Beet's grosse fugue

[12tone.]

Why do so many people have these arbitrary hang-ups with comparisons?

"Beethoven must meet the requirements of Chopin et al to be successful" and the like. It's simply wrong.

Beethoven doesn't need "romantic indulgence with the sustain pedal" to be effective. In fact, his lively approach to dynamics would be buried if approached in this a manner. And his concentrated invention would sound little more than mush.

Ditto Chopin and Rachmaninov when you get right down to it. I don't look to either of these composers for wistful star gazing (intense sustain pedal). I look to them for what they deliver on both a technical AND emotional level. And such characteristics are emphatically NOT mutually exclusive...

I didn't say Beethoven had to sound like Chopin et al, I'm just comparing the two and noticing how rough-around-the-edges his music is.  It's something I can't listen to much because I'd rather a more fluid sound.  Maybe I need to try again, I don't know.  It's harsh music and...yeah. 

[Dancing Divertimentian]

All my cycles seem to pound.  I know Fischer seems to.  I guess I need a HIP cycle then   Help!

IIRC, 12tone, you and I had a correspondence not long ago where I recommended Richard Goode's Beethoven cycle as a prime example of a graceful, colorful, 'classical' approach to the piano sonatas. You won't find Goode "pounding" at any point in this set.

[12tone.]

IIRC, 12tone, you and I had a correspondence not long ago where I recommended Richard Goode's Beethoven cycle as a prime example of a graceful, colorful, 'classical' approach to the piano sonatas. You won't find Goode "pounding" at any point in this set.

I don't have that set.  What about Brendel?

[Gurn Blanston]

IIRC, 12tone, you and I had a correspondence not long ago where I recommended Richard Goode's Beethoven cycle as a prime example of a graceful, colorful, 'classical' approach to the piano sonatas. You won't find Goode "pounding" at any point in this set.

Or O'Conor either, for that matter. I don't think he CAN pound...




----------------
Now playing:  Quartetto Italiano - Bia 840 Op 131 Quartet #14 in c# for Strings 7th mvmt - Allegro

[Dancing Divertimentian]

I don't have that set.  What about Brendel?

Brendel I've always found lacking a certain amount of charm. Fine for what it is but it doesn't suit me.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Or O'Conor either, for that matter. I don't think he CAN pound...

Is that right? I may have to investigate...

[Gurn Blanston]

Is that right? I may have to investigate...

O'Conor is a poet. Powerful where it's proper to be, poetic the rest of the time. My favorite of the non-fortepiano versions.



----------------
Now playing: Quartetto Italiano - Schubert - D 804 Quartet in a #13 for Strings 1st mvmt - Allegro ma non troppo

[Dancing Divertimentian]

I didn't say Beethoven had to sound like Chopin et al, I'm just comparing the two and noticing how rough-around-the-edges his music is.  It's something I can't listen to much because I'd rather a more fluid sound.  Maybe I need to try again, I don't know.  It's harsh music and...yeah. 

Don't make the mistake of thinking Beethoven is all stormy seas and treacherous footing.

Beethoven can be the very epitome of grace and fluidity (and humor).

Which leads me to think you really don't have as much exposure to the music as you need. No bad thing but don't build up walls based on limited exposure.

You're only hurting yourself...

[Dancing Divertimentian]

O'Conor is a poet. Powerful where it's proper to be, poetic the rest of the time. My favorite of the non-fortepiano versions.

Yep, that's Beethoven to a T. By turns powerful and poetic!

[Valentino]

I have one version only of it. It is Jorg Demus and Norman Shetler on the DG CBE. These are 2 very fine pianists, and the feeling I get whenever I listen to it is that this piece is absolutely kicking their asses! If it isn't, and they are playing it as it should be, then I will say that it lacks the smoothness that comes from playing it on strings, perhaps it is too idiomatic to be converted to another instrument. It IS impressive though, nothing quite like it.

That's the one I have. I've only listened to it once and I found it easy listening compared to the quartet versions I've heard (LaSalle, Italiano, Takacs and Hagen). Time for a revisit it seems.

[71 dB]

As for his orchestration, as an oboist I have to say that when I'm done playing a Mozart or Haydn symphony, I'm still good for a couple of hours of playing--but when I'm done with Beethoven, I'm TIRED!  The Ninth exhausts me for a couple of days! But it's a great exhaustion. 0:)

Exhausted oboist doesn't automatically mean good orchestration. The problem is the lack of timbrally soft strings. This is because the music is too edgy compared to the orchestral forces.

