Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827)

[Karl Henning]

And here is where, in practice, it becomes wrong, where in theory it seems fine:

You're the conductor. What do you give the orchestra? If you're telling them to play it as a triplet, first, that means that you are giving them a beat, and instructing them to play with you, on that beat. That's metrically wrong, so whatever you're doing, it is NOT establishing the pulse. Second, an orchestra coming in with you, ON a beat (since we're making it a triplet), of COURSE that first note is going to be accented--requiring further time and effort to "fix" that, i.e. train them to do the counter-intuitive, and come in with you ON a beat but WITHOUT any accent...and (again) for a gesture which does not establish the true pulse of the movement.

No, what I would do is give them beat two (which is a rest) and have them play off that given rest. That way, they are mentally feeling the accent (where it belongs) on the rest, and they can play three notes as straight, undifferentiated pickups to the sustained note.

[torut]

Anima Eterna / Immerseel and Tonhalle / Zinman are like da-da-da-dum. And I agree that da-Da-da-dum does not sound right. I feel that the first note should be at least as strong as the consecutive notes.

I read an interesting book in which the author claimed that classical music has been basically after beat (the up beats are emphasised as rock or jazz), and the opening motif of Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 is the evidence. Another example is the beginning of Bach's Partita No. 3 in E (BWV 1006). Violinists usually play the up beats stronger, and I feel that is correct.

I had been taught that the down beats should be played stronger in classical music. Does the claim that classical music is after beat have any base? Or, is it just nonsense? If the Symphony is actually played like da-Da-da-dum, do you feel that the first note is the up beat?

[amw]

Is it? Why?

The entire point is that the second note is on a beat of the bar,

no it's not, the beat is the minim (half note) as indicated by B's metronome mark. emphasizing the half-beat too much would create unwanted syncopation

if all three 8ths are played unstressed it will be fine; if slightly more emphasis is placed on the first one it creates the impression of triplets

[Madiel]

How much is 'too much'?

And whatever it would be, it wouldn't be 'syncopation'.  Syncopation is when the main beats are avoided, not when secondary beats are included.

The point is not that the second quaver needs to be strong, but that if any one of the three quavers should be stronger it's the second one.

I accept that the metronome marking is relevant here, but so is the choice to write the movement in 2/4.

[Pat B]

My school orchestra played it back in the day, so I well know that it's not triplets.

Despite that knowledge, the opening always sounds like triplets to me -- the fermata breaks the pulse. Of course, starting at bar 5 it's clearly not triplets.

I'd be interested to hear it with a slight emphasis on the second note.

[Karl Henning]

How much is 'too much'?

Well, it's discussible (as we see);  my sense is that any emphasis on that beat is too much.  (But, you have heard me say that ere now.)

[Madiel]

I was just looking at a version of the score. I had thought that perhaps later in the movement, the second quaver might get a little extra rhythmic 'kick' by being coupled with a crotchet-based harmony, but I haven't found any solid evidence of that. It seems that the 3-quaver rhythm is pretty much always presented on its own.

There are a couple of places where crotchet-moving parts coincide with the quaver motto, but it can't fairly be said that the crotchets are trying to support the quavers in any way. If anything, the quavers are superimposing themselves. There isn't much that firmly establishes the movement as being emphatically in 2/4, rather than (as the metronome might suggest), a sort of 1/2.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I was just looking at a version of the score. I had thought that perhaps later in the movement, the second quaver might get a little extra rhythmic 'kick' by being coupled with a crotchet-based harmony, but I haven't found any solid evidence of that. It seems that the 3-quaver rhythm is pretty much always presented on its own.

There are a couple of places where crotchet-moving parts coincide with the quaver motto, but it can't fairly be said that the crotchets are trying to support the quavers in any way. If anything, the quavers are superimposing themselves. There isn't much that firmly establishes the movement as being emphatically in 2/4, rather than (as the metronome might suggest), a sort of 1/2.

