Beet's grosse fugue

[(poco) Sforzando]

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.

I have no idea what any of this means, frankly, especially as the poster seems to prefer the string timbres found in Romantic music. But the complement of strings in five parts - 2 violins, violas, celli, and basses - was firmly established in the Classic period, and didn't change in the Romantic period. Probably the greatest changes in the Romantic orchestra had to do with additions to the woodwinds (like regular use of triple winds and "auxiliary" instruments like the piccolo, English horn, and contrabassoon) and the development of fully chromatic brass. So I don't follow the point here at all.

[(poco) Sforzando]

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.

This is exactly how I feel as well. It wasn't Beethoven's normal practice to second-guess his original intentions (when Schindler complained of the lack of a finale to op. 111, Beethoven pulled his leg by saying he hadn't time to write one), but he caved in remarkably quickly when it appeared obvious that the GF did not really work as a finale to op. 130. And no other single movement in any other Beethoven work can stand alone the way op. 133 does, being in itself a multi-sectional composition that offers several tempo changes corresponding to opening movement, slow movement, scherzo, and finale. Beethoven seems to have hit, perhaps accidentally, on something that has become normative in the past century - a lengthy, multi-part work in one movement, something I don't think had ever been done before. And if the GF is played as the ending to op. 130, one loses out on the thoroughly charming substitute finale that integrates far better with the tone and character of the quartet as a whole.

[71 dB]

I have no idea what any of this means, frankly, especially as the poster seems to prefer the string timbres found in Romantic music. But the complement of strings in five parts - 2 violins, violas, celli, and basses - was firmly established in the Classic period, and didn't change in the Romantic period. Probably the greatest changes in the Romantic orchestra had to do with additions to the woodwinds (like regular use of triple winds and "auxiliary" instruments like the piccolo, English horn, and contrabassoon) and the development of fully chromatic brass. So I don't follow the point here at all.

The difference is in dynamic variation. Romantic orchestration uses loudness better in order to gain sophisticated timbral effects.

[Bonehelm]

The difference is in dynamic variation. Romantic orchestration uses loudness better in order to gain sophisticated timbral effects.

Can you stop posting at once? You are bitch-slapping yourself harder and harder every time you open your useless mouth.

[(poco) Sforzando]

The difference is in dynamic variation. Romantic orchestration uses loudness better in order to gain sophisticated timbral effects.

In his own time, Beethoven's music was considered extremely loud and even noisy. It was complained even of the 1st symphony that he made too much use of the wind instruments, the climax of the finale of the 7th symphony even contains an unusual triple forte (fff) marking, and the GF (under discussion) has numerous accents throughout, virtually on every note. It must be remembered too that the size of orchestral halls and opera theaters expanded greatly in the Romantic period, as orchestras grew in size and power. Mozart's Idomeneo was first performed in Munich in a hall seating 350. "Loudness" has to be gauged as relative to the space the music is being performed in; a Baroque opera played on HIP instruments sounds ludicrous in a modern concert hall. But even in the modern hall, Beethoven's music has plenty of power.

[BachQ]

Romantic orchestration uses loudness better in order to gain sophisticated timbral effects.

Yuppers.  Thanks for that nugget, 71dB .........

[Valentino]

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.

This is exactly how I feel as well. It wasn't Beethoven's normal practice to second-guess his original intentions (when Schindler complained of the lack of a finale to op. 111, Beethoven pulled his leg by saying he hadn't time to write one), but he caved in remarkably quickly when it appeared obvious that the GF did not really work as a finale to op. 130. And no other single movement in any other Beethoven work can stand alone the way op. 133 does, being in itself a multi-sectional composition that offers several tempo changes corresponding to opening movement, slow movement, scherzo, and finale. Beethoven seems to have hit, perhaps accidentally, on something that has become normative in the past century - a lengthy, multi-part work in one movement, something I don't think had ever been done before. And if the GF is played as the ending to op. 130, one loses out on the thoroughly charming substitute finale that integrates far better with the tone and character of the quartet as a whole.

Interesting and thought-provoking posts. The only time I've heard op. 130 live they (Vertavo Qt) did the "new finale". I wanted the GF. My lack of education, maybe? I must study again.

[Josquin des Prez]

I usually listen to the GF at the of the Op. 130. Why? Because the alternative finale sucks, that's why. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

I usually listen to the GF at the of the Op. 130. Why? Because the alternative finale sucks, that's why. 

No, it doesn't.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

The Grosse Fuge - I don't listen to it much, it is sublime, i.e. awe-inspiring and terrifying. A piece (or being) from outer space.

[Lilas Pastia]

No, it doesn't.

I don't really like the Grosse Fuge. I think only a musician can.  In its intended context, I think Beethoven was right to replace it with the second finale.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

I don't really like the Grosse Fuge. I think only a musician can. In its intended context, I think Beethoven was right to replace it with the second finale.

I don't know that I'd go that far. I'm not a musician but I love the GF!

[Josquin des Prez]

I don't really like the Grosse Fuge. I think only a man can. 

Fixed.

[longears]

My wife likes it...but she's a musician 
I like it, too, and I'm not.

Suddenly I think I'd like to hear it immediately after op. 95.  Speaking of which, the Alexander SQ finished this season's tour of the Beethoven middle quartets in Berkeley last Saturday with a blistering and beautiful rendering of Serioso.
I like their readings now better than their old recordings (cycle on Arte Nova).  According to Robert Greenberg, they're recording another cycle and I look forward to it almost as much as to their late quartets next season...including the GF!

[jochanaan]

...Fixed.

My wife likes it...but she's a musician 
I like it, too, and I'm not...

The exception that proves the rule, Josquin?  Or a total disqualification of your prejudicial statement?

[ChamberNut]

I don't know that I'd go that far. I'm not a musician but I love the GF!

Ditto!

[Lilas Pastia]

Fixed.

Hey, I never said that!