[BachQ]

Exhausted oboist doesn't automatically mean good orchestration. The problem is the lack of timbrally soft strings. This is because the music is too edgy compared to the orchestral forces.

(Look for Poju's Treatise on Orchestration at a bookstore near you)

[Lethevich]

Isn't Berlioz the guy who wanted the 1000 piece orchestra?

This isn't particularly neccessary to clarify, but it may be of interest - IIRC Berlioz's mention of an "ideal" (or fantasy) orchestra was around 300. He may have changed his mind about this claim if asked again towards the end of his life, as his opinions had shifted by then. The 1000 number comes from the performers required for some performances of the Requiem - mostly choir members. It was Scriabin, IIRC, who fantasised about an orchestra of several thosand.

[jochanaan]

...The problem is the lack of timbrally soft strings. This is because the music is too edgy compared to the orchestral forces.

With all due respect, that's one of the more foolish comments I've read here.  Just listen to the Funeral March from Symphony #3, the opening of Symphony #4, Leonore #3, the Adagio molto e cantabile from Symphony #9, or any number of passages from the piano concertos for "timbrally soft strings."

And some of us just like edginess.

[71 dB]

With all due respect, that's one of the more foolish comments I've read here.  Just listen to the Funeral March from Symphony #3, the opening of Symphony #4, Leonore #3, the Adagio molto e cantabile from Symphony #9, or any number of passages from the piano concertos for "timbrally soft strings."

And some of us just like edginess.

Let's talk about the opening of Symphony #4: Yes, soft strings for the first 2½ minutes. The problem is everything is soft. Then after these soft 2½ everything turns edgy. If you enjoy Beethoven's orchestration good for you but I don't.

[jochanaan]

Let's talk about the opening of Symphony #4: Yes, soft strings for the first 2½ minutes. The problem is everything is soft. Then after these soft 2½ everything turns edgy. If you enjoy Beethoven's orchestration good for you but I don't.

Well, that last is fair enough.  But if all you hear in this wonderful first movement is "edginess," then you aren't listening.  Plenty of soft mystery from the strings, especially after the opening repeat and just before the recapitulation.

[71 dB]

Well, that last is fair enough.  But if all you hear in this wonderful first movement is "edginess," then you aren't listening.  Plenty of soft mystery from the strings, especially after the opening repeat and just before the recapitulation.

The more carefully I listen to (yes, I have listened very carefully) the clearer the problems become. I don't even expect Beethoven to be a master of orchestration because he lived 1770-1827, not 1870-1927. He lived during a musical transition time classism => romantism. Had he been oldfashioned he had composed softer music for smaller orchestras but he advanced musical language toward romantism and encountered the problem on undevelopped orchestration. I don't like much Haydn's edginess either in his symphonies. Mozart was better in this area. Dittersdorf was also good in timbral balance.

In baroque era the complex contrapuntal textures, soft-sounding baroque instruments and small orchestras took care of the soft aspect. In the romantic era the advanced orchestration took care of it. Classism is the problematic phase in music history. Baroque complexity had diminished and Berlioz & Co. had not born yet. Some composers managed this better than others. I enjoy the concertos of classic era a lot. They are softer timbrally and in balance. In fact, for me classism was the period of concertos. Romantism (especially late) was the time of symphonies.

[Valentino]

Ah, suddenly I get why I like the Vienna classic period so much.

[BachQ]

I don't even expect Beethoven to be a master of orchestration because he lived 1770-1827, not 1870-1927

Classism is the problematic phase in music history.

Thanks for that, 71dB ........

[Mark G. Simon]

I prefer the Grosse Fuge as a separate work, rather than as a finale to op.130. I've heard some quartets play op.130 with the GF as finale. A performance by the Hagen Quartet was one of the more eloquent arguments in favor of this. They emphasized the motivic links between movements, and any passage in the earlier movements that could be played aggressively were played very aggressively, to match their really jagged expressionistic approach to the GF. Even so, I find that the GF hijacks the quartet. By its very singularity -- nothing like it was written in its day, not even by Beethoven -- it draws attention to itself and away from the wonderful music it was intended to conclude. The second finale, Beethoven's very last composition, integrates itself much more naturally with the rest of op.130.

As a stand-alone composition, the GF is, of course, one of the wonders of the world. I've heard it done by string orchestras, but it doesn't have the same impact. It lacks the feeling of struggle. When several players are doubling the same part, the individual musicians don't have to put the same intensity into it. After a quartet plays it, they've got to wipe the blood off the fingerboards.