I would say the same thing, i.e., that given the tempo and phrase structure, the meter is more truly 1/2 than 2/4 (conversely, the second movement of the 8th symphony is more truly in 4/8 than 2/4). But those more "oddball" time signatures were not in use in Beethoven's day; nor was something like the 1/1 Borodin used for the Prestissimo scherzo of his 2nd symphony (and which might be suitable for the E major scherzo from Beethoven's Op. 131).

[amw]

How much is 'too much'?

Enough to disrupt the sense of forward motion provided by three upbeats.

While Beethoven didn't mark it as such in this case, one must assume the direction "Ritmo di quattro battute" from the scherzo of the 9th is also in force here—and the first bar is undeniably an upbeat.

I accept that the metronome marking is relevant here, but so is the choice to write the movement in 2/4.

1/2 wasn't considered a valid time signature, at the time, although Beethoven's friend Reicha experimented with unusual time signatures (even then he would write 3/8 + 2/8 where a later composer, Bartók maybe, would have just written 5/8). The first movement of the "Pastoral" symphony is also essentially in 1/2.

[Brian]

I would say the same thing, i.e., that given the tempo and phrase structure, the meter is more truly 1/2 than 2/4 (conversely, the second movement of the 8th symphony is more truly in 4/8 than 2/4). But those more "oddball" time signatures were not in use in Beethoven's day; nor was something like the 1/1 Borodin used for the Prestissimo scherzo of his 2nd symphony (and which might be suitable for the E major scherzo from Beethoven's Op. 131).

Wow; I've never heard of a 1/1 time signature before. What is the practical purpose for composer and conductor? Is this a way of indicating that (as it were) all beats are created equal?

And, thank you for inspiring me to listen to this wonderful symphony for the first time all year.

[EigenUser]

Wow; I've never heard of a 1/1 time signature before. What is the practical purpose for composer and conductor? Is this a way of indicating that (as it were) all beats are created equal?

And, thank you for inspiring me to listen to this wonderful symphony for the first time all year.

Yes, Borodin does have 1/1 in the scherzo. It is conducted one-in-a-bar, I imagine (i.e. each bar is a beat).

The 2nd movement of Shostakovich's SQ8 is similar. As fast as it is, the sheet music contains pretty much all quarter notes, half notes, and whole notes. The whole note is 120-ish, I think. I played the chamber orchestra version in high school and the conductor just gave us one-in-a-bar. It was in 2/2, though.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Wow; I've never heard of a 1/1 time signature before. What is the practical purpose for composer and conductor? Is this a way of indicating that (as it were) all beats are created equal?

It creates a sense of greater equality for the downbeats at the start of each measure, and helps promote an exceedingly fast tempo, as the conductor will not be indicating two distinct beats per bar.

[Bogey]

Well, I take a sabbatical from listening to numero uno and his name gets relegated to page 5 of the composers' pages.  I see how it is.  Well here's some funnies to bring this page back to the top of the charts:

 
 
OK, not Lud, but still:

[Madiel]

Just because no-one is posting on this particular thread doesn't mean that people aren't listening to Beethoven or talking about his music on other threads.

Coming on here with a post that says nothing meaningful hardly rectifies whatever situation you appear to have thought was a problem.

[Florestan]

 

Coolest of the lot.

[Bogey]

Just because no-one is posting on this particular thread doesn't mean that people aren't listening to Beethoven or talking about his music on other threads.

Coming on here with a post that says nothing meaningful hardly rectifies whatever situation you appear to have thought was a problem.

So much for tongue and cheek posts.  Just trying to have a bit of fun and sorry I offended you with the attempt. 

[Moonfish]

So much for tongue and cheek posts.  Just trying to have a bit of fun and sorry I offended you with the attempt.

[Bogey]

Classic. That one never gets old.  Got to wonder how much Schultz listened to LvB.

[Madiel]

So much for tongue and cheek posts.  Just trying to have a bit of fun and sorry I offended you with the attempt.

There's nothing wrong with tongue and cheek. It's the pointless motivation for it that bothered me. Try being witty inside a conversation instead of reviving a thread just for the sake of a "look at me, aren't I funny" moment.

[Bogey]

Good advice and taken.