GMG Listening Group — Beethoven Quartet in F Op59 № 1 :: 10-16 July 2011

[Palmetto]

Velimir, thanks.  Unfortunately, measures are another concept I don't get.

[George]

I listened to this and though I enjoyed it, I have little to say.

[North Star]

Velimir, thanks.  Unfortunately, measures are another concept I don't get.

A measure is a space of - in case of 4/4 (or C) time signature (a time signature shows how many quarter-notes, half-notes, eighth-notes {or whatever is the lower number} fit into a single measure, and the number of these notes that fit into a single measure is given by the upper number) the most common and which basically all pop music uses - one whole note or four quarter-notes or any other combination that adds up to the same time value, 4 divided by four. In 2/4 time, a measure consists of notes that add up to a half-note.
Basically a measure is just a way to group the music in reasonably sized packets - it helps understanding the music and especially practicing since one can more readily learn smaller parts of a composition and then practice the whole piece having mastered the technical problems and memorized the smaller parts.

Here is more reading:       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(music)      and perhaps       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_signature
-------------------------------------------

I've listened to this quartet now a bit and it really is awesome. There are for example the beautiful opening melodies, the fugato part of the first movement with the 16th notes in the background, the chugging low strings at the beginning of the second movement, and more beautiful melodies that develop from what sounds like folk violinists improvising. The third movement is one of the most beautiful ever composed. But I'm perhaps going too far ahead.

As a side note I have to mention yet again that the Endellion Quartet is quite excellent in their Beethoven box, Here is a link to their official channel's studio performance of Op.59/2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT7j9z4ZNOI (the rest of the movements are in separate videos)

[zamyrabyrd]

North Star's view on the quartet, in my opinion, is better stated and more useful rather than a surgical analysis. I don't agree with much of the one posted on youtube anyway, albeit a good starting point for discussion which the poster says on his blog that he somewhat cribbed it.

I've listened to this quartet now a bit and it really is awesome. There are for example the beautiful opening melodies, the fugato part of the first movement with the 16th notes in the background, the chugging low strings at the beginning of the second movement, and more beautiful melodies that develop from what sounds like folk violinists improvising. The third movement is one of the most beautiful ever composed. But I'm perhaps going too far ahead.

In musical analysis, in the end, the best is do it yourself and figure out what it means to you. I have not spent enough time yet with the work but hope that a few superficial comments for the time being are OK.

Texture seems to be an important consideration here rather than putting the themes into boxes of A, B and C.  Actually, I don't see any new material either except the original "A" reworked in ingenious ways. There is a move to the dominant at 60 true,  but there is the descending scale figure at 64 and also compressed in rhythm a few bars later.  There is something in calling attention to triplets and suddenly half notes - this falls in the category of textural analysis, not thematic, that one expects and usually gets with Beethoven.

Now, in the absence of a double bar to repeat to the beginning (Op. 57 piano sonata doesn't have one either), the question is where the development occurs. According to this youtube clip it is 103. In my score, it is 98, a bit strange, but explainable after the long pedal point of C. I would say 103 though since defining the recap is important for performance and that measure seems to be the beginning of the new section. 

Measure 91 is not a new closing theme but derived from the original material, so should not be called "C". It is very interesting how this phrase is not a footnote but a springboard of lengthy and clever development from 152 - nothing unimportant in Beethoven!

What fascinated me though was the graph of the music above, showing intensity. One can see that the recap comes around 2/3 the way (the golden mean proportion pointed out by some analysts in sonata form) after an intense area fairly framed by two lower level sides somewhat equidistant. To compare graphs of other sonatas in this way might reveal some hitherto unappreciated correlations of composition.

ZB

[Palmetto]

North Star, thanks.  I'm having to learn many concepts that apply to music in general, and not specifically to classical.  The 'homework' feeling has become quite discouraging.

[George]

 

[North Star]

Would you care to elaborate?

This listening group died very quickly, probably this has something to do with Karl not having had the time. Perhaps we should arrange some sort of polls for future listening groups - that way probably more people would participate.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

This listening group died very quickly, probably this has something to do with Karl not having had the time.

Also, why are these threads placed in the Beginners forum? Wouldn't the general forum be more appropriate?

[DavidW]

Would you care to elaborate?

There was spam here last night, that was what George was replying to.  Wait to go though with reading so, so much into a smiley!

[George]

Would you care to elaborate?

The post that would have explained my confusion has evaporated. 

[North Star]

Okay, George and David. I was just so confused by that lone post with just a single emoticon.
And yeah, the Beginners  forum is hardly the place for these discussions, even though some participants might not know all of the pieces.