tion in mind one can well anticipate the splendors of a Stokowski conducted Beethoven symphony, for when Beethoven’s virile rythmic force is in- tensified the result is. overwhelming. That Stokow- ski has recorded the Seventh is a stroke of good fortune, for he surely can make it a true “apotheosis of rhythm.” Weingartner too has the seventh symphony to his credit. His record- ing this time is electrical so there need be no “ands” or “buts” in a direct comparison with the Stokowski version. Beethoven's Seventh Symphony — 1st move- ment. Stokowski surprises at once. The in- troduction is unusually slow. This can of course form a splendid contrast with the onward drive of the coming vivace , which begins with fine spirit. But another surprise soon follows, Sto- kowski breaks up the movement by slowing up the woodwind passages ( dolce ). The slow start of the poco sostenuto instead of contrasting with seems to influence the entire movement, which becomes episodical with its repeated beginnings. The reading strives to make Beethoven ape the mood of the later romantic composers, there is in it a grand style which often produces an unfor- tunate effect. The audience, instead of feeling the vigorous surge of his thought, sees rather his simple harmonic system, complains of his empty scale passages, his many repetitions and the length of the work. The Weingartner interpre- tation is quite different. He also exaggerates, it is true, but with his traditional approach he exaggerates the strength, the very essence, of this seventh symphony, revealing, “the constantly as- cending line of interest . . . the single ebullition of temperament, gathering centrifugal force,” to quote Paul Bekker. To obtain a happy result with Beethoven, the virtuoso must favor the rhythmic flow, the structural logic of his ideas as, for example, in the Beecham conducted second symphony, the Coates reading of the third, or the Furtwaer.gler fifth. Weingartner responds to the steady ascent of the seventh symphony at once. His poco sostenuto is therefore much faster than is Stokowski’s. He does not hold back but actually accelerates the exhilarating climb. Regarding the two recordings, both give more attention to the p' s and f s than in the Brahms’