If one were to take Beethoven's quartets and ascribe to them numbers corresponding with their date of publishing, would one count the Große Fuge as a separately-numbered string quartet?
Quote from: Corey on November 16, 2007, 06:43:13 AM
If one were to take Beethoven's quartets and ascribe to them numbers corresponding with their date of publishing, would one count the Große Fuge as a separately-numbered string quartet?
A number change would probably be confusing, as it would kick up the later quartets by a number each (the same reason Mendelssohn's symphonies weren't renumbered, I guess). It would work better as "No.13a", maybe, in the same way that suites made from an opera would be - eg, the Four Sea Interludes and Passacaglia from Peter Grimes are Op.33a and Op.33b respectively. It is too linked to that quartet to seperate IMO, may as well make the choice of movement optional.
Unless I totally missed the point :P
Quote from: Corey on November 16, 2007, 06:43:13 AM
If one were to take Beethoven's quartets and ascribe to them numbers corresponding with their date of publishing, would one count the Große Fuge as a separately-numbered string quartet?
The man to answer that properly is
Larry, of course,
Corey.
My guess would be, yes, because although he wrote it as part of one quartet, it was not published with that quartet, but was published later, separately.
(Or do I misunderstand the question?)
In this case we hope the potential is never fully realised. ;)
The question may seem silly, but it leads us into deeper waters: Should we go with the "published" numbering, the date of composition, or some other system, or should we number things at all? ??? My feeling is that, since numbering is only a convenience (just say "Bruckner's Symphony in C minor" and watch the confused stares! ;D), it probably doesn't make any difference.
However, Beethoven never intended this movement, great as it is, to be its own work. So I'd say that, if anything, the movement that until recently was usually played as the Finale for Quartet #13 should be counted as an adjunct. Why should the publisher have the last word? ;D
Quote from: jochanaan on November 16, 2007, 09:09:34 AM
(just say "Bruckner's Symphony in C minor" and watch the confused stares! ;D)
Someone better versed in
Vaughan Williams needs to check me on this, but I think he did not number his symphonies himself until he got to No. 4.
Quote from: karlhenning on November 16, 2007, 09:28:09 AM
Someone better versed in Vaughan Williams needs to check me on this, but I think he did not number his symphonies himself until he got to No. 4.
Indeedie, but he implicitly numbered them by calling no.4 just that - plus, as they all have titles, the "symphony in C minor" issue is negated anyway :)
It would be purely for organization purposes (I just can't stand to see, "String Quartet, String Quartet, Große Fuge ;D).
I like Lethe's idea since it still allows it to retain a separateness, but is still nominally part of the same work. I have been accustomed to listening to it as a separate work, but perhaps I will change that.
No, Karl, you didn't misunderstand, though it would appear Larry is no longer among us. :(